Sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus spp.) 

May 2005 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 26 

Introduction/ General Information 

Sage-grouse, as their name indicates, are intricately 

linked to western sagebrush habitats. Sagebrush 

ecosystems historically covered a large geographic area 

in western North America. However, only about half 

of the suitable habitat once present in the historical 

range of sage-grouse remains (BLM 2003). 

This leaflet provides information on the life history and 

habitat needs of the sage-grouse. In addition, it 

provides recommendations on how land users can 

address the factors responsible for habitat loss and 

the decline of sage-grouse populations. These factors 

include alteration of fire regimes, conversion of 

sagebrush to farming or intensive livestock forage 

production, mining and energy development, 

recreation, suburban expansion, sagebrush control, and 

the introduction of non-native species [Connelly et al. 

2000, BLM (WY) 2002, Cannings 2001]. 

Breeding populations of sage-grouse have decreased 

by 17–47% since the early 1900s (Connelly and Braun 

1997), and populations of sage-grouse continue to 

decline throughout the region (Braun 1998). With over 

30% of the remaining sagebrush habitat located on 

private land, ranchers and private landowners can play 

a key role in providing suitable habitat for the sagegrouse and stabilizing and increasing local populations. 

Understanding how sage-grouse habitat quality can 

be improved on working lands, and becoming familiar 

with current management efforts aimed at sage-grouse 

conservation on both public and private lands, will help 

secure the future survival of this and other sagebrushdependent species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dave Menke 

Sage-grouse populations have declined due to the loss of

quality sagebrush habitat. 

Distribution and Status 

Sage-grouse comprise two recognized taxa: the greater 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and the 

Gunnison sage-grouse (C. minimus). The greater 

sage-grouse is widely distributed across sagebrushdominated habitats of the western United States and 

Canada, and can be found in Washington, Idaho, 

Montana, Alberta, Saskatchewan, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming 

and Colorado. The smaller Gunnison sage-grouse, 

formerly grouped with the greater sage-grouse, was 

recently recognized as a distinct species based on 

genetic differences (Kahn et al. 1999) and differences 

in size (Hupp and Braun 1991), courtship behavior 

(Young et al. 1994), and plumage (Young et al. 2000). 

Gunnison sage-grouse are restricted to southwestern 

Colorado and southeastern Utah. Table 1 contains 

information about the two recognized taxa of sagegrouse. Life history and habitat requirements of the 

two taxa are very similar. Hereafter, the term sagegrouse will refer to both taxa unless otherwise 

specified. 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Washington Department of Wildlife, M. Shroeder 

Figure 1. Historic and current range of sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse are dependent on the presence of 

sagebrush for survival (sagebrush obligates). 

Therefore, their geographic range is closely aligned 

with the distribution of sagebrush-dominated 

ecosystems in North America. Figure 1 depicts the 

historic and current range of sage-grouse in North 

America. The quality and quantity of remaining 

sagebrush habitat has declined over the last 50 years 

(Connelly et al. 2000) to the extent that very little 

pristine sagebrush habitat, undisturbed by human 

activity, remains (Braun 1998). Similarly, sage-grouse 

populations have declined throughout North America 

by 33% over the past 30 to 40 years, and have been 

extirpated in five states (Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma and British Columbia) (BLM 

2003). Canadian populations of sage-grouse (C. 

urophasianus urophasianus) have been listed as 

endangered by the Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Loss 

of sagebrush habitat and associated population 

declines of sage-grouse have prompted petitions to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list both the 

greater and Gunnison sage-grouse taxa under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Although the greater sage-grouse has not been 

awarded protection across its entire range, Distinct 

Population Segments of greater sage-grouse in the 

state of Washington have received Candidate for listing 

status under the ESA (USFWS 2004, Pat Deibert, 

USFWS-WY pers. comm. 2004). The Gunnison 

sage-grouse taxon, which occupies a much smaller 

geographic range, has been awarded Candidate for 

federal listing status under the ESA (USFWS 2004). 

Official listings of the Washington population of greater 

sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse have been 

precluded by species of higher conservation priority 

(Pat Deibert, WY-USFWS pers. comm. 2004). Six 

of 11 western states and all Canadian provinces have 

completed state or provincial strategic plans to manage 

greater sage-grouse. The remaining five states will 

complete strategic plans by July 2005 (Connelly et al. 

2004). 

Table 1. Sage-grouse distribution and population sizes in North America.1 

Common name Gre ate r s age -grous e Gunnis on s age -grous e 

Scie ntific name Centrocercus urophasianus Centrocercus minimus 

Dis tribution Central Washington, southern Idaho, 

Montana, southeastern Alberta, 

southwestern Saskatchewan, 

southwestern North Dakota, and 

western South Dakota south to eastern 

California, south-central Nevada, 

southern Utah, western Colorado 

Gunnison basin and southwestern 

Colorado, southeastern Utah east of 

the Colorado River, Navajo Nation 

Ove rall population s ize fewer than 142,000 individuals 3,000-10,000 individuals 

B re e ding population s ize unknown fewer than 4,000 individuals 

Nature Serve 2004. 

2 

1
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Description 

Sage-grouse are large (21–31 in), ground dwelling 

birds, defined by their pectinate toes, which have 

comb-like projections, and their feathered nostrils and 

legs. The male sage-grouse is larger than the female 

and has yellow eye combs, a black throat and bib, 

and a large white ruff on the breast. Males use their 

brightly-colored yellow combs, olive-green air sacs, 

and elongated tails in courtship displays. Both sexes 

have cryptically colored brown/gray plumage and black 

bellies. Grouse (subfamily Tetraoninae) are grouped 

in the family Phasianidae, along with pheasants and 

partridges (subfamily Phasianinae), turkeys (subfamily 

Meleagridinae), and guineafowl (subfamily Numidinae). 

Life History and Behavior 

Breeding Behavior 

During the breeding season, male sage-grouse gather 

in groups where they perform elaborate visual and 

auditory courtship displays. These courtship assembly 

areas, called leks, are located on relatively open sites 

adjacent to potential nesting and brood-rearing habitat 

where female sage-grouse are abundant (Schroeder 

et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000). Male sage-grouse 

establish individual display territories within the lek and 

solicit matings from March to May. Female sagegrouse choose their mates based on the spatial location 

of a male’s territory within the lek. Territory location 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gary Kramer

Male greater sage-grouse are distinguished from females

by their yellow eye combs, white neck plumage, and air 

sacs. 

is related to the extent of a male’s secondary sex 

characteristics (combs, air sacs, plumage, etc.); males 

with the most extensive physical traits attain preferred 

positions within the lek’s interior. Sage-grouse do not 

form pair-bonds and a female may mate with more 

than one male during the breeding season (promiscuity). 

Sage-grouse exhibit low reproductive rates, producing 

clutches that are variable in size yet small relative to 

other Galliformes (Schroeder 1997, Schroeder et al. 

1999). Following mating, female sage-grouse lay 

approximately 6–8 eggs, which are incubated for 25– 

27 days. Young exhibit independent activity from birth 

(precocial) and fly when 7–14 days old. Females that 

lose a clutch may renest during the same breeding 

season, although renesting rates are highly variable 

among sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2000). 

Populations that exhibit a ratio of approximately 2.25 

juveniles/hen in the fall should remain stable or increase 

over time (Connelly and Braun 1997, Edelmann et al. 

1998). 

Seasonal Movement 

Sage-grouse populations are defined by their spatial 

and temporal distribution (Connelly et al. 1988). 

Populations are either nonmigratory, or undertake onestage or two-stage migrations when year-round habitat 

requirements cannot be met at a single location (Fischer 

et al. 1997). Nonmigratory sage-grouse often move 

5–6 mi. between seasonal habitats and use home 

ranges no more than 40 mi2

 in size (BLM 2003). Onestage migrants move between distinct summer and 

winter ranges that are often 9–30 mi. apart. In some 

areas, sage-grouse make local elevational migrations 

between summer and winter habitats (Cannings 2001). 

Two-stage migrants move between breeding habitat, 

summer range, and winter range, and their annual 

movements can exceed 50–60 mi. (Connelly 1999). 

Fall movements to winter range can span several 

months, from late August to December (Connelly et 

al. 1988). Populations that migrate make annual 

movements of 45 mi. or more and may have home 

ranges that exceed 580 mi2 (BLM 2003). Males and 

females flock separately, and breeding females move 

independently with their young during the summer 

months. Sage-grouse exhibit high site-fidelity, returning 

to the same nesting areas annually (Connelly et al. 

