SOW.pdf

Early Season Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Monitoring February, 2024

Billings Field Office 5001 Southgate Drive

Billings, MT 59101

Statement of Work

Early Season Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Monitoring Statement of Work

P a g e | 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

1.1 BACKGROUND

The BLM-Billings Field Office (BIFO) manages approximately 434,321 acres of greater sage grouse (Centerocercus urophasianus - GRSG) habitat. The 2015 Approved Resource Management Plan (ARMP) identified and incorporated measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable impacts of threats to GRSG habitat. A key component of the approved plan is monitoring implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in GRSG habitats according to the Habitat Assessment Framework (BLM TR 6710-1). The goal of the ARMP was to provide for the long-term conservation, enhancement, and restoration of the sagebrush steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex in a manner that supports sustainable GRSG populations and a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species (Goal WLH & SSS 8).

Suitable sage-grouse habitat is comprised of semi-arid shrub-steppe plant communities dominated by sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) with a diverse native grass and forb (flowering herbaceous plants) understory. GRSG typically utilize different habitats during breeding, summer, and winter seasons and can make extensive movements between these seasonal habitats or remain in relatively the same area throughout some or all seasons (Connelly et

al. 2011). Most monitoring activities BIFO has undertaken (both Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) and legacy monitoring methods) has occurred primarily within the GRSG summer/late brood-rearing period (July-September). This is mainly due to personnel and planning constraints at the local level. Only the tail end of breeding seasonal use is usually collected in June creating a significant gap in understanding of the early season breeding habitat that sage grouse populations undoubtedly use in the Field Office.

It is well documented that the availability of native forb species is critical for hens to provide nutrition to chicks and benefit egg health when GRSG are nesting and brooding (Barnett and Crawford, 1994). Both insects and native forb species are critical and dominant components of sage grouse chick diets after hatching during summer months, with forbs playing a progressively more dominant role throughout the season (Kirol et al.

2012). In addition, adult sage grouse also alternate their diet from sagebrush to forbs during summer months if they are available (Braun et al. 1977). For these reasons, understanding forb species diversity and abundance on BLM lands is critical for future GRSG conservation efforts. Many of the GRSG preferred forb species in the Field Office are considered early flowering and due to monitoring constraints identified above are under sampled with current monitoring efforts. Additionally, information regarding the frequency and density of forb species is currently not studied with core methods described in BLM TR 1734-8.

1.2 SCOPE

The contractor will be responsible for completing up to 81 monitoring plots in the Billings Field Office (please see bid schedule for quantity amounts for base year and each https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/72501/96659/116765/BIFO_Volume_I_version2_20150924.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/72501/96659/116765/BIFO_Volume_I_version2_20150924.pdf https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/923/TR_6710-01_HAF.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=108174 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppq0j https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppq0j https://www.blm.gov/aim https://www.blm.gov/aim https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/8914/8526 https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3511&context=wild_facpub https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3511&context=wild_facpub https://landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MMGSSE_vol1_508.pdf

P a g e | 3 option year). Monitoring of the selected plot locations must occur between the last week of March and the last week of May. These plots will occur within sage grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and are selected at random in the sample design. A complete description of the tasks and deliverables are further explained below.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

The objective of the project is to complete 81 monitoring plots in GRSG PHMA over a three-year period (please see bid schedule for quantity amounts for base year and each option year) to allow the BIFO Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to understand early season/breeding available habitat for GRSG. Data collected by the contractor and analyzed by the BLM will be compared to the habitat objectives in Table 2-6 of the ARMP. The habitat objectives will be part of the sage grouse habitat assessment to be used during land health evaluations that BLM is mandated to conduct in accordance with 43 CFR 4180 Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. Study results will help inform further monitoring work in early season GRSG habitat.

2.0 REQUIREMENTS

2.1 TASKS

A. Access: Some plots will need to be accessed either by a 4-wheel drive vehicle or on foot. Access will vary from public access to access across private land to get to the plots. The contractor will coordinate legal access to site locations with adjacent private landowners when applicable. The BLM will provide the contractor with contact information for the affected permittees of the allotments being monitored, to help facilitate access. The contractor will practice proper “rangeland etiquette” by leaving gates how they find them when performing work in the field.

B. Location: Maps for the project area are provided with the solicitation (see Appendix).

Plots are selected at random using ArcGIS software with some of the plots consisting of AIM or legacy monitoring re-visit locations. Final plot locations are still being developed – spatial data in the form of a Geoplatform feature service will be provided when the contract is awarded and/or the option year exercised. In instances where BIFO desires to have a plot monumented for re-visit the BLM will supply monument markers.

Table 1. Monitoring Project Areas.

