United States Department of the InteriorFISHAND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Washington, DC. 20240

In Reply Refer To:FWS/AES/0587ll

our 27 2011.Memorandum

To: Director, Bureau of Land ManagementChief, orest Service

From: Director \ W W

Subject: Greater Sage‐Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use Allocations inHighly Important Landscapes

Pursuant to our October 1,2014 leadership discussion regarding the federal land management planningprocess for greater sage-grouse (sage-grouse) conservation and as a continuation of our ongoingcoordination and advice regarding your land management plan revisions and amendments, we areproviding recommendations to further assist your agencies in the important management decisions youare currently finalizing. During the ongoing coordination effort for the planning process, wehaveprovided conservation advice in the form of the 2013 Conservation Objectives Team final report (COTreport), our comments on the draft federal plans including comprehensive analyses of alternatives, andthe National Policy Team (NPT) Guidance, aswell asother consultative activities.

This memorandum and associated maps respond to a request from the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) to identify a subset of priority habitat most vital to the species persistence, within which werecommend the strongest levels of protection. The areas we have identified on the attached map are asubset of the already identified Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA). The areas we haveidentified within PHMA represent recognized “strongholds” for the species that have been noted andreferenced by the conservation community ashaving the highest densities of the species and othercriteria important for the persistence of the species. For example, the Western Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies’ 2004 Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats(Connelly, et al., 2004; Figure 13.1,attached) included a similar geographic distribution of thesestronghold areas for breeding populations of sage-grouse. In addition, in 2010, Doherty et a1. producedthe first sets of breeding density maps, which clearly illustrate highdensities of breeding birds exist invery similar locations. Most recently, Chambers et al. (2014) produced maps of relative resilience andresistance to invasive species and wildfire impacts to sagebrush habitats that also align closely with thesubset of priority habitats we have identified in the Great Basin region.

Strong, durable, and meaningful protection of federally administered lands in these areas wi l lprovide additional certainty and help obtain confidence for long-term sage-grouse persistence. Tobe clear, enhanced protections in the stronghold areas do not obviate the need to follow the NPTguidance in the entirety of PHMAs (and in PACs in those instances where gaps between PHMA andPACs exist) and in general habitat.

We have previously advised and continue to recommend that B L M and US Forest Service (ForestService) land management plans be designed to meet the objectives outlined in COT report. Theattached maps highlight areas where it is most important that BLM and Forest Service institutionalizethe highest degree of protection to help promote persistence of the species.Criteria. Methodology and Rationale

We used the following criteria to identify areas within PHMAs in which the most conservative approachshould be applied:0 Existinghigh-quality sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse;0 Highest breeding densities of sage-grouse;0 Areas identified in the literature asessential to conservation and persistence of the species

(Knick and Hanser 2011); and,0 A preponderance of current federal ownership, and in some cases, adjacent protected areas that serve

to anchor the conservation importance of the landscape.

In addition, we evaluated these areas against related efforts by partner organizations (NatureServe andConservation Biology Institute) to determine relative agreement between analyses. Using Data Basin, amapping and analysis platform, we verified our analysis is consistent with landscape-level sage-grouseconservation opportunities and needs, asdefined by the above criteria aswell asadditionalconsiderations, including the modeled “velocity” of climate change onset in various parts of the rangeand the potential for fire and invasive species impacts on sage-grouse habitat. In the process of thiscomparative exercise, we determined there was generally good spatial relationship between these areasand other important habitat conservation values in the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, including shrub‑steppe passerine birds (Hanser and Knick 2011) and mule deer winter range (identified by the WesternGovernors Association Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool.

Ran ewide Ma Ma 1

See below for regional maps and individual unit descriptions.

Great Basin Region (Map 2)

0 Southern Idaho/northern Nevada: This general area is comprised almost entirely of federal surfacelands. The area contains five designated federal Wilderness areas, and protected areas for bighornsheep conservation. Sage-grouse breeding densities are very high.

0 North-central Idaho: This area is anchored by Craters of the MoonNational Monument, iscomprised of mostly federal surface land ownership, and has a high density of breeding sage-grouse.

0 Areas adjacent to the Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Oregon andNevada: This area occurs predominately on federal surface lands, and includes several WildernessStudy Areas (WSAs). It contains some of the highest sage-grouse breeding densities in Oregon andboth of these national wildlife refuges (NWRs) are actively managing for sage-grouse conservation.

o Southeastern Oregon/north-central Nevada: This area is predominately federal surface lands andcontains five designated WSAs. Breeding densities of sage-grouse are high.

Rocky Mountain Region (Maps 3 and 4):

o Southwestern/south-central Wyoming (Map 3): This expansive area is predominately federalsurface estate and represents some of the best remaining sage-grouse habitat within the entire rangeof the species. The area includes four currently designated WSAs, one federal Wilderness area, andseveral areas managed for historic and cultural resources (which exclude development). SeedskadeeNational Wildlife Refuge is in the vicinity.

0 Bear River Watershed (Northeastern Utah/Southwestem Wyoming, Map 3): This area has ahighdensity of breeding sage-grouse. Cokeville Meadows NWR is located nearby.