2004). 

3 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, T.A. Blake 

Grassland habitat maintained at the Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge in California, where management

objectives include sage-grouse conservation. 

Habitat Requirements 

General 

Sage-grouse are sagebrush obligates, meaning they 

are dependent on large, interconnected expanses of 

sagebrush for food and protective cover throughout 

the year (Connelly et al. 2004). Sage-grouse inhabit 

foothills, plains, and mountain slopes where sagebrush 

is present and make seasonal use of riparian areas, 

upland meadows and sagebrush grasslands. Although 

sagebrush habitat and the specific habitat components 

used by sage-grouse can vary considerably across the 

species’ range, large, woody species of sagebrush 

including big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, and threetip 

sagebrush are used by sage-grouse in all seasonal 

habitats (Dalke et al. 1963). Low sagebrush, black 

sagebrush, rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, and 

horsebrush also provide vital habitat components for 

sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Sage-grouse habitat requirements are summarized in 

Table 2. Sage-grouse require an extensive mosaic of 

sagebrush of varying densities and heights, high levels 

of native grass cover for nesting, and areas rich in highprotein forbs and insects during nesting and broodrearing (Cannings 2001). Managing sagebrush habitat 

to include native grasses and forbs in the understory is 

extremely important because these vegetation types 

provide cover, food, and a productive insect fauna 

needed to support sage-grouse populations (Connelly 

1999). 

In general, managing land for moderate levels of 

sagebrush cover (15–20%) and high levels of forb 

(broad-leaved, herbaceous plant) production will likely 

increase sage-grouse reproduction and survival 

(Johnson and Braun 1999). Maintaining food-rich 

areas such as seeps, wet meadows, and riparian areas 

is important in the summer, while ensuring a 10–30% 

canopy cover of sagebrush that is tall enough to remain 

exposed above median snowfall depth provides sagegrouse with critical roosting and foraging sites in the 

winter (Connelly et al. 2004). Sagebrush control 

should be avoided in all seasonal habitats, unless it is 

being done to restore a sagebrush/steppe mosaic. Table 

3 and Appendix B provide a summary of programs 

and organizations that can assist landowners in 

managing for a mosaic of native sagebrush that will 

benefit sage-grouse populations. 

Food 

A list of plant species used by sage-grouse is provided 

in Appendix A. Sagebrush and forbs (broad-leaved, 

herbaceous plants) serve as a critically important food 

sources for sage-grouse at all life stages, while native 

warm-season grasses provide nesting habitat and 

protective cover for hens and chicks during early 

brood-rearing. In addition, an abundance of insects, 

USDA NRCS PLANTS National Database, J.L., Reveal 

Sagebrush provides nesting and escape cover for sagegrouse, and its leaves are an important food source. 

4 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Table 2. Sage-grouse habitat requirements summary table. 

Habitat Component Sage-grouse Requirements 

General An extensive mosaic of sagebrush of varying densities and heights, high levels of native 

grass cover for nesting, and areas rich in high-protein forbs and insects during nesting 

and brood-rearing. 

Food Sagebrush, particularly big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, and threetip sagebrush, low 

sagebrush, and black sagebrush. Forbs including prairie dandelion, milkvetch, prickly 

lettuce, microsteris, and evening primrose. Insects including ants, bees, wasps, 

grasshoppers, and beetles. 

Cover - lek Leks are located on relatively open land with low sagebrush density. Males may choose 

sod-forming grasses or bare ground for display. Leks are usually surrounded by wellvegetated nesting habitat, and may be established on dry lakebeds, ridge clearings, or 

low sagebrush flats. Lek sites are highly variable and encompass both natural openings 

and disturbed sites. Sites appear to be chosen opportunistically based on the proximity 

of suitable nesting habitat. 

Cover - nesting 

-

Preferred nesting habitat is characterized by an overstory of sagebrush that varies in 

horizontal and vertical structure, and an understory of native grasses and forbs. Sagegrouse nests are small depressions in the ground, built beneath sagebrush or another 

shrub, usually in areas with good cover and abundant leaf litter. Sage-grouse use native 

grass cover for nesting, and prefer understory grasses with a height of approximately 6­

8 in. or more. Hens require abundant forbs that contain high levels of calcium, 

phosphorus, and protein prior to egg laying. 

Cover - brood rearing Early brood-rearing habitat is used during spring and early summer after chicks have 

hatched. Hens select sagebrush areas rich in forbs and insects (the two main food 

sources for chicks). Later in the summer, as the weather becomes drier, hens move their 

broods to wetter (mesic) areas. This time period is known as late brood-rearing. During 

the late brood-rearing period sage-grouse may use a variety of additional habitats 

including sagebrush, wet meadows, and irrigated farmland adjacent to sagebrush 

habitats. Nonbreeding females and males will move into upland meadows and 

grasslands. During fall, sage-grouse move into mixed sagebrush/grassland habitats and 

increase their consumption of sagebrush relative to forbs. 

Cover - winter In winter, access to sagebrush is critical as it is used almost exclusively for food and 

cover in the snow. Preferred winter habitat is characterized by sagebrush cover that 

exceeds 20%. The timing of winter migration is dependent on the arrival of snow. 

Winter ranges may vary from year to year in some areas depending on snow cover and 

depth. 

Minimum Habitat Size Conclusive data are unavailable on minimum patch sizes of sagebrush needed to 

support viable populations of sage-grouse. Populations that migrate make annual 

movements of 45 mi. or more and may have home ranges that exceed 575 mi2

 (BLM 

2003). 

5 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

including ants, bees, wasps, grasshoppers, and beetles 

contribute to the diet of sage-grouse chicks. 

Seasonal Requirements 

Seasonal habits of sage-grouse are categorized into 

three distinct periods: breeding (March–May); late 

brood-rearing (June–October); and wintering 

(November–February) (BLM 2003). Specific habitat 

requirements are associated with each of these 

periods. 

Breeding habitat encompasses areas used by sagegrouse for lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

(Connelly et al. 2000). Leks may occur on dry 

lakebeds, ridge clearings, or low sagebrush flats that 

have less forb and shrub cover than surrounding nesting 

habitat (BLM 2003). Displaying males use the dense 

sagebrush stands associated with adjacent nesting 

habitat for escape, shelter, and feeding. Preferred 

nesting habitat is characterized by an overstory of 

sagebrush that varies in horizontal and vertical structure, 

and an understory of native grasses and forbs (Connelly 

et al. 2003). These habitat components provide a 

food source of insects, cover for nests, and herbaceous 

forage for reproductive hens. 

Most nests are located under tall, large sagebrush 

plants that provide protective cover. The area used 

by hen and chicks for up to 3 weeks after hatch 

constitutes early brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et al. 

2000). The selection of food items by chicks influences 

the habitat used during early brood-rearing. Sagebrush 

areas rich in forbs and insects are commonly used, as 

these food items are critical to chick survival (Drut et 

al. 1994, Fischer 1994). 

When herbaceous vegetation found in the early broodrearing habitat dries out during the summer months, 

sage-grouse move to areas characterized by sparser 

sagebrush canopy and a greater abundance of grasses 

and forbs. These areas are known as late broodrearing habitat and may be selected based on the 

available moisture content of vegetation (Fischer et al. 

1996). Sage-grouse may migrate to higher elevations 

that receive greater concentrations of moisture 

throughout the summer (BLM 2003). During the late 

brood-rearing period sage-grouse may also use a 

variety of additional habitats including sagebrush, wet 

meadows, and irrigated farmland adjacent to sagebrush 

habitats (Gates 1983, Connelly et al. 1998). The move 

to late-brood-rearing habitat marks a change in chick 

diet from predominantly insects to forbs (Drut et al. 

1994). A second dietary transition occurs as autumn 

approaches and sage-grouse shift to a predominantly 

sagebrush-based diet. During early autumn, sagegrouse may use upland meadows, riparian areas, and 

alfalfa fields in addition to sagebrush habitat. 

Throughout winter sage-grouse feed almost exclusively 

on sagebrush (BLM 2003). Winter habitats are 

usually dominated by big sagebrush although low and 

silver sagebrush communities are also used (Schroeder 

et al. 1999). Transition from late brood-rearing to 

winter habitat is often dependent on weather conditions 

and snow cover. Snow depth affects the spatial 

distribution of sage-grouse as birds search for areas 

where sagebrush remains exposed above the snow, 

available for roosting and foraging. 

