Greater Sage-Grouse

Interim Status Update

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Mountain-Prairie Region\
Wyoming Ecological Services Office[^1]

October 31, 2008

# PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to provide an update on our synthesis of
biological information relative to the status of the greater
sage-grouse, and the threats to the species that may affect its
viability and persistence. It is interim because information and
analyses contained in this update are incomplete. This update does not
include policy considerations or a determination of whether the greater
sage-grouse is warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and the information included here should not be used to infer
such a determination. This document is an interim step in completing our
greater sage-grouse status review, and will inform our eventual finding
on whether the greater sage-grouse should be listed under the ESA.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Since we last reviewed the status of the greater sage-grouse in 2005,
extensive new information has been accumulated. This new information
includes a large volume of new scientific research, a large number of
on-the-ground conservation actions, and a number of actions that
negatively affect the species and its habitat. This Interim Status
Update focuses primarily on characterizing the species' biology and
ecology, and begins to enumerate, in a systematic and scientific manner,
the vulnerabilities of the species and the specific threats to the
species related to those vulnerabilities. Due to our incomplete review
and analyses of new information at this time, this update focuses little
on how threats may affect the species' persistence and viability. The
presentation of data and associated summaries and analyses in this
update reflect a step in a longer process to complete a comprehensive
review of the greater sage-grouse.

The information presented here portrays a species that remains
vulnerable to various activities on the landscape. The amount and scale
of oil and gas exploration and development has expanded since 2005, as
has loss of habitat due to increased fire frequency which has
exacerbated the spread of invasive species such as cheatgrass. These
concerns were identified as primary threats in our 2005 finding and
remain so, but with more intensity and on a larger scale. Additional
concerns include an increase in the use of sagebrush habitat for
renewable energy such as wind power, and the increased threat posed by
West Nile Virus. Concomitantly with this increase in threats, there has
been a dearth of effective State or Federal measures adopted to assist
in avoiding, minimizing or mitigating the known significant impacts to
greater sage-grouse.

Despite a dramatic decline in sage-grouse numbers in the last 40 years,
trends in recent years reflect variability in this decline, and some
populations have stabilized or possibly increased. Although estimates of
population size are difficult to obtain with accuracy and precision,
there still appear to be hundreds of thousands of sage-grouse extant
across its range. Nonetheless, the distribution of these numbers is not
uniform across the range of the species. Approximately 50 percent of
these birds occur in a relatively small portion of the species range
(within 1 of 7 floristic regions or State wildlife agency "Management
Zones"), and 90 percent occur within 3 Management Zones, with the
greatest intensity of threats generally concentrated in these areas. Our
ongoing and subsequent analyses of threats in these Management Zones
will allow us to accurately characterize the current status of greater
sage-grouse.

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

PURPOSE [2](#purpose)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [3](#executive-summary)

TABLE OF CONTENTS [5](#table-of-contents)

CONSERVATION STATUS [9](#conservation-status)

BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE
[11](#biology-and-ecology-of-greater-sage-grouse)

Species Description [11](#species-description)

Taxonomy [11](#taxonomy)

Uncertainty about subspecies validity [12](#__RefHeading___Toc212888162)

Geography: [13](#__RefHeading___Toc212888163)

Morphology and Behavior: [13](#__RefHeading___Toc212888164)

Genetics: [14](#__RefHeading___Toc212888165)

Habitat and Life History Characteristics
[15](#habitat-and-life-history-characteristics)

Range and Distribution [21](#range-and-distribution)

Population Size [23](#population-size)

Use of lek counts to estimate abundance [23](#refheading___toc212888169)

Use of harvest data to estimate abundance
[24](#__RefHeading___Toc212888170)

Estimates of abundance [25](#__RefHeading___Toc212888171)

Population trends [26](#population-trends)

Habitat and Floristic Management Zones 29

Sagebrush biology 29

Management Zones [32](#__RefHeading___Toc212888175)

Land Ownership and Management
[38](#land-ownership-and-management-knick-2008-p.-30-estimated-land-ownership-and-management-of-the-sagebrush-lands-within-the-sage-grouse-management-zones-as-follows-31-percent-private-51-percent-bureau-of-land-management-blm-8-percent-u.s.-forest-service-usfs-3-percent-bureau-of-indian-affairs-1-percent-u.s.-fish-and-wildlife-service-fws-1-percent-all-other-federal-ownership-combined-and-5-percent-state-ownership.)

VULNERABILITY AND THREATS [40](#vulnerability-and-threats)

Habitat [41](#habitat)

Habitat---Fire [41](#habitatfire)

Frequency of fire in sagebrush habitat
[41](#__RefHeading___Toc212888180)

Effects of fire on sagebrush [43](#__RefHeading___Toc212888181)

Invasions by other species [44](#__RefHeading___Toc212888182)

Effects of fire on invertebrates [45](#__RefHeading___Toc212888183)

Effects of fire on understory [46](#__RefHeading___Toc212888184)

Restoration of sagebrush habitat [47](#__RefHeading___Toc212888185)

Effects of fire on sage-grouse [48](#__RefHeading___Toc212888186)

Summary (Habitat---Fire) [50](#__RefHeading___Toc212888187)

Measures for minimizing fire effects [50](#__RefHeading___Toc212888188)

Habitat---Invasive plants (annual grasses/other noxious weeds)
[52](#habitatinvasive-plants-annual-grassesother-noxious-weeds)

Annual grasses [53](#__RefHeading___Toc212888190)

Distribution of invasives [55](#__RefHeading___Toc212888191)

Habitat restoration [57](#__RefHeading___Toc212888192)

Effect of invasives on sage-grouse [57](#__RefHeading___Toc212888193)

Habitat---Pinyon-juniper encroachment
[57](#habitatpinyon-juniper-encroachment)

Effects of pinyon-juniper on sage-grouse
[60](#__RefHeading___Toc212888195)

Measures for minimizing invasives and pinyon-juniper effects
[61](#__RefHeading___Toc212888196)

Habitat---Energy Development [66](#habitatenergy-development)

Nonrenewable Energy Development (Oil and Gas)
[67](#nonrenewable-energy-development-oil-and-gas-non-renewable-energy-development-e.g.-petroleum-products-coal-has-been-occurring-in-sage-grouse-habitats-since-the-late-1800s-connelly-et-al.-2004-p.-7-28.-interest-in-developing-oil-and-gas-resources-in-north-america-has-been-cyclic-based-on-demand-and-market-conditions-braun-et-al.-2002-p.-2.-recently-the-exploration-and-development-of-fossil-fuels-in-sagebrush-habitats-has-increased-as-prices-and-demand-are-spurred-by-geopolitical-uncertainties-and-legislative-mandates-national-petroleum-council-2007-p.-5-7-epca-2000-42-usc-6201-et-seq.-epca-2005-42-usc-15801-et-seq..)

Nonrenewable Energy Development (Mining) 89

Nonrenewable Energy Development (Coal Mining)
[90](#__RefHeading___Toc212888200)

Renewable Energy Development [95](#__RefHeading___Toc212888201)

Renewable Energy Development (Wind Energy)
[96](#__RefHeading___Toc212888202)

Renewable Energy Development (Hydropower)
[104](#__RefHeading___Toc212888203)

Renewable Energy Development (Solar Power)
[105](#__RefHeading___Toc212888204)

Renewable Energy Development (Geothermal)
[106](#__RefHeading___Toc212888205)

Renewable Energy Development (Biomass)
[107](#__RefHeading___Toc212888206)

Energy Corridors
[108](#energy-corridors-section-368a-of-the-energy-policy-act-of-2005-42-usc-15926-directs-federal-land-management-agencies-to-designate-corridors-on-federal-land-in-11-western-states-for-oil-gas-and-hydrogen-pipelines-and-electricity-transmission-and-distribution-facilities-energy-transport-corridors.-the-agencies-are-preparing-a-programmatic-environmental-impact-statement-peis-designation-of-energy-corridors-on-federal-land-in-the-11-western-states-doe-et-al.-2007-to-address-the-environmental-impacts-of-a-corridor-on-federal-lands.-the-proposed-action-calls-for-designating-more-than-9600-km-6000-mi-with-and-average-width-of-1-km-3500-ft-of-energy-corridors-across-the-west-doe-et-al.-2007-p.-es-8.-the-designated-corridors-on-federal-lands-will-tie-in-to-corridors-on-private-lands-and-lands-in-other-governmental-jurisdictions.-some-of-the-areas-proposed-for-designation-are-currently-used-for-transmission.-federal-land-not-presently-in-transportation-or-utility-right-of-way-is-proposed-for-use-in-california-301-km-or-187-mi-colorado-189-km-or-117-mi-idaho-343-km-or-213-mi-montana-9.8-km-or-6-mi-nevada-1416-or-880-mi-oregon-140-km-or-225-mi-washington-6-km-or-4-mi-utah-473-km-or-294-mi-and-wyoming-204-km-or-127-mi-doe-et-al.-2007-p.-es-14.-it-is-uncertain-how-much-of-the-corridor-is-in-sagebrush-habitat-within-the-distribution-area-of-sage-grouse-but-based-on-the-proposed-location-habitat-in-wyoming-management-zone-ii-idaho-management-zone-iv-utah-management-zone-iii-nevada-management-zone-iii-and-oregon-management-zone-iii-and-iv-would-be-most-affected.-sage-grouse-could-be-impacted-through-a-direct-loss-of-habitat-human-activity-especially-during-construction-periods-increased-predation-habitat-deterioration-through-the-introduction-of-nonnative-plant-species-and-fragmentation-of-habitat.)

Measures to minimize energy development effects
[109](#__RefHeading___Toc212888208)

Habitat---Grazing [118](#habitatgrazing)

Effects on sage-grouse and its habitats
[119](#__RefHeading___Toc212888210)

Sagebrush removal [122](#__RefHeading___Toc212888211)

Water development [125](#__RefHeading___Toc212888212)

Horses and burros [125](#__RefHeading___Toc212888213)

Grazing on Federal lands [127](#__RefHeading___Toc212888214)

Measures to minimize effects of grazing
[128](#__RefHeading___Toc212888215)

Habitat---Habitat Conversion [130](#habitathabitat-conversion)

Conversion by geographic area [131](#__RefHeading___Toc212888217)

Use of Agricultural Crops by Sage-grouse
[135](#__RefHeading___Toc212888218)

Habitat---Habitat Fragmentation [135](#habitathabitat-fragmentation)

Powerlines
[138](#powerlines-power-grids-were-first-constructed-in-the-united-states-in-the-late-1800s.-the-public-demand-for-electricity-has-grown-as-human-population-and-industrial-activities-have-expanded-manville-2002-resulting-in-more-than-804500-km-500000-mi-of-transmission-lines-lines-carrying-115000-volts115kv-by-2002-within-the-united-states-manville-2002.-a-similar-estimate-is-not-available-for-distribution-lines-lines-carrying-69000volts69kv-and-we-are-not-aware-of-data-for-canada.-within-their-analysis-area-i.e.-the-pre-european-settlement-distribution-of-greater-sage-grouse-including-canada-plus-a-50-km-31.3-mi-buffer-buffer-is-to-allow-for-external-factors-that-may-have-contributed-to-current-trends-in-populations-or-habitats-connelly-et-al.-2004-state-there-is-a-minimum-of-15296-km2-5904-mi2-of-land-less-than-1-percent-of-their-assessment-area-in-transmission-powerline-corridors-but-they-could-provide-no-estimate-of-the-density-of-distribution-lines-in-their-assessment-area.)

Communication towers
[141](#communication-towers-within-sage-grouse-habitats-9510-new-communication-towers-have-been-constructed-within-recent-years-connelly-et-al.-2004.-while-millions-of-birds-are-killed-annually-in-the-united-states-through-collisions-with-communication-towers-and-their-associated-structures-guy-wires-lights-etc.-manville-2002-most-documented-mortalities-are-of-migratory-songbirds.-we-were-unable-to-determine-if-any-sage-grouse-mortalities-occur-as-a-result-of-collision-with-communication-towers-or-their-supporting-structures-as-most-towers-are-not-monitored-and-those-that-are-lie-outside-the-range-of-the-species-shire-et-al.-2000-kerlinger-2000.-however-communication-towers-also-provide-perches-for-corvids-and-raptors-steenhof-et-al.-1993-connelly-et-al.-2004.-we-could-find-no-information-regarding-the-potential-impacts-of-communication-towers-to-the-greater-sage-grouse-on-a-rangewide-basis.)

Fences
[141](#fences-fences-are-used-to-delineate-property-boundaries-and-for-livestock-management-braun-1998-connelly-et-al.-2000a.-the-effects-of-fencing-on-sage-grouse-include-direct-mortality-through-collisions-creation-of-predator-raptor-perch-sites-the-potential-creation-of-a-predator-corridor-along-fences-particularly-if-a-road-is-maintained-next-to-the-fence-incursion-of-exotic-species-along-the-fencing-corridor-and-habitat-fragmentation-call-and-maser-1985-braun-1998-connelly-et-al.-2000a-beck-et-al.-2003-knick-et-al.-2003-connelly-et-al.-2004.)

Roads and Railroads
[143](#roads-and-railroads-impacts-from-roads-may-include-direct-habitat-loss-direct-mortality-barriers-to-migration-corridors-or-seasonal-habitats-facilitation-of-predators-and-spread-of-invasive-vegetative-species-and-other-indirect-influences-such-as-noise-forman-and-alexander-1998.-interstates-and-major-paved-roads-cover-approximately-14272-km2-22835-mi2-less-then-1-percent-of-their-assessment-area-connelly-et-al.-2004.-secondary-paved-road-densities-within-this-area-range-to-greater-than-2-kmkm2-3.24-mimi2.-sage-grouse-mortality-resulting-from-collisions-with-vehicles-does-occur-patterson-1952-but-mortalities-are-typically-not-monitored-or-recorded.-therefore-we-are-unable-to-determine-the-importance-of-this-factor-on-sage-grouse-populations.-data-regarding-how-roads-affect-seasonal-habitat-availability-for-individual-sage-grouse-populations-by-creating-barriers-and-the-ability-of-greater-sage-grouse-to-reach-these-areas-were-not-available.-road-development-within-gunnison-sage-grouse-habitats-precluded-movement-of-local-populations-between-the-resultant-patches-presumably-to-minimize-their-exposure-to-predation-oyler-mccance-et-al.-2001.)

Habitat---Urbanization [148](#habitaturbanization)

UTILIZATION OF SAGE-GROUSE IN COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, RELIGIOUS,
SCIENTIFIC, OR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
[151](#utilization-of-sage-grouse-in-commercial-recreational-religious-scientific-or-educational-activities)

Commercial Activity [151](#commercial-activity)

Recreational Activity [151](#recreational-activity)

Sport Hunting [152](#__RefHeading___Toc212888228)

Non-consumptive Recreational Activity
[164](#__RefHeading___Toc212888229)

Religious Activity [165](#religious-activity)

Scientific and Educational Activity
[166](#scientific-and-educational-activity)

Summary [167](#summary-of-sage-grouse-utilization)

NATURAL ENEMIES [168](#natural-enemies)

Natural Enemies---Disease [168](#section-12)

West Nile Virus [170](#__RefHeading___Toc212888235)

Impact on local populations and mortality rates
[174](#__RefHeading___Toc212888236)

Surviving infection [175](#__RefHeading___Toc212888237)

Modeling [176](#__RefHeading___Toc212888238)

Water sources [177](#__RefHeading___Toc212888239)

Natural Enemies---Predation [180](#natural-enemiespredation)

OTHER NATURAL AND MAN-MADE THREATS
[188](#other-natural-and-man-made-threats)

Pesticides [188](#pesticides)

Contaminants [193](#contaminants)

Recreational Activities [195](#recreational-activities)

Life History Traits Affecting Population Viability
[197](#life-history-traits-affecting-population-viability)

Drought 199

Climate Change [201](#climate-change)

Climate Change at the Global Scale 201

Potential Effects on Sagebrush Habitats 202

Uncertainty Associated with Climate Science [206](#climate-change)

LITERATURE CITED [208](#literature-cited)

# CONSERVATION STATUS

Within the United States, greater sage-grouse are under the management
of State wildlife agencies across its entire range. All 11 have final
conservation or management plans for the species. These plans are in
various stages of implementation, and generally contain information to
help guide the development and execution of more focused conservation
efforts and planning at a local level. Currently nine of the States
still permit harvest. The States manage approximately 5 percent of
sage-grouse habitat. There are no special provisions for land management
relevant to sage-grouse on private lands, which comprise approximately
31 percent of sage-grouse habitat.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 51 percent of
the extant sage-grouse range (Knick 2008, p. 30). The BLM has designated
the greater sage-grouse a sensitive species across all 11 States in the
sage-grouse range. As defined by BLM Manual 6840 -- Special Status
Species Management (BLM 2001) "The protection provided by the policy for
candidate species shall be used as the minimum level of protection for
BLM sensitive species" (BLM 2001). The BLM policy regarding candidate
species includes: implementation of management plans for conserving the
species and its habitats; ensuring actions authorized, funded, or
carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to
become listed; ensuring the species are considered in land use plans;
developing and/or participating in management plans and species and
habitat assessments; and monitoring the species for evaluating of
management objectives (BLM 2001). BLM's Manual 6840 is currently under
revision and we have no information as to how sage-grouse will be
considered under the new manual.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages approximately 8 percent of
sage-grouse habitats (Knick 2008, p. 30). Sage-grouse are managed under
individual National Forest land and resource management plans which
direct Forests to manage habitat to maintain viable populations of
existing native vertebrate species on National Forest System lands (1982
rule, 36 CFR 219.19). Some Forests have designated sage-grouse as
management indicator species, and were selected because their population
changes are believed to reflect the effects of management activities
(1982 rule, 36 CFR 219.19(a)). The regulation requires that during the
planning process, each alternative considered needed to establish
objectives for the maintenance and improvement of habitat for management
indicator species, to the degree consistent with overall multiple use
objectives of the alternative.

The remaining 5 percent of sage-grouse habitats in the United States are
managed by a variety of Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Energy, and
Bureau of Reclamation. Sage-grouse have no special management status
with those agencies.

Greater sage-grouse are cooperatively managed by Provincial and Federal
governments in Canada. The species is afforded Federal legal protection
under schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Canada Gazette, Part
III, Chapter 29, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2002).

# BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

## 

## Species Description

The greater sage‑grouse (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) is the largest
North American grouse species. Adult male greater sage-grouse range in
length from 66 to 76 centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 inches (in)) and weigh
between 2 and 3 kilograms (kg) (4 and 7 pounds (lb)). Adult females are
smaller, ranging in length from 48 to 58 cm (19 to 23 in) and weighing
between 1 and 2 kg (2 and 4 lb). Males and females have dark
grayish‑brown body plumage with many small gray and white speckles,
fleshy yellow combs over the eyes, long pointed tails, and dark green
toes. Males also have blackish chin and throat feathers, conspicuous
phylloplumes (specialized erectile feathers) at the back of the head and
neck, and white feathers forming a ruff around the neck and upper belly.
During breeding displays, males exhibit olive‑green apteria (fleshy bare
patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999, p.2).

## 

## Taxonomy

Greater sage-grouse are a members of the Phasianidae family, it is one
of two congeneric species; the other species in the genus is the
Gunnison sage-grouse (*C.* *minimus*). Until recently, the species was
described as including sage-grouse in south-central Colorado and eastern
Utah. In 2000, sage-grouse from extant populations in southwestern
Colorado and southeastern Utah were classified as a separate species
(Young et al. 2000, pp. 447-451). Therefore, Gunnison sage-grouse were
removed from the candidate list on April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19954).
Gunnison sage-grouse are not further discussed in this update.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888162 .anchor}*Uncertainty about subspecies
validity:* In 1957, the American Ornithological Union (AOU) recognized
two subspecies of the greater sage-grouse, the eastern (*C. u.
urophasianus*) and western (*C. u. phaios*), based on information from
Aldrich (1946, p 129). The subspecies designation was based on
difference in coloration (specifically reduced white markings and darker
feathering on western birds) in 11 museum specimens. The AOU has not
published a revised edition of the Check-list of North American Birds at
the subspecies level since 1957, thus AOU has not reconsidered the
taxonomy of the subspecies in light of scientific information that has
become available since then (Dr. Banks, Bird Section, Biological Survey
Unit, National Museum of Natural History, pers. comm. 2000).

There has been disagreement as to the validity of the subspecies
designations for greater sage-grouse (Braun 1992 and Aldrich 1992, both
in Drut 1994; Banks 1992, 2000, 2002) with recognition that these
designations may be inappropriate (Johnsgard 1983, p. 109; Schroeder et
al. 1999; IUCN 2000, p. 62; Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Benedict et al.
2003, p. 301). Benedict et al. (2001) concluded that "\...additional
morphological, behavioral, and genetic studies are warranted to further
investigate this potential taxonomic error", indicating substantial
scientific uncertainty on this point.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888163 .anchor}

*Geography:* The delineation between eastern and western subspecies is
only vaguely defined and has changed from its original description over
time (Aldrich 1946, p. 129; Aldrich and Duvall 1955 p. 12, AOU 1957, p.
139, Aldrich 1963, pp. 539-541). The boundary between the subspecies is
generally described along a line starting on the Oregon-Nevada border
south of Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge and ending near Nyssa,
Oregon (Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 1963, pp. 539-541).
Aldrich described the original eastern and western ranges in 1946
(Aldrich 1946, p. 129), while Aldrich and Duvall (1955, p. 12) and
Aldrich (1963, pp. 539-541) also described an intermediate form in
northern California, presumably in a zone of intergradation between the
subspecies. All of Aldrich's citations include a portion of Idaho within
the western subspecies' range, but the 1957 A.O.U. designation included
Idaho as part of the eastern subspecies (A.O.U. 1957, p. 139).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888164 .anchor}

*Morphology and Behavior:* Banks (1992) found that while differences
between the eastern and western subspecies specimens are discernible,
individual morphological variation in greater sage-grouse, such as
plumage coloration, is extensive. Further, given current taxonomic
concepts, he doubted that most current taxonomists would identify a
subspecies based on minor color variations from a limited number of
specimens, as were available to Aldrich during the mid-1900s (Aldrich
1946 and 1963).

Schroeder (2008) has examined previously collected morphological and
behavioral data from both published and unpublished sources. Analyses of
the available morphometric data found statistically significant
differences in numerous characteristics including body mass, wing
length, tail length, and primary length. Many of these differences were
associated with sex and age, but body mass also varied by season. There
were also substantial morphometric differences among populations.
Despite finding variations within these characteristics however,
Schroeder did not find morphometric differences between populations
within the "western subspecies" range and those outside that area that
would be consistent with genetic isolation (Schroeder 2008, p.10). The
only data available with respect to behavior are for strutting behavior
on leks, a key component of mate selection. An examination of these data
also did not show differences that support a subspecies designation
(Schroeder 2008, p. 9).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888165 .anchor}

*Genetics:* Genetic research can sometimes augment or refine taxonomic
definitions which are based on morphology and/or behavior (discussed in
Hait et al. 2006, p. 1586; Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2008, p. 19, among
others). Several studies investigating the rangewide genetic profiles of
greater sage-grouse have been undertaken (e.g. Quinn et al. 1997;
Benedict and Quinn 1998; Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al.
2005).

To investigate taxonomic questions and examine levels of gene flow and
connectedness among populations, Oyler-McCance et al. (2005) greatly
extended the sampling range and density of previous studies and provided
a comprehensive examination of the distribution of genetic variation
across the entire range of Greater Sage-grouse, using both mitochondrial
and nuclear DNA sequence data. Oyler-McCance et al. (2005) found that
the overall distribution of genetic variation showed a gradual shift
across the range in both mitochondrial and nuclear data sets. This can
be viewed as the possible existence of multiple discrete populations
among which dispersal and gene flow are restricted (Campton 2007, p. 4),
and is more consistent with an isolation-by-distance relationship than
that of two subspecies. In general, the greater sage-grouse populations
follow an isolation-by-distance model of restricted gene flow
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1293).

Oyler-McCance and Quinn (2008) reviewed available studies that used
molecular genetic approaches, including Oyler-McCance et al. (2005).
They examined the genetic data bearing on the delineation of the western
and eastern subspecies of greater sage-grouse, and determined that the
distinction is not supported by the genetic data.

## Habitat and Life History Characteristics

Greater sage‑grouse depend on a variety of shrub‑steppe habitats
throughout their life cycle, and are considered obligate users of
several species of sagebrush (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush (*Artemisia
tridentata var. wyomingensis*), mountain big sagebrush (*A. t.
vaseyana*), and basin big sagebrush (*A. t. tridentata*) (Patterson
1952, p. 48; Braun et al. 1976, p. 168; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp.
970-972; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-1). Greater sage-grouse also use
other sagebrush species such as low sagebrush (*A. arbuscula*), black
sagebrush (*A. nova*), fringed sagebrush (*A. frigida*) and silver
sagebrush (*A. cana*) (Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 4-5; Connelly et al.
2004, p. 3-4). Thus, sage-grouse distribution is strongly correlated
with the distribution of sagebrush habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004, p.
364). Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity (loyalty to a particular
area) to breeding and nesting (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-1).

During the spring breeding season, male sage‑grouse gather together to
perform courtship displays on areas called leks. Areas of bare soil,
short‑grass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed knolls, or other
relatively open sites typically serve as leks (Patterson 1952, p. 83;
Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-7 and references therein). Leks are often
surrounded by denser shrub‑steppe cover, which is used for escape,
thermal and feeding cover. Leks can be formed opportunistically at any
appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting habitat (Connelly et al.
2000a, p. 970), and therefore lek habitat availability is not considered
to be a limiting factor for sage-grouse (Schroeder 1999, p. 4). Leks
range in size from less than 0.04 hectare (ha) (0.1 acre (ac)) to over
36 ha (90 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-3) and can host from several
to hundreds of males (Johnsgard 2002, p. 112). Males defend individual
territories within leks and perform elaborate displays with their
specialized plumage and vocalizations to attract females for mating. A
relatively small number of dominant males accounts for the majority of
breeding on each lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 8). Males do not
participate in incubation of eggs or rearing chicks.

Females have been documented to travel more than 20 km (12.5 mi) to
their nest site after mating (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970), but
distances between a nest site and the lek on which breeding occurred is
variable (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-5). Average distance between a
female's nest and the lek on which she was first observed ranged from
3.4 km (2.1 miles) to 7.8 km (4.8 miles) in studies examining 301 nest
locations (Schroeder et al., 1999 p. 12). Research by Bradbury et al.
(1989, p. 22) and Wakkinen et al. (1992, p. 382) demonstrated that nest
sites are selected independent of lek locations.

Productive nesting areas are typically characterized by sagebrush with
an understory of native grasses and forbs, with horizontal and vertical
structural diversity that provides an insect prey base, herbaceous
forage for pre-laying and nesting hens, and cover for the hen while she
is incubating (Gregg 1991, p. 19; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly
et al. 2000a p. 971; Connelly et al. 2004, pp.4-17,18). Sage-grouse may
also use other shrub or bunchgrass species for nest sites (Klebenow
1969, p. 649; Connelly et al. 2000a, p.970; Connelly et al. 2004, p.
4-4). Shrub canopy and grass cover provide concealment for sage‑grouse
nests and young, and are critical for reproductive success (Barnett and
Crawford 1994, p.116; Gregg et al. 1994, p.164; DeLong et al.1995, p.
90; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). Published vegetation characteristics
of successful nest sites included a sagebrush canopy cover of 15-25
percent, sagebrush heights of 30 -- 80 cm, and grass/forb cover of 18cm
(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 977).

Sage-grouse clutch size ranges from 6 to 13 eggs (Schroeder et al.
2000). Nest success (one or more eggs hatching from a nest), as reported
in the scientific literature, ranges from 15 to 86 percent of initiated
nests (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 11), and is typically lower than other
prairie grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). This indicates a
lower intrinsic (potential) population growth for greater sage-grouse
than for most game bird species (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 13-14).
Re-nesting only occurs if the original nest is lost (Schroeder et al.
1999, p. 11). Re-nesting rates average 28.9 percent (based on 9
different studies) with a range from 5 to 41 percent (Connelly et al.
2004. p. 3-11). The impact of re-nesting on annual productivity for most
populations is unclear and thought to be limited (Crawford et al. 2004,
p. 4). In north-central Washington State, re-nesting contributed to 38
percent of the annual productivity of that population (Schroeder 1997,
p. 937). However, the author in this study postulated that the
re-nesting efforts in this population may be greater than anywhere else
in the species' range because environmental conditions allow a longer
period of time to success fully rear a clutch (Schroeder 1997, p. 939).

Hens rear their broods in the vicinity of the nest site for the first 2
to 3 weeks following hatching (0.2 to 5 km (0.1 to 3.1 miles), based on
two studies in Wyoming; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-8). Forbs and insects
are essential nutritional components for chicks (Klebenow and Gray 1968,
p. 81; Johnson and Boyce 1991, p. 90; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-9).
Therefore, early brood-rearing habitat must provide adequate cover
(sagebrush canopy cover of 10 to 25 percent; Connelly et al. 2000a, p.
977) adjacent to areas rich in forbs and insects to assure chick
survival during this period (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-9).

All sage-grouse gradually move from sagebrush uplands to more mesic
areas during the late brood-rearing period (3 weeks post-hatch) in
response to summer desiccation of herbaceous vegetation (Connelly et al.
2000a, p. 971). Summer use areas can include sagebrush habitats as well
as riparian areas, wet meadows and alfalfa fields (Schroeder et al.
1999, p. 4). These areas provide an abundance of forbs and insects for
both hens and chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly et al.
2000a, p. 971). Sage-grouse will use free water although they do not
require it since they obtain their water needs from the food they eat.
However, natural water bodies and reservoirs can provide mesic areas for
succulent forb and insect production, thereby attracting sage-grouse
hens with broods (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-12). Broodless hens and
cocks will also use more mesic areas in close proximity to sagebrush
cover during the late summer, often arriving before hens with broods
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-10).

As vegetation continues to desiccate through the late summer and fall,
sage-grouse shift their diet entirely to sagebrush (Schroeder et al.
1999, p. 5). Sage-grouse depend entirely on sagebrush throughout the
winter for both food and cover. Sagebrush stand selection is influenced
by snow depth (Patterson 1952, p. 184; Hupp and Braun 1989, p. 827),
availability of sagebrush above the snow to provide cover (Connelly et
al. 2004, p. 4-13, and references therein) and, in some areas,
topography (e.g. elevation, slope and aspect; Beck 1977, p. 22; Crawford
et al. 2004, p. 5).

Many populations of sage-grouse migrate between seasonal ranges in
response to habitat distribution (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-5).
Migration can occur between winter and breeding/summer areas, between
breeding, summer and winter areas, or not at all. Migration distances of
up to 161 kilometers (km) (100 mi) have been recorded (Patterson 1952,
p. 189); however, distances vary depending on the locations of seasonal
habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3). Migration distances for female
sage-grouse generally are less than for males (Connelly et al. 2004, p.
3-4), but in one study in Colorado, females travelled further than males
(Braun and Beck, 1976). Almost no information is available regarding the
distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for sage-grouse
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-19). Sage-grouse dispersal (permanent moves
to other areas) is poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-5) and
appears to be sporadic (Dunn and Braun 1986, p. 89). While sage-grouse
are dependent on large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush (Patterson
1952; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-15), information is not available
regarding minimum sagebrush patch sizes required to support populations
of sage-grouse.

Sage‑grouse typically live between 1 and 4 years, but individuals up to
10 years of age have been recorded in the wild (Schroeder et al. 1999).
Hens typically survive longer due to a disproportionate impact of
predation on leks to males (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). Juvenile
survival (from hatch to first breeding season) is affected by food
availability, habitat quality, harvest, and weather. Based on a review
of many field studies, documented juvenile survival rates range from 7
to 60 percent (Crawford et al. 2004). High mortality rates in juveniles
may be associated with habitat quality, with rates increasing in poor
habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). The average annual survival
rate for male sage‑grouse (all ages combined) documented in various
studies ranged from 38 to 60 and 55 to 75 percent for females (Schroeder
et al. 1999, p. 14). Higher female survival rates account for a
female‑biased sex ratio in adult birds (Schroeder 1999, p. 14; Johnsgard
2002, p. 621). Although seasonal patterns of mortality have not been
thoroughly examined, over-winter mortality appears to be low (Connelly
et al. 2000b, p. 229; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 9-4). While both males
and females are capable of breeding the first spring after hatch, young
males are rarely successful due to the dominance of older males on the
lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14).

## 

## Range and Distribution

Prior to settlement of the western North America by European immigrants
in the 19^th^ century, greater sage‑grouse occurred in 13 States and 3
Canadian provinces---Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska,
Arizona, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (Schroeder et al.
1999, p. 2; Young et al. 2000, pp. 445; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369).
Sagebrush habitats that potentially supported sage-grouse occurred over
approximately 1,200,483 km^2^ (463,509 mi^2^) before 1800 (Schroeder et
al. 2004, p. 366). Currently, greater sage‑grouse occur in 11 States and
2 Canadian provinces, ranging from extreme southeastern Alberta and
southwestern Saskatchewan, south to western Colorado, and west to
eastern California, Oregon, and Washington (Miller et al., in press;
Figure 1).

[Figure 1:]{.underline} Current and pre-settlement range of the greater
sage-grouse (from Schroeder et al. 2004).

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.375196850393701in"
height="4.504724409448819in"}

Sage‑grouse have been extirpated from Nebraska, British Columbia, and
possibly Arizona (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2; Young et al. 2000 p. 445;
Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). Current distribution of the greater
sage-grouse is estimated at 668,412 km^2^ (258,075 mi^2^) or 56 percent
of the potential pre-settlement distribution (Schroeder et al. 2004, p.
369; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-9).

## 

## Population Size

Following review of published literature and anecdotal reports, Connelly
et al. (2004, ES-1-3) concluded that the abundance and distribution of
sage-grouse have declined from pre-settlement numbers. Most of the
historic population changes were the result of local extirpations, which
has been inferred from a 44 percent reduction in sage-grouse
distribution described by Schroeder et al. 2004 (Connelly et al. 2004,
p. 6-9).

Estimates of greater sage-grouse abundance were mostly anecdotal prior
to the implementation of systematic surveys in the 1950's (Braun 1998).
Early reports suggested the birds were abundant throughout their range.
However, concerns about extinction were raised in early literature
primarily due to market hunting and habitat alteration (Hornaday 1916).
Some authors suggest that greater sage-grouse populations have been
declining for at least 30 years (Braun 1995, Connelly and Braun 1997,
Aldridge and Brigham 2003, Schroeder et al. 2004). Various abundance
estimates (i.e., estimates of the number of birds rangewide) have been
made. For the most part the estimates have been based on lek counts
and/or harvest data.

[]{#refheading___toc212888169 .anchor}*Use of lek counts to estimate
abundance*: Problems regarding inconsistent sampling protocols for lek
surveys (e.g. number of times a lek is counted, observer bias) were
identified by Stiver et al. (2006), and many of those problems still
persist. Additionally, lek data are biased due to the method of
collection (e.g. observer bias/experience, time of day counted, time in
season counted) and the unknown relationship of lek counts to population
size (WAFWA 2008, p. 3), precluding the use of these data in the
development of an accurate population estimate. However, the annual
counting of males on leks remains the primary approach to monitor
long-term trends of populations (WAFWA 2008, p. 3). Given the
limitations of lek data to formulate statistical population estimates,
the states rely on actual counts of birds on leks and harvest data to
estimate population size. However, we are unable to provide an estimate
of the current rangewide population of sage-grouse using this approach
because only two states provided us lek count data within the last 2
years.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888170 .anchor}*Use of harvest data to estimate
abundance:* Other sources of population data, including harvest data are
even more dated (Table 1). State wildlife agencies manage hunting with a
harvest goal of no more than 5 to 10 percent of the fall population of
birds (see discussion on hunting below), and the agencies use annual
harvest numbers to estimate population size. Statistically the use of
harvest data is of limited value however, since both harvest and
population size on which harvest is based are estimates. Therefore,
population numbers generated from harvest data can only be considered
rough estimates.

[]{.mark}

[Table 1]{.underline}: Population estimates from State sage-grouse
conservation plans, lek counts and harvest information.

  ---------- -------- ---------------------------------------- ------------
  Location   Data     Source                                   Estimated
             year                                              population

  CA/NV      2004     CA/NV Conservation Assessment (2004, pg. 88,000
                      26)                                      

  CO         2007     2007 CO Conservation plan, with male lek 22,646
                      count adjusted by a 1.6 multiplier (sex  
                      ratio females:males)                     

  ID         2007     Calculated based on the assumption of 5  98,700
                      percent of the population is harvested   

  MT         2007     Calculated based on the assumption of 5  62,320
                      percent of the population is harvested   

  ND         2007     NDGF web page (last updated in 2007)     1,500

  OR         2003     2003 Oregon conservation plan estimate   40,000
                      (Hagen 2005, pg. 27)                     

  SD         2008     Lek counts adjusted (assumed 75 percent  308
                      males seen, and a 2:1 female to male     
                      ratio (Robinson 2008)                    

  UT         2002     2001 UDOT management plan (2002, pg. 13) 12,999

  WA         2003     WDFW Conservation Plan (2004, p. 21)     1,059

  WY         2007     Calculated based on the assumption of 5  207,560
                      percent of the population is harvested   

  Canada     2008     Environment Canada web page              1,000
  ---------- -------- ---------------------------------------- ------------

### 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888171 .anchor}*Estimates of abundance:* Braun
(1998) estimated that the minimum 1998 rangewide spring population
numbered about 157,000 sage‑grouse, derived from numbers of males
counted on leks. The same year state wildlife agencies within the range
of the bird estimated the population was at least 515,000 based on lek
counts and harvest data (C. Warren, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
pers. comm. Sept. 15, 2008). The Service estimated the rangewide
abundance of sage‑grouse in 2000 was between a minimum of 100,000 (taken
from Braun (1998)) up to 500,000 birds (based on harvest data from
Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Wyoming, with the assumption that 10 percent
of the population is typically harvested) (65 FR 51578). In 2003, based
on increased lek survey efforts, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 13-5)
concluded that rangewide population numbers were likely much greater
than the 157,000 estimated by Braun in 1998, but they were unable to
generate a rangewide population estimate.

Estimates of rangewide abundance can be calculated using estimates of
population trends. Connelly et al. (2004) reports a 0.37 percent rate of
decline from 1986 through 2003, and WAFWA (2008) reports a 1.4 percent
decline from 1986 and 2007, respectively (see population trends below).
Applying these rates to the State population estimates in Table 1
results in rangewide estimates of population size of 532,304 birds and
521,865 birds, respectively. Alternatively, the most recent rangewide
estimate from the states in 1998 was 515,000. Applying these same rates
of decline to this estimate produces a rangewide estimate of population
size of 496,259 and 447, 277 using Connelly et al (2004) and WAFWA
(2008) respectively. While these estimates rely on many untested
assumptions, they do reflect a likely rangewide current population of
more than Braun's (1998) minimum estimate of 157,000 birds.

## 

## Population trends

Periods of historical decline in sage‑grouse abundance occurred from the
late 1800s to the early-1900s (Hornaday 1916, pp. 179-221; Crawford
1982, pp 3-6; Drut 1994, pp 2-5; Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife 1995; Braun 1998; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 1). Other declines
in sage‑grouse populations occurred in the 1920s and 1930s, and then
again in the 1960s and 1970s (Connelly and Braun 1997, pp. 3-4; Braun
1998). Declines in the 1920s and 1930s were attributed to hunting, and
declines in the 1960s and 1970s were primarily as a result of loss of
habitat quality and quantity (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 2). State
wildlife agencies were sufficiently concerned with the decline in the
1920s and 1930s that many closed their hunting seasons and others
significantly reduced bag limits and season lengths as a precautionary
measure (Patterson 1952, pp. 30-33; Autenrieth 1981, p.10).

Using lek counts as an index for abundance, Connelly et al. (2004, p.
6-28) reported rangewide declines from 1965 through 2003. Declines
averaged 2 percent per year from 1965 to 2003. Dividing this time period
into two segments shows how the rate of decline has changed over time.
The decline was more dramatic from 1965 through 1985, with an average
annual change of 3.5 percent. Sage-grouse population numbers in the late
1960s and early 1970s were likely two to three times greater than
current numbers (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). However, the rate of
decline rangewide slowed to 0.37 percent annually during 1986 to 2003,
and some populations increased (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71).

In 2008, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
conducted new population trend analyses that incorporated an additional
4 years of data beyond the Connelly et al. 2004 analysis. Although the
WAFWA analyses used different statistical techniques, lek counts were
also the basis for the analyses. WAFWA results were similar to Connelly
et al. (2004) in that a long-term population decline was detected during
1965 to 2007, i.e., the average annual change was 3.1 percent (WAFWA
2008, p. 12). WAFWA attributed the decline to the reduction in number of
active leks (WAFWA 2008, p. 51). Similar to Connelly et al. (2004), the
WAFWA analyses determined that the decline lessened during 1985 to 2007
(average annual change of 1.4 percent annually) (WAFWA 2008, p 58).

Population trends by state were also similar between Connelly et al.
(2004) and WAFWA (2008) although there were minor differences (Table 2).
WAFWA attributed these differences to continuing declines in most areas,
differences in input data due to attempts to minimize error, and
differences in analytical techniques (WAFWA 2008, p. 51). However, both
analyses documented a long-term decline of greater sage-grouse from 1965
to the most recent year included in each study (2003 for Connelly et
al., and 2007 for WAFWA), with a non-significant rangewide decline from
1986 to the most recent year included in the study (2003 or 2007).

[Table 2]{.underline}: Comparison of the average annual rates of change
in greater sage-grouse lek counts between Connelly et al. 2004 and WAFWA
2008.

+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| State     | Avg. rate of change        | Avg. rate of change         |
|           |                            |                             |
|           | Connelly et al. (2004)     | WAFWA (2008)                |
|           |                            |                             |
|           | 1965 - 2003                | 1965 - 2007                 |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| C         | \+ 0.7 percent             | \- 1.0 percent              |
| alifornia |                            |                             |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Colorado  | \+ 1.0 percent             | \+ 2.2 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Idaho     | \- 1.5 percent             | \- 4.4 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Montana   | \- 1.6 percent             | \- 3.2 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Nevada    | \- 2.1 percent\*           | \- 2.0 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| North     | \- 2.8 percent             | \- 3.8 percent              |
| Dakota    |                            |                             |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Oregon    | \- 3.5 percent             | \- 3.7 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| South     | No estimate\*\*            | \+ 0.8 percent              |
| Dakota    |                            |                             |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Utah      | \- 0.35 percent            | \- 2.9 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| W         | \- 4.8 percent             | \- 5.1 percent              |
| ashington |                            |                             |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| Wyoming   | \- 5.2 percent\*\*\*       | \- 4.5 percent              |
+-----------+----------------------------+-----------------------------+

\* Trend from 1974 -- 2003; data collected prior to 1974 used
inconsistent techniques and could not be included in the analyses.

\*\* Inconsistent monitoring of leks precluded calculation of long-term
annual rates of change.

\*\*\*Trend from 1968 -- 2003.

Connelly et al. (2004, p. 13-4), determined that of 41 populations
delineated rangewide on geographical (not political) boundaries, 5 had
been extirpated, 14 were at high risk of extirpation due to small
numbers (only one active lek) and 12 additional populations also had
small numbers (7 to 18 known active leks), including nine that were
declining at a statistically significant rate. However, the remaining 10
populations contained the majority (92 percent) of the known active leks
and were distributed across the current range.

In summary, since neither pre-settlement nor current numbers of
sage-grouse are accurately known, the actual rate and magnitude of
decline since pre-settlement times is uncertain. However, two
independent groups of researchers with two different statistical methods
that used lek counts as an index to relative abundance of greater
sage-grouse concluded that rangewide greater sage-grouse have
experienced long-term population declines in the past 43 years, with
that decline lessening in the past 22 years.

## Habitat and Floristic Management Zones

*Sagebrush biology:* Sagebrush is the most widespread vegetation in the
intermountain lowlands in the western United States (West and Young
2000, p. 259). Scientists recognize many species and subspecies of
sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-2), each with unique habitat
requirements and responses to perturbations (West and Young 2000, p.
259). Sagebrush species and subspecies occurrence in an area is dictated
by local soil type, soil moisture, and climatic conditions (West 1983,
p. 333; West and Young 2000, p. 260). The degree of dominance by
sagebrush varies with local site conditions and disturbance history.
Plant associations, typically defined by perennial grasses, further
define distinctive sagebrush communities (Miller and Eddleman 2000, pp.
10-14; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-3), and are influenced by topography,
elevation, precipitation and soil type.

