**[Habitat Restoration for Gunnison and Greater
Sage-Grouse]{.smallcaps}[---]{.smallcaps}[A Literature
Review]{.smallcaps}**

**Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior**

**Bureau of Land Management **

**Gunnison Field Office **

**23 July, 2004**

James A. Sedgwick

Research Wildlife Biologist

Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

**[Table of Contents]{.smallcaps}**

[Overview 3]{.underline}

[Selected Abstracts 7]{.underline}

[Extracted Papers 28]{.underline}

[ A. Sagebrush Ecosystems: Current Status and Trends 28]{.underline}

[ B. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats
40]{.underline}

[Contact Information 49]{.underline}

[Online Resources 52]{.underline}

[References 54]{.underline}

[ Specific to Gunnison Sage-Grouse 54]{.underline}

[ Sage-Grouse Habitat Restoration 57]{.underline}

[ Sage-Grouse Habitat Characteristics 60]{.underline}

[ Sagebrush Ecosystems: Dynamics and Descriptions of Habitats
70]{.underline}

[Cover Photo Credit: Louis Smith and Jessica Young©]{.underline}

**[Habitat Restoration for Gunnison and Greater
Sage-Grouse]{.smallcaps}[---]{.smallcaps}[A Literature
Review]{.smallcaps}**

**[[Overview]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

***[Essential Elements of Restoration]{.underline}***

! Active restoration is warranted if invasive species (e.g. cheatgrass
or noxious weeds) or native species that are generally inconspicuous at
a site (e.g., junipers or pinyon pines) have replaced dominant species
(e.g. sagebrush, perennial bunchgrasses, and forbs) in the community.

! [In the case of pinyon-juniper tree encroachment, as the site becomes
dominated by the trees, sagebrush will die out, the herb layer may
decline, and seed banks may become depleted.]{.underline}

! [Following invasions of exotic annual grasses, the communities become
susceptible to more frequent fires because of the increase in fuel that
is more continuous across the soil surface than the pre-invasion
community. ]{.underline}

! [Most species of sagebrush, except silver and threetip sagebrush, are
intolerant of fires and require seed dispersal and germination to
reestablish after a fire. ]{.underline}

! [Cheatgrass is known to be a successful competitor against native
plants for resources necessary for the native plants to establish and
grow. ]{.underline}

! [Site degradation in some locations may become so severe that soil
erosion removes the upper soil horizons to such an extent that the
potential for the site to support its former native plant community is
impossible. In this case, restoration is no longer possible, but
rehabilitation---an alternative to the historic native plant community
that provides similar structure and function without allowing further
degradation of the site---may be the only remaining alternative that
might make the site usable by sage-grouse.]{.underline}

! [In sagebrush grasslands, grazing during the growing season tends to
favor sagebrush growth until sagebrush becomes so dense that the
competition of sagebrush restricts recovery of herbaceous
plants.]{.underline}

! [Reductions in grazing will only show improvements in sage-grouse
habitat quality if the vegetation community is a sagebrush grassland
mix, retaining both sagebrush and the tall bunchgrass necessary for
quality sage-grouse habitat. The release from livestock grazing should
allow the full expression of vegetation height for hiding cover and nest
protection. Improvements could be expressed in the next growing season,
but might take 3 to 5 years for pre-existing plants to fully express
themselves and 10 to 15 years for seed production and new plant
recruitment to occur assuming the site is not fully occupied by other
species.]{.underline}

! [Prescribed fires kill, eliminate, or reduce the density of sagebrush
and provide a temporary flush of nutrients that may result in increases
in herbaceous plant responses--- but may leave sites susceptible to soil
erosion during the first years after the fire. This tool is being
applied on lands where pinyons or junipers have encroached into
sagebrush grasslands. It results in a loss of sagebrush dominance for
25-45 years depending on the location of seed sources.]{.underline}

! [Herbicide applications of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) or
tebuthiuron (--\[5-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl\]-N,N'-dimethylurea) have been used
to kill large expanses of sagebrush; risk of soil erosion is low but
herbicide use during the growing season may kill or injure
forbs.]{.underline}

! [Control of pinyon and juniper through chaining, cabling, railing, or
chain saw can have moderate to little impact on the shrub canopy--- but
uprooting techniques disturb the soil and add to the risk of
post-treatment soil erosion. Such techniques may facilitate rapid
recovery of the shrub and herb understory if adequate levels are present
prior to treatment. ]{.underline}

! [Treatments such as mowing, roller chopping, rotobeating, and plowing
will have a greater and longer lasting impact on the sagebrush shrub
layer; it is critical that invasive annual grasses do not exist within
the community.]{.underline}

! [Tebuthiuron at low rates has been reported as a technique for
thinning dense sagebrush and opening the community for herbaceous
plants. Provided herbaceous perennial plants exist in the understory,
this technique might yield immediate improvements to habitat quality;
however, if exotic annual grasses exist in the community, then expansion
and spread of these invasive plants might result. There are no empirical
data on the response of sage-grouse to tebuthiuron.]{.underline}

! [Browsing animals may be used as a biocontrol for reducing the
densities of sagebrush and potentially increasing the herbaceous
component. Several studies have shown long-term declines in threetip
sagebrush with recovery of herbaceous vegetation at high elevation sites
in Idaho; declines of Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush densities due
to heavy deer or elk browsing have been noted in Utah and
Montana.]{.underline}

! [Cox and Anderson (2004) suggested this method for restoring a
complete sagebrush grassland community: sites dominated by cheatgrass
could be seeded with crested wheatgrass to control the cheatgrass.
Later, sites dominated by introduced grasses could be prepared by a
till, harrow, or with herbicides and then reseeded with native
species.]{.underline}

! [Rehabilitation and restoration techniques to transform lands
currently dominated by invasive annual grasses into quality sage-grouse
habitat have been largely unproven and experimental. Several components
of the process are being investigated with varying degrees of success.
The first aspect of the process will be the reduction in the competition
that invasive annual grasses provide against native seedlings during the
establishment phase. Proposed techniques to reduce cheatgrass densities
include herbicides imazapic (Plateau) (Shinn and Thill 2002) and
glyphosate (Whitson and Koch 1998), defoliation via livestock grazing
(Hulbert 1955, Finnerty and Klingman 1961, Mosley 1996), pathogenic
bacteria (Kennedy et al. 1991) and fungi (Meyer et al. 2001). Although
prescribed fire alone is not recommended (Mosley et al. 1999), it may be
an effective technique worth investigation if applied in combination
with a spring glyphosate treatment and conducted either in late spring
or autumn. The glyphosate will kill the current-year's plants, thus
reducing or eliminating seed production, and will prepare a fuel bed for
the fire that will reduce the litter seed bank. In addition to density
reduction techniques, applications of carbon in a form readily available
for microbial uptake in the soil may increase soil microbial content and
cause the microbes to reduce the available soil nitrogen, thus reducing
the growth and competitive ability of cheatgrass (McLendon & Redente
1990, 1992, Young et al. 1996).]{.underline}

! [Immediate revegetation is required after reduction of invasives;
otherwise invasive annual grasses that escape treatments will grow
unabated, produce large numbers of seeds, and quickly dominate a site
again (Mack and Pyke 1983). Successful revegetation efforts are
generally those where introduced forage grasses have been sown (Asay et
al. 2001). Some evidence from wildfire rehabilitation studies shows that
native plants can be sown and eventually coexists with invasive annuals,
but these were generally sown in combination with introduced grasses
(Pyke et al. 2003, Cox and Anderson 2004). Theoretical frameworks
hypothesize that multiple native species representing a variety of
growth and life forms may successfully compete with invasive plants
where any one species would be unsuccessful (Sheley et al.
1996).]{.underline}

! [Techniques for reseeding sagebrush have been successfully
demonstrated, but surface sowing followed by compaction of the soil may
be necessary for establishment. Establishment of forbs important to
sage-grouse have also shown promise, but availability of seed tends to
limit their widespread use on rangeland restoration and rehabilitation
projects (McArthur 2004).]{.underline}

! [Availability and cost of native seed is a major obstruction to the
use of native seeds in revegetation projects (McArthur 2004). Equipment
for sowing native seeds is not widely available. Native seeds, because
of their differing sizes, will require mixing within the seed boxes on
the drills to insure that equal proportions of all seeds are sown, or
will require separate seed boxes to allow seeds of different sizes to be
buried at different optimal depths.]{.underline}

! [See Connelly et al. (2000) (and below; Extracted Paper B) for details
on habitat restoration of (a) breeding, (b) summer-late brood-rearing,
and (c) winter habitats.]{.underline}

**[[Selected Abstracts]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[\*Whitson, T. D. and D. W. Koch. 1998. ]{.underline}**[Control of downy
brome (]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum]{.underline}*[) with herbicides
and perennial grass competition. ]{.underline}**[ Weed Technology
12:391-396.]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Long-term control of downy brome with an integrated
approach is needed in order to sustain range productivity. Studies were
conducted to study the effectiveness of a combination of downy brome
control practices. In two studies, glyphosate and paraquat were
evaluated at various rates for up to three successive years for control
of downy brome in rangeland. A third study evaluated the competitiveness
of perennial cool-season grasses against downy brome in the absence of
herbicides. Glyphosate, at 0.55 kg/ha, and 0.6 kg/ha paraquat provided
selective downy brome control on rangeland when applications were
combined with intensive grazing. Downy brome control was greater than
90% following two sequential years of 0.6 kg/ha paraqUat at either the
two- to eight-leaf stage or bloom stage at both study locations. At one
study location, 0.55 kg/ha glyphosate provided 97% control after the
first application at both growth stages. In the second study, control
averaged greater than 92% following three sequential applications of
glyphosate. When perennial cool-season grasses were seeded in the spring
following fall tillage (no herbicides) and allowed to establish for
three growing seasons, three of the five species were effective in
reducing the reestablishment of downy brome. \'Luna\' pubescent
wheatgrass, \'Hycrest\' crested wheatgrass, \'Sodar\' streambank
wheatgrass, \'Bozoisky\' Russian wildrye, and \'Critana\' thickspike
wheatgrass controlled 100, 91, 85, 45, and 32% of the downy brome,
respectively. Yields of perennial grass dry matter were 1,714, 1,596,
1,135, 900, and 792 kg/ha. Replacing noncompetitive annual grasses with
competitive cool-season perennials will provide a longer term solution
to a downy brome problem than the use of herbicides alone or with
intensive grazing.]{.underline}

[\*Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle, and R. Pontanier.
1993. ]{.underline}**[Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded
ecosystems in arid and semi-arid lands. ]{.underline}**[I. A view from
the south. Restoration Ecology 1:8-17.]{.underline}

[Abstract.---A general model is presented describing ecosystem
degradation to help decide when restoration, rehabilitation, or
reallocation should be the preferred response. The latter two pathways
are suggested when one or more \"thresholds of irreversibility\" have
been crossed in the course of ecosystem degradation, and when
\"passive\" restoration to a presumed predisturbance conditions is
deemed impossible. The young but burgeoning field of ecological
restoration, and the older field of rehabilitation and sustainable range
management of arid and semiarid lands (ASAL), are found to have much in
common, especially compared with the reallocation of lands, which is
often carried out without reference to pre-existing ecosystems. After
clarifying some basic terminology, we present 18 vital ecosystem
attributes for evaluating stages of degradation and planning experiments
in the restoration or rehabilitation of degraded
ecosystems.]{.underline}

[\*McLendon, T. and E. F. Redente. 1990. ]{.underline}**[Succession
patterns following soil disturbance in a sagebrush steppe community.
]{.underline}**[Oecologia 85:293-300.]{.underline}

[Abstract.---A study was begun in 1976 to measure succession patterns
following soil disturbance within a sage-brush community in northwestern
Colorado. The principal hypothesis was that type of disturbance affects
the direction of succession, resulting in different plant communities
over time. Successional dynamics were studied through 1988. Four types
of soil disturbance resulted in 3 early seral communities: one dominated
by grasses, one by annuals, and one intermediate. The annual-dominated
communities were opportunistic on these sites, lasting 3-5 years and not
determining the direction in which succession proceeded following their
replacement. Twelve years after disturbance, 3 communities (one
grass-dominated, one shrub-dominated, and one intermediate) occupied the
site, the characteristics of which were functions of type of initial
soil disturbance.]{.underline}

[\*]{.underline}**[Sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat manipulation,
sage-grouse use, and lagomorph herbivory, after two field
seasons.]{.underline}**[ David Dahlgren, Utah State University,
Department of Forestry, Range, and Wildlife Sciences, 5230 Old Main
Hill, Logan, UT 84322, ]{.underline}

[The greater sage-grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) population on Parker Mountain has seen a
downward trend over the last couple of decades. In 1998-1999 the Parker
Mountain Adaptive Resource Management (PARM) team funded a study to
assess baseline information on sage-grouse. Based on 1998-1999 study,
PARM proposed to treat 100-acre plots, containing approximately 40-70%
big mountain sagebrush, with two mechanical treatments. In 2000
experimental plots were randomly allocated, with 4 replicates per
treatment, of Dixie harrow, Lawson aerator, and control plots. Pre- and
post-treatment data was taken using a variation of the point-intercept
and line intercept methods. In October 2001 treatments were completed.
In 2002 and 2003 post-treatment data was collected. In 2003 bird dog
flush counts and sage-grouse pellet counts were conducted to assess use
within treatment plots. In addition to sage-grouse research, we became
interested in the effect of lagomorph herbivory on treatment response.
In 2001 ungulate exclosures were erected due to grazing concerns.
Researchers observed increased rabbit use within ungulate exclosures
during late summer. In spring 2002 we constructed rabbit exclosures in
each treatment type to determine the impact of lagomorph herbivory on
the grass/forb component. In 2002 and 2003 data was collected using a
daubenmire frame within exclosures. Data will continue to be collected
through the 2004 field season. \[From 24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[
Meeting of the Western agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse
Technical Committee, Wenatchee, WA, 28 June--1July, 2004\].]{.underline}

**[Gunnison sage-grouse in San Juan County, Utah: winter ecology,
effects of grazing, and insect abundance. ]{.underline}**[Sharon Ward,
Utah State University, Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife
Science, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322, Terry A. Messmer,
Quinney Professorship of Wildlife Conflict Management, Jack H. Berryman
Institute, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan,
84322, ]{.underline}

[ Gunnison sage-grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
minimus]{.underline}*[) were recently reclassified as a separate species
from Greater sage-grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[). Given their current limited range, and
declining populations they have been identified by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as a candidate species for listing under the federal
Endangered Species Act. Currently, the only known populations are found
in southwestern Colorado (Gunnison Basin) and southeastern Utah in San
Juan County. A combined population estimate is 3,500-4,000 birds. Less
than 10% of the population occurs in Utah. In 1996, a local
organization, called The San Juan County Gunnison Sage-grouse Working
Group (SWOG) was formed to coordinate conservation efforts in the
county. The group consists of private landowners and natural resource
conservation agencies. To guide the conservation efforts, SWOG initiated
a local research project to learn more about the species' habitat
requirements. In response to severe drought conditions in 2002 in San
Juan County, a number of landowners were given permission to graze
agricultural lands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Many of these CRP fields are important Gunnison Sage-grouse habitat.
This study is part of a larger collaborative effort involving the local
community, private landowners, and government agencies to collect
additional information necessary for preserving this species. The
objectives of my research are to: 1) determine winter habitat use
patterns for Gunnison sage-grouse, 2) determine nesting, brood-rearing,
and reproductive success of Gunnison sage-grouse, 3) determine Gunnison
sage-grouse use of grazed and ungrazed CRP fields; compare vegetation
structure and percent canopy cover, and 4) compare insect abundance and
diversity in brood locations to adjacent areas within the study site.
\[From 24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ Meeting of the Western
agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee,
Wenatchee, WA, 28 June--1July, 2004\].]{.underline}

[Leonard K M; Reese K P; Connelly J W ]{.underline}**[Distribution,
movements and habitats of sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus on the
Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: Changes from the 1950s to the 1990s.
]{.underline}**[Wildlife Biology, 6(4): 265-270, 2000. ISSN:
0909-6396]{.underline}

[Abstract.---The sage grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[ population level on the Upper
Snake River Plain of Idaho has declined significantly over the past 40
years. We investigated migration patterns and seasonal ranges of these
birds to compare to patterns from the 1950s and 1960s. Furthermore, we
examined landscape changes that occurred between 1975 and 1992.
Migration patterns have not changed since the 1950s. The grouse
currently migrate up to 125 km and use an annual population range of at
least 2,764 km]{.underline}^[2]{.underline}^[. The major landscape
change since 1975 that occurred in sage grouse habitat was a decline in
the total amount of winter range. Between 1975 and 1992, 29,762 ha of
sagebrush ]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp. rangeland were
converted to cropland, a 74% increase in cropland. Regression analysis
suggested a relationship between sagebrush habitat loss and grouse
population decline ]{.underline}*[r]{.underline}*^[2]{.underline}^[ =
0.59, ]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ = 0.002). Approximately 1,244
km]{.underline}^[2]{.underline}^[ of privately-owned sagebrush on the
study area could potentially be converted to cropland, which we predict
would have serious negative implications for the sage grouse
population.]{.underline}

[\*Danvir, R. E. 2002. ]{.underline}**[Sage-Grouse ecology and
management in northern Utah sagebrush-steppe. ]{.underline}**[ A Deseret
Land and Livestock Wildlife Research Report, 2002. Deseret Land and
Livestock Ranch and The Utah Foundation for Quality Resource Management
(QRM).]{.underline}

[Abstract (in part).---Grazing exclosure data suggest: a) grass
production was strongly dependent on prior-year precipitation
(]{.underline}*[r]{.underline}*^[2]{.underline}^[ = 0.84) and b)
excluding livestock increased shrub production, reduced forb production
and failed to increase plant species diversity. Hot, August wildfire
burns in Wyoming sage sintering areas appeared detrimental, while
cool-season controlled burns in summering areas appeared beneficial to
grouse. Mechanical brush thinning and planting desirable forbs may be
effective ways to improve grouse reproductive/summer nutrition, without
severely reducing winter and nesting habitat. DLL lek counts increased
significantly as forb abundance was increased on 5% of the DLL sage
grouse summer range. Results of this study suggest livestock grazing and
brush management techniques can be used to enhance sagebrush habitats
for sage grouse if used wisely. ]{.underline}

[\*Wisdom M. J., M. M. Rowland, B. C. Wales, M. A. Hemstrom, W. J. Hann,
M. C. Raphael, R. C. Holthausen, R. A. Gravenmier, and T. D. Rich.
]{.underline}**[Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe restoration on
Greater sage-grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A.
]{.underline}**[ Conservation Biology, 16(5): 1223-1231, 2002. ISSN:
0888-8892]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Habitats of Greater Sage-Grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[) have declined
across western North America, and most remaining habitats occur on lands
administered by the U.S. Forest Service ( FS) and U.S. Bureau of Land
Management ( B.M.). Consequently, managers of FS-B.M. lands need
effective strategies to recover sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) habitats on which this
species depends. In response to this need, we evaluated the potential
benefits of two restoration scenarios on Greater Sage-Grouse in the
interior Columbia Basin and adjacent portions of the Great Basin of the
western United States. Scenario 1 assumed a 50% reduction in detrimental
grazing effects (through changes in stocking rates and grazing systems)
and a six-fold increase in areas treated with active restoration (e.g.,
prescribed burning, native seeds, wildfire suppression) compared with
future management proposed by the FS-B.M. Scenario 2 assumed a 100%
reduction in detrimental grazing effects and the same increase in active
restoration as scenario 1. To evaluate benefits, we estimated the risk
of population extirpation for sage grouse 100 years in the future under
the two scenarios and compared this risk with that estimated for
proposed (100-year) FS-B.M. management. We used estimates of extirpation
risk for historical (circa 1850-1890) and current time periods as a
context for our comparison. Under historical conditions, risk of
extirpation was very low on FS-B.M. lands, but increased to a moderate
probability under current conditions. Under proposed FS-B.M. management,
risk of extirpation on FS-B.M. lands increased to a high probability 100
years in the future. Benefits of the two restoration scenarios, however,
constrained the future risk of extirpation to a moderate probability.
Our results suggest that expansive and sustained habitat restoration can
maintain desired conditions and reduce future extirpation risk for sage
grouse on FS-B.M. lands in western North America. The continued spread
of exotic plants, however, presents a formidable challenge to successful
restoration and warrants substantial research and management
attention.]{.underline}

[Wisdom. M. J., B. C. Wales, M. M. Rowland, M. G. Raphael, R. S.
Holthausen, T. D. Rich, and V. A. Saab. ]{.underline}**[Performance of
Greater sage-grouse models for conservation assessment in the Interior
Columbia Basin, U.S.A. ]{.underline}**[ Conservation Biology, 16(5):
1232-1242, 2002. ISSN: 0888-8892]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Valid modeling of habitats and populations of Greater
Sage-Grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) is a critical management
need because of increasing concern about population viability.
Consequently, we evaluated the performance of two models designed to
assess landscape conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse across 13.6 million
ha of sagebrush steppe in the interior Columbia Basin and adjacent
portions of the Great Basin of the western United States (referred to as
the basin). The first model, the environmental index model, predicted
conditions at the scale of the subwatershed (mean size of approximately
7800 ha) based on inputs of habitat density, habitat quality, and
effects of human disturbance. Predictions ranged on a continuous scale
from 0 for lowest environmental index to 2 for optimal environmental
index. The second model, the population outcome model, predicted the
composite, range-wide conditions for sage grouse based on the
contribution of environmental index values from all subwatersheds and
measures of range extent and connectivity. Population outcomes were
expressed as five classes (A through E) that represented a gradient from
continuous, well-distributed populations (outcome A) to sparse, highly
isolated populations with a high likelihood of extirpation (outcome E).
To evaluate performance, we predicted environmental index values and
population outcome classes in areas currently occupied by sage grouse
versus areas where extirpation has occurred. Our a priori expectations
were that models should predict substantially worse environmental
conditions (lower environmental index) and a substantially higher
probability of extirpation (lower population outcome class) in
extirpated areas. Results for both models met these expectations. For
example, a population outcome of class E was predicted for extirpated
areas, as opposed to class C for occupied areas. These results suggest
that our models provided reliable landscape predictions for the
conditions tested. This finding is important for conservation planning
in the basin, where the models were used to evaluate management of
federal lands for sage grouse.]{.underline}