Factors Affecting Habitat Quality 

The destruction and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitat represents the largest threat to remaining 

sage-grouse populations. Factors contributing to 

habitat degradation include alteration of historical fire 

regimes, conversion of land to farming or intensive 

livestock forage production, water developments, 

use of herbicides and pesticides, establishment of 

invasive species, urbanization, energy development, 

USDA NRCS, J. Vanuga 

Conversion of land to produce forage for livestock can

reduce sagebrush habitat. 

6 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

mineral extraction, and recreation (BLM 2003, 

Connelly et al. 2004). The combined effects of 

these factors have greatly impacted the spatial and 

temporal capacity of sagebrush landscapes to 

support sage-grouse. An overall reduction in 

available habitat has led to smaller, more isolated 

populations of sage-grouse that may exhibit reduced 

genetic variability and low rates of juvenile survival 

and adult reproduction. Although historical landmanagement practices such as replacing large 

expanses of sagebrush with livestock forage plants 

are no longer practiced, it is not yet known how 

remaining sage-grouse populations will respond to 

the cumulative effects of intensive, historical land-use 

coupled with new activities such as energy 

development and recreation (BLM 2003). The 

following section provides a summary of the key 

land-management practices affecting sage-grouse 

populations. 

Altered Fire Regimes 

Fire ecology of sagebrush ecosystems was 

dramatically impacted by European settlement of 

western North America. Today, altered wildfire 

regimes are believed to be the greatest detriment to 

sage-grouse habitat in the western portion of the 

species’ range (BLM 2003). At high elevation, fire 

return intervals have increased from 12–24 years to 

greater than 50 years in sagebrush habitat. As a result, 

juniper (Juniperus spp.) and pinyon (Pinus spp.) have 

invaded sagebrush stands, leading to a loss of 

herbaceous understory and shrub canopy cover 

preferred by sage-grouse (Crawford et al. 2001). In 

lower elevations, conversion of land for livestock 

grazing and the associated introduction of some nonnative forage plants have fueled frequent wildfires and 

shortened the historical fire interval from 50-100 years 

to less than 10 years (Connelly et al. 2004). Native 

sagebrush communities may not naturally reestablish 

under altered fire regimes and the lack of prompt and 

appropriate habitat rehabilitation following wildfires can 

present additional threats to sage-grouse habitat. 

Grazing 

Historically, widespread sagebrush control methods 

were implemented to manage for landscape 

characteristics that favored livestock production. The 

effects of overgrazing combined with drought on plant 

communities in the late 1880s and early 1900s still 

influence current sagebrush habitats. While large-scale 

treatments to replace sagebrush with preferred 

livestock forage plants are no longer conducted 

(Connelly et al. 2004), sagebrush control methods 

including burning, plowing or mechanical removal, and 

herbicide application are still used to benefit 

production. In general, control methods and grazing 

management that favor increased livestock production 

make habitat less suitable for sage-grouse by limiting 

the food plants, nesting sites, and cover that sagegrouse require. 

Agriculture 

In regions with soils suitable for agricultural use, 

complete loss of sage-grouse habitat has been pervasive 

(BLM 2003). Habitat conversion to agriculture 

fragments the landscape, impacting the ability of sagegrouse to access critical resources, and facilitating the 

movement of sage-grouse predators such as common 

ravens (Connelly et al. 2004). Agricultural seeding 

practices can increase dominance of non-native 

species within sagebrush stands, reducing the value of 

remaining sagebrush habitat to sage-grouse. 

Mechanical sagebrush control to enhance land for 

agriculture is also detrimental. Small increases in tilled 

land have been linked to a large decline in the number 

of lekking males in south-central Montana (Swenson 

et al. 1987). Long-term management for cultivated 

crops may be more detrimental to sage-grouse than 

removal of sagebrush for grazing because regeneration 

of sagebrush, forbs, or native grasses cannot occur 

while crops are in place. By contrast, native sagebrush 

plants may regenerate to some extent on properly 

managed grazing lands. 

Development of Water Sources 

Development of water sources for livestock 

management, crop irrigation, or human consumption 

may negatively impact springs and associated riparian 

habitats that provide important watering and foraging 

areas for sage-grouse. Widespread water 

developments throughout sagebrush ecosystems have 

increased the amount of area that can be grazed. They 

also modify human and livestock land-use patterns, 

7 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

In states that 

do allow hunting, sage-grouse seasons are short and possession limits are only a few birds per season. 

Often, a special permit to hunt sage-grouse is required, and hunting is only permitted in designated 

decrease the take of brood-rearing hens. Population viability analysis may be useful to estimate the 

effects of hunting on a particular population. Careful monitoring of population sizes through the use of 

lek counts, harvest surveys, and other techniques will help to ensure that sage-grouse are not overhunted 

and retain their game-species status. Hunters are encouraged to contact their state or provincial game 

agencies regarding current sage-grouse hunting regulations and opportunities. 

At the time of publication, some states and provinces had eliminated hunting altogether.

locations. Currently, hunting seasons are set to avoid breeding, nesting, and young rearing seasons to 

Sage-grouse & Hunting 

exerting a new mosaic of disturbance across remaining 

sagebrush landscapes (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Herbicides and Pesticides 

The use of herbicides and pesticides can have negative 

effects on sage-grouse. These effects vary greatly 

depending on the timing, location and spatial extent of 

application. Treating large tracts of sagebrush with 

herbicides in order to encourage the growth of nonnative forage plants preferred by livestock was a 

common practice prior to the 1980s. Herbicide 

application (primarily 2,4-D) to large blocks of 

sagebrush rangeland resulted in major declines of sagegrouse breeding populations (Peterson 1970, 

Wallestad 1975, BLM 2003). Although many modern 

pesticides are shown to have a low toxicity to birds, 

the timing of their application overlaps the early and 

late brood-rearing period when chicks are highly 

dependent on insects for survival and most vulnerable 

to starvation. In addition to depleting food supplies, 

pesticide residues can be detrimental to grouse survival 

and reproduction (BLM 2003). 

Invasive Species 

Invasive species affect the long-term productivity of 

sagebrush habitats by altering their natural composition 

and replacing native species essential for sage-grouse 

survival (BLM 2003). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) 

and other non-native plant species that burn readily 

have invaded lower elevation sagebrush habitats across 

much of the western part of the sagebrush biome, 

further exacerbating the role of fire in these systems 

(Connelly et al. 2003). Introduced annual grasses from 

Eurasia, cheatgrass and medusahead (Taeniatherum 

caput-medusae), now either dominate or have a 

significant presence (estimated greater than 10% 

composition based on biomass) on over 27,000 mi2 

of public land in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada 

and Utah (Connelly et al. 2004). Although cheatgrass 

and medusahead proliferation is widespread, increases 

in other invasive plants and noxious weeds are also 

adversely affecting sagebrush habitats. For example, 

non-native wheatgrasses are often used in post-fire 

rehabilitation because of their forage value for livestock, 

fast establishment and low cost. Reseeding with 

wheatgrass may limit the natural regeneration of native 

grasses and forbs that provide critical habitat 

components for sage-grouse (BLM 2003). However, 

wheatgrass has also been successfully used to restore 

more natural fire regimes. Therefore, land users must 

carefully consider the costs and benefits of introducing 

wheatgrass on their properties. Other non-native 

species that compete with sagebrush include 

knapweed (Centaurea spp.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia 

esula), and Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus). 

Urbanization 

Urban expansion associated with population growth 

in western North America poses one of the largest 

threats to remaining sage-grouse populations. 

Commercial and residential development destroys and 

fragments sagebrush habitat via the construction of 

buildings, roads, powerlines, railroads, and 

communications towers. The development of roads 

8 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

and other urban corridors may increase both legal and 

illegal harvest of grouse, facilitate predator movements, 

and provide corridors for spread of invasive species 

across the entire sagebrush biome. Mortality of sagegrouse through collisions with fences, power lines and 

other structures has been documented. Birds that do 

not die immediately from collisions become prey for 

predators (BLM 2003). 