All species of sagebrush produce large ephemeral leaves in the spring,
which persist until soil moisture stress develops in the summer. Most
species also produce smaller, over-wintering leaves in the late spring
that last through summer and winter. Sagebrush have fibrous, tap root
systems, which allow the plants to draw surface soil moisture, and also
to access water deep within the soil profile when surface water is
limited (West and Young 2000, p. 259). Most sagebrush flower in the
fall. However, during years of drought or other moisture stress,
flowering may not occur. Although seed viability and germination are
high, seed dispersal is limited. Additionally, for unknown reasons,
sagebrush seeds do not persist in seed banks beyond the year of their
production (West and Young 2000, p. 260).

Sagebrush is long-lived, with plants of some species surviving up to 150
years (West 1983, p. 340). They produce allelopathic chemicals that
reduce seed germination, seedling growth and root respiration of
competing plant species and inhibit the activity of soil microbes and
nitrogen fixation. Sagebrush has resistance to environmental extremes,
with the exception of fire and occasionally defoliating insects (e.g.,
the webworm (*Aroga* spp.; West 1983, p. 341). Most species of sagebrush
are killed by fire (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 17; West 1983, p. 341;
West and Young 2000, p. 259). Natural sagebrush re-colonization in
burned areas depends on the presence of adjacent live plants for a seed
source or on the seed bank, if present (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p.
17).

Sagebrush is typically divided into two groups, big sagebrush and low
sagebrush, based on their affinities for different soil types (West and
Young 2000, p. 259). Big sagebrush species and subspecies are limited to
coarse-textured and/or well-drained sediments, whereas low sagebrush
subspecies typically occur where erosion has exposed clay or calcified
soil horizons (West 1983, p. 334; West and Young 2000, p. 261).
Reflecting these soil differences, big sagebrush will die if surfaces
are saturated long enough to create anaerobic conditions for 2 to 3 days
(West and Young 2000, p. 259). Some of the low sagebrush are more
tolerant of occasionally supersaturated soils, and many low sage sites
are partially flooded during spring snowmelt. None of the sagebrush taxa
tolerate soils with high salinity (West 1983, p. 333; West and Young
2000, p. 257). Both groups of sagebrush are used by sage-grouse.

Sagebrush habitats vary widely within the extant range of the greater
sage-grouse, as influenced by amount of precipitation, soil types,
elevation, topography, and understory plant alliances (Miller et al., in
press). Associated plant types show similar variability. For example,
vascular plant species composition in sagebrush communities is strongly
influenced by moisture availability and soil characteristics (Miller et
al., in press). Production of annual herbaceous plants varies widely
within and among communities due primarily to moisture availability,
climate, soils, and topographic position. Forb abundance can be highly
variable from year to year and is largely affected by the amount and
timing of precipitation (Miller et al., in press). These ecological
conditions influence the response and resiliency of sagebrush systems to
natural and human-caused changes, management, and recovery. It is
therefore inappropriate to assume that all sagebrush will respond to
natural and human-caused changes in a consistent manner across the
greater sage-grouse range. Restoration of sagebrush communities to
pre-European settlement conditions is unlikely due to the size of the
species range, the magnitude of existing changes, the loss of
connectivity, and continual short and long-term changes in climate
(Miller et al., in press).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888175 .anchor}*Management Zones:* Due to
differences in the ecology of sagebrush across the range of the greater
sage-grouse, the Western Association of Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
delineated seven Management Zones based primarily on floristic provinces
(Figure 2; Table 3; Stiver et al. 2006, p 1-6). The boundaries of these
management zones were delineated based on their ecological and
biological attributes rather than on arbitrary political boundaries
(Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-6). Therefore, vegetation found within a
management zone is similar and sage-grouse and their habitats within
these areas are likely responding similarly to environmental factors and
management actions.

[Table 3]{.underline}: Management zones of the greater sage-grouse as
defined by Stiver et al. (2006, pps. 1-17 and 1-13), and primary threats
in each management zone.

  ------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------
  Management   States and Provinces    Floristic Region   Primary Threat
  Zone         included                                   

  I\*          MT, WY, ND, SD, SK, AL  Great Plains       Energy
                                                          development,
                                                          habitat
                                                          conversion,
                                                          disease

  II\*         ID, WY, UT, CO          Wyoming Basin      Energy
                                                          development,
                                                          disease, habitat
                                                          fragmentation

  III          UT, NV, CA              Southern Great     Invasive
                                       Basin              species, fire

  IV\*         ID, UT, NV, OR          Snake River Plain  Habitat
                                                          conversion and
                                                          fragmentation,
                                                          disease,

  V\*          OR, CA, NV              Northern Great     Invasive
                                       Basin              species, fire

  VI           WA                      Columbia Basin     Small population
                                                          sizes,
                                                          restricted
                                                          habitats

  VII          CO, UT                  Colorado Plateau   Energy
                                                          development,
                                                          habitat
                                                          fragmentation
  ------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------

\*These zones contain the densest areas and core populations of
sage-grouse, as defined by Connelly et al. 2004.

[Figure 2]{.underline}: Management zones for the greater sage-grouse as
identified by Stiver et al. (2006, p. 1-7); delineation primarily based
on floristic provinces and population boundaries.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.875in" height="3.959722222222222in"}

Management Zones I, II, IV, and V encompass the core populations of
greater sage-grouse and have the highest reported densities (Table 4,
Figure 3; Connelly et al. 2004). Management Zone III is composed of
lower density populations in the Great Basin, while fewer numbers of
more dispersed birds occur in Management Zone VI (Stiver et al, 2006, p.
1-7). Management Zone VII contains both greater and Gunnison sage-grouse
on the Colorado Plateau (as noted previously, the two species do not
have overlapping ranges).

[Table 4]{.underline}: Relative abundance of greater sage-grouse leks,
and number of males attending leks by management zone, based on the mean
number of individual leks and mean maximum number of males attending
leks by management one during 2005-2007.

  ------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------
  Management    Relative abundance of     Relative abundance of males
  Zone          leks (2005 -- 2007)       attending leks (2005-2007)

  I             0.17                      0.15

  II            0.48                      0.50

  III           0.06                      0.07

  IV            0.19                      0.18

  V             0.09                      0.10

  VI            0.004                     0.005

  VII           0.003                     0.003
  ------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------

[Figure 3]{.underline}: Population densities based on average number of
males per lek (taken from Connelly et al. 2004).

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.083333333333333in"
height="4.617361111111111in"}

Differences in ecological conditions within each management zone affect
the susceptibility of these areas to the various threats facing
sagebrush ecosystems and its potential for restoration. For example,
diffuse knapweed (*Centaurea diffusa*), an exotic annual weed, is most
competitive within shrub-grassland communities where antelope
bitterbrush is dominant (Management Zone VI), and cheatgrass (*Bromus
tectorum*) is more dominant in areas with minimal summer precipitation
(Management Zones III and V) (Miller et al, in press). Therefore, we
stratify our analyses by these management zones because they represent
zones within which ecological variation is less than what it would be
across the range of the species. This will allow us to better assess the
impact and benefits of actions occurring across the species range and in
turn more accurately assess the status of the species.

Although the Management Zones were not formally adopted by WAFWA until
2006, the population trend analyses conducted by Connelly et al. (2004)
included trend analyses based on the same floristic provinces used to
define the zones. While the average annual rate of change was not
presented, the results of those analyses suggested long-term declines in
greater sage-grouse for Management Zones I, II, III, IV and VI.
Population trends in Management Zones V and VII were increasing, but the
trends were not statistically significant (Stiver et al.2006, p. 1-7).
The WAFWA 2008 population trend analyses did consider management zones.
They reported that Management Zones I- VI had negative population trends
from 1965 -- 2007, but there was no statistically detectable trend for
Management Zone VII (WAFWA 2008, pps.13 -- 27). Both population trend
analyses had similar results (with the exception of Management Zone
V)(Table 5). The authors of the 2008 WAFWA analysis did not offer an
explanation of the differences between the two assessments for this
management zone.

[Table 5]{.underline}: Long-term population trend estimates for Greater
sage-grouse management zones.

  ------------ ----------- ------------------------- -----------------------
  Management   States and  Population Trend          Population trend
  Zone         Provinces   estimates, 1965-2003      estimates based on
               included    (Connelly et al. 2004) \* annual rates of change,
                                                     1965 - 2007 (WAFWA
                                                     2008)

  I            MT, WY, ND, Long-term decline         \- 2.9 percent
               SD, SK, AL                            

  II           ID, WY, UT, Long-term decline         \- 2.7 percent
               CO                                    

  III          UT, NV, CA  Long-term decline         \- 2.2 percent

  IV           ID, UT, NV, Long-term decline         \- 3.8 percent
               OR                                    

  V            OR, CA, NV  Change statistically      \- 3.3 percent
                           undetectable              

  VI           WA          Long-term decline         \- 5.1 percent

  VII          CO, UT      Change statistically      No detectable trend
                           undetectable              
  ------------ ----------- ------------------------- -----------------------

\*Average annual rate of change was not reported

The response of sagebrush and sagebrush ecosystems to natural and
human-influenced disturbances varies based on the species of sagebrush
and its understory component, as well as abiotic factors such as soil
types and precipitation. For example, mountain big sagebrush can
generally recover more quickly and robustly following disturbance than
Wyoming big sagebrush (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 22), likely due to
its occurrence on relatively moist, well drained soils, versus the very
dry soils typical of Wyoming big sagebrush communities. Soil
associations have also resulted in disproportionate levels of habitat
conversion across different sagebrush communities. For example, basin
big sage is found at lower elevations, in soils that retain moisture two
to four weeks longer than in well drained, but dry and higher elevation
soils typical of Wyoming big sagebrush locations. Therefore, sagebrush
communities dominated by basin big sagebrush have been converted to
agriculture more extensively than have communities on poorer soil sites
(Winward 2004, p. 29).

Understanding how threats to the greater sage-grouse are influenced by
differences in the sagebrush habitats (as defined by Management Zones)
within the species' range allows us to more accurately assess the
effects of these threats. In combination with population trend
information, stratifying our assessment by management zone will greatly
facilitate our understanding of long-term sage-grouse persistence.

### 

### Land Ownership and Management: Knick (2008, p. 30) estimated land ownership and management of the sagebrush lands within the sage-grouse management zones as follows: 31 percent private; 51 percent Bureau of Land Management (BLM); 8 percent U.S. Forest Service (USFS); 3 percent Bureau of Indian Affairs; 1 percent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); 1 percent all other Federal ownership combined; and 5 percent State ownership. 

There are no special provisions for land management relevant to
sage-grouse on private lands. Management of State lands is variable
across the range, and many states have laws that influence the degree to
which sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats factor into land management
decisions. All eleven states across the current range of greater
sage-grouse have final conservation or management plans for the species.
These plans are in various stages of implementation, and generally
contain information to help guide the development and execution of more
focused conservation efforts and planning at a local level.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C.
1701 [et]{.underline} [seq]{.underline}.) is the primary federal law
governing most land uses on BLM-administered lands. Under guidance from
FLPMA, the BLM prepares land use plans for resource management areas;
there are currently 92 land use plans across the range of greater
sage-grouse (BLM in litt. 2008a; p. 1). Land use plans are the basis for
all actions and authorizations involving BLM-administered lands and
resources: they establish allowable resource uses, resource condition
goals and objectives to be attained; program constraints and general
management practices needed to attain the goals and objectives; general
implementation sequences; and intervals and standards for monitoring and
evaluating the plan to determine its effectiveness and the need for
amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601.0-5(k)). The BLM also has management
and permitting authorities under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) (30
U.S.C. 181 [et seq]{.underline}.) and the Regulations on Grazing
Administration Exclusive of Alaska (43 CFR 4100). These authorities and
their relevance to greater sage-grouse management are described in more
detail in the Energy and Grazing sections below.

Management of federal activities on National Forest System lands is
guided principally by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16
U.S.C. 1600-1614, August 17, 1974, as amended 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981,
1983, 1985, 1988 and 1990). NFMA specifies that all National Forests
must have a land and resource management plan (LRMP) (16 U.S.C. 1600)
to guide and set standards for all natural resource management
activities on each National Forest or National Grassland. The 1982 NFMA
implementing regulation for land and resource management planning (1982
rule, 36 CFR 219), under which all existing forest plans were prepared,
requires the Forest Service to manage habitat to maintain viable
populations of existing native vertebrate species on National Forest
System lands (1982 rule, 36 CFR 219.19). New land and resource
management planning regulations were adopted on April 21, 2008 (36 CFR
219); all of the existing LRMPs within sage-grouse habitat will
eventually be revised using the new planning rule. The Forest Service
has additional authorities relevant to greater sage-grouse management
under the On-Shore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (1987; implementing
regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart E), which allows them to manage,
restrict, or attach protective measures to mineral and other energy
permits on USFS lands.

Greater sage-grouse are cooperatively managed by Provincial and Federal
governments in Canada. The species is afforded Federal legal protection
under schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Canada Gazette, Part
III, Chapter 29, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2002). Passed in 2002, the Species at
Risk Act is similar to the Endangered Species Act and allows for habitat
regulations to protect sage‑grouse (Aldridge and Brigham 2003). The
purpose of the SARA is to prevent the extinction or extirpation of any
indigenous Canadian wildlife species, subspecies or distinct population
segment, and to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened
wildlife (Connelly et al. 2004).

# VULNERABILITY AND THREATS

The long-term persistence of greater sage-grouse is influenced by
numerous natural and anthropogenic factors occurring within their range.
Based on our experience with the 2005 finding, a continuing review of
the scientific literature, and pertinent comments received from the
public, we have identified the following threats to the greater
sage-grouse and their habitats. These items are listed in no particular
order. Where data were available, we have tried to link the threats to
greater sage-grouse Management Zones so as to facilitate our
understanding of the vulnerability of this species.

## 

## Habitat

### 

### Habitat---Fire

The effects of fire on sagebrush habitats, and therefore, their
potential effects on sage-grouse, vary according to the species of
sagebrush present, community association (e.g., understory type), and
the severity, size, complexity, and intensity of the fire event.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888180 .anchor}

*Frequency of fire in sagebrush habitat:* Widely variable estimates of
mean fire return intervals are described in the literature: 10 to 70
years (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 154), greater than 50 years for big
sagebrush communities (McArthur 1994, p.347), 12 to 15 years for
mountain big sagebrush (Miller and Rose 1999 p. 556), 20 to 100 years
(Peters and Bunting 1994, p. 33), 10 to 110 years depending on sagebrush
species and specific geographic area (Kilpatrick 2000, p. 1), and 13 to
25 years (Frost 1998 *in* Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-4). In general,
mean fire return intervals in low lying, xeric big sagebrush communities
(*Artemisia tridentata* spp*.*) range from 100 to at least 200 years,
and intervals decrease to decades in more mesic areas, higher
elevations, and during wetter climatic periods (Baker 2006, p. 181;
Mensing et al. 2006, p. 75; Miller et al., in press). There are inherent
problems in understanding the historic fire regime in sagebrush
communities due to the lack of fire scars, which are used to estimate
historic fire return intervals. Thus, a clear picture of the complex
spatial and temporal pattern of historic fire regimes in many sagebrush
communities is not readily available.

Miller et al. (in press) summarized fire statistics for wildfires and
prescribed fires that occurred within the sagebrush biome over the past
century. From 1980 to 2007, the number of fires and total area burned
increased in all Management Zones across the greater sage-grouse's range
except the Snake River Plain (Management Zone IV). Average fire size
only increased in the Southern Great Basin Management Zone (Management
Zone III) during this period. Predicting the amount of habitat that will
burn during an "average fire" year is difficult due to the highly
variable nature of fire seasons. For example, the approximate area
burned on or adjacent to BLM-managed lands varied from 140,000 ha
(346,000 ac) in 1998 to a 6-fold increase in 1999 (814,200 ha; 2.0
million ac) to a 10-fold increase in 2006 (1.4 million ha; 3.5 million
ac; Miller et al., in press).

Fire may affect the persistence of greater sage-grouse in the Great
Basin (i.e., Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and eastern Oregon; Management Zones
III, IV, and V), primarily due to the subsequent susceptibility of
burned sites to invasion by exotic annual grasses. Wildfires have
removed approximately 1.7 million ha (4.25 million ac) of sage-grouse
habitat since 2003, or approximately 2.5 percent of extant habitat, and
the trend in total acreage burned has increased since 1980 (Miller et
al., in press). Although fire occurs throughout the greater
sage-grouse's range, fire disproportionately affects the States of
Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah. According to one review, range fires
destroyed 30 to 40 percent of sage-grouse habitat in southern Idaho
(Management Zone V) in a 5-year period (1997-2001; Signe Sather-Blair,
BLM, *in* Healy 2001). This included about 202,000 ha (500,000 ac) which
burned from 1999 to 2001; significantly affecting the largest remaining
contiguous patch of sagebrush in the state. Between 2003 and 2007, Idaho
lost about 267,000 ha (660,000 ac) of sage-grouse habitat or
approximately 7 percent of the total estimated habitat in the state.
Over the past 9 fire seasons in Nevada (1999-2007), about 1 million ha
(2.5 million ac) of sagebrush habitats were burned; representing
approximately 11 percent of extant sagebrush in the state (Espinosa and
Phenix 2008, p. 3). Most of these fires occurred in northeast Nevada
(Management Zone V) in fairly good habitat that has traditionally
supported high densities of sage-grouse, and is most prone to cheatgrass
invasion.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888181 .anchor}

*Effects of fire on sagebrush:* In general, fire extensively reduces
sagebrush within burned areas. Big sagebrush varieties, the most
widespread species of sagebrush, are killed by fire, do not re-sprout
after burning, and can take 30 to 50 years to re-colonize an area
suggesting that these subspecies evolved in an environment where
wildfire was infrequent and patchy (Braun 1998, p. 9). The patchy
historic fire pattern in sagebrush communities, particularly in Wyoming
big sagebrush (*A. tridentata* var. *wyomingensis*), was due to
discontinuous and limited fine fuels (i.e., grasses), resulting in a
mixed severity-stand replacing fire regime (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p.
16; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 154). Natural fires typically resulted in
incomplete burning of large expanses of habitat, leaving islands of
unburned vegetation. These islands promoted future re-colonization of
the sagebrush communities by providing sources of sagebrush seed (Huff
and Smith 2000, p. 39).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888182 .anchor}

*Invasions by other species:* Woodlands can encroach into sagebrush
communities when fire return intervals are long enough to allow for
seedling establishment and tree maturation (see the pinyon-juniper
discussion below). In parts of the Great Basin (i.e., Nevada, Oregon and
Utah) a decline in fire occurrence since the late 1800s has been
reported in several studies, with an immediate widespread decline in
fires coinciding with the introduction of large numbers of livestock and
active fire suppression efforts (Touchan et al. 1995, p. 272; Miller and
Rose 1999, p. 558; Miller et al., in press). The probability that woody
conifer species, such as western juniper (*Juniperus occidentalis*),
will displace sagebrush communities increases where seed sources are
nearby and fire intervals increase to 50 to 100 years.

Alternatively, invasion of exotic annuals, such as cheatgrass (*Bromus
tectorum*) and medusahead (*Taeniatherum asperum*), increase fire
frequency within the greater sage-grouse's range (Miller et al., in
press; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41). Cheatgrass readily invades sagebrush
communities, especially disturbed sites and changes historic fire
patterns by providing an abundant fine fuel source that facilitates fire
spread. While sagebrush is killed by fire and only regenerates from seed
(given an available source), cheatgrass recovers within 1 to 2 years of
a fire event (Young and Evans 1978, p. 285). It is difficult and usually
ineffective to restore an area to sagebrush after annual grasses becomes
established (Paysen et al. 2000, p. 154; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-44
to 7-50; Davies 2008, pp. 110-111). Habitat loss from fire and the
subsequent invasion by non-native annual grasses has negatively affected
sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 93).

Evidence exists of a relationship between fire locations and cheatgrass
distribution in the Snake River Plain (Management Zone IV) and Northern
Great Basin (Management Zone V) since the 1960s (Miller et al., in
press), and in northern Nevada and eastern Oregon since 1980 (Management
Zone V) . At least partially as a result of the relationship between
wildfire and the spread of invasive plants, approximately 29 million
acres of public lands in the western distribution of the greater
sage-grouse (i.e., Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah) were
estimated to be invaded with weeds in 2000 (BLM 2007, p. 3-43); and
specifically cheatgrass is currently present throughout much of the
western United Sates.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888183 .anchor}

*Effects of fire on invertebrates:* In addition to altering plant
community structure, fires influence invertebrate food supplies, which
are an essential component of juvenile sage-grouse diets (Schroeder et
al. 1999, p. 5). Along with plant community effects, invertebrate food
supplies are another habitat element influenced by fire. Ants
(Hymenoptera), grasshoppers (Orthoptera), and beetles (Coleoptera) are
important in the diet of juvenile sage-grouse, especially in the first
three weeks of life (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). Crawford and Davis
(2002, p.56) reported that the abundance of arthropods did not decline
following wildfire, and Pyle (1992, p. 14) reported that there was no
apparent effect of prescribed burning to beetles. However, other studies
found that the abundance of insects was significantly lower 2 to 3 years
post-burn (Fischer et al. 1996, p. 197). Additionally, grasshopper
(Orthoptera) abundance declined 60 percent in burned plots versus
unburned plots one year post-burn, but this difference disappeared the
second year (Bock and Bock 1991, p. 165). Conversely, Nelle et al.
(2000, p. 589) reported the abundance of beetles and ants was
significantly greater in 1-year old burns, but returned to pre-burn
levels by years 3 to 5. Grasshopper abundance (both adult and nymph)
declined by 60 percent on burned plots versus unburned plots by the
first year after fire, but the differences disappeared in the second
year (Bock and Bock 1991, p. 165). Fire effects to insects probably vary
due to plant communities, time of year when burned, and insect
population level pre-fire. Because few studies have been conducted and
the results of those available vary, the specific magnitude and duration
of the effects of fire on insect communities is still uncertain, as is
the effect any changes may have on for sage-grouse.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888184 .anchor}

*Effects of fire on understory:* The response of sagebrush understory to
fire varies with differences in topography, existing fuel load, moisture
content of vegetation and soil, fire severity, season of burn, and
succeeding climatic conditions, among other factors. In general, when
not considering the synergistic effects of invasive species, short-term
studies report varied responses by grasses and forbs to fire and longer
data sets (5 or more years) suggest little difference in the response of
understory to fire between control and treatment sites (Nelle et al.
2000, p. 588). For example, Wrobleski (1999, p. 31) reported increased
forb production, but decreased perennial grasses in burned versus
control plots. Payson et al. (2000, p. 154) also noted little
recruitment of perennial grasses within the first 3 to 5 years
post-fire, although remnant forbs and grasses increased biomass
production. In another study, perennial herb productivity was 2.2 times
higher on burned versus control areas by the second year post-burn (Cook
et al. 1994, p. 298). However, Crawford (1999, p. 7) observed little
change in species composition between unburned and burned areas after a
1998 prescribed burn in Oregon. Fischer et al. (1996, p. 196) also noted
that vegetation used in sage-grouse diets was similar in unburned and
burned habitat. In a review of 13 sites that burned over 2 to 32
year-span, Wambolt et al. (2001, p. 250) found that burns did not assist
perennial grass and forb production.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888185 .anchor}

*Restoration of sagebrush habitat:* A variety of techniques have been
attempted to re-establish sagebrush post-fire, with mixed success
(Cadwell et al. 1996 p. 143, Quinney et al. 1996 p. 157, Livingston 1998
p. 41). Sagebrush restoration efforts following a fire are complicated
by the presence of invasive exotic annual plant species, cost associated
with activity, availability of suitable seeds, and difficulty associated
with establishing sagebrush seedlings. Still, habitat rehabilitation
following fires has become a major activity in recent years, increasing
from 28,100 ha (69,436 ac) in 1997 to 1.6 million ha (3.9 million ac) in
2002 with most treatments in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada (Connelly et al.
2004, pp. 7-35). Although not all burned habitat is rehabilitated, fires
which occur on pubic lands will experience some degree of post-fire
restoration. For example, of the more than 1 million ha (2.5 million ac)
of sage-grouse habitat burned during the 2006 and 2007 fire seasons on
BLM-managed lands, about 40 percent or 384,000 ha (950,000 ac) had some
form of post-fire restoration. Still, the efficacy of these efforts and
the utility of these sites for sage-grouse in the future will not be
realized for several decades.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888186 .anchor}*Effects of fire on
sage-grouse:* The response of greater sage-grouse to fire has not been
clearly demonstrated (Braun 1998, p. 9) and the majority of studies
suggest fire negatively impacts sage-grouse. Several studies have
indicated that fire can improve brood-rearing habitat (Klebenow 1970, p.
399; Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 323; Gates 1983 *in* Connelly et al.
2000c, p. 90; Sime 1991 *in* Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 972). Also,
Slater (2003, p. 63) reported that sage-grouse using burned areas were
rarely found more than 60 m (200 ft) from the edge of the burn, further
the researcher suggests a preferential use of the burned/unburned edge
habitat.

Fires can cause adverse conditions where cover is limited (Call and
Maser 1985, p. 17). For example, prescribed fires in mountain big
sagebrush at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge caused a short-term
increase in certain forbs, but reduced sagebrush cover, potentially
making habitat less suitable for nesting and brood rearing (Rowland and
Wisdom 2002, p. 28). Similarly, Nelle et al. (2000, p. 586) and Beck et
al. (2008, p. 8) reported nesting and brood rearing habitat loss from
fire, creating a long-term negative impact that will require 3 decades
of sagebrush re-growth before sufficient canopy cover becomes available
for nesting birds.

Data collected at 24 burned sites in Montana between 4 and 67 years
post-fire, suggest recovery of Wyoming big sagebrush likely requires
well over 100 years (Cooper et al. 2007, p. 13). The Montana study is
further supported by a recent meta-analysis that suggests mountain big
sagebrush (*A. t. var. vaseyana*) recovers within 35 to at least 100
years, while Wyoming big sagebrush requires 50 to at least 120 years to
recover (Baker 2006, p. 177).

Byrne (2002, p. 27) reported avoidance of burned habitat by nesting,
brood-rearing, and broodless females and both Connelly et al. (2000c, p.
90) and Fischer et al. (1996, p. 196) found that prescribed burns did
not improve brood rearing habitat in Wyoming big sagebrush, as forbs did
not increase and insect populations declined as a result of the
treatment. Hence, fire in this sagebrush type may negatively affect
brood rearing habitat rather than improve it (Connelly and Braun 1997,
p. 11). In southeastern Idaho, Connelly et al. (2000c, p. 93) concluded
that, sage-grouse populations were declining across the study area, but
declines were more severe in post-fire years. Fischer et al. (1997, p.
89) concluded that fire-caused habitat fragmentation may influence
distribution or migratory patterns in sage-grouse, and Hulet (1983, *in*
Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 973) documented the loss of leks from fire.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888187 .anchor}*Summary (Habitat\--Fire)*: The
specific response of insects and the sagebrush understory, which both
are food resources for sage-grouse, are not well-understood. In
addition, the specific response of sage-grouse to fire has not been
clearly demonstrated. However, fire can reduce the amount of sagebrush
habitat available to sage-grouse and that this habitat, once burned, is
slow to regenerate and problematic to restore. Fire can also promote
invasion of non-native plants (e.g., cheatgrass) which are difficult to
control and which increase the likelihood of fires in the future.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888188 .anchor}*Measures for minimizing fire
effects*: Knick (2008, p. 30) estimates that about 51 percent of
sagebrush habitat within the sage-grouse management zones is
BLM-administered land; this includes approximately 24.9 million ha
(about 61.5 million acres). The BLM reports that 92 of their Land Use
Plans (LUPs) occur within sage-grouse habitats and that 82 of these
contain specific measures or direction pertinent to management of
sage-grouse or their habitats (BLM in litt. 2008a, p. 1; BLM in litt
2008b). Of these 82 LUPs, 37 contain specific provisions pertaining to
wildfire and fuels management as it relates to sage-grouse or sagebrush
habitat. Provisions vary by LUP and in large part there are not
consistent measures which address sage-grouse across their range.
Specific LUP objectives include prevention of large scale fires through
the creation of fuel breaks or suppression; rehabilitation of habitats
following fire through reseeding and use restrictions; and restoration
of degraded habitats through prescribed burning, "let burn", or
mechanical treatments intended to reset the successional stage of the
vegetation community.

One notable recent action adopted on a rangewide scale is BLM's National
Instructional Memo (IM) 2008-142 -- 2008 Wildfire Season and Sage-Grouse
Conservation. This IM was issued on June 19, 2008, and is effective
through September 30, 2009. It provides guidance to BLM State Directors
that conservation of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats should
be a priority for wildfire suppression, particularly in areas of the
great basin (WAFWA Management Zones III, IV, and V) (BLM IM 2008-142,
June 19, 2008). At least one BLM state office within the range of
sage-grouse (Idaho) has developed a state-level IM and guidance that
prioritizes the protection of sage-grouse habitats during fire
management activities, in addition to the national IM which pertains to
wildfire suppression activities (BLM IM 2008-051, June 6, 2008). The
extent to which these directives will alleviate the threat of wildfire
to sage-grouse is not known, nor is it known whether this guidance will
be applied into the future, i.e. after the IM expires. The BLM's IM
2008-142, which elevates the priority of important sage-grouse habitat
during wildfire control and focuses fire control resources, is an effort
that could provide benefits to sage-grouse over time if it is extended.

The Forest Service has management responsibility for approximately 8
percent of sagebrush habitats in the U.S., most of which are located at
higher elevations in Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon, and largely consisting
of montane or low sagebrush communities (Knick 2008, p. 14). Of the 24
National Forests within the sage-grouse range which address sage-grouse
in their Forest Plans, direction for the conservation of sage-grouse and
their habitats relative to fire and fuels management was provided in 18
(USDA Forest Service *in litt*, 2004). Language and goals outlined in
specific Forest Plans vary but are largely informed by habitat
recommendations outlined in Connelly et al. (2000). The effectiveness of
the Forest Plan regulations for the conservation of sage-grouse and
their habitats was not reported by the USFS.

Five percent of sagebrush habitats are managed by state agencies (Knick
2008, p. 14). Using a variety of funding sources, state agencies
(especially Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon) work toward preventing, and
rehabilitating sagebrush habitats influenced by fire. For example,
Utah's Watersheds Restoration Initiative is a partnership driven effort
which actively funds projects intended to conserve, manage, and restore
habitats. Although these activities are not driven by a regulatory
mechanism, they still provide substantial conservation benefit.
Excluding lands managed by the BLM, about 13,000 ha (33,000 ac) of
sage-grouse habitat was treated as part of a fire management policy by
state and federal agencies since 2005. Treatments varied (e.g.,
mechanical, prescribed fire, herbicide) but all acreages reported were
intended to provide a net benefit to sage-grouse. The effectiveness of
these treatments is not currently known. Thirty-one percent of sagebrush
habitat occurs on privately owned lands (Knick 2008, p. 30). No specific
regulatory mechanisms apply to sagebrush habitats occurring on private
lands.

### Habitat---Invasive plants (annual grasses/other noxious weeds)

Several widely-accepted definitions exist for invasive plants, (also
called invasives) (Randall et al. 2008, p. 37). In this review, we
consider invasives to be any non-native plant that negatively impacts
the biodiversity of sage-grouse habitat. Invasives alter plant community
structure and composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology
(Vitousek 1990, p. 7) and may cause declines in native plant populations
through competitive exclusion and niche displacement, among other
mechanisms (Mooney and Cleland 2001, p. 5446). A variety of non-native
annuals and perennials are invasive to sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et
al. 2004, pp. 7-107 and 7-108; Zouhar et al. 2008, p 144) and can reduce
or eliminate vegetation that sage-grouse use for food and cover.

Noxious weeds spread about 931 ha (2,300 ac) per day on BLM land and
1,862 ha (4,600 ac) per day on all public land in the West (BLM 1996, p.
1), or about 8-20 percent annually (Federal Interagency Committee for
the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds 1997, p. v). Invasions are
often associated with ground disturbances caused by wildfire, grazing,
infrastructure, and other anthropogenic activity (Rice and Mack 1990, p.
84; Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 420; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 23), but
disturbance is not required for invasives to spread (Young and Allen
1997, p. 531, Roundy et al. 2007, p. 614). Invasions may also occur
sequentially, where initial invaders (e.g., cheatgrass) are replaced by
new exotics (Crawford et al. 2004, p 9; Miller et al., in press).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888190 .anchor}*Annual grasses*: Annual grasses
(e.g., cheatgrass and medusahead) impact sagebrush ecosystems by
shortening fire intervals to approximately 5 years, perpetuating their
own persistence and intensifying the role of fire (Braun 1998, p. 9;
Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 5-10 and 7-14). Annual grasses have caused
extensive sagebrush habitat loss in the Intermountain West and Great
Basin (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 1-2 and 4-16). Although they occur
throughout the sage-grouse's range, they are considered more problematic
in western states (Management Zones III, IV, and V) than Rocky Mountain
states (Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-9).
Cheatgrass is considered most invasive in Wyoming big sagebrush
communities, while medusahead fills a similar niche in more mesic
communities with heavier clay soils (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-9).

Approximately 80 percent of land in the Great Basin is susceptible to
displacement by cheatgrass (including over 65 percent that is moderately
or highly susceptible) within 30 years (Management Zones III, IV, and V)
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-17). Although the Great Basin appears more
susceptible to cheatgrass invasion than other parts of the sage-grouse's
range, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-8) cautioned that a formal analysis
of the risk of cheatgrass invasion in other areas was needed before such
inferences are made. Also, while annual grasses are usually associated
with lower elevations and drier climates (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-5),
the ecological range of cheatgrass continues to expand at low and high
elevations (Ramakrishnan et al. 2006, pp. 61-62), both southward and
eastward (Miller et al., in press). There are local infestations of
cheatgrass and other annual grasses in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado
(Management Zones I and II) (Miller et al., in press), and there is
evidence that cheatgrass is impacting fire intervals in Wyoming. For
example, 40,469-ha (100,000-ac) of sagebrush that burned in a wildfire
southeast of Worland, Wyoming (Management Zone II) became infested with
cheatgrass, accelerating the fire interval in this area (Wyoming Big
Horn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group 2007, p. 39-40).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888191 .anchor}

*Distribution of invasives*: Quantifying the total acres of sage-grouse
habitat impacted by invasives is problematic due to differing sampling
methodologies, incomplete sampling, inconsistencies in species sampled,
and varying interpretations of what constitutes an infestation (Miller
et al., in press). Furthermore, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 5-10) noted
that several prominent publications have incorrectly stated that
cheatgrass dominates 40 million ha (98.8 million ac) in the West. This
estimate is a mis-quote from a publication that stated cheatgrass
dominated many rangelands within the 41 million ha (101 million ac) of
potential steppe vegetation in the Intermountain West (Connelly et al.
2004, p. 5-10).

Widely variable estimates of the total acreage of weed infestations have
been reported. BLM (1996, p. 6) estimated invasives covered at least 3.2
million ha (8 million ac) of BLM lands as of 1994, and predicted 7.7
million ha (19 million ac) would be infested by 2000. However, a
qualitative 1991 BLM survey covering 40 million ha (98.8 million ac) of
BLM-managed land in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah
(Management Zones III, IV, V, and VI) reported that annual grasses were
a dominant or significant presence on 7 million ha (17.2 million ac) of
sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-10). An additional 25.1
million ha (62 million ac) had less than 10 percent cheatgrass in the
understory, but were considered to be at risk of cheatgrass invasion
(Zouhar 2003, p. 3, in reference to the same survey). More recently, BLM
reported that, as of 2000, noxious weeds and annual grasses occupied
11.9 million ha (29.4 million ac) of public lands in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, Nevada, and Utah (BLM 2007, p. 3-28). However, when considering
all states within the current range of sage-grouse, this number
increases to 14.8 million ha (36.5 million ac.).

The Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project
(LANDFIRE) has the most complete rangewide dataset documenting annual
grass distribution. Based on 1999- 2002 imagery, there are at least
426,931 ha (1.1 million ac) of annual grasses in the 7 management zones
(Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-11; LANDFIRE 2007). This is a gross
underestimate of the total acres of infestation. Satellite data only map
annual grass monocultures, and not areas where they occur in lower
densities or even dominate the sagebrush understory (which is mapped as
sagebrush). However, this information provides a rangewide comparison of
annual grass monocultures. A little over half of all mapped annual grass
acreages occur in Management Zones III and IV. The number of acres for
the four other zones were similar (Stone 2008), indicating that parts of
Montana and Wyoming contain similar amounts of annuals as Washington,
south-central Oregon, and northwest Nevada. Based on data collected in
the western half of the range, Bradley et al. (in press 2008, pp. 41-43)
predicted favorable conditions for cheatgrass rangewide under current
and future (2100) climate conditions. However, she predicts that some
areas will become unfavorable while others become favorable.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888192 .anchor}

*Habitat restoration*: Restoration or rehabilitation of areas to
sagebrush after invasives, particularly annual grasses, become
established is very difficult (see discussion on fire above). For
example, only 10 to 50 percent of recent vegetation treatments conducted
by the BLM in annual grassland monocultures and in sagebrush habitats
with predominantly annual grass understories were reported as successful
(Carlson 2008b). Often treatment success depends on factors which are
not controllable such as precipitation received at the treatment site.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888193 .anchor}

*Effect of invasives on sage-grouse*: Invasives are a rangewide threat,
and one of the highest extinction risk factors for sage-grouse based on
their ability to out-compete sagebrush, the inability to effectively
control them once they become established, and the synergistic
interaction between them and other risk factors on the landscape (e.g.,
wildfire, infrastructure construction). There have been many studies
addressing effective invasive control methods, as well as conservation
actions to control invasives, with varied success. While some efforts
appear successful at smaller scales, prevention appears to be the only
known effective tool to preclude large-scale habitat loss from invasive
species in the future.

### 

### Habitat---Pinyon-juniper encroachment 

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are a native habitat type dominated by pinyon
pine (*Pinus edulis*) and various juniper species (*Juniperus* spp.)
that can encroach upon and infill sagebrush habitat. Pinyon-juniper
woodlands are often associated with sagebrush communities and currently
occupy at least 18 million ha (44.6 million ac) of the Intermountain
West, within the sage-grouse's range (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 8; Miller
et al. 2008, p. 1). Pinyon-juniper extent has increased 10-fold in the
Intermountain West since European settlement causing the loss of many
bunchgrass and sagebrush-bunchgrass communities (Miller and Tausch 2001,
pp. 15, 16). This expansion has been attributed to decreased fire return
intervals in big sagebrush habitat as a result of livestock grazing
(which reduces fine fuels; (Miller and Tausch 2001, p. 15). It has also
been suggested that increases in global carbon dioxide concentrations
and climate change may influence woodland expansion (Miller and Rose
1999, pp. 555-556; Miller and Tausch 2001, p. 15).

Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-8 to 7-14) estimated the risk of sagebrush
displacement by pinyon-juniper within 30 years for a large portion of
the Great Basin, based on site elevation, proximity to extant
pinyon-juniper, precipitation, and topography. Approximately 60 percent
of sagebrush in the Great Basin was at low risk, 6 percent at moderate
risk, and 35 percent was at high risk of displacement (Connelly et al.
2004, pp. 7-12 to 7-14). Mountain big sagebrush appears to be most at
risk of pinyon-juniper displacement (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-13).
When juniper increases in mountain big sagebrush communities, shrub
cover declines and the season of available succulent forbs is shortened
due to soil moisture depletion (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 8). As with
cheatgrass, the Great Basin (Management Zones III, IV, and V) appears
more susceptible to pinyon-juniper invasion than other areas of the
sage-grouse's range; however, Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-8) cautioned
that a formal analysis of the risks posed in other locations was needed
before such inferences could be made.

Pinyon-juniper expansion into sagebrush habitats, with subsequent
replacement of sagebrush shrub communities has been well documented
(Miller et al. 2000, p. 575; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 2; Connelly et al.
2004, pp. 7-5; Miller et al. 2008, p. 1). However, few studies have
documented woodland dynamics at the landscape level across different
ecological provinces, creating some uncertainty regarding the total
amount of expansion that has occurred in sagebrush communities (Miller
et al. 2008, p. 1). Regardless, we know that up to 90 percent of
existing woodlands currently occupy sites previously dominated by
sagebrush vegetation prior to the late 1800s (Miller et al., in press).
Additionally, expansion will likely continue at varying rates across the
landscape and cause further loss of sagebrush habitat within the western
part of the sage-grouse's range, especially the southern Great Basin
(Management Zone III).

While pinyon-juniper appears less problematic in the eastern portion of
the range (Management Zones I, II and VII) and silver sagebrush areas,
woodland encroachment is a threat mentioned in Wyoming, Montana, and
Colorado state sage-grouse plans, indicating that this is of some
concern in these states as well (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 2-23).
Colorado's state plan mapped areas threatened by pinyon-juniper
encroachment in northwest Colorado, and specifically attributed some
sage-grouse habitat loss in Colorado to pinyon-juniper expansion
(Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee 2008, pp. 179, 182).
Furthermore, LANDFIRE (2007) data illustrates extensive coverage of
pinyon-juniper woodlands in parts of northwest Colorado within the range
of sage-grouse. This data also shows limited pinyon-juniper coverage in
Montana and Wyoming; however, LANDFIRE data could be a major
underestimate of juniper because is difficult to classify pinyon-juniper
woodlands with satellite imagery when it occurs at low densities (Hagen
2005, p. 142).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888195 .anchor}

*Effects of pinyon-juniper on sage-grouse*: Commons et al. (1999, p.238)
found that the number of male Gunnison sage-grouse on leks in southwest
Colorado doubled after pinyon-juniper removal and mechanical treatment
of mountain sagebrush and deciduous brush. Hence we infer that some
greater sage-grouse populations have been affected and some will decline
due to projected increases in the pinyon-juniper type, at least within
parts of the Great Basin (Management Zones III and IV). Doherty et al.
(2008, p. 187) reported a strong avoidance of conifers by female greater
sage-grouse in the winter, further supporting our previous inference.

In 2005, we considered pinyon-juniper a high extinction risk for
sage-grouse in the western and low risk in the eastern portions of its
range. Since 2005, many conservation actions have addressed this threat
using a variety of techniques (e.g., mechanical, herbicide, cutting,
burning) to remove conifers in sage-grouse habitat. The effectiveness of
these treatments varies with the technique used and proximity of the
site to invasive plant infestations, among other factors. We are not
aware of any study documenting a direct correlation between these
treatments and increased greater sage-grouse productivity; however, we
again infer a positive response based on Commons et al.'s (1999)
Gunnison sage-grouse study. Instead, effectiveness of treatments for
greater sage-grouse is usually based on a short-term, anecdotal
evaluation of whether pinyon-juniper was successfully removed from a
site. It is still too early to measure a population response to these
treatments (ODFW in litt. 2008, p. 3). Consequently, we do not know if
these efforts are effectively ameliorating the threat of pinyon-juniper
expansion. Furthermore, while many acres have been treated since 2004
(21,598 ha (53,369 ac) on BLM lands and 32,824 ha (81,110 ac)on other
lands, treatments are not likely keeping pace with the current rate of
pinyon-juniper encroachment, at least in parts of the range.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888196 .anchor}

*Measures for minimizing invasives and pinyon-juniper effects*: There
are numerous statutes, directives, regulations, policies, and guidance
documents encouraging invasive plant control at local, state, and
national scales. The Federal Noxious Weed Act (FNWA) of 1974 gave the
Secretary of Agriculture authority over noxious weed movement into and
within the United States. This Act was amended in 1990, requiring
federal land management agencies to fund noxious weed control programs
in cooperation with states. In 2000, The Plant Protection Act superseded
most of the FNWA; however, noxious weed movement is still regulated by
the Secretary of Agriculture and the 1990 amendment is still in effect.

