lUV4 (J'™'ry 1974) ^H^° ^t/

I Af /

/

TECHNICAL NOTE

Filing Code "7 /I/' 3^0^
Date Issued ^ ^ ''

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Habitat Requirements and Management
Recommendations for Sage Grouse

Additional copies of Technical Notes are available from DSC, Federal Center Building 50, Denver, Colo., 80225

»

/ V : evotf 2>/ s

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAGE GROUSE

by

Mayo W. Call
Avian Biologist
Denver Service Center

Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
Denver, Colorado

>

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Library
Denver Service Center

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Outlook 2

BACKGROUND 3

Distribution 3

Reseasons for Habitat Loss 3

Federal Policies , 7

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS 10

General Requirements 10

Physiographic 10

Climatic 10

Water 11

Vegetation 12

Specific Requirements 13

Breeding Habitat 13

Nesting Habitat and Nest 15

Brooding Habitat 16

Wintering Habitat 17

DISTURBANCE FACTORS 21

Sagebrush Control/Modification 21

Effects on Breeding Activities 21

Effects on Nesting Habitat 22

Effects on Brooding and Summer Habitat 23

Effects on Winter Habitat 23

Summary of Sagebrush Treatment Impacts 24

Effects of Livestock Grazing 25

Effects of Fire on Sage Grouse Habitat 26

Effects of Human Disturbance on Sage Grouse Activities ... 26

HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDES 28

Project Coordination 28

Project Implementation 29

Livestock Management 30

Coal and Minerals Management 30

Fire Management 31

Visitor/ORV Management 32

Water Management 32

LITERATURE CITED 33

INTRODUCTION

The future of the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) , which occurs
throughout most of the sagebrush-covered lands of the West, depends
largely upon man's ability and willingness to maintain habitat vital
to its needs. No other bird is so habitat specific to one particular
plant type in meeting its annual life requirements. Patterson (1952)
observed that sage grouse have continued to be specific in their
habitat requirements in spite of changing land use patterns. He
further affirmed, and most wildlife biologists agree, that sage grouse
have not adjusted, and doubtlessly will not adjust their life processes
to fit a pattern of land use which eliminates or seriously disturbs
large tracts of the sagebrush-grassland types on any of their seasonal
ranges. Overall, more than 90% of all sage grouse nests are located
under or adjacent to sagebrush plants, and grouse feed almost exclusively
on sagebrush leaves during the winter, hence, their reliance on this
plant type.

While some areas of sagebrush may be too dry, lack suitable understory,
are too dense or tall, or are otherwise inadequate in meeting some
need of sage grouse in their annual life cycle, most western states
except Arizona retain at least remnant populations of these birds.
Arizona apparently has had no sage grouse in recent times and New Mexico
has only a few remaining birds.

During the past 35 years many sagebrush-covered valleys and foothill
ranges have been sprayed, plowed, chained, burned, disked, cut, or
beat in an attempt to convert these ranges to grass lands. Schneegas
(1967) estimated that 5 to 6 million acres of sagebrush had been treated
in one way or another to reduce the sage component. Sage grouse
populations have been drastically reduced in such areas. It was
estimated by Martin, et al. (1951) that more than 50% of the original
sage grouse habitat had been eliminated. While other authors have
indicated lesser amounts of change, the total acreage involved in
treatment has been enormous and has had significant adverse impacts
on sage grouse populations throughout the West. Fortunately, many
treated areas gradually develop a new brush component, and some grouse
return.

This Technical Note is primarily a review of literature on the fundamental
habitat requirements of sage grouse and habitat management methods that
may be used to perpetuate the species. It does not reiterate the life
history, past distribution, species characteristics, and population
dynamics, all of which have been discussed in THE SAGE GROUSE IN WYOMING and
other publications. Many of the pertinent publications are listed in the
Literature Cited and are the primary sources from which the text of this
publication has been derived.