Energy Development 

Extraction of oil and gas requires the construction of 

well pads, roads, and pipelines resulting in the physical 

destruction of sagebrush habitat. Indirect effects of 

energy development include habitat fragmentation and 

soil disturbance along roads, spread of invasive plants, 

and increased predation from raptors that have access 

to new perches for nesting and hunting. Noise 

disturbance associated with construction activities and 

vehicles also can disrupt sage-grouse breeding and 

nesting. High demand for oil and gas resources and 

advanced extraction technologies will continue to drive 

the development of sagebrush habitat for energy 

reserves well into the future (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Mineral Extraction 

Potential impacts to sage-grouse, from mineral 

extraction activities, include habitat loss from mine and 

well construction, increased human activity including 

noise disturbances, and mortality associated with 

evaporation ponds (BLM 2003). Mineral 

development activities also lower water tables, which 

results in loss or reduction of herbaceous riparian 

vegetation used by sage-grouse in late summer and 

fall. The roads, power lines, and increased dust and 

noise associated with mineral development can also 

be disruptive to sage-grouse populations. Roads 

fragment habitat and create an avenue for the 

establishment of invasive species, powerlines attract 

sage-grouse predators, and noise disturbances impede 

aural communication between males and females 

during the lekking season. Degradation of sagebrush 

habitat by mining activities usually occurs incrementally. 

The results are cumulative and, if severe enough, will 

result in abandonment of the areas impacted by mining 

activities. 

Recreation 

Recreational activities such as camping, hiking, 

mountain biking, or driving off-road vehicles increase 

dust, noise, and traffic, and can create avenues for the 

establishment of non-native plants that degrade and 

further fragment sage-grouse habitats (BLM 2003). 

Recreational observation of lek sites may have a 

negative effect on sage-grouse breeding behavior as 

the presence of humans may disturb courtship rituals. 

Helping Remaining Sage-grouse Populations 

Addressing land-management practices associated 

with sage-grouse decline will require unprecedented 

cooperation among wildlife biologists, range scientists, 

and private landowners (Crawford et al. 2001). Longterm conservation management plans for sage-grouse 

should include strategies that 1) identify and map 

remaining sage-grouse populations and sagebrush 

habitat, and 2) enhance key areas of high ecological 

integrity and restore habitat adjacent to these areas, 

while maintaining no net loss of sage-grouse habitat 

(BLM 2000). In order to ensure a future for sagegrouse, land managers must work to provide a 

landscape-scale mosaic of native plant communities 

such that viable populations of sage-grouse can exist 

throughout their range (Paige and Ritter 1999). 

The ability of landowners and resource managers to 

address sage-grouse habitat concerns at large scales 

is aided greatly by geographic information systems 

(GIS) technology and advances in landscape ecology. 

These tools allow unprecedented linkage and analysis 

of habitat and population dynamics data over space 

and time (Crawford et al. 2001). Treatments to restore 

sagebrush that are derived from such technologies are 

becoming a major emphasis of land management 

agencies. Many western states and Canada have 

developed management plans that outline specific 

recommendations for sage-grouse conservation, and 

will provide copies of the plan upon request. Plans are 

available for Nevada (Bureau of Land Management), 

Wyoming (Wyoming Department of Fish and Game), 

Canada (Canadian Sage-grouse Recovery Team), 

Colorado (BLM), Oregon/Washington (BLM), Idaho 

(Idaho Department of Fish and Game), Utah (Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources), and Montana 

9 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Table 3. Landowner assistance programs. 

Program 

Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) 

Conservation of Private 

Grazing Lands Initiative 

(CPGL) 

Environmental Quality 

Incentives Program 

(EQIP) 

Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program (PFW) 

Wildlife Habitat 

Incentives Program 

(WHIP) 

Grassland Easement 

Program (GEP) 

Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP) 

Private Stewardship 

Grants Program (PSGP) 

De s cription 

Provides cost share for establishing 

permanent cover and conservation 

practices, and annual rental payments 

for land enrolled in 10 to 15-year 

contracts. 

Provides technical assistance on 

managing grazing lands for natural 

resource protection and economic and 

community benefits. 

Provides up to 75% cost-share for 

conservation practices in accordance 

with 1 to 10-year contracts, and 

incentive payments for certain 

management practices. 

Up to 100% financial and technical 

assistance to restore wildlife habitat 

under minimum 10-year cooperative 

agreements. 

Provides up to 75% cost-share for 

conservation practices under 5 to 10­

year contracts. 

Protects grasslands with high wetland 

densities and native prairies or soils 

most likely to be converted to 

cropland through USFWS 

conservation easements. Grazing is 

permitted anytime on GEP easements, 

but haying and mowing are allowed 

only after 15 July each year to provide 

brood-rearing habitat for sage-grouse 

and other wildlife. 

Landowners may receive technical 

assistance and up to 90% of the cost 

to restore grassland or shrubland that 

has never been cultivated, or 75% of 

the cost if the land has a history of 

cultivation. Once the land is restored, 

landowners must enter into rental 

agreements with the USDA to 

conserve the restored land for 10, 15, 

20, or 30 years. 

Provides grants or other federal 

assistance to individuals and groups 

engaged in private conservation 

efforts that benefit species that are 

threatened or endangered, candidates 

for listing, or other at-risk species on 

private lands within the U.S. 

Contact Land Eligibility Organization 

All privately owned Natural Resources 

grazing land. Conservation Service 

(NRCS) or Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) 

Highly erodible land, Local NRCS or 

wetland and certain other conservation district 

lands with cropping office 

history, streamside areas 

i t l d Cropland, range, grazing Local NRCS or 

land and other agricultural conservation district 

land in need of treatment. office 

Most degraded fish and/or Local office of the U.S. 

wildlife habitat. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 

High priority fish and Local NRCS or 

wildlife habitats. conservation district 

office 

Grasslands with high Local office of the 

wetland densities and USFWS 

native prairie soils. 

Private lands Local NRCS or 

conservation district 

office 

Private lands Local office of the 

USFWS 

10 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

(Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks). Private land 

managers are encouraged to obtain copies of their state 

or provincial plan, and to implement the management 

recommendations outlined below in order to monitor 

local sage-grouse populations and enhance sagebrush 

habitat. 

Population Monitoring and Analysis 

Sage-grouse populations occupy large geographic 

areas and cross multiple jurisdictional boundaries on a 

year-round basis. Therefore, natural resource agencies 

and private landowners must work cooperatively to 

accurately assess sage-grouse population trends 

(Connelly et al. 2000). Identifying migration routes 

and seasonal habitats is one of the first steps that landmanagers should take when establishing criteria for 

effective management of sage-grouse populations. 

Breeding populations should be assessed annually via 

lek counts (count the number of males on each known 

lek), or lek surveys (classify each known lek as active 

or inactive) (Autenrieth et al. 1982). In areas where 

hunting of sage-grouse is permitted, wing collection 

and hunter harvest data can be used to estimate 

production (population growth) or recruitment (agestructure) within sage-grouse populations (Connelly 

et al. 2000). Demographic variables collected using 

such techniques can be used in computer models that 

analyze current and project future population trends. 

Two modeling tools that can be used to assess the 

condition of sage-grouse populations and their habitat 

are population viability analysis (PVA) and GIS. PVA 

is “a type of risk assessment designed to project the 

likelihood of a population’s persistence” (Johnson and 

Braun 1999). This model estimates for particular 

conditions, using a range of demographic information 

such as population size, survivorship, reproductive 

ability and sex ratios. It can be used to assess the 

vulnerability of specific populations of sage-grouse, 

particularly those that are small and/or at high risk. 

The likely effectiveness of proposed management 

strategies can then be evaluated theoretically before 

they are enacted. GIS technology can be used to map 

sage-grouse populations and land-use in order to 

identify priority areas for conservation activities. Private 

landowners can participate in these efforts by sharing 

information with agencies and scientists who are using 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Like the sage-grouse, the pygmy rabbit has suffered significant population declines due to the loss of sagebrush

habitat. Land management practices that help to conserve

sagebrush systems will benefit a suite of sagebrush-dependent species. 

these technologies to develop population management 

strategies for sage-grouse. 

Modifying Land-Management Practices to 

Conserve & Enhance Sagebrush Habitat 

The effective management of sagebrush is an essential 

part of any sage-grouse conservation plan. Remaining 

sagebrush habitat should be conserved, and degraded 

sagebrush habitat should be restored if practical. Nest 

and lek sites should be given priority as they are crucial 

to breeding success and population persistence. In 

addition to sagebrush habitat, springs, wet meadows, 

and riparian areas used by sage-grouse should also 

be carefully managed. A summary of recommended 

conservation actions to address land management 

activities that impact sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat 

is provided in Table 4. Protecting and restoring sagegrouse habitat will benefit many other species that use 

sagebrush during all or part of their life cycle. Other 

sagebrush fauna that would also benefit from 

conservation and restoration of sagebrush habitat can 

be found on the list in Appendix C. 