More recently, there has been an increased focus on the roles that
state, county, and private entities have in controlling invasive plants.
For example, The Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act was passed in
2004 and incorporated into the Plant Protection Act. This Act is
intended to assist eligible weed management entities to control or
eradicate harmful non-native weeds on both public and private lands.
Additionally, Executive Order 13112 was signed on February 3, 1999,
establishing an interagency National Invasive Species Council in charge
of creating and implementing a National Invasive Species Management
Plan. The Management Plan directs federal efforts, including overall
strategy and objectives, to prevent, control, and minimize invasive
species and their impacts (National Invasive Species Council 2008, p.
5). However, the Order also directs the Council to encourage planning
and action at local, tribal, state, regional, and eco-system levels to
achieve the goals of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, in
cooperation with stakeholders (e.g., private landowners, states) and
existing organizations addressing invasive species. The Council
currently consists of 13 Departments and Agencies, and has recently
completed their 2008-2012 Management Plan. The specific implementation
of tasks and performance elements within this plan depends upon agency
budgets, and in some cases, legal or regulatory changes (National
Invasive Species Council 2008, p. 5).

One of the most common forms of noxious and invasive weed treatments on
BLM lands is reseeding through the Emergency Stabilization and Burned
Area Rehabilitation Programs. According to BLM data collected in a FY
2006-2007 data call, 66 of 92 Resource Management Plans (RMPs)
responding to the data call noted that seed requirements (as stated in
RMPs, emergency stabilization and rehabilitation, and other plans) were
sufficient to provide suitable sage-grouse habitat (e.g., seed
containing sagebrush and forb species). However, a sufficient seed mix
does not guarantee that restoration goals will be met, as there are many
other factors (e.g., precipitation) influencing the outcome of
restoration efforts. Still, invasive species control is a priority for
many RMPs. For example, 76 of the RMPs that responded to the data call
claim that the RMP (or supplemental plans/guidance applicable to the
RMP) require treatment of noxious weeds on all disturbed surfaces to
avoid infestations of BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Also, of
the 82 RMPs that reference sage-grouse conservation, 51 of these
specifically address either fire, invasives, or conifer encroachment
issues, or a combination thereof (Carlson 2008a). We also note that it
is possible that more RMPs are specifically addressing invasives under
another general restoration category.

Herbicides are also commonly used on BLM lands to control invasives. In
2007, the BLM completed a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,
report (72 FR 35718) and Record of Decision (72 FR 57065) for vegetation
treatments on BLM-administered lands in the western United States. This
program approves the use of four new herbicides, provides and updated
analysis of 18 currently used herbicides, and identifies herbicides that
the BLM will no longer use on public lands. It guides the use of
herbicides for field-level planning, but does not authorize any specific
on-the-ground actions; site-specific NEPA analysis is still required at
the project level. Since the BLM reported restoration actions from
Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007 (ending October 2007), we do not have
information on how much the programmatic EIS has been used for most
states, or whether actions implemented under this EIS have been
effective. Oregon has not implemented actions under this EIS because the
Oregon BLM is preparing a separate, statewide programmatic EIS that will
tier to and adopt procedures from the western states' programmatic EIS
(73 FR 35408). This is being done in part to address issues specific to
a 1984 injunction that prohibited herbicide use in Oregon.

Some States require landowners to control noxious weeds on their
property, but the types of plants considered to be noxious weeds vary by
state. For example, only Oregon, California, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada
list medusahead as a noxious, regulated weed, but medusahead can be
problematic in other states (e.g., Washington, Idaho). The only western
State that officially lists cheatgrass as a noxious weed is Colorado
(http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver), but cheatgrass in invasive
in many more states. Although individual States have regulations
regarding invasive species, we were unable to determine how these
regulations affect sage-grouse habitats.

Several non-regulatory tools and mechanisms exist that can be used to
address invasive species concerns. The rangewide conservation assessment
and strategy for sage-grouse identifies specific objectives and goals to
address invasive species, and identifies responsible parties and costs
associated with implementing these goals (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 9-11 to
9-12). Additionally, goals (some general and some more specific) are
identified in state and local sage-grouse management plans to address
invasive species concerns that are implemented (to varying degrees) by
state- and local- working groups.

Another voluntary approach to control invasives is the development of
Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs). CWMAs are partnerships
between federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, individuals, and
interested groups to manage both regulatory noxious weeds and invasive
plants in a county or multi-county geographical area. They function
under a mutually developed memorandum of understanding and a locally
developed strategic plan. The CWMAs can utilize federal funds for
invasive plant control on non-federal land. As of 2005, Oregon, Nevada,
Utah, and Colorado had between 75 and 89 percent of their states covered
by CWMAs and/or county weed districts, while Washington, Idaho, Montana,
and Wyoming had between 90 and 100 percent coverage. Coverage in North
Dakota is between 50 and 74 percent, and South Dakota has less than 25
percent coverage (Center for Invasive Plant Management 2008
<http://www.weedcenter.org/weed_mgmt_areas/wma_overview.html>).
[]{.mark}

In summary, there are many regulatory mechanisms and non-regulatory
measures to control invasive plants. However, the extent that these
mechanisms effectively ameliorate the current rate of invasive expansion
is unclear. If noxious weeds are spreading at a rate of 931 ha (2,300
ac) per day on BLM lands (BLM 1996, p. 1), this amounts to 339,815 ha
(839,500 ac) per year, which includes both suitable and non-habitat for
sage-grouse. It is unclear whether this estimate is limited to noxious
weeds or if includes other invasives (e.g., cheatgrass). Still, we can
compare this estimate to the acres treated by BLM in between October
2005 and September 2007; 298,676 ha (738,042 ac). It is unlikely that
conifer encroachment was included in the estimated rate of noxious weed
spread that was reported by BLM (1996, p. 1).

The National Invasive Species Council (2008, p. 8) acknowledges that,
"despite the significant increase in activity and awareness, much
remains to be done to prevent and mitigate the problems caused by
invasive species." As an example, the state of Montana has made much
progress through partnerships in reducing noxious weeds in the state
from 8 million ac in 2000 to 7.6 million in 2008 (Montana Weed Control
Association in litt. 2008). However, the Montana Noxious Weed Summit
Advisory Council Weed Management Task Force (2008, p. III) estimates
that to slow weed spread and reduce current infestations by 5 percent
annually, they require 2.6 times the current level of funding from a
variety of private, local, state, and federal sources (or \$55.8 million
versus \$21.2 million). In addition to funding, other factors that
potentially limit ability to control invasives include the amount of
available native seed sources, the time it takes to restore sagebrush to
an area once it is removed from a site, and the existence treatments
that are known to be effective in the long-term. Monitoring is limited
in many cases, and some of the methods are new enough that we are not
sure what the population response of sage-grouse will be to these
treatments.

### Habitat---Energy Development

Research examining the effects of energy development on the greater
sage-grouse indicates that greater sage-grouse populations are
negatively affected by energy development activities, especially those
that degrade important sagebrush habitat, even when mitigative measures
are implemented (Braun 1998, Lyon 2000, Naugle et al. 2006). Impacts can
result from direct habitat loss, fragmentation of sagebrush via roads,
pipelines and powerlines (Kaiser 2006; Holloran et al. 2007), noise
(Holloran 2005), and direct human disturbance. The fidelity of
sage-grouse to seasonal habitats may exacerbate the effect of energy
development, since birds may return to areas disturbed by energy
development, but they may no longer reproduce (Lyon and Anderson 2003).
The effects of renewable energy development are likely similar as the
same types of infrastructure are required. Greater sage-grouse
populations can repopulate areas developed for resource extraction after
habitat reclamation for the species (Braun 1987). However, there is no
evidence that populations attain their previous levels and
re-establishment of sage-grouse in a reclaimed area may take 20 to 30
years, or longer (Braun 1998). In developing our 2005 finding, energy
development was identified as the most significant extinction risk to
the greater sage-grouse in the eastern portion of its range (Colorado,
Wyoming and Montana -- Management Zones I and II), with the primary
concern being the rapidity of development and the persistent demand for
petroleum products.

#### Nonrenewable Energy Development (Oil and Gas): Non-renewable energy development (e.g., petroleum products, coal) has been occurring in sage-grouse habitats since the late 1800s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-28). Interest in developing oil and gas resources in North America has been cyclic based on demand and market conditions (Braun et al. 2002, p. 2). Recently, the exploration and development of fossil fuels in sagebrush habitats has increased as prices and demand are spurred by geopolitical uncertainties and legislative mandates (National Petroleum Council 2007, p. 5-7; EPCA 2000, 42 USC 6201 et seq.; EPCA 2005, 42 USC 15801 et seq.). 

Legislative mandates include those of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) of 1975 (42 USC 6201 et seq) to secure energy supplies and
increase the availability of fossil fuels. Re-authorization and
amendment of EPCA occurred in 2000 (PL 106-469 section 604) and 2005 (PL
109-58 section 364), mandating inventory of Federal nonrenewable
resources, economic incentives for energy development, identification of
impediments to timely granting of leases and post-leasing development,
and increased development of renewable energy resources (e.g., wind
power). In addition, the 2005 Energy Policy Act section 368 mandated
designation of federal lands for energy transport corridors (DOE 2008,
http://www.oe.energy.gov/epa_sec368.htm, accessed October 14, 2008).

Legislation and energy demand is increasing the pressure to develop
conventional sources coincidental to sage-grouse habitats. Moderation of
the decline of conventional oil and gas in the future is expected to
include mining and processing of clean coal, biomass, unconventional oil
and gas, and renewable sources -- all of which are existing or
potentially available in current sage-grouse habitats (National
Petroleum Council 2007, page 6; BLM 2005a, p. 2-4; NREL 2004 in litt;
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 2008 in litt.).

Present and future exploration and development is highly likely to focus
in areas of highest potential return. Pursuant to the EPCA mandates the
Bureau of Land Management, as lead Federal agency for EPCA
implementation, released results in 2003 of the first of a 4-phase
survey intended to identify onshore oil and gas resources. Phases II and
III were published in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Phase III supersedes
the previous phases (DOI et al. 2008, p. 6). To date, the EPCA surveys
reported the location and relative abundance of oil and gas inventories
in 18 geological provinces. These inventories provide information to
guide future exploration and to be used as a planning tool for Federal
land managers that have areas of high oil and natural gas potential
under their jurisdiction.

Available EPCA inventories detail energy resources in 11 geological
basins in the greater sage-grouse range identified in the 2006
Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-11) (Figure 4).
Extensive oil and gas reserves are identified in the Williston Basin of
North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana; Montana Thrust Belt in Montana;
Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana; Wyoming Thrust Belt of
Wyoming, Utah and Idaho; Southwestern Wyoming Basin including portions
of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado; Uinta-Piceance Basin of Colorado and
Utah; Eastern Great Basin in Nevada, Utah and Southern Idaho; and
Paradox Basin in Utah (Figures 5 and 6). Although all these basins have
some component of sage habitats, Wyoming Basins of southern Montana,
Wyoming, northwest Colorado and northeast Utah are high in sage-brush
dominated landscapes (Knick et al. 2003, p. 613). These areas comprise
Management Zones I and II as described in Stiver et al. 2006 (p. 1-11).

[Figure 4]{.underline}: EPCA III Energy Basins within the Conservation
Assessment Boundary (greater sage-grouse range plus a buffer, as defined
by Connelly et al., 2004).

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="4.134027777777778in"}

Oil and gas development has occurred in the past, with historic well
locations concentrated in Management Zones I, II, III, and VII of
eastern Montana, Wyoming, western Colorado and eastern Utah (IHS
Incorporated 2006). Currently, greater sage-grouse are most affected by
a concentration of development for energy resources in three geological
basins -- Powder River, Southwest Wyoming, and the Uinta-Piceance. The
Powder River Basin is home to an important regional population of the
larger Wyoming Basin population, which represents 25 percent of the
sage-grouse in the species range (Connelly et al. 2004, p. A4-37). The
Powder River Basin serves as a link to fringe populations in eastern
Wyoming and western South Dakota and between the Wyoming Basin and

central Montana. The Pinedale Anticline Project Area is in the
Southwestern Wyoming Basin. The subpopulation in southwest Wyoming and
northwest Colorado is a stronghold for sage-grouse with some of the
highest estimated densities of males per km^2^ anywhere in the remaining
range of the species (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-62, A5-23). The
Southwest Wyoming/Northwest Colorado subpopulation of the Piceance Basin
has historically supported over 800 leks (Connelly et al. 2004, p.
6-62).

[Figure 5]{.underline}: EPCA III Total Oil Density within the
Conservation Assessment Boundary **(**greater sage-grouse range plus a
buffer, as defined by Connelly et al., 2004).

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.627083333333333in"
height="3.967361111111111in"}

[Figure 6]{.underline}: EPCA III Total Gas Density within the
Conservation Assessment Boundary (greater sage-grouse range plus a
buffer, as defined by Connelly et al., 2004).

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.003472222222222in"
height="4.229861111111111in"}

Coal-bed natural gas extraction is the most recent development in the
Powder River Basin (Management Zone I). In 2002, the BLM proposed
development of 39,367 coal-bed methane wells and 3,200 conventional oil
or gas wells in addition to an existing 12,024 coal-bed methane wells
drilled or permitted (BLM 2002, p. 2-3). Wells would be developed and in
place over a ten-year period. The BLM estimated 202,808 surface acres
(820 km^2^) of disturbance from all activities such as well pads,
pipelines, roads, compressor stations and water handling facilities over
a 32,400-km^2^ (8 million ac) area (BLM 2002, p. 2). Roads and water
handling facilities were expected to be long-term disturbances
encompassing approximately 383 km^2^ (95,140 ac) (p. 3). By the end of
2007, approximately 35,000 producing wells were in place on federal,
state, and private holdings covering 24,000 km^2^ (5,9000,000 ac)
(Naugle 2008, in review, p. 30). The Powder River Basin is also the
largest actively-producing coal basin in the U.S. ((MOGC 2008,
http://www.montanacoalcouncil.com/facts_figures.html, accessed October
19, 2008).

The BLM published the Record of Decision (ROD) in 2000 for Pinedale
Anticline Project Area in southwest Wyoming (Management Zone II) (BLM
2000). The project description included up to 900 drill pads, including
dry holes, over a 10 to 15-year development period (BLM 2008, p. 4-4).
By the end of 2005, approximately 457 wells on 322 well pads were under
production (p. 6). In 2008, the BLM amended the project to accommodate
an accelerated rate of development exceeding that in the 2002 project
description (BLM 2008, p. 4). Approximately 250 new well pads are
proposed in addition to pipelines and other facilities (p. 36). Total
initial direct disturbance acres for the entire Pinedale project are
approximately 10,400 ha (25,800 ac) with over 7,200 ha (18,000 ac) in
sagebrush land cover type (p. 4-52).

The Jonah Gas Project is also underway in the Pinedale Anticline area of
the Southwest Wyoming Basin. In 2006, the BLM issued a ROD and EIS to
extend the existing project to an additional 3,100 wells and up to 6,556
ha (16,200 ac) of new surface disturbance (BLM 2006, p. 2-4). In
addition, at least 64 well pads would be situated per 259 km^2^ (640
ac), and up to 761 km (473 mi) of pipeline and roads, 56 ha (140 ac) of
additional disturbance for ancillary facilities (p. 2-5) would occur. We
did not calculate the area disturbed by oil and gas development in the
Jonah Gas Project as of 2008.

The Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Gas Field Projects as analyzed by the
BLM EIS's are not the only oil and gas development occurring in Wyoming.
According to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission completed wells in
Wyoming counties with sage habitats increased from a total of 37,144 in
2005 to 42,510 in 2007. An additional 6,209 applications for permit to
drill (APD) were approved from January through September 2008 in these
counties (WOGC 2008,
[http://wogcc.state.wy.us](http://wogcc.state.wy.us/), accessed
September 29, 2008).

In 2006, there were approximately 129,000 actively producing oil and gas
wells (IHS Incorporated 2006) within the sage-grouse range area
identified in the Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 1-16; Stiver et al.
2006, p. 1-9) (Figure 7). Development activity has been focused, as
stated above, in northeast Wyoming, southwest Wyoming, northwest
Colorado, and northeast Utah.

[Figure 7]{.underline}: Oil and Gas Well Sites within the Sage-grouse
Conservation Assessment Boundary. (Greater sage-grouse range plus a
buffer, as defined by Connelly et al., 2004).

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="4.060416666666667in"}

Figure 7 is based on the IHS 2006 dataset that is the most recent
comprehensive information on well siting available to us. The number of
oil and gas wells since 2006 is provided for perspective on the
increasing fossil fuel extraction demands in the greater sage-grouse
range. However, the 2007 to 2008 well information may be based on
administrative boundaries and not necessarily reflect a precise
relationship with sage-grouse habitat. We note where newer well data is
specific to known sage-grouse habitats.

Since our last review of the species status in 2005, oil and gas wells
increased in the Uinta-Piceance Basin in occupied sage-grouse habitats
of northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah by 325 and 870 wells,
respectively (FWS 2008a in litt.). There is an estimated 9,200 units
operating in counties of northwest Colorado, an increase of over 2,000
producing wells since 2005 (COGCC 2008,
[http://cogcc.state.co](http://cogcc.state.co/), accessed September 30,
2008). Permits for drilling in Montana totaled 1,474 in sage-grouse
habitat since 2005 (FWS 2008 in litt.). Seventy-three of the Montana
wells were subsequently cancelled or abandoned, while over 1,400 are
actively producing (MBOG 2008, <http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/onlinedata.asp>,
accessed September 30, 2008).

Prior to 2005, few studies were available specifically reporting on the
effects of oil and gas development on sage-grouse. While each of the
available studies reported sage-grouse population declines, specific
causes for the negative impacts were not determined. Studies conducted
in Alberta, Canada; Powder River Basin Wyoming; and Jackson County,
Colorado reported direct habitat losses, higher human activity and
effects of powerlines associated with energy development. Lek
abandonment and decreased lek attendance were noted in all three
locations. In Canada, the development of well pads and associated roads
in the 1980's resulted in the abandonment of three lek complexes, and a
fourth complex was reduced to a single lek. The abandoned lek complexes
were within 200 m (220 yd) of development features. Two leks abandoned
after direct disturbance remained inactive for at least 10 years (Braun
et al. 2002, p. 5). Subsequent to development of the Manyberries Oil
Field in Alberta, male sage-grouse counts fell to the lowest known
level.

The development of oil reserves in Jackson County, Colorado was
concurrent with decline of sage-grouse numbers in the oil field area
(Braun 1998, pp. 5-6). Sage-grouse have persisted in at least one
long-term development area despite declining numbers, possibly due to
lek locations out of the line-of-sight of an active well or powerline
(Braun et al. 2002, p. 7).

Fewer males attended leks within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of a well compared to
undisturbed leks in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Recruitment of
males on the affected leks was lower than undisturbed leks where
recruitment actually increased (Braun et al 2002, p. 10; BLM 2003, p.
4-267). Lek recruitment was lower within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of powerlines,
possibly due to raptor predation. Grouse numbers were lower on leks
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of compressor stations (Braun et al. 2002, p.11).

Based on nest initiation and habitat fidelity results, Lyon and Anderson
(2003, p. 5) concluded that impacts occur greater than 0.4 km (0.25 mi)
from well pads. Hens that have successfully nested will return to the
same area to nest every year. If these habitats are affected by oil and
gas development, there is strong potential that previously successful
hens will return but not initiate nests (Lyon 2000, p. 109).

Our understanding of the effects of energy development on sage-grouse
has increased since 2005. Six scientific studies are available that
report specifically on the impacts of oil and gas development to
sage-grouse in geographic areas experiencing high levels of development.
Three investigations are published in peer-reviewed journals (Doherty et
al. 2008, Walker et al. 2007, Aldridge and Boyce 2007), one is a U.S.
Geological Survey report (Holloran et al. 2007), and two are
graduate-level academic works (Kaiser 2006, Holloran 2005). All reported
negative impacts of oil and gas development to sage-grouse. Additional
non-published reports are available as well (Clark et al. 2008, Taylor
et al. 2007).

Walker et al. (2007) analyzed trends in male attendance at leks in
coal-bed natural gas fields in the Powder River Basin in northeast
Wyoming and southeast Montana. Male lek attendance inside gas fields
declined by 82 percent over a 4-year period while males at leks outside
development declined slightly then rebounded over the same period. A
higher proportion of leks disappeared in gas fields, and disappearance
averaged 4.1 ± 0.9 years from the start of development. Lek persistence
was strongly influenced by the proportion of sagebrush within 6.4 km (4
mi) of the lek. After controlling for habitat, development negatively
affects lek attendance when disturbance occurs within 0.8 km (0.5 mi)
and 3.2 km (2 mi) of the lek. The BLM standard leasing stipulations to
minimize impacts to sage-grouse include no surface disturbance
requirements within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) and timing restrictions for
drilling operations. The authors state that the current lease
stipulations are inadequate to ensure lek persistence and breeding
populations over a larger area.

In the Manyberries Oil Field in southern Alberta, the investigators'
objective was to identify nesting and brood-rearing habitat necessary
for persistence on a landscape scale. Female sage-grouse selected sites
for nesting and brooding in areas with moderate sagebrush cover in a
patchy configuration and strongly selected against sites associated with
anthropogenic edge habitat (Aldridge and Boyce 2007). Poor nest success
and chick survival are attributed to a lack of suitable nesting and
brooding habitat as a consequence of cumulative human development.
Succulent forbs around individual oil wells attracted broods that might
otherwise avoid risky environments associated with human activity. These
areas acted as sink habitat in a landscape limited in supporting
capacity.

Doherty et al. (2008) investigated female sage-grouse use of wintering
habitat in the Powder River Basin of northeast Wyoming and southeast
Montana. Percent sagebrush was highly predictive of female use.
Sage-grouse were more likely to occupy sagebrush habitat lacking wells
within a 4-km^2^ (988 ac) area compared to areas with 12.3 wells per 4
km^2^ (1 well/80 ac), the maximum well density permitted on federal
lands.

Holloran (2005) assessed the responses of breeding populations to energy
development, habitat selection, survival or lek tenacity of males, and
selection of nesting and early brooding habitats by females in the
Pinedale Anticline Project Area and Jonah II Gas Field in southwest
Wyoming. The investigation showed male lek attendance decreased with
distance to the nearest rig, producing well, or main haul road. Declines
were most severe within 5 km (3 mi) of an active drilling rig and 3 km
(1.9 mi) of a producing gas well or main haul road. Leks downwind of a
drilling rig showed the highest rate of decline, and the author
suggested that drilling noise was a contributing factor. The rate of
decline of male lek attendance was greatest where leks were centrally
located in the development field. Male attendance decreased over 23
percent where well density was 5 or more within 3 km (1.9 mi) (1
well/283 ha or 1 well/700 ac). Leks that became inactive during the
study did so within 3-4 years of development. Adult females showed nest
site fidelity in consecutive years regardless of the level of
development, but yearling females showed avoidance by nesting farther
from disturbance than would be expected based on available habitat. The
relationship between nest success and development was inconclusive. The
author concluded that decreased survival and avoidance of energy
development contributed to lek extirpation.

Kaiser's (2006) investigation in the Pinedale Anticline area of
southwest Wyoming indicated that development causes decreasing male
attendance at leks, and the decrease in attendance is exacerbated
relative to distance. Lek loss was more likely near the center of
development and based on lower recruitment of males and displacement of
yearling males to areas less impacted. Similar displacement of yearling
females was inconclusive based on small sample size.

Holloran et al (2007) assessed the affect of gas development on yearling
sage-grouse in the Pinedale Anticline area of southwest Wyoming. Reduced
demographic metrics and avoidance of infrastructure contributed to
population decline within natural gas fields. Both male and female
yearlings avoided the infrastructure of natural gas fields when
establishing breeding territories or selecting nest location. Yearlings
had lower annual survival rates. Developments affect loss of leks and a
functional loss of nesting habitat within 930 m (\~0.6 mi) of
infrastructure.

Additional unpublished investigations and reports recount the
interaction of sage-grouse in proximity to oil and gas developments.
Naugle et al. (2006) characterized winter habitat selection in the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana as part of a larger study of
sage-grouse and coal-bed natural gas (CBNG) recovery -- see Doherty et
al. 2008.

In Wyoming, Clark et al. (2008) examined the association between lek
occupancy and energy development, habitat quality, and density of
adjacent leks at five spatial scales. The potential for lek abandonment
increased in proximity to energy development (within 3.2 km or 2 mi)
with the magnitude varying by site and year (p. 14, 16). Colonization of
unoccupied leks was positively associated with lek density within 0.4 km
(0.25 mi) (p. 16). The authors suggested that retaining suitable
sagebrush habitat surrounding lek complexes be a conservation priority
(p. 23). They further concluded that a rangewide conservation management
strategy may not be appropriate at smaller scales. Local sage-grouse
habitat and population conditions should be considered when developing
constraints on human activity relative to energy development (p. 25-26).

Taylor et al. (2007) reviewed lek data relative to well density in six
oil and gas development areas in Wyoming. Unfortunately, limitations
associated with study design and sample selection preclude us from using
their results in our analyses.

Using 2006 well-site locations, we estimated that sagebrush habitats
cover over 292,000 km^2^ (72 million ac), including approximately
162,000 km^2^ (40 million ac) of known sage-grouse breeding habitat, in
Management Zones I and II of Montana, Wyoming, northwest Colorado, and
northeast Utah. Breeding habitat is defined as a 6.4-km (4-mi) radius
around known lek points and includes the range of the average distances
between nests and nearest lek (Autenrieth 1981, p. 18; Wakkinen et al.
1992, p. 2). Within these 162,000 km^2^, approximately 16,000 km^2^ (4
million ac) are within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of a producing well, drilling
operation or site with an approved APD (FWS in litt 2008b), the distance
buffer intended by stipulation and management guidelines to minimize
impacts to sage-grouse. Conservatively, the impacts to breeding
populations extend beyond the current 0.4-km buffer distance up to 3.2
km (2 mi) based on current research (Walker et al. 2007, p. 2651).
Depending on local habitat conditions, configuration and density of
wells, sage-grouse could be impacted by existing oil and gas development
on closer to 48,000 km^2^ (16 million acres) or 22 percent of the
sagebrush habitat (FWS in litt. 2008b). This calculation does not take
in to account the added effects of loss of habitat or habitat
effectiveness resulting from other anthropogenic factors occurring in
concert with energy development such as tillage, urban expansion, or
predation.

The development of oil and gas resources requires surveys for
economically recoverable reserves, construction of well pads and access
roads, subsequent drilling and extraction, and transport of oil and gas,
typically through pipelines. Ancillary facilities can include compressor
stations, pumping stations, electrical generators and powerlines
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39; BLM 2007b, page 2-110). Surveys for
recoverable resources occur primarily through seismic activities, using
vibroesis buggies (thumpers) or shothole explosives. Well pads vary in
size from 0.10 ha (0.25 ac) for coalbed natural gas wells in areas of
level topography to greater than 7 ha (17.3 ac) for deep gas wells and
multiwell pads (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39; BLM 2007b, page 2-123).
Pads for compressor stations require 5 to 7 ha (12.4 to 17.3 ac)
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39). Well densities and spacing are
typically designed to maximize recovery of the resource and are
administered by State oil and gas agencies and the BLM (Connelly et al.
2004 p. 7-39, 7-40). Based on a review of project EIS's, Connelly et al.
(2004, p. 7-41) concluded that the economic life of a coalbed methane
well averages 12 to 18 years and 20 to 100 years for deep oil and gas
wells.

Energy development impacts sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats through
direct habitat loss from well pad, access construction, seismic surveys,
roads, powerlines and pipeline corridors; indirectly from noise, gaseous
emissions, changes in water availability and quality, and human
presence; the interaction and intensity of effects could cumulatively or
individually lead to fragmentation (Suter 1978, pp. 6-13; Aldridge 1998
p. 12; Braun 1998, pp. 6-10; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 31; Knick et
al. 2003, p. 612, p. 619; Lyon and Anderson 2003, pp. 489-490; Connelly
et al. 2004, pp. 7-40, 7-41; Holloran 2005, pp. 56-57; Holloran 2007,
pp. 18-19; Walker et al. 2007, pp. 2652-2653; Aldridge and Boyce 2007,
pp. 521-522; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 193; Zou et al. 2006, pp.
1039-1040).

Air quality could be affected where combustion engine emissions,
fugitive dust from road use and wind erosion, natural gas-flaring,
fugitive emissions from production site equipment, and other activities
(BLM 2008, p. 4-74) occur in sage-grouse habitats. Presumably, as with
surface mining, these emissions are quickly dispersed in the windy, open
conditions of sagebrush habitats (Moore and Mills 1977, p. 109),
minimizing the potential effects on sage-grouse. However, high density
development could produce airborne pollutants that reach or exceed
quality standards in localized areas for short periods of time (BLM
2008, p. 4-82 to 4-88). Walker (in litt. 2008) characterized emissions
from well flaring in the Pinedale Anticline area of Sublette County,
Wyoming. The investigator suggested a comprehensive study be conducted
by regulatory agencies of the potential health effects of alkali
elements in combusted well-plume material. No information is available
regarding the effects to sage-grouse of gaseous emissions produced by
oil and gas development.

Direct habitat loss from the human footprint has contributed to
decreased population numbers and distribution of the greater sage-grouse
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-40). The footprint of energy development
contributes to direct habitat loss from construction of well pads,
roads, pipelines, powerlines, and potentially through the crushing of
vegetation during seismic surveys. The amount of direct habitat loss
within an area will ultimately be determined by well densities and the
associated loss from ancillary facilities. For example, over 54,000
wells have been authorized for coal-bed methane development on public
land or mineral estate in a 24,000 km^2^ (5,930,000 ac) area in the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana (BLM 2002, p. 2). Since 2001,
typically wells have been spaced at 32 ha (80 ac) intervals or 8 wells
per section. The combined footprint of infrastructure is relatively
small at 6-8 ha (15-20 ac) per 2.5 km^2^ (section) (Braun et al. 2002,
p. 9). Approximately 35,000 wells were completed by the end of 2007
corresponding to a direct habitat loss of an estimated 354 km^2^ (87,500
ac) (Naugle 2008, p. 30, in review; FWS 2005, p. 83). An additional 333
km^2^ (82,400 ac) will be directly affected by well installation by 2011
(BLM 2003, p. 2-73).

In 2004, Connelly et al. estimated that habitat loss from all existing
natural gas pipelines in the conservation assessment area was a minimum
of 4,740 km^2^ (1,852 mi^2^, 1.17 million ac, 474,000 ha; less than 1
percent of their assessment area). Currently, no figures are available
to update the 2004 estimate. The current habitat loss from pipeline
right-of-ways is therefore surmised to be proportional to the increase
in completed wells since 2005. Short-term disturbances such as pipeline
construction are often concurrent with project development, but habitats
would not be restored to pre-disturbance conditions for an extended
period (BLM 2003, p. 4-158).

Negative effects of direct habitat disturbance can be offset by
successful reclamation. Reclamation of areas disturbed by oil and gas
development can be concurrent with field development or conducted after
the shut-in or abandonment of the well or field. Sage-grouse may
repopulate the area as disturbed areas are reclaimed. However, there is
no evidence that populations will attain their previous size, and
reestablishment may take 20 to 30 years (Braun 1998, p. 144). For most
developments, return to pre-disturbance population levels is not
expected due to a net loss and fragmentation of habitat (Braun et al.
2002, p. 150). After 20 years, sage-grouse have not recovered to
pre-development numbers in Alberta, even though well pads in these areas
have been reclaimed (Braun et al. 2002, pp. 4-5). In some reclaimed
areas, sage-grouse have not returned (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 31).

Habitat fragmentation, resulting from oil and gas development
infrastructure including access roads, may have effects on sage-grouse
greater than the associated direct habitat losses. The Powder River
Basin infrastructure footprint is relatively small (typically 6-8 ha/2.6
km^2^ (15-20 ac/section). Considering the mostly contiguous nature of
the project area, the density of facilities could affect sage-grouse
habitats over the entire project area up to 24,000 km^2^ (5,930,000 ac).

Roads associated with oil and gas development were suggested to be the
primary impact to greater sage-grouse due to their persistence and
continued use even after drilling and production ceased (Lyon and
Anderson 2003, p. 489). Declines in male lek attendance were reported
within 3 km (1.9 mi) of a well or haul road with a traffic volume
exceeding 1 vehicle per day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). Sage-grouse may also
be at increased risk for collision with vehicles simply due to the
increased traffic associated with oil and gas activities (BLM 2003, p.
4-222; Aldridge 1998, p. 14).

Noise can drive away wildlife, cause physiological stress and interfere
with auditory cues and intraspecific communication. Aldridge and Brigham
(2003, p.32) reported that, in the absence of stipulations to minimize
the effects, mechanical activities at well sites may disrupt sage-grouse
breeding and nesting activities. Hens bred on leks within 3 km (1.9
miles) of oil and gas development in the upper Green River Basin of
Wyoming selected nest sites with higher total shrub canopy cover and
average live sagebrush height than hens nesting away from disturbance
(Lyon 2000, p. 109). The author hypothesized that exposure to road noise
associated with oil and gas drilling may have been one cause for the
difference in habitat selection. However, noise could not be separated
from the potential effects of increased predation resulting from the
presence of a new road. In the Pinedale Anticline area of southwest
Wyoming, lek attendance declined most noticeably downwind from a
drilling rig indicating that noise likely affected male presence
(Holloran 2005, p. 49).

Above-ground noise is typically not regulated to mitigate effects to
sage-grouse or other wildlife (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-40). Ground
shock from seismic activities may affect sage-grouse if it occurs during
the lekking or nesting seasons (Moore and Mills 1977, p. 137). We are
unaware of any research on the impact of ground shock to sage-grouse.

Water quality and quantity may be affected in oil and gas development
areas. The impacts are similar relative to the contamination of water
supplies by toxic elements and pathogens with the addition of potential
oil contamination in settling or condensate ponds. In many large field
developments, the contamination threat is minimized by storing water
produced by the gas dehydration process in tanks. Water may also be
depleted from natural sources for drilling or dust suppression purposes.
Concentrating wildlife and domestic livestock may increase habitat
degradation at remaining water sources. Negative effects of changes in
water quality, availability and distribution are a reduction in habitat
quality (e.g., trampling of vegetation, changes in water filtration
rates), habitat degradation (e.g., poor vegetation growth), which could
result in brood habitat loss. However, we have no data to suggest this,
by itself, is a limiting factor to sage-grouse.

Water produced by coal-bed methane drilling may benefit sage-grouse
through expansion of existing riparian areas and creation of new areas
(BLM 2003, p. 4-223). These habitats could provide additional brood
rearing and summering habitats for sage-grouse. However, the increased
surface-water on the landscape may negatively impact sage-grouse
populations by providing an environment for disease vectors. Based on
the 2003 discovery of West Nile virus in the Powder River Basin, and the
resulting mortalities of sage-grouse (Naugle et al. 2004, page 705),
there is concern that produced water could be a negative impact if it
creates suitable breeding reservoirs for the mosquito vector of this
disease (see also discussion on Natural Enemies below). Produced water
could also result in direct habitat loss through prolonged flooding of
sagebrush areas, or if the discharged water is of poor quality because
of high salt or other mineral content, either of which could result in
the loss of sagebrush and/or grasses and forbs necessary for foraging
broods (BLM 2003, p. 4-223).

Increased human presence resulting from oil and gas development can also
impact sage-grouse either through avoidance of suitable habitat,
disruption of breeding activities, or increased hunting and poaching
pressure (Aldridge and Boyce, 2007 p. 518); Aldridge and Brigham 2003,
pp. 30-31; Braun et al. 2002, pp. 4-5; BLM 2003a; Doherty et al. 2008,
p. 194). Sage-grouse may also be at increased risk for collision with
vehicles simply due to the increased traffic associated with oil and gas
activities (BLM 2003, p. 4-216).

#### Nonrenewable Energy Development (Mining): Mining began in the range of the sage-grouse before 1900 (U.S. Census 1913, p. 187, State of Wyoming in litt 1898) and continues today. Currently, surface and subsurface mining activities for numerous resources are conducted in all the 11 states across the sage-grouse range. We do not have comprehensive information on the number or surface extent of mines across the range, but we do know that the development of mineral resources is occurring on a large-scale and important to the economies of a few of the states. For example: Nevada (Management Zones III, IV, and V) ranked second in the U.S. in terms of value of overall nonfuel mineral production in 2006 *(U.S. Geological Survey, p.10);* Wyoming (Management Zone I and II) is the largest coal producer in the U.S., and the top ten producing mines in the country are located in Wyoming's Powder River Basin (Management Zone I) (Wyoming Mining Association 2008, p. 2).

Since 2005, we have received information that Idaho's Smoky Canyon
Phosphate Mine (Management Zone IV) expanded to disturb 12 ha (30 ac) of
sage-grouse habitat. A preliminary estimate of 1,095 ha (2,707 ac) of
sage-grouse habitat will be directly impacted by mining activities,
currently in the planning phase, in Montana, (Management Zone I), Idaho
(Management Zone IV), Nevada (Management Zone IV), Utah (Management Zone
III) and Oregon (Management Zone V) (FWS in litt. 2008a).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888200 .anchor}*Nonrenewable Energy Development
(Coal Mining)*: Between 2006 and 2007, surface coal production decreased
9 percent in Colorado while increasing by 1.6 to 4.4 percent in Wyoming
(Management Zone I) and Montana (Management Zone I), respectively (EIA,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.pdf, accessed October
19, 2008). The number of Wyoming coal mines increased from 19 in 2005 to
23 in 2008 (Wyoming Mining Association 2005, p 5; Figure 8 from the
Wyoming Mining Association,
http://www.wma-minelife.com/coal/coalfrm/coalfrm1.htm, accessed October
19, 2008). Most, if not all, of Wyoming's 23 coal mines are in sagebrush
and in the sage-grouse distribution area. Sixteen of these mines are
located in the Powder River Basin of Management Zone I where oil and gas
development is extensive and described previously in this document.

Coal mining in Montana is also focused in the Powder River Basin just
north of the Wyoming border. In Wyoming and Montana, an estimated 55,800
ha (138,000 ac) have been disturbed by coal mines and associated
facilities; disturbance increased approximately 17,000 ha (42,000 ac)
between 2005 and 2007 (FWS 2005, p. 75; FWS in litt. 2008a; Wyoming
Mining Association 2008, p. 7). Wyoming estimates that 27,500 ha (68,000
ac) of mine-disturbed land has been reclaimed (Wyoming Mining
Association 2008, p. 7), but we have no knowledge of the effectiveness
of these reclamations in providing functional sage-grouse habitat.

> [Figure 8]{.underline}: Wyoming Coal Mines, 2008

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.250694444444444in"
height="4.029166666666667in"}

Surface and subsurface mining for mineral resources (coal, uranium,
copper, aggregate and others) results in direct loss of habitat if
occurring in sagebrush habitats. The direct impact from surface mining
is usually greater than subsurface activity. Habitat loss from both
types of mining can be exacerbated by the storage of overburden in
otherwise undisturbed habitat. If the construction of mining
infrastructure is necessary, additional direct loss of habitat could
result from structures, staging areas, roads, railroad track and
powerlines. Sage-grouse and nests could be directly affected by
trampling or vehicle collision.

Sage-grouse could be impacted indirectly from an increase in human
presence, land use practices, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air
quality, degradation of water quality and quantity, and changes in
vegetation and topography (Moore and Mills 1977, total; Brown and
Clayton 2004, p. 2).

An increase in human presence increases collision risk with vehicles and
potentially exposes sage-grouse and other wildlife to pathogens
introduced from septic systems and waste disposal (Moore and Mills 1977,
pp.114-116, 135). Water contamination could also occur from leaching of
waste rock and overburden and nutrients from blasting chemicals and
fertilizer (Moore and Mills 1977, p. 115, 133). Altering of water
regimes could lead to decreased surface water and eventual habitat
degradation from wildlife or livestock concentrating at remaining
sources. Sage-grouse do not require free water (Schroeder et al. 1999,
p. 6), therefore local water quality deterioration or dewatering is not
expected to have population-level impacts. Degradation of riparian areas
could result in a loss of brood habitat.

Mining and associated activities creates an opportunity for invasion of
exotic and noxious weed species that alter suitability for sage-grouse
(Moore and Mills 1977, pp. 125, 129). Reclamation is required by state
and federal law, but laws generally allow for a change in post-mining
land use. Restoration of sagebrush could take 20 to 30 years before
suitability for grouse is achieved (Braun 1998, p. 6).

Heavy equipment operations and use of unpaved roads produces fugitive
dust that can interfere with plant photosynthesis and insect
populations. Most large surface mines are required to control fugitive
dust. Gaseous emissions generated from heavy equipment operation are
quickly dispersed in open, windy areas typical of sagebrush (Moore and
Mills 1977, p.109).

Blasting, to remove overburden or the target mineral, produces noise and
ground shock. The full affect of ground shock on wildlife is unknown.
Repeated use of explosives during lekking activity could potentially
result in lek or nest abandonment (Moore and Mills 1977, p. 137). Noise
from mining activity could mask vocalizations resulting in reduced
female attendance and yearling recruitment as seen in sharp-tailed
grouse (*Pedioecetes phasianellus*) (Amstrup and Phillips 1977, pp. 23,
25-27). In this study, the authors found that the mining noise in the
study area was continuous across days and seasons and did not dissipate
as it traveled across the landscape. The mechanism of how noise affects
sage-grouse is not known but it is known that sage-grouse depend on
acoustical signals to attract females to leks (Gibson and Bradbury 1985,
pp. 81-82; Gratson 1993, pp. 693-694).

A few studies specifically examine the effects of coal mining on greater
sage-grouse. No new studies have been published since the 2005 finding.
The results of previous investigations are summarized here.

In a study in North Park, Colorado, overall sage-grouse population
numbers were not reduced, but there was a reduction in the number of
males attending leks within 2 km (0.8 mi) of three coal mines, and
existing leks failed to recruit yearling males (Braun 1986, pp. 229-230;
Remington and Braun 1991, pp. 131-132). New leks formed farther from
mining disturbance (Remington and Braun 1991, p. 131). Additionally,
some leks that were abandoned adjacent to mine areas were reestablished
when mining activities ceased, suggesting disturbance rather than
habitat loss was the limiting factor (p.132). There was no decline in
hen survival in a population of sage-grouse near large surface coal
mines in northeast Wyoming, and nest success appeared not to be affected
by adjacent mining activity (Brown and Clayton 2004, p. 1). The authors
concluded however that continued mining would result in fragmentation
and eventually impact sage-grouse persistence if adequate reclamation
was not employed (p.16).

Surface coal mining and associated activities have negative short-term
impacts on sage-grouse numbers and habitats near mines (Braun 1998, p.
5). Sage-grouse will reestablish on mined areas once mining has ceased,
but there is no evidence that population levels will reach their
previous size. Population reestablishment could take 20 to 30 years
(Braun 1998, p. 6). Local sage-grouse populations could decline if
several leks are affected by coal mining, but the loss of one or two
leks in a regional area was likely not limiting to local populations in
the Caballo Rojo Mine in northeastern Wyoming based on the presence of
viable habitat elsewhere in the region (Hayden-Wing Associates 1983, p.
81).

The investigations specific to the effects of mining on sage-grouse
reveal that mining directly removes habitat, indirectly interferes with
auditory clues important to mate selection, and affects a decrease of
males and inhibits yearling recruitment at leks in proximity to mining
activity. Sage-grouse habitat reestablishment could take 20 to 30 years,
and recovery of population numbers in an area post-disturbance is
uncertain. Similar avoidance of disturbance has been noted in recent
investigations of oil and gas development in Wyoming and discussed in
detail in the Nonrenewable Energy section above. The studies recounted
here were conducted on a local scale that provides limited insight into
impacts at larger landscape perspective. In Wyoming specifically, the
cumulative impacts of surface coal mine disturbance, concurrent
increases in oil and gas development, increased development of renewable
energy resources (discussed in the following section), and transmission
infrastructure development could have significant impacts on sage-grouse
in the Powder River Basin. The Powder River Basin is home to an
important regional population of the larger Wyoming Basin populations
covering most of Wyoming, northwest Colorado and northeast Utah
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-62, 6-63). []{#__RefHeading___Toc212888201
.anchor}

*Renewable Energy Development:* The demand for and development of
renewable energy resources is increasing. Renewable energy production
increased from 6,444 trillion Btu in 2005 to 6,922 trillion Btu in 2006.
Production was down slightly in 2007, but is again on the upswing.
Year-end energy production by renewables is expected to reach 7,452
trillion Btu based on the first six months of 2008 (EIA in litt. 2008).
Wind, geothermal, solar and biomass are renewable energy sources
developable in sage-grouse habitats. Hydropower generation occurs in the
sage-grouse range in parts of Washington State. Conventional hydropower
electrical generation has actually decreased over the past 5 years (EIA
in litt. 2008). Two new developments in Washington are forecast, but do
not have implementation dates (FWS in litt. 2008d).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888202 .anchor}*Renewable Energy Development
(Wind Energy)*: Areas of commercially viable wind generation have been
identified by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL in litt.
2008) and BLM (2005, p. 2.4) in all 11 states in the range (Figure 9).

