Overview:

Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations are declining. This icon of western sagebrush ecosystems now occupies only about 56% of the habitat that was available tobefore the arrival of European settlers (Miller and Eddleman 2001). Sagebrush habitat, which has also experienced extensive alteration and loss, is essential to sage grouse survival. Sagebrush is essential and required for either food or cover throughout all phases of their life cycle. In southern Idaho sagebrush habitat has been destroyed by fire, invasive species, and human activities (Braun 1998). The following figure (Connelly et al. 2004) shows that the longterm trend in sage grouse abundance is downward.

Fig. 1: Declining sage grouse populations, 1964 2004.

Members of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (FWS), the Forest Service (FS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other conservation agencies agree that cooperative efforts are necessary to collect and analyze data on sage grouse and their habitats so that cooperative plans may be formulated to conserve and manage sagebrush ecosystems for the benefit of sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent species (Connelly et al. 2004).

Seven years after conservationists petitioned to protect Greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the species is warranted but precluded from listing under the ESA. After a thorough analysis of the best available scientific information, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the greater sage grouse warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act (McIver 2010),other species facing more immediate and severe extinction threats. As a result, the greater sage grouse has been placed on a list of species that are candidates for Endangered Species Act Protection. This means that the status of the species warrants protection under ESA but that it is not yet listed because the FWS is focused on other higher priority species. Management agencies agree that sage grouse are an important archetypal species of the sagebrush ecosystem (Braun 1998). Sage grouse serve as an indicator of the overall health of this important ecosystem in Western North America. Thus, the status of sage grouse will be reviewed annually, until it is listed or until sage grouse populations recover. Providing for the presence and abundance of sage grouse reflects the commitment to maintaining all natural components and ecological processes within sagebrush ecosystems. Evidence suggests that human-caused habitat fragmentation and destruction across much of the species range has contributed to significant population declines over the past century. If current trends persist, many local populations may disappear in the next several decades, with the remaining fragmented population vulnerable to extinction (Connelly et al. 2004). Strong public support is imperative to sage grouse study and recovery. Approximately 40% of sage grouse habitat occurs on privately owned property (NRCS 2011), as can be seen in the following figure which represents the distribution of public and private lands within the sagebrush biome.

Fig. 2: Distribution of public and private lands within the sagebrush biome.

In 2010 the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service started a special Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) to implement sage grouse conservation practices on private lands through sustainable agriculture. Dialogues about sage grouse can establish a platform for discussing the numerous threats to sagebrush habitat and begin to devise solutions Local governments, tribal governments and private landowners or administrators play an important role managing and protecting sage grouse and sagebrush habitat.

Background: Causes of Habitat Disturbance and Change

Fragmentation and Anthropogenic Changes Fragmentation and urbanization of sagebrush habitats is the primary cause of the decline in sage-grouse populations (NRCS 2001). Numerous anthropogenic features have an influence on sage-grouse habitats including:the extensive network of roads, power lines, railroads, and communications towers, housing developments, and fences that crisscross southern Idaho (Connelly and Braun 2005). Roads and other corridors promote the invasion of exotic plants, provide travel routes for predators, and facilitate human access into sagebrush habitats. Human-caused fires in the sage brush steppe are closely related to existence of roads (Connelly and Braun 2005).

Connelly et al. (2004) conducted a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts across the sage-grouse conservation assessment area. The degree of the human footprint varies greatly across sagebrush habitats. Private land holdings throughout the West are dominated by higher human footprint classes than land held by state and federal agencies (Connelly et al 2004).

Fig. 3: Human footprint class across the sage-grouse conservation assessment area

Large acreage ranches are being broken up into smaller ranchettes which increases human densities, bringing along associated infrastructure, and non-native plants (Odell et al. 2003). The following figure (Connelly et al. 2004) depicts the spatial extent of the human footprint across the sage-grouse conservation assessment area and shows the relative anthropogenic impact, with areas in red representing the greatest impact and areas in green representing the least impact.

Livestock Production and Agriculture The introduction of livestock in the late 1800s greatly reduced the fine fuel component reducing the potential for fires to occur, allowing the expansion of conifers into sagebrush steppe communities (Miller and Eddleman 2001). A century of fire suppression has enabled conifers to encroach into sagebrush communities, reducing habitat for both sage grouse and livestock.