Managing wildfire and prescribed burns 

Burning over large areas to eradicate sagebrush for 

the benefit of livestock forage is detrimental to sagegrouse because it removes protective shrub cover and 

promotes conversion to invasive plants, such as 

cheatgrass, that have little to no habitat value for sagegrouse (Paige and Ritter 1999). In general, wildfire 

suppression is recommended to prevent further loss 

11 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

2004). Male and female lek attendance rates dropped dramatically the spring following a WNV 

outbreak, indicating that the disease may threaten local populations of sage-grouse with local extinction. 

WNV outbreaks may work synergistically with other (land-use) risk factors to further threaten the 

vectors and reservoir hosts that spread WNV throughout this region, and a full understanding of how 

WNV will impact sage-grouse populations will require a rapid, coordinated monitoring strategy 

flushed. Birds exhibiting these behaviors should be reported to state or provincial wildlife authorities. 

Sage-grouse carcasses should be similarly reported. Handling of dead birds or field necropsies are 

not recommended due to health risks to untrained personnel and potential loss or improper preservation 

contacted for information on where to send sage-grouse carcasses for WNV testing. 

Sage-grouse & West Nile Virus 

Recent studies done in Alberta, Wyoming, and Montana indicated West Nile virus (WNV) resulted 

in a 25% decline in survival in four populations of radiomarked greater sage-grouse (Walker et al. 

species’ presence throughout western North America. At present, biologists are working to identify 

among researchers and land managers (Walker et al. 2004). Symptoms of WNV in sage-grouse 

include lack of mobility, tilted or drooping head, drooping wings when roosting, or weak flight when 

of critical samples (Walker et al. 2004). State or provincial wildlife veterinary laboratories may be 

of sagebrush habitat. However, prescribed burning 

can be a useful management tool if applied on a small 

scale at historical fire intervals (25–100 years). The 

response of sagebrush to fire depends on many factors 

that include but are not limited to: sage type, soil type, 

soil moisture, vegetation moisture, winds, humidity, 

season of burning, nature of the understory vegetation, 

degree of occupancy by invasive plants, management 

of livestock grazing, post-fire livestock management, 

and post-fire reseeding efforts. Securing the knowledge 

and expertise of local natural resource professionals 

who have experience balancing all of these factors is 

an essential step in planning a successful prescribed 

burn. 

Areas dominated by continuous or dense sagebrush 

can be burned on a small scale with the goal of opening 

up the sagebrush canopy to encourage the growth of 

native grasses and forbs. Such efforts should be 

designed to allow natural regeneration of sagebrush 

from the soil seedbank or upwind stands. This will 

produce a sagebrush mosaic that varies in age over 

space and time, creating a landscape preferred by 

sage-grouse (Paige and Ritter 1999). When using 

prescribed burns to thin habitats dominated by mountain 

big sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush, no more 

than 20% of known sage-grouse breeding habitat 

should be treated within a 20- to 30-year period 

(Connelly et al. 2000). Where natural regeneration is 

insufficient, post-burn land-management practices 

should incorporate reseeding with native bunchgrass 

and forb species to prevent invasion by non-native 

species, and exclusion of cattle for 1–4 growing 

seasons to prevent damage to soil and new vegetation 

growth (Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Grazing strategies 

Grazing in sage-grouse habitat should be limited and 

closely monitored to ensure that it does not cause 

irreversible ecological damage to the sagebrush system. 

While no single grazing strategy is appropriate for all 

types of sagebrush and grazing management should 

be tailored to the condition and potential of each grazing 

unit, certain general land management practices may 

help buffer the effects of grazing on sagebrush habitat. 

Grazing plans that promote a mosaic of different 

amounts of shrub cover, perennial grass and forb cover, 

and openings of bare ground will benefit sage-grouse 

(Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Rotational grazing practices that minimize the presence 

of cattle in sagebrush during the nesting season (late 

spring and summer) will help to ensure adequate nesting 

cover, and deter the loss of nests and chicks to trampling 

12 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Table 4. Summary of recommended land management practices for sage-grouse. 

Land Management

Component Sage-grouse Conservation Goal Recommended Management Practices 

Fire Prevent destruction of high-quality sagebrush 

habitat. 

Suppress large-scale wildfires. Limit prescribed burning of mountain and Wyoming big sagebrush to less than 20% of the habitat with in a 20 to 30-year period. Use strips of fire resistant vegetation (green-stripping) in areas dominated by cheatgrass. Burn in early spring to discourage cheatgrass. Prescribed burn activity should be limited to those areas where forbs have been excluded from 

the system due to an overabundance of sagebrush cover. Under these circumstances, limit prescribed burns to small, patch areas to encourage regrowth of forbs. Design prescribed burns to allow natural regeneration from upwind stands and soil-banked seeds. 

Limit the invasion of aggressive invasive plants

Reseed burned areas with appropriate vegetation, if possible from local native seed that provides desired sagebrush habitat. 

Allow regeneration of native sagebrush, grasses, and forbs 

Exclude cattle from burned areas for 1-4 years. 

Minimize disturbance to sage-grouse Develop a burn plan that avoids nesting season mortality. 

Grazing Restore degraded sagebrush habitat Control livestock access to the area to be restored and reseed in native vegetation. 

After establishment, manage grazing to develop the desired habitat. Livestock allocations should only be increased if it can be demonstrated that there are notdetrimental effects on sage-grouse habitat quality. 

Encourage the growth of native sagebrush, grasses, and forbs 

Use proper stocking levels and grazing management that produces the desired plant community. 

Avoid trampling of ground nests Time grazing and rotate pastures to avoid the nesting season. 

Manage locations of salt or mineral supplements, and water. 

Maintain herbaceous nesting cover Protect current season's growth through the nesting season, and manage livestock to 

consider affects of wild grazers such that atleast 50% of the annual vegetation growth is conserved. 

Ensure winter habitat availability Locate supplemental winter feeding of livestock in areas that will limit livestock access to 

known sage-grouse habitat.

Agriculture Maintain vegetative cover throughout the nonbreeding season Use minimum-till or no-till systems.

Maintain protective cover Protect riparian buffer zones and unplowed field borders and edges. 

Reduce bird mortality Delay haying and mowing until after birds have fledged (late July). 

Practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 

13 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Table 4. (cont) Summary of recommended land management practices for sage-grouse.

Recommended Management Practices 

Engineer to retain natural water flow. 

Sage-grouse Conservation Goal 

Maintain water quality and native vegetation in springs, seeps, and riprian areasRemove known invasive spec

Minimize bird mortality 

Land Management 

Component 

Reduce bird mortality 

Water Resources 

Provide insect food resources for sagegrouseMinimize bird mortality 

Invasive Species

Herbicides &

Pesticides

Urbanization 

Make existing sagebrush habitat more resistant to invasive species Restore native sagebrush vegetation Maintain lLimit fragmentation of sagebrush habitat Minimize construction disturbances 

Where priority and funding permit, retrofit existing springs to restore free-flowing nature of streams. Protect and enhance the growth of native forbs. Control livestock access to riparian areas. 

Develop new livestock watering facilities away from sensitive areas. Provide escape ramps or floats. Practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM).Limit use to ground applications in key problem areas; use minimum application rates to achieve objectives. Minimize use during sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing seasons. Use insecticide baits and natural pathogens instead of broad-spectrum insecticides. Minimize habitat fragmentation. 

Maintain and enhance the health of native sagebrush species. Avoid large-scale disturbance. Manage grazing activities to minimize habitat disturbance. Employ appropriate physical, mechanical, and/ or chemical control methods. 

Reseed areas with appropriate local, native sagebrush, grasses, and forbs. Use heavy spring grazing to reduce cheatgrass, and then reseed with native perennial grasses.Manage for no net loss of sagebrush habitat. Use conservation easements and tax incentives to retain sagebrush habitat. Retain native vegetation in open spaces. 

Avoid development designs that fragment remaining sagebrush habitat. Utilize existing roads, powerlines, and associated infrastructure where possible. Use native plants in residential landscaping. Do not develop known lekking, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat. Restrict construction activities to the immediate construction area. Reseed disturbed areas using native sagebrush species. Keep cats indoors and discourage other predators by covering garbage. 

ies 

arge areas of sagebrush habitat 

14 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Table 4. (cont) Summary of recommended land management practices for sage-grouse. 

Use conservatUtilize existInitiate land rec es. LimiPlace nettLimiRestrict bik

Sage-grouse Conservation Goal 

Land Management 

Component 

Maintain large area of sagebrush habitat Energy 

Development & 

Mineral Extraction 

Minimize habitat disturbance, soil erosion, and contamination of water resources 

Recreation 

Limit fragmentation of sagebrush habitat Minimize habitat disturbance over space and time Minimize bird mortality Minimize disturbance to sage-grouse 

Recommended Management Practices 

Manage for no net loss of sagebrush habitat. 

ion easements and tax incentives to retain sagebrush habitat. 