[Figure 9]{.underline}: Wind Potential within the Sage-grouse
Conservation Assessment Boundary (reater sage-grouse range plus a
buffer, as defined by Connelly et al., 2004).

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="4.507638888888889in"}

In Management Zones III through VII, including the States of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, approximately 1 to 14 percent
of sagebrush habitats have commercially developable wind energy
potential (Table 6). Wind harvesting potentials are more concentrated
and geographically extensive in sage-grouse Management Zones I and II
that include parts of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota;
areas of highest commercial potential include 59 percent of the
available sagebrush habitats in these four states (Table 6).

> Table 6: Area of sagebrush habitat with wind energy development
> potential by greater sage-grouse Management Zone.

  ----------------------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------
                                                              

  **Sage-grouse           **Total Sagebrush  **Area of        
  Management Zone**       Area**             Sagebrush with   
                                             developable wind 
                                             potential**      

                          (acres)            (acres)          ( percent)

  **I**                   44,771,528         34,034,787       76.02

  **II**                  27,452,132         11,573,453       42.16

  **III**                 23,178,092         748,172          3.23

  **IV**                  35,382,977         3,200,902        9.05

  **V**                   16,531,681         1,367,418        8.27

  **VI**                  4,554,305          657,442          14.44

  **VII**                 4,475,260          49,162           1.10

  **Totals**              **156,345,974**    **51,631,336**   **33.02**
  ----------------------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------

Commercial viability is based on wind intensity and consistency,
available market and access to transmission facilities. Consequently,
current development is focused in areas with existing distribution
infrastructure associated with urban development, preexisting
conventional energy resource development (e.g. coal and natural gas) and
power generation. Based on news reports, industry publications and
government projections, wind power development is expected to continue
at a fast rate (wind-watch.org, accessed October 6, 2008;
SustainableBusiness.com, accessed October 6, 2008; dsireusa.org,
accessed October 6, 2008; EIA 2008, p. 24; DOE in litt. 2007).
Additional growth is expected, spurred by statutory mandates or
financial incentives to use renewable energy sources in all 11 states
(AFWA and FWS 2007, pp. 7, 8, 14, 28, 30, 36, 39, 43, 46, 49, 52;
Oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/RPS_home.shtml, accessed October 18, 2008).

Since the beginning of 2005, electricity production from all wind
generating facilities has increased 130 percent from approximately
14,000,000 to over 32,000,000 thousand Kilowatthours (EIA in litt.
2008). Wind generating facilities have increased in size and number
outpacing development of other renewable sources in the sage-grouse
range. Over 20,000 wind turbines and an additional 130,000 acres with an
unknown number of turbines are developed or under development in the 11
states comprising the extant range of the sage-grouse (Table 7). This is
an increase of over 5,300 turbine units since the end of 2004. Not all
of the wind power development is in sagebrush habitats however. Units in
sagebrush habitats have increased from approximately 275 in 2005 to
2,700 in 2008. Conservative estimates of exiting production or farms in
development in sagebrush habitats include 1,509 turbine units in Wyoming
(Management Zone I and II), 103 in Montana (Management Zone I), 430 in
Idaho (Management Zone IV), 202 in Oregon (Management Zone IV and V),
721 in Washington (Management Zone VI), and an unknown number of
turbines on approximately 40,000 acres in Nevada (Management Zones III,
IV and V) (FWS in litt. 2008a; awea.com, accessed September 3, 2008;
wind-watch.org, accessed September 6, 2008).

Table 7: Wind energy development in the greater sage-grouse range from
2004 to 2008.

+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| *        | **         | **20 |        | **2   |         | **2005   |
| *State** | Management | 04** |        | 008** |         | to       |
|          | Zone**     |      |        |       |         | 2008**   |
|          |            | *    |        | **Tu  |         |          |
|          |            | *Tur |        | rbine |         | **New    |
|          |            | bine |        | Units |         | units or |
|          |            | Uni  |        | or    |         | acres in |
|          |            | ts** |        | ac    |         | sag      |
|          |            |      |        | res** |         | ebrush** |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
|          |            | t    | in     | total | in      |          |
|          |            | otal | sag    |       | sa      |          |
|          |            |      | ebrush |       | gebrush |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **North  | 1          | 44   | 0      | 298   | 0       | 0        |
| Dakota** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **South  | 1          | 34   | 0      | 164   | 0       | 0        |
| Dakota** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **M      | 1          | 1    | 0      | 132   | 103     | 103      |
| ontana** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **W      | 1 and 2    | 273  | 273    | 1,552 | 1,509   | 1,236    |
| yoming** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **Utah** | 2, 3, 4    | 1    | 0      | 11    | unknown | unknown  |
|          | and 7      |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| *        | 4          | 2    | 2      | 528   | 432     | 430      |
| *Idaho** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **       | 3, 4 and 5 | 0    | 0      | 12    | 39,680  | 39,680   |
| Nevada** |            |      |        | 8,970 | ac      | ac       |
|          |            |      |        | ac    | es      | e        |
|          |            |      |        |       | timated | stimated |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **Cali   | 3 and 5    | 13   | 0      | 1     | 0       | 0        |
| fornia** |            | ,590 |        | 3,917 |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **       | 4 and 5    | 320  | 0      | 1,136 | 202     | 202      |
| Oregon** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **Wash   | 6          | 317  | 0      | 1,521 | 721     | 721      |
| ington** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+
| **Co     | 2 and 7    | 190  | 0      | 822   | 0       | 0        |
| lorado** |            |      |        |       |         |          |
+----------+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+

An increase in wind energy development is most notable within the range
of the south-central Wyoming subpopulation in Management Zone II. This
sub-population has a loose association with adjacent populations where
there is accelerated oil, gas and coal development in the state -- the
Powder River Basin (Management Zone I) to the northeast and
Pinedale/Jonah Fields in the southwest Wyoming Basin (Connelly et al.
2004, p. 6-62). As stated previously, the Powder River Basin is home to
an important regional population of the larger Wyoming Basin population
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-62). The sub-population in southwest Wyoming
and northwest Colorado is a stronghold for sage-grouse with some of the
highest estimated densities of males per square kilometer anywhere in
the remaining range of the species (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-62,
A5-23). The south-central Wyoming wind potential corridor is not only a
geographical bridge between two important population areas but is home
to a high population of sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004, p. A5-22) and
core areas identified preliminarily as important breeding areas for
sage-grouse by the Wyoming State Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation
Team
(http://governor.wy.gov/press-releases/executive-order-on-sage-grouse-coordinates-agencies-to-protect-grouse-habitat-in-wyoming.html,
accessed October 19, 2008).

Renewable energy resources including wind power require many of the same
features for construction and operation as do non-renewable energy
resources. Therefore, we anticipate that potential impacts from direct
habitat losses, habitat fragmentation through roads and powerlines,
noise, and increased human presence (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-40,
7-41) will generally be the same as already discussed for nonrenewable
energy development.

Wind farm development begins with site monitoring and collection of
meteorological data to accurately characterize the wind regime. Turbines
are installed after the meteorological data indicate the appropriate
siting and spacing. Roads are necessary to access the turbine sites for
installation and maintenance. Each turbine unit has an estimated
footprint of 0.4 to 1.2 ha (1 to 3 ac) (BLM 2005a, pp. 3.1-3.4). One or
more substations may be constructed depending on the size of the park.
Substation footprints are 2 ha (5 acres) or less in size (BLM 2005a, p.
3.7). Unit dimensions may vary, but typical commercial-grade power
generation turbines have 100 m (328 ft) tower height, 100 m (328 ft)
rotor diameter, 150 m (492 ft) peak height, and 50 m (164 ft) blade tip
above the ground height (aweo.org, accessed October 6, 2008).

The average footprint of a turbine unit is relatively small from a
landscape perspective. Turbines require careful placement within a field
to avoid loss of output from interference with neighboring turbines.
This "wind park effect" is avoided by separating units by 3 to 5 rotor
diameters perpendicular to the wind and 5 to 10 rotor diameters parallel
to the wind (windpower.org, accessed October 6, 2008). Spacing improves
efficiency but expands the overall footprint of the field. Direct
habitat loss would increase primarily from extension of access roads,
and habitat effectiveness could decrease due to avoidance.

Wind power mortalities may result from sage-grouse flying into turbine
rotors or towers (Erickson et al. 2001, total) although reported
collision mortalities have been few. One sage-grouse was found dead
within 45 m (148 ft) of a turbine on the Foote Creek Rim wind facility
in south-central Wyoming, presumably from flying into a turbine (Young
et al. 2003, appendix C p. 61). During a three year monitoring
operation, this is the only known sage-grouse mortality at this
facility. Sage-grouse hens with broods have been observed using Foote
Creek Rim, under the turbines, during surveys for other species (Young
2004). We have no recent reports of sage-grouse mortality due to
collision with a wind turbine, however many facilities may not be
monitored. No deaths of gallinaceous birds were reported in a
comprehensive review of avian collisions and wind farms in the United
States; the authors hypothesized that the average tower height and
flight height of grouse, and diurnal migration habitats of some birds
minimized the risk of collision (Johnson et al. 2000, pp. ii-iii;
Erickson et al. 2001, pp. 8, 11, 14, 15).

Noise is produced by wind turbine mechanical operation (gear boxes,
cooling fans) and airfoil interaction with the atmosphere. Character of
the sound varies with turbine speed and atmospheric conditions.
Different arrangements of multiple wind turbines would result in
different noise levels. Topography can also affect noise level and
reach. No published studies have focused specifically on the effects of
wind development and greater sage-grouse. In studies conducted in oil
and gas fields, noise may have played a factor in habitat selection and
decrease in lek attendance (Holloran 2005, pp. 49, 56). However,
comparison between wind turbine and oil and gas operations is difficult
based on the character of sound. Adjusting for manufacturer type and
atmospheric conditions, the audible operating sound of a single wind
turbine has been calculated as the same level as conversational speech
at 1 m (3 ft) at a distance of 600 m (2,000 ft) from the turbine. This
level is typical of background levels of a rural environment (BLM 2005a,
p. 5-24). Commercial wind farms do not have a single turbine, however,
and multiple turbines over a large area would likely have a much larger
noise print. Low-frequency vibrations produced by rotating blades
produce annoyance responses in humans (Leventhal 2003, p. 28), but the
specific effect on birds is not documented.

Moving blades of turbines cast moving shadows that cause a flickering
effect producing a phenomenon called "shadow flicker" (windpower.org,
accessed October 6, 2008). Hypothetically, shadow flicker could mimic
predator shadows and elicit an avoidance response during daylight hours,
but this has not been investigated.

Since 2005, renewable portfolio standards have been instituted by policy
or statute to include renewables as a percentage of energy consumed in a
state. For example: Colorado law requires incremental increases of
renewable generation from 3 percent in 2007 to 20 percent by 2020.
Financial incentive, including grants and tax breaks, are applied to
encourage private development of renewable sources. Although development
of renewables is encouraged at a state level, siting authority for wind
vary from state to state (AFWA and FWS 2007 pp. 7, 8, 14, 28, 30, 36,
39, 43, 46, 49, 52; Oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/RPS_home.shtml, accessed
October 18, 2008). For example: Wyoming has no renewable portfolio
standard and no specific wind siting authority. Large projects are
subject to approval by an industrial siting committee with the state
wildlife agency providing recommendations for mitigating impacts to
wildlife. The State of Idaho provides tax incentives and loan programs
for renewable energy development and wind power is currently unregulated
at any level of government. North Dakota Public Service Commission
regulates siting of wind power facilities over 100 Megawatts using U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service interim guidelines.

In 2005, the BLM completed the Wind Energy Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that provides an overarching
guidance for wind project development on BLM administered lands. Best
management practices (BMP) are prescribed to minimize impacts of all
phases of construction and operation of a wind production facility. The
BMPs guide future project planning and do not guarantee protections
specific to sage-grouse. We do not have information on how or where the
EIS guidance has been applied since 2005 and can not evaluate its
effectiveness.

The footprint of wind energy developments is reported to be small. The
BLM indicates that approximately 600 km^2^ (148,000 ac) of BLM
administered lands are likely to be developed in nine states within the
sage-grouse range (BLM 2005a, p. 5-2). It is estimated that only 5 to 10
percent of a development will have a long-term disturbance (i.e. roads,
foundations, substation, fencing) (BLM 2005a, p. 5-2). This estimation
does not account for avoidance and could be an underestimation of
indirect effects. Based on what we know of oil and gas development
(previously described), the impact of structures, noise and human
activity reach far beyond the point of origin.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888203 .anchor}*Renewable Energy Development
(Hydropower)*: Hydropower development causes direct habitat losses and
possibly an increase in human recreation activity. More than 400 dams
have been constructed on the Columbia River system alone for power
generation. Reservoirs created concurrently with power generation
structures inundated hundreds of kilometers of riparian habitats used by
sage‑grouse broods (Braun 1998, p. 6). Reservoirs and the availability
of irrigation water precipitated conversion of large expanses of upland
shrub‑steppe habitat in the Columbia Basin adjacent to the rivers
(65 FR 51578). We were unable to find any information regarding the
amount of sage-grouse habitat affected by hydropower projects in other
areas of the species range beyond the Columbia Basin. To our knowledge,
no new facilities have been constructed since our 2005 finding (FWS in
litt. 2008a). We do not anticipate that future dam construction will
result in large losses of sagebrush habitats.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888204 .anchor}*Renewable Energy Development
(Solar Power)*: Solar powered electricity generation is increasing. In
2005, 66 trillion Btu were produced from both types of solar electricity
generation, and the first half of 2008 indicates a total of 82 trillion
Btu will be produced for the year (EIA in litt. 2008). Harvesting of
solar energy to produce electricity is accomplished by photovoltaic or
concentrating systems. Photovoltaic systems have been used on a small
scale to power individual buildings, small complexes, remote facilities,
and signs. Voltaic infrastructure is ancillary to other development, and
in itself does not contribute to a direct habitat loss. Concentrating
systems achieve commercial-scale electrical production by powering
turbines using heat-concentrating mirrors. Concentrating systems
require, depending on local conditions, 4 acres to produce 1 megawatt of
electricity. For example, the 400-acre Nevada Solar One, the third
largest solar electricity producer in the world, has a maximum potential
of 75 megawatts from a 300-acre solar field (nevadasolarone.net,
accessed October 7, 2008). There are no commercial solar plants
operating in sage-grouse habitats. Southern and eastern Nevada, the
Pinedale area of Wyoming, and east central Utah are the areas of the
sage-grouse range with good potential for commercial solar development
(tonto.eia.doe.gov/state, accessed October 7, 2008) and could be
targeted for development in the future. We are not aware of any
investigations reporting the impacts of solar generating facilities to
sage-grouse or other gallinaceous birds. Commercial solar generation
could produce direct habitat loss (i.e. solar fields completely
eliminate habitat), fragmentation, roads, powerlines, increased human
presence, and disturbance during facility construction with similar
effects to sage-grouse as reported with oil and gas development. The BLM
is developing a programmatic EIS for leasing and development of solar
energy on BLM lands.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888205 .anchor}*Renewable Energy Development
(Geothermal)*: The major commercial use of geothermal resources is
electricity production. Overall geothermal energy production has
remained steady since 2005 (EIA in litt. 2008). Facilities are in place
in the sage-grouse range in California (3 plants, Management Zone III),
Nevada (5 plants, Management Zones III and V), Utah (2 plants,
Management Zones III), and Idaho (1 plant, Management Zone IV). Four new
plants in Nevada and one in Idaho came on line since 2005, but only the
Idaho plant is in current sage-grouse range (geo-energy.org, accessed
October 8, 2008). We have no information on the footprint of the Idaho
facility. Geothermal potential occurs across the sage-grouse range in
states with existing development and southeast Oregon, west central
Wyoming, and north central Colorado (tonto.eia.doe.gov, accessed October
8, 2008).

Geothermal is similar to oil and gas development requiring surface
exploration, exploratory drilling, field development, plant construction
and operation. Wells are drilled to access the thermal source and could
take 3 weeks to 2 months of continuous drilling (Suter 1978, p. 3). The
ultimate number of wells depends on the thermal output of the well and
expected production of the plant (Suter 1978, p. 3). Pipelines are
needed to carry steam or superheated liquids to the generating plant
which is similar in size to a coal or gas-fired plant. Direct habitat
loss occurs from well pads, structures, roads, pipelines and
transmission lines and impacts would be similar to those described
previously for oil and gas development.

The development of geothermal energy requires intensive human activity
during field development and operation. Geothermal plants could be in
remote areas necessitating housing construction, transportation and
utility infrastructure for employees and their families (Suter 1978, p.
12). Geothermal development could cause toxic gas release; the type and
effect of these gases depends on the geological formation in which
drilling occurs (Suter 1978, pp. 7-9). The amount of water necessary for
drilling and condenser cooling may be high. Local water depletions may
be a concern if such depletions result in the loss of brood-rearing
habitat.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888206 .anchor}*Renewable Energy Development
(Biomass)*: Energy production from biomass has occurred at a consistent
rate since 1975 (eia.doe.gov/overview, accessed October 8, 2008). Wood
has been the primary biomass source, but corn ethanol and biofuels are
on the increase (eia.doe.gov/overview, accessed October 8, 2008).
Currently, wood products and corn production do not occur in the range
of the sage-grouse in significant quantities (Curtis 2008, p.7). The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory cites potentials for agricultural
biomass resources in northern Montana (Management Zone I), southern
Idaho (Management Zone IV), eastern Washington (Management Zone VI),
eastern Oregon Management Zone IV), northwest Nevada (Management Zone
V), and southeast Wyoming (Management Zone II) (NREL in litt. 2005).
Conversion from native sod to agriculture for the purpose of biomass
production could result in a loss of sage-grouse habitat on private
lands.

#### Energy Corridors: *Section 368(a)* of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 USC 15926) directs federal land management agencies to designate corridors on federal land in 11 western states for oil, gas and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities (energy transport corridors). The agencies are preparing a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS), \"Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States\" (DOE et al. 2007) to address the environmental impacts of a corridor on federal lands. The proposed action calls for designating more than 9,600 km (6,000 mi) with and average width of 1 km (3,500 ft) of energy corridors across the West (DOE et al. 2007, p. ES-8). The designated corridors on federal lands will tie-in to corridors on private lands and lands in other governmental jurisdictions. Some of the areas proposed for designation are currently used for transmission. Federal land not presently in transportation or utility right-of-way is proposed for use in California (301 km or 187 mi), Colorado (189 km or 117 mi), Idaho (343 km or 213 mi), Montana (9.8 km or 6 mi), Nevada (1,416 or 880 mi), Oregon (140 km or 225 mi), Washington (6 km or 4 mi), Utah (473 km or 294 mi), and Wyoming (204 km or 127 mi) (DOE et al. 2007, p. ES-14). It is uncertain how much of the corridor is in sagebrush habitat within the distribution area of sage-grouse, but based on the proposed location, habitat in Wyoming (Management Zone II), Idaho (Management Zone IV), Utah (Management Zone III), Nevada (Management Zone III) and Oregon (Management Zone III and IV) would be most affected. Sage-grouse could be impacted through a direct loss of habitat, human activity (especially during construction periods), increased predation, habitat deterioration through the introduction of nonnative plant species, and fragmentation of habitat.

####  

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888208 .anchor}*Measures to minimize energy
development effects*: The BLM is the primary federal agency managing the
U.S. energy resources on 261 million surface acres and 700 million
sub-surface acres of mineral estate. Public sub-surface estate can be
under public or private (i.e. split-estate) surface. Over 18 million
acres of sage-grouse habitats on public lands are leased for oil, gas,
coal, minerals or geothermal exploration and development across the
sage-grouse range (FWS in litt. 2008c).

The BLM has the legal authority to regulate and condition oil and gas
lease and permits under both Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) (43 USC 1764) and the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) (30 USC 181 et
seq). The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 2000 included
provisions requiring the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
scientific inventory of all onshore Federal lands to identify oil and
gas resources underlying these lands and the nature and extent of any
restrictions or impediments to the development of such resources (42 USC
6217(a)). The Energy Policy Act was amended as the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA) in 2005 (42 USC 6201 et seq.). Provisions of
earlier Energy Policy Acts were further mandated in 2005 to increase
development of renewable and nonrenewable energy resources.

On May 18, 2001, the President signed Executive Order 13212 -- Actions
to Expedite Energy-Related Projects (E.O. 13212) (66 FR 28357, May 22,
2001), which states that it is the Administration's policy that the
executive departments and agencies shall take appropriate actions, to
the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that
will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy.
The Executive Order specifies that this includes expediting review of
permits or taking other actions as necessary to accelerate the
completion of projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and
environmental protections. The BLM responded to these declarations with
the issuance of several Instruction Memoranda to their staff that may
influence sage-grouse conservation during these actions, including
providing guidance for land use planning relative to oil and gas
operations and focusing efforts for resource recovery in seven areas,
six of which are within occupied greater sage-grouse habitats (BLM IM
2003-137, April 3, 2003).

On September 25, 2007, the BLM issued Information Bulletin WO-2007-119
-- Existing Surface Management Authority for Oil and Gas Leases. This
Information Bulletin reiterated to field offices that the agency has
"broad policy and legal authority for mitigating adverse environmental
impacts on oil and gas leases" (BLM in litt. 2008, p. 2). It further
stated that the Secretary of Interior has "broad authority to regulate
environmental aspects of oil and gas operations," and to "require
environmental protection determined necessary or needful" (BLM in litt.
2008c, p. 2).

Program-specific guidance for fluid minerals (which include oil and gas)
in the BLM planning handbook specifies that land use planning decisions
will identify restrictions on areas subject to leasing, including
closures, as well as lease stipulations (BLM 2005b, appx. C pp.23-24).
Stipulations are conditions, promises, or demands that are made part of
a lease when the environmental planning record demonstrates the need to
accommodate various resources such as the protection of specific
wildlife species. Stipulations advise the lease holder that a wildlife
species in need of special management may be present in the area defined
by the lease, and certain protective measures may be required in order
to develop the mineral resource on that lease.

This handbook further specifies that all stipulations must have waiver,
exception, or modification criteria documented in the plan, and notes
that the least restrictive constraint to meet the resource protection
objective should be used (BLM 2005b, appx. C pp.23-24). Waivers, which
are permanent exemption, and modifications which are changes in the
terms of the stipulation, may require public notices. The BLM reports
the issuance of waivers and modifications as rare (BLM in litt. 2008d).
Exceptions are a one-time exemption to a lease stipulation. For example,
a company may be issued an exception to enter critical winter habitat
during mild winter if an on-the-ground survey verifies that sage-grouse
are not using the winter habitat or have left earlier than normal (BLM
2004, p. 86). In 2006 and 2007, of 1,716 mineral/right-of-way
authorizations on federal surface in 42 BLM planning areas no waivers
were issued, 24 modifications were issued, and 115 exceptions were
granted; 72 of the 115 exceptions were in the Great Divide planning area
in Wyoming (BLM in litt. 2008d).

Although there is some variability in the characteristics of the
restrictive stipulations that are applied to permits and leases, a
0.40-km (0.25 mi) radius around sage-grouse leks is generally restricted
to "no surface occupancy" during the breeding season, and noise and
development activities are often limited during the breeding season
within a 0.80 to 3.22-km (0.5 mi to 2-mi) radius of sage-grouse leks.
Although these are the most often-applied stipulations, there is a high
degree of variability regarding the implementation of stipulations at
the site-specific level. For example, language in the Randolph Resource
Management Plan (RMP) in Utah states that no exploration, drilling, or
other development activities can occur during the breeding season within
3.22 km (2 mi) of a known sage-grouse lek, and that there are "no
exceptions to this stipulation" (BLM in litt. 2008e). Conversely, under
the Platte River RMP in the Wind River Basin Management Area of Wyoming,
"oil and gas development is a priority in the area" and "discretionary
timing stipulations protecting sage-grouse nesting habitats...will not
be applied" (BLM in litt. 2008e). A majority of the Land Use Plans that
address oil and gas or minerals development specify the standard
protective stipulations (BLM in litt. 2008e). The stipulations do not
apply to the operation or maintenance of existing facilities, regardless
of their proximity to sage-grouse breeding areas (BLM in litt. 2008e).
In addition, approximately 73 percent of leased land in known
sage-grouse breeding habitat has no stipulations at all (BLM in litt
2008f). Breeding habitat is defined as 6.4 km (4 mi) around a known lek
point (Wakkinen et al. 1992, p. 2).

As noted above, a 0.4-km (0.25 mi) radius buffer is used routinely by
federal agencies and some state agencies to minimize the impacts of oil
and gas development on sage-grouse breeding activity. The rationale for
using a 0.4 km buffer as the basic unit for active lek protection is not
clear. To our knowledge there is no support in published literature for
this distance affording any measure of protection. Anecdotally, this
distance appears to be an artifact from the 1960's attempt to initiate
planning guidelines for sagebrush management and not is not
scientifically based (1991 Affidavit by Dave A. Roberts, Wyoming
Wildlife Program Leader, BLM in response to Jonah oil and gas field
development appeal *in* Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan
2008, pp. B-5, B-6). Walker (2007, p. 2651) reported negative impacts on
lek attendance of coal-bed methane development within 0.8 km (0.5 mi)
and 3.2 km (2 mi) of a lek. Holloran (2005, p. 57-60) observed decline
of males at leks extending to 6.2 km (3.9 mi) but decline was seen most
severely within 5 km (3 mi) of drilling operation and 3 km (2 mi) of
producing well and roads.

As with fossil fuel sources, the production, purchase, and facilitation
of development of renewable energy products by federal entities and land
management agencies is directed by the 2005 EPCA (42 U.S.C. 15852) and
Presidential E.O. 13212. The discussion of energy development preceding
this section describes in detail the development and operation of
renewable energy projects that have occurred since 2005. This includes
recent increases in wind, solar, and geothermal energy development. All
of these activities require ground disturbance, infrastructure, and
ongoing human activities that could adversely affect greater sage-grouse
on the landscape. Since 2005, the BLM has developed or is in the process
of developing guidance to minimize impacts of renewable energy
production on public lands. A Record of Decision (ROD) for
"Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land
Use Plan Amendments" (BLM 2005a) was issued in 2005. The ROD outlines
Best Management Practices (BMP) for the siting, development and
operation of wind energy facilities on BLM lands. The voluntary guidance
of the BMPs do not include measures specifically intended to protect
greater sage-grouse, although they do provide the flexibility for such
measures to be required through site-specific planning and authorization
(BLM 2005a, p. 2). Similarly, the BLM is currently in the process of
developing programmatic-level guidance for the development of solar and
geothermal energy projects. A draft programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for geothermal development is currently available, and
the draft programmatic EIS for solar energy is under development (BLM in
draft, 2008-both available at
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/epca_chart.html).

In summary, the BLM manages the majority of the greater sage-grouse
habitats across the range of the species. The BLM has broad regulatory
authority to plan and manage all land use activities on their lands,
including travel management, grazing, fire management, and a variety of
other activities. The BLM also has the legal authority to regulate oil,
gas, and other energy development activities, both on BLM administered
lands, and on split-estate lands. However, research that has emerged
since our 2005 finding indicates that stipulations commonly applied by
BLM to oil and gas leases and permits do not adequately address the
scope of negative influences of development on sage-grouse.

Energy development also occurs on National Forest lands, although to a
lesser extent than on BLM lands. Management of activities on National
Forest System lands is guided principally by the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614, August 17, 1974, as amended
1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988 and 1990). NFMA specifies that
all National Forests must have a land and resource management plan
(LRMP) (16 U.S.C. 1600) to guide and set standards for all natural
resource management activities on each National Forest or National
Grassland. Through the NFMA and LRMPs, and the On-Shore Oil and Gas
Leasing Reform Act (1987; implementing regulations at 36 CFR 228,
subpart E) the USFS has the authority to manage, restrict, or attach
protective measures to mineral and other energy permits on USFS lands.
Similar to BLM, existing protective standard stipulations on USFS lands
include avoiding construction of new wells and facilities within 0.4 km
(0.25 mi), and noise or activity disturbance within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of
active sage-grouse leks during the breeding season. As described above
recent research shows this is an inadequate buffer to prevent adverse
impacts to sage-grouse at a local level. For most LRMPs where energy
development is occurring, these stipulations also apply to hard mineral
extraction, wind development, and other energy development activities in
addition to fluid mineral extraction (e.g., USFS in litt. 2008a, p. 32).
The USFS is a partner agency with the BLM on the draft programmatic EIS
for geothermal energy development described above. If finalized, the
programmatic EIS will amend relevant LRMPs and will expedite the leasing
of USFS lands with geothermal energy potential.

In Wyoming, the Governor issued an Executive Order on August 1, 2008,
mandating special management for all State lands within sage-grouse
"Core Population Areas." Core Population Areas are important breeding
areas for sage-grouse in Wyoming as identified by the Wyoming
"Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team." In addition to identifying
Core Population Areas, the Team also recommended stipulations that
should be placed on development activities to ensure that existing
habitat function is maintained within those areas. Accordingly, the
Executive Order prescribes special consideration for sage-grouse in the
Core Population Areas for new developments or land uses, including new
oil and gas leases or developments. On August 7, 2008, the Wyoming Board
of Land Commissioners approved the application of the Implementation
Team's recommended stipulations to all new development activities on
State lands within the Core Population Areas. These conservation
measures could provide substantial protections for sage-grouse within
these Core Population Areas. However, currently these protective
measures are only required on previously undeveloped areas on Wyoming
State lands. We do not have estimates of the proportion of undeveloped
habitat on state lands, or of the percent of sage-grouse populations
that will receive the protections of these new measures. Montana,
Colorado, and other states are currently considering conservation
strategies that use a core area approach to address potential effects of
energy development on sage-grouse. However, no states other than Wyoming
currently have a regulatory framework developed to require protective
measures.

All of the states in the extant range of the greater sage-grouse have
finalized conservation or management plans for the species and its
habitats. These plans focus on habitat and population concerns at a
state level. The degree to which they consider energy impacts varies
substantially, with some plans proposing explicit strategies for
minerals development (e.g., Montana) or wind energy development (e.g.,
Washington), and others that more generally acknowledge potential issues
with energy development but do not identify specific conservation
measures (e.g., Nevada) (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 2-24). These state level
plans are not prescriptive, and generally contain information to help
guide the development and implementation of more focused conservation
efforts and planning at a local level. We recognize the importance of
these plans and coordination efforts, but as guidance documents it is
difficult to assess the extent to which they alleviate the impacts to
sage-grouse associated with energy development activities. We do not
have information on the extent to which conservation and mitigation
measures that are recommended in the state plans to address the impacts
of energy development have been adopted into legal or regulatory
frameworks (e.g., Resource Management Plans), or have been implemented
on the ground.

In September 2008, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(COGCC) initially approved new wildlife rules to protect wildlife from
the impacts of oil and gas development in Colorado (COGCC 2008). Most
notably, the new rules would require developers to consult with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife if they proposed to drill in a sensitive
wildlife habitat area, including sage-grouse habitats. This requirement
could be waived if the developer agreed to limit disturbance or
development density within the sensitive area. The COGCC is expected to
make a final decision on these new rules in December 2008 (COGCC 2008).
If implemented, these new rules would provide additional protections to
sage-grouse from the impacts of oil and gas development in Colorado.

## Habitat---Grazing

Native herbivores, such as pronghorn antelope (*Antilocarpo americana*),
bison (*Bison bison*), and other ungulates were present in sagebrush
steppe region prior to European settlement of western States (Miller et
al. 1994, p. 111), and sage-grouse co-evolved with these animals.
However, many areas of sagebrush-steppe did not support herds of large
ungulates; large native herbivores disappeared 12,000 years ago (Knick
et al. 2003, p, 616). Therefore, native vegetation communities within
the sagebrush ecosystem developed in the absence of significant grazing
presence (Grayson 1994 as cited in Knick et al. 2003, p. 616). With
European settlement of western states (1870 to the early 1900s), the
numbers of cattle, sheep, and horses rapidly increased, peaking at the
turn of the century (Oliphant 1968, p. vii; Young et al. 1976, pp.194-5)
with an estimated 26 million cattle and 20 million sheep in the West
(Wilkenson 1992).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888210 .anchor}*Effects on sage-grouse and its
habitats*: Knick et al. (2003, p. 616) state that excessive grazing by
domestic livestock during the late 1800's and early 1900's, along with
severe drought, significantly impacted sagebrush ecosystems. Long-term
effects from this overgrazing, including changes in plant communities
and soils persist today (Knick et al. 2003, p.116). Currently, livestock
grazing is the most widespread type of land use across the sagebrush
biome (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-29); almost all sagebrush areas are
managed for livestock grazing (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616).

Although there is little direct experimental evidence linking grazing
practices to population levels of greater sage-grouse (Braun 1987, p.
137, Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 231), the impacts of livestock grazing
on sage-grouse habitat and on some aspects of the life cycle of the
species have been studied.

Sage-grouse need significant grass and shrub cover for protection from
predators, particularly during nesting season, and females will
preferentially choose nesting sites based on these qualities (Hagen et
al. 2007, p. 46). The reduction of grass heights due to livestock
grazing in sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas has been shown to
negatively affect nesting success by reducing cover (\< 18 cm) necessary
for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 1994, p. 164-5). Based on
measurements of cattle foraging rates on bunchgrasses both between and
under sagebrush canopies, the probability of foraging on under-canopy
bunchgrasses depends on sagebrush morphology, and consequently, the
effects of grazing on nesting habitats might be site specific (France et
al.2008, pp. 392-3).

Livestock consumption of forbs may reduce food availability for
sage-grouse. This is particularly important for pre-laying hens, as
forbs provide essential calcium, phosphorus, and protein (Barnett and
Crawford 1994, p. 117). A hen's nutritional condition affects nest
initiation rate, clutch size, and subsequent reproductive success
(Barnett and Crawford 1994, p.117; Coggins 1998, p. 30). Several other
authors have noted that grazing by livestock could reduce the
suitability of breeding and brood-rearing habitat, subsequently
negatively affecting sage-grouse populations (Braun 1987, p. 137; Dobkin
1995, p. 18; Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 231; Beck and Mitchell 2000, p.
998-1000). Exclosure studies have demonstrated that domestic livestock
grazing reduces water infiltration rates and cover of herbaceous plants
and litter, as well as compacting soils and increasing soil erosion
(Braun 1998; Dobkin et al. 1998, p. 213). This results in a change in
the proportion of shrub, grass, and forb components in the affected
area, and an increased invasion of exotic plant species that do not
provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p.
19).

Livestock may also compete directly with sage-grouse for rangeland
resources. Cattle are grazers, feeding mostly on grasses, but they will
make seasonal use of forbs and browse species like sagebrush (Vallentine
2001). Domestic sheep are intermediate feeders making high use of forbs,
but also using a large volume of grass and browse species like sagebrush
(Vallentine 2001). Pedersen et al. (2003, p. 43) documented sheep
consumption of rangeland forbs in areas where sage-grouse occur. The
effects of direct competition between livestock and sage-grouse depend
on condition of the habitat and the grazing practices, and thus the
effects vary across the range of the greater sage-grouse. For example,
Aldridge and Brigham (2003, p. 30) suggest that poor livestock
management in mesic sites, which are considered limited habitats for
sage-grouse in Alberta (Aldridge and Brigham 2002, p. 441), results in a
reduction of forbs and grasses available to sage-grouse chicks, thereby
affecting chick survival.

Other consequences of grazing include several related to livestock
trampling. Outright nest destruction by livestock trampling has been
documented and the presence of livestock can cause sage-grouse to
abandon their nests (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, p. 863; Patterson 1952,
p. 111; Call and Maser 1985, p. 17, Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309;
Coates 2007, p.28). Coates (2007, p. 28) video-monitored 87 grouse nests
and recorded six encounters with cattle. During one encounter the nest
was partially depredated by the cow, and the nest was subsequently
abandoned (Coates 2007, p. 28). All encounters with cattle resulted in
hens flushing from nests, which could expose the eggs to predation;
there is strong evidence that visual predators like ravens use hen
movements to locate sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007, p.33). Livestock may
also trample sagebrush seedlings, thereby removing a source of future
sage-grouse food and cover (Connelly et al. 2000a). Trampling of soil by
livestock can reduce or eliminate biological soil crusts making these
areas susceptible to cheatgrass invasion (Mack 1981 as cited in Miller
and Eddleman 2000; Young and Allen 1997; Forman and Alexander 1998).

Some effects of livestock grazing may have positive consequences for
sage-grouse. Evans (1986, p. 67) found that sage-grouse used grazed
meadows significantly more during late summer than ungrazed meadows
because grazing had stimulated the regrowth of forbs. Klebenow (1981, p.
121) noted that sage-grouse sought out and used openings in meadows
created by cattle grazing in northern Nevada. Also, both sheep and goats
have been used to control invasive weeds (Mosely 1996 as cited in
Connelly et al. 2004; Olsen and Wallander 2001, p. 30; Merritt et al.
2001, p. 4) and woody plant encroachment (Riggs and Urness 1989, p. 358)
in sage-grouse habitat.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888211 .anchor}*Sagebrush removal*: Removal of
sagebrush to increase herbaceous forage and grasses for domestic and
wild ungulates is a common practice in sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et
al. 2004, p. 7- 28). By the 1970s, over 2 million ha (5 million ac) of
sagebrush had been mechanically treated, sprayed with herbicide, or
burned (Crawford et al. 2004). Braun (1998) concluded that since
European settlement of western North America, all sagebrush habitats
used by greater sage-grouse have been treated in some way to reduce
shrub cover. The use of chemicals to control sagebrush was initiated in
the 1940s and intensified in the 1960s and early 1970s (Braun 1987).
Crawford et al. (2004, p. 12) hypothesized that reductions in
sage-grouse habitat quality (and possibly sage-grouse numbers) in the
1970's may have been associated with extensive rangeland treatments to
increase forage for domestic livestock.

The extent to which mechanical and chemical removal or control of
sagebrush currently occurs is not known, particularly with regard to
private lands. However, the BLM has stated that with rare exceptions,
they no longer are involved in actions that convert sagebrush to other
habitat types, and that mechanical or chemical treatments in sagebrush
habitat on BLM lands currently focus on improving the diversity of the
native plant community, reducing conifer encroachment, or reducing the
risk of a large wildfire (BLM 2004, p. 15).

Greater sage-grouse response to herbicide treatments depends on the
extent to which forbs and sagebrush are killed. Chemical control of
sagebrush has resulted in declines of sage-grouse breeding populations
through the loss of live sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 2000a).
Herbicide treatment also can result in sage-grouse emigration from
affected areas (Connelly et al. 2000a), and has been documented to have
a negative effect on nesting, brood carrying capacity (Klebenow 1970),
and winter shrub cover essential for food and thermal cover (Pyrah 1972
and Higby 1969 as cited in Connelly et al. 2000a). Conversely, small
treatments interspersed with non-treated sagebrush habitats did not
affect sage-grouse use, presumably due to minimal effects on food or
cover (Braun 1998). Also application of herbicides in early spring to
reduce sagebrush cover may enhance some brood-rearing habitats by
increasing the coverage of herbaceous plant foods (Autenrieth 1981).

Mechanical treatments are designed to either remove the aboveground
portion of the sagebrush plant (mowing, roller chopping, and
roto-beating), or to uproot the plant from the soil (grubbing,
bulldozing, anchor chaining, cabling, railing, raking, and plowing;
Connelly et al. 2004). These treatments were begun in the 1930s and
continued at relatively low levels to the late 1990s (Braun 1998).
Mechanical treatments, if carefully designed and executed, can be
beneficial to sage-grouse by improving herbaceous cover, forb
production, and re-sprouting of sagebrush (Braun 1998). However, adverse
effects also have been documented (Connelly et al. 2000a). For example,
in Montana, the number of breeding males declined by 73 percent after 16
percent of the 202 km^2^ (78 mi^2^) study area was plowed (Swenson et
al. 1987). Mechanical treatments in blocks greater than 100 ha (247 ac),
or of any size seeded with exotic grasses, degrade sage-grouse habitat
by altering the structure and composition of the vegetative community
(Braun 1998).

The elimination of sagebrush usually is followed with rangeland seedings
to improve forage for livestock grazing operations (Knick et al. 2003,
p. 616; Connelly et al. 2004, Chapter 7, p. 35). Large expanses of
sagebrush removed via chemical and mechanical methods have been reseeded
with non-native grasses, such as crested wheatgrass (*Agropyron
cristatum*), to increase forage production on public lands (Shane et al.
1983, cited in Knick et al. 2003, p. 616 ; Connelly et al. 2004,
p.7-28). These treatments had the effect of reducing or eliminating many
native grasses and forbs present prior to the seedings. Sage-grouse are
affected indirectly through the loss of native forbs that serve as food
and the loss of native grasses that provide concealment or hiding cover
within the understories of the former sagebrush stands (Connelly et al.
2004).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888212 .anchor}*Water development*: Water
developments for the benefit of livestock and wild ungulates on public
lands are common (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-35). Development of springs
and other water sources to support livestock in upland shrub-steppe
habitats can artificially concentrate domestic and wild ungulates in
important sage-grouse habitats, thereby exacerbating grazing impacts in
those areas such as through vegetation trampling (Braun 1998). Diverting
the water sources has the secondary effect of changing the habitat
present at the water source before diversion. This could result in the
loss of either riparian or wet meadow habitat important to sage-grouse
as sources of forbs or insects. Water developments for livestock also
could be used as mosquito breeding habitat, and thus have the potential
to facilitate the spread of West Nile virus (see discussion of Natural
Enemies below).

Aldridge et al. (2008) did not find any relationship between sage-grouse
persistence and livestock densities (p. 990). However, the authors noted
that livestock numbers do not necessarily correlated with range
condition. They concluded that the intensity, duration and distribution
of livestock are more influential on rangeland condition than the
livestock density values used in their modeling efforts (Aldridge et al.
2008, p. 990).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888213 .anchor}*Horses and burros*:
Free-roaming horses and burros have been a component of sagebrush and
other arid communities since they were brought to North America at the
end of the 16^th^ century (Wagner 1983, p. 116; Beever 2003, p. 887).
About 31,000 wild horses occur in 10 western States, with herd sizes
being largest in Nevada, Wyoming, and Oregon, which are the states with
the most extensive sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-37).
About 5,000 burros occur in five western states (Connelly et al. 2004,
p.7- 37). Beever and Aldridge (2008, in press) estimate that about 12
percent (78, 389km^2^) of sage-grouse habitat is managed for
free-roaming horses and burros. The extent, however, that the equids use
land outside of designated management areas is difficult to quantify but
may be considerable.

We are unaware of any studies that directly address the impact of wild
horses or burros on sagebrush and sage-grouse. However, some authors
have suggested that wild horses could negatively impact important meadow
and spring brood-rearing habitats used by sage-grouse (Crawford et al.
2004; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-37). Horses are generalists, but
seasonally their diets can be almost wholly comprised of grasses (Wagner
1983, p.119-120). A comparison of areas with and without horse grazing
showed 1.9-2.9 times more grass cover and higher grass density in areas
without horse grazing (Beever 2008, in Beever and Aldridge 2008, in
press). Additionally, sites with horse grazing had less shrub cover and
more fragmented shrub canopies. As noted above, sage-grouse need
significant grass and shrub cover for protection from predators,
particularly during nesting season, and females will preferentially
choose nesting sites based on these qualities (Hagen et al. 2007, p.
46). Sites with grazing also generally showed less plant diversity,
altered soil characteristics, and 1.6-2.6 times greater abundance of
non-native cheatgrass (Beever 2008, in Beever and Aldridge 2008, in
press). These impacts combined indicate that horse grazing has the
potential to result in an overall decrease in the quality and quantity
of sage grouse habitat in areas where such grazing occurs.