Outlook

Alteration of sagebrush rangelands is still occurring but at a
reduced level. Vale (1974) estimated that probably fewer than 50,000
acres per year were being treated at that time, and the author
estimates that probably fewer than 30,000 acres per year are being
treated at present. Reasons for reduced alteration of sagebrush
habitats, especially on public lands, relate to questions concerning
the effectiveness of such programs, economic returns, requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act, and concern about the wildlife
using sagebrush lands. Many wildlife species, other than sage grouse,
are largely habitat specific to sagebrush, including sage thrashers,
sage sparrows, Brewer's sparrows, and several small mammals and reptiles.
While spraying of sagebrush on public lands using 2,4-D has virtually
stopped, it is possible that use of this chemical may be proposed again
for range "improvements" under the Public Rangelands Improvement Act.
However, with today's prevailing environmental philosophies, greater
consideration by Federal agencies of wildlife and all environmental
aspects in proposed project areas will be required before any treatments
are applied.

*s I !

Fig. 1. Sage grouse distribution in North America
(Wallestad 1975).

— 1975

Decrease in sage grouse numbers directly followed the decrease in
sagebrush range. The history of early land-use programs made the
decline of native wildlife populations almost inevitable. The pattern
of decline in sage grouse numbers has been little different from that
exhibited by numerous other game animals in the West. Destruction of
habitat has been the basic cause of sage grouse decrease throughout the
West. The decimating factors usually have operated through the
overgrazing of public and private ranges, as well as elimination of
sagebrush through agricultural practices and urban development. The
oft mentioned decimating factors of unfavorable weather, increased
predation, hunting and disease may have been of significance in localized
areas, but were relatively unimportant in the overall decline in sage
grouse numbers. The major factor in the past, as well as the present s
that most adversely affects wildlife populations . ... is the loss in
quality or quantity of suitable habitat. Overgrazing of public and
private rangelands by domestic livestock apparently reached a peak in
the early 1900's and, although somewhat reduced, still remains a
problem on some ranges.

Some of the changes that resulted from livestock grazing, agricultural
practices, and other land uses probably benefitted sage grouse. The
creation of openings in large sagebrush stands, from whatever cause,
may create feeding and brooding areas for grouse and may be beneficial
if water is close. The addition of meadows has added to their food
supply. Where burning, chaining, or other land use practices have
removed stands of large, decadent sagebrush and permitted the development
of new, young sagebrush stands, the habitat for sage grouse has probably
been improved. In a later discussion on habitat requirements the
results of such practices will be considered in greater detail.

In areas where human populations and agricultural developments are
expanding, it can be expected that sage grouse numbers will decrease
mainly from elimination of their habitat. There seems to be a striking
correlation between sage grouse abundance in the various western states
and corresponding human populations. It is not mere coincidence that
the states supporting the lowest human population densities contain
the greatest acreages of sagebrush habitat and the largest sage grouse
populations (Patterson 1952).

Many diverse land use activities are now occurring on the public lands,
with a seeming increase in tempo occurring each year. New power plants
are rising from once quiet sagebrush valleys; where Brewer's sparrows
and sage grouse once nested the soil and vegetation is now gone, having
been swallowed up and regurgitated by huge earth-moving vehicles in
stripping the land for coal mining operations; and new oil and gas
exploration and/or development operations are scattered across the

•

landscape where only antelope, ferruginous hawks, and other wild
creatures were to be seen only a few years ago. Some of these develop-
ments cause permanent loss of sage grouse and other wildlife habitat,
while others cause only temporary losses or slight disturbance. An
oil well may produce only short-term disturbance during the drilling
operation and little significant loss of habitat during pumping
operations, while strip mining and power plant installations are long-
term losses of habitat. With the latter two developments, there also
comes increasing encroachment on the surrounding land with the influx
of people required to operate the facilities. The actual disturbance
created by land use activities varies, partly due to the amount of
disturbance to which wildlife has become accustomed. For example, one
study in the Green River Basin of Wyoming on the effects of an oil
drilling operation revealed that the drilling operations had not
interfered seriously with sage grouse nesting and strutting activities.
The birds continued to occupy areas adjacent to the well site throughout
the drilling period, even to the extent of nesting within a few
hundred yards of the rig, strutting within 50 yards of the operations,
and watering daily at sediment pools located at the base of the rig
(Patterson 1952). Unfortunately, long-term impacts were not measured.

In primitive times sage grouse populations attained their greatest
abundance in the mountain foothills and along the fertile sagebrush-
covered flats bordering mountain streams. Accompanying the various
land uses there has been a maximum utilization of surface water supplies
for irrigation and other domestic purposes. Entire streams have
sometimes been diverted from their channels with the resultant drying
of stream beds. In many other instances the application of water to
lands unsuitable for cultivation has resulted in severe leaching of
alkali salts with resultant pollution of stream courses and conversion
of fertile sagebrush lands into alkali-impregnated tracts featuring
salt shrubs.