[\*Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, W. J. Hann, M. M. Rowland, B. C.
Wales, and R. A. Gravenmier. ]{.underline}**[Sagebrush-Steppe vegetation
dynamics and restoration potential in the Interior Columbia Basin,
U.S.A. ]{.underline}**[ Conservation Biology, 16(5): 1243-1255, 2002.
ISSN: 0888-8892]{.underline}

[Abstract.---We modeled the dynamics and restoration of sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) habitats for Greater
Sage-Grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) in the interior Columbia
Basin and adjacent portions of the Great Basin (referred to as the
basin). Greater Sage-Grouse have undergone widespread decline and are
the focus of conservation on over 13 million ha of sagebrush steppe in
the basin, much of which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (B.M.). Consequently, we evaluated
changes in the amount and quality of sage-grouse habitat on 8.1 million
ha of FS-B.M. lands in the basin. Changes were estimated from historical
to current conditions and from current conditions to those projected 100
years in the future under proposed management and under two restoration
scenarios. These two scenarios were designed to improve long-term
(100-year) projections of sage-grouse habitat on FS-B.M. lands in
relation to current conditions and proposed management. Scenario 1
assumed a 50% reduction in detrimental grazing effects by livestock
(through changes in stocking rates and grazing systems) and a six-fold
increase in areas treated with active restoration relative to proposed
management. Scenario 2 assumed a 100% reduction in detrimental grazing
effects and the same level of active restoration as scenario 1. Under
the two scenarios, the amount of FS-B.M. habitat for sage grouse within
treated areas declined by 17-19% 100 years in the future compared with
the current period, but was 10-14% higher than the 100-year projection
under proposed management. Habitat quality under both scenarios was
substantially improved compared with the current period and proposed
management. Our results suggest that aggressive restoration could slow
the rate of sagebrush loss and improve the quality of remaining
habitat.]{.underline}

[Commons, M. L., R. K. Baydack, and C. E. Braun. 1997.
]{.underline}**[Gunnison sage grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
minimus]{.underline}*[ use of fragmented habitats in southwestern
Colorado]{.underline}**[. Wildl. Biol. 3:283.]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Gunnison\'s sage grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
minimus]{.underline}*[ historically occurred throughout sagebrush
]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ rangelands in southwestern
Colorado, southeastern Utah, and northern New Mexico. Because of the
reduction of sagebrush habitat for the enhancement of livestock grazing,
agricultural use, and other human activities, only a few remnant
populations remain in highly fragmented habitat in southwestern Colorado
and extreme southeastern Utah. In 1994 and 1995, two geographically
isolated populations of sage grouse were studied in southwestern
Colorado to identify seasonal movements and habitat use. Radio
transmitters were fitted to 55 male and 8 female sage grouse in Dove
Creek, Dolores County, and at Dry Creek Basin/Miramonte Reservoir, San
Miguel County, Colorado. The Dolores County population was separated by
the town of Dove Creek and movements occurred between the two sites.
Sage grouse in Dolores County were in agricultural fields (alfalfa,
bean, and wheat) from May through September, and sagebrush and Gambel
Oak ]{.underline}*[Ouercus gambelii]{.underline}*[ from October through
February. Sage grouse in Dry Creek Basin were in areas with low sage
]{.underline}*[A. arbuscula]{.underline}*[, snakeweed
]{.underline}*[Gutierrezia sarothrae]{.underline}*[, black greasewood
]{.underline}*[Sarcobatus vermiculatus]{.underline}*[, and winterfat
]{.underline}*[Eurotia lanata]{.underline}*[ while sage grouse near
Miramonte Reservoir were in sagebrush ]{.underline}*[A.
tridentata]{.underline}*[, ]{.underline}*[A. nova]{.underline}*[, wet
meadows, and Gambel Oak throughout the year. Hamilton Mesa between Dry
Creek Basin and Miramonte Reservoir was also used by sage grouse.
Dominant vegetation of this site included forbs, grass, gambel oak, and
serviceberry ]{.underline}*[Amelanchier]{.underline}*[ spp. Extensive
movements occurred from Dry Creek Basin to Hamilton Mesa and to
Miramonte Reservoir. Management considerations must include all three
sites in San Miguel County and both sites in Dolores County if sage
grouse are to persist in southwestern Colorado.]{.underline}

**[A neglected component of greater sage-grouse brood habitat: nocturnal
roost sites]{.underline}[---]{.underline}**[Doris Hausleitner,
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow,
ID 83844, Kerry P. Reese, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources,
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 Anthony D. Apa, Colorado Division
of Wildlife, 711 Independent Avenue, Grand Junction, CO 81505; R. Gerald
Wright, USGS Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Declines in greater sage-grouse abundance may be associated
with habitat degradation. Despite extensive research into the habitat
requirements of the species, summer nocturnal habitat has received no
attention. We investigated the vegetation characteristics of nocturnal
roosts used by radio-marked female greater sage-grouse and compared
diurnal and nocturnal habitat use during the brood-rearing period.
Nocturnal roosts (]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 58) had less visual
obstruction and bare ground, and greater percent forb cover than at
random sites (]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 92). Mean shrub height
and shrub cover at nocturnal roosts was shorter (31 vs. 58 cm) and less
dense (9% vs. 22%) that at diurnal sites used by broods
(]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 92). Females with broods moved a
median of 397 m from the last diurnal location to nocturnal roost sites.
This suggests that females with broods were required to move 3 times
their median daily movement in order to find suitable nocturnal brood
habitat. Literature estimates of daily and seasonal movements of females
with broods may be biased low. Guidelines for the management of
brood-rearing habitats address only diurnal habitat needs and should be
modified to include the requirements of nocturnal habitat. \[From
24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ Meeting of the Western agencies Sage
and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, Wenatchee, WA, 28
June--1 July, 2004.\]]{.underline}

**[\*Restoration of sagebrush communities following mechanical
treatments of pinyon-juniper
woodlands]{.underline}[---]{.underline}**[Stephen B. Monsen, Retired
Ecologist, Mapleton, UT 84664, Pam Motley, Uncompahgre Project,
Montrose, CO; Bob Welch, Montrose Field Office, B.M., Montrose,
CO.]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Pinyon-juniper have invaded and occupied extensive areas
throughout the West as a result of a decrease in understory from
grazing, changes in fire frequency, and associated management practices.
Extensive loss of wildlife habitat has subsequently occurred, creating a
decline in sage grouse and mule deer. Removal of tress and seeding
introduced perennial grasses was a common practice beginning in the
early 1960's. Numerous sites in Colorado were treated by anchor chaining
and seeding as a means to enhance wildlife habitats and livestock
grazing. Chaining practices have been questioned, but careful evaluation
of the effects on wildlife habitat and plant community development has
not been reported. This study was developed to evaluate the species
composition, including the recovery of black sagebrush and Wyoming big
sagebrush through natural recruitment approximately 40 years after
treatment. Studies were located on old chainings and grass seeds of the
Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Chaining effectively reduced tree
competition and allowed seeded species to successfully establish. In
addition, natural recruitment of native herbs and shrubs has occurred to
fully occupy the sites. Seeded grasses remain a part of the composition,
but do not dominate in most situations. A full compliment of native
broadleaf herbs and perennial grasses now occur as the principal
species. Black sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush have regained
dominance on soils and sites they are naturally adapted. Shrub density,
age class composition, distribution, and presence of understory herbs
appear adequate to sustain sage grouse and mule deer populations. Tree
re-encroachment has been restricted by the presence of understory
species. \[From 24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ Meeting of the
Western agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical
Committee, Wenatchee, WA, 28 June--1July, 2004\].]{.underline}

**[Landscape use by greater sage-grouse: effects of habitat
fragmentation]{.underline}[---]{.underline}**[Jay Shepherd, University
of Idaho, P.O. Box 8623, Moscow, ID, 83843, Kerry P. Reese, Department
of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844;
John W. Connelly, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1345 Barton Road,
Pocatello, ID 83204 ]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Probable causes of greater sage-grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[) declines
include various forms of habitat degradation, reduction, and
fragmentation. Prescribed fire and wildfire, mechanical or chemical
treatments, or complete conversion to agricultural use has resulted in
fragmentation of shrubsteppe. Many studies have attempted to understand
local or microhabitat level habitat use by sage grouse. At larger
scales, habitat use and fragmentation have been studied much less and
using limited methods. Our objectives are to quantify greater
sage-grouse habitat use and the levels of habitat heterogeneity within
the landscape. We used remotely sensed vegetation data, measures of
habitat composition, and landscape metrics designed to measure habitat
heterogeneity. There is an increased need for the development of methods
using remotely sensed data at the landscape level to understand larger
scale habitat issues in an efficient manner. We used linear regression
to explain habitat use variables such as size of core use area and mean
daily movement with habitat composition and landscape metrics at several
scales. Variables were obtained at several scales, including 150 and 450
meter buffered points, and core areas of use. Combinations of landscape
metrics, cover types, and scales produced 30 landscape vegetation
variables, and with the use of gender produced 31 independent variables
for use in explaining landscape use measurements. Using non-correlated
variables, we explain relative measures of fitness such as mean daily
distance moved and size of core use area with landscape level metrics of
habitat composition and heterogeneity. \[From
24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ Meeting of the Western agencies Sage
and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, Wenatchee, WA, 28
June--1July, 2004\].]{.underline}

[Steven T. Knick, David S. Dobkin, John T. Rotenberry, Michael A.
Schroeder, W. Matthew Vander Haegen, and Charles Van Riper III. 2003.
]{.underline}**[Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and
research issues for the avifauna of sagebrush habitats.
]{.underline}**[Condor 105:611-634. ]{.underline}

[Abstract.---Degradation, fragmentation, and loss of native sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) landscapes have imperiled
these habitats and their associated avifauna. Historically, this vast
piece of the Western landscape has been undervalued: even though more
than 70% of all remaining sagebrush habitat in the United States is
publicly owned, \<3% of it is protected as federal reserves or national
parks. We review the threats facing birds in sagebrush habitats to
emphasize the urgency for conservation and research actions, and
synthesize existing information that forms the foundation for
recommended research directions. Management and conservation of birds in
sagebrush habitats will require more research into four major topics:
(1) identification of primary land-use practices and their influence on
sagebrush habitats and birds, (2) better understanding of bird responses
to habitat components and disturbance processes of sagebrush ecosystems,
(3) improved hierarchical designs for surveying and monitoring programs,
and (4) linking bird movements and population changes during migration
and wintering periods to dynamics on the sagebrush breeding grounds.
This research is essential because we already have seen that sagebrush
habitats can be altered by land use, spread of invasive plants, and
disrupted disturbance regimes beyond a threshold at which natural
recovery is unlikely. Research on these issues should be instituted on
lands managed by state or federal agencies because most lands still
dominated by sagebrush are owned publicly. In addition to the challenge
of understanding shrubsteppe bird-habitat dynamics, conservation of
sagebrush landscapes depends on our ability to recognize and communicate
their intrinsic value and on our resolve to conserve them. ]{.underline}

[Colorado Division of Wildlife. ]{.underline}**[Gunnison
sage-grouse]{.underline}**[. Species Conservation, 2003; Special Issue:
Publication of Colorado Division of Wildlife. ]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---The Gunnison sage grouse is a newly-classified, unique
species of sage grouse found south of the Colorado River. It is
one-third the size of the common sage grouse, with males possessing
conspicuous white tail feathers and filoplume. The female Gunnison\'s
feathers resemble those of the common sage grouse, but the bird is
one-third smaller in size. The Gunnison sage grouse traditionally
occupied the entire southwestern region of Colorado and southeastern
Utah. At present, however, the species is found in eight separate
populations, with less than 4000 breeding numbers. The major community
of approximately 2500 birds occurs in the Gunnison Basin. This unique
species occupies diverse habitats consisting of vast stretches of sage,
various grasses, forbs, and fertile riverbanks. Its diet is almost
solely made up of sage, with the plant\'s fibrous leaves serving as a
winter diet. The male bird entices the female with complex mating
exhibitions. The nesting season extends from mid-April to July. Six to
eight eggs are laid and incubated for a period of 25-27 days. Human
activities and expanding deer and elk populations are the causes of
destruction of the bird\'s habitat. In order to protect and conserve the
species, the Colorado Division of Wildlife prohibited hunting of the
Gunnison sage grouse in the year 2000.]{.underline}

[Lyon, Alison G.; Anderson, Stanley H. ]{.underline}**[Potential gas
development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement.
]{.underline}**[Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2003. pp. 486-491 (6 pp.).
Vol. 31, No. 2 ISSN: 0091-7648]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---The decline of greater sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) over the last 50 years has
raised concern over how natural gas development might affect sage grouse
populations. We examined the effects of vehicular activity due to
gas-well development near Pinedale, Wyoming, on productivity and
movements of sage grouse. In 1998-1999, we captured and radiomarked 48
female sage grouse on 6 leks classified as disturbed or undisturbed,
based on the presence or absence of natural gas development within 3 km.
The mean distance from disturbed leks to selected nest sites was greater
(]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ = 0.019 with outliers removed,
]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ = 0.004 with outliers included) than
distance moved from undisturbed leks. Nest-initiation rate for hens from
disturbed leks was 65%, while hens from undisturbed leks initiated nests
89% (]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ = 0.07) of the time. Nest success
at both disturbed and undisturbed leks was 50%. Our results suggest that
light traffic disturbance (1-12 vehicles/day) during the breeding season
might reduce nest-initiation rates and increase distances moved from
leks during nest-site selection. We recommend further investigation
concentrating on hen behavior (i.e., distance moved from lek to nest
site, breeding behavior, lek attendance), reproductive effort, and nest
success in relation to natural gas development as development
intensifies.]{.underline}

[Beck, Jeffrey L.; Mitchell, Dean L.; Maxfield, Brian D.]{.underline}**[
Changes in the distribution and status of sage-grouse in Utah.
]{.underline}**[ Western North American Naturalist, 63(2): 203-214;
April 2003 ISSN: 1527-0904]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Sage-grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
spp.) were abundant in all of Utah\'s 29 counties at the time of
European settlement wherever sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) occurred. Greater
Sage-Grouse (]{.underline}*[C. urophasianus]{.underline}*[) inhabited
areas north and west of the Colorado River, and Gunnison Sage-Grouse
(]{.underline}*[C. minimus]{.underline}*[) occupied suitable habitat
south and east of the Colorado River. The largest Greater Sage-Grouse
populations in Utah are currently restricted to suitable habitats in Box
Elder, Garfield, Rich, Uintah, and Wayne Counties. A remnant breeding
population of Gunnison Sage-Grouse occurs in eastern San Juan County. We
stratified Greater Sage-Grouse populations (1971-2000) by counties where
the 1996 to 2000 moving average for estimated spring breeding
populations was \>500 (GT500) or \<500 (LT500). Males per lek declined
in all populations from 1971 to 2000; however, there were consistently
more males observed on GT500 than on LT500 leks. Juveniles per adult hen
(including yearling hens) Greater Sage-Grouse in the 1973-2000 fall
harvest in Box Elder, Rich, and Wayne Counties did not differ from 2.25,
a ratio suggesting sustainable or increasing sage-grouse populations.
Declines are attributed to loss, fragmentation, and degradation of
sagebrush habitat. Sage-grouse conservation ultimately depends on
management and enhancement of remaining sagebrush rangelands in
Utah.]{.underline}

[Pedersen, E. K.; Connelly, J. W.; Hendrickson, J. R.; Grant, W.
E]{.underline}**[. Effect of sheep grazing and fire on sage grouse
populations in southeastern Idaho. ]{.underline}**[ Ecological
Modelling, 165(1): 23-47; 1 July 2003 ISSN: 0304-3800]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---This paper describes the development, evaluation, and use
of a model that simulates the effect of grazing and fire on temporal and
spatial aspects of sagebrush community vegetation and sage grouse
population dynamics. The model is represented mathematically as a
discrete-time, stochastic compartment model based on difference
equations with a time interval of 1 week. In the model, sheep graze
through sage grouse breeding habitat during spring and fall, and
different portions of the area can burn at different frequencies,
creating a habitat mosaic of burned and unburned areas. The model was
evaluated by examining predictions of (1) growth of sagebrush canopy
cover after fire, (2) seasonal dynamics of grass and forb biomass under
historical environmental conditions, and (3) sage grouse population
dynamics associated with selected sagebrush canopy covers. Simulated
changes in sagebrush canopy cover following fire correspond well with
qualitative reports of long-term trends, simulated seasonal dynamics of
herbaceous biomass correspond well with field data, and simulated
responses of sage grouse population size and age structure to changing
sagebrush canopy cover correspond well to qualitative field
observations. Simulation results suggest that large fires occurring at
high frequencies may lead to the extinction of sage grouse populations,
whereas fires occurring at low frequencies may benefit sage grouse if
burned areas are small and sheep grazing is absent. Sheep grazing may
contribute to sage grouse population decline, but is unlikely to cause
extinction under fire regimes that are favorable to sage
grouse.]{.underline}

[\*Wirth, Troy A.; Pyke, David A. ]{.underline}**[Restoring forbs for
sage grouse habitat: Fire, microsites, and establishment methods.
]{.underline}**[ Restoration Ecology, 11(3): 370-377; September 2003
ISSN: 1061-2971]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---The decline and range reduction of sage grouse populations
are primarily due to permanent loss and degradation of
sagebrush-grassland habitat. Several studies have shown that sage grouse
productivity may be limited by the availability of certain preferred
highly nutritious forb species that have also declined within sagebrush
ecosystems of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. The purpose of this study
was to determine the suitability of three species of forbs for
revegetation projects where improving sage grouse habitat is a goal.
Species suitability was determined by evaluating the emergence,
survival, and reproduction of ]{.underline}*[Crepis
modocensis]{.underline}*[, ]{.underline}*[C]{.underline}*[.
]{.underline}*[occidentalis]{.underline}*[, and
]{.underline}*[Astragalus purshii]{.underline}*[ in response to method
of establishment (seeding or transplanting), site preparation treatment
(burned or unburned), and microsite (mound or interspace) in an
]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[tridentata]{.underline}*[ ssp.
]{.underline}*[wyomingensis]{.underline}*[ vegetation association in
south central Oregon. For seeded plants ]{.underline}*[A.
purshii]{.underline}*[ had the lowest emergence (8%) of all three
species. Both seeded Crepis species had similar overall emergence (38%).
Significantly more Crepis seedlings emerged from shrub mounds in
unburned areas (50%) than in any other fire-by-microsite treatment (33
to 36%). Approximately 10% more ]{.underline}*[Crepis]{.underline}*[
seedlings survived in mounds compared with interspaces. Nearly twice as
many emerging ]{.underline}*[Crepis]{.underline}*[ seedlings survived in
the burned areas as opposed to unburned areas
(]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \< 0.01). This resulted in more plant
establishment in burned mounds despite higher emergence in unburned
mounds. ]{.underline}*[Astragalus purshii]{.underline}*[ seedlings also
survived better in burned areas (]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ = 0.06)
but had no differential response to microsite. Fire enhanced survival of
both ]{.underline}*[Crepis]{.underline}*[ and ]{.underline}*[A.
purshii]{.underline}*[ transplants (]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ =
0.08 and ]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ = 0.001). We believe additional
research is needed to improve ]{.underline}*[A. purshii]{.underline}*[
emergence before it will become an effective plant for restoring sage
grouse habitat. Conversely, we conclude that these
]{.underline}*[Crepis]{.underline}*[ species provide a viable
revegetation option for improving sage grouse habitat in south central
Oregon.]{.underline}

[Aldridge, Cameron L.; Brigham, R. Mark ]{.underline}**[Sage-grouse
nesting and brood habitat use in Southern Canada.
]{.underline}**[Journal of Wildlife Management, 66(2): 433-444; April
2002 ISSN: 0022-541X]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Greater sage-grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) populations have declined
from 66 to 92% during the last 30 years in Canada, where they are listed
as endangered. We used radiotelemetry to examine greater sage-grouse
nest and brood habitat use in Alberta and assess the relationship
between habitat and the population decline. We also identified the patch
size at which sage-grouse were selecting nest and brood-rearing sites.
Nest areas were in silver sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[cana]{.underline}*[) stands that had greater amounts of
tall cover (]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \< 0.001) at a patch size of
7.5 to 15 m in radius. Within those sagebrush stands, nests were located
beneath the densest sagebrush present. Areas used for brood rearing had
greater amounts of taller sagebrush cover in an area \>15 m in radius
than at random locations. Brood locations were not selected based on
forb content; mesic areas containing forbs (20-40% cover) as a food
resource for chicks were limiting (only 12% cover available). Overall
cover of sagebrush is considerably lower in Canada (5-11%) compared with
sagebrush (]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) cover in other
areas throughout the range of greater sage-grouse (15-25%). If
management goals are to provide suitable nesting and brood-rearing
habitat, efforts should be directed toward protecting and enhancing
sagebrush stands \>30 m]{.underline}^[2]{.underline}^[ and increasing
overall sagebrush cover. Management strategies also should focus on
increasing the availability of mesic sites and increasing the abundance
of sites with \>10% forb cover, to enhance brood rearing
habitat.]{.underline}

[Gilbert, Steve ]{.underline}**[Coal bed methane: boom for industry,
bane for wildlife]{.underline}**[. Intermountain Journal of Sciences,
8(4): 252. 2002 ISSN: 1081-3519]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Associated with coal seams in southeast Montana is natural
gas referred to as coal bed methane (CBM), held there by water pressure.
To get the gas, the water must first be removed. There is great interest
by industry and state and federal administrations to pump and use this
resource. It will take only 10-20 years of boom and bust development to
drain Montana of its methane resource. This will have severe impacts to
wildlife in perpetuity. CBM development will negatively affect
Montana\'s water and lands forever, regardless of \"reclamation.\"
Aquifers, springs and seeps depended upon by farmers, ranchers and
wildlife will be dried up. Water pumped from these aquifers, although
drinkable by humans and wildlife, is very salty and kills vegetation.
This water will be sprinkled across the land and pumped to leaking
discharge pits killing vegetation and soil. Surface destruction by this
industry will be massive. Thousands of miles of powerlines, pipelines,
and access roads will lace sagebrush-grasslands of southeast Montana
supporting pronghorn, mule deer and white-tailed deer and dwindling
population so sage grouse. Huge noisy compressors will drown the calls
of many bird species including sage and sharp-tailed grouse. Well pads
with access roads will dot the countryside, and trucks of every size
will careen down dusty roads 24 hours a day. Fragmentation of wildlife
habitat will occur from this resource development at levels never before
experienced in Montana. Tens of thousands of acres of
sagebrush-grassland habitats will be destroyed. It is unlikely any will
be reclaimed in kind or function. There will be soil compaction, weed
encroachment, and the cut-and-run philosophy will once again leave
Montana citizens holding the reclamation bag, and wildlife populations
the victims of lost and fragmented habitat.]{.underline}