Currently there are an estimated 315-433 thousand AUMs for equids
compared to over 7 million for domestic livestock within the range of
greater sage-grouse (Beever and Aldridge 2008, in press). Cattle
typically outnumber horses by a large degree in areas where both occur,
however, locally ratios of 2:1 (horse:cow) have been reported (Wagner
1983, p.126). The local effects of ungulate grazing depend on a host of
abiotic and biotic factors (e.g., elevation, season, soil composition,
plant productivity and composition). There are additional significant
biological and behavioral differences that influence the impact of
horses as compared to cattle grazing on habitat (Beever 2003, p.
888-890). For example, due to physiological differences, a horse must
forage longer and consumes 20 to 65 percent more forage than would a cow
of equivalent body mass (Wagner 1983, p. 121; Menard et al. 2002,
p.127). Unlike cattle and other ungulates, horses have the ability to
crop vegetation close to the ground, potentially limiting or delaying
recovery of plants (Menard et al. 2002, p.127). In addition, horses
seasonally move to higher elevations, spend less time at water, and
range farther from water sources than cattle. Given these differences,
along with the confounding factor of past range use, it is difficult to
assess the overall impact of horses and cattle on the landscape in
general, or on sage-grouse habitat in particular. In areas grazed by
both horses and cattle, whether the impacts are synergistic or additive
is currently unknown (Beever and Aldridge 2008, in press).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888214 .anchor}*Grazing on Federal lands*:
Important aspects of livestock operations related to impacts on
sage-grouse include stocking levels, season of use, and utilization
levels. Cattle and sheep animal unit months (AUMs; the amount of forage
required to feed one cow with calf, one horse, five sheep, or five goats
for one month) on all Federal land have declined since the early 1900s
(Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3). By the 1940s AUMs on all Federal lands (not
just areas occupied by sage-grouse) were estimated to be 14.6 million,
increasing to 16.5 million in the 1950s, and gradually declining to 10.2
million by the 1990s (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 19). As of 2007, the
number of permitted AUMs for BLM lands in states where sage-grouse occur
totaled 7,118,989 (Beever and Aldridge 2008, in press, pp. 19-20). We
estimate that those permitted AUMs occur on approximately 18,783 BLM
grazing allotments that overlap with sage-grouse habitat (Stoner 2008).
Since 2005, AUMs permitted on 644 (3.4 percent) of those allotments have
been decreased (FWS in litt 2008e). However, BLM tracks the number of
AUMs permitted rather than the number of AUMs actually used. The number
permitted typically is higher than what is used thus, we do not know how
the decrease on paper corresponds to the actual number of AUMs for the
last four years. Currently there are an estimated 315-433 thousand AUMs
for equids within the range of greater sage-grouse (Beever and Aldridge
2008, in press, p. 20).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888215 .anchor}*Measures to minimize effects of
grazing*: Knick (2008, p. 30) estimates that about 51 percent of
sagebrush habitat within the sage-grouse management zones is
BLM-administered land; this includes approximately 249,000 square
kilometers (about 61.5 million acres). The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 [et]{.underline}
[seq]{.underline}.) is the primary Federal law governing most land uses
on BLM-administered lands. Under the FLPMA the BLM is required to
develop land use plans, which are the basis for all actions and
authorizations involving BLM-administered lands and resources. Further,
land use plans provide a framework and programmatic guidance for
implementation (activity) plans, including allotment management plans
(AMPs) that address livestock grazing. In addition to FLPMA, BLM has
specific regulatory authority for grazing management provided at 43 CFR
4100 (Regulations on Grazing Administration Exclusive of Alaska).
Livestock grazing permits and leases contain terms and conditions
determined by BLM to be appropriate to achieve management and resource
condition objectives on the public lands and other lands administered by
the BLM, and to ensure that habitats are, or are making significant
progress toward being, restored or maintained for BLM special status
species (43 CFR 4180.1(d)). Grazing practices and activities subject to
standards and guidelines include the development of grazing related
portions of implementation/activity plans, establishment of terms and
conditions of permits, leases and other grazing authorizations, and
range improvement activities such as vegetation manipulation, fence
construction, and development of water.

The State or regional standards for grazing administration must address
habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, or special
status species, and habitat quality for native plant and animal
populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(d)(4) and (5). The guidelines
must address restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats of BLM special
status species to promote their conservation, and maintaining or
promoting the physical and biological conditions to sustain native
populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and (10). BLM is
required to take appropriate action not later than the start of the next
grazing year upon determining that existing grazing practices or levels
of grazing use are significant factors in failing to achieve the
standards and conform with the guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)).

In 2004, the BLM stated that 89 percent of lands are meeting habitat
standards, or are not meeting standards but appropriate actions have
been implemented to ensure significant progress towards the standards
(BLM 2004, p. 65). The remaining 11 percent are not meeting standards
due to either livestock grazing or other causes. More recently BLM
reported that of 6.7 million acres of occupied habitat evaluated
specifically for sage-grouse in 2005, approximately 3.1 million acres
met the desired habitat condition; 3.6 million acres did not. We do not
have further information describing these habitat condition assessments,
which habitat criteria were not met, the land use that was likely
contributing to those criteria not being met, or specific actions taken
to improve habitats. However, BLM did report that the following actions
were taken to improve sage-grouse habitat in 2005: changed timing of
grazing on 1.6 million acres; rested or suspended grazing on 1.3 million
acres; and installed or modified 447 water developments/structures (BLM
2005).

## Habitat---Habitat Conversion

Sagebrush is estimated to have covered roughly 120 million ha (296
million ac; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 365) in western North America, but
large portions of that area have been cultivated for the production of
agricultural crops (e.g. potatoes, wheat; Schroeder et al. 1999, p.16;
2000, p.11). Western rangelands were converted to agricultural lands on
a large scale beginning with the series of Homestead Acts in the 1800s
(Braun 1998, Hays et al. 1998, p.26), especially where suitable deep
soil terrain and water were available (Rogers 1964, p.13). Connelly et
al. (2004, p.5-55) estimated that 24.9 million ha (61.5 million ac)
within their assessment area for sage-grouse is now comprised of
agricultural lands, although there are areas within the species range
that are not sagebrush habitat, and the assessment area is larger than
the sage-grouse current distribution. The direct effect of habitat
conversion is loss of habitat available for sage-grouse use. The actual
effect of this loss will depend on the amount of sagebrush lost, the
type of seasonal habitat affected, and the arrangement of habitat lost
(large blocks or small patches). There may also be direct impacts to
sage-grouse depending on the timing of conversion (e.g. loss of nests,
eggs). Indirect effects of agricultural activities adjoining sagebrush
habitats include increased predation with a resulting reduced
sage-grouse nest success (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-23), increased
human presence, and potential habitat fragmentation. Adding a 6.9 km
(4.3 mi) buffer around agricultural areas (for the potential foraging
distance of domestic cats and red foxes (*Vulpes vulpes*)), Connelly et
al. (2004, p. 7-24) estimated 115.2 million ha (284.7 million ac) (56
percent) within their assessment area for the greater sage-grouse is
influenced by agriculture.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888217 .anchor}*Conversion by geographic area*:
In some States within the range of the greater sage-grouse there have
been large losses of sagebrush shrub-steppe habitats due to agricultural
conversion. This loss has been especially apparent in the Columbia Basin
of the Northwest (Management Zone VI) and the Snake River Plain of Idaho
(Management Zone IV) (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 370). Hironaka et al.
(1983) estimated that 99 percent of basin big sagebrush (*A. t.
tridentata*) habitat in the Snake River Plain has been converted to
cropland. Prior to European immigrant settlement in the 19^th^ century,
Washington had an estimated 42 million ha (103.8 million ac) of
shrub-steppe (Connelly et al. 2004). Dobler (1994) estimated that
approximately 60 percent of the original shrub-steppe habitat in
Washington has been converted to primarily agricultural uses. Deep soils
supporting shrub-steppe communities in Washington continue to be
converted to agricultural uses (Vander Haegen et al. 2000), resulting in
habitat loss. Recent geographical information system analyses indicated
that agriculture was the dominant land cover within sagebrush areas of
Washington (42 percent) and Idaho (19 percent) (Miller et al., in
press). In north central Oregon (Management Zone V), approximately 2.6
million ha (6.4 million ac) of habitat were converted for agricultural
purposes, essentially eliminating sage-grouse from this area (Willis et
al. 1993). More broadly, across the Interior Columbia Basin of southern
Idaho, northern Utah, northern Nevada, eastern Oregon (Management Zone
IV) and Washington, approximately 6 million ha (14.8 million ac) of
shrub-steppe habitat has been converted to agricultural crops (Altman
and Holmes 2000).

Development of irrigation projects to support agricultural production,
in some cases conjointly with hydroelectric dam construction, has
resulted in additional sage-grouse habitat loss (Braun 1998). The
reservoirs formed by these projects impacted native shrub-steppe habitat
adjacent to the rivers in addition to supporting the irrigation and
direct conversion of shrub-steppe lands to agriculture. The projects
precipitated conversion of large expanses of upland shrub‑steppe habitat
in the Columbia Basin for irrigated agriculture (August 24, 2000;
65 FR 51578). The creation of these reservoirs also inundated hundreds
of kilometers of riparian habitats used by sage‑grouse broods (Braun
1998). However, other small and isolated reclamation projects (4,000 to
8,000 ha \[10,000 to 20,000 ac\]) were responsible for three-fold
localized increases in sage-grouse populations (Patterson 1952) by
providing water in a semi-arid environment which provided additional
insect and forb food resources (e.g., Eden Reclamation Project in
Wyoming). Benefits of providing water through agricultural activities
may now be negated due to the threat of West Nile virus.

Miller et al. (in press) found that 5 percent of the areas occupied by
Great Basin sagebrush had been converted to agriculture, urban or
industrial areas (Management Zones III and IV). Five percent had also
been converted in the wheatgrass-needlegrass-shrubsteppe (Management
Zone II, primarily in north-central Wyoming) (Miller et al., in press).
In sagebrush steppe habitats, 14 percent of sagebrush habitats had been
converted to agriculture, urban or industrial activities (Management
Zones II, IV, V, and VI) (Miller et al., in press). Conversions for
these three sagebrush habitat types by State are detailed in Table 8.

[Table 8]{.underline}: Percent of sagebrush-steppe habitats and percent
of agricultural lands within Great Basin sagebrush (as derived from
Landfire 2006 vegetation coverage) (from Miller et al. in press).

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  State                   Percent sagebrush       Percent agriculture

  Washington              23.7                    42.4

  Montana                 56.2\*                  7.5\*

  Wyoming                 66.0\*                  3.4\*

  Idaho                   55.0                    18.6

  Oregon                  64.5                    8.6

  Nevada                  58.7                    1.3

  Utah                    37.6                    9.7

  California              49.8                    8.0

  Colorado                40.6                    11.8

  Total                   55.4                    10.0
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

\*Analyses did not include sagebrush lands in the eastern portions of
Montana and Wyoming.

Aldridge et al. (2008, pp. 990-991) reported that sage-grouse
extirpations were more likely to occur in areas where cultivated crops
exceeded 25 percent. Their results supported the conclusions of others
(e.g. Schroeder 1997; Braun 1998; Aldridge and Brigham 2003) that
extensive cultivation and fragmentation of native habitats have been
associated with sage-grouse population declines. While sage-grouse may
forage on agricultural crops (see discussion below), they avoid
landscapes dominated by agriculture (Aldridge et al. 2008; p. 991).

Sagebrush habitat continues to be converted for both dryland and
irrigated crop production (65 FR 51578; Braun 1998). Although sagebrush
conversion for agricultural activities was recently considered to have
minimal impacts on sage-grouse (65 FR 51578), increasing value of wheat
and corn crops has increased the amount of new conversions in recent
years. For example, approximately 22,650 acres of sagebrush in Montana
was converted to tilled agriculture from 2005 through 2007, primarily in
the eastern two thirds of the state (Management Zone 1) (Montana FSA
2007). However, in 2008, a single conversion in central Montana totaled
between 10,000 and 30,000 acres (Management Zone 1) (Hanebury 2008a).
Other large conversions occurred in the same part of Montana in 2008,
although these were unquantified (Management Zone 1) (Hanebury 2008b).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888218 .anchor}*Use of agricultural crops by
sage-grouse*: Although conversion of shrub-steppe habitat to
agricultural crops impacts sage-grouse through the loss of sagebrush on
a broad scale, some studies report the use of agricultural crops (e.g.,
alfalfa) by sage-grouse. When alfalfa fields and other croplands are
adjacent to extant sagebrush habitat, sage-grouse have been observed
feeding in these fields, especially during brood-rearing (Patterson
1952, Rogers 1964, Wallestad 1971, Connelly et al. 1988, Fischer et al.
1997). Connelly et al. (1988) reported seasonal movements of sage-grouse
to agricultural crops as sagebrush habitats desiccated during the
summer. However, use of irrigated crops may not be beneficial to greater
sage-grouse if it increases exposure to pesticides and West Nile virus
(see discussions in of disease and pesticides below).

Direct habitat loss and conversion also occurs via numerous other
landscape uses, including urbanization, livestock forage production,
road building, oil pads, etc. These activities are described in greater
detail above. However, we were unable to obtain an estimate of the total
amount of sagebrush habitats that have been lost due to these
activities.

## Habitat---Habitat Fragmentation

Habitat fragmentation is the separation or splitting apart of previously
contiguous, functional habitat components of a species. Fragmentation
can result from direct habitat losses that leave the remaining habitat
in non-contiguous patches, or from alteration of habitat areas that
render the altered patches unusable to a species (i.e., functional
habitat loss). Functional habitat losses include disturbances that
change a habitat's successional state or remove one or more habitat
functions, physical barriers that preclude use of otherwise suitable
areas, and activities that prevent animals from using suitable habitat
patches due to behavioral avoidance.

Sagebrush communities exhibit a high degree of variation in their
resistance and resilience to change, beyond natural variation.
Resistance (the ability to withstand disturbing forces without changing)
and resilience (the ability to recover once altered) generally increase
with increasing moisture and decreasing temperatures, and can also be
linked to soil characteristics (Connelly et al. 2004). However, most
extant sagebrush habitat has been altered since European immigrant
settlement of the West (Baker et al. 1976; Braun 1998; Knick et al.
2003; Connelly et al. 2004), and sagebrush habitat continues to be
fragmented and lost (Knick et al. 2003) through the factors described
below. The cumulative effects of habitat fragmentation have not been
quantified over the range of sagebrush and most fragmentation cannot be
attributed to specific land uses (Knick et al. 2003). However, in
large-scale analysis of the collective effect of anthropogenic features
or the 'human footprint' in the western United States, Leu et al. (2008,
p. 1130) found that 13 percent of the area was affected in some way by
anthropogenic features (i.e. fragmentation). Areas with the lowest
'human footprint' (i.e. no to slight development/use) experienced above
average human population growth between 1990 and 2000 and there is
significant evidence these areas will experience increasing habitat
fragmentation in the future (Leu et al. p. 1133).

Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has been cited as a primary cause of
the decline of sage-grouse populations since the species requires large
expanses of contiguous sagebrush (Patterson 1952; Connelly and Braun
1997; Braun 1998; Johnson and Braun 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a; Miller
and Eddleman 2000; Schroeder and Baydack 2001; Johnsgard 2002; Aldridge
and Brigham 2003; Beck et al. 2003; Pedersen et al. 2003; Connelly et
al. 2004; Schroeder et al. 2004). The negative effects of habitat
fragmentation have been well documented in numerous bird species,
including some shrubsteppe obligates (Knick and Rotenberry 1995, p.
1068-1069). However, prior to 2005 detailed data to assess how
fragmentation influences specific greater sage-grouse life history
parameters such as productivity, density, and home range was not
available. However, more recently several studies have documented
negative effects of fragmentation, as a result of oil and gas
development and its associated infrastructure (see Energy Development -
Non Renewable section above) on lek persistence, lek attendance, winter
habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual survival rate, and female nest
site choice (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Doherty et al. 2008, Holloran
2005, Walker et al. 2007). While sage-grouse are dependent on
interconnected expanses of sagebrush (Patterson 1952; Connelly et al.
2004), data are not available regarding minimum sagebrush patch sizes to
support populations of sage-grouse. Estimating the impact of habitat
fragmentation on sage-grouse is complicated by time lags in response to
habitat changes, particularly since these long-lived birds will continue
to return to altered breeding areas (leks, nesting areas, and early
brood-rearing areas) due to strong site fidelity despite nesting or
productivity failures (Wiens and Rotenberry 1985).

### Powerlines: Power grids were first constructed in the United States in the late 1800s. The public demand for electricity has grown as human population and industrial activities have expanded (Manville 2002), resulting in more than 804,500 km (500,000 mi) of transmission lines (lines carrying \> 115,000 volts/115kV) by 2002 within the United States (Manville 2002). A similar estimate is not available for distribution lines (lines carrying \< 69,000volts/69kV), and we are not aware of data for Canada. Within their analysis area (i.e., the pre-European settlement distribution of greater sage-grouse, including Canada, plus a 50-km (31.3-mi) buffer (buffer is to allow for external factors that may have contributed to current trends in populations or habitats)), Connelly et al. (2004) state there is a minimum of 15,296 km^2^ (5,904 mi^2^) of land (less than 1 percent of their assessment area) in transmission powerline corridors, but they could provide no estimate of the density of distribution lines in their assessment area. 

Powerlines can directly affect greater sage-grouse by posing a collision
and electrocution hazard (Braun 1998; Connelly et al. 2000a), and can
have indirect effects by decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. 2002),
increasing predation (Connelly et al. 2004), fragmenting habitat (Braun
1998), and facilitating the invasion of exotic annual plants (Knick et
al. 2003; Connelly et al. 2004). In 1939, Borell reported the deaths of
3 adult sage-grouse as a result of colliding with a telegraph line in
Utah (Borell 1939). Both Braun (1998) and Connelly et al. (2000a) report
that sage-grouse collisions with powerlines occur, although no specific
instances were presented. Other than an unpublished observation reported
by Aldridge and Brigham (2003), we were unable to find documentations of
other collisions and/or electrocution of sage-grouse resulting from
powerlines.

In areas where the vegetation is low and the terrain relatively flat,
power poles provide an attractive hunting and roosting perch, as well as
nesting stratum for many species of raptors (Steenhof et al. 1993;
Connelly et al. 2000a; Manville 2002; Vander Haegen et al. 2002). Power
poles increase a raptor's range of vision, allow for greater speed
during attacks on prey, and serve as territorial markers (Steenhof et
al. 1993; Manville 2002). Raptors may actively seek out power poles
where natural perches are limited. For example, within one year of
construction of a 596-km (372.5-mi) transmission line in southern Idaho
and Oregon, raptors and common ravens (*Corvus corax)* began nesting on
the supporting poles (Steenhof et al. 1993). Within 10 years of
construction, 133 pairs of raptors and ravens were nesting along this
stretch (Steenhof et al. 1993). The increased abundance of raptors and
corvids within occupied sage-grouse habitats can result in increased
predation. Ellis (1985) reported that golden eagle (*Aquila
chryrsaetos*) predation on sage-grouse on leks increased from 26 to 73
percent of the total predation after completion of a transmission line
within 200 m (220 yd) of an active sage-grouse lek in northeastern Utah.
The lek was eventually abandoned, and Ellis (1985) concluded that the
presence of the powerline resulted in changes in sage-grouse dispersal
patterns and fragmentation of the habitat. Leks within 0.4 km (0.25 mi)
of new powerlines constructed for coalbed methane development in the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming had significantly lower growth rates, as
measured by recruitment of new males onto the lek, compared to leks
further from these lines, which was presumed to be the result of
increased raptor predation (Braun et al. 2002). Within their analysis
area, Connelly et al. (2004) estimated that the area potentially
influenced by additional perches for corvids and raptors provided by
powerlines, assuming a 5 to 6.9-km (3.1 to 4.3-mi) radius buffer around
the perches based on the average foraging distance of these predators,
was 672,644 to 837,390 km^2^ (259,641 to 323,317 mi^2^), or 32 to 40
percent of their assessment area. The actual impact on the area would
depend on corvid and raptor densities within the area. The presence of a
powerline may fragment sage-grouse habitats even if raptors are not
present. Braun (1998; unpublished data) found that use of otherwise
suitable habitat by sage-grouse near powerlines increased as distance
from the powerline increased for up to 600 m (660 yd) and based on that
unpublished data reported that the presence of powerlines may limit
sage-grouse use within 1 km (0.6 mi) in otherwise suitable habitat.

Linear corridors through sagebrush habitats can facilitate the spread of
invasive species, such as cheatgrass (Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Knick et
al. 2003; Connelly et al. 2004). However, we were unable to find any
information regarding the amount of invasive species incursion as a
result of powerline construction.

Powerlines are common to nearly every type of anthropogenic habitat use,
except perhaps some forms of agricultural development (e.g., livestock
grazing) and fire. Although we were unable to find an estimate of all
future proposed powerlines within currently occupied sage-grouse
habitats, we anticipate that powerlines will increase, particularly
given the increasing development of energy resources and urban areas.
For example, up to 8,579 km (5,311 mi) of new powerlines are predicted
for the development of the Powder River Basin coal-bed methane field in
northeastern Wyoming (BLM 2003) in addition to the approximately 9,656
km (6,000 mi) already constructed in that area. Although raptors
associated with powerlines may negatively impact individual greater
sage-grouse and habitats, we could find no information regarding the
effect of this impact on a rangewide basis.

### Communication towers: Within sage-grouse habitats, 9,510 new communication towers have been constructed within recent years (Connelly et al. 2004). While millions of birds are killed annually in the United States through collisions with communication towers and their associated structures (guy wires, lights, etc.; Manville 2002), most documented mortalities are of migratory songbirds. We were unable to determine if any sage-grouse mortalities occur as a result of collision with communication towers or their supporting structures, as most towers are not monitored and those that are lie outside the range of the species (Shire et al. 2000; Kerlinger 2000). However, communication towers also provide perches for corvids and raptors (Steenhof et al. 1993; Connelly et al. 2004). We could find no information regarding the potential impacts of communication towers to the greater sage-grouse on a rangewide basis.

### Fences: Fences are used to delineate property boundaries and for livestock management (Braun 1998; Connelly et al. 2000a). The effects of fencing on sage-grouse include direct mortality through collisions, creation of predator (raptor) perch sites, the potential creation of a predator corridor along fences (particularly if a road is maintained next to the fence), incursion of exotic species along the fencing corridor, and habitat fragmentation (Call and Maser 1985; Braun 1998; Connelly et al. 2000a; Beck et al. 2003; Knick et al. 2003; Connelly et al. 2004).

Sage-grouse frequently fly low and fast across sagebrush flats and new
fences can create a collision hazard (Call and Maser 1985). Thirty-six
carcasses of sage-grouse were found near Randolph, Utah, along a 3.2 km
(2 mi) fence within three months of its construction (Call and Maser
1985). Twenty-one incidents of mortality through fence collisions near
Pinedale, Wyoming, were reported in 2003 to the BLM (Connelly et al.
2004). Fence collisions continue to be identified as a source of
mortality (Braun 1998; Connelly et al. 2000a; Oyler-McCance et al. 2001;
Connelly et al. 2004), although effects on populations are not
understood. Fence posts also create perching places for raptors and
corvids, which may increase their ability to prey on sage-grouse (Braun
1998; Connelly et al. 2000b; Oyler-McCance et al. 2001; Connelly et al.
2004). We anticipate that the effect on sage-grouse populations through
the creation of new raptor perches and predator corridors into sagebrush
habitats is similar to that of powerlines discussed previously (Braun
1998; Connelly et al. 2004). Fences and their associated roads also
facilitate the spread of invasive plant species that replace sagebrush
plants upon which sage-grouse depend (Braun 1998; Connelly et al. 2000a;
Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Connelly et al. 2004). Greater sage‑grouse
avoidance of habitat adjacent to fences, presumably to minimize the risk
of predation, effectively results in habitat fragmentation even if the
actual habitat is not removed (Braun 1998). More than 1,000 km (625 mi)
of fences were constructed annually in sagebrush habitats from 1996
through 2002, mostly in Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming (Connelly et
al. 2004). Over 51,000 km (31,690 mi) of fences were constructed on BLM
lands supporting sage‑grouse populations between 1962 and 1997 (Connelly
et al. 2000a). However, some of the new 1-3 wire fencing being erected
across the range may pose less of a collision risk to sage grouse than
woven fences.

### Roads and Railroads: Impacts from roads may include direct habitat loss, direct mortality, barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats, facilitation of predators and spread of invasive vegetative species, and other indirect influences such as noise (Forman and Alexander 1998). Interstates and major paved roads cover approximately 14,272 km^2^ (22,835 mi^2^) less then 1 percent of their assessment area (Connelly et al. 2004). Secondary paved road densities within this area range to greater than 2 km/km^2^ (3.24 mi/mi^2^). Sage-grouse mortality resulting from collisions with vehicles does occur (Patterson 1952), but mortalities are typically not monitored or recorded. Therefore, we are unable to determine the importance of this factor on sage-grouse populations. Data regarding how roads affect seasonal habitat availability for individual sage-grouse populations by creating barriers and the ability of greater sage-grouse to reach these areas were not available. Road development within Gunnison sage-grouse habitats precluded movement of local populations between the resultant patches, presumably to minimize their exposure to predation (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001). 

Roads can provide corridors for predators to move into previously
unoccupied areas. For some mammalian species, dispersal along roads has
greatly increased their distribution (Forman and Alexander 1998; Forman
2000). Corvids also use linear features such as primary and secondary
roads as travel routes, expanding their movements into previously unused
regions (Connelly et al. 2000b; Aldridge and Brigham 2003; Connelly et
al. 2004). In an analysis of anthropogenic impacts, Connelly et al.
(2004) reported that at least 58 percent of their analysis area has a
high or medium presence of corvids. Corvids are important sage-grouse
nest predators and in a study in Nevada were positively identified via
video recorder as responsible for \>50 percent of nest predations
(Coates 2007, pp.26-30) Additionally, highway rest areas provide a
source of food and perches for corvids and raptors, and facilitate their
movements into surrounding areas (Connelly et al. 2004). It has not been
documented that sage-grouse populations are affected by predators using
roads as corridors into sagebrush habitats.

The presence of roads also increases human access and their resulting
disturbance effects in remote areas (Forman and Alexander 1998; Forman
2000; Connelly et al. 2004). Increases in legal and illegal hunting
activities resulting from the use of roads built into sagebrush habitats
have been documented (Patterson 1952; Connelly et al. 2004). However,
the actual current effect of these increased activities on sage-grouse
populations has not been determined. Roads may also facilitate access
for habitat treatments (Connelly et al. 2004), resulting in subsequent
direct habitat losses. New roads are being constructed to support
development activities within the greater sage-grouse extant range. For
example, in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, up to 28,572 km (17,754
mi) of roads to support coalbed methane development are proposed (BLM
2003).

The expansion of road networks has been documented to contribute to
exotic plant invasions via introduced roadfill, vehicle transport, and
road maintenance activities (Forman and Alexander 1998; Forman 2000;
Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Knick et al. 2003; Connelly et al. 2004).
Invasive species are not limited to roadsides (or verges), but have also
encroached into the surrounding habitats (Forman and Alexander 1998;
Forman 2000; Gelbard and Belnap 2003). In their study of roads on the
Colorado Plateau of southern Utah, Gelbard and Belnap (2003) found that
improving unpaved four-wheel drive roads to paved roads resulted in
increased cover of exotic plant species within the interior of adjacent
plant communities. This effect was associated with road construction and
maintenance activities and vehicle traffic, and not with differences in
site characteristics. The incursion of exotic plants into native
sagebrush systems can negatively affect greater sage-grouse through
habitat losses and conversions (see further discussion above).

Additional indirect effects of roads may result from birds' behavioral
avoidance of road areas because of noise, visual disturbance,
pollutants, and predators moving along a road. The absence of screening
vegetation in arid and semiarid regions further exacerbates the problem
(Suter 1978). Male lek attendance was shown to decline within 3 km (1.9
mi) of a methane well or haul road with traffic volume exceeding 1
vehicle per day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). Male sage-grouse depend on
acoustical signals to attract females to leks (Gibson and Bradbury 1985;
Gratson 1993). If noise interferes with mating displays, and thereby
female attendance, younger males will not be drawn to the lek and
eventually leks will become inactive (Amstrup and Phillips 1977; Braun
1986). Dust from roads and exposed roadsides can damage vegetation
through interference with photosynthetic activities; the actual amount
of potential damage depends on winds, wind direction, the type of
surrounding vegetation and topography (Forman and Alexander 1998).
Chemicals used for road maintenance, particularly in areas with snowy or
icy precipitation, can affect the composition of roadside vegetation
(Forman and Alexander 1998). We were unable to find any data relating
these potential effects directly to impacts on sage-grouse population
parameters.

In a study on the Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming, sage-grouse hens that
bred on leks within 3 km (1.9 mi) of roads associated with oil and gas
development traveled twice as far to nest as did hens bred on leks
greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) from roads. Nest initiation rates for hens
bred on leks "close" to roads were also lower (50 vs. 65 percent)
affecting population recruitment (33 vs. 44 percent) (Lyon 2000; Lyon
and Anderson 2003). Lyon and Anderson (2003) suggested that roads may be
the primary impact of oil and gas development to sage-grouse, due to
their persistence and continued use even after drilling and production
have ceased. Braun et al. (2002) suggested that daily vehicular traffic
along road networks for oil wells can impact sage-grouse breeding
activities based on lek abandonment patterns. In a study of 804 leks
within 100 km (62.5 mi) of Interstate 80 in southern Wyoming and
northeastern Utah, Connelly et al. (2004) found that there were no leks
within 2 km (1.25 mi) of the interstate and only 9 leks were found
between 2 and 4 km (1.25 and 2.5 mi) along this same highway. The number
of active leks increased with increasing distance from the interstate.
Lek persistence and activity relative to distance from the interstate
were also measured. The distance of a lek from the interstate was a
significant predictor of lek activity, with leks further from the
interstate more likely to be active. An analysis of long-term changes in
populations between 1970 and 2003 showed that leks closest to the
interstate declined at a greater rate than those further away (Connelly
et al. 2004). What is not clear from these studies is what specific
factor relative to roads (e.g., noise, changes in vegetation, etc.)
sage-grouse are responding, and Connelly et al. (2004) caution that they
have not included other potential sources of indirect disturbance (e.g.,
powerlines) in their analyses.

Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) did not find road density to be an
important factor affecting sage-grouse persistence or rangewide patterns
in sage-grouse extirpation. However, the authors did not consider the
intensity of human use of roads in their modeling efforts. They also
indicated that their analyses may have been influences by inaccuracies
in spatial road data sets, particularly for secondary roads (Aldridge et
al. 2008, p. 992). Accurate assessments of road impacts are to
sage-grouse populations are more relevant to local populations and not
rangewide analyses (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 992).

Railroads presumably have the same potential impacts to sage-grouse as
do roads since they create linear corridors within sagebrush habitats.
Railways were primarily responsible for the initial spread of cheatgrass
in the intermountain region (Connelly et al. 2004). Cheatgrass, an
exotic species that is unsuitable as sage-grouse habitat, readily
invaded the disturbed soils adjacent to railroads, being distributed by
trains and the cattle they transported. Fires created by trains
facilitated the spread of cheatgrass into adjacent areas. Railroads
cover 137 km^2^ (53 mi^2^) of the sage-grouse in Connelly et al.'s
(2004) assessment area, but are estimated to influence an area of
183,915 km^2^ (71,000 mi^2^), assuming a 3 km (1.9 mi) zone of influence
(9 percent of their assessment area). Avian collisions with trains
occur, although no estimates of mortality rates are documented in the
literature (Erickson et al. 2001).

## Habitat---Urbanization

Low densities of indigenous peoples have been present for more than
12,000 years in the historical range of sage-grouse. By 1900, Connelly
et al. (2004) reported that less than 1 person/km^2^ resided in 51
percent of the 325 counties within their assessment area, and densities
greater than 10 persons/km^2^ occurred in 4 percent of the counties. By
2000, counties with less than 1 person/km^2^ occurred in 31 percent of
the 325 counties and densities greater than 10 persons/km^2^ occurred in
22 percent of the counties (Connelly et al. 2004). Today, the dominant
urban areas are located in the Bear River Valley of Utah, the portion of
Bonneville Basin southeast of the Great Salt Lake, the Snake River
Valley of southern Idaho, and in the Columbia River Valley of Washington
(Rand McNally Road Atlas 2003, Connelly et al. 2004).

Western states accounted for 50 percent of all population growth in the
United States from 1999-2000 (Anderson and Woosley 2005, p. 6). This
growth has led to increases in both urban/suburban and rural
development. Urban development has eliminated some sage-grouse habitat
(Braun 1998). Interrelated effects from urban/suburban development
include construction of associated infrastructure (e.g., roads,
powerlines, and pipelines) and predation threats from the introduction
of domestic pets and increases in predators subsidized by human
activities. In particular, municipal solid waste landfills (landfills)
and roads have been shown to contribute to increases in common raven
populations (Knight et al. 1993, Restani et al. 2001, Webb et al. 2004).
Ravens are known to be an important predator on sage-grouse nests and
have been considered a restraint on sage-grouse population growth in
some locations (Batterson and Morse 1948, Autenrieth 1981, Altstatt
1995). Landfills (and roads) are found in every State and a number of
these are located within or adjacent to sage-grouse habitat.

Recent changes in demographic and economic trends have resulted in
greater than 60 percent of the Rocky Mountain West's counties
experiencing rural sprawl where rural areas are outpacing urban areas in
growth (Theobald 2003, p.3). In some Colorado counties, up to 50 percent
of sage-grouse habitat is under rural subdivision development, and it is
estimated that 3 to 5 percent of all sage-grouse historical habitat in
Colorado has already been converted into urban areas (Braun 1998). We
are unaware of similar estimates for other States within the range of
the greater sage-grouse, and therefore cannot determine the effects of
this factor on a rangewide basis. Rural development has increasingly
taken the form of low-density (aprx. 6-25 homes/km^2^) home development
or exurban growth (Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1894). Between 1990 and 2000,
Theobald (2001, p. 553) reported 120,000 km^2^ of land were developed at
exurban densities. This value, however, includes development nationwide
and we are unable to report values specifically for sagebrush habitats.
Similar to higher density urbanization, exurban development has the
potential to negatively affect sage-grouse populations through direct
habitat loss, increased infrastruction, and increased predation. Maestas
et al. (2003, p. 1430) found lower native species richness (birds,
plants) and higher non-native species richness (domestic pets, plants)
at exurban sites as opposed to sites used for ranching or designated as
preserves in Colorado. Hansen et al. (2005, p. 1896) found that species
richness was correlated with the age of the developed area, with bird
species richness continuing to decline more than 60 years after
development.

In modeling sage-grouse persistence, Aldridge et al. (2008, pp. 991-992)
found that the density of humans in 1950 was the best predictor of
sage-grouse extirpation among the human population metrics considered
(including increasing human population growth). Sage-grouse extirpation
was more likely in areas having a moderate human population density of
at least four people per km^2^. Increasing human populations were not a
good predictor of sage-grouse persistence most likely because much of
the growth occurred in areas that are already no longer suitable for
sage-grouse. Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 990) also reported that based on
their models sage-grouse require a minimum of 25 percent sagebrush for
persistence in an area. A high probability of persistence required 65
percent sagebrush or more. Therefore, human population growth that
results in exurban development in sagebrush habitats may reduce the
likelihood of sage-grouse persistence in the area.

Given the current demographic and economic trends in the Rocky Mountain
West, we have no reason to believe that rates of urbanization and
exurbanization will not continue increasing, resulting in further
habitat fragmentation and degradation. Currently, however, we are unable
to quantify the extent of that habitat loss and its potentially negative
effect on long-term greater sage-grouse persistence.

# UTILIZATION OF SAGE-GROUSE IN COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, SCIENTIFIC, OR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

## 

## Commercial Activity

Although commercial hunting of greater sage-grouse occurred in the late
1800s and early 1900s (Patterson 1952, pp. 30-32; Autenrieth 1981, pp.
3-11) there has been no commercial harvest of the species for many
decades. Consequently, commercial utilization of the species is not
occurring and does not influence any greater sage-grouse populations.

## Recreational Activity

In this section we review and evaluate information pertaining to sport
hunting as well as non-consumptive activities (e.g. bird watching)
conducted specifically for greater sage-grouse. The effects of other
types of recreational activities (e.g. off-highway vehicle activity) on
the species and its habitat are discussed under miscellaneous concerns.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888228 .anchor}*Sport Hunting*: Sport hunting
is a recreational activity that involves the direct utilization of
greater-sage grouse. Historically, the greater sage-grouse was heavily
exploited by commercial and sport hunting in the late 1800s and early
1900s (Patterson 1952, pp. 30-32; Autenrieth 1981, pp. 3-11). Hornaday
(1916, pp. 179-221) and others alerted the public to the risk of
extinction to the species as a result of this overharvest. In response,
many States closed sage-grouse hunting seasons by the 1930s (Patterson
1952, pp.30-33; Autenrieth 1981, p. 10). The impacts of hunting on
greater sage-grouse during those historical decades may have been
exacerbated by impacts from human expansion into sagebrush-steppe
habitats (Girard 1937, p. 1).

With the increase of sage-grouse populations by the 1950s, limited
hunting seasons were again allowed in most of the species range
(Patterson 1952, p. 242; Autenrieth 1981, p.11). Currently, greater
sage-grouse are legally sport-hunted in 10 of 11 States where they occur
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-3). The hunting season for sage-grouse in
Washington was closed in 1988 and the species was added to the state's
list of threatened species in 1998 (Stinson et al. 2004, p. 1). In
Canada sage-grouse are designated as an endangered species and hunting
is not allowed (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-3).

Central to the idea of a sustainable harvest are the concepts of
compensatory and additive mortality (Connelly 2005, p. 7). The concept
of compensatory mortality is that for wildlife populations subject to
density dependent mortality, various mortality factors (e.g. starvation,
disease, predation) frequently are compensatory rather than additive in
terms of their effect on the population. For example, if a certain
percentage of a population is taken by predation a lower percentage will
die of starvation than would have occurred in the absence of predation
(Robinson and Bolen 1984, p. 255). With regard to hunting, the concept
of compensatory morality has been considered to characterize situations
when there is relatively stable annual mortality regardless of which
factors are causing mortality, and thus elimination of hunting will
result in increased mortality from other causes such as predation or
disease (Dasman 1964 as cited in Connelly et al 2005, p. 660). In
contrast, hunting mortality that is additional to natural mortality is
termed additive, i.e. the hunting mortality adds to the natural
mortality, such that the total mortality is greater than if hunting did
not occur (Connelly et al. 2005, p. 660). Thus if hunting is a form of
compensatory mortality it will not contribute to a population decline,
whereas if hunting is a form of additive mortality it will affect
population dynamics potentially resulting in a population decline.
Despite the fact that the validity or ubiquity of compensatory mortality
has not been rigorously tested (i.e., randomized experimental
treatments, replicated studies), it has become a central theme in upland
gamebird management (Romesburg 1981, pp. 303-304; Applegate 2004, p.105;
Connelly 2005, p. 8). Based on the assumption that hunting mortality is
compensatory, game managers typically attempt to set wildlife harvest
levels below a threshold that is related to natural overwinter
mortality. Autheirth (1981, p. 77) suggested sage-grouse could sustain
harvest rates of up to 30 percent annually. Braun (1987, p. 139)
suggested a rate of 20-25 percent was sustainable. State wildlife
agencies currently attempt to keep harvest levels below 5-10 percent of
the population, based on recommendations taken from Connelly et al.
(2000a, p. 976), who stated that most greater sage-grouse populations
could sustain hunting if the seasons are carefully regulated to keep
total mortality within sustainable levels. However, similar to previous
suggested harvest rates, this has not been experimentally tested with
regard to it impacts on sage-grouse populations.

Although hunting has long been thought to be a form of compensatory
mortality for upland game birds, questions have been raised in recent
years about whether that actually is the case. This information is
summarized by Connelly et al. 2005 (pp. 660, 663) who cite studies
suggesting that hunting of upland game, including the greater
sage-grouse, is often not compensatory. Several studies have sought to
determine whether hunting mortality in sage-grouse is compensatory or
additive, primarily by comparing lek count data to known harvest rates.
Braun (1987, p. 139) found that harvest levels of 7-11 percent had no
affect on subsequent spring breeding populations based on lek counts in
North Park, Colorado, and concluded harvest at that level was
compensatory. Johnson and Braun (1999, p. 83) determined that overwinter
mortality correlated with harvest intensity in North Park, Colorado, and
hypothesized that hunting mortalities may be additive. Crawford (1982,
p. 376) found no relationship between harvest rates and subsequent
spring populations in Oregon and suggested that hunting mortality was
compensatory. Crawford and Lutz (1985, p. 72) found that harvests of
\>5,000 birds negatively affected sage-grouse populations in Oregon, but
that the impact was short-lived. Connelly et al. (2003, pp. 256-257)
evaluated data for monitored lek routes in areas experiencing different
levels of harvest (no harvest, 1-bird season, 2-bird season) and found
that populations with no hunting season had faster rates of population
increase than populations with a light to modest harvest. The effect was
particularly pronounced in xeric habitats near human populations, which
suggests that the impact of hunting on sage-grouse to some extent
depends on habitat quality. In Long Valley, California, data collected
on sage-grouse population trends following a 3-year period during the
mid-1980's when hunting was closed indicate that hunting mortality was
additive, suppressing population size well below the apparent carrying
capacity (Gardner 2008). It may be that in natural populations of
wildlife, hunting mortality may fall between the two extremes of being
totally additive or totally compensatory (Robertson and Rosenberg 1988
as cited in Connelly et al., 2005, p. 663). Overall, there is greater
recognition that the effects of hunting can vary depending on population
and habitat characteristics, and that successful harvest management
programs must consider a species' reproductive characteristics and the
quality of habitat occupied by a population (Connelly et al. 2005, p.
663).

Sage-grouse hunting is regulated by State wildlife agencies. Hunting
seasons are reviewed annually, and States change harvest management
based on estimates for spring production and population size (e.g. Bohne
2003, pp.1-10). Harvest, however, is carried out on fall populations of
sage-grouse and currently there is no reliable method for obtaining
estimates of fall population size (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 9-6).
Instead lek counts conducted in the spring are used as a surrogate for
fall population size. In reality, however, by fall populations are
already reduced from spring estimates as some natural mortality
inevitably has occurred in the interim (Kokko 2001, p. 164). This
discrepancy between spring and fall population size estimates plays a
role in determining whether harvest will be within the recommended level
of \<5-10 percent of the fall population. For example, hen mortality in
Montana increased from the typical level of 1-5 percent to 16 percent
during July/August in a year (2003) with West Nile virus mortality
(Moynahan 2006, p.1535). In South Dakota, summer mortality from West
Nile was estimated to be between 21-63 percent of the population (Kaczor
2008, p.72).

Even if the harvest is at the recommended level of \<5-10 percent of a
population, the impact of harvest on females needs to be taken into
consideration, as female survivorship is a key element of population
productivity. There is some evidence that harvest might affect females
and males differently. Connelly et al. (2000b, p.228-229) found that in
Idaho 42 percent of female mortality was attributable to hunting while
for males the number was 15 percent. Patterson (1952, p. 245) found
females accounted for 60 percent (1950) and 63 percent (1951) of total
hunting mortalities. Because sage-grouse are relatively long lived, have
moderate reproductive rates, and are highly polygynous, their
populations are likely to be especially sensitive to adult female
survival (Schroeder 1999, p.2, 13; Saether and Bakke 2000, p. 652;
Connelly 2005, p.9).

All States with hunting seasons have changed limits and season dates to
more evenly distribute hunting mortality across the entire population
structure of greater sage-grouse by harvesting birds after females have
left their broods (Bohne 2003, p. 5). However, despite increasingly
later hunting seasons, hens in Wyoming continue to comprise the majority
of the harvest in all years (WGFD 2004 Job Completion Report (JCR), p.
4; WGFD 2006 JCR p. 7). Of 2813 harvested wings collected at various
locations in Nevada in 2006, on average 59 percent were adult and
juvenile females, and at local levels females made up between 45-94
percent of the wing data (NDOW web page). These results could mean that
females are more susceptible to hunting mortality or it may simply be a
reflection of a female skewed sex ratio in adult birds. Male sage-grouse
in general experience lower survival rates than females, and the varying
degrees of female skewed sex ratios recorded for sage-grouse are thought
to be as a result of this differential survival (Swenson 1986, p. 16; CO
GSG Conservation Plan, p. 54). The potential for negative effects on
populations by harvesting reproductive females has long been recognized
by upland game managers (e.g. hunting of female ring-necked pheasants is
prohibited in most states). For sage-grouse we note also that yearling
hens have less reproductive potential than adults (Dalke et al. 1963, p.
839; Moynahan 2006, p. 1537), and high female mortality has the
potential to result in negative lag effects as future populations become
overrepresented by yearling females (Moynahan 2006, p. 1537).