- North-central Montana (Map 4): This area comprises the highest breeding sage‐grouse densities inMontana. It follows the Missouri River, is adjacent to Charles M. Russell NWR. This area alsoprovides wintering habitat for sage-grouse migrating seasonally from Alberta, Canada, where thespecies listed asendangered under the Canadian Species at Risk Act.

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservationobjectives: final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick,M.A. Schroeder, and SJ. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greatersage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. UnpublishedReport. Cheyenne, WY.

Doherty, K.E., J.D. Tack, J.S. Evans, and D E . Naugle. 2010. Mapping breeding densities of greatersage-grouse: A tool for range‐wide conservation planning. BLM Completion Report. InteragencyAgreement # LlOPG00911.

Chambers, J. C.; Pyke, D. A.; Maestas, J. D.; Pellant, M.; Boyd, C. S.; Campbell, S. B.; Espinosa, S.;Havlina, D. W.; Mayer, K. E.; Wuenschel, A. 2014b. Using resistance and resilience concepts to reduceimpacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and greatersage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS‐GTR-326. FortCollins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 73p.

Knick, S.T., and SE. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populationsand sagebrush landscapes. Pp. 383 ‐ 405 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors). Greater Sage‑Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology (vol.38), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Hanser, SE. and Knick, S.T. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse asan Umbrella Species for Shrub andPasserine Birds: A Multi-Scale Assessment. Pp. 475 ‐ 487 in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors).Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in AvianBiology (vol. 38), University of California Press,Berkeley, CA.

References, cont.

State Wildlife Agencies of the Western United States. West-wide Crucial Habitat Data Set. WesternGovemors’ Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool: Mapping Fishand Wildlife Across the West. WesternGovemors’ Association. Published October 15,2014. Accessed October 15, 2014.http://wwwwestgovchatorg

Data Basin, see http://databasinorg/

Enclosures

Maps 1-4

Figure 13.1, from Connelly, et a1, 2004.

IdentifiedAreas of GrSG Landscape Significance within BLM/USFS PHMA:Ranggwide

PACs

IdentifiedAreas of GrSGLandscape Significancewithin PHMA":

‘ - BLM PHMA

- USFS PHMA

Other Protected FederalLands

. USFWS

w o l ‑

‘ In Idaho, Core Habitat Is grouped withP H I “ . «

| a u t u s t : s n . u u L q u - c , u o u o . m ' o

0 75 150l

300 MilesI I I 1 I Il l I

Pre‐Decisional; For InternalReview Purposes Only. Do Not Distribute.PHMA current as of October. 2014.

.EQNquoEOgommE930(Ell

.mSnEwE82005:0mmmquQ20.3mmEEQE3memcofifiegfil

(Stan_._._.___

5.2.3033.5M.“33¢:200Sea!5...mm_=2com00..onc

at.

{PlaitI.\

3:3.053“..8699;850I .,,

<25Em:I .i5.

Sara2.5I

"2.2:".55?\ ,

3.505sz33035..

8.03232352%.,, .,M

,‘H. .s.

saw‐v.3.‑

)63.3..ng

3:3.

-t..

La; ...

.355:..;.:,.Z‘...1‘I

Rn

,.n;..

~3.3...!...5:

..m

..Emmm“~2052:32

"<52".33:2355?85053638.0.2309.0he23232:52

.VBNumaogoo*0mmEmbao(Ell

63%..»5.620Q5:088$an\smSmmEEmEBu...E:o.6.6mQ-EQ

8.:o9ommmo

wazdog,oEBooiumussom.q _._._.__J

..Hung::5

u2.<..z;::

m0<m‑

me:'1.1.!»an

3ch.903...8890..."..550I .,

52:“.mum:I

<s__.E5.5I

"5.5.“.55:5

oocachmfi333:3

0w..0noau2<acct‐32.

WI...1

835:35.

-..;

EmmmmEEobS

u<_>__._n_mquEJm5:23350555mandates.‐Gwho*0mam;35:82

.38.6880*0mm3930«film

.0395me820Q5:0$882.1323$EE£Egot.choBBmQéi

_____...,_d

mez09ommmo

05:67;..7..‑

mnz.wOwD.mFEoJmQ__‘_mm_6853M‑

w0<n_

wim:I4/ 9

8:3.930“.8829.“.650I éo

.

<2}.2.5I .1a.:

.15

"<51".3

55:5mocmo=_:m_m2.32.54

35ho282852%.

W;(w230“J.

$60.13::a...9|

asCQ

,,..LC .r N

I23:05..22305.52

"<51;wmqusjm:EESoocmoEcmfignaw‐9:3090homam:62:22..

.m:_E0>>>6:555.toamm85:23::.mo_u:mm<mt=u=>>.255mm*0cozeuo$<53me.3335:

cmEanmmcanwmsohobmmm6:86WeEmEmmwmm<cozmtomcoudoom{w52%van:<._>_cmumofum..._..m£25.:2:.>__w::ou“830m

NEx\mw_mEwemmzficwuHmwummhm2:#53628%.:‘6wam5“202

fianczom

E05333.

cofitowcoo

wmtwuczom

8:395awarm

9.?l

9.5.oneI

9363I

8563I

3d.canI

3d.EdI

Eda;IE:.manI

2:..oI

9.3enfin:

.8th<£825382,Emmzemémghomcozmiaon9.5855»,36:95medma2:9“.