Agricultural development, livestock grazing, and wheat-farming activities
have been largely responsible for the elimination of sage grouse ranges
along valley foothills and lower river drainages. The elimination of
this habitat frequently has little effect upon the spring and summer
activities of sage grouse, but it sometimes completely destroys vital
winter ranges. The species is mobile, occasionally migrating from
higher mountain ranges where they spend their summer to ranges several
thousand feet lower where they find adequate available sagebrush to
survive the winter. In some areas these winter ranges have been
almost completely eliminated and replaced with agricultural crops,
resulting in the loss of the dependent sage grouse populations.

Federal Policies

White man has waged war against sagebrush since the first settlers
carved farms from the native prairies. The wide adaptability of
sagebrush for survival under varying conditions of climate gave rise
to the widespread belief that it is a noxious plant with low forage
values and should be eliminated throughout large areas qf the West.
According to range experts' comments in the 1948 DeiPaflCpment of
Agriculture Yearbook, sagebrush is considered to be of low forage
value to livestock and is seldom browsed by sheep unless other forage
is scarce or covered with snow. They considered the more palatable
plants to be waning on the desert winter ranges and that sagebrush was
invading the foothill ranges. Price (1948) stated that on range areas
occupied by low value or noxious range plants such as mesquite
(Prosopis juliflora) and sagebrush, full returns from proper stocking,
improved management and reseeding would not be possible until such
soil-moisture "robbers" were eradicated, or at least controlled. The
Bureau of Reclamation has also gone to great length over the years to
put across the idea that western sagebrush lands were worthless unless
reclaimed for agricultural purposes. Bureau press releases often
carried such statements as "irrigation waters have been diverted onto
hundreds of thousands of acres which once grew nothing more valuable
than sagebrush."

Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service, were active for many years in eradicating sagebrush. Methods
included controlled burning, application of chemicals, and removal by
means of mechanical implements. The sagebrush eradication program has
gained prominence in the livestock economy as a result of several
factors. In cooperation with state agricultural extension services
and various implement companies, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
has actively supported an extensive sagebrush removal program in the
Intermountain Region (Patterson 1952). According to the Soil Conser-
vation Service, millions of acres of rangeland in the Intermountain
area have offered farmers and ranchers only 10 to 50% of the range
feed that they are capable of producing. The Soil Conservation Service
has advised ranchers to clear sagebrush lands and seed to crested
wheatgrass and other grasses to improve their livestock yields and to
gain a more effective control of erosion (Miles 1946). Also, the
agricultural conservation program of the Production and Marketing
Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, contained provisions
for making substantial payments to private landowners in return for
clearing sagebrush and planting the land to pasture grasses or crops.

To a large degree, sagebrush eradication programs by BLM, the Forest
Service, and other Federal agencies were carried out in total disregard,
and perhaps ignorance, of the tremendous value of browse plants to the
welfare of livestock and wildlife. Any land use practice which has as
its objective the permanent elimination of sagebrush and establishment
of grasses in the Mountain West will ultimately reduce the collective
carrying capacity of that range for livestock, (especially sheep) , elk,
mule deer, antelope, sage grouse, and many smaller species of wildlife.

Public concern for all forms of wildlife has increased greatly during
the past 10 years and the public now demands that Federal agencies
give greater thought to wildlife and the general environment in any
proposed projects that could produce serious adverse impacts. It is
fortunate for wildlife that several Acts have been passed in recent
years that provide better protection both to the animals and their
habitats. Unfortunately, this is not true for actions taking place on
private lands where profit motives continue to dominate over possible
reduction of local wildlife populations or damage to the existing
ecosystem.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 gives greater
impetus to the Bureau of Land Management for proper consideration and
management of all resources on the public lands. Under this Act,
wildlife is considered a major resource value. The Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978 authorizes millions of dollars over the next
20 years for measures to make grazing lands more productive and affects
some 150 million acres under BLM administration. This rangeland
improvement must include benefits for wildlife, as well as range
improvements for domestic livestock production and general improvement
of the range.