[Dusek, Gary L.; Eustace, Charles D.; Peterson, Joel G.
]{.underline}**[The ecology and status of sage grouse in Montana.
]{.underline}**[Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 8(2): 67-81. 2002
ISSN: 1081-3519]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---We describe the ecology and status of the greater sage
grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) in Montana as part of an
effort to develop a species conservation plan. Sage grouse are primarily
associated with big sagebrush (]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[tridentata]{.underline}*[)-grassland although the
original range has been greatly reduced or fragmented by a variety of
human uses and activities. Efforts by the State\'s wildlife agency to
delineate distribution of sage grouse in Montana during the 1960s and
1970s suggested that sage grouse occupied about 4.4 million ha in
eastern and southwest Montana although more recent efforts to assess
sage grouse habitat suggest occupied habitat could be as much as 10.9
million ha. Findings from studies during that period suggested that
year-long distribution and movements reflect regional or local
conditions. That is, sage grouse tend to be nonmigratory in eastern
Montana, where close interspersion of seasonal habitats rarely requires
large movements, and migratory in the intermountain valleys of southwest
Montana. Habitat requirements of sage grouse vary seasonally, in terms
of structure and composition, to accommodate successful breeding and
brood rearing and over-winter survival. Yearly precipitation patterns,
in addition to habitat quality, can affect nesting success and chick
survival. Data from statewide wing collections suggest that productivity
of sage grouse declined from an average of 2.63 juveniles/hen during
1962-1979 to an average of 2.08 juveniles/hen during 1980-1992; drought
conditions were more frequent during the latter period. An estimate of
mortality of sage grouse during the first year of life approaches 85% of
which about two-thirds occurs prior to the opening of the upland bird
hunting season in September. Sage grouse populations in southwestern
Montana have declined from the 1960s through the 1980s following a
period of large-scale sagebrush manipulation and conversion of native
range to cropland. Numbers of birds remain relatively abundant
throughout areas of central and eastern Montana that continue to support
large, unfragmented stands of big sagebrush. Several state-initiated
programs offer incentives to private landowners to maintain or enhance
habitat quality for sage grouse and other wildlife species.]{.underline}

[Hockett, Glenn A. ]{.underline}**[Livestock impacts on the herbaceous
components of sage grouse habitat: a review. ]{.underline}**[
Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 8(2): 105-114. 2002 4 figs. ISSN:
1081-3519]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Sage grouse are a bird of climax vegetation. Productive
sage grouse habitat is more than a \"sea of sagebrush.\" The grass/forb
understory supplies food and cover components seasonally. Within the
sagebrush community, a dense, residual herbaceous understory increases
the likelihood of sage grouse nest success. Forbs and insects are
essential foods for sage grouse from early spring to early fall.
Although riparian areas typically make up less than two percent of the
sagebrush landscape, interspersed springs, streams, and meadows offer
watering and feeding sites for sage grouse during summer and early fall.
Livestock selectively remove grasses and forbs within the sagebrush
landscape while showing a strong preference for riparian meadows once
upland vegetation cures. Livestock use can impact the amount and
composition of herbaceous understory depending on the class of
livestock, season of use, and grazing intensity. I reviewed the
literature regarding sage grouse habitats and livestock impacts to the
herbaceous understory. Ungrazed comparison areas, based on the seasonal
needs of sage grouse, are lacking. Controls are recommended to advance
our understanding of grazing impacts.]{.underline}

[Roscoe, James W. ]{.underline}**[Sage grouse movements in southwestern
Montana. ]{.underline}**[ Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 8(2):
94-104. 2002 3 tables; 4 figs. ISSN: 1081-3519]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) populations have declined throughout the
western United States and in southwestern Montana since the 1970s.
Conservation efforts rely on knowledge of seasonal habitat distribution
and sage grouse movement patterns between these habitats. Both of these
factors are poorly understood and undocumented in southwestern Montana.
An ongoing, cooperatively study was initiated in 1999 to radio-track
sage grouse in Southwestern Montana to identify resident and migratory
populations, key habitats, and movement patterns relevant to local
sagebrush and sage grouse conservation. Thirty-seven sage grouse were
fitted with radio transmitters and monitored \< or = 24 months in Horse
Prairie, Sweetwater Basin, and Big Sheep Creek Basin in Beaverhead and
Madison Counties near Dillon, Montana. Data collection included aerial
monitoring supplemented with ground relocations obtained between
flights. Results indicated that some groups of sage grouse were resident
within a particular habitat complex while others traveled greater
distances to utilize suitable breeding, summer, and winter habitat. This
study helped identify locally important brood-rearing and summer
habitats. Annual mortality of radio-tracked birds has averaged 58% over
three years, with 50-83% losses for males
(]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 20) and 14-50% losses for females
(]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 4).]{.underline}

[Moynahan, Brendan J.; Lindberg, Mark; Thomas, Jack Ward
]{.underline}**[Understanding relationships between greater sage-grouse
habitat and population dynamics in eastern Montana. ]{.underline}**[
Intermountain Journal of Sciences, 8(4): 258-259. 2002 ISSN:
1081-3519]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---The long-term decline of greater sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) over much of their historic
range is of concern to managers of sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) habitats. A petition has
been submitted to list the Washington population of sage grouse under
the Endangered Species Act (SEA) and a range-wide listing petition is
expected in the near future. That habitat quality is related to
demographics of populations is a fundamental assumption of the practice
of managing species via managing habitat. However, few studies
explicitly acknowledge this relationship, and still fewer explicitly
attempt to define this relationship on a species-specific basis. There
currently is no way to reliably determine the nature of the interaction
between sage grouse population status (as indicated by estimated vital
rates) and habitat condition. This research will use a combination of
well-established population demography tools and state-of-the-art
analysis methods to elucidate relationships between Sage-Grouse
populations and habitat at six sites in eastern Montana. Mark-resight
and radio telemetry methods will be employed to estimate vital rates of
sage grouse populations. Sensitivity analysis will identify which
rate(s) has the greatest influence on population growth rate (lambda)
under different habitat conditions. Habitat condition at each site will
be assessed by several critical habitat characteristics. A regression
approach will quantify the relationship between individual vital rates
and each of the measured habitat characteristics. The research will
provide crucial information to federal and state wildlife professionals
charged with managing for sage grouse and will be of particular use in
the event of a petition to list sage grouse under the SEA.]{.underline}

[Watters, Megan E.; McLash, Tammy L.; Aldridge, Cameron L.; Brigham, R.
Mark ]{.underline}**[The effect of vegetation structure on predation of
artificial Greater sage-grouse nests. ]{.underline}**[ Ecoscience, 9
(3):314-319; 2002 ISSN: 1195-6860]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---In Canada, Greater Sage-Grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) are considered an endangered
species by the Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada
(COSEWIC), due to declining population numbers and distribution.
Encroachment of agriculture and subsequent destruction of suitable
sagebrush (]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) habitat is
thought to be responsible for historical population declines. However,
subtle changes in habitat quality may also result in reduced escape and
nesting cover, which may lead to increased levels of predation. We
examined the influence of vegetation cover and height on the fate of
artificial Greater Sage-Grouse nests. Because most natural sage-grouse
nests are associated with sagebrush, we predicted that sagebrush height
and cover would be crucial to the success of nests. Lateral cover is
important in protecting nests from detection by predators, and thus we
predicted that nests surrounded by shorter grass would suffer greater
predation rates than nests with taller grass. To experimentally test
this hypothesis, we trimmed grass surrounding some artificial nests.
Richardson\'s ground squirrels (]{.underline}*[Spermophilus
richardsonii]{.underline}*[) were the primary predators of artificial
nests, with some predation by corvids and badgers
(]{.underline}*[Taxidea taxus]{.underline}*[). Successful nests tended
to be surrounded by shorter sagebrush, taller grasses, and taller,
denser forbs than predated nests. Trimming grass around nests did not
affect nest fate. However, ground squirrels typically attacked nests
with less forb cover and fewer sagebrush, and avian predators tended to
destroy nests at inactive leks with greater lateral cover. Thus, lateral
cover provided by forbs and sagebrush appeared to be important for
protecting nests from mammalian predators. These results suggest
implementing management strategies that improve sagebrush habitat by
providing tall, dense forbs and sagebrush, which could increase Greater
Sage-Grouse nest success and recruitment.]{.underline}

[LaMontagne, Jalene M.; Irvine, Robyn L.; Crone, Elizabeth E.
]{.underline}**[Spatial patterns of population regulation in sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus ]{.underline}*[spp.) population viability
analysis. ]{.underline}**[ Journal of Animal Ecology, 71(4): 672-682;
July 2002 ISSN: 0021-8790]{.underline}

[Abstract.---1. Population viability analyses (PVAs) are commonly used
to identify species of concern. Many PVA techniques assume that all
populations are regulated by a single mechanism. 2. We compared
population viability predictions for three subspecies of sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[ spp.) based on the
assumptions that: (I) population regulation was density-independent vs.
dependent on more complex feedback mechanisms; (ii) the mechanism of
population regulation was homogeneous within a region vs. heterogeneous
among leks; (iii) environmental variation was spatially correlated
within regions vs. uncorrelated among leks. 3. We used sage grouse as a
model species for this analysis because counts of lekking male grouse
are available in some areas since the 1950s, these counts are known to
fluctuate widely, and sage grouse appear to be declining throughout
their range. 4. We fit population regulation models to data including
density-independence, density-dependence, delayed density-dependence and
a simplified version of Turchin & Taylor\'s (1992) response surface
model. 5. We show that the best-fit models typically include spatial
heterogeneity in mechanisms of population regulation. Inclusion of
spatial heterogeneity increased expected time for population
persistence, and changed the rank order of risk of extinction for
different regions. 6. We suggest that it is important to consider
multiple models of population regulation when applying population
viability analysis techniques because viability projections are
influenced strongly by model structure.]{.underline}

[Weidensaul, Scott ]{.underline}**[Sage grouse strut their
stuff]{.underline}**[. Smithsonian, 32(3): 56-63; 2001 ISSN: 0037-7333
]{.underline}

[Abstract.---North America\'s sage grouse population is declining due to
the unrestrained exploitation of its primary habitat, the Snake River
plain and the big desert regions of southern Idaho. A study was
conducted in these areas to get an insight into the crisis. In this
article the author provides life history information as well as insights
into the reasons for the decline. The sage grouse may be on its way to
the federal endangered species list due to vast destruction of its
sagebrush- and grass-dominated ecosystem by livestock grazing,
agricultural croplands, and wildfires. The farmland has also inhibited
the movement of these highly mobile birds. The huge distances covered by
these wanderers necessitate the protection of large areas of their
habitat. The consequence of range fires is not restricted to the
obliteration of sagebrush. The complexity surrounding the revival of
burned sagebrush is worsened by the growth of certain exotic weed
species. The increased use of pesticides has also caused reduction in
the availability of the grouse hatchlings\' protein-rich diet of insects
and plants reducing the chick survival rate. The formation of the
Gunnison Sage Working Group comprised of representatives of all major
stakeholders has led to the development of local conservation plans to
reverse the decline and restore the sagebrush and lek territories along
with managing the needs of livestock. Prohibition on sage grouse hunting
has also alleviated the problem to a certain extent. A more enduring
solution should be found in order to generate public awareness of the
importance of the sagebrush ecosystem.]{.underline}

**[\*]{.underline}**[Oyler-McCance, Sara J.; Burnham, Kenneth P.; Braun,
Clait E.]{.underline}**[ Influence of changes in sagebrush on Gunnison
sage grouse in southwestern Colorado. ]{.underline}**[ Southwestern
Naturalist, 46(3): 323-331, 2001. 5 tables; 2 figs. ISSN:
0038-4909]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---The decline in abundance of the newly recognized Gunnison
sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[minimus]{.underline}*[) in southwestern Colorado is
thought to be linked to loss and fragmentation of its habitat, sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[) vegetation. We documented
changes in sagebrush-dominated areas between the 1950s and 1990s by
comparing low level aerial photographs taken in these time periods. We
documented a loss of 20% or 155,673 ha of sagebrush-dominated areas in
southwestern Colorado between 1958 and 1993. The amount of
sagebrush-dominated area was much higher and loss rates were much lower
in the Gunnison basin. We also found that 37% of plots sampled underwent
substantial fragmentation of sagebrush vegetation. If current trends of
habitat loss and fragmentation continue, Gunnison sage grouse (and
perhaps other sagebrush-steppe obligates) may become extinct. Protecting
the remaining habitat from further loss and fragmentation is paramount
to the survival of this species.]{.underline}

**[\*]{.underline}**[Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and
C. E. Braun. 2000. ]{.underline}**[Guidelines to manage sage grouse
populations and their habitats. ]{.underline}**[ Wildlife Society
Bulletin 28:967-985. ]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---The status of sage grouse populations and habitats has
been a concern to sportsmen and biologists for \>80 years. Despite
management and research efforts that date to the 1930s, breeding
populations of this species have declined throughout much of its range.
In May 1999, the western sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus phaios]{.underline}*[) in Washington was petitioned for
listing under the Endangered Species Act because of population and
habitat declines (C. Warren, United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
personal communication). Sage grouse populations are allied closely with
sagebrush (]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.). Despite the
well-known importance of this habitat to sage grouse and other sagebrush
obligates, the quality and quantity of sagebrush habitats have declined
for at least the last 50 years. Braun et al. (1977) provided guidelines
for maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Since publication of those
guidelines, much more information has been obtained on sage grouse.
Because of continued concern about sage grouse and their habitats and a
significant amount of new information, the Western States Sage and
Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, under the direction
of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, requested a
revision and expansion of the guidelines originally published by Braun
et al. (1977). This paper summarizes the current knowledge of the
ecology of sage grouse and, based on this information, provides
guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their
habitats.]{.underline}

[Beck, Jeffrey L.; Mitchell, Dean L. ]{.underline}**[Influences of
livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. ]{.underline}**[ Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 2000. pp. 993-1002 (10 pp.). Vol. 28, No. 4 1 table.
ISSN: 0091-7648]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Livestock grazing has been identified as one factor
associated with the widespread decline and degradation of sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[) habitat. We identified
]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 17 positive and negative impacts of
livestock on sage grouse and habitat. Little information is currently
available concerning the directs impacts of livestock grazing on sage
grouse habitat. Indirect impacts are better understood than direct
impacts. Chemical and mechanical treatments intended to provide
increased quantities of grass forage for livestock have indirectly
reduced the acceptability of sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) rangelands for sage
grouse. Our paper examines: 1) potential mechanisms whereby livestock
grazing in big sagebrush (]{.underline}*[A. tridentata]{.underline}*[)
communities can modify sage grouse habitat and 2) the indirect
influences of livestock production on sage grouse habitat. Overall,
livestock grazing appears to most affect productivity of sage grouse
populations. Residual grass cover following grazing is essential to
conceal sage grouse nests from predators. Future research needs are
identified and management implications related to livestock grazing in
sage grouse habitats are included.]{.underline}

[Nelle, Pamela J.; Reese, Kerry P.; Connelly, John W.
]{.underline}**[Long-term effects of fire on sage grouse habitat.
]{.underline}**[ Journal of Range Management, 53(6): 586-591, 2000. 3
tables. ISSN: 0022-409X]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---This study documented the long-term (\> 10 years) impact
of fire on sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[ Bonaparte) nesting and brood-rearing
habitats on the Upper Snake River Plain in southeastern Idaho. The
habitat of the study area is primarily mountain big sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia tridentata vaseyana]{.underline}*[
Rydb.)-grassland. Twenty different-aged burns were sampled from 1996 to
1997, ranging from wildfires which burned during the 1960s to prescribed
fires set during the 1990s. Canopy coverage and height of vegetation,
and relative abundance of invertebrates, were estimated at burned and
unburned sites within burns. Fourteen years after burning, sagebrush had
not returned to preburn conditions. No difference was detected in forb
abundance between different-aged burns. Relative abundance of ants and
beetles was significantly greater in the 1-year old burn category but
had returned to unburned levels by 3-5 years postburn. No benefits for
sage grouse occurred as a result of burning sage grouse nesting and
brood-rearing habitats. Burning created a long-term negative impact on
nesting habitat because sagebrush required over 20 years of postburn
growth for percent canopy cover to become sufficient for
nesting.]{.underline}

[Connelly, John W.; Reese, Kerry P.; Fischer, Richard A.; Wakkinen,
Wayne L.]{.underline}**[ Response of a Sage Grouse Breeding Population
to Fire in Southeastern Idaho. ]{.underline}**[Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 2000. pp. 90-96 (7 pp.). Vol. 28, No. 1; Contrib. 776, Univ.
of Idaho Coll. of Forestry, Will. and Range Exper. Sta. 3 tables.
Project Number: ID W-160-R ISSN: 0091-7648]{.underline}

[ Abstract.---Prescribed burning is a common method to eliminate
sagebrush (]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) and has been
suggested as a tool to enhance the habitat of sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[). Effects of this practice on
sage grouse have not been evaluated rigorously. The authors studied
effects of prescribed fire on lek (traditional breeding display areas)
attendance by male sage grouse occupying low-precipitation (\< 26 cm)
sagebrush habitats in southeastern Idaho from 1986 through 1994. During
the preburn period (1986-89 ), average declines for male attendance were
48% and 46% for treatment and control leks, respectively. Lek counts
were similar for treatment and control leks during the preburn years
(G-test, 0.25 \> ]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \> 0.10). During the
postburn period (1990-94), male attendance at treatment leks declined
90% and control leks declined 63%. Although declines were similar
between treatment and control leks during the preburn period, postburn
declines were greater for treatment than control leks (0.05 \<
]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \< 0.10). The authors rejected the null
hypothesis that for the two largest leks in both the treatment and
control areas, counts were independent of years for preburn (0.05 \<
]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \< 0.1 0) and postburn
(]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \< 0.05) periods and concluded that
breeding population declines became more severe in years following fire.
Prescribed burning negatively affected sage grouse in southeastern Idaho
and should not be used in low-precipitation sagebrush habitats occupied
by breeding sage grouse.]{.underline}

[Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1989. ]{.underline}**[Topographic
distribution of Sage Grouse foraging in winter. ]{.underline}**[ Journal
of Wildlife Management 53:823-829. ]{.underline}

[Abstract.---We studied sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[ spp.) exposure above snow and
topographic distribution of sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) foraging sites in winter (Jan-Mar) in the
Gunnison Basin, Colorado. Sage grouse feeding activity
(]{.underline}*[n]{.underline}*[ = 157 foraging sites) was not
proportionally distributed among 5 topographic categories
(]{.underline}*[P]{.underline}*[ \< 0.001). Most (46 and 75% of foraging
sites in 1985 and 1986, respectively) feeding activity occurred in
drainages and on slopes with south or west aspects. Use of slopes with
north or east aspects was less than expected. Distribution of sage
grouse feeding activity was influenced by topographic variation in snow
depth and mountain big sagebrush (]{.underline}*[A. tridentata vaseyana
]{.underline}*[) exposure above snow. During a severe winter in 1984, \<
10% of the sagebrush vegetation in the Gunnison Basin was exposed above
snow and available to sage grouse. During milder winters in 1985 and
1986, exposure of sagebrush was 84 and 79%, respectively. We recommend
that sagebrush be maintained in drainages and on slopes with south or
west aspects.]{.underline}

[Oyler-McCance, S. J. 1999. ]{.underline}**[Genetic and habitat factors
underlying conservation strategies for Gunnison Sage Grouse.
]{.underline}**[Ph.D. dissertation. Colorado State University. 162
pages.]{.underline}

[Notes.--- Developed a simple habitat-based model to predict occupancy
by sage grouse, with three variables: distance to nearest road from the
center of the habitat patch, size of the habitat patch (patch area, as a
measure of habitat quantity), and percentage of the patch in \"habitat\"
(are in suitable winter, breeding and nesting or summer habitat). The
best model had habitat patch size and distance to the nearest road. The
genetics work supported the species designation of the Gunnison sage
grouse in southwestern Colorado. These populations are extremely
isolated and fragmented, as are their habitats. This is reflected in the
low numbers of haplotypes in these grouse. They are much less
genetically diverse than are more northern grouse, with low
heterogeneity and little gene flow evident.]{.underline}

[Oyler-McCance, S. J., K. P. Burnham, and C. E. Braun.
2001]{.underline}**[. Influences of changes in sagebrush on Gunnison
Sage Grouse in Southwestern Colorado. ]{.underline}**[ The Southwestern
Naturalist 46(3):323-331. ]{.underline}

[Abstract.---The decline in the abundance of the newly-recognized
Gunnison sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
minimus]{.underline}*[) in southwestern Colorado is thought to be linked
to loss and fragmentation of its habitat, sagebrush
(]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[) vegetation. We documented
changes in sagebrush-dominated areas between the 1950\'s and 1990\'s by
comparing low-level aerial photographs taken in these time periods. We
documented a loss of 20% or 155,673 ha of sagebrush-dominated areas in
southwestern Colorado between 1958 and 1993. The amount of
sagebrush-dominated area was much higher and loss rates were much lower
in the Gunnison Basin. We also found that 37% of plots sampled underwent
substantial fragmentation of sagebrush vegetation. If current trends of
habitat loss and fragmentation continue, Gunnison sage grouse (and
perhaps other sagebrush-steppe obligates) may become extinct. Protecting
the remaining habitat from further loss and fragmentation is paramount
to the survival of this species.]{.underline}

[Young, J. R. 1994. ]{.underline}**[The influence of sexual selection on
phenotypic and genetic divergence among Sage Grouse populations.
]{.underline}**[ Ph.D. dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette,
IN. 123 pages.]{.underline}