Land conversion is a major cause of fragmentation of landscapes; sage grouse populations and sagebrush habitats that were once continuous are now separated by agriculture. Often infrastructure leads to sage grouse mortalities, such as wire fence-collisions. As can be seen in the figure below, which was synthesized from research done by Connelly et al. 2004, agriculture currently influences 48% of the sagebrush habitats by fragmenting the landscape or facilitating movements of potential predators.

Area of Anthropogenic Effects in Sagebrush Habitat (%)

1% 7% 5% 48% 39% Agriculture Urban Energy Development Military Intallations Recreation

Chart 1. Area of Anthropogenic Influence in sagebrush biome

Some studies have shown grazing by livestock and wildlife to reduce the herbaceous understory in sagegrouse breeding habitat, which has negative impacts on sage grouse populations (Braun 1998). Conversely, grazing abatement may not return a site to a previous state or it may exacerbate the influence of exotic plants such as cheatgrass (Fleischner 1994). Therefore

emphasis on sustainably grazing lands and practicing ecologically friendly agricultural management is essential to improving sage grouse habitat. Human-caused fire, wildfire, and prescribed fire Fire is a leading cause of sagebrush habitat loss. Fire regimes have changed across much of the sagebrush biome, resulting in significant changes in plant composition and structure. Due to the invasion of exotic annuals, primarily cheatgrass, estimated mean fire return intervals in sagebrush communities have been reduced from 50-100 years to less than 10 years in some areas (dAntonio and Vitousek 1992). In contrast, a decline in fire occurrence across many areas of sagebrush have resulted in an increase in the distribution and density of pinyon-juniper woodlands encroaching on what once was sagebrush habitat (Leonard et al. 2000).

Cheatgrass Invasion and Expansion of Juniper and Woodlands Increases in the distribution of cheatgrass and juniper woodlands and changes in the sagebrush biome are another important factor in habitat loss. These changes have resulted from the combination of inappropriate livestock grazing, alteration of fire regimes, and climate change (Brooks and Pyke 2001). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) was introduced to the United States in the 1800s and has become a widespread problem throughout much of the West (dAntonio and Vitousek 1992). In the relatively arid sagebrush ecosystem, the invasion of this fire friendly fine fuel vegetation has resulted in dramatic increases in the frequency and duration of fires that eliminate the sagebrush overstory necessary for sage grouse survival (Brooks and Pyke 2001).

The increase in pinyon-juniper woodlandsthat have resulted from a history of rigorous fire suppression is an additional threat to the sagebrush ecosystem. Expansion of pinyon-juniper into sagebrush results in a decrease of sagebrush habitat and increases the risk of larger and more severe fires. Nonrenewable Energy Development and Wind Energy Development of oil and gas resources requires extensive construction of infrastructure. Access roads, storage tanks, electrical lines and pipelines are all concerns when attempting to limit

impacts on sagebrush ecosystems and sage grouse. For example, studies show that the construction of power lines throughout sage grouse habitat created perches and nesting platforms for raptors and corvids, both predators of sage grouse, where historically there had been none (Steenhof et al. 1993).

Wind energy development has several specific influences on sage grouse behavior; these include the noise and visual alarm that maybe produced by the rotor blades, as well as direct mortality from birds flying into the rotors. However, much more important than collision mortality is the mortality due to habitat loss, habitat modification, and habitat fragmentation associated with all forms of energy construction and development. Often the construction of an energy facility renders the site unusable for sage grouse (Kuvlesky 2007).

More than 81% of current sage grouse range is affected by natural gas and oil development, livestock grazing and cheatgrass occurrence (Connelly et al. 2004). The information in the following figure was summarized from a study conducted by Connelly et al. (2004) of humancaused influences in the sagebrush habitats of the sage grouse conservation assessment area. There are other influences, such as livestock grazing, which were not included in this analysis, but may have important effects nonetheless.