Retain native vegetation in open spaces. Avoid development designs that fragment remaining sagebrush habitat. 

ing roads, powerlines, and associated infrastructure where possible. 

lamation concurrently with energy development and mining activiti

Reseed disturbed areas using native sagebrush species. 

t the construction of structures that raptors can use. 

ing over ponds containing minimg water. 

Do not develop known lekki ing, or brood-rearing habitat. ng, nest

t recreational use to low-impact activities in sagebrush habitat. 

ing and motor-vehicle access to designated roads and trails. 

Restrict target practice to designated shooting and archery ranges. Avoid placing recreation sites near known lekking, nesting, or brood-rearing habitat. Restrict bird-watching activities during the lekking season. Invoke emergency seasonal or area closures as needed. 

15 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

(Paige and Ritter 1999). Cattle should be excluded 

from areas that have experienced extensive grazing 

damage and these areas should be reseeded in native 

sagebrush vegetation. Cattle should also be prevented 

from degrading riparian habitats. In upland areas 

grazing of bunch grasses should not occur during crucial 

growth periods. 

In both riparian and upland habitats, early season light 

to moderate grazing can promote forb abundance and 

availability. In areas where cheatgrass and native 

perennials are mixed, grazing during the dormant period 

may favor perennial species, thereby improving habitat 

for sage-grouse. Finally, supplemental feeding of 

livestock in known sage-grouse habitat is strongly 

discouraged (Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Agriculture strategies 

Several practices can be adopted to reduce the impact 

of agriculture on sage-grouse. Farmers using minimum 

till and no-till systems can provide cover for sagegrouse throughout the non-breeding (winter) season. 

A 100-ft buffer of native vegetation should be 

maintained around springs, seeps, wetlands, and 

riparian habitats that occur within agricultural land 

(Paige and Ritter 1999). Areas comprised of 

unsuitable soils or steep slopes should be maintained 

in native vegetation to provide habitat stepping stones 

for sage-grouse using the area. Herbicide and pesticide 

use should be kept to a minimum to prevent poisoning 

of sage-grouse. Pesticide use should be limited to 

minimum application rates, ground applications, baits, 

and natural pathogens in order to prevent substantial 

loss of insect prey. 

Water strategies 

New livestock water developments should be 

constructed outside known sage-grouse nesting and 

early brood-rearing habitat unless it can be 

demonstrated that the development will not adversely 

affect habitat quality. New spring developments should 

be constructed to maintain their free-flowing nature 

and wet meadow characteristics (BLM 2000). Sagegrouse are attracted to wet areas due to the succulent 

forbs and insects found there. Management practices 

that protect and enhance the growth of native forbs 

around water developments are highly encouraged 

(Paige and Ritter 1999). Wildlife escape ramps or 

floats should be installed on all water troughs to prevent 

drowning. (BLM 2000). Water developments should 

be located at least 0.6 mi from leks to minimize 

concentration of livestock in sage-grouse mating areas. 

Construction should be done such that structures that 

provide avian predator perches are limited (BLM 

2000). 

Application of pesticides and herbicides 

Land managers concerned with maintaining productive 

sage-grouse populations should reduce applications 

of pesticides and herbicides wherever possible. Use 

should be limited to ground applications in key problem 

areas using minimum application rates (Paige and Ritter 

1999). Pesticides should not be applied to sage-grouse 

breeding habitat during the brood-rearing season (midMay–mid-July) to limit the loss of insect prey and avoid 

secondary poisoning of chicks (Ulliman et al. 1998). 

Direct toxic effects of insecticides on sage-grouse can 

be further minimized through the use of insecticide baits 

and natural pathogens (such as Nosema locustae for 

grasshoppers) rather than broad-spectrum insecticides 

(Paige and Ritter 1999). 

Invasive species management 

Invasive plants that compete with native species should 

be monitored and controlled in sage-grouse habitat. 

Land managers can work to prevent non-native species 

from invading sagebrush by minimizing habitat 

fragmentation, limiting soil disturbance activities, and 

managing livestock to maintain the integrity of the plant 

community (Paige and Ritter 1999). Non-native 

species should be removed using an appropriate 

combination of physical, mechanical, and/ or chemical 

techniques. These areas should then be reseeded with 

native grasses and forbs to prevent reinvasion by nonnatives (Larson et al. 1994). In areas dominated by 

cheatgrass, heavy spring grazing before spring 

production may help to prepare a unit for conversion 

to native perennial grasses (Vallentine and Stevens 

1994). In areas where medusahead has invaded, 

herbicidal sprays may prove more effective than 

mechanical removal. Land managers are encouraged 

to consult local natural resource professionals for help 

in determining which plants are invasive and how they 

can best be controlled or eradicated. 

16 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Urbanization 

The impact of urban expansion on sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitats can be buffered through careful 

development planning. Large-scale planning should 

discourage habitat destruction and fragmentation by 

preserving large, interconnected areas of native 

sagebrush habitat. Community planners are 

encouraged to explore conservation easements and 

tax incentives as a means to preserve open space in 

sagebrush habitat (Paige and Ritter 1999). On a local 

scale, commercial and residential plans should be 

designed so that homes and buildings are grouped in 

clusters on areas peripheral to interior portions of 

preserved sagebrush stands. Construction-related 

disturbance should be confined to immediate 

construction areas to avoid destruction of adjacent 

sagebrush habitat. Areas disturbed during construction 

should be restored using species native to sagebrush 

communities (Paige and Ritter 1999). New powerlines 

should be installed within existing utility corridors and 

rights-of-way where practical (BLM 2000). 

Homeowners should avoid using insecticides, 

herbicides, and fertilizers on their lawns, and can further 

protect sage-grouse by keeping their cats and dogs 

indoors. 

Mining and energy development 

Land reclamation techniques should be initiated 

concurrently with mining and energy development 

activities in attempt to minimize habitat disturbance over 

space and time. Infrastructure associated with mining 

and energy development should not be placed in or 

adjacent to leks, breeding and early brood-rearing 

habitat, or wintering habitat. Construction of structures 

that may serve as perches for predatory raptors should 

not occur. Ponds containing mining waters should be 

netted to exclude sage-grouse. Land reclamation using 

a variety of native shrub, forb and grass species may 

encourage sage-grouse to repopulate the area. 

Recreation 

Recreation sites and recreational activities should be 

limited such that impacts on native vegetation, and 

contribution to erosion and water contamination are 

minimal. Recreational land use should be low-impact. 

Biking, horseback riding and motor-vehicle use should 

be restricted to designated roads and trails. Target 

practice should be restricted to designated shooting 

Source: Connelly et al. 2004 

Figure 2. Distribution of public and private lands within

the sagebrush biome. Land ownership information

compiled from state GAP analysis programs, the USGS

National Land Cover Database, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, and individual state sources. 

and archery ranges. Land managers should avoid 

releasing the locations of all known lek sites to minimize 

human disturbance (bird watching) during the breeding 

season. If substantial public interest in lek viewing 

exists, managers might consider building observation 

blinds at selected sites. The impacts of recreational 

activities on sage-grouse populations should be closely 

monitored. Activities found to have detrimental effects 

on sage-grouse or sagebrush habitat should be 

prohibited by invoking emergency seasonal or areas 

closures as needed (Paige and Ritter 1999, BLM 

2000). 

Landowner assistance 

In Canada, 90% of the sagebrush area in 

Saskatchewan and 28% of the sagebrush area in 

Alberta are privately owned. In the United States, 

approximately 30% of remaining sagebrush habitat is 

privately owned with private land holdings are 

considered a major constituent of sagebrush landscapes 

in eastern Montana, eastern Wyoming, Washington, 

and Colorado (Connelly et al. 2004; see also Figure 

2). Reversing the decline of sage-grouse throughout 

its range will require large-scale habitat restoration and 

conservation efforts on privately held land. Proactive 

land-management and conservation efforts aimed at 

preventing the listing of sage-grouse are highly 

encouraged. Federal conservation programs represent 

a key management tool that can be used in restoring 

the amount, condition, and extent of habitat necessary 

to impact sage-grouse on private land (Riley 2004). 