[Abstract.---I studied the mating behavior, ecology, and genetics of an
isolated population of sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) in the Gunnison Basin, Colorado. Sage
grouse have a lek mating system in which only a small percentage of
males mate. Sexual selection in such a mating system can lead to rapid
evolution of sexual dimorphism in size, plumage characteristics and
mating behavior as well as associated female preferences for such male
traits. As a result, I predicted that sexual selection could increase
population divergence as well as reduce population persistence. Field
observations indicated that traits important to male mating success,
such as mating vocalizations, had diverged in the Gunnison population
relative to other sage grouse populations. To determine the effect of
this divergence in male mating vocalizations on female behavior, I
conducted reciprocal field playback experiments at two leks, one in
Gunnison and the other in a nearby, but allopatric, northern Colorado
population. Females in each population avoided male vocalizations from
the other population, suggesting the existence of a premating barrier.
While female mating behavior differed between populations, my
investigation of female nesting ecology and summer habitat use showed
that Gunnison females are ecologically similar to females in other sage
grouse populations. Females in Gunnison (a) chose nest sites with more
sagebrush density and structure than random sites, (b) had higher
nesting success in areas with greater shrub density and forb and grass
cover, and (c) used flat, mesic areas with extensive grass and forb
components when rearing broods. Genetic analyses of four sage grouse
populations revealed moderately higher bandsharing and
F]{.underline}~[st]{.underline}~[ values compared to nonlekking bird
species. In addition, some genetic differentiation exists among the four
populations and between leks in Gunnison. My results demonstrate the
Gunnison population is distinct in secondary sexual traits, but not
female ecology. These results are consistent with the view that sexual
selection can have a direct role in the initial stages of population
divergence leading to speciation. My results also suggest that lek
mating species may have reduced genetic variation relative to nonlekking
species and subsequently are more vulnerable to environmental
changes.]{.underline}

**[[Extracted
Papers]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[---]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[A]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[A. (Extracted from Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and
Sagebrush Habitats, Chapter 7, Sagebrush Ecosystems: Current Status and
Trends)]{.underline}

**[Restoration and Rehabilitation]{.underline}**

**[Background]{.underline}**

[ Sage-grouse depend on various characteristics of sagebrush ecosystems
for their survival. During the spring nesting and brood rearing,
locations with a codominance of a subspecies of big sagebrush and mid to
tall perennial bunchgrass species generally provide the most important
habitat. Summer and autumn habitats vary from farmland to wet meadows to
sagebrush lands. In winter, sage-grouse require big sagebrush cover and
food, but can use low, black, fringed, or silver sagebrush for food
(Connelly et al. 2000]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[). ]{.underline}

[ Restoration of sagebrush habitats can take two different forms,
passive and active. Passive forms of restoration do not require
human-aided revegetation because desired species exist at the site as
plants or seeds. Restoration of the desired plant community, including
factors such as, community structure (plant height and cover) and
ecosystem processes (e.g. nutrient cycling), can be achieved by changing
current management practices to accomplish the relative dominance of
species or the desired vegetation structure in the community through the
normal successional process. If the desired species and their source of
propagules are eliminated from the site and are too far for natural
revegetation in a desired time frame, then active restoration may be
necessary.]{.underline}

[ Provided that degradation of habitat quality has not been too severe
and that the community has remained within the upper state (Figure
7.33), passive restoration may achieve the desired vegetation changes.
However, the loss of dominant species, such as tall bunchgrasses, from a
community, even if they are not replaced by invasive species, may
require active restoration because the community no longer has an
adequate seed bank to draw upon. The plant composition that defines
these thresholds among states is unknown and is an active area of
research in the region.]{.underline}

[ Active restoration is warranted if invasive species (e.g. cheatgrass
or noxious weeds) or native species that are generally inconspicuous at
a site (e.g., junipers or pinyon pines) have replaced dominant species
(e.g. sagebrush, perennial bunchgrasses, and forbs) in the community. In
the conceptual diagram of species dynamics (Figure 7.33), the site has
progressed along a transition into a new vegetation state and
degradation of the site has occurred. Note the transitions between
states are unidirectional and do not return to the previous
state.]{.underline}

[ In the case of pinyon-juniper tree encroachment, as the site becomes
dominated by the trees, sagebrush will die out, the herb layer may
decline, and seed banks become depleted (Koniak and Everett 1982, Miller
et al. 2000). Natural disturbances such as fire become rare as these
trees age and as they dominate a site (Miller and Tausch 2001). If fires
do occur, they tend to be severe crown fires of high intensity. On
relatively cool wet sites, recovery of native species often occurs
slowly following these intense fires. However, on warmer sites high
intensity fires are capable of causing shifts from woodlands to
introduced annual communities (Tausch
1999]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[,]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[).]{.underline}

[ Following invasions of exotic annual grasses, the communities become
susceptible to more frequent fires because of the increase in fuel that
is more continuous across the soil surface than the pre-invasion
community. In the pre-invasion community (upper most state Fig. 7.33),
the fine fuels would be distributed in patches represented by the
perennial bunchgrasses in the community. Exotic annual grasses tend to
fill interspaces among these bunchgrasses providing greater continuity
of fuels for fires (Whisenant 1990). Most species of sagebrush, except
silver and threetip sagebrush, are intolerant of fires and require seed
dispersal and germination to reestablish after a fire. Cheatgrass is
known to be a successful competitor against native plants for resources
necessary for the native plants to establish and grow (Harris 1967,
Melgoza et al. 1990, Booth et al. 2003).]{.underline}

[ Site degradation, in some locations, may become so severe that soil
erosion (lower left state, Fig. 7.33) removes the upper soil horizons to
such an extent that the potential for the site to support its former
native plant community (upper state Figure 7.33) is impossible. In this
case, restoration is no longer possible, but rehabilitation (defined as
an alternative to the historic native plant community that provides
similar structure and function without allowing further degradation of
the site \[adapted from Bradshaw 1983 and Aronson et al. 1993\]) may be
the only remaining alternative that might make the site usable by
sage-grouse.]{.underline}

[ We examine the past and current forms of revegetation used within the
assessment area, to examine alternatives (including experimental
approaches) available to land managers when faced with degradation and
loss of habitat for sage-grouse. The alternatives include combinations
of passive and active restoration and rehabilitation techniques. Lastly,
bottlenecks restricting restoration success will also be
examined.]{.underline}

**[Past and Current Vegetation Manipulation Approaches]{.underline}**

[ Because most lands in the assessment area are federally managed,
vegetation manipulations done in the past have reflected mandated
federal policies. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978
recognized the continued need to improve rangeland conditions on public
lands. The major source of measuring land condition was based on a
technique that organized plants into categories based on their responses
to livestock grazing (increasers, decreasers and invaders) (Pyke and
Herrick 2003). Although PRIA explicitly stated the need for improvements
in condition for multiple uses, the methods used to implement these
improvements tended to rely on the current science of the day. The
principal textbook of that time (Valentine 1971) defined range
improvements as "special treatments, developments, and structures used
to improve range forage resources or to facilitate their use by grazing
animals." The focus of many revegetation efforts was to increase forage
production for livestock and to decrease the abundance of undesirable
forage and invasive annuals that provided unreliable forage. Undesirable
forage included the major invasive plant, cheatgrass (Young et al.
1972), and sagebrush, which is still treated as a weed in some books
(Whitson 1996).]{.underline}

***[Livestock grazing modifications. ]{.underline}***[Passive rangeland
improvement approaches sought improved vegetation composition and amount
through adjustments livestock grazing seasons and animal unit months.
Adjustments were achieved by constructing new fences or developing
additional water sources which spread livestock use over larger areas.
The greatest change was the shift from year-long grazing to seasonal
uses by livestock throughout the sagebrush grassland biome (Crawford et
al. 2004), however the seasons of use often differed between the
intermountain and the Great Plains regions west and east of the Rocky
Mountains with Wyoming and the Colorado Plateau being somewhat
intermediate. Year-long grazing still is practiced in some parts of the
sagebrush biome. ]{.underline}

[ Differences between the two regions were largely dictated by the
amount of cool-season (C3 photosynthetic pathway) ]{.underline}*[vs.
]{.underline}*[warm-season (C4 pathway) grasses respectively in the two
regions. Cool season grasses tolerate grazing from mid-summer through
winter (Crawford et al. 2004) while adjustments in grazing seasons were
more rotational so that no single plant life form would be detrimentally
harmed. In sagebrush grasslands, herbivory of herbaceous plants during
the growing season tends to favor sagebrush growth until sagebrush
becomes so dense that the competition of sagebrush restricts recovery of
herbaceous plants (Reichenberger and Pyke 1990).]{.underline}

[ Adjustments to grazing seasons or reductions in numbers of livestock
will only show improvements in sage-grouse habitat quality if the
vegetation community is a sagebrush grassland mix (middle vegetation
community in upper state, Figure 7.33) before grazing changes are
implemented. This community retains both the sagebrush and the tall
bunchgrass necessary for quality habitat. The release from livestock
grazing should allow the full expression of vegetation height for hiding
cover and nest protection. Improvements could be expressed in the next
growing season, but might take 3 to 5 years for pre-existing plants to
fully express themselves and 10 to 15 years for seed production and new
plant recruitment to occur assuming the site is not fully occupied by
other species. Any other community whether in this vegetation state or
in another state (Figure 7.33) will require either additional
manipulations to the community to adjust the vegetation composition, or
may require additions of life forms through revegetation to improve the
habitat (see below).]{.underline}

***[Sagebrush Removal. ]{.underline}***[Removal of sagebrush to increase
herbaceous forage and allow grasses to dominate has been a common
habitat treatment practice. Several techniques were used to accomplish
this conversion with differing impacts on the structure and function of
the ecosystem. ]{.underline}

[ Prescribed fires kill, eliminate, or reduce the density of most
sagebrush species, especially big sagebrush species, and provide a
temporary flush of nutrients that may result in increases in herbaceous
plant responses, but may leave sites susceptible to soil erosion during
the first years after the fire (Wrobleski and Kaufmann 2003, Stubbs
2000, Blank et al. 1994). This tool is one that is currently being
applied on lands where pinyons or junipers have encroached into
sagebrush grasslands as a technique to eliminate the trees. It also
results in a loss of sagebrush dominance from the community for 25-45
years (Watts and Wambolt 1996, Wambolt et al. 2001) depending on the
location of seed sources.]{.underline}

[ Herbicide applications of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) or
tebuthiuron (--\[5-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl\]-N,N'-dimethylurea) were used to
kill large expanses of sagebrush leaving the standing dead skeletons of
the shrubs with low risk of soil erosion. However, herbicides, if used
full strength during the growing season, also killed or injured many
forbs (Crawford et al. 2004).]{.underline}

[ Mechanical techniques ranged from those designed to remove the
aboveground portion of the plant (mowing, roller chopping, and
rotobeating) to uprooting the plant from the soil (grubbing, bulldozing,
anchor chaining, cabling, railing, raking and plowing) (Scifres 1980).
Of these techniques, the uprooting techniques create the greatest soil
disturbance thus adding to the risk of post-treatment soil erosion.
Control of pinyon and juniper through chaining, cabling, railing, or
chain saw can have moderate to little impact on the shrub canopy. The
removal of tree competition should also facilitate rapid recovery of the
shrub and herb understory if adequate levels are present prior to
treatment. However, treatments such as mowing, roller chopping,
rotobeating and plowing will have a greater and longer lasting impact on
the shrub layer. Critical for the success of these techniques is that
the community remains in the upper state of Fig. 7.33 and that invasive
annual grasses do not exist within the community.]{.underline}

[ Tebuthiuron at low rates has been reported as a technique for thinning
dense sagebrush and opening the community for herbaceous plants,
including forbs, to respond (Olson and Whitson 2002). Provided the
herbaceous perennial plants exist in the understory, this technique
might yield immediate improvements to habitat quality, however if exotic
annual grasses exist in the community then expansion and spread of these
invasive plants might result. However, no empirical data are available
to document the response of sage-grouse to these
treatments.]{.underline}

[ Lastly, livestock may be used as a biological control of sagebrush.
Bork et al. (1998), Laycock (1967) and Mueggler (1950) have shown
long-term declines in threetip sagebrush with recovery of herbaceous
vegetation high elevation sites in Idaho. Declines of Wyoming and
mountain big sagebrush densities due to heavy deer or elk browsing have
been noted in Utah and Montana (Smith 1949, Austin et al. 1986, McArthur
et al. 1988, Patten 1993, Wambolt 1996). These all suggest the potential
of browsing animals to be used as a biocontrol for reducing the
densities of sagebrush and potentially increasing the herbaceous
component. However, the response of the herbaceous component needs
further study in big sagebrush communities since this has only been
noted in threetip sagebrush communities.]{.underline}

**[Revegetation]{.underline}**

[ Historic revegetation on most sagebrush grasslands had the goal of
improving livestock forage (which included replacing invasive forbs and
annual grasses such as cheatgrass and halogeton with perennial grasses)
while protecting soils from erosion. Early experimental trials comparing
native ]{.underline}*[vs. ]{.underline}*[introduced grasses in several
locations within the assessment area found that native species often did
not establish or produced less forage, therefore recommendations during
the early phases of rangeland improvements favored the use of introduced
grasses, such as crested wheatgrass (]{.underline}*[Agropyron
]{.underline}*[sp.) to meet the combined goal of forage production and
erosion control (see citations in Asay et al. 2001). Many of these early
trials were conducted on abandoned wheat and rye fields at the end of
the homestead era.]{.underline}

[ Wildfire rehabilitation is a major source of revegetation in the Great
Basin. The mandated goal of these projects is to reduce the loss of soil
and plant species, be palatable to livestock, and to reduce the spread
of invasive species. Total restoration of the ecosystem with a complete
suite of plant life forms is not a designated objective for expenditure
of funds. Although federal policies have advocated the use of native
plants in revegetation efforts when natives are available, only modest
increases in the use of native plants were seen in a recent evaluation
of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Emergency Fire Rehabilitation
program. Out of the average of 5 species used on a rehabilitation
project, the number of native species has increased from 1 to 2 and the
proportional increase in the weight of native bulk seeds has been from
20 to 40 % (Pyke et al. 2003). Land managers cited the poor
competitiveness and poor establishment of natives compared with
introduced grasses as the main reasons why they elected to use
introduced species (McArthur 2004) and the high cost of
seed.]{.underline}

[ Most revegetation projects that use introduced forage grasses may not
provide quality sage grouse habitat because their goals were not focused
on restoring a complete sagebrush grassland community. However, Cox and
Anderson (2004) suggested methods for improving these sites: sites
dominated by cheatgrass could be seeded with crested wheatgrass to
control the cheatgrass. Later, sites dominated by introduced grasses
could be prepared by a till, harrow, or with herbicides then reseeded
with native species.]{.underline}

[ In an attempt to become proactive in its battle against invasive
annual grasses and the loss of sagebrush grasslands, the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management has begun the Great Basin Restoration Initiative. The
strategy of this program is to use a three step process to achieve
effective restoration in the region (Pellant 2003). The first step is to
use spatial data to prioritize areas for conservation and restoration
(Pyke and Knick 2003), with special emphasis on sage-grouse habitat
needs. Second, they will coordinate protection and restoration plans
with land users, scientists and interested people to ensure
environmentally sound treatments that do not create undue hardships for
local land users while using the best science to maximize restoration
and conservation success. Lastly, restoration and conservation
activities will target landscapes where native plant communities already
exist to ensure maximize the retention of lands that remain within the
nature dynamics of the sagebrush system (upper state Fig. 7.33). After
these areas are protected, they will begin treatments to restore sites
currently dominated by invasive plants.]{.underline}

[ Rehabilitation and restoration techniques to transform lands currently
dominated by invasive annual grasses into quality sage-grouse habitat
have been largely unproven and experimental. Several components of the
process are being investigated with varying degrees of success. The
first aspect of the process will be the reduction in the competition
that invasive annual grasses provide against native seedlings during the
establishment phase. Therefore methods to reduce cheatgrass densities
are necessary. Proposed techniques include herbicides imazapic (Plateau)
(Shinn and Thill 2002) and glyphosate (Whitson and Koch 1998),
defoliation via livestock grazing (Hulbert 1955, Finnerty and Klingman
1961, Mosley 1996), pathogenic bacteria (Kennedy et al. 1991) and fungi
(Meyer et al. 2001). Although prescribed fire alone is not recommended
(Mosley et al. 1999), it may be an effective technique worth
investigation if applied in combination with a spring glyphosate
treatment and conducted either in late spring or autumn. The glyphosate
will kill the current-year's plants, thus reducing or eliminating seed
production, and will prepare a fuel bed for the fire that will reduce
the litter seed bank. In addition to density reduction techniques,
applications of carbon in a form readily available for microbial uptake
in the soil may increase soil microbial content and cause the microbes
to reduce the available soil nitrogen, thus reducing the growth and
competitive ability of cheatgrass (McLendon & Redente 1990, 1992, Young
et al. 1996).]{.underline}

[ Immediate revegetation is required after any of these density
reduction techniques, otherwise invasive annual grasses that escape
treatments will grow unabated and produce large numbers of seeds and
will quickly dominate a site again (Mack and Pyke 1983). No evidence for
complete elimination of invasive annual grasses with control techniques
and revegetation has been noted. However, successful revegetation
efforts that have controlled invasive annual grass populations and have
maintained perennial plants are generally rehabilitation projects sown
with introduced forage grasses (Asay et al. 2001). Some evidence from
wildfire rehabilitation studies shows that native plants can be sown and
eventually coexists with invasive annuals, but these were generally sown
in combination with introduced grasses (Pyke et al. 2003, Cox and
Anderson 2004). Theoretical frameworks hypothesize that multiple native
species representing a variety of growth and life forms may successfully
compete with invasive plants where any one species would be unsuccessful
(Sheley et al. 1996). Current studies are being conducted to investigate
this potential in combination with cheatgrass and other invasive plants
in the Great Basin.]{.underline}

[ For quality sage-grouse habitat, sagebrush and forb establishment and
maturity are necessary. Techniques for reseeding sagebrush have been
successfully demonstrated, but surface sowing followed by compaction of
the soil may be necessary for establishment. Establishment of forbs
important to sage-grouse have also shown promise, but availability of
seed tends to limit their widespread use on rangeland restoration and
rehabilitation projects (McArthur 2004).]{.underline}

**[Bottlenecks to Success]{.underline}**

[ Availability and cost of native seed is a major obstruction to the use
native seeds in revegetation projects (McArthur 2004). The difficulties
and the vagaries of collecting, growing and selling native seeds that
historically have not been used within sagebrush ecosystems tends to
raise the price and increase the risk to both the seller and buyer
(Dunne 1999, Roundy et al. 1997, Currans et al. 1997, Bermant and
Spackeen 1997) relative to tested and released plants that are widely
available (Currans et al. 1997).]{.underline}

[ Equipment for sowing native seeds is not widely available. Most
revegetation projects in the region use rangeland drills that were
developed for the rough terrain of wildland environments and for the
ease of seeding the introduced forage grasses. Many native seeds because
of their differing sizes will require mixing within the seed boxes on
the drills to insure equal proportions of all seeds are sown on a site
or will require separate seed boxes to allow seeds of different sizes to
be buried at different optimal depths. All these requirements will
either require the purchase of new seed drills or the retrofitting of
the old drills to accommodate these needs.]{.underline}

[ Fig. 7.33. Conceptual model showing plant dynamics using state and
transition (dotted boxes and dashed lines) in a typical shrub grassland
site within the sage-grouse range. Solid boxes and arrows within states
are plant communities and pathways.]{.underline}

**[Literature Cited]{.underline}**

[\*Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle, and R. Pontanier.
1993. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and
semi-arid lands. I. A view from the south. Restoration Ecology
1:8-17.]{.underline}

[Asay, K. H., W. H. Horton, K. B. Jensen, and A. J. Palazzo. 2001.
Merits of native and introduced Triticeae grasses on semiarid
rangelands. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:45-52.]{.underline}

[Austin, D. D., P. J. Urness, and R. A. Riggs. 1986. Vegetal change in
the absence of livestock grazing, mountain brush zone, Utah. Journal of
Range Management 39:514-517.]{.underline}

[Bermant, D. and S. Spackeen. 1997. Native species in the commercial
seed industry. Pages 26-29 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N. L. Shaw
and B.A. Roundy (compilers). Proceedings -- Using seeds of native
species on rangelands. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research
Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-372, Ogden Utah.]{.underline}

[Blank R. R., R. Allen, and J. A. Young. 1994. Extractable anions
following wildfire in a sagebrush grass community. Soil Science Society
of America Journal 58:564-570.]{.underline}

[Booth, M. S., M. M. Caldwell, and J. M. Stark. 2003. Overlapping
resource use in three Great Basin species: implications for community
invasibility and vegetation dynamics. Journal of Ecology
91-36-48.]{.underline}

[Bork, E. W., N. E. West, and J. W. Walker. 1998. Cover components on
long-term seasonal sheep grazing treatments in three-tip sagebrush
steppe. Journal of Range Management 51:293-300.]{.underline}

[Bradshaw, A. D. 1983. The reconstruction of ecosystems. Journal of
Applied Ecology 20:1-17.]{.underline}

[\*Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun.
2000]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[. Guidelines to manage sage grouse
populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin
28:967-985.]{.underline}

[\*Cox, R. D. and V. J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of
cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assisted succession . Journal of
Range Management 57:203-210.]{.underline}

[\*Crawford, J. A, R. A. Olsen, 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.]{.underline}

[Currans, S. P., S. G. Kitchen, and S. M. Lambert. 1997. Ensuring
identity and quality of native seeds. Pages 17-20 ]{.underline}*[in
]{.underline}*[N. L. Shaw and B.A. Roundy (compilers). Proceedings --
Using seeds of native species on rangelands. USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-372,
Ogden Utah.]{.underline}

[\*Dunne, R. 1999. Common difficulties encountered in collecting native
seed. Pages 28-29 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[L. K. Holzworth and
R.W. Brown (compilers). Proceedings -- Revegetation with native species,
1997 Society for Ecological Restoration annual meeting, 1997 November
12-15; Fort Lauderdale, FL. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Proceedings RMRS-P-8, Ogden Utah.]{.underline}

[ Finnerty, D. W. and D. L. Klingman. 1961. Life cycles and control
studies of some weed bromegrass. Weeds 10:40-47.]{.underline}

[Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between
]{.underline}*[Agropyron spicatum ]{.underline}*[and
]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum]{.underline}*[. Ecological Monographs
37:89-111.]{.underline}

[Hulbert, L. C. 1955. Ecological studies of ]{.underline}*[Bromus
tectorum ]{.underline}*[and other annual bromegrasses. Ecological
Monographs 25:181-213.]{.underline}

[Kennedy, A. C., L. F. Elliott, F. L. Young, and C. L. Douglas. 1991.
Rhizobacteria suppressive to the weed downy brome. Soil Science Society
of America Journal 55:722-727.]{.underline}

[Koniak, S., and R. L. Everett. 1982. Seed reserves in soils of
successional stages of pinyon woodlands. American Midland Naturalist
108:295-303.]{.underline}

[Laycock, W. A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect
sagebrush-grass ranges. Journal of Range Management
20:206-213.]{.underline}

[Mack, R. N., and D. A. Pyke. 1983. The demography of
]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum]{.underline}*[: variation in time and
space. Journal of Ecology 71:69-93.]{.underline}

[McArthur, E. D., A. C. Blauer, and S. C. Sanderson. 1988. Mule
deer-induced mortality of mountain sagebrush. Journal of Range
Management 41:114-117.]{.underline}

[\*McArthur, T. O. 2004. Emergency fire rehabilitation of B.M. lands in
the Great Basin: revegetation and monitoring. M.S. thesis. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon.]{.underline}

[\*McLendon, T. and E. F. Redente. 1990. Succession patterns following
soil disturbance in a sagebrush steppe community. Oecologia
85:293-300.]{.underline}

[McLendon, T. and E. F. Redente. 1992. Effects of nitrogen limitation on
species replacement dynamics during early succession on semiarid
sagebrush site. Oecologia 91:312-317.]{.underline}

[Melgoza, G., R. Nowak. and R. Tausch. 1990. Soil water exploitation
after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two
native species. Oecologia 83:7-13.]{.underline}

[Meyer, S. E., D. L Nelson, and S. Clement. 2001. Evidence for
resistance polymorphism in the ]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum
]{.underline}[--]{.underline}[ Ustilago bullata
]{.underline}*[pathosystem: implications for biocontrol. Canadian
Journal of Plant Pathology 23:19-27.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F. and R. J. Tausch. 2001. Role of fire in juniper and
pinyon woodlands: a descriptive analysis. Tall Timbers Research Station
Miscellaneous Publication No. 11:15-30.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and J. A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western
juniper on plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range
Management 53:574-585.]{.underline}

[Mosley, J. C. 1996. Prescribed sheep grazing to suppress cheatgrass: A
review. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 12:74-81.]{.underline}

[Mosley, J. C., S. C. Bunting, and M. E. Manoukian. 1999. Cheatgrass.
Pages 175-188 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[R. L. Sheley and J. K.
Petroff, editors. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds.
Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.]{.underline}

[Mueggler, W. F. 1950. Effects of spring and fall grazing by sheep on
vegetation of the upper Snake River plains. Journal of Range Management
3:308-315.]{.underline}

[\*Olson, R.A. and T. D. Whitson. 2002. Restoring structure in
late-successional sagebrush communities by thinning with tebuthiuron.
Restoration Ecology 10:146-155.]{.underline}

[Patten, D. T. 1993. Herbivore optimization and overcompensation: does
native herbivory on western rangelands support these theories?
Ecological Applications 3:35-26.]{.underline}

[\*Pellant, M. 2003. The Great Basin Restoration Initiative: challenges
and tools to restore a desert landscape in the western United States.
Pages 1241-1243 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N. Allsopp, A. R.
Palmer, S. J. Milton, K. P. Kirkman, G. I. H. Kerley, and C. R. Hurt
(eds.). Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangelands Congress, 26th
July-1st August 2003, Durban, South Africa. Document Transformation
Technologies, Irene, South Africa.]{.underline}

[Pyke, D. A. and J. E. Herrick. 2003. Transitions in rangeland
evaluations: a review of the major transitions in rangeland evaluations
during the last 25 years and speculation about future evaluations.
Rangelands 25:22-30.]{.underline}

[\*Pyke, D. A., and S. T. Knick. 2003. Plant invaders, global change,
and landscape restoration. Pages 278-288 ]{.underline}*[in
]{.underline}*[N. Allsopp, A. R. Palmer, S.J. Milton, K. P. Kirkman, G.
I. H. Kerley and C. R. Hurt, editors. Proceedings of the VIIth
International Rangelands Congress, 26th July-1st August 2003, Durban,
South Africa. Document Transformation Technologies, Irene South
Africa.]{.underline}

[\*Pyke, D. A. and T. O. McArthur, K. S. Harrison, and M. Pellant. 2003.
Coordinated intermountain restoration project: fire, decomposition and
restoration. Pages 1116-1124 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N.
Allsopp, A. R. Palmer, S. J. Milton, K. P. Kirkman, G. I. H. Kerley and
C. R. Hurt (eds). Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangelands
Congress, 26th July-1st August 2003, Durban, South Africa. Document
Transformation Technologies, Irene, South Africa.]{.underline}

[Reichenberger, G. and D. A. Pyke. 1990. Impact of early root
competition on fitness components of four semiarid species. Oecologia
85:159-166.]{.underline}

[Roundy, B. A., N. L. Shaw, and D. T. Booth. 1997. Using native seed on
rangelands. Pages 1-8 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N. L. Shaw and
B.A. Roundy (compilers). Proceedings -- Using seeds of native species on
rangelands. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, General
Technical Report INT-GTR-372, Ogden, Utah.]{.underline}

[Sheley, R. L., T. J. Svejcar, and B. D. Maxwell. 1996. A theoretical
framework for developing successional weed management strategies on
rangeland. Weed Technology 10:766-773.]{.underline}

[Shinn, S. L. and D. C. Thill. 2002. The response of yellow starthistle
(]{.underline}*[Centaurea solstitialis]{.underline}*[), annual grasses,
and smooth brome (]{.underline}*[Bromus inermus]{.underline}*[) to
Imazapic and Picloram. Weed Technology 16:366-370.]{.underline}

[Smith, A. D. 1949. Effects of mule deer and livestock upon a foothill
range in northern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management
13:21-23.]{.underline}

[Stubbs, M. M. 2000. Time-based nitrogen availability and risk of
]{.underline}*[Taeniaterum caput-medusae ]{.underline}*[(L.) Nevski
invasion in central Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon.]{.underline}

[Tausch, R. J. 1999]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[. Historic woodland
development, p. 12-19. ]{.underline}*[In: ]{.underline}*[S. B. Monsen,
R. Stevens, R. J. Tausch, R. Miller, S. Goodrich (editors). 1999.
Proceedings: Ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within
the interior west. U.S. Forest Service. RMRS-P-9.]{.underline}

[Tausch, R. J. 1999]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[. Transitions and
thresholds: influences and implications for management in pinyon and
Utah juniper woodlands. Pages 61-65. i]{.underline}*[n
]{.underline}*[S.B. Monsen, R. Stevens, R. J. Tausch, R. Miller, S.
Goodrich. 1999. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper
communities within the interior west. U.S. Forest Service.
RMRS-P-9.]{.underline}

[\*Valentine, J. F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Brigham
Young University Press, Provo, Utah.]{.underline}

[Wambolt, C. L. 1996. Mule deer and elk foraging preference for 4
sagebrush taxa. Journal of Range Management 49:499-503.]{.underline}

[\*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.]{.underline}

[\*Watts, M. J. and C. L. Wambolt. 1996. Long-term recovery of Wyoming
big sagebrush after four treatments. Journal of Environmental Management
46:95-105.]{.underline}

[Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River
Plains: ecological and management implications. Pages 4-10
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D.
Smith, and P. T. Tueller (compilers). Proceedings -- symposium on
cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology
and management, Las Vegas, NV, April 5-7, 1989. U.S. Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-276, Ogden,
Utah.]{.underline}

[Whitson, T. D. (ed.). 1996. Weeds of the west, 5th edition. Western
Society of Weed Science, Newark, California.]{.underline}

[Whitson, T. D. and D. W. Koch. 1998. Control of downy brome
(]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum]{.underline}*[) with herbicides and
perennial grass competition. Weed Technology 12:391-396.]{.underline}

[\*Wrobleski, D. W. and J. B. Kauffman. 2003. Initial effects of
prescribed fire on morphology, abundance, and phenology of forbs in big
sagebrush communities in southeastern Oregon. Restoration Ecology
11:82-90.]{.underline}

[Young, J. A., and W. S. Longland. 1996. Impact of alien plants on Great
Basin rangelands. Weed Technology 10:384-391.]{.underline}

[Young, J. A., R. A. Evans, and J. J. Major. 1972. Alien plants in the
Great Basin. Journal of Range Management 25:194-201.]{.underline}

**[[Extracted
Papers]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[---]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[B]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[B. (Extracted from Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and
C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and
their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28 (4):967-985.)]{.underline}

**[Effects of habitat alteration]{.underline}**

*[Range management treatments]{.underline}*

*[ ]{.underline}[Breeding habitat]{.underline}*[. Until the early 1980s,
herbicide treatment (primarily with 2,4-D) was the most common method to
reduce sagebrush on large tracts of rangeland (Braun 1987). Klebenow
(1970) reported cessation of nesting in newly sprayed areas with \<5%
live sagebrush canopy cover. Nesting also was nearly nonexistent in
older sprayed areas containing about 5% live sagebrush cover (Klebenow
1970). In virtually all documented cases, herbicide application to
blocks of sagebrush rangeland resulted in major declines in sage grouse
breeding populations (Enyeart 1956, Higby 1969, Peterson 1970, Wallestad
1975). Effects of this treatment on sage grouse populations seemed more
severe if the treated area was subsequently seeded to crested wheatgrass
(]{.underline}*[Agropyron cristatum]{.underline}*[, Enyeart 1956).
]{.underline}

[ Using fire to reduce sagebrush has become more common since most uses
of 2,4-D on public lands were prohibited (Braun 1987). Klebenow (1972)
and Sime (1991) suggested that fire may benefit sage grouse populations.
Neither Gates (1983), Martin (1990), nor Bensen et al. (1991) reported
adverse effects of fire on breeding populations of sage grouse. In
contrast, following a 9-year study, Connelly et al. (1994,
2000]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[) indicated that prescribed burning
of Wyoming big sagebrush during a drought period resulted in a large
decline (\>80%) of a sage grouse breeding population in southeastern
Idaho. Additionally, Hulet (1983) documented loss of leks from fire and
Nelle et al. (2000) reported that burning mountain big sagebrush stands
had long-term negative impacts on sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing
habitats. Canopy cover in mountain big sagebrush did not provide
appropriate nesting habitat 14 years after burning (Nelle et al. 2000).
The impact of fire on sage grouse populations using habitats dominated
by silver sagebrush (which may resprout following fire) is unknown.
]{.underline}

[ Cheatgrass (]{.underline}*[Bromus tectrorum]{.underline}*[) will often
occupy sites following disturbance, especially burning (Valentine 1989).
Repeated burning or burning in late summer favors cheatgrass invasion
and may be a major cause of the expansion of this species (Vallentine
1989). The ultimate result may be a loss of the sage grouse population
because of long-term conversion of sagebrush habitat to rangeland
dominated by an annual exotic grass. However, this situation largely
appears confined to the western portion of the species' range and does
not commonly occur in Wyoming (J. Lawson, Wyoming Department of Game and
Fish, personal communication).]{.underline}

[ Mechanical methods of sagebrush control have often been applied to
smaller areas than those treated by herbicides or fire, especially to
convert rangeland to cropland. However, adverse effects of this type of
treatment on sage grouse breeding populations also have been documented.
In Montana, Swenson et al. (1987) indicated that the number of breeding
males declined by 73% after 16% of their study area was
plowed.]{.underline}

*[ ]{.underline}[Brood-rearing habitats]{.underline}*[. Martin (1970)
reported that sage grouse seldom used areas treated with herbicides to
remove sagebrush in southwestern Montana. In Colorado, Rogers (1964)
indicated that an entire population of sage grouse appeared to emigrate
from an area that was subjected to several years of herbicide
application to remove sagebrush. Similarly, Klebenow (1970) reported
that herbicide spraying reduced the brood-carrying capacity of an area
in southeastern Idaho. However, application of herbicides in early
spring to reduce sagebrush cover may enhance some brood-rearing habitats
by increasing the amount of herbaceous plants used for food (Autenrieth
1981).]{.underline}

[ Fire may improve sage grouse brood-rearing habitat (Klebenow 1972,
Gates 1983, Sime 1991), but until recently, experimental evidence was
not available to support or refute these contentions (Braun 1987). Pyle
and Crawford (1996) suggested that fire may enhance brood-rearing
habitat in montane settings but cautioned that its usefulness requires
further investigation. A 9-year study of the effects of fire on sage
grouse did not support that prescribed fire, conducted during late
summer in a Wyoming big sagebrush habitat, improved brood-rearing
habitat for sage grouse (Connelly et al. 1994, Fischer et al.
1996]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[). Prescribed burning of sage grouse
habitat]{.underline}

[did not increase amount of forbs in burned areas compared to unburned
areas (Fischer et al. 1996]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[, Nelle et al.
2000) and resulted in decreased insect populations in the treated area
compared to the unburned area. Thus, fire may negatively affect sage
grouse brood-rearing habitat rather than improve it in Wyoming big
sagebrush habitats (Connelly and Braun 1997), but its effect on grouse
habitats in mountain big sagebrush communities requires further
investigation (Pyle and Crawford 1996, Nelle et al. 2000).]{.underline}

[ Sage grouse often use agricultural areas for brood-rearing habitat
(Patterson 1952, Wallestad 1975, Gates 1983, Connelly et al. 1988, Blus
et al. 1989). Grouse use of these areas may result in mortality because
of exposure to insecticides. Blus et al. (1989) reported die-offs of
sage grouse that were exposed to methamidiphos used in potato fields and
dimethoate used in alfalfa fields. Dimethoate is used commonly for
alfalfa, and 20 of 31 radiomarked grouse (65%) died following direct
exposure to this insecticide (Blus et al. 1989).]{.underline}

*[ ]{.underline}[Winter habitat]{.underline}*[. Reduction in sage grouse
use of an area treated by herbicide was proportional to the severity
(i.e., amount of damage to sagebrush) of the treatment (Pyrah 1972). In
sage grouse winter range, strip partial kill, block partial kill, and
total kill of sagebrush were increasingly detrimental to sage grouse in
Montana (Pyrah 1972) and Wyoming (Higby 1969).]{.underline}

[ In Idaho, Robertson (1991) reported that a 2,000-ha prescribed burn
that removed 57% of the sagebrush cover in sage grouse winter habitat
minimally impacted the sage grouse population. Although sage grouse use
of the burned area declined following the fire, grouse adapted to this
disturbance by moving 1 to 10 km outside of the burn to areas with
greater sagebrush cover (Robertson 1991) than was available in the
burned area.]{.underline}

**[Recommended guidelines]{.underline}**

***[Breeding habitat management]{.underline}***

[ For migratory and nonmigratory populations, lek attendance, nesting,
and early brood rearing occur in breeding habitats. These habitats are
sagebrush-dominated rangelands with a healthy herbaceous understory and
are critical for survival of sage grouse populations. Mechanical
disturbance, prescribed fire, and herbicides can be used to restore sage
grouse habitats to those conditions identified as appropriate in the
following sections on habitat protection. Local biologists and range
ecologists should select the appropriate technique on a case-by-case
basis. Generally, fire should not be used in breeding habitats dominated
by Wyoming big sagebrush if these areas support sage grouse. Fire can be
difficult to control and tends to burn the best remaining nesting and
early brood-rearing habitats (i.e., those areas with the best remaining
understory), while leaving areas with poor understory. Further, we
recommend against using fire in habitats dominated by xeric mountain big
sagebrush (]{.underline}*[A. t. xericensis]{.underline}*[) because
annual grasses commonly invade these habitats and much of the original
habitat has been altered by fire (Bunting et al. 1987).]{.underline}

[ Although mining and energy development are common activities
throughout the range of sage grouse, quantitative data on the long-term
effects of these activities on sage grouse are limited. However, some
negative impacts have been documented (Braun 1998, Lyon 2000). Thus,
these activities should be discouraged in breeding habitats, but when
they are unavoidable, restoration efforts should follow procedures
outlined in these guidelines.]{.underline}

*[Habitat restoration]{.underline}*

[ 1) Before initiating vegetation treatments, quantitatively evaluate
the area proposed for treatment to ensure that it does not have
sagebrush and herbaceous cover suitable for breeding habitat (Table 3).
Treatments should not be undertaken within sage grouse habitats until
the limiting vegetation factor(s) has been identified, the proposed
treatment is known to provide the desired vegetation response, and
land-use activities can be managed after treatment to ensure that
vegetation objectives are met.]{.underline}

[ 2) Restore degraded rangelands to a condition that again provides
suitable breeding habitat for sage grouse by including sagebrush, native
forbs (especially legumes), and native grasses in reseeding efforts (Apa
1998). If native forbs and grasses are unavailable, use species that are
functional equivalents and provide habitat characteristics similar to
those of native species. ]{.underline}

[ 3) Where the sagebrush overstory is intact but the understory has been
degraded severely and quality of nesting habitat has declined (Table 3),
use appropriate techniques (e.g., brush beating in strips or patches and
interseed with native grasses and forbs) that retain some sagebrush but
open shrub canopy to encourage forb and grass growth.]{.underline}

[ 4) Do not use fire in sage grouse habitats prone to invasion by
cheatgrass and other invasive weed species unless adequate measures are
included in restoration plans to replace the cheatgrass understory with
perennial species using approved reseeding strategies. These strategies
could include, but are not limited to, use of pre-emergent herbicides
(e.g., Oust®, Plateau®) to retard cheatgrass germination until perennial
herbaceous species become established. ]{.underline}

[ 5) When restoring habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush,
regardless of the techniques used (e.g., prescribed fire, herbicides),
do not treat \>20% of the breeding habitat (including areas burned by
wildfire) within a 30-year period (Bunting et al. 1987). The 30-year
period represents the approximate recovery time for a stand of Wyoming
big sagebrush. Additional treatments should be deferred until the
previously treated area again provides suitable breeding habitat (Table
3). In some cases, this may take \<30 years and in other cases \>30
years. If 2,4-D or similar herbicides are used, they should be applied
in strips such that their effect on forbs is minimized. Because fire
generally burns the best remaining sage grouse habitats (i.e., those
with the best understory) and leaves areas with sparse understory, use
fire for habitat restoration only when it can be convincingly
demonstrated to be in the best interest of sage grouse. ]{.underline}

6\) When restoring habitats dominated by mountain big sagebrush,
regardless of the techniques used (e.g., fire, herbicides), treat \<20%
of the breeding habitat (including areas burned by wildfire) within a
20-year period (Bunting et al. 1987). The 20-year period represents the
approximate recovery time for a stand of mountain big sagebrush.
Additional treatments should be deferred until the previously treated
area again provides suitable breeding habitat (Table 3). In some cases,
this may take \<20 years and in other cases \>20 years. If 2,4- D or
similar herbicides are used, they should be applied in strips such that
their effect on forbs is minimized.

7\) All wildfires and prescribed burns should be evaluated as soon as
possible to determine whether reseeding is necessary to achieve habitat
management objectives. If needed, reseed with sagebrush, native
bunchgrasses, and forbs whenever possible.

8\) Until research unequivocally demonstrates that using tebuthiuron and
similar-acting herbicides to control sagebrush has no long-lasting
negative impacts on sage grouse habitat, use these herbicides only on an
experimental basis and over a sufficiently small area that any long-term
negative impacts are negligible. Because these herbicides have the
potential of reducing but not eliminating sagebrush cover within grouse
breeding habitats, thus stimulating herbaceous development, their use as
sage grouse habitat management tools should be examined closely.

Table 3. Characteristics of sagebrush rangeland needed for productive
sage grouse habitat.