6% 6% 1% 12% 2%

Percent Anthropogenic Influence in Conservation Assessment Area

0% 1% 3% 17% 7% 12% 1% 2% Cropland Irrigation canals Urban development Landfills Interstates/highways All roads Railroads

3%

27%

Chart 2. Percent Anthropogenic Influence in conservation assessment area

Target Audience Habitat loss is one of the main threats to this species and has contributed to its decline. However, voluntary conservation can play a key role in protecting and restoring sage-grouse habitat. The sage grouse conservation assessment area is a large region with many distinct population segments, which is why this analysis will begin with local Idaho populations and expand from there. which I may not be familiar with; Therefore my target audience is people living within Idahos Snake River Plain. Ranchers and farmers that own large areas of land in southern Idaho experience direct contact with sagebrush ecosystems. Landowners employing conservation practices may receive financial incentives under the Sage-grouse Initiative through various Farm Bill conservation programs (NRCS 2011). Private land managers usually have some interest in procuring funding to carry out restoration designed to benefit both sage grouse and their own rangelands. Compared to those who live in more urban settings, or those who own small properties; ranchers and farmers living on the Snake River Plain are more deeply invested in programs that are geared towards large landowners and therefore can benefit their property, as well as the wildlife living on their lands. The target population therefore must represent the demographics of ranchers and farmers living on the Snake River Plain, which have been taken from U.S. Census Bureau records.

Demographics: Age: 30-50 Gender: Primarily male Location: Rural, Southern Idaho Educational Level: High School Diploma

Psychographics: Religion: Christian Political Party Affiliation: Republican

Many members of this demographic enjoy outdoor activities. Hunting, camping, fishing and hiking are typical of persons living in a rural setting in Southern Idaho. Populations that value hunting are also more prone to participate in wildlife conservation clubs such as the Sage Grouse Initiative through NRCS. The target audience may also derive some motivation from a hope that one day sage grouse will again be prolific enough to hunt them on the Snake River Plain.
Historical Reactions:

Most of the obliteration of sage brush steppe habitat has already happened, virtually all of the less xeric and most productive sagebrush habitats in southern Idaho have been converted to agricultural croplands (McDonald and Reese 1998). Traditional habitat treatments, such as the removal of sagebrush to increase herbaceous forage and to allow grasses to dominate has destroyed thousands of acres of sagebrush canopy. . Recovery, if recovery is allowed, of sagebrush canopy cover to pre-removal levels may require 20 years or longer.

In addition, sagegrouse populations were heavily exploited by commercial and sport hunting in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Autenrieth et al. 1982In the past, many conservation groups have struggled to ESA list sage grouse, but were met with concerted efforts against listing, many of which stemmed from the target audience.

Current Reception:
Efforts have been made to build relationships between private property owners and land

management organizations, which have helped to establish a foundation for increasing the understanding of the ecology of sagebrush-dominated landscapes and sage grouse. Better science has also helped bring about the types of regulations necessary to protect remaining sage grouse populations. For instance, more recent studies have demonstrated that hunting, in conjunction with reduced populations of sage grouse, can have detrimental effects (Connelly and Braun 2005). In addition, many ranchers land-use goals have changed. The short-term benefit of increased forb production from the removal of sagebrush does not balance the loss

of sagebrush canopy, and ultimately, the succession of cheatgrass into sagebrush biomes (Connelly et al. 2004). Thus, conservation efforts have taken place at a wide range of scales and have included country, state, local area, and individual projects. Enrollment in programs like the Sage Grouse Initiative and other wildlife habitat incentive programs is on the rise; more than 450 ranchers are now enrolled in the Sage Grouse Initiative (NRCS 2011).
Key Influences:

Individuals living in Southern Idaho and managing lands that are critical sage grouse habitat are particularly motivated to accept plans for sagebrush recovery. Since the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) was started in 2010, NRCS has invested more than $100 million, which has been used to assist ranchers in habitat improvement that also benefits their businesses (NRCS 2011). Many ranchers have some to realize that if greater sage-grouse were to be listed under the ESA, they would be forced to change or halt certain activities that adversely affected sage grouse. By taking voluntary proactive steps to conserve sage grouse and sagebrush habitat, ranchers may make listing under the ESA unnecessary. Conservation agreements are also available to landowners that provide assurances that if landowners employ certain conservation practices now, they will not be required to take additional action if sage grouse are listed in the future (NRCS 2011). Furthermore, a plethora of new information and insight into sagebrush and sage grouse issues has been released, with ranchers and other landowners in mind. These new pamphlets and online educational materials are informative, yet keep heavy scientific jargon to a minimum.