Project Area Acres Proportional Area # Plots Grove Creek 22,090 20% 16 Triangle 25,705 18% 15 Pryor Front 20,833 23% 19 W Musselshell 14,464 13% 10 E Musselshell 29,604 26% 21

TOTAL 112,696 -- 81

https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/72501/96659/116765/BIFO_Volume_I_version2_20150924.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/72501/96659/116765/BIFO_Volume_I_version2_20150924.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2004-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title43-vol2-part4100-subpart4180.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Miles%20City%20MT%20standards%20for%20rangeland%20health%20guidelines%20for%20grazing.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Miles%20City%20MT%20standards%20for%20rangeland%20health%20guidelines%20for%20grazing.pdf

P a g e | 4

C. Labor: The contractor will provide labor which includes an IDT at a minimum of two people, one of which is a vegetation specialist, to complete monitoring.

D. Methods: Plots are collected using the BIFO rapid vegetation monitoring protocol

(Table 2). The methods utilized emphasize vegetation characteristics at the expense of soil and site characteristics to remain a rapid and manageable protocol. Data collected at each plot will be broken down as follows:

1. Line point intercept with vegetation height: This method uses the standard AIM core methodology (see Tables 2 and 3). *Note: 3 heights will be collected at each vegetation height interval (250 cm); tallest herbaceous, lower herbaceous (forb), woody. (BLM TR 1734-8).

2. Species richness inventory: Standard AIM core methods – see Table 3 (BLM

TR 1734-8)

3. Photos: Standard AIM core methods (BLM TR 1734-8).

4. Plot observations: Standard AIM core methods (BLM TR 1734-8).

5. Modified frequency/density quadrat: 1 m2 quadrats are placed tangent to the transect at five-meter intervals (see Figure 1). A total of five quadrats are collected per transect. Shrubs, subshrubs, shrub succulents, trees, and graminoids are not collected with this modified method (BLM TR 1730-1).

Only forb species are collected. For each forb species observers collect:

a. the number of reproducing individuals

b. the number of non-reproducing individuals

c. the number of dead individuals

Table 2. BIFO adopted terrestrial monitoring protocols (2023).

Scale & Method Vegetation Monitoring (VEG)

Monitoring Scale Rapid Line Point Intercept (# of transects & obs.)

Three 25 m transects w/ obs. @ 50 cm (see Table 2)

Vegetation Height Three 25 m transects w/ 2 hrb obs and 1 wdy obs. @ 250 cm (see Table 2)

Species Richness Plot level (30m2)

Plot Observation General erosion & mgmt. obs. (IIRH supplemental)

Photos Required Modified Frequency/Density Quadrat

Five 1m2 quadrats tangent to transects - 15 total (see Figure 1) https://landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MMGSSE_vol1_508.pdf https://landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MMGSSE_vol1_508.pdf https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/public/pdf/idc012456.pdf

P a g e | 5

Table 2. BIFO terrestrial monitoring modifications to transects.

Transects Transect Layout Protocol Transect

Length

Interval Total # Species Inventory & Subplots

Pin Obs. Heights Pin

Obs. Heights Plot Shape

Radius/ Dimensions Area

“Spoke”

AIM

VEG 25 m 50 cm 250 cm 150 30 circle 30 m ~0.3 ha

Figure 1. Modified frequency/density quadrat.

E. Data Collection and Management: Data will be collected with contractor furnished mobile devices capable of running Survey 123 and Field Maps (Android 6.0 or higher; iOS 13 or higher). Data will be entered into BIFO internal Survey 123 forms and managed in Geoplatform by the BLM. Data will be downloaded and archived into a File Geodatabase (FGDB) at the end of the field season. The data collected will be provided to the contractor as requested. In the event of any technical problems using the tablets, the BLM will provide hard copy data sheets. Data management, quality assurance, and quality control for the terrestrial core indicators will follow the standard procedures in the Terrestrial AIM Data Management Protocol v.5 or later. Data collection activities will be checked when needed to ensure accurate and quality data are collected. Option years will follow the same schedule.

2.2 SPECIFICATIONS

A. A pre-work meeting with the BLM will occur in late February or early March of each year as needed. After the contract is awarded members of BIFO Staff will go out with the contractor to train use of mobile devices, collecting on Survey 123 forms, https://www.geoplatform.gov/ https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-04/Data%20Management%20Protocol%20V5_0.pdf

P a g e | 6 local botany, and instructing on data collection methods. Other “as-needed” teleconferences, phone calls, or email correspondence with BLM shall be conducted whenever requested by the project lead or the contractor in which questions relating to the project need to be discussed.

B. Monitoring activities will occur during the early spring season of use for greater sage grouse. Monitoring of the selected plot locations must occur between the last week of March and the last week of May. Once work has begun the contractor must continue through the monitoring period with gaps between collection not to exceed one week as safety and weather dictate.

C. Calibration of crew members must occur prior to data collection. Calibration will follow the protocol established in the Terrestrial AIM Data Management Protocol v.5 or later. Crew members will calibrate on line-point intercept, vegetation height, and species inventory only. Field data will not be collected until the crew collecting data is calibrated.