  -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
                                               [Breeding]{.underline}                [Brood-rearing]{.underline}           [Winter]{.underline}^[e]{.underline}^                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
                                               [Height (cm)]{.underline}             [Canopy (%)]{.underline}              [Height (cm)]{.underline}               [Canopy (%)]{.underline}   [Height (cm)]{.underline}   [Canopy (%)]{.underline}
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  [Mesic sites]{.underline}^[a]{.underline}^                                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  [ Sagebrush]{.underline}                     [40-80]{.underline}                   [15-25]{.underline}                   [40-80]{.underline}                     [10-25]{.underline}        [25-35]{.underline}         [10-30]{.underline}
  [ Grass/forb]{.underline}                    [\>18]{.underline}^[c]{.underline}^   [\>25]{.underline}^[d]{.underline}^   [variable]{.underline}                  [\>15]{.underline}         [N/A ]{.underline}          [N/A]{.underline}
  [Arid sites]{.underline}^[a]{.underline}^                                                                                                                                                                               
  [ Sagebrush]{.underline}                     [30-80]{.underline}                   [15-25]{.underline}                   [40-80]{.underline}                     [10-25]{.underline}        [25-35]{.underline}         [10-30]{.underline}
  [ Grass/forb]{.underline}                    [\>18]{.underline}^[c]{.underline}^   [\>15]{.underline}                    [variable]{.underline}                  [\>15]{.underline}         [N/A]{.underline}           [N/A]{.underline}
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  [Area]{.underline}^[b]{.underline}^          [\>80]{.underline}                    [\>40]{.underline}                    [\>80]{.underline}                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------

^[a]{.underline}^[ Mesic and arid sites should be defined on a local
basis; annual precipitation, herbaceous understory, and soils should be
considered (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981, Hironaka et al. 1983).
]{.underline}^[\ ]{.underline}^

^[b]{.underline}^[ Percentage of seasonal habitat needed with indicated
conditions. ]{.underline}

^[c]{.underline}^[ Measured as "droop height"; the highest naturally
growing portion of the plant. ]{.underline}

^[d]{.underline}^[ Coverage should exceed 15% for perennial grasses and
10% for forbs; values should be substantially greater if most sagebrush
has a growth form that provides little lateral cover (Schroeder
1995).]{.underline}

^[e]{.underline}^[ Values for height and canopy coverage are for shrubs
exposed above snow.]{.underline}

***[Summer]{.underline}**[--]{.underline}**[late brood-rearing habitat
management]{.underline}***

[ Sage grouse may use a variety of habitats, including meadows,
farmland, dry lake beds, sagebrush, and riparian zones from late June to
early November (Patterson 1952, Wallestad 1975, Connelly 1982, Hanf et
al. 1994). Generally, these habitats are characterized by relatively
moist conditions and many succulent forbs in or adjacent to sagebrush
cover.]{.underline}

*[Habitat restoration]{.underline}*

[ 1) Use brush beating or other mechanical treatments in strips 4--8 m
wide in areas with relatively high shrub-canopy cover (\>35% total shrub
cover) to improve late brood-rearing habitats. Brush beating can be used
to effectively create different age classes of sagebrush in large areas
with little age diversity.]{.underline}

[ 2) If brush beating is impractical, use fire or herbicides to create a
mosaic of openings in mountain big sagebrush and mixed-shrub communities
used as late brood-rearing habitats where total shrub cover is \>35%.
Generally, 10--20% canopy cover of sagebrush and \<25% total shrub cover
will provide adequate habitat for sage grouse during
summer.]{.underline}

[ 3) Construct water developments for sage grouse only in or adjacent to
known summer-use areas and provide escape ramps suitable for all avian
species and other small animals. Water developments and "guzzlers" may
improve sage grouse summer habitats (Autenrieth et al. 1982, Hanf et al.
1994). However, sage grouse used these developments infrequently in
southeastern Idaho because most were constructed in sage grouse winter
and breeding habitat rather than summer range (Connelly and Doughty
1989).]{.underline}

[ 4) Whenever possible, modify developed springs and other water sources
to restore natural free flowing water and wet meadow
habitats.]{.underline}

***[Winter habitat management]{.underline}***

*[ ]{.underline}*[Sagebrush is the essential component of winter
habitat. Sage grouse select winter-use sites based on snow depth and
topography, and snowfall can affect the amount and height of sagebrush
available to grouse (Connelly 1982, Hupp and Braun 1989, Robertson
1991). Thus, on a landscape scale, sage grouse winter habitats should
allow grouse access to sagebrush under all snow conditions (Table
3).]{.underline}

*[Habitat restoration]{.underline}*

[ 1) Reseed former winter range with the appropriate subspecies of
sagebrush and herbaceous species unless the species are recolonizing the
area in a density that would allow recovery (Table 3) within 15
years.]{.underline}

[ 2) Discourage prescribed burns \>50 ha, and do not burn \>20% of an
area used by sage grouse during winter within any 20--30-year interval
(depending on estimated recovery time for the sagebrush
habitat).]{.underline}

**[Literature cited]{.underline}**

[AUTENRIETH, R. E. 1981. Sage grouse management in Idaho. Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Bulletin 9, Boise, Idaho,
USA.]{.underline}

[AUTENRIETH, R. E., W. MOLINI, AND C. E. BRAUN. 1982. Sage grouse
management practices. Western States Sage Grouse Committee, Technical
Bulletin 1, Twin Falls, Idaho, USA.]{.underline}

[BENSON, L. A., C. E. BRAUN, AND W. C. LEININGER. 1991. Sage grouse
response to burning in the big sagebrush type. Proceedings, issues and
technology in the management of impacted western wildlife. Thorne
Ecological Institute 5:97--104.]{.underline}

[[Blus, L. J., C. S. Staley, C. J. Henny, G. W. Pendleton, T. H. Craig,
E. H. Craig, and D. K. HALFORD]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[. 1989. Effects
of organophosphorus insecticides on sage grouse in southeastern Idaho.
Journal of Wildlife Management 53:1139--1146.]{.underline}

[BRAUN, C. E. 1987. Current issues in sage grouse management.
Proceedings of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
67:134--144.]{.underline}

[BRAUN, C. E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what
are the problems? Proceedings of the Western Association of State Fish
and Wildlife Agencies 78:139--156.]{.underline}

[BUNTING, S. C., B. M. KILGORE, AND C. L. BUSHEY. 1987. Guidelines for
prescribed burning sagebrush-grass rangelands in the northern great
basin. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General
Technical Report INT-231, Ogden, Utah, USA.]{.underline}

[CONNELLY, J. W., JR. 1982. An ecological study of sage grouse in
southeastern Idaho. Dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman,
USA.]{.underline}

[CONNELLY, J. W., AND C. E. BRAUN. 1997. Long-term changes in sage
grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus
]{.underline}*[populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology
3/4:123--128.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[CONNELLY, J. W., AND L. A. DOUGHTY. 1989. Sage grouse use of wildlife
water developments in southeastern Idaho. Pages 167--173
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[S. Stiver and G. Tsukomoto, editors.
Symposium on wildlife water developments. Nevada Department of Fish and
Game, Reno, USA.]{.underline}

[CONNELLY, J. W., K. P. REESE, R. A. FISCHER, ANDW. L. WAKKINEN.
2000]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[. Response of sage grouse breeding
population to fire in southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Society Bulletin
28:90--96.]{.underline}

[CONNELLY, J. W., K. P. REESE, W. L. WAKKINEN, M. D. ROBERTSON, AND R.
A. FISCHER. 1994. Sage grouse ecology report. Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, Job Completion Report W-160-R-19, Subproject 9, Boise, Idaho,
USA.]{.underline}

[ENYEART, G. 1956. Responses of sage grouse to grass reseeding in the
Pines area, Garfield County, Utah. Thesis, Utah State Agricultural
College, Logan, USA.]{.underline}

[FISCHER, R. A., K. P. REESE, AND J. W. CONNELLY.
1996]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[. An investigation on fire effects
within xeric sage grouse brood habitat. Journal of Range Management
49:194--198.]{.underline}

[GATES, R. J. 1983. Sage grouse, lagomorph, and pronghorn use of a
sagebrush grassland burn site on the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, USA.]{.underline}

[HANF, J. M., P. A. SCHMIDT, AND E. B. GROSHENS. 1994. Sage grouse in
the high desert of central Oregon: results of a study, 1988--1993.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Series
P-SG-01, Prineville, Oregon, USA.]{.underline}

[HIGBY, L. W. 1969. A summary of the Longs Creek sagebrush control
project. Proceedings, Biennial Western States Sage Grouse Workshop
6:164--168.]{.underline}

[HULET, B. V. 1983. Selected responses of sage grouse to prescribed
fire, predation, and grazing by domestic sheep in southeastern Idaho.
Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.]{.underline}

[HUPP, J. W., AND C. E. BRAUN. 1989. Topographic distribution of sage
grouse foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management
53:823--829.]{.underline}

[KLEBENOW, D. A. 1970. Sage grouse versus sagebrush control in Idaho.
Journal of Range Management 23:396--400.]{.underline}

[KLEBENOW, D. A. 1972. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and the
role of fire in management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference
12:305--315.]{.underline}

[LYON, A.G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on
sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[)
near Pinedale, Wyoming. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie,
USA.]{.underline}

[MARTIN, N. S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage
grouse occurrence. Journal of Wildlife Management
34:313--320.]{.underline}

[MARTIN, R. C. 1990. Sage grouse responses to wildfire in spring and
summer habitats. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[NELLE, P. J. , K. P. REESE, AND J. W. CONNELLY. 2000. The long-term
effect of fire on sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats on the
Upper Snake River Plain. Journal of Range Management
53:586--591.]{.underline}

[PATTERSON, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Denver,
Colorado, USA.]{.underline}

[PETERSON, J. G. 1970. The food habits and summer distribution of
juvenile sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
34:147--155.]{.underline}

[PYLE, W. H., AND J. A. CRAWFORD. 1996. Availability of foods of sage
grouse chicks following prescribed fire in sagebrush--bitterbrush.
Journal of Range Management 49:320--324.]{.underline}

[PYRAH, D. B. 1972. Effects of chemical and mechanical sagebrush control
on sage grouse. Montana Fish and Game Department, Job Completion Report
W-105-R-6, Helena, USA.]{.underline}

[ROBERTSON, M. D. 1991. Winter ecology of migratory sage grouse and
associated effects of prescribed fire in southeastern Idaho. Thesis,
University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[ROGERS, G. E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colorado
Game, Fish, and Parks Department, Technical Publication 16, Denver,
Colorado, USA.]{.underline}

[SIME, C. A. 1991. Sage grouse use of burned, non-burned, and seeded
vegetation communities on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
Idaho. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, USA.]{.underline}

[SWENSON, J. E., C. A. SIMMONS, AND C. D. EUSTACE. 1987. Decrease of
sage grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus
]{.underline}*[after plowing of sagebrush steppe. Biological
Conservation 41:125--132.]{.underline}

[VALLENTINE, J. F. 1989. Range development and improvements. Third
edition. Academic, San Diego, California, USA.]{.underline}

[WALLESTAD, R. O. 1975. Life history and habitat requirements of sage
grouse in central Montana. Montana Fish and Game Department, Technical
Bulletin, Helena, USA.]{.underline}

**[[Contact Information]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**[Jenny Barnett ]{.underline}**[Handford Reach National Monument/Saddle
Mountain NWR, 3250 Port of Benton Blvd., Richland, WA 99352
]{.underline}

**[Erik A. Beever ]{.underline}**[USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 ]{.underline}

**[Clait E. Braun]{.underline}**[ Grouse Inc., 5572 N Ventana Rd.,
Tucson AZ 85750; 520-529-0365 (office & fax); ]{.underline}

**[Joe Brummer]{.underline}**[ Colorado State University, Mountain
Meadows Research Center \-- College Heights, Gunnison, CO 81230; (970)
641-2515 ]{.underline}

**[Tom Christiansen ]{.underline}**[Sage-Grouse Program Coordinator
Wyoming Game and Fish Dept., 351 Astle Ave., Green River, WY 82935
]{.underline}

**[Michelle Commons-Kemner]{.underline}**[ Senior Wildlife Research
Biologist, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 3101 S. Powerline Road,
Nampa, Idaho 83686 ]{.underline}

**[John W. Connelly ]{.underline}**[ Idaho Department Fish and Game, 83
W 215 N, Blackfoot, ID 83221 ]{.underline}

**[Robert D. Cox ]{.underline}**[ Botany and Plant Science Dept., Univ.
Calif. Riverside, Riverside, CA 92507.]{.underline}

**[Rick Danvir ]{.underline}**[Wildlife Manager, Deseret Land Livestock,
Woodruff, UT 84806.]{.underline}

**[Sean Finn ]{.underline}**[ USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem Science
Center, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706
]{.underline}

**[Scott Gardner ]{.underline}**[California Department of Game and Fish,
Wildlife Programs Branch, 1812 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
]{.underline}

**[Edward O. Garton ]{.underline}**[Professor Fish and Wildlife
Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136 ]{.underline}

**[Michael Gregg ]{.underline}**[ Land Management and Research
Demonstration Biologist, Hanford Reach National Monument and Saddle
Mountain National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3720
Port of Benton Blvd. Richland, WA 99352 Mike_Gregg@.fws.gov
]{.underline}

**[Steven Hanser ]{.underline}**[ USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706
]{.underline}

**[M. A. Hemstrom]{.underline}**[ U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208,
U.S.A.]{.underline}**[ ]{.underline}**

**[Alison Holloran (Lyon) ]{.underline}**[Wyoming Audubon 168 N. Cedar
Street Laramie, WY 82072 ]{.underline}

**[Matthew J. Holloran ]{.underline}**[Wyoming Cooperative Research
Unit, University of Wyoming, Box 3166 University Station, Laramie, WY
82071-3166 ]{.underline}

**[Steven T. Knick ]{.underline}**[ USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St., Boise, ID 83706
]{.underline}

**[D. W. Koch]{.underline}**[ Plant Sciences and Extension Weeds, IPM
Spec. /Extension Forage Spec., University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071,
United States.]{.underline}

**[Matthias Leu ]{.underline}**[ USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706
]{.underline}

**[T. McLendon]{.underline}**[ Dep. Range Sci., Colorado State Univ.,
Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA.]{.underline}

**[Cara Meinke ]{.underline}**[ USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706
]{.underline}

**[Rick Miller ]{.underline}**[ Oregon State University, 67826-A Hwy
205, Burns, OR ]{.underline}

**[Rick Northrup ]{.underline}**[State Bird Coordinator Montana Fish,
Wildlife & Parks, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, MT 59620- 0701 ]{.underline}

**[R. A. Olson]{.underline}**[ Department of Renewable Resources ,
University of Wyoming, P. O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071, U.S.A.
]{.underline}

**[Sara Oyler-McCance]{.underline}**[ Rocky Mountain Center for
Conservation Genetics and Systematics, USGS Department of Biological
Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208 ]{.underline}

**[David Pyke ]{.underline}**[ USGS, Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 ]{.underline}

**[Tom W. Quinn ]{.underline}**[Associate Professor, Department of
Biological Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208 Co-director,
Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation Genetics and Systematics
]{.underline}

**[Kerry P. Reese ]{.underline}**[ Department of Fish and Wildlife
Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843 ]{.underline}

**[E. Thomas Rinkes ]{.underline}**[Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box
589, Lander, WY 82520 ]{.underline}

**[Mary M. Rowland ]{.underline}**[ Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest
Service, PNW Research Station Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory,
1401 Gekeler Lane ,La Grande, OR 97850 ]{.underline}

**[Rick Schnaderbeck]{.underline}**[ U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge, 9383 El Rancho Lane Alamosa, CO
81101; (719) 852-0124; ]{.underline}

**[Michael A. Schroeder]{.underline}**[ Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife P.O. Box 1077 Bridgeport, WA 98813 509-686-2692 (office &
home) 509-670-8838 (cell); ; ]{.underline}

**[Linda Schueck ]{.underline}**[ USGS Forest & Rangeland Ecosystem
Science Center, Snake River Field Station, 970 Lusk St., Boise, ID 83706
]{.underline}

**[John Scott]{.underline}**[ Natural Resources Conservation Service,
216 North Colorado St., Gunnison, CO 81230; (970) 642-4462;
]{.underline}

**[San J. Stiver ]{.underline}**[ Wildlife Coordinator, National
Sage-Grouse Conservation Framework Planning Team, 2184 Richard St.,
Prescott, AZ 86301 stiver@cableone.net ]{.underline}

**[Sonja E. Taylor ]{.underline}**[Rocky Mountain Center for
Conservation Genetics and Systematics, Department of Biological
Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208 ]{.underline}

**[C. L. Wambolt]{.underline}**[ Dep. Animal and Range Sciences, Montana
State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717, USA]{.underline}**[. ]{.underline}**

**[Thomas D. Whitson ]{.underline}**[Dept. Of Plant Sciences, Univ.
Wyoming, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071, U.S.A.]{.underline}

**[Troy A. Wirth]{.underline}**[ Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC, 1180 Town
Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89144, USA, ]{.underline}

**[Michael J. Wisdom]{.underline}**[ Research Wildlife Biologist,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR
97850 ]{.underline}

**[D. W. Wrobleski]{.underline}**[ Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Oregon State University, 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, U.S.A.,
]{.underline}

**[[Online Resources]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[A GIS Database for Sage Grouse and Shrubsteppe Management in the
Intermountain West ]{.underline}

[Sage Grouse Conservation Project--Team Resources ]{.underline}

[Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern
California--June 2004. ]{.underline}

[Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Management Considerations for
Sagebrush (Artemesia) in the Western United States - Version 1.0: A
selective summary of current information about the ecology and biology
of woody North American sagebrush taxa. Bureau of Land Management.
Washington, D.C. 73 pp.]{.underline}

[Draft B.M. Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy ]{.underline}

[Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing
sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western
Working Group. Boise, ID. 52 pp.]{.underline}

[Wyoming of Game and Fish Department. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 97
pp.]{.underline}B.M. Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy Team.
2003. DRAFT B.M. Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Bureau of
Land Management. Boise, ID. 35 pp

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in
Montana--Final Draft Plan and/or

Rowland, M. M., and M. J. Wisdom. 2002. Bibliography of sage-grouse
(*Centrocercus* *urophasianus* and *C. minimus*). 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. 97
pp.Rowland, M. M., and M. J. Wisdom. 2002. PROCITE DATABASE:
Bibliography of sage-grouse (*Centrocercus* *urophasianus* and *C.
minimus*). 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.

Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Management Considerations for Sagebrush
(Artemesia) in the Western United States - Version 1.0: A selective
summary of current information about the ecology and biology of woody
North American sagebrush taxa. Bureau of Land Management. Washington,
D.C. 73 pp.

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.

Rowland, M. M., L. H. Suring, M. J. Wisdom, L. Schueck, R. J. Tausch, R.
F. Miller, C. Wolff Meinke, S. T. Knick, and B. C. Wales. 2003. Summary
results for B.M. Field Offices in Nevada from a regional assessment of
habitats for species of conservation concern. 66 pp. Unpublished report
on file at: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.

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
Policy Paper SG-02-02. Caldwell, ID. 23 pp.

Torell, L. A., J. A. Tanaka, N. Rimbey, T. Darden, L. Van Tassell, and
A. Harp. 2002. Ranch-Level Impacts of Changing Grazing Policies on B.M.
Land to Protect the Greater Sage-Grouse : Evidence from Idaho, Nevada
and Oregon. Policy Analysis Center for Western Public Lands Policy Paper
SG-01-02. Caldwell, ID. 23 pp.

**[[References Specific to Gunnison
Sage-Grouse]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[American Ornithologists\' Union. 2000. Forty-second supplement to the
American Ornithologists\' Union]{.underline}*[ Checklist of North
American Birds]{.underline}*[. Auk 117:847-858.]{.underline}

[Anonymous. 1997. Gunnison sage grouse conservation plan, Gunnison
Basin, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.
]{.underline}

[Braun, C. E. and Young, J. R. 1995. A new species of Sage Grouse in
Colorado. Wilson Ornithological Society, Williamsburg,
Virginia.]{.underline}

[Braun C.E. 1998. Sage Grouse Declines in Western North America. What
are the Problems? Proc Western Assoc. State Fish and Will. Agencies
78:139-156.]{.underline}

[Commons, M. L. 1997. Movement and habitat use by Gunnison Sage Grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus minimus]{.underline}*[) in southwestern
Colorado. M. S. thesis. Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg.]{.underline}

[Commons, M. L., R. K. Baydack, and C. E. Braun. 1997. Gunnison Sage
Grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus minimus ]{.underline}*[use of
fragmented habitats in southwestern Colorado. Wildlife Biology 3:283.
]{.underline}

[Crawford, J. A. 1993. Reproductive behavior of Gunnison sage grouse: Do
mating barriers exist? C. E. Braun, compiler. Proceedings of the 1st
Joint Meeting: 20th Prairie Grouse Technical Council Meeting and 18th
Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Workshop, Fort
Collins, Colorado. ]{.underline}

[Emslie, S. D. 1986. Late pleistocene vertebrates from Gunnison County,
Colorado. Journal of Paleontology 60:170-176. ]{.underline}

[Higgins, L. A., J. A. Hill, J. R. Young, and R. D. Howard. 1997. Female
social behaviour on Sage Grouse
]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[ leks in the Gunnison Basin,
Colorado, USA. Wildlife Biology 3:275. ]{.underline}

[Hupp, J. W. 1987. Winter distribution, foraging ecology, and habitat
use of sage grouse in the Gunnison Basin, Colorado. J. Roberson, editor.
Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Western States Sage Grouse Workshop.
Midway, UT; 28-30 July, 1987. ]{.underline}

[Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1989. Endogenous reserves of adult male
Sage Grouse during courtship. Condor 91:266-271. ]{.underline}

[Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1989. Topographic distribution of Sage
Grouse foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:823-829.
]{.underline}

[Hupp, J. W. and C. E. Braun 1991. Geographical variation among Sage
Grouse populations in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin
103:255-261.]{.underline}

[Kahn, N. W., C.E. Braun, J. R. Young, S. Wood, D. R. Mata, and T. W.
Quinn. 1999. Molecular analysis of genetic variation among large-and
small-bodied Sage Grouse using mitochondrial control-region sequences.
Auk 116: 819-824.]{.underline}

[Madge, S., P. McGowan, and G. M. Kirwan. 2002. Gunnison Sage Grouse .
Pages 381 ]{.underline}*[in]{.underline}*[ No.185
]{.underline}*[in]{.underline}*[ Pheasants, partridges, and grouse: a
guide to the pheasants, partridges, quails, grouse, guineafowl,
buttonquails, and sandgrouse of the world. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.]{.underline}

[Oyler-McCance, S. J. 1999. Genetic and habitat factors underlying
conservation strategies for Gunnison Sage Grouse. Ph.D. dissertation.
Colorado State University. 162 pages.]{.underline}

[Oyler-McCance S. J., N. W. Kahn, K. P. Burnham, C. E. Braun and T. W.
Quinn. 1999. A population genetic comparison of large- and small-bodied
Sage Grouse in Colorado using microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA
markers. Molecular Ecology 8: 1457-1466.]{.underline}

[Oyler-McCance, S. J., K. P. Burnham, and C. E. Braun. 2001. Influences
of changes in sagebrush on Gunnison Sage Grouse in Southwestern
Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist 46(3):323-331. ]{.underline}

[Schroeder, M. A. 2000. Population dynamics of greater and Gunnison
sage-grouse: a review. Job Progress Report, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Upland Bird Research. ]{.underline}

[Schroeder, M. A. 2001. Population dynamics of northern and Gunnison
Sage Grouse. Pages 3-6 ]{.underline}*[in]{.underline}*[ 54th Annual
Meeting of the Society for Range Management, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 17-23
Feb 2001. (World Meeting Number 011 0211). ]{.underline}

[Storch, Illse (2000). Grouse Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan
2000-2004. WPA/Birdlife SSC Grouse Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland.
Switzerland and Cambridge. 112 pp.]{.underline}

[Vehrencamp, S. L., J. W. Bradbury and R. M. Gibson. 1989. The energetic
cost of display in male Sage Grouse. Anim. Behaviour 38:
885-896.]{.underline}

[Young, J. R. 1993. Reproductive behavior of Gunnison Sage Grouse: Do
mating barriers exist? Pages 21 ]{.underline}*[in]{.underline}*[
Proceedings of the 1st Joint Meeting: 20th Prairie Grouse Technical
Council Meeting and18th Western States Sage/Columbian Sharp-Tailed
Grouse Workshop, Fort Collins, Colorado. ]{.underline}