Harvest management levels that are based on the concept of compensatory
mortality assume that overwinter mortality, which is typically low in
sage-grouse (\~2 percent, Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 229), is density
dependent. However, due to West Nile virus, sage-grouse population
dynamics may be increasingly affected by mortality that is density
independent. Further, there is increasing concern regarding wide-spread
habitat degradation and fragmentation from various sources, such as
development, fire, and the spread of noxious weeds, all of which can
reduce the amount of suitable habitat and thus reduce sage-grouse
populations. State management agencies have become increasingly
responsive to these concerns. All of the States where hunting greater
sage-grouse is legal, except Montana, now manage harvests on a regional
scale rather than applying state-wide limits, and emergency closures
have been utilized for some populations in decline (Connelly 2005, p.
9). North Dakota, for example, closed the 2008 hunting season due to
record low lek attendance likely due to West Nile virus (Robinson 2008).
Hunting on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (Idaho/Nevada) has been
closed since 2006 due to West Nile virus (Dick 2008; Gossett 2008).
Hunting on Owyhee County, Nevada was closed in 2006 and again in 2008 as
a result of West Nile virus. As mentioned above, later harvest seasons
have been implemented by all states in an effort to reduce hunting
pressure on females (Bohne 2003, p. 4). Bag limits and season lengths
are relatively conservative compared to the past (Connelly 2005, p.9;
Gardner 2008). Currently, opening dates range from September 1 to
October 5, with season lengths of 2 to 62 days for gun/bow hunters.
Daily bag limits range from 1 to 2 birds with possession limits from 1
to 4 birds.

Harvest levels have varied considerably since the 1950's, and in recent
years have been much lower than in past decades. We lack data gun/bow
harvest data for a few states in earlier decades. Based on the data we
do have, Table 9 presents the range in annual numbers of greater
sage-grouse harvested in each decade since the 1950's; we note that due
to a few states for which we have no data, these are minimum numbers,
but nevertheless provide some useful information.

> [Table 9]{.underline}: Range in the number of greater sage-grouse
> harvested by gun/bow, by decade; due to a few States for which data
> are missing, the numbers are minimums.

  --------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------
  DECADE          Lowest Number (Year)         Highest Number (Year)

  1950's          2,941 (1950)                 115,466 (1958)

  1960's          61,929 (1960)                265,589 (1969)

  1970's          196,874 (1977)               323,555 (1979)

  1980's          105,689 (1985)               237,452 (1980)

  1990's          48,044 (1997)                166,034 (1990)

  2000 - 2007     20,680 (2003)                37,597 (2005)
  --------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------

Based on our review of harvest estimates provided by the States, we note
the following points in relation to each decade. During the 1950's the
reported harvest increased substantially in the second half of the
decade, but this is in part a reflection of having no harvest data for
Wyoming until 1957. In the 1960's the reported annual harvest increased
substantially after 1961, but is in part due to lack of information for
Colorado, Montana, and Nevada; harvest exceeded 120,000 annually for 7
years in that decade. In the 1970's the harvest was above 200,000 in 9
of 10 years. During the 1980's harvest exceeded 130,000 in 9 of 10
years. The harvest was above 100,000 annually during the early 1990's
but dropped substantially in the last half of the decade. From 2000
through 2007, annual harvests have been much lower than in the prior
decades.

[Figure 10]{.underline}: Total Greater sage-grouse harvest by decade for
available state-wide harvest estimates and combined harvest estimates
from WY, MT, and ID only (**1950s** - no data for CA, CO, MT, NV and
missing data for WY, ID, and SD; **1960s** - no data for CA, ND, SD, and
missing data for NV, CO; **1970s** - no data for CA, ND; **1980s-2007**
data set is complete).

![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="4.097222222222222in"}

From the 1950's to the present, harvests were highest in the 30 years
spanning the 1960's through the 1980's (Fig 10). The harvest information
by state for those 3 decades shows that three states -- Wyoming, Idaho,
and Montana -- accounted for at least 75 percent of the harvest each
year, and sometimes more than 85 percent. Wyoming had the highest
harvest of greater sage-grouse in most years, ranging from a low of
40,886 (1970) to a high of 93,208 (1979), and exceeding 50,000 in 21
years. Idaho generally reported the second highest annual harvest,
ranging from a low of 15,200 (1960) to a high of 92,600 (1979), and
exceeding 50,000 in 15 years. The harvest in Montana exceeded that of
Idaho during 5 years from 1962 (the first year for which we have harvest
information for Montana) to 1966, and exceeded that of Wyoming during 4
years (1963-64, 1966, 1973). From 1962 through 1989, Montana's harvest
ranged from a low of 10,791 (1985) to a high of 99,138 (1964), and
exceeded 50,000 in 6 years.

Table 10 shows the annual gun/bow harvest and the percent of the total
harvest by state for 2004-2007, the most recent years for which we have
harvest data for each state where sage-grouse are legally hunted.
Wyoming accounts for the largest percentage of the harvest with gun/bow
hunting, with more than one-third of all such harvest in each year.
Idaho accounted for one-quarter of the total in 2004, and for
approximately one-third of the harvest in 2005 and 2006. In 2007,
however, Idaho dropped to 18.5 percent, and the decrease there accounted
for most of the overall harvest reduction reported in 2007. The
reduction in Idaho was likely due to at least three factors 1) closures
as a result of the Murphy Complex wildfire 2) season reduction in North
Magic Valley, a planning area typically with one of the highest harvest
rates, due to significant declines in spring lek attendance, and 3) one
of the lowest levels of productivity (0.82 chicks/hen) in the previous
six years. (ID LWG annual report 2007, pp. 7-9). Montana accounted for
approximately 9 to 13 percent, and Nevada for roughly 9 to 18 percent.

[Table 10]{.underline}: Total number and percent of greater sage-grouse
reported taken through gun/bow harvest, 2004-2007, by State.

+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| STATE     | 2004       | 2005       | 2006         | 2007          |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| C         | 180        | 152        | 191          | 47            |
| alifornia |            |            |              |               |
|           | *0.1       | *0.4       | *0.5         | *1.8 percent* |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     |               |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Colorado  | 1,731      | 1,115      | 745          | 1,197         |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *5.3       | *3.2       | *2.0         | *4.5 percent* |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     |               |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Idaho     | 8,050      | 10,537     | 12,500       | 4,935         |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *24.6      | *30.3      | *33.2        | *18.5*        |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     | *percent*     |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Montana   | 3,056      | 3,515      | 4,927        | 3,116         |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *9.4       | *10.1      | *13.1        | *11.7*        |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     | percent       |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Nevada    | 5,244      | 3,175      | 3,701        | 4,897         |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *16.1      | *9.1       | *9.8         | *18.4         |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     | percent*      |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| North     | 7          | 14         | 8            | 21            |
| Dakota    |            |            |              |               |
|           | *\<0.1     | *\<0.1     | *\<0.1       | *\<0.1        |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     | percent*      |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Oregon    | 1,228      | 1,277      | 1,092        | 766           |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *3.8       | *3.7       | *2.9         | *2.9 percent* |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     |               |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| South     | 25         | 26         | 15           | 10            |
| Dakota    |            |            |              |               |
|           | *\<0.1     | *\<0.1     | *\<0.1       | *\<0.1        |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     | percent*      |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Utah      | 1,361      | 1,744      | 1,498        | 1,255         |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *4.2       | *5.0       | *4.0         | *4.7 percent* |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     |               |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| Wyoming   | 11,783     | 13,167     | 12,929       | 10,378        |
|           |            |            |              |               |
|           | *36.1      | *37.9      | *34.4        | *39.0         |
|           | percent*   | percent*   | percent*     | percent*      |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+
| TOTALS    | 32,665     | 34,722     | 37,597       | 26,622        |
+-----------+------------+------------+--------------+---------------+

All 10 States that allow gun hunting of sage-grouse also allow falconers
to hunt sage-grouse. Falconry season opening dates range from August 15
to November 1 and run for 60 to 214 days. Daily bag limits range from 1
to 3 birds and possession limits range from 1 to 6. Falconry seasons are
considerably longer with in some cases larger bag limits than bow/gun
season. However due to the low numbers of falconers and their dispersed
activities levels of harvest through falconry are thought to be
negligible (Apa 2008; Northrup 2008; Hemker 2008; Olsen 2008; Kanta
2008). Wyoming is one of the few states that collects falconry harvest
data and reported a take of 180 sage-grouse by falconers in 2006-2007
season (WGFD 2007 annual report). In Oregon the take is probably less
than 5 birds per year (Budeau 2008). In Idaho the 2005 estimated
statewide falconry harvest was 77 birds and that number has likely
remained relatively constant (Hemker 2008 email). We are not aware of
any studies that have examined falconry take of greater sage-grouse in
relation to population trends, but the amount of greater sage-grouse
mortality associated with falcon sport hunting appears to be negligible.

We surveyed the State fish and wildlife agencies within the range of
greater sage-grouse to determine what information they had on illegal
harvest (poaching) of the species. Nevada and Utah indicated they were
aware of citations being issued for sage-grouse poaching, but that it
was rare (Espinosa 2008, Olsen 2008). Sage grouse wings are infrequently
discovered in wing barrel collection sites during forest grouse hunts in
Washington, but such take is considered a result of hunter
misidentification rather than deliberate poaching (Schroeder 2008). None
of the remaining States had any quantitative data on the level of
poaching in their States. Based on these results, illegal harvest of
greater sage-grouse poaching appears to occur at low levels. We are not
aware of any studies or other data that demonstrate that poaching has
contributed to sage-grouse population declines.

In summary, no studies have demonstrated that regulated hunting is a
primary cause of the decline in the numbers of greater sage-grouse
observed over a period of years in the past (Connelly et al. 2004, p.
9-6). However, there remains uncertainty, due in large part to a lack of
experimental evidence, regarding whether hunting has been a contributing
factor to those declines. Significant habitat loss and fragmentation
have occurred during the past several decades and there is evidence that
the sustainability of harvest levels depends to a large extent upon the
quality of habitat (Connelly 2005, p. 9; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 9-3;
Connelly et al. 2003, pp. 256-257). Populations in Washington and Canada
now prohibit sage-grouse harvest yet populations have not recovered.
This fact is frequently used as evidence that hunting has played little
or no role in sage-grouse declines because habitat loss is clearly the
limiting feature (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 9-6). Recognizing that
habitat loss is a limiting factor for those populations, however, is not
conclusive evidence that hunting played no role in declines.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888229 .anchor}*Non-consumptive Recreational
Activity:* Greater sage-grouse are subject to a variety of
non-consumptive recreational uses such as bird watching or tour groups
visiting leks, general wildlife viewing, and photography. Daily human
disturbances on sage-grouse leks could cause a reduction in mating, and
some reduction in total production (Call and Maser 1985, p. 19). Wyoming
Game and Fish Department provides the public directions to 16 leks and
guidelines to minimize viewing disturbance. Leks included in the
brochure are close to roads and already subject to some level of
disturbance (Christiansen 2008). Colorado and Montana have some sites
with viewing trailers for the public (Apa 2008; Northrup 2008).

Overall, a relatively small number of leks in each state receive regular
viewing use visitation by humans during the strutting season and most
states report no known impacts from this use (Apa 2008; Christiansen
2008; Gardner 2008; Northrup, Montana 2008). Only Colorado has collected
data regarding the effects of non-consumptive use; their data suggest
that controlled lek visitation has not impacted greater sage-grouse (Apa
2008). Oregon, however, reported anecdotal evidence of negative impacts
of unregulated lek viewing to individual leks near urban areas and
subject to frequent disturbance from visitors (Hagen 2008). We were not
able to locate any studies documenting how lek viewing, or other forms
of non-consumptive recreational uses, of sage-grouse are related to
sage-grouse population trends. Given the relatively small number of leks
visited we have no reason to believe that this type of recreational
activity is having a negative impact on local populations or
contributing to declining population trends.

## Religious Activity

Some Native American tribes harvest greater sage-grouse as part of their
religious or ceremonial practices as well as for subsistence. Native
American hunting occurs on the Wind River Indian Reservation (Wyoming),
with about 20 males per year taken off of leks in the spring plus an
average fall harvest of approximately 40 birds (Hnilicka 2008). The
Shoshone-Bannock Tribe (Idaho) occasionally takes small numbers of birds
in the spring, but no harvest figures have been reported for 2007 and
2008 (Christopherson 2008). The Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of the Duck Valley
Indian Reservation (Idaho/Nevada) suspended hunting in 2006, 2007, and
2008 due to significant population declines resulting from a West Nile
virus outbreak in the area (Dick 2008; Gossett 2008). Prior to 2006 the
sage-grouse hunting season on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation ran
from July 1 to November 30 with no bag or possession limits. Preliminary
estimates showed that the harvest may have been as high as 25 percent of
the population (Gossett 2008). Despite the hunting ban, populations have
continued to decline on the reservation (Dick 2008, Gossett 2008). No
harvest by Native Americans for subsistence or religious and ceremonial
purposes occurs in South Dakota, North Dakota, Colorado, Washington, or
Oregon (Apa 2008; Hagen 2008; Kanta 2008, Robinson 2008, Schroeder
2008).

## Scientific and Educational Activity

Greater sage-grouse are the subject of many scientific research studies.
We are of aware of 51 studies ongoing or completed during 2005-2008. Of
the 11 western States where sage-grouse currently occur, all reported
some type of field studies that included the capture, handling, and
subsequent banding, or banding and radio-tagging of sage-grouse. In
2005, the overall mortality rate due to the capture, handling, and/or
radio-tagging process was estimated at approximately 2.7 percent of the
birds captured (68 mortalities of 2491 captured). A survey of state
agencies, BLM, consulting companies, and graduate students involved in
sage-grouse research indicates that there has been little change in
direct handling mortality since then. We are not aware of any studies
that document that this level of taking has affected any sage-grouse
population trends.

Greater sage-grouse have been translocated in several States and the
Province of British Columbia (Reese and Connelly 1997, p. 235). Reese
and Connelly (1997, pp. 235-238) documented the translocation of over
7,200 birds between 1933 and 1990, and additional translocation efforts
have taken place since 1990. Only 5 percent of the translocation efforts
documented by Reese and Connelly (1997, p. 240) were considered to be
successful in producing sustained, resident populations at the
translocation sites. Since 2004, Oregon and Nevada have supplied the
State of Washington with close to 100 greater sage-grouse to increase
the genetic diversity of geographically isolated populations and to
reestablish a historic population. One bird has died during transit and
as expected natural mortality for translocated birds has been higher
than resident populations (Schroeder 2008). In the case of the
population augmentations, translocated birds have bred with resident
birds. No information is available at this time regarding the success or
effectiveness of the reintroduction. Given the low numbers of birds that
have been used for translocation spread over many decades it is unlikely
that the removals from source populations have contributed to greater
sage-grouse declines, while the limited success of translocations has
also likely had nominal impact on rangewide population trends.

We did not find any information regarding the direct use of greater
sage-grouse for educational purposes.

## Summary of Sage-grouse Utilization

Greater sage-grouse are not used for any commercial purpose. We have no
evidence suggesting that gun/bow sport hunting has been a primary cause
of observed rangewide declines of the greater sage-grouse, although
negative impacts on local populations having been demonstrated. Harvest
related to falconry is negligible. Take from poaching (illegal hunting)
appears to occur at low levels in localized areas, and there is no
evidence that it contributes to population declines. The information on
non-consumptive recreational activities is limited to lek viewing, the
extent of such activity is small, and there is no indication that it has
a negative impact that contributes to population declines. Harvest by
native tribes, and mortality that results from handling greater
sage-grouse for scientific purposes appears to occur at low levels in
localized areas and thus we do not consider these to be threat at either
the rangewide or local population levels. We know of no utilization for
educational purposes.

# NATURAL ENEMIES

## 

## Natural Enemies---Disease

There have been few systematic surveys for parasites or infectious
diseases of the greater sage-grouse, and therefore, their role in
population declines is unknown for this species (Connelly et al. 2004).
Some early studies have suggested that sage-grouse populations are
adversely affected by parasitic infections (Batterson and Morse 1948).
Parasites have also been implicated in sage-grouse mate selection, with
potentially subsequent effects on the genetic diversity of this species
(Boyce 1990; Deibert 1995), but Connelly et al. (2004) note that while
these relationships may be important to the long-term ecology of greater
sage-grouse, they have not been shown to be significant to the immediate
status of populations. Connelly et al. (2004) have suggested that
diseases and parasites may limit isolated sage-grouse populations. The
potential effects of emerging diseases require additional study.

Sage-grouse are hosts to many parasites (Connelly et al. 2004; Thorne et
al. 1982). Only the protozoan, *Eimeria* spp., which causes coccidiosis
(Connelly et al. 2004), has proven to be fatal, but mortality is not 100
percent, and young birds that survive an initial infection typically do
not succumb to subsequent infections (Thorne et al. 1982). Infections
tend to be localized to specific geographic areas. Most cases of
coccidiosis in greater sage-grouse have been found where large numbers
of birds congregated, resulting in soil and water contamination by fecal
material (Connelly et al. 2004). While the role of this parasite in
population changes is unknown, Petersen (2004) hypothesized that
coccidiosis could be limiting for local populations, as this parasite
causes decreased growth and significant mortality in young birds,
thereby potentially limiting recruitment. However, no cases of
sage-grouse mortality resulting from coccidiosis have been documented
since the early 1960s (Connelly et al. 2004).

Other parasites which have been documented in the greater sage-grouse
include *Sarcosystis* spp (another form of coccidea), blood parasites
(including avian malaria, [*Leucocytozoon*]{.underline} spp.,
*Haemoproteus* spp., and *Trypanosoma avium*), *Tritrichomonas*
[simoni]{.underline}, tapeworms, gizzard worms (*Habronema* spp. and
*Acuaria* spp.), cecal worms, and filarid nematodes (Thorne et al. 1982;
Connelly et al. 2004; Petersen 2004). None of these parasites have been
known to cause mortality in the greater sage-grouse. Sub-lethal effects
of these parasitic infections on sage-grouse have never been studied.

Greater sage-grouse host many external parasites, including lice, ticks,
and dipterans (midges, flies, mosquitoes, and keds) (Connelly et al.
2004). Most ectoparasites do not produce disease, but can serve as
disease vectors or cause mechanical injury and irritation (Thorne et al.
1982). Many biologists contend that ectoparasites can be detrimental to
their hosts, particularly when the bird is stressed by inadequate
habitat or nutritional conditions (Petersen 2004). Some studies have
suggested that lice infestations can affect sage-grouse mate selection
(Boyce 1990; Spurrier et al. 1991; Deibert 1995), but population impacts
are not known (Connelly et al. 2004).

Greater sage-grouse are also subject to a variety of bacterial, fungal,
and viral pathogens. The bacteria *Salmonella* spp. has caused mortality
in the greater sage-grouse; the bacteria apparently contracted through
of exposure to contaminated water supplies around livestock stock tanks
(Connelly et al. 2004). Other bacteria found in sage-grouse include
*Escherichia coli*, botulism (*Clostridium* spp.), avian tuberculosis
(*Mycobacterium* *avium*), and avian cholera (*Pasteurella multocida*).
These bacteria have never been identified as a cause of mortality in
greater sage-grouse and the risk of exposure and hence, population
effects, is low (Connelly et al. 2004). One case of aspergillosis, a
fungal disease, has been documented in sage-grouse, but there is no
evidence to suggest this fungus plays a role in limiting greater
sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2004; Petersen 2004).

Viral diseases could cause serious diseases in grouse species and
potentially influence population dynamics (Petersen 2004). However,
prior to 2003 only avian infectious bronchitis (caused by a coronavirus)
had been identified in the greater sage-grouse. No clinical signs of the
disease were observed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888235 .anchor}*West Nile Virus*: West Nile
virus (WNv) was introduced into the northeastern United States in 1999
and has subsequently spread across North America (Marra et al. 2004,
p.394). This virus is thought to have caused millions of wild bird
deaths since its introduction (McLean 2006, pp. 47-55), but most WNV
mortality goes unnoticed or unreported (Ward et al. 2006; p. 101). The
virus persists largely within a mosquito-bird-mosquito infection cycle
(McLean 2006; p. 45). However, direct bird to bird transmission of the
virus has been documented in several species (McLean 2006; pp. 54 and
59) including the greater sage-grouse (70 FR 2270). The frequency of
direct transmission has not been determined (McLean 2006, p. 54).

Impacts of WNv on the bird host varies by species with some species
being relatively unaffected (e.g. mourning dove (*Zenaida macroura*))
and others experiencing mortality rates of up to 68 percent (e.g.
juvenile American white pelican (*Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)*)
(Kilpatrick et al. 2007, p.1129; Sovada et al. 2008, p. 1027 and
references therein). Greater sage-grouse are considered to have a high
susceptibility to WNv, with resultant high levels of mortality (McLean
2006, p. 54; and discussion below).

In sagebrush habitats, WNv transmission is primarily regulated by
environmental factors, including temperature, precipitation and
distribution of anthropogenic water sources that support the mosquito
vectors (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309). Cold ambient temperatures preclude
mosquito activity and virus amplification, so transmission to and in
sage-grouse is limited to the summer (mid-May to mid-September) (Naugle
et al. 2005, p. 620; Zou et al. 2007, p. 4). Documented WNv-related
mortality in sage--grouse has been limited to these months, with a peak
in July and August (Walker et al. 2007a; p. 693). Reduced and delayed
WNv transmission in sage-grouse has occurred in years with lower summer
temperatures (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 621; Walker et al. 2007a, p. 694).
In other ecosystems, high temperatures associated with drought
conditions increase WNv transmission by allowing for more rapid larval
mosquito development and shorter virus incubation periods (Shaman et al.
2005, p.134). Greater sage-grouse congregate in mesic habitats in the
mid-late summer (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971) thereby increasing the
risk of exposure to mosquitoes. If WNv outbreaks coincide with drought
conditions that aggregate birds in habitat near water sources (due to
the greater availability of suitable cover and food resources for
greater-sage grouse), the risk of exposure to WNv will be elevated
(Naugle et al. 2004). In greater sage-grouse, mortality from WNv occurs
at a time of year when survival is otherwise typically high for adult
females (Schroeder et al. 1999, p.14; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30),
thus potentially making these deaths additive to other mortality sources
and reducing average annual survival (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 621). WNv
has been identified as a source of additive mortality in American white
pelicans in the northern plains breeding colonies (Montana, North Dakota
and South Dakota), and its continued impact has the potential to
severely impact the entire pelican population (Sovada et al. 2008, p.
1030).

WNv was first detected in 2003 as a causative agent in greater
sage-grouse mortalities in Wyoming. Data from four studies in the
eastern half of the sage-grouse range (Alberta, Montana, Wyoming) showed
survival in these populations declined 25 percent in July and August as
a result of the WNv infection (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711). Populations
of grouse that were not affected by WNv showed no similar decline.
Additionally, individual sage-grouse in exposed populations were 3.4
times more likely to die during July and August, the "peak" of WNv
occurrence, than birds in non-exposed populations (Connelly et al. 2004,
p. 10-9; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711). Subsequent declines in both male
and female lek attendance in infected areas in 2004 compared with years
before WNv was detected in this area suggest outbreaks could contribute
to local population extirpation (Walker et al. 2004, p. 4). Lek surveys
in 2004, however, indicated that regional sage-grouse populations did
not decline, suggesting that the initial effects of WNv were localized
(Wyoming Game and Fish Department, unpublished data, 2004). Eight
sage-grouse deaths resulting from WNv were identified in 2004, four from
the Powder River Basin area of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern
Montana, one from the northwestern Colorado, near the town of Yampa and
three in California (Walker et al. 2007b). Survival rates in July and
September of that year were consistently lower in areas with confirmed
WNv mortalities than those without (avg. 0.86 and 0.96, respectively;
Naugle et al. 2005). There were no comprehensive efforts to track
sage-grouse mortalities outside of these areas, so the actual
distribution and extent of WNv in sage-grouse in 2004 is unknown (70 FR
2270).

As of December, 2007 WNv has been detected in humans, horses, and other
species throughout the entire range of greater sage-grouse (Kilpatrick
et al. 2007). Greater sage-grouse deaths resulting from this virus have
been detected in 10 states and 1 province, involving Management Zones I,
II, III, IV, V and VII. To date, no sage-grouse mortality in Washington
(Management Zone 6) or Saskatchewan (part of Management Zone 1) have
been detected. WNv has been detected in other species within the range
of greater sage-grouse in Washington
(http://diseasemaps.usgs.gov/wnv_wa_bird.html). Little information
regarding outbreaks has been reported to date in 2008, although
mortalities from the disease were documented in Wyoming (Wright 2008).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888236 .anchor}*Impact on local populations and
mortality rates*: Several studies have examined the impact of WNv on
local sage-grouse populations. Naugle et al. (2005; p. 617) reported a
25 percent decline in the survival of four greater sage-grouse
populations in Alberta, Montana, and Wyoming. One outbreak near Spotted
Horse, Wyoming in 2003 was associated with the subsequent extirpation of
the local breeding population, with five leks affected by the disease
becoming inactive within 2 years (Wyoming Game and Fish Department
data). Also, in 2004, late summer survival rates were consistently lower
at four sites across the species' range with confirmed WNv mortalities
than at eight sites without (Naugle et al. 2005).

Mortality rates from WNv in a 50,000 km^2^ area of northeastern Wyoming
and southeastern Montana were between 2.4 (estimated minimum) and 28.9
percent (estimated maximum) in 2005 (Walker et al., 2007a; p. 693). In
2006, mortality rates in South Dakota among radio-marked juvenile
sage-grouse ranged between 6.5 and 71 percent (Kaczor 2008, p. 63).
Large sage-grouse mortality events were reported in the Jordan Valley
and near Burns, Oregon (\> 60 birds), and in several areas of Idaho and
along the Idaho-Nevada border (\> 55 birds) (U.S. Geological Survey
2006). While most of the carcasses had decomposed and were not testable,
results for the few that were tested showed that they died from WNv.

Juvenile mortality rates in South Dakota in 2007 ranged from 20.8
(minimum estimate) to 62.5 percent (maximum estimate) (Kaczor 2008, p.
63), reducing recruitment the subsequent spring by 2 to 4 percent
(Kaczor 2008, p. 65). A 52 percent decline in the number of males
attending leks in North Dakota between 2007 and 2008 were also
associated with WNv mortality in 2007 that prompted the state wildlife
agency to close the hunting season in 2008
(www.gf.nd.gov/multimedia/news/2008/04/080413.html). The Duck Valley
Indian Reservation along the border of Nevada and Idaho closed their
hunting season in 2006 due to population declines resulting from WNv
(Gossett 2008). WNv is still present in that area, with continued
population declines (50.3 percent of average males per lek from 2005 to
2008) (Dick, 2008, p. 2), and the hunting season remains closed. The
hunting season also remains closed in adjacent Owyhee County, Idaho for
the same reason.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888237 .anchor}*Surviving infection*: In 2005,
we reported that there was little evidence that greater sage-grouse can
survive a WNv infection (70 FR 2270). This was based on the lack of
sage-grouse found to have antibodies to the virus (as determined by
serum samples) and from laboratory studies in which all sage-grouse
exposed to the virus, at varying doses, died within 8 days (70 FR 2270).
These data suggested that sage-grouse do not develop a resistance to the
disease, and death is certain once an individual is exposed. However,
six of 58 females (10.3 percent) birds captured in the spring of 2005 in
northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana were seropositive for
neutralizing antibodies, which suggests they were exposed to the virus
the previous fall and survived an infection. Additional, but
significantly fewer (2 of 109, or 1.8 percent) seropositive females were
found in the spring of 2006 (Walker et al. 2007a, p. 693). The duration
of immunity conferred by surviving an infection is unknown (Walker 2008,
p. 64). It is also unclear whether sage-grouse have sub-lethal or
residual effects resulting from a WNv infection, such as reduced
productivity or overwinter survival (Walker et al., 2007a, p. 694).
However, other bird species infected with WNv have been documented to
suffer from chronic symptoms, including reduced mobility, weakness,
disorientation, lack of vigilance, etc. (Nemeth et al. 2006, p. 253;
Marra et al. 2004, p. 397), all of which may affect survival and/or
reproduction. Reduced productivity in American white pelicans has been
attributed to WNv (via reduced recruitment) (Sovada et al. 2008;
p.1030).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888238 .anchor}*Modeling*: Walker (2008 pp.
161-216) modeled variability in greater sage-grouse population growth
for the next 20 years under three WNv impact scenarios. These scenarios
included: (1) no mortalities from WNv, (2) WNv- related mortality based
on rates of observed infection and mortality rate data from 2003-2007,
and (3) WNv-related mortality with increasing resistance to the disease
over time. The addition of WNv-related mortality (scenario 2) resulted
in a reduction of 9 to 12 percent population growth. The proportion of
resistant individuals in the population increased marginally over the
20-year projection periods, from 4 to 15 percent under the increasing
resistance scenario (scenario 3). While this increase in the proportion
of resistant individuals did reduce the projected WNv rates, the author
cautions that the presence of neutralizing antibodies in the live birds
does not always indicate that these birds are actually resistant to
infection and disease (Walker 2008). Additional models predicting the
prevalence of WNv suggest that new sources of anthropogenic surface
waters (e.g. coal-bed methane discharge ponds), increasing ambient
temperatures, and a mosquito parasite that reduces the length of time
the virus is present in the vector before the mosquito can spread the
virus all suggest the impacts of this disease are likely increase
(Miller 2008). However, these models are still being developed, so the
final results are unknown.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc212888239 .anchor}*Water sources*: Human-created
water sources in sage-grouse habitat known to support breeding
mosquitoes that transmit WNv include overflowing stock tanks, stock
ponds, irrigated agricultural fields and cold-bed natural gas discharge
ponds (Zou et al. 2006, p. 1035). From 1999 through 2004, potential
mosquito habitats in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana
increased 75 percent (619 ha to 1084.5 ha) primarily due to the increase
of small coal-bed natural gas water discharge ponds (Zou et al. 2006, p.
1034). Additionally, water developments installed in arid sagebrush
landscapes to benefit wildlife continue to be common management
practices. Several scientists have expressed concern regarding the
potential for exacerbating WNv persistence and spread due to the
proliferation of surface water features (e.g. Friend et al., 2001, p.
298; Walker et al. 2007a, p. 695; Zou et al., 2006, p.1040). Walker et
al. (2007a; p. 694) concluded that impacts from WNv will depend less on
resistance to the disease than on temperatures and changes in vector
distribution. Zou et al. (2006, p. 1040) cautioned that the continuing
development of coal-bed natural gas facilities in Wyoming and Montana
contributes to maintaining, and possibly increasing WNv on that
landscape through the maintenance and proliferation of surface water.

Long-term response of sage-grouse populations to WNv infections will
vary depending on factors that influence exposure and susceptibility,
such as temperature, land uses, sage-grouse population size, etc.)
(Walker 2008, p. 65). Small, isolated or genetically limited populations
are at higher risk as an infection may reduce population size below a
threshold where recovery is no longer possible (Naugle 2008). Larger
populations may be able to absorb impacts resulting from WNv as long as
the quality and extent of available habitat supports positive population
grown (Naugle 2008). However impacts from this disease may act
synergistically with other stressors resulting in reduction of
population size, bird distribution, or persistence (Walker et al. 2007b,
p. 2652). WNv persists on the landscape after it first occurs as an
epizootic, suggesting this virus will remain a long-term issue in
affected areas (McLean 2006, p. 50).

Pro-active measures to reduce the impact of WNv on greater sage-grouse
have been limited and are typically economically prohibitive. Fowl
vaccines used on captive sage--grouse were largely ineffective
(mortality rates were reduced from 100 to 80 percent in 5 birds) (Clark
et al. 2006, p. 17). Development of a sage-grouse specific vaccine would
require a market incentive and development of an effective delivery
mechanism for large numbers of birds (currently, the delivery is via
intramuscular injection) (Marra et al. 2004, p. 399). Vaccinations would
only benefit the individuals receiving the vaccine, and not their
offspring, so vaccination would have to occur on an annual basis
(Kilpatrick et al. 2007). Mosquito production from human-created water
sources could be minimized if water produced during coal-bed natural gas
development were re-injected versus surface discharge (Doherty 2007, p.
81). If this is not possible, surface water sources should be designed
to minimize habitat suitability for the vector. For existing water
sources, effective larval control should be implemented via the
introduction of mosquito-eating fish or application of biological or
chemical larvicides (Doherty 2007, p. 85). Mosquito control programs for
reducing the number of adult mosquitoes may reduce the risk of WNv, but
only if such methods are consistently and appropriately implemented
(Doherty 2007). The benefits of such control need to be considered in
light of the potential detrimental or cascading ecological effects of
widespread spraying (Marra et al. 2004, p. 401).

Substantial new information on WNv and impacts on the greater
sage-grouse has emerged since we completed our finding in 2005. The
virus is now distributed throughout the species range and affected
sage-grouse populations experience high mortality rates with resultant
reductions in local population numbers. There is limited information
that suggests that sage-grouse may be able to survive an infection;
however, because of the apparent low-level of immunity widespread
resistance in unlikely. The most significant factors affecting the
persistence of WNv within the range of sage-grouse are related to
ambient temperatures and surface water abundance and development. The
continued development of anthropogenic water sources throughout the
range of the species will likely increase the prevalence of the virus in
sage-grouse, as predicted by Walker (2008) (see discussion above). Areas
with intensive energy development (particularly Management Zones I and
II) may be at a particularly high risk for continued WNv mortalities due
to the development of surface water features, and the continued loss and
fragmentation of habitats (see discussion of energy development).
Impacts from this disease may act synergistically with other stressors
resulting in reduction of population size, distribution, or persistence.

Small populations, such as the Columbia Basin area in Washington State
(Management Zone VI) or the subpopulations within the bi-state grouping
along the California and Nevada border (Management Zone IV) may also be
at high risk of extirpation simply due to their low population numbers
and the additive mortality WNv causes. Larger populations may be better
able to "absorb" losses due to WNv (Naugle 2008) simply due to their
size. As other impacts to grouse and their habitats affect these areas,
these "refugias" may also be at risk (e.g. north-central Montana,
southwestern WY, south-central Oregon). Existing and developing models
suggest that the occurrence of WNv is likely to increase throughout the
range of the species into the future.

The most significant factors affecting the persistence of WNv within the
range of sage-grouse are related to ambient temperatures and surface
water abundance and development, and local population sizes, with small,
isolated populations at higher risk.

## Natural Enemies---Predation

Predation is the most commonly identified cause of direct mortality for
sage-grouse (Schroeder et al*.* 1999, p. 9; Connelly et al. 2000b, p.
228). Despite this fact, adult sage-grouse typically experience
relatively high annual survival rates, suggesting that predation has
little impact on breeding populations (Connelly et al. 1994 cited in
Connelly 2000, p.229). Greater sage-grouse have evolved with predators,
and the identity and type of predator varies with sex, life stage, and
location.

Adult male greater sage-grouse are most susceptible to predation during
the mating season presumably because they are very conspicuous while
performing their mating display at leks. Because leks are attended daily
by numerous birds, predators may be attracted to these areas during the
breeding season (Braun in litt. 1995). Connelly et al. (2000b, p.228)
found that among 40 radio-collared males, 83 percent of the mortality
was due to predation and 42 percent of those mortalities occurred
between March and June. Adult female greater sage-grouse are most
susceptible to predators while on the nest or during brood-rearing when
they are with young chicks (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25). Connelly
et al. (2000b, p. 228) found that among 77 radio-collared adult hens, 52
percent of the mortality was due to predation and 52 percent of those
mortalities occurred between March and August. Because sage-grouse are
highly polygynous with only a few males breeding per year, sage-grouse
populations are likely more sensitive to predation upon females. There
is, however, no evidence predators disproportionately target females. In
fact, females typically have a higher survival rates than males
(Crawford et al. 2004). Known predators of both male and female adult
greater sage-grouse include coyotes (*Canis latrans*), bobcats (*Lynx
rufus*), weasels (*Mustela* spp.), golden eagles, red-tailed hawks
(*Buteo jamaicensis*), Swainson's hawks (*B. swainsoni*), and
ferruginous hawks (*B. regalis*) (Hartzler 1974, pp. 532-536; Schroeder
et al. 1999, p. 9; Rowland and Wisdom 2002, p. 14; Schroeder and Baydack
2001, p. 25).

Juvenile grouse are known to be susceptible to predation from badgers
(*Taxidea* *taxus*), red foxes, coyotes, weasels, American kestrels
(*Falco sparverius*), merlins (*F. columbarius*), northern harriers
(*Circus cyaneus*), and other hawks (Braun in litt. 1995; Schroeder et
al. 1999, p. 10). Estimations of predation rates on juvenile age
classes, however, have been frustrated by the difficulties involved with
attaching transmitters to young birds. Gregg et al. (2003a, 2003b, p.
17), after surgically implanting radio transmitters, found that chick
predation mortality ranged from 27 percent to 51 percent in 2002 and 10
percent to 43 percent in 2003 on three study sites in Oregon. Mortality
due to predation during the first few weeks after hatching was estimated
to be 82 percent (Gregg et al. 2007, p. 648). Survival of juveniles to
their first breeding season was estimated to be low (10 percent) and it
is reasonable, given the sources of adult mortality, to assume that the
majority of juvenile mortality can also be attributed to predation
(Crawford et al. 2004, p. 4).

Sage grouse nests are also subject to varying levels of predation.
Predation can be total (all eggs destroyed) or partial (\>1 egg
destroyed). However, hens abandon nests in either case (Coates, 2007, p.
26). Gregg et al. (1994, p. 164) reported that over a three year period
in Oregon 106 of 124 nests (84 percent) were preyed upon. Non-predated
nests had greater grass and forb cover than predated nests. Patterson
(1952, p.104) reported nest predation rates of 41 percent (89 of 216) in
Wyoming. Holloran and Anderson (2003, p. 309) reported a predation rate
of 12 percent (3 of 26) in Wyoming. Moynahan (2007, p. 1777) attributed
131 of 258 (54 percent) nest failures to predation in Montana. Important
nest predators of sage-grouse are common ravens, black-billed magpies
(*Pica hudsonia*), red fox, and badgers. Ground squirrels
(*Spermophilus* spp.) have also been frequently identified as an
important predator of sage grouse nests (Patterson 1952, p. 107).
However, the majority of studies have used indirect evidence based on
nest remains to infer predator identity. Holloran and Anderson (2003, p.
309), however, video recorded the fate of 26 grouse nests in Wyoming. An
elk (*Cervus elaphus*), black-billed magpie, and badger were responsible
for the three nest predations observed. Ground squirrels were recorded
at nests but did not destroy eggs. Coates (2007, pp.26-30) similarly
placed cameras on 55 sage-grouse nests in Nevada. Ravens (n=10; 59
percent), badgers (n=7; 41 percent), and a domestic cow (n=1; 6 percent)
were responsible for the observed nest predation. Ground squirrels
(n=23) and Great Basin gopher snakes (*Pituophis catenifer deserticola*)
(n=2) were observed at nests but no predation occurred.

Losses of breeding hens and young chicks to predation potentially can
influence overall greater sage-grouse population numbers, as these two
groups contribute most significantly to population productivity. Losses
of nesting adult hens and nests to predation appear to be related to the
amount of herbaceous cover surrounding the nest (Gregg et al. 1994, p.
164; Braun in litt. 1995; Braun 1998; Coggins 1998, p. 30; Connelly et
al. 2000b, p. 975; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25). Nesting success
of greater sage-grouse is positively correlated with the presence of big
sagebrush and relatively thick grass and forb cover and females actively
select nest sites with these qualities (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p.
25; Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). DeLong et al. (1995, p. 90) and Gregg et
al. (1994, p. 164) found a lower probability of nest predation at nest
sites with tall grass and medium shrub cover in Oregon. Removal of this
cover, by any method (grazing, fire, mechanical), can reduce nest
success and adult hen survival. Similarly, habitat alteration that
reduces cover for young chicks can increase the rate of predation on
this age class (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 27).

Connelly et al. (2000, p. 977) provide guidelines for management of
characteristics of sagebrush rangeland needed for productive sage-grouse
habitat. Such guidelines are based on the scientific literature.
However, the literature is frequently conflicted about the relative
importance of various vegetative characteristics on sage-grouse nesting
success. Coates (2007, p. 159) postulated that discrepancies may be
explained by predator composition and abundance. Increased forb biomass
and understory obstruction was strongly correlated with badger
predation. Badgers primarily prey upon ground squirrels that are
associated with dense forbs and bunchgrasses. Conversely, decreased
canopy cover was strongly correlated with raven predation. Unlike
badgers, ravens are frequently favored in human altered landscapes where
they are subsidized with alternate food sources (e.g. landfills) and
provided additional perching and nesting structures (Coates 2008,
p.159). These same landscapes are often associated with decreased canopy
cover for sage-grouse nests.

Agricultural development, landscape fragmentation, and human populations
have the potential to increase predation pressure on all life stages of
greater sage-grouse as compared to historical conditions by forcing
birds to nest in less suitable or marginal habitats, by increasing
travel time through habitats where they are vulnerable to predation, and
by increasing the diversity and density of predators (Ritchie et al.
1994, p. 125; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; Connelly et al. 2004,
p. 7-23; Summers et al. 2004, p. 523). Increasing populations of
predators such as red fox and corvids, that historically were rare in
the sagebrush landscape, but have increased in association with
human-altered landscapes, are very effective nest predators (Sovada et
al. 1995, p. 5) and have the potential to increase rates of predation on
sage-grouse. In the Strawberry Valley of Utah (Management Zone II),
Bambrough et al. (2000) noted that low survival of greater sage-grouse
may have been due to an unusually high density of red foxes, which
apparently were attracted to that area by anthropogenic activities.
Connelly et al. (2004, p. 12-2) noted that ranches, farms, and housing
developments have resulted in the introduction of nonnative predators
including domestic dogs (*Canis domesticus*) and cats (*Felis
domesticus*) into greater sage-grouse habitats. Where greater
sage-grouse habitat has been altered in localized areas, the influx of
predators can decrease annual recruitment into a population (Gregg et
al. 1994, p. 164; Braun in litt. 1995; Braun 1998; DeLong et al. 1995,
p. 91; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 28).

Research conducted to determine nest success and greater sage-grouse
survival has concluded that predation typically does not limit greater
sage-grouse numbers although negative effects at local levels have been
observed. (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7; Bambrough et al. 2000;
Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 975; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 229; Wambolt et
al. 2002, p. 13). This conclusion is supported by evidence that predator
removal does not have long-lasting effects on sage-grouse population
size or stability over large regions (Cote and Sutherland 1997;
Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 17; Wambolt et al. 2002, p. 14). For example,
Slater (2003, p. 133) demonstrated that coyote control failed to have an
effect on greater sage-grouse nesting success in southwestern Wyoming.
Coyotes, however, may not be an important predator of sage-grouse. In a
coyote prey base analysis, Johnson and Hansen (1979, p. 954) showed that
sage-grouse and bird egg shells made up a very small percentage (0.4-2.4
percent) of analyzed scat samples. Additionally, the effects of coyote
removal can have unintended consequences resulting in the release of
mesopredators, many of which, like the red fox, may have greater
negative impacts on sage-grouse (Mezquida et al. 2006, p. 752). Coates
(2007, p. 37) found that ravens, unlike mammalian predators, depredated
greater sage-grouse nests on a larger landscape and were associated with
anthropogenic-altered areas. Removal of ravens caused only short-term
reductions in raven populations (\<1 year) as apparently transient birds
from neighboring sites repopulated the removal area (Coates 2007, p.
151). Additionally, badger predation appeared to partially compensate
for decreases in raven removal. No raven predation occurred within 20 km
of the raven removal area whereas 6 of 7 (86 percent) of badger
predations, which represented 41 percent of all predations, occurred
within 15 km of the raven removal area. (Coates 2007, p 152). In their
review of literature regarding predation, Connelly et al. (2004, p.
10-1) noted that only two of nine studies examining survival and nest
success indicated that predation had limited a sage-grouse population by
decreasing nest success, and both studies indicated low nest success due
to predation was ultimately related to poor nesting habitat. Connelly et
al. (2004, p. 10-2) further noted that the idea that predation is not a
widespread factor depressing sage-grouse populations is supported by
studies of nest success rates (which indicate nest predation is not a
widespread problem), by the relatively high survival of adult birds, and
by the lack of an effect on nesting success as a result of coyote
control in Wyoming.