However, this target audience has several other philosophies that create barriers to further involvement in government sage grouse protection programs. Many ranchers and farmers from Southern Idaho are wary of big government and may see a program like SGI as a way for government officials to usurp private property rights. In addition, those who do affiliate with the Republican Party may be less concerned with environmental issues, like sage grouse decline than members of the Democratic party.

Available Resources One of the best ways to help conserve sage grouse is to encourage people to experience the beauty of the birds displaying on leks (breeding grounds). State and federal agencies have developed special viewing programs, where members of the public can watch from a blind, to assure that the birds are not disturbed.

Range conservationists and biologists are hired to enroll ranchers and farmers to participate in projects that are good for ranching and good for grouse. Although there are well developed websites and leaflet campaigns, the most important resource is still the local range conservation office. When it comes to garnering private landowner participation, subsidy programs are the strongest way to achieve real change in land use practices. Meetings, often with the addition of social components like potlucks, are an effective way of spreading news about new programs in small rural settings like those of rustic southern Idaho.

Summary
Land managers consistently evaluate how the invasion of exotic plants, fires, energy extraction, and anthropogenic fragmentation influence the degradation and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats. However, finding workable solutions to landscapescale feedback-loop-type problems is daunting. There is no doubt that sage grouse are a sagebrush obligate species. Sagebrush is essential and required for either food or cover throughout all phases of their life cycle. Therefore, breaching gaps between stakeholders and finding means of saving sagebrush habitat is imperative to the continued existence of sage grouse. In order to reach a somewhat intractable target audience, focusing on the ecological and economic benefits of sustainable ranching and farming is as important as highlighting the economic benefits of participating in wildlife habitat conservation cost shares and easements. There is substantial evidence that it is in the ranchers best interest to support greater sage grouse habitat improvement, to convince them of it is another thing entirely.

Literature Cited:

Autenrieth, R. E., W. A. Molini, and C. E. Braun. 1982. Sage grouse management practices. Western States Sage-grouse Committee. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Web. Feb 22 2013. 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. Web. Feb 22 2013. Brooks, M. L., and D. A. Pyke. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. Tall Timbers Research Station. Web. Feb 22 2013. Connelly, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 2005. Long-term changes in Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology. Web. Feb 22 2013. 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. Web. Feb 21 2013. dAntonio, 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. Web. Feb 22 2013. Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology. Web. Feb 22 2013. 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. Web. Feb 22 2013. Leonard, K. M., K. P. Reese, AND J. W. Connelly. 2000. Distribution, movements, and habitats of sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianuson in the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: changes from the 1950s to the 1990s. Wildlife Biology. Web. Feb 22 2013. 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. Web. Feb 22 2013. McIver, James D.; Brunson, Mark; Bunting, Steve C.; Chambers, Jeanne; Devoe, Nora; Doescher, Paul; Grace, James; Johnson, Dale; Knick, Steve; Miller, Richard; Pellant, Mike; Pierson, Fred; Pyke, David; Rollins, Kim; Roundy, Bruce; Schupp, Eugene; Tausch, Robin; Turner, David. 2010. The Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP): a test of state-and-transition theory. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-237. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Web. Feb 22 2013. Miller, R. F., and L. Eddleman. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in

the sagebrush biome. Oregon State University, Agricultural Experimental Station. Web. Feb 22 2013. NRCS. 2001. New Sage Grouse Initaitive: Wildlife Conservation through Sustainable Ranching. Web. Feb 22 2013. Odell, E. A., D. M. Theobald AND R. L. Knight. 2003. Incorporating ecology into land use planning. Journal of the American Science. Web. Feb 22 2013. Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert AND J. A. Roppe. 1993. Nesting by raptors and common ravens on electrical transmission line towers. Journal of Wildlife Management. Web. Feb 22 2013.