17 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

A variety of federal conservation programs are 

available to assist landowners with sage-grouse 

conservation efforts. A listing of relevant programs is 

provided in Table 3. Federal conservation programs 

assist private landowners in implementing perpetual 

conservation easements, cost-share agreements, and 

term contracts, as well as provide technical landmanagement assistance. (Riley 2004). Contact 

information for organizations that provide assistance 

with federal conservation programs for sage-grouse 

and critical sagebrush habitat can be found in Appendix 

B. 

Conclusion 

To be truly effective, sage-grouse conservation 

measures must be enacted at regional landscape levels 

with cooperation from public and private landowners, 

government agencies, conservation organizations and 

academic institutions. Preserving and enhancing 

sagebrush habitat, which is the primary objective for 

sage-grouse conservation, will help to protect many 

other sagebrush species as well. Sustainable use of 

sagebrush habitat by both humans and animal species 

such as the sage-grouse should be the ultimate goal. 

References 

On-line Sources 

Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Gunnison sagegrouse conservation plan. Bureau of Land 

Management Gunnison Field Office, Gunnison, 

Colorado, USA. www.co.blm.gov:80/gra/ 

sagegrouse.htm 

Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Greater sage-grouse 

and sage-steppe ecosystems management guidelines. 

www.or.blm.gov/Resources/Birds/SageGrouse/SageGrouseReport.pdf 

Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Management 

guidelines for sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystems 

in Nevada. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State 

Office, Reno, Nevada, USA. http:// 

sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/Docs/sage_grouse_nv.pdf 

Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land 

Management Oregon/Washington, Portland, Oregon, 

USA. www.or.blm.gov 

Canadian Sage-grouse Recovery Team. 2000. Canadian 

sage-grouse recovery strategy. http://www3.gov.ab.ca/ 

srd/fw/riskspecies/pdf/SageGrousePlan.pdf 

Cannings, S. G. 2001. Comprehensive report: Greater sagegrouse. www.natureserve.org. Accessed October 2004. 

Connelly, J. W. 1999. What do we know about sage 

grouse needs? Presentation given to the Western Sage 

Grouse Status Conference, Jan. 14-15, 1999, Boise, 

Idaho. www.rangenet.org/projects/grouse.html. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2003. http:// 

fishandgame.idaho.gov/ 

Montana Sage-grouse Work Group. 2002. Draft 

management plan and conservation strategies for sagegrouse. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

www.fwp.state.mt.us/wildthings/sagegrouse/ 

sagegrousemanagementplan.pdf 

NatureServe. 2004. Downloadable animal data sets. 

NatureServe Central Databases. www.natureserve.org/ 

[access date 10/12/04]). Arlington, Virginia, USA. 

University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Animal 

Diversity Web. Centrocercus urophasianus (sage 

grouse). http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu. 

Accessed October 2004. 

USDA, NRCS. 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 

(http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2004. 

Summary of Sage–grouse petitions submitted to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as of May 27, 

2004. www.r6.fws.gov/species/birds/sagegrouse/. 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2003. 

www.wildlife.utah.gov 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. 

www.wa.gov/wdfw/wlm/diversty/soc/pygmy.htm 

Wyoming Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Draft 

Wyoming greater sage-grouse conservation plan. 

http://gf.state.wy.us/html/afs/pdf/sage_grouse.pdf 

18 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Printed Sources 

Aldridge, C. L. 2002. Sage-grouse nesting and brood 

habitat use in southern Canada. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 66:433–444. 

Autenrieth, R. E., W. Molini, and C. E. Braun. 1982. Sagegrouse management practices. Western States Sagegrouse Committee, Technical Bulletin1, Twin Falls, 

Idaho, USA. 

Barnett, J. K., and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Prelaying 

nutrition of sage-grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of 

Range Management 47:114–118. 

Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. O. Wallestad. 1977. 

Guidelines for maintenance of sage-grouse habitats. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 5:99–106. 

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North 

America: what are the problems? Proceedings of the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

78:139–156. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2003. DRAFT Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy. 35pp. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2002. DRAFT Wyoming 

Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. 59pp. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Gunnison sagegrouse conservation plan. Bureau of Land 

Management, Gunnison Field Office, Gunnison, 

Colorado. 108pp. 

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

Stiver. 2004. Conservation of greater sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitats. Western Association Wildlife 

Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

USA. 

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. 

Connelly, J. 1999. Sage grouse management. Presentation 

given to the Western Sage Grouse Status Conference, 

Jan. 14–15, 1999, Boise, Idaho, USA. Online. Available: 

http://www.rangenet.org/projects/grouse.html. 

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. 

Côté, I. M., and W. J. Sutherland. 1997. The effectiveness 

of removing predators to protect bird populations. 

Conservation Biology 11:395–405. 

Crawford, J. A. 1982. Factors affecting sage-grouse 

harvest in Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:374– 

377. 

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. 2001. Ecology and management of 

sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Journal of Range 

Management 57:2–19. 

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.

Dobkin, D. S., A. C. Rich, and W. H. Pyle. 1998. Habitat 

and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a 

riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great 

Basin. Conservation Biology 12:209–221. 

Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Diets 

and food selection of sage-grouse chicks in Oregon. 

Journal of Range Management 47:90–93. 

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. 

Fischer, R. A., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 1996. An 

investigation on fire effects within xeric sage-grouse 

brood habitat. Journal of Range Management 49:194– 

198. 

Fischer, R. A. 1994. The effects of prescribed fire on the 

ecology of migratory sage grouse in southeastern 

Idaho. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 

USA. 

Gibson, R. M. 1989. Field playback of male display 

attracts females in lek breeding sage-grouse. 

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:439–443. 

Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1989. Topographic 

distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 53:823–829. 

Jacobson, M. Q. and S. S. Seefeldt. 2002. Sage-grouse, 

livestock, and land management practices at the U.S. 

Sheep Experiment Station. Grouse Partnership News 

3:18–19. 

Jensen, H. P., D. Rollins, and R. L. Gillen. 1990. Effects of 

cattle stock density on trampling loss of simulated 

ground nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:71–74. 

19 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Johnson, K. H., and C. E. Braun. 1999. Viability and 

conservation of an exploited sage-grouse population. 

Conservation Biology 13:77–84. 

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. 

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. 

Kuykendall, K. and M. Gisler. 2002. Landscape 

restoration for sage-grouse. Grouse Partnership News 

3:16–17. 

Miller, M. 2002. The Crooked Creek effort: A cooperative 

project for sage-grouse management. Grouse 

Partnership News 3:14–15. 

Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, J. W. Connelly. 2000. Long-term 

effects of fire on sage-grouse habitat. Journal of 

Range Management 53:586–591. 

Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: 

managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. 

52pp. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, 

Idaho, USA. 

Peterson, J. G. 1970. The food habits and summer 

distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central 

Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:147–155. 

Pyle, W. H., J. A. Crawford. 1996. Availability of foods of 

sage-grouse chicks following prescribed fire in 

sagebrush-bitterbrush. Journal of Range Management 

49:320–324. 

Riley, T. Z. 2004. Private-land habitat opportunities for 

prairie grouse through federal conservation programs. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:83–91. 

Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. 

Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Pp. 1–28 in 

A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North 

America, No. 425. The Birds of North America Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Scott, J. M., M. Murray, R. G. Wright, B. Csuti, P. Morgan, 

and R. L. Pressey. 2001. Representation of natural 

vegetation in protected areas: capturing the 

geographic range. Biodiversity and Conservation 

10:1297–1301. 

Stoms, D. M., F. W. Davis, K. L. Driese, K. M. Cassidy, and 

M. P. Murray. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of 

the intermountain semi-desert ecoregion. Great Basin 

Naturalist 58:199–216. 

Sturges, D. L. 1993. Soil-water and vegetation dynamics 

through 20 years after big sagebrush control. Journal 

of Range Management 46:161–169. 

Swenson, J. E., C. A. Simmons, and C. D. Eustace. 1987. 

Decrease in sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

after plowing of sagebrush steppe. Biological 

Conservation 41:125–132. 

Ulliman, M. J., A. Sands, and T. Hemker. 1998. Draft 

conservation plan for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 

and its habitats in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Boise, Idaho, USA. 

Vale, T.R. 1974. Sagebrush conversion projects: An 

element of contemporary environmental change in the 

Western United States. Biological Conservation: 

6:274–283. 

Vallentine, J. F., and A. R. Stevens. 1994. Use of livestock 

to control cheatgrass—a review. Pages 202–210 in S. B. 

Monsen and S. G. Kitchen, editors, Proceedings: 

Ecology and management of annual rangelands. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah, USA. 

Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, K. E. Doherty, and T. E. 