[Young, J. R. 1994. The influence of sexual selection on phenotypic and
genetic divergence among Sage Grouse populations. Ph.D. dissertation.
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 123 pages.]{.underline}

[Young, J. R., Hupp, J. W., Bradbury, J. W., and Braun, C.E. 1994.
Pheontypic divergence of secondary sexual traits among Sage Grouse
populations. Animal Behaviour 47:1353-1362.]{.underline}

[Young, J. R. 1994. The influence of sexual selection on phenotypic and
genetic divergence of Sage Grouse. Ph.D. dissertation. Purdue
University, IN, USA.]{.underline}

[Young, J. R., Braun, C. E., Oyler-McCance, S. J., Hupp, J. W., and T.
W. Quinn. A new species of Sage-Grouse from Southwestern Colorado.
Wilson Bulletin 112(4):445-453.]{.underline}

**[[References]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[---]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Sage-Grouse
Habitat Restoration]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[\*Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle, and R. Pontanier.
1993. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and
semi-arid lands. I. A view from the south. Restoration Ecology
1:8-17.]{.underline}

**[\*]{.underline}**[Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and
C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and
their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985]{.underline}

[\*Cox, R. D. and V. J. Anderson. 2004. Increasing native diversity of
cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assisted succession . Journal of
Range Management 57:203-210.]{.underline}

[\*Crawford, J. A, R. A. Olsen, 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.]{.underline}

[\*Dahlgren, D. 2004. Sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat manipulation,
sage-grouse use, and lagomorph herbivory, after two field seasons.
24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ Meeting of the Western agencies Sage
and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, Wenatchee, WA, 28
June--1 July, 2004. Abstract.]{.underline}

[\*Danvir, R. E. 2002. Sage-Grouse ecology and management in northern
Utah sagebrush-steppe. A Deseret Land and Livestock Wildlife Research
Report, 2002. Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch and The Utah Foundation
for Qualtiy Resource Management (QRM).]{.underline}

[\*Dunne, R. 1999. Common difficulties encountered in collecting native
seed. Pages 28-29 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[L. K. Holzworth and
R.W. Brown (compilers). Proceedings -- Revegetation with native species,
1997 Society for Ecological Restoration annual meeting, 1997 November
12-15; Fort Lauderdale, FL. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Proceedings RMRS-P-8, Ogden Utah.]{.underline}

[\*Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, W. J. Hann, M. M. Rowland, B. C.
Wales, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. Sagebrush-Steppe vegetation dynamics
and restoration potential in the Interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A.
Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255.]{.underline}

[\*McArthur, T. O. 2004. Emergency fire rehabilitation of B.M. lands in
the Great Basin: revegetation and monitoring. M.S. thesis. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon.]{.underline}

[\*McLendon, T. and E. F. Redente. 1990. Succession patterns following
soil disturbance in a sagebrush steppe community. Oecologia
85:293-300.]{.underline}

[\*Monsen, S. B., P. Motley, and B. Welch. 2004. Restoration of
sagebrush communities following mechanical treatments of pinyon-juniper
woodlands. 24]{.underline}^[th]{.underline}^[ Meeting of the Western
agencies Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee,
Wenatchee, WA, 28 June--1 July, 2004. Abstract.]{.underline}

[\*Olsen R. A., J. K. Gores, D. T. Booth, and G. E. Schuman. 2000.
Suitability of shrub establishment on Wyoming mined lands reclaimed for
wildlife habitat. Western North American Naturalist
60:77-92.]{.underline}

[\*Olson, R.A. and T. D. Whitson. 2002. Restoring structure in
late-successional sagebrush communities by thinning with tebuthiuron.
Restoration Ecology 10:146-155.]{.underline}

[\*Pellant, M. 2003. The Great Basin Restoration Initiative: challenges
and tools to restore a desert landscape in the western United States.
Pages 1241-1243 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N. Allsopp, A. R.
Palmer, S. J. Milton, K. P. Kirkman, G. I. H. Kerley, and C. R. Hurt
(eds.). Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangelands Congress, 26th
July-1st August 2003, Durban, South Africa. Document Transformation
Technologies, Irene, South Africa.]{.underline}

[Pyke, D. A. and J. E. Herrick. 2003. Transitions in rangeland
evaluations: a review of the major transitions in rangeland evaluations
during the last 25 years and speculation about future evaluations.
Rangelands 25:22-30.]{.underline}

[\*Pyke, D.A., and S.T. Knick. 2003. Plant invaders, global change, and
landscape restoration. Pages 278-288 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N.
Allsopp, A.R. Palmer, S.J. Milton, K.P. Kirkman, G. I. H. Kerley and
C.R. Hurt, editors. Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangelands
Congress, 26th July-1st August 2003, Durban, South Africa. Document
Transformation Technologies, Irene South Africa.]{.underline}

[\*Pyke, D. A. and T. O. McArthur, K. S. Harrison, and M. Pellant. 2003.
Coordinated intermountain restoration project: fire, decomposition and
restoration. Pages 1116-1124 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N.
Allsopp, A. R. Palmer, S. J. Milton, K. P. Kirkman, G. I. H. Kerley and
C. R. Hurt (eds). Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangelands
Congress, 26th July-1st August 2003, Durban, South Africa. Document
Transformation Technologies, Irene, South Africa.]{.underline}

[\*Valentine, J. F. 1971. Range development and improvements. Brigham
Young University Press, Provo, Utah.]{.underline}

[\*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.]{.underline}

[\*Watts, M. J. and C. L. Wambolt. 1996. Long-term recovery of Wyoming
big sagebrush after four treatments. Journal of Environmental Management
46:95-105.]{.underline}

[Whitson, T. D. (ed.). 1996. Weeds of the west, 5th edition. Western
Society of Weed Science, Newark, California.]{.underline}

[Whitson, T. D. and D. W. Koch. 1998. Control of downy brome
(]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum]{.underline}*[) with herbicides and
perennial grass competition. Weed Technology 12:391-396.]{.underline}

[\*Wilson, G. 2000. Sage grouse use of burns and range seedings in Rich
county, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Research
Report.]{.underline}

[\*Wirth, Troy A. And D. A. Pyke. 2003. Restoring forbs for sage grouse
habitat: Fire, microsites, and establishment methods. Restoration
Ecology 11:370-377.]{.underline}

[\*Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, B. C. Wales, M. A. Hemstrom, W. J.
Hann, M. C. Raphael, R. S. Holthausen, R. A. Gravenmier, and T. D. Rich.
2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe restoration on Greater
sage-grouse in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology
16):1223-1231.]{.underline}

[\*Wrobleski, D. W. and J. B. Kauffman. 2003. Initial effects of
prescribed fire on morphology, abundance, and phenology of forbs in big
sagebrush communities in southeastern Oregon. Restoration Ecology
11:82-90.]{.underline}

**[[References]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[---]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Sage-Grouse
Habitat Characteristics]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

**[\*]{.underline}**[Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and
S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and
Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.]{.underline}

[Aldridge, C.L. 2000. Reproduction and habitat use by sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[)in a northern
fringe population. M.S. Thesis, University of Regina, Regina,
SK.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Apa, A. D. 1998. Habitat use and movements of sympatric sage and
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern Idaho. Dissertation,
University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[Back, G. N., M. R. Barrington, and J. K. McAdoo. 1987. Sage grouse use
of snow burrows in northeastern Nevada. Wilson Bulletin
99:488-490.]{.underline}

[Barnett, J. K., and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of sage
grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range Management
47:114-118.]{.underline}

[Beck, J. L., and D. L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing
on sage grouse habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin
28:993-1002.]{.underline}

[Beck, T. D. I. 1975. Attributes of a wintering population of sage
grouse, North Park, Colorado. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, USA.]{.underline}

[Beck, T. D. I. 1977. Sage grouse flock characteristics and habitat
selection in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management
41:18-26.]{.underline}

[Berry, J. D., and R. L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and fidelity
to seasonal use areas by female sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife
Management 49:237-240.]{.underline}

[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 53:1139-1146.]{.underline}

[Bradbury, J. W., S. L. Vehrencamp, and R. M. Gibson. 1989. Dispersion
of displaying male sage grouse - I. patterns of temporal variation.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:1-14.]{.underline}

[Braun, C. E. 1986. Changes in sage grouse lek counts with advent of
surface coal mining. Proceedings of Issues and Technology in the
Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. Thorn Ecological Institute
2:227-231.]{.underline}

[Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. S. 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.]{.underline}

[Braun, C. E., and T. D. I. Beck. 1996. Effects of research on sage
grouse management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 61:429- 436.]{.underline}

[Braun, C. E., T. E. Britt, and R. O. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for
maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin
5:99-106.]{.underline}

[Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas
development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe fauna
with particular emphasis on sage grouse. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference
67:337-349.]{.underline}

[Bunting, S. C., J. L. Kingery, M. A. Hemstrom, M. A. Schroeder, R. A.
Gravenmier, and W. J.]{.underline}

[Hann. 2002. Altered rangeland ecosystems in the interior Columbia
Basin. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
General Technical Report PNWGTR- 553. Portland, OR.]{.underline}

[Byrne, M. W. 2002. Habitat use by female greater sage-grouse in
relation to fire at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon.
Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.]{.underline}

[Carr, H. D., and F. A. Glover. 1970. Effects of sagebrush control on
sage grouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference 35:205-215.]{.underline}

[Coggins, K. A. 1998. Relationship between habitat changes and
productivity of sage grouse at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge,
Oregon. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., Jr. 1982. An ecological study of sage grouse in
southeastern Idaho. Dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman,
USA.]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., W. J. Arthur, and O. D. Markham. 1981. Sage grouse
leks on recently disturbed sites. Journal of Range Management
34:153-154.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., and L. A. Doughty. 1989. Sage grouse use of wildlife
water developments in southeastern Idaho. Pages 167-172 in G. K.
Tsukamoto and S. J. Striver, editors. Wildlife water development: a
proceedings of the wildlife water development symposium. Nevada
Department of Fish and Game, Reno, Nevada, USA.]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., and O. D. Markham. 1983. Movements and radio nuclide
concentrations of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife
Management 47:169-177.]{.underline}

[\*Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring
of greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. College of Natural
Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 80, College of Natural Resources,
University of Idaho, Moscow, USA. ]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., W. L. Wakkinen, A. D. Apa, and K. P. Reese. 1991. Sage
grouse use of nest sites in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife
Management 55:521-524.]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun.
2000]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[. Guidelines to manage sage grouse
populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin
28:967-985.]{.underline}

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

**[\*]{.underline}**[Crawford, J. A., R. A. Olson, N. E. West, J. C.
Moseley, 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.]{.underline}

[Dalke, P. D., D. B. Pyrah, D. C. Stanton, J. E. Crawford, and E. F.
Schlatterer. 1960. Seasonal movements and breeding behavior of sage
grouse in Idaho. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference
25:396-406.]{.underline}

[Dalke, P. D., D. B. Pyrah, D. C. Stanton, J. E. Crawford, and E. F.
Schlatterer. 1963. Ecology, productivity, and management of sage grouse
in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:811-841.]{.underline}

[DeLong, A. K., J. A. Crawford, and D. C. DeLong. 1995. Relationship
between vegetational structure and predation of artificial sage grouse
nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:88-92.]{.underline}

[Dingman, J.D. 1980. Characteristics of sage grouse leks, North Park,
Colorado. Thesis, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado,
USA.]{.underline}

[Drut, M. S., J. A. Crawford, and M. A. Gregg.
1994]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[. Brood habitat use by sage grouse in
Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 54:170-176.]{.underline}

[Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford.
1994]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[. Diets and food selection of sage
grouse chicks in Oregon. Journal of Range Management
47:90-93.]{.underline}

[Dunn, P. O., and C. E. Braun. 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female
and juvenile sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management
50:229-235.]{.underline}

[Ellis, K. L. 1985. Distribution and habitat selection of breeding male
sage grouse in northeastern Utah. Thesis, Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah, USA. ]{.underline}

[Ellis, K. L., J. R. Murphy, and G. H. Richins. 1987. Distribution of
breeding male sage grouse in northeastern Utah. Western Birds
18:117-121.]{.underline}

[Ellis, K. L., J. R. Parish, J. R. Murphy, and G. H. Richins. 1989.
Habitat use by breeding male sage grouse: a management approach. Great
Basin Naturalist 49:404-407.]{.underline}

[Eng, R. L. 1952. A two-summer study of the effects on bird populations
of chlordane bait andaldrin spray as used for grasshopper control.
Journal of Wildlife Management 16:326- 337.]{.underline}

[Eng, R. L., and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter movements and
habitat use in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
36:141-146.]{.underline}

[Evans, C. C. 1986. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage-grouse
use of meadow habitat on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Thesis,
University of Nevada, Reno, USA.]{.underline}

[Fischer, R. A. 1994. The effects of prescribed fire on the ecology of
migratory sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Thesis, University of
Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[Fischer, R. A., A. D. Apa, W. L. Wakkinen, and K. P. Reese. 1993.
Nesting-area fidelity of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Condor
95:1038-1041.]{.underline}

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

[Fischer, R. A., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly.
1996]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[. Influence of vegetal moisture
content and nest fate on timing of female sage grouse migration. Condor
98:868-872.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Gates, R. J. 1983. Sage-grouse, lagomorph, and pronghorn use of a
sagebrush grassland burn site on the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, USA.]{.underline}

[Gates, R. J. 1985. Observations of the formation of a sage grouse lek.
Wilson Bulletin 97:219-221.]{.underline}

[Gibson, R. M. 1996. A re-evaluation of hotspot settlement in lekking
sage grouse. Animal Behaviour 52:993-1005.]{.underline}

[Gill, R. B. 1965. Distribution and abundance of a population of sage
grouse in North Park, Colorado. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, USA.]{.underline}

[Gill, R. B., and F. A. Glover. 1965. Daily and seasonal movements of
sage grouse. Colorado Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Technical Paper
3. Fort Collins, USA. Presented at the 46th annual meeting of the Wilson
Ornithological Society.]{.underline}

[Griner, L. A. 1939. A study of sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) with reference to life history, habitat
requirements, and numbers and distribution. Thesis, Utah State
Agriculture College, Logan, USA.]{.underline}

[Gregg, M. A. 1991. Use and selection of nesting habitat by sage grouse
in Oregon. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.]{.underline}

[Gregg, M. A., J. A. Crawford, and M. S. Drut. 1993. Summer habitat use
and selection by female sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist.
53:293-298.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Hanf, J. M., P. A. Schmidt, and E. B. Groshens. 1994. Sage grouse in
the high desert of central Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville,
Oregon, USA.]{.underline}

[Hausleitner, D. 2003. Population dynamics, habitat use and movements of
greater sage-grouse in Moffat County, Colorado. Thesis, University of
Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[Heath, B. J., R. Straw, S. H. Anderson, and J. Lawson. 1997. Sage
grouse productivity, survival, and seasonal habitat use near Farson,
Wyoming. Project Completion Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,
Cheyenne, USA.]{.underline}

[Heath, B. J., R. Straw, S. H. Anderson, J. Lawson, and M. J. Holloran.
1998. Sage-grouse productivity, survival, and seasonal habitat use among
three ranches with different livestock grazing, predator control, and
harvest management practices. Project Completion Report, Wyoming Game
and Fish Department, Cheyenne, USA.]{.underline}

[Hofmann, L. A. 1991. The western sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus phaios]{.underline}*[) on the
Yakima Training Center in central Washington: a case study of a
declining species and the military. Thesis, Central Washington
University, Ellensburg, USA.]{.underline}

[Holloran, M. J. 1999. Sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) seasonal habitat use near Casper, Wyoming.
Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.]{.underline}

[Homer, C. G., T. C. Edwards, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, and K. P. Price. 1993.
Use of remote sensing methods in modeling sage grouse winter habitat.
Journal of Wildlife Management 57:78-84.]{.underline}

[Hulet, B. V. 1983. Selected responses of sage-grouse to prescribed
fire, predation and grazing by domestic sheep in southeastern Idaho.
Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.]{.underline}

[Klebenow, D. A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho.
Journal of Wildlife Management 33:649-662.]{.underline}

[Klebenow, D. A. 1970. Sage grouse verses sagebrush control in Idaho.
Journal of Range Management 23:396-400.]{.underline}

[Klebenow, D. A. 1973. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and the
role of fire in management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference
12:305-315.]{.underline}

[Klebenow, D. A. 1985. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada.
World Pheasant Association Journal 10:34-46.]{.underline}

[Klebenow, D. A., and G. M. Gray. 1968. Food habits of juvenile sage
grouse. Journal of Range Management 21:80-83.]{.underline}

[Klott, J. H., and F. G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood habitats of sympatric sage
grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife
Management 54:84-88.]{.underline}

[Leach, H. R., and A. L. Hensley. 1954. The sage grouse in California
with special reference to food habitats. California Fish and Game
40:385-394.]{.underline}

[Leonard, K. M., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. Distribution,
movements and habitats of sage grouse
]{.underline}*[Centrocercus]{.underline}*[
]{.underline}*[urophasianus]{.underline}*[ on the upper Snake River
Plain of Idaho. Wildlife Biology 6:265-270.]{.underline}

[Lyon, A. G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas development on
sage grouse near Pinedale, Wyoming. Thesis, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, USA.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasion of ]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum
]{.underline}*[L. into western North America: an ecological chronicle.
Agro-ecosystems 7:145-165.]{.underline}

[Martin, N. S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage
grouse occurrence. Journal of Wildlife Management
34:313-320.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., and L. L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes
of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Oregon State University
Agricultural Experimental Station. Technical Bulletin 151. Corvallis,
USA.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., and J. A. Rose. 1995. Historic expansion of
]{.underline}*[Juniperus occidentalis ]{.underline}*[(western juniper)
in southeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 55:37-45.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994. Implications of
livestock grazing in the Intermountain sagebrush region: plant
composition. Pages 100-146 ]{.underline}*[in]{.underline}*[ M. Vavra, W.
A. Laycock, and R. D. Pieper (eds.). Ecological implications of
livestock herbivory in the west. Society for Range Management, Denver,
Colorado, USA.]{.underline}

[Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. Long-term effects
of fire on sage grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management
53:586-591.]{.underline}

[Nelson, O. C. 1955. A field study of the sage grouse in southeastern
Oregon with special reference to reproduction and survival. Thesis,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.]{.underline}

[Niemuth, N. D. 1992. Effects of nest predation on breeding biology of
sage grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[).
Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.]{.underline}

[Nisbet, R. A., S. H. Berwick, and K. L. Reed. 1983. A spatial model of
sage-grouse habitat quality. Developments in Environmental Modeling
5:267-276.]{.underline}

[Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and
Fish Commission and Sage Books. Denver, Colorado, USA.]{.underline}

[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
Idaho. Ecological Modeling 165:23-47.]{.underline}

[Petersen, B. E. 1980. Breeding and nesting ecology of female sage
grouse in North Park, Colorado. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, USA.]{.underline}

[Peterson, J. G. 1970. The food habits and summer distribution of
juvenile sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
34:147-155.]{.underline}

[Popham, G. P. 2000. Sage grouse nesting habitat in northeastern
California. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California,
USA.]{.underline}

[Popham, G. P., and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2003. Greater sage-grouse
]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus ]{.underline}*[nesting success
and habitat use in northeastern California. Wildlife Biology
9:327-334.]{.underline}

[Post, G. 1951. Effects of toxaphene and chlordane on certain game
birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 15:381-386.]{.underline}

[Postovit, B. C. 1981. Suggestions for sage grouse habitat reclamation
on surface mines in northeastern Wyoming. Thesis, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, USA.]{.underline}

[Pyle, W. H. and J. A. Crawford. 1996. Availability of foods of sage
grouse chicks following prescribed fire in sagebrush-bitterbrush.
Journal of Range Management 49:320-324.]{.underline}

[Rassmussen, D. I., and L. A. Griner. 1938. Life history and management
studies of the sage grouse in Utah, with special reference to nesting
and feeding habits. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference 3:852-864.]{.underline}

[Remington, T. E., and C. E. Braun. 1985. Sage grouse food selection in
winter, North Park, Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:
1055-1061.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Robertson, M. D. 1991. Winter ecology of migratory sage grouse and
associated effects of prescribed fire in southern Idaho. Thesis,
University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[Rogers, G. E. 1964. Sage-grouse investigations in Colorado. Colorado
Game, Fish and Parks Dep. Tech. Pub. 16. Fort Collins,
Colo.]{.underline}

[Rothenmaier, D. 1979. Sage grouse reproductive ecology: breeding season
movements, strutting ground attendance and site characteristics, and
nesting. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.]{.underline}

[Savage, D. E. 1969. Relation of sage grouse to upland meadows in
Nevada. Nevada Fish and Game Commission, Job Completion Report, Project
W-39-R-9, Job 12. Reno, USA.]{.underline}

[Schoenberg, T. J. 1982. Sage grouse movements and habitat selection in
North Park Colorado. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
USA.]{.underline}

**[\*]{.underline}**[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.]{.underline}

[Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[). Pages 1-28 in
A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America, No. 425. The
Birds of North America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.]{.underline}

[Scott, J. W. 1942. Mating behavior of sage grouse. Auk
59:477-498.]{.underline}

[Sherfy, M. H., and P. J. Pekins. 1995. Influence of wind speed on sage
grouse metabolism. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:749-754.]{.underline}

[Sime, C. A. 1991. Sage grouse use of burned, non-burned, and seeded
vegetation on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho. Thesis,
Montana State University, Bozeman, USA.]{.underline}

[Slater, S. J. 2003. Sage-grouse (]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus]{.underline}*[) use of different-aged burns and the effects
of coyote control in southwestern Wyoming. Thesis, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, USA.]{.underline}

[Smith, J. T. 2003. Greater sage grouse on the edge of their range: leks
and surrounding landscapes in the Dakotas. Thesis, South Dakota State
University, Brookings, USA.]{.underline}

[Sveum, C. M., J. A. Crawford, and D. Edge.
1998]{.underline}*[a]{.underline}*[. Use and selection of brood-rearing
habitat by sage grouse in south-central Washington. Great Basin
Naturalist 58: 344-351.]{.underline}

[Sveum, C. M., W. D. Edge, and J. A. Crawford.
1998]{.underline}*[b]{.underline}*[. Nesting habitat selection by sage
grouse in south-central Washington. Journal of Range Management
51:265-269.]{.underline}