Sage-grouse have evolved with predators and have behavioral,
morphological, and physiological characteristics that appear to help
them avoid predators. Both female and male plumage is highly cryptic.
When handled, birds often will drop large quantities of body and tail
feathers as an escape mechanism. Birds are hesitant to flush and
frequently remain crouched in cover despite being approached. Incubating
females leave nests for short periods of time in a crepuscular pattern
to minimize detection by visual predators (Coates 2008; p. 69).
Sage-grouse, however, may be increasingly subject to levels of predation
that would not normally occur in the historically contiguous unaltered
sagebrush habitats.

In summary, greater sage-grouse are prey, and in a few instances
predation appears to have been limiting to greater sage-grouse
population stability. However, a review of the scientific literature
indicates that in general, predation does not limit breeding populations
of greater sage-grouse. Impacts of predation on the greater sage-grouse
can increase where habitat quality has been compromised by anthropogenic
activities (exurban development, road development, etc.). Studies of the
effectiveness of predator control have failed to demonstrate an inverse
relationship between the predator numbers and sage-grouse nesting
success or populations numbers.

# OTHER NATURAL AND MAN-MADE THREATS

## 

## Pesticides

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a
"pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Though often
misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also
applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to
control unwanted organisms. Pests are living organisms that occur where
they are not wanted or that cause damage to crops or humans or other
animals" <http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/index.htm#what_pesticide>,
October 7, 2008). Pesticides can potentially affect sage-grouse through
impacts to habitat quality, abundance of prey items, and direct affects
to the bird's health and survival.

Few studies have examined the effects of pesticides to sage-grouse, but
at least one has documented direct mortality of greater sage-grouse as a
result of ingestion of alfalfa sprayed with organophosphorus
insecticides (Blus et al. 1989, Blus and Connelly 1998). In this case, a
field of alfalfa was sprayed with dimethoate when approximately 200
sage-grouse were present; 63 of these sage-grouse were later found dead,
presumably as a result of pesticide exposure (Blus et al. 1989, Blus and
Connelly 1998). A comparison of applied levels of herbicides with
toxicity studies of grouse, chickens, and other gamebirds (Carr 1968, as
cited in Call and Maser 1985) concluded that herbicides applied at
recommended rates should not result in sage-grouse poisonings.

Game birds that ingested sub-lethal levels of pesticides have been
observed exhibiting abnormal behavior that may lead to a greater risk of
predation (Dahlen and Haugen 1954, McEwen and Brown 1966, Blus et al.
1989). McEwen and Brown (1966) reported that wild sharp-tailed grouse
poisoned by malathion and dieldrin exhibited depression, dullness,
slowed reactions, irregular flight, and uncoordinated walking. Although
no research has explicitly studied the indirect levels of mortality from
sub-lethal doses of pesticides (e.g., predation of impaired birds), it
has been assumed to be the reason for mortality among some study birds
(McEwen and Brown 1966, Blus et al. 1989, Connelly and Blus 1991). Both
Post (1951) and Blus et al (1989) located depredated sage-grouse
carcasses in areas that had been treated with insecticides. Exposure to
these insecticides may have predisposed sagegrouse to predation.
Sage-grouse mortalities were also documented in a study where they were
exposed to strychnine bait type used to control small mammals (Ward et
al. 1942 as cited in Schroeder et al. 1999).

Much of the research related to pesticides that had either lethal or
sub-lethal affects on greater sage-grouse was done on pesticides that
have been banned or have their use further restricted for more than 20
years due to their toxic effects on the environment (e.g., dieldrin). We
currently do not have any information to show that the banned pesticides
through either illegal use or residues in the environment are presently
having negative impacts to sage-grouse populations. For example,
sage-grouse mortalities were documented in a study where they were
exposed to strychnine bait used to control small mammals (Ward et al.
1942 as cited in Schroeder et al. 1999). According to the USEPA, in
1988, above-ground uses of strychnine were prohibited by a U.S. Court
injunction and strychnine products with those uses remain temporarily
cancelled. Currently Strychnine is currently registered with USEPA for
use only below-ground as a bait application to control pocket gophers
(Thomomys sp. ) (USEPA 1996). Therefore, the current use of strychnine
baits is unlikely to present a significant exposure risk to sage-grouse.
We have no other information regarding mortalities or sublethal effects
of strychnine or other banned pesticides on sage-grouse.

Although a reduction in insect population levels resulting from
insecticide application can potentially affect nesting sage-grouse
females and chicks (Willis et al. 1993, Schroeder et al. 1999), we have
no information as to whether insecticides are impacting survivorship or
productivity of the greater sage-grouse. Eng (1952) noted that after a
pesticide was sprayed to reduce grasshoppers, songbird and corvid
nestling deaths ranged from 50 to 100 percent depending on the chemical
was used, and stated it appeared that nestling development was adversely
affected due to the reduction in grasshoppers. Potts (1986 in Connelly
and Blus 1991) determined that reduced food supply resulting from the
use of pesticides ultimately resulted in high starvation rates of
partridge chicks. In a similar study on partridges, Rands (1985) found
that pesticide application adversely affected brood size and chick
survival by reducing chick food supplies.

Three approved insecticides, carbarayl, diflubenzuron, and malathion,
currently are available for application across the extant range of
sage-grouse as part of implementation of the Rangeland Grasshopper and
Mormon Cricket Suppression Control Program, under the direction of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (APHIS 2004).
Carbaryl is applied as bait, while diflubenzuron and malathion are
sprayed. APHIS requires that application rates be in compliance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations, and APHIS has general
guidelines for buffer zones around sensitive species habitats. These
pesticides are applied for grasshopper and Mormon cricket control when
requested by private landowners (APHIS 2004). Due to delays in
developing nationwide protocols for application procedures, APHIS did
not perform any grasshopper or Mormon cricket suppression activities in
2006, 2007, or 2008 (Gentle 2008).

In the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program
Final Environmental Impact Statement---2002 (page 10), APHIS concluded
that there "is little likelihood that the insecticide APHIS would use to
suppress grasshoppers would be directly or indirectly toxic to sage
grouse. Treatments would typically not reduce the number of grasshoppers
below levels that are present in nonoutbreak years." APHIS (2002, page
69) discussed that although "malathion is also an organophosphorus
insecticide and carbaryl is a carbamate insecticide, malathion and
carbaryl are much less toxic to birds" than other insecticides
associated with affects to sage-grouse or other wildlife. APHIS explains
(page 6) "Because diflubenzuron is a chitin inhibitor that disrupts
insects from forming their exoskeleton, organisms without a chitinous
exoskeleton, such as mammals, fish, and plants are largely unaffected by
diflubenzuron." The APHIS risk assessment (pages 122-184) for this EIS
determined that the grasshopper treatments would not directly affect
sage grouse. As to potential affects to prey abundance APHIS, noted that
during "grasshopper outbreaks when grasshopper densities can be 60 or
more per square meter (Norelius and Lockwood, 1999), grasshopper
treatments that have a 90 to 95 percent mortality still leave a density
of grasshoppers (3 to 6) that is generally greater than the average
density found on rangeland, such as in Wyoming, in a normal year (Schell
and Lockwood, 1997)."

Herbicide applications can kill sagebrush and forbs important as food
sources for sage-grouse (Carr 1968 as cited in Call and Maser 1985). The
greatest impact resulting from a reduction of either forbs or insect
populations is for nesting females and chicks due to the loss of
potential protein sources that are critical for successful egg
production and chick nutrition (Schroeder et al. 1999; Johnson and Boyce
1991).

In summary, pesticides can result in direct mortality of individuals,
and can also reduce the availability of food sources, which in turn
could contribute to mortality of sage-grouse. Despite the potential
effects of pesticides, we could find no information to indicate that the
use of these chemicals, at current levels, negatively affects greater
sage-grouse at the population level, although Schroeder et al.'s (1999,
p.16) literature review found that the loss of insects can have
significant impacts on nesting females and chicks. Those impacts were
not detailed. Many of the pesticides that have been shown to have an
effect on sage-grouse have been banned in the U.S. for more than 20
years. As previously noted, we currently do not have any information to
show that the banned pesticides through either illegal use or residues
in the environment are presently having negative impacts to sage-grouse
populations.

## Contaminants

Greater sage-grouse exposure to various types of environmental
contaminants may potentially occur as a result of agricultural and
rangeland management practices, mining, energy development and pipeline
operations, nuclear energy production and research, and transportation
of materials along highways and railroads.

A single greater sage-grouse was found covered with oil and dead in a
wastewater pit associated with an oil field development in 2006; the
site was in violation of legal requirements for screening the pit
(Domenici 2008). To the extent that this source of mortality occurs it
would be most likely in Management Zones I and II, as those zones are
where most of the oil and gas development occurs in relation to occupied
sage-grouse habitat. The extent to which such mortality to greater
sage-grouse is occurring is extremely difficult to quantify due to
difficulties in retrieving and identifying oiled birds, and lack of
monitoring. We expect that the number of sage-grouse occurring in the
immediate vicinity of such wastewater pits would be small due to the
typically intense human activity in these areas, the lack of cover
around the pits, and the fact that sage-grouse do not need free water.
Most bird mortalities recorded in association with wastewater pits are
water-dependant species (e.g. waterfowl), whereas dead ground-dwelling
birds (such as the greater sage-grouse) are rarely found at such sites
(Domenici, 2008). However, if the wastewater pits are not appropriately
screened, sage-grouse may have access to them and could ingest water
and/or become oiled while pursing insects; if these birds then return to
sagebrush cover and die their carcasses are unlikely to be found, as
only the pits are surveyed. The effects of areal pollutants resulting
from oil and gas development on greater sage-grouse are discussed in the
energy development section above.

Numerous gas and oil pipelines occur within the occupied range of
several populations of the species. Exposure to oil or gas from pipeline
spills or leaks could cause mortalities or morbidity to greater
sage-grouse. Similarly, given the extensive network of highways and
railroad lines that occur throughout the range of the greater
sage-grouse there is some potential for exposure to contaminants
resulting from spills or leaks of hazardous materials being conveyed
along these transportation corridors. We found no documented occurrences
of impacts to greater sage-grouse from such spills, and we do not expect
they are a significant source of mortality because these types of spills
occur infrequently and involve only a small area that might be within
the occupied range of the species.

Exposure of sage-grouse to radionuclides (radioactive atoms) has been
documented at the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory in eastern Idaho; although radionuclides were present in
greater sage-grouse at this site, there were no apparent harmful effects
to the population (Connelly and Markham 1983). There are no nuclear
power plants currently within the area of current distribution of the
greater sage-grouse and there is only one that occurs in range formerly
occupied by the species (Nuclear Energy Institute webpage
[www.nei.org](http://www.nei.org/) 2004). Construction is scheduled to
begin on a new nuclear power plant facility in 2009 in Elmore County,
Idaho, near Boise ([www.nei.org](http://www.nei.org/), October, 2008),
in management zone IV. At this new facility and any other future new
facilities developed for nuclear power, if all provisions regulating
nuclear energy development are followed it is unlikely that there will
be impacts to sage-grouse as a result of radionuclides or any other
nuclear products.

## Recreational Activities

Boyle and Samson (1985) determined that non-consumptive recreational
activities can degrade wildlife resources, water, and the land by
distributing refuse, disturbing and displacing wildlife, increasing
animal mortality, and simplifying plant communities. Sage-grouse
response to disturbance may be influenced by the type of activity,
recreationist behavior, predictability of activity, frequency and
magnitude, activity timing, and activity location (Knight and Cole
1995). Examples of recreational activities in sage-grouse habitats
include hiking, camping, pets, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. As in
2005, we have not located any published literature concerning
recreational effects on greater sage-grouse. Baydack and Hein (1987)
reported displacement of male sharp-tailed grouse at leks from human
presence resulting in loss of reproductive opportunity during the
disturbance period. Female sharp-tailed grouse were observed at
undisturbed leks while absent from disturbed leks during the same time
period (Baydack and Hein 1987). Disturbance of incubating female
sage-grouse could cause displacement from nests, increased predator
risk, or loss of nests. Disruption of sage-grouse during vulnerable
periods at leks, or during nesting or early brood rearing, however,
could affect reproduction or survival (Baydack and Hein 1987). We were
unable to find any published information specifically regarding effects
to sage-grouse as a result of these factors. However, sage-grouse
avoidance of activities associated with energy field development (e.g.
Holloran 2005, Doherty et al. 2007), suggest these birds are likely
disturbed by any persistent human presence. Additionally, Aldridge et
al. (in press, pages 15-16) reported that the density of humans in 1950
was the best predictor of extirpation of greater sage-grouse. The
authors also determined that sage-grouse have been extirpated in
virtually all counties reaching a human population density of 25
people/km^2^ by 1950. However, their analyses considered all impacts of
human presence, and did not separate recreational activities from other
associated activities and infrastructure. The presence of pets in
proximity to sage-grouse can result in sage-grouse mortality or
disturbance, and increases in garbage from human recreators can attract
sage-grouse predators and help maintain their numbers at increased
levels. Leu et al. (2008, page 1133) reported that slight increases in
human densities in ecosystems with low biological productivity (such as
sagebrush) may have a disproportionally negative impact on these
ecosystems due to the potentially reduced resiliency to anthropogenic
disturbance.

Indirect effects to sage-grouse from recreational activities include
impacts to vegetation and soils, and facilitating the spread of invasive
species. Payne et al. (1983) studied OHV impacts to rangelands in
Montana, and found long-term (2 years) reductions in sagebrush shrub
canopy cover as the result of repeated trips in the area. Increased
sediment production and decreased soil infiltration rates were observed
after disturbance by motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks on two
desert soils in southern Nevada (Eckert et al. 1979). However, we could
find no information that quantified impacts to the sagebrush community
or to sage-grouse populations.

We are unaware of scientific reports documenting direct mortality of
greater sage-grouse through collision with off-road vehicles. Similarly,
we did not locate any scientific information documenting instances where
snow compaction as a result of snowmobile use precluded greater
sage-grouse use, or affected their survival in wintering areas. Off-road
vehicle or snowmobile use in winter areas may increase stress on birds
and displace sage-grouse to less optimal habitats. However, there is no
empirical evidence available documenting these effects on sage-grouse,
nor could we find any scientific data supporting the possibility that
stress from vehicles during winter is limiting greater sage-grouse
populations.

## Life History Traits Affecting Population Viability

Sage-grouse have comparatively low reproductive rates and high annual
survival (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a), resulting in
slower potential or intrinsic population growth rates than is typical of
other game birds. Therefore, recovery of populations after a decline
from any reason may require years. Also, as a consequence of their site
fidelity to breeding and brood-rearing habitats (Lyon and Anderson),
measurable population effects may lag behind negative habitat impacts
(Wiens and Rotenberry 1985). While these natural history characteristics
would not limit sage-grouse populations across large geographic scales
under historical conditions of extensive habitat, they may contribute to
local population declines when humans alter habitats or mortality rates.

Sage-grouse have one of the most polygamous mating systems observed
among birds (Deibert 1995). Asymmetrical mate selection (where only a
few of the available members of one sex are selected as mates) should
result in reduced effective population sizes (Deibert 1995), meaning the
actual amount of genetic material contributed to the next generation is
smaller than predicted by the number of individuals present in the
population. With only 10 to 15 percent of sage-grouse males breeding
each year (Aldridge and Brigham 2003), the genetic diversity of
sage-grouse would be predicted to be low. However, in a recent survey of
16 greater sage‑grouse populations, only the Columbia Basin population
in Washington showed low genetic diversity, likely as a result of
long‑term population declines, habitat fragmentation, and population
isolation (Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307).
The level of genetic diversity in the remaining range of sage-grouse has
generated a great deal of interest in the field of behavioral ecology,
specifically sexual selection (Boyce 1990; Deibert 1995). There is some
evidence of off-lek copulations by subordinate males, as well as
multiple paternity within one clutch (Connelly et al. 2004). Dispersal
may also contribute to genetic diversity, but little is known about
dispersal in sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004). However, the lek
breeding system suggests that population sizes in sage-grouse must be
greater than in non-lekking bird species to maintain long-term genetic
diversity.

Aldridge and Brigham (2003) estimated that up to 5,000 individual
sage-grouse may be necessary to maintain an effective population size of
500 birds. Their estimate was based on individual male breeding success,
variation in reproductive success of males that do breed, and the death
rate of juvenile birds. We were unable to find any other published
estimates of minimal population sizes necessary to maintain genetic
diversity and long-term population sustainability in sage-grouse.

## Drought

Drought is a common occurrence throughout the range of the greater
sage-grouse (Braun 1998) and is considered a universal ecological driver
across the Great Plains (Knopf 1996, p.147). Infrequent, severe drought
may cause local extinctions of annual forbs and grasses that have
invaded stands of perennial species, and recolonization of these areas
by native species may be slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992). Drought
reduces vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994; Connelly et al. 2004),
potentially resulting in increased soil erosion and subsequent reduced
soil depths, decreased water infiltration, and reduced water storage
capacity. Drought can also exacerbate other natural events, such as
defoliation of sagebrush by insects. For example, approximately 2,544
km^2^ (982 mi^2^) of sagebrush shrublands died in Utah in 2003 as a
result of drought and infestations with the *Aroga* (webworm) moth
(Connelly et al. 2004). Sage-grouse are affected by drought through the
loss of vegetative habitat components, reduced insect production
(Connelly and Braun 1997), and potentially exacerbation of WNv
infections as described in Natural Enemies C above. These habitat
component losses can result in declining sage-grouse populations due to
increased nest predation and early brood mortality associated with
decreased nest cover and food availability (Braun 1998; Schroeder et al.
1999).

Sage-grouse populations declined during the 1930s period of drought
(Patterson 1952; Willis et al. 1993; Braun 1998). Drought conditions in
the late 1980s and early 1990s also coincided with a period when
sage-grouse populations were at historically low levels (Connelly and
Braun 1997). From 1985 through 1995, the entire range of sage-grouse
experienced severe drought (as defined by the Palmer Drought Severity
Index) with the exceptions of north-central Colorado (Management Zone
II) and southern Nevada (Management Zone III). During this time period
drought was particularly prevalent in southwestern Wyoming, Idaho,
central Washington and Oregon, and northwest Nevada
([http://www.drought.unl.edu](http://www.drought.unl.edu/), October 17,
2008). Abnormally dry to severe drought conditions still persist in
Nevada and western Utah (management zones III and IV), Idaho (management
zone IV), northern California and central Oregon (management zone V),
and southwest Wyoming (Management zone II)
(http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html).

Aldridge et al. (2008) found that the number of severe droughts from
1950 to 2003 had a weak negative effect on patterns of sage-grouse
persistence (p. 992). However, they cautioned that drought may have a
greater influence on futhre sage-grouse populations as temperatures rise
over the next 50 years, and synergistic effects of other threats affect
habitat quality (Aldridge et al. 12008, p. 992).

In summary, drought has been a consistent and natural part of the
sagebrush-steppe ecosystem and there is no information to suggest that
drought was a cause of persistent population declines of greater
sage-grouse under historic conditions. However, drought impacts on the
greater sage-grouse may be exacerbated when combined with other habitat
impacts that reduce cover and food (Braun 1998).

## Climate Change

*Climate change at the global scale*: The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body set up by the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program
in 1988. It was established to provide policymakers needed an objective
source of information about the causes of climate change, its potential
environmental and socio-economic consequences, and the adaptation and
mitigation options to respond to it. In 2007, the IPCC published its
Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered the most comprehensive
compendium of information on actual and projected global climate change
currently available.

Although the extent of warming likely to occur is not known with
certainty at this time, the IPCC (2007a, p. 5) has concluded that
warming of the climate is unequivocal and that continued greenhouse gas
emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming (IPCC
2007a, p. 13). The IPCC also projects that there will very likely be an
increase in the frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy
precipitation (IPCC 2007a, p. 15).

Climate change may alter global ecosystems. Species' geographic ranges
are to a large extent limited by climatic conditions such as temperature
and rainfall patterns which interact dynamically with other ecosystem
factors such as local physiography (e.g., physical substrate,
topography) that can in turn affect competition, predation and other
species interactions. All of these together shape habitat and species
distributions. Climate changes may lead to a shift of climatically
suitable ranges to higher altitudes and/or poleward (McCarty 2001, p.
324). Climate changes may alter species' phenologies such as time of
nest initiation (Crick 2004, p. 50) and timing of migration (Butler
2004, p. 487).

*[Potential effects on sagebrush habitats]{.underline}*: Current climate
change projections reflect the potential for both positive and negative
affects on sage-grouse through changes in sagebrush habitat. These
changes in sagebrush habitats are expected to occur primarily through
the mechanisms of increased temperature and alterations in the amount
precipitation, both within seasons and annually.

Climate changes may facilitate, curtail, or reverse exotic species
invasions that are under way in the sagebrush biome (Bradley in press,
pp. 1-45). Cheatgrass is an invasive species that has colonized
extensive portions of sagebrush habitats primarily in the western and
southern portion of greater sage-grouse range (Management Zones III, IV,
and V). Cheatgrass and the changes in fire-regime associated with it, is
currently a significant threat to the greater sage-grouse. It reduces
habitat quality directly by outcompeting native vegetation, and
indirectly by increasing fire frequency which removes sagebrush and
expands the spread of cheatgrass (see cheatgrass discussion under
Invasives above). Bradley (in press, pp 9-15) developed a bioclimatic
model for cheatgrass based on its invaded distribution that projected
the potential for cheatgrass habitat by 2100. She found that the best
predictors of cheatgrass occurrence are summer, annual, and spring
precipitation, followed by winter temperature. She then used projections
of 10 atmosphere-ocean general circulation models for the year 2100.
Depending primarily on future precipitation conditions, Bradley found
that suitable land area for cheatgrass could increase by as much as 45
percent, or decrease by as much as 70 percent by 2100 (Bradley in press,
pp 17). Bradley noted that most of the climate change scenarios she
explored resulted in a decrease in climatic habitat for cheatgrass
(Bradely in press, pp 21). Warming in the range of greater sage grouse
is expected to be greatest in the winter (IPCC 2007b, Fig. 11.12, p.
890), annual mean precipitation is likely to increase, and the length of
snow season and snow depth is likely to decrease (IPCC 2007b, p. 887).
In general, increased annual precipitation and winter temperature would
result in a decrease in suitable land area for cheatgrass by 2100,
according to Bradley,s model (in press, pp 16-20; 36).

Bradley (in press, pp 21) stated that the bioclimatic model she used is
an initial step in assessing the potential geographic extent of
cheatgrass, because climate conditions only affect invasion on the
broadest regional scale. Other factors relating to land use, soils,
competition or topography may affect suitability of a given location
(Bradley in press, pp 22).

In a study that modeled potential impacts to big sagebrush (*Artemesia
tridentata*) due to climate change, Shafer et al. (2001, pp. 200-215)
used response [surfaces]{.mark} to describe the relationship between
bioclimatic variables and the distribution of tree and shrub taxa in
western North America. The response [surfaces]{.mark} illustrate the
probability of the occurrence of taxon at particular points in climate
space, which is defined by three bioclimatic variables: mean temperature
of the coldest month, growing degree days, and a moisture index. Species
distributions were simulated under present climate using observed data
(1951-80, 30-year mean) and under future climate (2090-99, 10-year mean)
using scenarios generated by three general circulation models -- HADCM2,
CGCM1, and CSIRO. Each scenario produced similar results, simulating
future bioclimatic conditions that would reduce the size of the overall
range of sagebrush and change where sagebrush may occur. These simulated
changes were the result of increases in the mean temperature of the
coldest month which the authors speculated may interact with soil
moisture levels to produce the simulated impact. Each model predicted
that climate suitability for big sagebrush would shift north into
Canada. Areas in the current range would become less suitable
climatically, and would potentially cause significant contraction. The
authors also point out that increases in fire frequency under the
simulated climate projections would leave big sagebrush more vulnerable
to fire impacts.

Shafer et al. note the limitations of their projections citing similar
factors. Shafer et al. (2001, pp 213) explicitly state that their
approach should not be used to predict the future range of a species,
and that the underlying assumptions of the models they used are
"unsatisfying" because they presume a direct causal relationship between
the distribution of a species and particular environmental variables.
Shafer et al. (in press, pp 207, 213) identify cautions similar to
Bradley (in press, pp 21) regarding their models. A variety of factors
are not included in climate space models, including: the effect of
elevated CO~2~ on the species' water-use efficiency, what really is the
physiological effect of exceeding the assumed (modeled) bioclimatic
limit on the species, the life stage at which the limit effects the
species (seedling versus adult), the life span of the species, and the
movement of other organisms into the species range (Shafer et al., 2001,
pp 207). These would likely help determine how climate change would
affect species distributions. Shafer et al. (2001, pp 213) concludes
that while more empirical studies are needed on what determines a
species and multi-species distributions, those data are often lacking;
in their absence climatic space models can play an important role in
characterizing the types of changes that may occur so that the potential
impacts on natural systems can be assessed.

The World Wildlife Fund developed a bioclimatic envelope model for big
sagebrush and silver sagebrush in the states of Montana, Wyoming, and
North and South Dakotas (World Wildlife Fund 2008, pp. 1-28). The WWF
study suggests that large displacement and reduction of sagebrush
habitats will occur under climate change as early as 2030 for both
species of sagebrush examined. The methodology used by WWF to develop
their model appears in some ways similar to that of Shafer et al.
(2001); however, it lacked an explanation of model assumptions and
methodology, and a discussion of results; therefore its usefulness at
this time is limited. Other models projecting the affect of climate
change on sagebrush habitat, and discussed more below, identify
uncertainty associated with projecting climatic habitat conditions into
the future given the unknown influence of other factors that such models
do not incorporate (e.g., local physiographic conditions, life stage of
the plant, generation time of the plant and its reaction to changing
CO~2~ levels).

*[Uncertainty associated with climate change science]{.underline}*: The
Service is currently developing interim guidance regarding relevant
aspects of Endangered Species Act implementation involving climate
change, with a focus on how to evaluate and include the best available
scientific information in our decision-making. We will re-evaluate and
refine our guidance as climate change science relevant to the scale and
nature of our responsibilities evolves. At this time, we rely on
guidance from IPCC and the U. S. Geological Survey in applying climate
change models at the continental scale. We also rely on empirical
evidence of direct effects on a species, such as increased stream
temperatures (see Rio Grande cutthroat trout, 73 FR 27900, May 14,
2008), or loss of sea ice (see polar bear, 73 FR 28212, May 15, 2008),
are threat factors that can be analyzed, and may relate to climate
change. However, we have no such data relating to greater sage-grouse.
Application of continental scale climate change models to regional
landscapes, and models projecting habitat potential based on climatic
factors, while informative, contain a high level of uncertainty due to
regional weather patterns, local physiographic conditions, life stages
of individual species, generation time of species, and species reactions
to changing CO2 levels. The models summarized above are limited by these
factors; therefore their usefulness is assessing the threat of climate
change on greater sage-grouse is also limited.

Information on the potential threat of climate change on greater
sage-grouse is limited; no evidence of direct effects to the species
exist at this time. Changes in phenology (timing of breeding or
migration) due to climate change have been documented in other avian
species (Butler 2003, Crick 2004), but this has not been studied in
greater sage-grouse. Butler (2003, pp 487) found evidence that local
migrants (species within continent) are arriving significantly earlier
on breeding grounds than long-range migrants, due to their apparent
ability to react to local weather patterns. Although speculative, this
suggests that greater sage-grouse, as a local migrant, may be able to
adapt the timing of their migration to potential changes in the
availability of habitat and food on nesting grounds due changes in
climate.

Climate change may also cause indirect effects that occur over time;
these may positively affect greater sage-grouse (e.g., curtail or
reverse invasion of habitat by cheatgrass) or negatively affect
sage-grouse (e.g., significant loss of sagebrush habitat). Conclusions
regarding direct and indirect effects from climate change are uncertain
at this time.

# LITERATURE CITED

***Personal communications*:**

Telephone interview with Dr. Anthony Apa, Sage-grouse Research
Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, in Grand Junction, CO (Aug.
28, 2008).

Interview with Dr. Banks, Bird Section, Biological Survey Unit, National
Museum of History, 1992

Interview with Dr. Banks, Bird Section, Biological Survey Unit, National
Museum of History, 2000.

Interview with Dr. Banks, Bird Section, Biological Survey Unit, National
Museum of History, 2002

Telephone interview with Dave Budeau, Upland Game Manager, Oregon Dept.
Fish and Wildlife, in Salem, OR (Sept. 22, 2008).

Email exchange with Jay K. Carlson, Roseburg District Manager Project
Manager

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy, Bureau of Land Management, in
Roseburg, OR (Sept 29, 2008)a.

Email exchange with Jay K. Carlson, Roseburg District Manager Project
Manager

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy, Bureau of Land Management, in
Roseburg, OR (Sept 29, 2008)b

Telephone interview with Tom Christiansen, Sage-grouse Program
Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., in Green River, WY (Aug. 28,
2008).

Telephone interview with Dan Christopherson, Wildlife Biologist Program
Manager, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, in Ft. Hall, ID (Sept. 23, 2008).

Telephone interview with Arthur Badugwich Dick, Sage-grouse Biologsit,
Shoshone-Piute Tribe, Owyhee, NV (Sept. 23, 2008).

Telephone interview with Shawn Espinosa, Upland Game Biologist, Nevada
Division of Wildlife, in Reno, NV (Sept. 4, 2008).

Telephone interview with Scott Gardner, Sage-grouse Program Coordinator,
California Dept. Fish and Game, in Sacramento, CA (Aug. 28, 2008).

Email exchange with Justin Gentle, Domestic Program Coordinator, USDA
APHIS, in Cheyenne, WY (Oct. 07, 2008).

Telephone interview with Dan Gossett, Supervisory Biological Science
Technician, National Wildlife Research Center, USDA APHIS Wildlife
Service (Former Shoshone-Piute Tribe Sage-grouse biologist.), in Ft.
Collins, CO (Sept. 23, 2008).

Telephone interview with Christian Hagen, Sage-grouse Program
Coordinator, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, in Bend, OR (Aug. 29,
2008).

Email exchange with Lou Hanebury, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
Billings, MT 2008a.

Email exchange with Lou Hanebury, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
Billings, MT. 2008b.

Email exchange with Tom Hemker, Upland Game Program Manager, Idaho Dept.
Fish and Game, in Boise, ID (Sept. 05, 2008).

Telephone interview with Pat Hnilika, Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, in Lander, WY (Sept. 4, 2008).

Telephone interview with John Kanta, Regional Wildlife Manager, South
Dakota Game and Fish, in Rapid City, SD (Sept. 22, 2008).

Interview with Dr. S. Miller, University of Wyoming, in Laramie, WY
(Sept. 5, 2008).

Telephone interview with Dr. Dave Naugle, Associate Professor,
University of Montana, in Missoula, MT (Oct. 24, 2008).

Telephone interview with Rick Northrup, Game Bird Coordinator, Montana
Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in Helena, MT (Aug. 29, 2008).

Telephone interview with Dave Olsen, Upland Game Coordinator, Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources, in Salt Lake, UT (Sept. 22, 2008).

Telephone interview with Aaron Robinson, Upland Game Biologist, North
Dakota Game and Fish Dept., in Dickson, ND (Sept. 22, 2008).

Telephone interview with Dr. Michael Schroeder, Upland Bird Research
Biologist, Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, in Bridgeport, WA (Sept.
4, 2008).

Interview with Chris Warren, Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, in Spokane, WA (Sept. 15, 1008).

***Federal Register Citations and Federal Regulations:***

65 FR 51578 - 90-day finding and commencement of status review for a
petition to list

the western sage grouse in Washington and threatened or endangered.
August,

2000

66 FR 28357 Executive Order 13212 of May 18, 2001 Actions To Expedite
Energy-Related Projects, May 22, 2001

70 FR 2270- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month
Finding for

Petitions To List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered.
April, 2004.

71 FR 19954-Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Listing
Determination for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered.
April, 2006.

72 FR 35718-Notice of Availability of Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact

Statement and Environmental Report for Vegetation Treatments on Public

Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the Western

United States, Including Alaska. June, 2007.

72 FR 57065- Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation
Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17
Western States. October, 2007.

73 FR 23170- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day
Finding on a Petition to List the Western Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus phaios) as Threatened or Endangered. April, 2008

73 FR 35408 - Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands
in Oregon. June 23, 2008

36 CFR 219 - 36 CFR 219 - National Forest System Land and Resource
Management Planning. 1982.
http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html

36 CFR 228 On-Shore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act 1987.

43 CFR 1601 - 43 CFR 1601 -- Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Regulations on Planning, Programming and Budgeting.
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=822192267800+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

73 FR 35408- Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands
in Oregon. June, 2008.

43 CFR 4100 -- Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Regulations on

> Grazing Administration Exclusive of Alaska.
> <http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=82346430086+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve>

43 CFR 4180.1(d)- Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for
Grazing Administration, Fundamentals of rangeland health.

43 CFR 4180.2- Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for
Grazing Administration, Standards and guidelines for grazing
administration.

16 U.S.C. 1600-1614 -- National Forest Management Act of 1976.

<http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf>

30 U.S.C. 181 -- Mineral Leasing Act of 1920.

[]{.mark}

42 U.S.C. 15852 - Energy Policty Act of 2005.

43 U.S.C. 1701- Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Bureau of Land Management Instructional Memo 2003 -- 137. Integration of
EPCA

Inventory Results into Land Use Planning and Energy Use Authorizations.
April

2003\. 3pp.

Bureau of Land Mangement Instructional Memo 2008-142. Wildfire Season
and Sage-grouse Conservation. June 19, 2008. 2pp.

Bureau of Land Management Instructional Memo 2008-051. Wildfire Season
and Sage-grouse Conservation. June 6, 2008. 4pp.

Executive Order 13112. 1999. Invasive Species.

Executive Order 13212. 2001. Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects

U. S. C. Title 42 -- Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 2001.

***Literature:***

AFWA and FWS. 2007. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Wind power siting regulations and wildlife
guidelines in the United States.

Aldrich, J.W. 1946. New subspecies of birds from western North America.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 59:129-136.

Aldrich, J.W. and A.J. Duvall. 1955. Distribution of American
Gallinaceous Game Birds. USFWS Circular. Vol 34: 23pp.

Aldrich, J.W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American tetraonidae.
Journal of Wildlife Management 27: 529-545.

Aldridge, C.L. 1998. Status of the sage grouse (*Centrocercus
urophasianus*

*urophasianus*) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife

Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife
Status

Report No. 13, Edmonton, AB. 23 pp.

Aldridge, C.L. and R.M. Brigham 2002. Sage-grouse nesting and brood
habitat use in southern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:
433-444.

Aldridge, C.L. and R.M. Brigham. 2003. Distribution, Abundance, and
Status of the

Greater Sage-Grouse, *Centrocercus urophasianus*, in Canada. Canadian
Field-

Naturalist 117:25-34.

Aldridge, C. and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence to persistence: a
habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage grouse. Ecological
Applications 17: 508-526.

Aldridge, C., S. Nielsen, H. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, J. Connelly, S.T. Knick,
and M. Schroeder. 2008. Rangewide patterns of greater sage-grouse
persistence. Diversity and Distributions 14: 983--994.

Alsatt, A.L. 1995. The potential impact of raven predation on sage
grouse production in

Nevada. M.S. thesis. University of Nevada, Reno. 45 pp.

Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in
the Columbia

> Plateau of eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners
> in Flight. 97 pp.

American Ornithological Union. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds.
pp.139

Amstrup, C. and R. L. Phillips. 1977. Effects of coal extraction and
related development

on wildlife populations: Effects of coal strip mining on habitat use,
activities, and

population trends of the sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus).
Annual

progress report, Denver Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service,

Denver, CO. 37 pp.

Anderson, M.T., and L.H. Woosley. 2005, Water availability for the
Western United States---Key scientific challenges: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1261, 85 p.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression
Program 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2002.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2004. Site-specific
Environmental Assessment, Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket
Suppression Program. APHIS, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 40 pp.

American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American
Birds, 5th ed. Lord

Baltimore Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Applegate, R.D., C.K. Williams, and R.R. Manes. 2004. Assuring the
future of prairie grouse: dogmas, demagogues, and getting outside the
box. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 104-111.

Autenrieth, R. E. 1981. Sage Grouse management in Idaho. Wildlife
Bulletin Number

> 9\. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 239 pp.

Baker, M. F., R. L. Eng, J. S. Gashwiler, M. H. Schroeder, and C. E.
Braun. 1976.

Conservation committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush
communities

on associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171.

Baker, R.J. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosytems. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 34: 177-185.

Bambrough, D. J., K. D. Bunnell, J. T. Flinders, J. Warder, and D.
Mitchell. 2000. Red

> fox predation in Strawberry Valley, Utah. 22^nd^ Western States Sage
> and Colimbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Symposium. Redmond, OR.

Barnett, J.K. and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of Sage
Grouse hens in

Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47:114-118.

Batterson, W.M. and W.B. Morse. 1948. Oregon Sage Grouse. Oregon Fauna
Series

No. 1. 29 pp.

Beck, T.D.I. 1977. Sage grouse flock characteristics and habitat
selection in winter.

Journal of Wildlife Management 41:18-26.

Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on
sage grouse

habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:993-1002.

Beck, J.L., D.L. Mitchell, and B.D. Maxfield. 2003. Changes in the
distribution and

status of sage-grouse in Utah. Western North American Naturalist
63:203-214.

Beck, J., J. Connelly, and K. Reese. 2008. Recovery of greater
sage-grouse habitat features in Wyoming big sagebrush following
prescribed fire. Restoration Ecology pg

Beever, E.A. 2003. Management implications of the ecology of
free-roaming horses in semiarid ecosystems of the western United States.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:887-895.

Beever, E.A. and C.L. Aldridge. 2008. Influences of free-roaming equids
on sagebrush ecosystems: with focus on greater sage-grouse. (in press)

Benedict, N.G. and T.W. Quinn. 1998. A molecular characterization of
sage grouse throughout their range in Oregon and Nevada. Transactions of
the Western Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Workshop, Billings,
MT. pp.

Benedict, N.G., T.W. Quinn, and S. Taylor. 2001. A Genetic Survey of
Nevada

Sage-grouse Populations. University of Denver.

Benedict, N.G., S. J. Oyler-McCance, S.E. Taylor, C.E. Braun, and T.W.
Quinn. 2003. Evaluation of the eastern (*Centrocercus urophasianus
urophasianus*) and western (*Centrocercus urophasianus phaios*)
subspecies of sage-grouse using mitochondrial control-region sequence
data. Conservation Genetics 4:301-310.

Big Horn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group. 2007. Sage-grouse
conservation plan for the Big Horn Basin, WY. 113 pp.

Blus, L.J., C.S. Staley, C.J. Henny, G.W. Pendleton, T.H. Craig, E.H.
Craig, and D.K.

Halford. 1989. Effects of organophosphorus insecticides on Sage Grouse
in

southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(4):1139-1146.

Blus, L.J. and J.W. Connelly. 1998. Radiotelemetry to determine exposure
and effects

of organophosphorous insecticides on sage grouse. Pages 21-29 in L.W.
Brewer

and K.A. Fagerstone, editors. Proceedings Workshop radiotelemetry
Applications

for Wildlife Toxicology Field Studies, Jan. 5-8, 1993, Pacific Grove,
California .

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Pensacola, Florida.
224 pp.

Bock, C.E. and J.H. Bock. 1991. Response of grasshoppers (Orthoptera:
Acrididae) to

> wildfire in a southeastern Arizona grassland. American Midland
> Naturalist
>
> 125:162-167.

Bohne, J. 2003. Analysis of sage-grouse hunting seasons in Wyoming and a
justification

for the 2003 sage-grouse hunting season. Memo to Staff, Wyoming Game and

Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 10 pp.

Borell, A.E. 1939. Telephone wires fatal to sage grouse. Condor
41:85-86.

Boyce, M.S. 1990. The red queen visits sage grouse leks. American
Zoology 30: 263-

270\.

Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation
on wildlife:

A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116.

Bradbury, J.W., R.M. Gibson, C.E. McCarthy, and S.L. Vehrencamp. 1989.

> Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse: II. The role of female
> dispersion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:15-24.

Bradley, B.A. 2008. Regional analysis of the impacts of climate change
on cheatgrass invasion shows potential risk and opportunity. Global
Change Biology (in press).

Braun, C.E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. W. Gashwiler, and M. H.
Schroeder. 1976.

> Conservation committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush
> communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171.

Braun, C.E. 1986. Changes in sage grouse lek counts with advent of
surface coal

mining. Proc. Issues Technol. Manage. Impacted Wildl. 2: 227-231.

Braun, C.E. 1987. Current issues in sage grouse management. Proceedings
of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 67:134-144.

Braun, C.E. 1995. Predation and sage grouse. Divisional Correspondence,
Colorado

Division of Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources. 4 pp.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage Grouse Declines in Western North America: What
are the Problems? Proceedings of Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156.

Braun, C.E., O.O. Oedekoven, and C.L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas
development in

Western North America: Effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with
particular

emphasis on sage-grouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
Natural

Resources Conference 67. 19 pp.

Brown, K.G. and K.M. Clayton. 2004. Ecology of the greater sage-grouse

(*Centrocercus* *urophasianus*) in the coal mining landscape of
Wyoming's Powder

River Basin. Final Technical Report, Thunderbird Wildlife Consultants,
Gillette,

WY. 19 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Partners against weeds. An action plan
for the Bureau of Land Management. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. 7 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Pinedale Anticline natural gas
exploration and development project environmental impact statement. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State
Office, Pinedale Field Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. DEIS/FEIS-00-018.

Bureau of Land Management. 2001. 6840 - Special Status Species
Management. Bureau

of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 52 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Powder River Basin oil and gas project,
final biological assessment. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.

Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Final environmental impact statement
and proposed plan amendment for the Powder River Basin oil and gas
project. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Wyoming State Office, Buffalo Field Office. WY-070-02-065.

Bureau of Land Management. 2004. BLM Conservation efforts for greater
sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in Response to Notice of 90-day Petition Finding for the Greater
Sage-grouse. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management. 2005a. Final programmatic environmental
impact statement on wind energy development on BLM administered lands in
the western United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. FES 05-11.

Bureau of Land Management. 2005b. Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Bureau of Land Management 2005c. BLM Conservation efforts for greater
sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. 2005 Annual progress report. U.S.
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Final environmental impact statement
Jonah infield drilling project. Sublette County, Wyoming. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale and Rock
Springs Field Offices.

Bureau of Land Management. 2007a. Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides
on BLM lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement. Final Version, June 2007. FES 07-21.

Bureau of Land Management. 2007b. Final environmental impact statement
oil and gas resource management plan amendment. Analysis of the
management situation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, White River Field Office.

Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Supplemental environmental impact
statement for the Pinedale Anticline oil and gas exploration and
development project. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Byrne, M.W. 2002. Habitat use by female greater sage grouse in relation
to fire at Hart

> Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State
> University, Corvallis, Oregon. 50 pp.

Cadwell, L.L., J.L. Downs, C.M. Phelps, J. J. Nugent, L. Marsh, and L.
Fitzner. 1996.

> Sagebrush restoration in the shrub-steppe of south-central Washington.
> Pages 143-145 *in* J. R. Barrow, E. D. McArtur, R. E. Sosebee, and R.
> J. Tausch, comps. Proceedings: Shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a
> changing environment. General Technical Report INT-GTR-338. U.S.
> Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research
> Station. Ogden, Utah. 275 pp.

Call M.W. and C. Maser. 1985. Wildlife Habitats in managed rangelands -
The Great

Basin of southeastern Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-187, U.S.
Forest

Service, La Grande, OR. 28 pp.

CA/NV Sage-grouse conservation team. 2004. Greater sage-grouse
conservation plan for Nevada and eastern California. pp. 118.

Clark, L., J. Hall, R. McLean, M. Dunbar, K. Klenk, R. Bowen, and C.A.
Smeraski. 2006. Susceptibility of greater sage-grouse to experimental
infection with West Nile virus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 42: 14-22.

Clark, D.A., R.C. Taylor, M.R. Dzialak, L.D. Hayden-Wing, S.M. Harju, J.
Sutter, and J.B. Winstead. 2008. Factors affecting lek-occupancy
dynamics in greater sage-grouse. 50 pp.