Cornish. 2004. From the field: Outbreak of West Nile 

virus in greater sage-grouse and guidelines for 

monitoring, handling, and submitting dead birds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1000–1006. 

Wallestad, R. O. 1975. Life History and habitat 

requirements of sage-grouse in central Montana. 

Montana Fish and Game Department, Technical 

Bulletin, Helena, Montana, USA. 

Welch, B. L., F. J. Wagstaff, and J. A. Roberson. 1991. 

Preference of wintering sage-grouse for big sagebrush. 

Journal of Range Management 44:462–465. 

Wright, R. G., J. M. Scott, S. Mann, and M. Murray. 2001. 

Identifying unprotected and potentially at risk plant 

communities in the western USA. Biological 

Conservation 98:97–106. 

Young, J. R., C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. W. Hupp, 

and T. W. Quinn. 2000. A new species of sage grouse 

(Phasianidae: Centrocercus) from southwestern 

Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 112:445–453. 

20 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Appendix A. Plant species associated with sage-grouse 

Type Common name Scientific name 

Grass blue grama Bouteloua spp. 

buffalo grass Buchloe spp. 

giant wildrye Elymus cinereus 

western wheatgrass Elymus smithii 

bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata 

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis 

prairie junegrass Koeleria macrantha 

Indian ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides 

steppe bluegrass Poa secunda 

Forb western yarrow2 Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis 

mountain-dandelion2 Agoseris spp. 

wild onion Allium spp. 

evening primrose Oenothera spp. 

everlasting Antennaria spp. 

milkvetch3 Astragalus spp. 

sego lily2 Calochortus spp. 

hawksbeard2 Crepis spp. 

fleabane Erigeron spp. 

buckwheat Eriogonum spp. 

western marsh cudweed Gnaphalium palustre 

curly cup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

prickly lettuce1,2 Lactuca serriola 

prairie starflower Lithophragma spp. 

desert parsley3 Lomatium spp. 

lupine Lupinus spp. 

alfalfa1 Medicago sativa 

sweetclover1 Melilotus officinalis 

microsteris3 Microsteris gracilis 

prickly pear Opuntia polyacantha 

phlox Phlox spp. 

common dandelion1,2 Taraxacum officinale 

western salsify1,2 Tragopogon dubius 

clover Trifolium spp. 

death camas Zygadenus venenosus 

broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae 

21 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Appendix A (cont.). Plant species associated with sage-grouse 

Shrub low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula 

silver sagebrush Artemisia cana 

prairie sagewort Artemisia frigida 

black sagebrush Artemisia nova 

big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 

threetip sagebrush Artemisia tripartita 

rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp. 

winterfat Eurotia lanata 

antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata 

horsebrush Tetradymia canescens 

Shrub/tree juniper Juniperus spp. 

scrub willow Salix spp. 

Tree ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 

quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 

1

 introduced species 

2

 especially important sage grouse food species 

3 important sage grouse chick food species 

22 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Appendix B. Organizations that may assist with sage-grouse management 

Program/Organization Address What they do 

Canadian Wildlife Service 

(CWS) 

Inquiry Centre 

70 Crémazie St. 

Gatineau, Quebec 

K1A 0H3 

819-997-2800 or 1-800-668-6767 

CWS handles wildlife matters that are the 

responsibility of the federal government: protection and 

management of migratory birds, nationally significant 

habitat and endangered species, as well as work on 

other wildlife issues of national and international 

http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca importance. 

National Wildlife Federation, 240 N. Higgins, Suite 2 Landscape-level focus on protecting particular 

Northern Rockies Project Missoula, MT 59802 endangered species (including sage-grouse) as a key to 

Office http://www.nwf.org protecting other species and systems. 

Native Seed Network Institute for Applied Ecology 227 SW A collaborative effort to bring information, 

6th St. Corvallis, OR 97333 researchers, and restoration workers together to expand 

http://www.nativeseednetwork.org the use of native plants from local sources. 

USDA Natural Resources NRCS Delivers technical conservation assistance to private 

Conservation Service 14th and Independence Ave., SW landowners, local, state, and federal organizations and 

(NRCS) Washington, DC 20250 policy makers based on sound science; financial and 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov cost-share incentives are available. 

North American Grouse c/o Sutton Avian Research Center PO Promotes the conservation of grouse and the habitats 

Partnership Box 2007 necessary for their survival and reproduction. 

Bartlesville, OK 74005 

Society for Range 445 Union Blvd. Suite 230 A non-profit professional society that promotes and 

Management Lakewood, CO 80228 publishes information about rangeland ecosystems and 

http://www.rangelands.org their management. 

US Bureau of Land Office of Public Affairs The BLM administers 261 million surface acres of 

Management (BLM) 1849 C Street, Room 406-LS America's public lands, located in 12 western states. 

Washington, DC 20240 The BLM sustains the health, diversity, and 

Phone: (202) 452-5125 productivity of the public lands for the use and 

Fax: (202) 452-5124 enjoyment of present and future generations. 

http://www.blm.gov 

USDA Farm Service Agency 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. The FSA works to stabilize farm income, help farmers 

(FSA) STOP 0506 conserve land and water resources, provide credit to 

Washington, DC 20250-0506 new or disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and help 

http://www.fsa.usda.gov farm operations recover from natural disasters. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

1-800-344-WILD http://www.fws.gov The USFWS mission is to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Provides federal grants to assist with 

endangered/threatened species conservation and 

wildlife habitat expansion. 

Wildlife Habitat Council 8737 Colesville Road, Suite 800, Silver WHC is a nonprofit group dedicated to increasing the 

(WHC) Spring, MD 20910 amount of quality habitat on public and private lands. 

http://www.wildlifehc.org WHC helps large landowners manage their unused 

lands for the benefit of wildlife. 

The Wildlife Society (TWS) 5410 Grosvenor Lane Suite 200 

Bethesda, MD 20814-2144 

http://www.wildlife.org 

TWS is an international nonprofit scientific and 

educational organization serving professionals in all 

areas of wildlife ecology, conservation, and 

management. 

23 
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Appendix C. Wildlife associated with sagebrush ecosystems. 

Common name Scientific name Range overlap with sage grouse 

Reptiles 

horned lizard Phrynosoma spp. AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA 

rattlesnake Crotalus spp. AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, NV, SC, UT, WA, WY 

Birds 

sage sparrow1,3 Amphispiza belli CA, CO, ID, MT, NN, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY 

golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, 

WY 

ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

common nighthawk Chordeiles minor AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

horned lark Eremophila alpestris AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

prairie falcon Falco mexicanus AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens CA, CO, ID, NN, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY 

sage thrasher1,3 Oreoscoptes montanus AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

green-tailed towhee2,3 Pipilo chlorurus SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, NN, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY 

vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

Brewer's sparrow1,3 Spizella breweri AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

sharp-tailed grouse3,4 Tympanuchus phasianellus AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

prairie chicken3,4 Tympanuchus spp. AB, SK, CO, MT, ND, SD, WY 

mourning dove4 Zenaida macroura AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

Mammals 

pronghorn4 Antilocapra americana AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis CA, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY 

coyote Canis latrans AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

prairie dog Cynomys spp. SK, CO, MT, ND, NN, UT, WY 

jackrabbit4 Lepus spp. AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes AB, SK, CO, MT, ND, NN, SD, UT, WY 

mule deer4 Odocoileus hemionus AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NN, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

ground squirrel Spermophilus spp. AB, SK, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 

1 obligate sagebrush species 

2 near-obligate sagebrush species 

3 Partners in Flight high priority species at the continental scale 

4 game species 

24
Sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.) 

Wildlife Habitat Council 

8737 Colesville Road, Suite 800 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

301-588-8994 

increase the amount of quality wildlife habitat on 

corporate, private, and public land. WHC engages 

corporations, public agencies, and private, nonprofit organizations on a voluntary basis as one 

preservation of wildlife habitat worldwide. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

provides leadership in a partnership effort to help 

people conserve, maintain, and improve our 

natural resources and environment. 

USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

The mission of the Wildlife Habitat Council is to 

team for the recovery, development, and 

www.nrcs.usda.gov www.wildlifehc.org 

See Your Local Telephone Directory for a 

Service Center Near You 

Primary Authors: Brittany Bird and Michelle Schenk, Wildlife Habitat Council 

Reviewed By: Jack Connelly, Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Terry Rich, Partners in Flight National Coordinator, USFWS 

Dennis Thompson, NRCS National Range Ecologist 

Randy Gray, NRCS National Biologist 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Person with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 

(voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer. 

25