[Swenson, J. E., C. A. Simmons, and C. D. Eustace. 1987. Decrease of
sage grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus
]{.underline}*[after ploughing of sagebrush steppe. Biological
Conservation 41:125-132.]{.underline}

[Tisdale, E. W., and M. Hironaka. 1981. The sagebrush-grass ecoregion: a
review of the ecological literature. Forest, Wildlife, and Range
Experiment Station Contribution No. 209. University of Idaho, Moscow,
USA.]{.underline}

[Wakkinen, W. L. 1990. Nest site characteristics and spring-summer
movements of migratory sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Thesis,
University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Wallestad, R. O. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage grouse
broods in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
35:129-136.]{.underline}

[Wallestad, R. O. 1975. Male sage grouse responses to sagebrush
treatment. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:634-637.]{.underline}

[Wallestad, R. O., J. G. Peterson, and R. L. Eng. 1975. Foods of adult
sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
39:628-630.]{.underline}

[Wallestad, R. O., and D. B. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage
grouse hens in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
38:630-633.]{.underline}

[Wallestad, R. O., and P. Schladweiller. 1974. Breeding season movements
and habitat selection of male sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife
Management 38:634-637.]{.underline}

[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. McArther, 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.
Policy Paper SG-02-02. Caldwell, Idaho, USA.]{.underline}

[Ward, J. C., M. Martin, and W. J. Allred. 1942. The susceptibility of
sage grouse to strychnine. Journal of Wildlife Management
6:55-57.]{.underline}

[Watters, M. E., T. L. McLash, C. L. Aldridge, and R. M. Brigham. 2002.
The effect of vegetation structure on predation of artificial greater
sage-grouse nests. Ecoscience 9:314-319.]{.underline}

[Welch, B. L., F. J. Wagstaff, and R. L. Williams. 1990. Sage grouse
status and recovery plan for Strawberry Valley, Utah. U.S. Forest
Service Research Paper INT-430.]{.underline}

[West, N. E., and J. A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower
mountain slopes. Pages 255-284 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[M. G.
Barbour and W. D. Billings (eds.). North American terrestrial
vegetation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.]{.underline}

[Wiley, R. H., Jr. 1973. Territoriality and non-random mating in sage
grouse, ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[. Animal
Behavior Monographs 6:85-169.]{.underline}

[Wiley, R. H., Jr. 1978. The lek mating system of the sage grouse.
Scientific America 238:114-125.]{.underline}

[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 15. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,
USA.]{.underline}

**[[References]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[---]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}[[Sagebrush
Ecosystems: Dynamics and Descriptions of
Habitats]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

[Allen-Diaz, B., and J. W. Bartolome. 1998. Sagebrush-grass vegetation
dynamics: comparing classical and state-transition models. Ecological
Applications 8:795--804.]{.underline}

[Anderson, J. E., and R. M. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in
plant species abundance and biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over 45
years. Ecological Monographs 71:531-556.]{.underline}

[Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals
in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review.
Oikos 71:355-366.]{.underline}

[Antevs, E. 1938. Rainfall and tree growth in the Great Basin. Carnegie
Institute of Washington. Publication 469. American Geographical Society,
Special Publication 21. New York, New York.]{.underline}

[Antevs, E. 1948. Climatic changes and pre-white man, pp. 168-191. In:
The Great Basin; with emphasis on glacial and postglacial times.
University of Utah Biological Series 10. ]{.underline}

[Baker, W. L., and Y. Cai. 1992. The r.le programs for multiscale
analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information
system. Landscape Ecology 7:291-302. ]{.underline}

[Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G.
Chavez, and J. Herrick. 2003. Development and use of
state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of Range Management
56:114-126.]{.underline}

[\*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. North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Transactions, 67: 337-349.
]{.underline}

[Briske, D. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2003. Vegetation
dynamics on rangelands: a critique of the current paradigms. Journal of
Applied Ecology 40:601-614. ]{.underline}

[Brooks, M. L., and D. A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the
deserts of North America. Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous
Publication No. 11:1-14.]{.underline}

[Caicco, S. L., J. M. Scott, B. Butterfield, and B. Csuti. 1995. A GAP
analysis of the management status of the vegetation of Idaho (U.S.A.).
Conservation Biology 9:498-511.]{.underline}

[Comer, P., J. Kagan, M. Heiner, and C. Tobalske. 2002. Current
distribution of sagebrush and associated vegetation in the western
United States. \< ]{.underline}

[Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000.
Guidelines for management of sage grouse populations and habitat.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.]{.underline}

[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. Synthesis paper: ecology and management of sage-grouse and
sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range Management 57:2-19.]{.underline}

[Cronquist, A. A., H. Holmgren, N. H. Holmgren, and J. L. Reveal. 1994.
Intermountain-flora: vascular plants of the Intermountain West,
USA.]{.underline}

[Dahl, B.E. and E. W. Tisdale. 1975. Environmental factors related to
medusahead distribution. Journal of Range Management
28:463-468.]{.underline}

[Daly, C., R. P. Neilson, and D. L. Phillips. 1994. A
statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation
over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology
33:140-158.]{.underline}

[d'Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by
exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87.]{.underline}

[Daubenmire, R. 1975. An analysis of structural and functional
characters along a steppe-forest catena. Ecology
53:419-424.]{.underline}

[Davis, J. O. 1982. Bits and Pieces: the last 35 ka years in the
Lahontan area. pp. 53-75. Society of American Archeology Paper
2.]{.underline}

[Doak, D. F., P. C. Marino, and P. M. Kareiva. 1992. Spatial scale
mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success:
implications for dispersal. Theoretical Population Biology
41:315-336.]{.underline}

[Eckert, R.E., Jr. 1957. Vegetation-soil relationships in some
]{.underline}*[Artemisia ]{.underline}*[types in northern Harney and
Lake Counties, Oregon. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon.]{.underline}

[Edwards, T. C., Jr., G. G. Moisen, and D. R. Cutler. 1998. Assessment
of map accuracy in a remotely sensed, ecoregion-scale cover map. Remote
Sensing of Environment 63:73-83.]{.underline}

[ESRI. Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1998. ARC/INFO Version
7.2. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands,
California.]{.underline}

[Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1994. Conservation of fragmented
populations. Conservation Biology 8:50-59.]{.underline}

[Flather, C. H., and M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and
population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and
arrangement. American Naturalist 159:40-56.]{.underline}

[Fosberg, M. A., and M. Hironaka. 1964. Soil properties affecting the
distribution of big and low sagebrush communities in southern Idaho.
Pages 230-236 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[Forage plant physiology
and soil-range relationships. American Society Agronomy Special
Publication No. 5.]{.underline}

[Francis, M., and D. A. Pyke]{.underline}**[. ]{.underline}**[1996.
Crested wheatgrass-cheatgrass seedling competition using a mixed-density
design. Journal of Range Management 49:432-438.]{.underline}

[Ghil, M., and R. Vautgard. 1991. Interdecadal oscillations and the
warming trend in global temperature time series. Nature
350:324-327.]{.underline}

[Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between
]{.underline}*[Agropyron spicatum ]{.underline}*[and
]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum]{.underline}*[. Ecological Monographs
37:89-111.]{.underline}

[\*Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, W. J. Hann, M. M. Rowland, B. C.
Wales, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics
and restoration potential in the interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A.
Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255.]{.underline}

[Hill, M. O., and H. G. Gauch. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis,
an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47-58.]{.underline}

[Jensen, M. E. 1990. Interpretation of environmental gradients which
influence sagebrush community distribution in northeastern Nevada.
Journal of Range Management 43:161-166.]{.underline}

[Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability
measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology
61:65-71.]{.underline}

[Klopatek, J. M., R. J. Olson, C. J. Emerson, and J. L. Jones. 1979.
Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States.
Environmental Conservation 6:191-199.]{.underline}

[Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1997. Landscape characteristics of
disturbed shrubsteppe habitats in southwestern Idaho. Landscape Ecology
12:287-297.]{.underline}

[Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 2000. Ghosts of habitats past:
contribution of landscape change to current habitats used by shrubland
birds. Ecology 81:220-227.]{.underline}

[Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 2002. Effects of habitat
fragmentation on passerine birds breeding in Intermountain shrubsteppe.
Studies in Avian Biology 25:131-141.]{.underline}

[Knick, S. T., J. T. Rotenberry, and T. J. Zarriello. 1997. Supervised
classification of Landsat thematic mapper imagery in a semi-arid
rangeland by nonparametric discriminant analysis. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 63:79--86.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Khchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map -- potential natural
vegetation of the conterminous United States. American Geographic
Society Special Publication No. 36, 39pp + appendix. ]{.underline}

[Khchler, A.W. 1970. Potential natural vegetation. ]{.underline}*[in:
]{.underline}*[U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, the
national atlas of the United States of America. Washington D.C. U.S.
Government Printing Office 89-92.]{.underline}

[Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on
North American rangelands: a viewpoint. Journal of Range Management
44:427-433.]{.underline}

[Leonard, K. M., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. Distribution,
movements and habitats of sage grouse ]{.underline}*[Centrocercus
urophasianus ]{.underline}*[on the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho:
changes from the 1950s to the 1990s. Wildlife Biology
6:265-270.]{.underline}

[Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology
73:1943-1967. ]{.underline}

[Longland, W. S., and S. L. Bateman. 2002. Viewpoint: the ecological
value of shrub islands on disturbed sagebrush rangelands. Journal of
Range Management 55:571-575. ]{.underline}

[Mack R. N. 1981. Invasion of ]{.underline}*[Bromus tectorum
]{.underline}*[L. into western North America: an ecological chronicle.
Agro-Ecosystems 7:145-165.]{.underline}

[McArthur, E.D. 1983. Taxonomy, origin, and distribution of big
sagebrush (]{.underline}*[Artemisia tridentata]{.underline}*[) and
allies (subgenus Tridentatae). Pages 3-11 ]{.underline}*[in
]{.underline}*[R.L. Johnson (ed.). Proceedings of the first Utah shrub
ecology workshop. College of Natural Resources, Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.]{.underline}

[McArthur, E. D., and A. P. Plummer. 1978. Biogeography and management
of native western shrubs: a case study, section Tridentatae of
]{.underline}*[Artemisia]{.underline}*[. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs
2:229-243.]{.underline}

[McArthur, E. D., E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith, and P. T. Tueller. 1990.
Proceedings-symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other
aspects of shrub biology and management. USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report
INT-276.]{.underline}

[McDonald, M. W., and K. P. Reese. 1998. Landscape changes within the
historical distribution of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in eastern
Washington: is there hope? Northwest Science 72:34--41.]{.underline}

[Mehringer, P. J. 1985. Late-quaternary pollen records from the interior
Pacific Northwest and northern Great Basin of the United States. Pages
167-189 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[W. M. Bryan, Jr. and R. G.
Holloway (eds.). Pollen records of late-Quaternary North American
sediments. American Association of Stratigraphic
Palynoligists.]{.underline}

[Miller, H. C., D. Clausnitzer and M. M. Borman. 1999. Medusahead. Pages
271-281 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[R. L. Sheley and J. K. Petroff
(eds.). Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.]{.underline}

[Miller, J., D. Germanoski, K. Waltman, R. Tausch, and J. Chambers.
2001. Influence of late Holocene hillslope processes and landforms on
modern channel dynamics in upland watersheds in central Nevada.
Geomorphology 38:373-391.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., and L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of
sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Oregon State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin 151.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., and J. A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper
encroachment in sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management
52:550-559.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., T. Svejcar, and J. A. Rose. 2000. Impacts of western
juniper on plant community composition and structure. Journal of Range
Management 53:574-585.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F. and R .J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in pinyon and
juniper woodlands: a descriptive analysis. Tall Timbers Research Station
Miscellaneous Publication No. 11:15-30.]{.underline}

[Miller, R. F., and P. E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene changes in semiarid
pinyon-juniper woodlands: response to climate, fire and human activities
in the US Great Basin. BioScience 44:465- 474.]{.underline}

[Morris, M. S., R. G. Kelsey, and D. Griggs. 1976. Proceedings of the
Montana Academy of Sciences 36:56-79.]{.underline}

[\*Morrison, M. L. 2002. Wildlife restoration: techniques for habitat
analysis and animal monitoring. Island Press, Washington,
DC.]{.underline}

[NatureServe. 2002. International Classification of Ecological
Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation. Natural Heritage Central Databases.
NatureServe, Arlington, VA.]{.underline}

[\*Olsen, R. A., J. K. Gores, D. T. Booth, and G. E. Schuman. 2000.
Suitability of shrub establishment on Wyoming mined lands reclaimed for
wildlife habitat. Western North American Naturalist
60:77-92.]{.underline}

[Opdam, P. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a
review of holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology
5:93-106.]{.underline}

[Paton, P. W. C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how
strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8:17-26. ]{.underline}

[Peet, R. K., R. G. Knox, J. S. Case, and R. B. Allen. 1988. Putting
things in order: the advantages of detrended correspondence analysis.
American Naturalist 131:924-934.]{.underline}

[Pickford, G.D. 1932. The influence of continued heavy grazing and of
promiscuous burning on spring-fall ranges in Utah. Ecology
13:159-171.]{.underline}

[Piemeisel, R. L. 1951. Causes affecting change and rate of change in a
vegetation of annuals in Idaho. Ecology 32:53-72.]{.underline}

[Pilon, P. G. P. J. Howarth, and R. A. Bullock. 1988. An enhanced
classification approach to change detection in semi-arid environments.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
54:1709-1716.]{.underline}

[Pyke, D. A., and J. P. Dobrowoski. 1989. Shrub dieback in the Great
Basin. Utah Science 50:66- 71.]{.underline}

[Reid, M., P. Comer, H. Barrett, S. Caicco, R. Crawford, C. Jean, G.
Jones, J. Kagan, M. Karl, G. Kittel, P. Lyon, M. Manning, E. Peterson,
R. Rosentreter, S. Rust, D. Tart, C. Williams, and A. Winward. 2002.
International classification of ecological communities: Terrestrial
vegetation of the United States. Sagebrush Vegetation of the Western
United States. Final Report for the U.S.G.S. Forest and Rangeland
Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. NatureServe, Arlington,
Virginia.]{.underline}

[Robertson, D. R., J. L. Nielsen, and N. H. Bare. 1966. Vegetation and
soils of alkali sagebrush and adjacent big sagebrush ranges in North
Park, Colorado. Journal of Range Management 19:17-20.]{.underline}

[Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.]{.underline}

[Rotenberry, J. T., and S. T. Knick. 1999. Multiscale habitat
associations of the Sage Sparrow: implications for conservation biology.
Studies in Avian Biology 19:95-103.]{.underline}

[Sabinske, D. W., and D. H. Knight. 1978. Variation within the sagebrush
vegetation of Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Northwest Science
52:195-204.]{.underline}

[Saunders, D. A. R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. Biological
consequences of fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology
5:18-32.]{.underline}

[Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse
(]{.underline}*[Centrocercus urophasianus]{.underline}*[).
]{.underline}*[In ]{.underline}*[A. Poole and F. Gill \[eds.\], The
birds of North America, No. 425. The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.]{.underline}

[Shugart, H. H. 1998. Terrestrial ecosystems in changing environments.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.]{.underline}

[Shumar, M. L., and J. E. Anderson. 1986. Gradient analysis of
vegetation dominated by two subspecies of big sagebrush. Journal of
Range Management 39:156-160.]{.underline}

[Simberloff, D. 1988. The contribution of population and community
biology to conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 19:473-511.]{.underline}

[Tausch, R. J. N. E. West, and A. A. Nabi. 1981. Tree age and dominance
patterns in Great Basin pinyon-juniper woodlands. Journal of Range
Management. 34:259-264.]{.underline}

[ter Braak, C. J. F. 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new
eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology
67:1167-1179.]{.underline}

[ter Braak, C. J. F. 1987. The analysis of vegetation-environment
relationships by canonical correspondence analysis. Vegetatio
69:69-77.]{.underline}

[ter Braak, C. J. F. 1995. Ordination. Pages 91-173 ]{.underline}*[in
]{.underline}*[R. H. G. Jongman, C. J. F. ter Braak, and O. F. R. van
Tongeren (eds.). Data analysis in community and landscape ecology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.]{.underline}

[ter Braak, C. J. F., and P. Smilauer. 1997. CANOCO. ver. 4.02. Centre
for Biometry Wageningen, CPRO-DLO, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.]{.underline}

[Tisdale, E. W. 1994. Great Basin region: sagebrush types. Pages 40-46
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[T. N. Shiflet (ed.). Rangeland Cover
Types, Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.]{.underline}

[Tisdale, E. W., M. Hironaka, and F. A. Fosberg. 1965. An area of
pristine vegetation in Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho.
Ecology 46:349-352.]{.underline}

[Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern and
process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
20:171-197.]{.underline}

[Turner, M. G., R. H. Gardner, and R. V. O'Neill. 2001. Landscape
ecology in theory and practice. Springer-Verlag, New York, New
York.]{.underline}

[Urban, D. L., R. V. O'Neill, and H. H. Shugart, Jr. 1987. Landscape
ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand
spatial patterns. BioScience 37:119-127.]{.underline}

[USA-CERL. 1993. GRASS 4.1 Reference Manual. United States Army Corps of
Engineers Construction Engineering Laboratory, Champaign,
Illinois.]{.underline}

[U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service 1995. State soil
geographic (STATSGO) data base. Data use information. USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service Misc. Publication No. 1492. Fort Worth,
Texas.]{.underline}

[Vander Haegen, W. M., F. C. Dobler, and D. J. Pierce. 2000. Shrubsteppe
bird response to habitat and landscape variables. Conservation Biology
14:1145-1160.]{.underline}

[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.]{.underline}

[Wambolt, C. L. and M. R. Frisina. 2002. Montana sagebrush: a taxonomic
key and habitat descriptions. Intermountain Journal of Sciences
8:46-59.]{.underline}

[West, N. E. 1979. Basic synecological relationships of
sagebrush-dominated lands in the Great Basin and the Colorado Plateau.
Pages 33-41 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[The sagebrush ecosystem: a
symposium. Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan,
Utah.]{.underline}

[West, N. E. 1983. Western Intermountain sagebrush steppe. Pages 351-397
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[N. E. West (ed.). Ecosystems of the
World 5: Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, New York, New York.]{.underline}

[West, N. E. 1996. Strategies for maintenance and repair of biotic
community diversity on rangelands. Pages 327-347 ]{.underline}*[in
]{.underline}*[R. C. Szaro, and D. W. Johnston (eds.). Biodiversity in
managed landscapes: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New
York, New York.]{.underline}

[West, N. E., and N. S. Van Pelt. 1986. Successional patterns in
pinyon-juniper woodlands. Pages 43-52. ]{.underline}*[in
]{.underline}*[R. L. Everett (compiler), Proceedings: Pinyon-juniper
conference. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report.
INT-215.]{.underline}

[West, N. E., and J. A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower
mountain slopes. Pages 255-284 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[M. G.
Barbour and W. D. Billings (editors). North American terrestrial
vegetation. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.]{.underline}

[Westoby, M. 1981. Elements of a theory of vegetation dynamics in arid
rangelands. Israel Journal of Botany 28:169-194.]{.underline}

[Westoby, M.; B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Range management on the
basis of a model which does not seek to establish equilibrium. Journal
of Arid Environments 17:235-239.]{.underline}

[Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho\'s Snake
River Plains: ecological and management implications. Pages 4-10
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[Proceedings, Cheatgrass Invasion Shrub
Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. Pages 4-10
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service Interagency Research Station General
Technical Report INT-276.]{.underline}

[Whisenant, S. G. 1999. Repairing damaged wildlands: a process-oriented,
landscape-scale approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.]{.underline}

[Wiens, J. A. 1989. The ecology of bird communities. Vol. 2. Processes
and variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.]{.underline}

[Wiens, J. A. 2002. Predicting species occurrences: progress, problems,
and prospects. Pages 739- 749 ]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[J. M.
Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. L. Morrison, J. B. Haufler, M. G. Raphael, W.
A. Wall, and F. B. Sampson (eds.). Predicting species occurrences:
issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.]{.underline}

[Wiens, J. A., C. S. Crawford, and J. R. Gosz. 1986. Boundary dynamics:
a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos
45:421-427.]{.underline}

[Wigand, P.E. 1987. Diamond Pond, Harney County, Oregon: vegetation
history and water table in the eastern Oregon desert. Great Basin
Naturalist 47:427-458.]{.underline}

[Wilcox, B. A., and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the
effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist
125:879-887.]{.underline}

[Wilson, R. O., and P. T. Tueller. 1987. Aerial and ground spectral
characteristics of rangeland plant communities in Nevada. Remote Sensing
of Environment 23:177-191.]{.underline}

[\*Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, B. C. Wales, M. A. Hemstrom, W. J.
Hann, M. G. Raphael, R. S. Holthausen, R. A. Gravenmier, and T. D. Rich.
2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe restoration on Greater
Sage-Grouse in the Interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology
16:1223--1231.]{.underline}

[Wisdom. M. J., B. C. Wales, M. M. Rowland, M. G. Raphael, R. S.
Holthausen, T. D. Rich, and V. A. Saab. 2002. Performance of Greater
sage-grouse models for conservation assessment in the Interior Columbia
Basin, U.S.A. Conservation Biology, 16:1232-1242. ]{.underline}

[With, K. A., and A. W. King. 1999. Dispersal success on fractal
landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape Ecology
14:73-82.]{.underline}

[Wright, H. A., and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology. Wiley and Sons,
New York, New York.]{.underline}

[Young, J. A., and R. A. Evans. 1973. Downy brome -- intruder in the
plant succession of big sagebrush communities in the Great Basin.
Journal of Range Management 26:410-415.]{.underline}

[Young, J. A., and R.A. Evans. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires
in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of Range Management
31:283-289.]{.underline}

[Young, J. A., R. E. Eckert, and R. A. Evans. 1979. Historical
perspectives regarding the sagebrush ecosystem. Pages 1-13
]{.underline}*[in ]{.underline}*[The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium.
Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan,
Utah.]{.underline}

[Zamora, B., and P. T. Tueller. 1973. ]{.underline}*[Artemisia
arbuscula, A. longiloba, and A. nova ]{.underline}*[habitat types in
northern Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 33:225-242.]{.underline}