Coggins, K.A. 1998. Relationship between habitat changes and
productivity of sage

> grouse at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon. M.S. thesis,
> Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 61 pp.

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2004. Colorado state and local
conservation efforts of

the greater sage-grouse. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver,
Colorado. 364

pp.

Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado greater
sage-grouse conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver,
Colorado, USA. 500pp.

Commons, M.L., R.K. Baydack, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse response
to pinyon-juniper management. Pages 238-239 *in* Monsen, S. B. and R.
Stevens, eds. Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon juniper
communities within the interior west. U.S.D.A. U.S. Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station RMRS-P9, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Connelly, J. 2005. Challenging Dogma-changing paradigms: sage grouse
harvest management in the United States. Sage grouse news 29: 7-11.

Connelly, J.W. and O.D. Markham. 1983. Movements and radionuclide
concentrations

of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management
47(1):169-

177\.

Connelly, J.W., H.W. Browers, and R.J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal movements
of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management
52:116-122.

Connelly, J.W. and L.J. Blus. 1991. Effects of pesticides on upland
game: A review of

herbicides and organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Pages 92-97
in M.

Marsh, editor. Proceedings: Pesticides in natural systems - How can
their effects

be monitored? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington,
USA.

Connelly, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-Term Changes in Sage Grouse
[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline} Populations in Western North
America. Wildlife Biology 3:229-234.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000a.
Guidelines to

manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society
Bulletin

28:967-985.

Connelly, J.W., A.D. Apa, R.B. Smith, and K.P. Reese. 2000b. Effects of
predation and

> hunting on adult sage grouse [Cetrocercus urophasianus]{.underline} in
> Idaho. Wildlife
>
> Biology 6:227-232.

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, R.A. Fischer, and W.L. Wakkinen. 2000c.
Response of a sage grouse breeding population to fire in southeastern
Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:90-96

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, E.O. Garton, and M.L. Commons-Kemner. 2003.
Response of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations to
different levels of exploitation in Idaho, USA. Wildlife Biology 9:
255-260.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004.
Conservation

> assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished
> Report, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne,
> WY. 610 pp.

Connelly, J.W., J.H. Gammonley, and J.M. Peek. 2005. Harvest Management.
In *Techniques for Wildlife Investigations and Management* (C. E. Braun,
ed.), pp. 658-690. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland

Coates, P.S. 2007. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) nest
predation and incubation behavior. Ph.D. thesis, Idaho State University,
Boise, ID. 181pp.

Cook, J.G., T.J. Hershey, and L.L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative response to
burning on

> Wyoming mountain-shrub big game ranges. Journal of Range Management
> 47:296-302.

Cooper, S.V., P. Lesica and G.M. Kudray. 2007. Post-fi re Recovery of
Wyoming

Big Sagebrush Shrub-steppe in Central and Southeast Montana. Report to
the United States Departmentof the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
State Office. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 16 pp.
plus appendices.

Cote, I.M. and W.J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness of removing
predators to

protect bird populations. Conservation Biology 11:395-405.

Crawford, J.A. 1982. History of sage grouse in Oregon. Oregon Wildlife.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 4 pp.

Crawford, J.A. 1999. Response of Wyoming sagebrush to prescribed fire at
Hart

Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon. Oregon State University.
Corvallis,

Oregon.

Crawford, J.A. and D.M. Davis. 2002. Habitat Use by Greater Sage-grouse
on Sheldon

National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. Oregon State University. Corvallis,
Oregon.

Crawford, J.A. and R.S. Lutz. 1985. Sage grouse population trends in
Oregon, 1941 --

1983\. Murrelet 66:69-74.

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Schroeder, T.D.
Whitson,

R.F. Miller, M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Ecology and management of

sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management
57:2-19.

Curtis, B. 2008. U.S. ethanol industry: the next inflection point, 2007
year in review. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Energy. 44
pp.

Dahlen, J.H. and A.O. Haugen. 1954. Acute toxicity of certain
insecticides to the

bobwhite quail and mourning dove. Journal of Wildlife Management
18(4):477-

481\.

Dalke, P.D., D.B. Pyrah, D.C. Stanton, J.E. Crawford, and E.
Schlatterer. 1963.

Ecology, productivity and management of sage grouse in Idaho. Journal of

> Wildlife Management 27:811-841

Davies, K.W., R.L. Sheley, and J.D. Bates. 2008. Does fall prescribed
burning Artemisia tridentate steppe promote invasion or resistance to
invasion after a recovery period. Journal of Arid Environments 72:
1076-1085.

Deibert , P.A.1995. The effects of parasites on sage grouse
([Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline})

mate selection. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 139
pp.

Delong, A.K., J.A. Crawford, and D.C. Delong, Jr. 1995. Relationships
between vegetational structure and predation of artificial Sage grouse
nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88-92.

Department of the Army. 2004. Comments submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife

Service regarding the 90-day finding for the Greater sage-grouse. (See
comment

16 on comment disc).

Department of Energy (U.S.), Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest
Service, and U.S. Department of Defense. 2007. The west-wide energy
corridor draft programmatic environmental impact statement. 1020 pp.

DOI et al. 2008. Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Energy.
Energy Inventory of onshore federal oil and natural gas resources and
restrictions to their development, Phase III Inventory- onshore United
States. BLM/WO/GI-03/002+3100/REV08

Dick, A.B. 2008. Survey and monitor the impacts of West Nile virus on
the Duck Valley Indian Reservation's greater sage-grouse population.
Fourth Quarterly Report. 6pp.

Dobkin, D. S. 1995. Management and conservation of sage grouse,
denominative species for the ecological health of shrubsteppe
ecosystems. U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 26 pp.

Dobkin, D.S., A.C. Rich, and W.H. Pyle. 1998. Habitat and Avifaunal
Recovery from Livestock Grazing in a Riparian Meadow System of the
Northwestern Great Basin. Conservation Biology 12: 209-221

Dobler, F.C. 1994. Shrub steppe ecosystem studies, Phase one completion
report for

1988-1990. Washington Department of Wildlife. 43 pp.

Doherty, M.K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin,
Wyoming: a comparison of natural, agricultural, and effluent coal bed
natural gas aquatic habitats. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University,
Bozeman, MT. 107pp.

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, B.L. Walker, and J.M. Graham. 2008. Greater
Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development. Journal of
Wildlife Management 72: 187-195.

Drut, M.S. 1994. Status of Sage Grouse with Emphasis on Populations in
Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society of Portland. Portland, OR. 43 pp.

Dunn, P.O. and C.E. Braun. 1986. Late summer-spring movements of
juvenile Sage

Grouse. Wilson Bulletin 98:83-92.

Eckert, Jr., RE., M.K. Wood, W.H. Blackburn, and F.F. Peterson. 1979.
Impacts of off-road vehicles on infiltration and sediment production of
two desert soils. Journal of Wildlife Management 32(5):394-397.

Ellis, K.L. 1985. Effects of a new transmission line on distribution and
aerial predation

of breeding male sage grouse. Final report, Deseret Generation and
Transmission

Cooperative, Sandy, UT. 26 pp.

Energy Information Administration. 2008. Annual energy outlook 2008 with
projections to 2030. Energy Information Administration**,** Office of
Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy.

Eng, R.L. 1952. A two-summer study of the effects on bird populations of
chlordane bait and aldrin spray as used for grasshopper control. Journal
of Wildlife Management 16(3):326-337.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. List of Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills.

> Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste, Division Office of Solid Waste
> Washington, D.C. 172 pp. Date Last Modified: March 28, 1996. Accessed
> August 31, 2004.
> \<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/landfill/index.htm#list\>

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D. P. Young Jr., K. J.
Sernka, and R.

> E. Good. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: A summary of
> existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision
> mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating Committee
> Resource Document. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington
> D.C. 62 pp.

Espinosa, S. and R. Phenix. 2007. Effects of wildlife (1999-2007) on
greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and key ecological
sagebrush systems that they depend on in Nevada. Nevada Department of
Wildlife Game Division, Diversity Division, NV. 8pp.

Evans, C.C. 1986. Relationship of cattle grazing to sage grouse use of
meadow habitat on the Sheldon NWR. University of Nevada, Reno, NV. 92
pp.

Fischer, R. A., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1996. An investigation on
fire effects within xeric sage grouse brood habitat. Journal of Range
Management 49:194-198.

Fischer, R.A., W.L. Wakkinen, K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1997.
Effects of

> prescribed fire on movements of female Sage Grouse from breeding to
> summer ranges. Wilson Bulletin 109:82-91.

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the
road system in

the United States. Conservation Biology 14:31-35.

Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major
ecological effects.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.

France, K.A., D.C. Ganskoop, and C.S. Boyd. 2008. Interspace/undercanopy
foraging patterns of beef cattle in sagebrush habitats. Rangeland
Ecology and Management 61 pg

Friend, M., R.G. Mclean, and F.J. Dein. 2001. Disease emergence in
birds: challenges for the twenty-first century. The Auk 118(2):290--303.

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant
invasions in a

semiarid landscape. Conservation Biology 17:420-432.

Gibson, R.M. and J.W. Bradbury. 1985. Sexual selection in lekking sage
grouse:

Phenotypic correlates of male mating success. Behavioral. Ecology and

Sociobiology 18:117- 123.

Girard G.L. 1937. Life history, habits and food of the sage grouse,
*Centrocercus urophasianus* Bonaparte. University of Wyoming
Publications. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 56 pp.

Gratson, M.W. 1993. Sexual selection for increased male courtship and
acoustic signals

and against large male size at sharp-tailed grouse leks. Evolution
47:691-696.

Gregg, M.A. 1991. Use and selection of nesting habitat by sage grouse in
Oregon. M.S.

Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 46 pp.

Gregg, M.A., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut, and A.K. DeLong. 1994.
Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal
of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.

Gregg, M.A., M. Pope, and J.A. Crawford. 2003a. Survival of sage grouse
chicks in

> the Northern Great Basin - 2002 annual report. Oregon State
> University. Corvallis, Oregon. 25 pp.

Gregg, M.A., M. Pope, and J.A. Crawford. 2003b. Survival of sage grouse
chicks in

> the Northern Great Basin - 2003 annual report. Oregon State
> University. Corvallis, Oregon. 23 pp.

Gregg, M.A., M.R. Dunbar, and J.A. Crawford. 2007. Use of implanted
radiotransmitters to estimate survival of greater sage-grouse chicks.
Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 646-651.

Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and
strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and
habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, USA. pp. 147.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Scroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of
greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood rearing
habitats. Wildlife Biology 13: 42-50.

Hanse, A.J., R.L. Knight, J.M. Marzluff, S.Powell, K.Brown, P.H. Gude,
and K. Jones. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity:
patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15:
1893-1905

Hayden-Wing Associates. 1983. Final report: Sage grouse study for the
Caballo Rojo

Mine, March 1982 -- December 1983. Kennecott Energy Company, Gillette,
WY.

84 pp.

Hays, D.W., M.J. Tirhi, and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status
report for

> the Sage Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
> Washington. 62 pp.

Healy, C. 2001. Drought fuels loss of U.S. Western Land to Invasive
grass and

wildfires. National Geographic News. 4 pp.

Hironka, M., M.A. Fosberg, and A.H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass
habitat types

> of southern Idaho. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Management Experiment
> Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 44 pp.

Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Direct identification of
northern sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, nest predators using
remote sensing cameras. Canadian Field Naturalist 117: 308-310.

Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
population response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming.
Ph.D thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 215 pp.

Holloran, M.J., R.C. Kaiser, and W.A. Hubert. 2007. Population response
of yearling greater sage-grouse to the infrastructure of natural gas
fields in southwestern Wyoming. Completion Report, U.S. Geological
Survey, Laramie, Wyoming. 34 pp.

Hornaday, W.T. 1916. Save the Sage Grouse From Extinction: A Demand from
Civilization to the Western States. N.Y. Zoological Park Bulletin
5:179-219.

Huff, M. H. and J. K. Smith. 2000. Fire effects on animal communities --
Chapter 5.

pages 35-42 *in* J.K. Smith, ed. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of
fire on

fauna. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42 Vol. 1. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83
pp.

<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr42_1.pdf>

Hupp, J.W. and Braun, C.E. 1989. Topographic distribution of sage grouse
foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 823-829

IHS Incorporated. 2006.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1983. The Grouse of the World. University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln and London. 341pp.

Johnsgard P.A. 2002. Grassland Grouse. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington

D.C. 157 pp.

Johnson, G. D., D. P. Young, Jr., W. P. Erickson, C. E. Derby, M. D.
Strickland, and R.

E. Good. 2000. Final report: Wildlife Monitoring Studies for Seawest
windpower

project, Carbon County, Wyoming, 1995-1999. Bureau of Land Management,

Rawlins, WY. 195 pp.

Johnson, M.K. and R.M. Hansen. 1979. Coyote food habits on the Idaho
National Engineering Lab. Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 951-956.

Johnson, G.D. and M.S. Boyce. 1991. Survival, growth, and reproduction
of captive-

reared sage grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:88-93.

Johnson, K.H. and C.E. Braun. 1999. Viability and conservation of an
exploited sage

grouse population. Conservation Biology 13:77-84.

Kaczor, N.W. 2008. Nesting and brood-rearing success and resource
selection of greater sage-grouse in northwestern Wyoming. M.S. thesis,
South Dakota State University. 99pp.

Kaiser, R.C. 2006. Recruitment by greater sage-grouse in association
with natural gas development in western Wyoming. M.S. thesis, University
of Wyoming. 102pp.

Kerlinger, P. 2000. Avian mortality at communication towers: a review of
recent

> literature, research, and methodology. Report, Fish and Wildlife
> Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management.

Kilpatrick, S. 2000. Using prescribed fire to manage sagebrush
communities in occupied

Sage Grouse habitats of Wyoming. Twenty-second Western States Sage and

> Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Symposium, Redmond, Oregon. 6 pp.

Klebenow, D.A. and G.M. Gray. 1968. Food habits of juvenile Sage Grouse.
Journal

of Range Management 21:80-83.

Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage-grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho.
Journal of

Wildlife Management 33:649-662.

Klebenow, D.A. 1970. Sage Grouse versus sagebrush control in Idaho.
Journal of

Range Management 23:396-400.

Klebenow, D.A. 1981. Livestock grazing interactions with sage-grouse.
Proceedings of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationship Symposium. pp.
113-123.

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 1995. Landscape characterisitics of
fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and breeding passerine birds.
Conservation Biology 9: 1059-1071.

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M.
Vander Haegen

and C. Van Riper III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late?
Conservation and

research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611-634.

Knick, S.T., J.T. Rotenberry, and M. Leu. 2008. Habitat, topographical,
and geographical components structuring shrubsteppe bird communities.
Ecography (online early)

Knight, R. L., H. A. L. Knight, and R. J. Camp. 1993. Raven populations
and land-use

> patterns in the Mojave Desert, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin
> 21:469-471.

Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Factors that influence wildlife
responses to

recreationists. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors.
Wildlife

and recreationists: Coexistence through management and research. Island
Press.

Washington, D.C. 372 pp.

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Prairie legacies - birds. Pages 135-148 in F. B.
Samson and F. L. Knopf, eds. Prairie Conservation: preserving North
America's most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, D. C.

Kokko, H. 2001. Optimal and suboptimal use of compensatory responses to
harvesting: timing of hunting as an example. Wildlife biology 7:
159-168.

Laycock, W. A., D. Loper, F. W. Obermiller, L. Smith, S. R. Swanson, P.
J. Urness, and M. Vavra. 1996. Grazing on public lands. Council for
Agriculture Science and Technology Task Force. Report No. 129. Ames, IA.

Leu, M., S.E. Hanser, and S.T. Knick. 2008. The human footprint in the
west: a large scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecological
Applications 18: 1119-1139.

Leventhall, G., 2003, A review of published research on low frequency
noise and its effects*,* prepared for the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, London, United Kingdom, May. 88 pp.

Livingston, M. F. 1998. Western sage grouse management plan - Yakima
Training

> Center. 76 pp.

Lyon, A. G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on
sage grouse

(*Centrocercus* *urophasianus*) near Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis,
University

of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 121 pp.

Lyon, A. G. and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts
on sage

grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin
31:486-491.

Maestas, J.D., R.L. Knight, and W.C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across
a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17: 1425-1434.

Manville, A. M. 2002. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines,
communication

towers, and wind turbines: State of the art and state of the science --
next steps

toward mitigation. International Partners in Flight Conference,
Monterey, CA.

27 pp.

Marra, P. P., S. Griffing, C. Caffrey, A. M. Kilpatrick, R. McLean, C.
Brand, E. Saito,

> A. P. Dupuis, L. Kramer and R. Novak. 2004. West Nile virus and
> wildlife. BioScience 54:393-402.

McArthur, E.D. 1994. Ecology, distribution, and values of sagebrush
within the

> intermountain region. Pages 347-351 in S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen,
> comps. Proceedings: Ecology and management of annual rangelands.
> General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 416 pp.

McEwen, L.C. and R.L. Brown. 1966. Acute toxicity of dieldrin and
malathion to wild

sharp-tailed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 30(3):604-611.

McLean, R.G. 2006. West Nile virus in North American birds.
Ornithological Monographs 60: 44-64.

Menard, C., P. Duncan, G. Fleurance, J. Georges, and M. Lila. 2002.
Comparative foraging and nutrition of horses and cattle in European
wetlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:12---133.

Mensing, S., S. Livingston, and P. Barker. 2006. Long-term fire history
in Great Basin sagebrush reconstructed from macroscopic charcoal in
spring sediments, Newark Valley, Nevada. Western North American
Naturalist 66: 64-77.

Merritt, S., C. Prosser, K. Sedivec, and D. Bangsund. 2001.
Multi-species grazing and leafy spurge. U.S.D.A. --ARS Team Leafy
Spurge, Sidney, Montana.

Mezquida, E.T., S.J. Slater, and C.W. Benkman. 2006. Sage-grouse and
indirect interactions: potential implications of coyote control on
sage-grouse populations. Condor 108: 747-759.

Miller, R. F. and L. L. Eddleman. 2000. Spatial and temporal changes of
sage grouse

habitat in the sagebrush biome. Oregon State University Agricultural
Experiment

Station, Technical Bulletin 151. 35 pp.

Miller, R. F. and J. A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper
encroachment in

sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management 52:550-559.

Miller, R.F. and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in juniper and
pinyon woodlands: a descriptive analysis. Pp. 15-30 i*n* K. E. M. Galley
and T. P. Wilson, eds. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the
role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire
Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire Ecology,
Prevention, and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall
Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 146 pp.

Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994. Implications of
livestock grazing in the Intermountain sagebrush region: plant
composition. Pp. 100-146 i*n* M. Vavra, W. A. Laycock and R. D. Pieper,
eds. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the west. Society
for Range Mangement, Denver, CO.

R.F. Miller, T.J. Svejcar, J.A.Rose. 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on
Plant Community Journal of Range Management 53: 574-585.

Miller, R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, S.E. Hanser, M.J.
Wisdom, and A.L. Hild. 2008a. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and
limitations to long-term conservation. (in press).

Miller, Richard F.; Tausch, Robin J.; McArthur, E. Durant; Johnson,
Dustin D.;

Sanderson, Stewart C. 2008b. Age structure and expansion of
piñon-juniper

woodlands: a regional perspective in the Intermountain West. Res. Pap.

RMRS-RP-69. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 p.

Milton, S.J., R.J. Dean, M.A. du Plessis, and W.R. Siegfried. 1994. A
conceptual model

of arid rangeland degradation. BioScience 44:70-76.

Montana Sage Grouse Working Group. 2004. Management Plan and
Conservation

Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana -- Final. Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks,

Helena, MT. 191 pp.

(<http://www.fwp.state.mt.us/fwppaperapps/wildthings/SGFinalPlan.pdf>)

Mooney, H.A. and E.E. Cleland. 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive
species. PNAS 98: 5446-5451

Moore, R. and T. Mills. 1977. An environmental guide to western surface
mining. Part

two: impacts, mitigation and monitoring. FWS/OBS-78/04, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO. 379 pp.

Moynahan, B.J., M.S. Lindberg, and J.W. Thomas. 2006. Factors
contributing to process variance in annual survival of female greater
sage-grouse in Montana. Ecological Applications 16: 1529-1538.

Moynahan, B.J., M.S. Lindbert, J.J. Rotella, and J.W. Thomas. 2007.
Factors affecting nest survival of greater sage-grouse in northcentral
Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 1773-1783.

National Petroleum Council. 2007. Hard truths: facing the hard truths
about energy. A comprehensive view to 2030 of global oil and natural
gas.

Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. The long-term
effects of fire on

sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat on the Upper Snake River
Plain.

Journal of Range Management 53:586-591.

Naugle, D. E., C. L. Aldridge, B. L. Walker, T. E. Cornish, B. J.
Moynahan, M. J.

> Holloran, K. Brown, G. D. Johnson, E. T. Schmidtmann, R. T. Mayer, C.
> Y. Kato, M. R. Matchett, T. J. Christiansen, W. E. Cook, T. Creekmore,
> R.D. Falise, E. T. Rinkes and M.S. Boyce. 2004. West Nile virus:
> pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7:704-713.

Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, K.E. Doherty, M.R. Matchett,
J. McIntosh, T.E. Cornish, and M.S. Boyce. 2005. West Nile virus and
sage-grouse: What more have we learned. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:
616-623.

Naugle, D.E., B.L. Walker, and K.E. Doherty. 2006. Sage-grouse
population response to coal bed natural gas development in the Powder
River Basin: Interim progress report on region wide lek count analyses.
Report draft. 10pp.

Naugle, D.E., K.E. Doherty, B.L. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E.
Copeland. 2008. Greater sage-grouse and energy development in western
North America. In review

Nemeth, N.M., D.C. Hahn, D.H. Gould, and R.A. Bowe. 2006. Experimental
West Nile virus infection in eastern screech owls (Megascops asio).
Avian Diseases 50: 252-258.

Oedekoven, O. O. 2004. Annual Sage-Grouse Completion Report For 2004.

Unpublished Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 113 pp.

Oliphant, J. O. 1968. On the cattle ranges of the Oregon country.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Olsen, B. E. and R. T. Wallander. 2001. Sheep grazing spotted knapweed
and Idaho fescue. Journal Range Management 54:25-30.

Oyler-McCance, S. J., K. P. Burnham, and C. E. Braun. 2001. Influence of
changes in

> sagebrush on Gunnison sage grouse in southwestern Colorado.
> Southwestern Naturalist 46:323-331.

Oyler-McCance, S. J., S.E.Taylor, and T.W. Quinn 2005. Multilocus
population survey of greater sage-grouse across their range. Molecular
Ecology 14: 1293-1310.

Oyler-McCance, S.J. and T.W. Quinn. 2008. Molecular insights into the
biology of greater sage-grouse. USGS Administrative Report. 39pp.

Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish

Commission, Sage Books Inc., Denver, CO. 344 pp.

Payne, G.F., J.W. Foster, and W.C. Leininger. 1983. Vehicle impacts on
northern Great

Plains range vegetation Montana. Journal of Range Management
36(3):327-331.

Paysen, T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K. Brown, G. J. Gottfried, S. M. Haase,
M. G. Harrington,

M. G. Narog, S. S. Sackett, and R. C. Wilson. 2000. Fire in western
shrubland,

woodland, and grassland ecosystems -- Chapter 6. Pages 121-159 *in* J.
K. Brown

and J. K. Smith, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on
flora.

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42 Vol. 2. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257
pp.

<http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr42_2.pdf>

Pedersen, E. K., J. W. Connelly, J. R. Hendrickson and W. E. Grant.
2003. Effect of

sheep grazing and fire on sage grouse populations in southeastern Idaho.

Ecological Modeling 165: 23-47.

Peters, E. F. and S. C. Bunting. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and
post-occurrence of annual

> grasses on the Snake River plain. Pages 31-36 *in* S. B. Monsen and S.
> G. Kitchen, comps. Proceedings: Ecology and management of annual
> rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. U.S. Department of
> Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 416
> pp.

Petersen, M. J. 2004. Parasites and infectious diseased of prairie
grouse: should

managers be concerned? Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:35-55.

Post, G. 1951. Effects of toxaphene and chlordane on certain game birds.
Journal of

Wildlife Management 15(4):381-386.

Pyle, W. H. 1992. Response of brood-rearing habitat of Sage Grouse to
prescribed

burning in Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. 47

pp.

Pyle, W. H. and J. A. Crawford. 1996. Availability of foods of sage
grouse chicks following prescribed burning in sagebrush-bitterbrush.
Journal Range Management 49:320-324.

Quinn, T.W., N.W. Kahn, J.R Young, N.G.Benedict, S. Wood, D. Mata, and
C.E. Braun. 1997. Probing the evolutionary history of sage grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) populations using mitogchrondrial DNA
sequence. Wildlife Biology 3:291

Quinney, D. L., M. McHenry, and J. Weaver. 1996. Restoration of native
shrubland in a

> military training area using hand-broadcasting of seed. Pages 156-157
> *in* J.R. Barrow, E. D. McArtur, R. E. Sosebee, and R. J. Tausch,
> comps. Proceedings: Shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing
> environment. General Technical Report INT-GTR-338. U.S. Department of
> Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
> Ogden, UT. 275 pp.

Ramakrishnan, A.P., S.E. Meyer, D.J. Fairbanks, and C.E. Coleman. 2006.
Ecological significance of microsatellite variation in western North
American populations of Bromus tectorum. Plant Species Biology 21:
61-73.

Randall, J.M, L.E. Morse, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, S.Lu, and T.
Killerffer. 2008. The invasive species assessment protocol: a tool for
creating regional and national lists of invasive nonnative plants that
negatively impact biodiversity. Invasive Plant Science and Management
1:36-49.

Rand McNally Road Atlas. 2003. The road atlas -- United States, Canada
and Mexico.

> 138 pp.

Rands, M.R.W. 1985. Pesticide Use on Cereals and the Survival of Grey
Partridge

Chicks: A Field Experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology 22(1):49-54.

Rasmussen, D. I., and L. A. Griner. 1938. Life history and management
studies of sage grouse in Utah, with special reference to nesting and
feeding habits. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference
3:852-864.

Reese K. P. and J.C. Connelly. 1997. Translocations of sage grouse
*Centrocercus*

*urophasianus* in North America. Wildlife Biology 3:235-241

Reisen, W.K., Y. Fang, and V.M. Martinez. 2006. Effects of temperature
on the transmission of West Nile Virus by Culex tarsalis (Diptera:
Culicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 43: 309-317.

Restani, M., J. M. Marzluff, and R. E. Yates. 2001. Effects of
anthropogenic food

> sources on movements, survival, and sociality of common ravens in the
> Arctic. Condor 103:399-404.

Remington, T. E. and C. E. Braun. 1991. How surface coal mining affects
sage grouse,

North Park, Colorado. Proc. Issues Technol. Manage. Impacted Wildl.
5:128-

132\.

Rice, K.J. and R.N. Mack. 1991. Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum.
II. Intraspecific variation in phenotypic plasticity. Oecologica 88:
84-90.

Riggs, R. A. and P. J. Urness. 1989. Effects of goat browsing on Gambel
oak communities in northern Utah. Journal of Range Management
42:354-360.

Ritchie, M. E., M. L. Wolfe, and R. Danvir. 1994. Predation of
artificial Sage Grouse

nests in treated and untreated sagebrush. Great Basin Naturalist
54:122-129.

Robinson, W.L. and E.G. Bolen. 1984. Wildlife Ecology and Management.
Macmillaim Publishing Company, New York, 478 pp.

Rogers, G. E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Technical
Publication

> Number 16, Project W-37-R, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Game
> Resources Division, Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department. 132 pp.

Romesburg, H.C. 1981. Wildlife sciences: gaining reliable knowledge.
Journal of wildlife management 45: 293-313

Roundy, B.A., S.P. Hardegree, J.C. Chambers, and A.Whittaker. 2007.
Prediction of cheatgrass field germination potential using wet thermal
accumulation. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60: 613-623.

Rowland, M. M. and M. J. Wisdom. 2002. Research problem analysis for
greater sage-

> grouse in Oregon - Final Report. Oregon Department of Fish and
> Wildlife; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
> Oregon/Washington State Office; and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 75 pp.

Saether, B. and O. Bakke. 2000. Avian life history variation and
contribution of demographic traits to the population growth rate.
Ecology 81: 642-653.

Schroeder, M. A. 1997. Unusually high reproductive effort by Sage Grouse
in a

fragmented habitat in north-central Washington. Condor 99:933-941.

Schroeder, M.A. 2008. Variation in greater sage-grouse morphology by
region and population. USFW Draft Report. 19pp.

Schroeder, M. A. and R. K. Baydack. 2001. Predation and the management
of prairie

grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:24-32.

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse
([Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}). *In* The Birds of North
America, No. 425, A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America,
Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 28 pp.

Schroeder, M. A., D. W. Hays, M. F. Livingston, L. E. Stream, J. E.
Jacobson, and D. J.

> Pierce. 2000. Changes in the distribution and abundance of Sage grouse
> in Washington. Wildlife Research. Washington Department of Fish and
> Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 23 pp.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun,
S. D. Bunnell, J.

W. Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D.
Kobriger, S. M.

McAdam, C. W. McCarthy, J. J. McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson,
and

S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor

106:363-376.

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse
([Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}). *In* The Birds of North
America, No. 425, A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America,
Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 28 pp.

Schroeder, M. A., D. W. Hays, M. F. Livingston, L. E. Stream, J. E.
Jacobson, and D. J.

> Pierce. 2000. Changes in the distribution and abundance of Sage grouse
> in Washington. Wildlife Research. Washington Department of Fish and
> Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 23 pp.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun,
S. D. Bunnell, J.

W. Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D.
Kobriger, S. M.

McAdam, C. W. McCarthy, J. J. McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson,
and

S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor

106:363-376.

Shaman, J., J.F. Day and M. Stieglitz. 2005. Drought-induced
amplification and epidemic transmission of West Nile virus in southern
Florida. Journal of Medical Entomology 42(2): 134-141.

Shire, G. G., K. Brown, and G. Winegard. 2000. Communication towers: a
deadly

hazard to birds. American Bird Conservancy, Washington, D.C. 23 pp.

Slater, S. J. 2003. Sage-grouse (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) use of
different-aged burns

> and the effects of coyote control in southwestern Wyoming. M.S.
> Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 187 pp.

Sovada, M. A., A. B. Sargeant and J. W. Grier. 1995. Differential
effects of coyotes and

red foxes on duck nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:1-9.

Sovada, M.A., P.J. Pietz, K.A. Converse, and D.T. King. 2008. Impact of
West Nile virus and other mortality factors on American white pelicans
at breeding colonies in the northern plains of North America. Biological
Conservation 141: 1021-1031.

Spurrier, M. F., M. S. Boyce, and B. F. J. Manly. 1991. Effects of
parasites on mate

choice by captive sage grouse. Pages 389-399 *in* J. E. Loyle and M. Zuk
eds.

> Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution of Bird-Parasite Interactions. Oxford
> University Press, Oxford, UK.

Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert, and J. A. Roppe. 1993. Nesting by raptors
and common

ravens on electrical transmission line towers. Journal of Wildlife
Management 57:

271-281.

Stinson, D.W., D.W. Hays, and M. A. Schroeder. 2004. Washington State
Recovery

Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife,

Olympia, Washington. 109 pp.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.Deibert, S.Gardner, M.
Hilliard, C.McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage-grouse
comprehensive conservation strategy. Unpublished Report, Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. pp.

Summers, R. W., R. E. Green, R. Proctor, D. Dugan, D. Lambie, R.
Moncrieff, R. Moss,

and D. Baines. 2004. An experimental study of the effects of predation
on the

> breeding productivity of capercaillie and black grouse. Journal of
> Applied Ecology 41:513-525.

Suter, G.W.,II. Effects of geothermal energy development on fish and
wildlife. Topical briefs: Fish and wildlife resources and electrical
power generation, no. 6. Biological Services Program Report
FWS/OBS-76/20.6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Swenson, J.E. 1986. Differential survival by sex in juvenile Sage grouse
and Gray partridge. Ornis Scandinavica 17: 14-17.

Swenson, J. E., C. A. Simmons, and C. D. Eustace. 1987. Decrease of sage
grouse

> *Centrocercus urophasianus* after ploughing of sagebrush steppe.
> Biological Conservation 41:125-132.

Taylor, R.C., M.R. Dzialak, and L.D. Hayden-Wing. 2007. Greater
sage-grouse populations and energy development in Wyoming. Unpublished
report, Evansville, Wyoming.

Theobald, D.M. 2001. Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringe.
The Geographical Review 91: 544-564.

Theobald, D.M. 2003. Targeting conservation action through assessment of
protection and exurban threats. Conservation Biology 17: 1-13

Thorne, E. T., N. Kingston, W. R. Jolley, and R.C. Bergstrom. 1982.
Diseases of

> Wildlife in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY.
> 353 pp.

Tilman, D. and A. El Haddi. 1992. Drought and biodiversity in
grasslands. Oecologia 89:257-264.

Touchan, R., T. W. Swetnam, and H. D. Grissino-Mayer. 1995. Effects of
livestock

grazing in pre-settlement fire regimes in New Mexico. Pages 268-272 *in*
J. K.

Brown, R. W. Mutch, C. W. Spoon, and R. H. Wakimoto, eds. Proceedings:

Symposium on fire in wilderness and park management. General Technical

Report INT-GTR-320. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. 283 pp.

U.S. Census. 1913. Thirteenth census of the United States. Vol. XI,
Mines and Quarries, 1913, Table 4, p. 187.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1996. Registration
Eligibility Decision (RED) Fact Sheet, Strychnine, EPA-738-F-96-033.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for
Petitions To List the Greater Sage-grouse as Threatened or Endangered.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Mineral Commodities Summary 2007: U.S.
Geological Survey.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2007/mcs2007.pdf, accessed
October 19, 2008.

U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center. 2003. What is drought:
Understanding and defining drought.
\<[[http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/concept.htm\>.]{.underline}](../%3Chttp://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/concept.htm%3E.)
September 8, 2004.

Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources.
2002. Strategic Management Plan for Sage-Grouse. Pulication 02-20, pp.
57.

Vallentine, J. F. 2001. Grazing Management. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA. 659 pp.

Vander Haegen, W. M., F. C. Dobler, and D. J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe
bird response

to habitat and landscape variables in eastern Washington, U.S.A.
Conservation

Biology 14:1145-1160.

Vander Haegen, W. M., M. A. Schroeder, and R. M. DeGraaf. 2002.
Predation on real

> and artificial nests in shrubsteppe landscapes fragmented by
> agriculture. Condor 104:496--506.

Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes:
Towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies.
Oikos 57: 7-13.

WAFWA. 2008. Greater sage-grouse population trends: and analysis of lek
count databases 1965-2007. Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed grouse
technical committee, WAFWA. 126pp.

Wagner, F. H. 1983. Status of wild horse and burro management on public
rangelands. Pages 116-133 *in* Transactions of the Forty-eighth North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Mangement
Institute, Washington, D.C.

Wakkinen, W. L., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 1992. Sage Grouse nest
locations in

relation to leks. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:381-383.

Wallestad, R. O. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by Sage Grouse
Broods in

> central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 35:129-136.

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, K. E. Doherty, and T. E. Cornish. 2004.
From the field:

Outbreak of West Nile virus in greater sage-grouse and guidelines for
monitoring,

handling, and submitting dead birds. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 1-7

Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, K.E. Doherty, and T.E. Cornish. 2007a. West
Nile virus and greater sage-grouse: estimating infection rate in a wild
bird population. Avian Diseases 51: 691-696.

Walker, B.L., D.E. Naugle, and K.E. Doherty. 2007b. Greater sage-grouse
population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of
Wildlife Management 71: 2644-2654.

Walker, B.L. and D.E. Naugle. 2008. West Nile virus ecology in sagebrush
habitat and impacts on greater sage-grouse populations. (in press).

Wambolt, C. L., K. S. Walhof, and M. R. Frisina. 2001. Recovery of big
sagebrush

> communities after burning in south-western Montana. Journal of
> Environmental Management 61:243-252.

Wambolt, C. L., A. J. Harp, B. L. Welch, N. Shaw, J. W. Connelly, K. P.
Reese, C. E.

> Braun, D. A.Klebenow, E. D. McArthur, J. G. Thompson, L. A. Torell,
> and J. A. Tanaka. 2002. Conservation of greater sage-grouse on public
> lands in the western U.S.: Implications of recovery and management
> policies. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands. PACWPL
> Policy Paper SG-02-02. Caldwell, ID. 41 pp.

Ward, M.R., D.E. Stallknecht, J. Willis, M.J. Conroy, and W.R. Davidson.
2006. Wild bird mortality and West Nile virus surveillance: biases
associated with detection, reporting, and carcass persistence. Journal
of Wildlife Diseases 42: 92-106.

Webb, W. C., W. I. Boarman, and J. T. Rotenberry. 2004. Common raven
juvenile

> survival in a human-augmented landscape. Condor 106:517-528.

West, N. E. 1983. Chapters 11-16. *In* N. E. West ed. Ecosystems of the
World:

> Temperate Deserts and Semi-Deserts. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
> Company, New York, NY.

West, N. E. and J. A. Young. 2000. Intermountain Valleys and Lower
Mountain Slopes.

*In* M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings, eds. North American Terrestrial

Vegetation, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Western States Sage Grouse Technical Committee. 1999. Sage Grouse
Status, 1999. Report prepared by the Western States Sage Grouse
Technical Committee, June 14, 1999, Reno, NV. 54 pp.

Wiens, J. A. and J. T. Rotenberry. 1985. Response of breeding passerine
birds to

> rangeland alteration in a North American shrubsteppe locality. Journal
> of Applied Ecology 22:655-668.

Wilkenson, C. F. 1992. Crossing the next meridian. Land, water, and the
future of the West. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Willis, M. J., G. P. Keister, Jr., D. A. Immell, D. M. Jones, R. M.
Powell, and K. R.

> Durbin. 1993. Sage Grouse in Oregon. Wildlife Research Report No. 15.
>
> Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 70 pp.

Winward, A. H. 2004. Sagebrush of Colorado: taxonomy, distribution,
ecology, and management. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. pp

Wrobleski, D. W. 1999. Effects of prescribed fire on Wyoming big
sagebrush

communities: implications for ecological restoration of Sage Grouse
habitat.

M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 76 pp.

Wyoming of Game and Fish Department. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse

> Conservation Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY.
>
> 97 pp.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2004. Greater sage-grouse job
completion report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, WY. 316 pp.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2006. Greater sage-grouse job
completion report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, WY. 291 pp.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2007. Annual report of small and
upland game harvest. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, WY. 291 pp.

Wyoming Mining Association. 2005. A concise guide to Wyoming coal: and
industry overview produced by the Wyoming Coal Information Committee.

Wyoming Mining Association. 2008. A concise guide to Wyoming coal: and
industry overview produced by the Wyoming Coal Information Committee.

Young, J. A. and F. L. Allen. 1997. Cheatgrass and range
science:1930-1950. Journal of Range Management 50:530-535.

Young, J. A. and R. A. Evans. 1978. Populations dynamics after wildfires
in sagebrush

grasslands. Journal of Range Management 31:283-289.

Young, J. A., R. A. Evans, and P. T. Tueller. 1976. Great Basin plant
communities-pristine and grazed. Pages 187-215 *in* R. Elston and P.
Headrick, eds. Holocene environmental change in the Great Basin. Nevada
Archives Survey, Research Paper No. 6, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV.

Young, J.R., C.E. Braun, S.J. Oyler-McCance, J.W. Hupp, and T.W. Quinn.
2000. A

new species of sage-grouse (Phasianidae: *Centrocercus*) from
southwestern

Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 112:445-453.

Young, D. P., Jr., W. P. Erickson, M. D. Strickland, R. E. Good and K.
J. Sernka. 2003.

Comparison of avian responses to UV-light reflective paint on wind
turbines.

Subcontract Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 62
pp.

Zou, L., S.N. Miller, E.T. Schmidtmann. 2006. Mosquito larval habitat
mapping using remote sensing and GIS: implication of coalbed methane
development and West Nile virus. Journal of Medical Entomology 43:
1034-1041.

Zou, L., S.N. Miller, and E.T. Schmidtmann. 2007. A GIS tool to estimate
West Nile virus risk based on a degree-day model. Environ Monit Assess
129: 413-420.

Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information
System, \[Online\]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ \[ 2008, October 21\].

Zouhar, Kristin; Smith, Jane Kapler; Sutherland, Steve; Brooks, Matthew
L. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive
plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p.

***In litt.***

BLM in litt. 2008a. GSG Responses to Kendra Womack. Branch Chief \--
Conservation Planning. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, ID.

BLM in litt. 2008b. Greater sage-grouse land use plan evaluation.

BLM in litt. 2008c. Information Bulletin WO-2007-119

BLM in litt. 2008d. BLM data call on sage-grouse protections for
2006-2007.

BLM in litt. 2008e. BLM Planning overview from W.O.

BLM in litt. 2008f. BLM GIS data by LL Stoner

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in litt. 2008.
Geothermal potential map

BLM in litt. 2003. IM 2003-137, April 3, 2003.

DOE in litt. 2007. Wind energy projections.

EIA in litt. 2008. Renewable energy overview 2005 to 2008.

FWS in litt. 2008a. FWS Population/habitat Excel datasheet.

FWS in litt. 2008b. FWS synthesis of BLM and other data.

FWS in litt. 2008c. FWS synthesis of BLM lease and stipulation data.

FWS in litt. 2008d. FWS Future development spreadsheet.

FWS in litt. 2008e. BLM grazing allotment data.

Incorporated in litt. 2006. Data for oil and gas well map.

Montana Weed Control Association in litt. 2008. The Montana Weed
Management Plan.

NREL in litt. 2008 wind potential map.

NREL in litt. 2005 biomass potential map.

NREL in litt. 2004 solar potential map.

ODFW in litt. 2008. Comments submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding potential listing of Greater sage-grouse.

State of Wyoming in litt 1898. Historical documentation of existing
mines.

USFS in litt. 2004. Comments submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service

regarding the 90-day finding for the Greater sage-grouse.

USFS in litt. 2008 LRMP stipulation for fluid mineral extraction.

Walker in litt. 2008 is Natural Gas Flare Emission Monitoring Using a
Miniature Fiber Optic Spectrometer.

***Websites***

www.awea.com, accessed September 3, 2008

BLM in draft 2008.
<http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/epca_chart.html>).

Center for Invasive Plant Management. 2008
<http://www.weedcenter.org/weed_mgmt_areas/wma_overview.html>. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

COGCC. 2008. Colorado Oil and Gas Commission.
[http://cogcc.state.co](http://cogcc.state.co/), accessed September 30,
2008.

dsireusa.org, accessed October 6, 2008.

DOE. 2008, U.S. Department of Energy.
<http://www.oe.energy.gov/gov/epa_sec368.htm>, accessed October 14,
2008.

EIA http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.pdf, accessed
October 19, 2008

eia.doe.gov/overview, accessed October 8, 2008.

geo-energy.org, accessed October 8, 2008).

MOGC Montana Coal Council. 2008.
<http://www.montanacoalcouncil.com/facts_figures.html>, accessed October
19, 2008.

MBOG. 2008. Montana Board of Oil and Gas.
<http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/onlinedata.asp>, accessed September 30, 2008.

nevadasolarone.net, accessed October 7, 2008.

Oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/RPS_home.shtml, accessed October 18, 2008

WOGC. 2008. Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission.
[http://wogcc.state.wy.us](http://wogcc.state.wy.us/), accessed
September 29, 2008.

SustainableBusiness.com, accessed October 6, 2008.

tonto.eia.doe.gov/state, accessed October 7, 2008.

tonto.eia.doe.gov, accessed October 8, 2008.

wind-watch.org, accessed September 6, 2008.

wind-watch.org, accessed October 6, 2008.

Wyoming State Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team
(http://governor.wy.gov/press-releases/executive-order-on-sage-grouse-coordinates-agencies-to-protect-grouse-habitat-in-wyoming.html,
accessed October 19, 2008.

Wyoming Mining Association 2005, p 5; (Figure 5 from the Wyoming Mining
Association, http://www.wma-minelife.com/coal/coalfrm/coalfrm1.htm,
accessed October 19, 2008).

[^1]: In collaboration with the Montana and Utah Ecological Services
    Office in the Mountain-Prairie Region; the Upper Columbia, Snake
    River, and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Offices in the Pacific Region;
    and the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in the California and Nevada
    Region.