D. Every 2 weeks or every 10 plots (whichever is first) completed data will be submitted to Geoplatform for review. This allows for timely QA of data collected and proper oversight of contract performance. Data will be certified by the contractor as accurate and complete no later than the 1st week of July.

E. If plots fall within the established criteria for point rejection (see Terrestrial AIM

Rejection Criteria Protocol), the contractor will work with BLM to establish a new plot. The BLM will complete office review of plots prior to the contractor receiving geospatial data. In instances where private landowners need to be contacted for access the contractor will attempt to contact the landowner at least twice before rejecting a plot for lack of access.

F. Data Disclaimer: Any records (photographs, data, notes, etc.) generated and/or created for the purposes of this contract are owned by the BLM and require review and permission prior to release of any information. The contractor cannot copyright, sell, release, or reproduce any of this material. Data obtained will not be protected from release through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

2.3 SCHEDULE

Once the Contract is awarded:

March 2024 – March 25, 2024 (Base Year timeline may be altered based on award date of contract)

Contractors added to Geoplatform.

Sample design finalized.

Permittees contacted.

Pre-work meeting complete.

https://www.geoplatform.gov/ https://aim.landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RejectionCriteria_20161228.pdf https://aim.landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/RejectionCriteria_20161228.pdf https://www.foia.gov/

P a g e | 2

March 25, 2024 – May 31, 2024

Calibration complete.

Collection of field information listed in Section 2.1.

A range of 20-30 plots must be collected each year.

May 31, 2024 – June 28, 2024

Submit final data.

QA/QC of data collected.

Certify the data as accurate and complete.

Submission of final invoice.

Option years will follow the same schedule through 2027 or until 81 plots are collected.

3.0 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

The government will provide all GPS point locations data, key area maps, hard copy data sheets, and access to electronic forms and web maps through Geoplatform. The BLM will send out letters to all affected permittees before any data is collected informing them of the work being done. Where applicable monument markers will be supplied by the BLM.

4.0 CONTRACTOR FURNISHED PROPERTY

The contractor shall provide a minimum of two personnel, one of which is a vegetation specialist, that would be present to work in the field on ALL the plots. The contractor will provide all monitoring equipment (including mobile devices capable of using Survey 123 and Field Maps), vehicles, tools, materials, supervision, and any incidentals associated with data collection during the period that field work occurs.

5.0 PAYMENT

Payment shall be made in accordance with the contract requirements at the price per plot (with supporting forms, photographs, and notes completed). Measurement for payment will be based on completed, reviewed, and accepted products by the BLM. Field rejected plots will be paid at 1/3 established cost. Invoices can be submitted following the timelines and deliverables outlined in Section 2.0.

https://www.geoplatform.gov/

P a g e | 3

6.0 REFERENCES

• DOI-BLM-MT-A010-2017-0056-RMP-EIS - Billings Field Office RMP

• Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations 4180.1-2

• BLM Terrestrial Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Data Management

Protocol v. 5.

• BLM Technical Reference 1730-1 - Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations

• BLM Technical Reference 1734-8 - Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland, and

Savanna Ecosystems

• BLM Technical Reference 6710-1 - Sage Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

• Barnett, J.K. and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Prelaying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon.

Journal of Range Management. 47:114–118.

• Knick, Steven T., and John W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and

Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. 1st ed., University of California Press. 2011.

• Kirol, C.P., J.L. Beck, J.B. Dinkins, and M.R. Conover. Microhabitat selection for nesting and brood-rearing by the great sage-grouse in Xeric big sagebrush. Condor 114:75-89.

2011.

• Braun C. E., T. Britt, and R. O. Wallestad. Guidelines for maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5:99–106. 1977.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/72501/510 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2004-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004-title43-vol2-part4100-subpart4180.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-04/Data%20Management%20Protocol%20V5_0.pdf https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-04/Data%20Management%20Protocol%20V5_0.pdf https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/public/pdf/idc012456.pdf https://landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MMGSSE_vol1_508.pdf https://landscapetoolbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/MMGSSE_vol1_508.pdf https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/923/TR_6710-01_HAF.pdf https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/8914/8526 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/download/8914/8526 https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppq0j https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppq0j https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1ppq0j https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3511&context=wild_facpub

P a g e | 4

APPENDIX

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management. The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data is not guaranteed.

The following cannot be made Section 508 compliant. For help with its data or information, please contact the Billings BLM field office.

Map 1 – Project Overview

P a g e | 5

Map 2 – Grove Creek Detail

P a g e | 6

Map 3 – Triangle Detail

P a g e | 7

Map 4 – Pryor Front Detail

P a g e | 8

Map 5 – West Musselshell Detail

P a g e | 9

Map 6 – East Musselshell Detail