In spite of past recommendations and opinions of administrators of
various governmental agencies regarding sagebrush, the plant is still
considered by many wildlife biologists to be the most valuable food and
cover plant for wildlife on ranges of the Intermountain Region. With
today's philosophies on the values of the many varied resources on
public lands, it is unlikely that large sagebrush control projects will
continue to eradicate sagebrush on public lands as they have in the past,
For example, in the 1950's it was discovered that sagebrush could be
effectively killed with aerial applications of the herbicide, 2,4-D.
Elimination or reduction of sagebrush to increase grass production
became a common practice on public and private rangelands by the early
1960's. By the time wildlife agencies realized the seriousness of this
new tool, as a threat to wildlife habitat, several million acres had
been sprayed, and many more projects were in the planning stage. In

/■ ^

9

1965 the Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Montana
Department of Fish and Game initiated a 10-year study to determine
the ecological effects of sagebrush control on associated plants and
animals. Results of this research were published in the bulletin
prepared by Wallestad (1975) entitled Life History and Habitat
Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central Montana. It is expected that
all Federal agencies will give due consideration to research findings
such as those in the Montana publication in all future proposed land
use activites and vegetation changes.

&

4

•

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

General Requirements
Physiographic

Sagebrush-grass ranges cover approximately 90 million acres, most of
which are in relatively dry valleys and intermountain basins.
Elevations in this type range chiefly between 2,000 feet in central
Washington to over 8,000 feet in Colorado. Sage grouse are most
frequently found in flatland or on gently rolling hills.

Climatic

Mean annual precipitation on the sagebrush-grassland ranges varies
from about 5 inches in the deserts to about 30 inches in some mountain
foothills. A few sage grouse may be found in salt-desert shrub ranges
where precipitation varies from 5 to 10 inches yearly. Such ranges
are marginal for grouse. Where sage grouse occur in the salt-desert
shrub type, Artemisia spp. are the most important plants of the
habitat. The primary factor involved with sage grouse is that pre-
cipitation be adequate to provide for succulent forbs and grasses
amongst or near their sagebrush habitat.

Sage grouse inhabit the semi-arid plains of the western United States
which experience varied and extreme climatic conditions. Severe
weather conditions (unless snow completely covers the sagebrush) have
little effect on the birds. The success or failure of sage grouse
in a particular year has often been attributed to weather conditions
during hatching, with cold, rainy weather conditions usually blamed
for poor productivity. To determine the effects of weather on sage
grouse, Wallestad and Watts (1973) analyzed 10 years of sage grouse
production data from central Montana to isolate factors affecting
productivity. Their findings are as follows:

1. No correlation existed between productivity and rainfall
during the hatching period.

2. An inverse correlation existed between productivity and
rainfall during the egg-laying period. Heavy rain (greater than 1
inch) during the egg-laying period caused a late hatch resulting in
poor productivity.

10

3. Snow melt, temperature, and precipitation, as they potentially
affected spring greenup of vegetation, further explained variations

in productivity. Even if rainfall was optimum during the egg-laying
period, production would be poor if total spring precipitation during
the growing season was inadequate for necessary plant growth (less
than 3 inches from mid-April through mid-June).

4. No correlations existed between temperature and grouse
productivity.

5. Adult sage grouse (average 78%) were predictably more
successful than yearlings (average 62%) in bringing off a brood.

6. On the basis of numbers, the yearling female was the single
most important age class producing young. Therefore, years of poor
productivity occurred because of factors working primarily against
the yearling segment of the population.

#

Water

In primitive times, water was probably a key factor governing the
distribution and relative abundance of sage grouse populations. It
is equally important now, although water developments are frequently
a feature of agricultural and rangeland improvement programs and
irrigation projects. While these programs have occasionally improved
sage grouse habitat locally, they have frequently caused a drastic
reduction in sage grouse numbers as the result of vast acreages of
sagebrush destroyed to accommodate the new land-uses.

Free water is considered by many to be a key component of sage grouse
habitat. During summer months sage grouse are normally limited in
their desert distribution to the immediate vicinities of stream
courses, isolated desert springs, and water holes. During summer
and fall, if free water is available, sage grouse normally make a
morning and evening visit for purposes of drinking. They have also
been observed to regularly visit partially frozen streams in Eden
Valley in Wyoming during the late fall months in order to drink
through holes in the ice. Many ranchers relate stories of sage
grouse flocks coming into their ranch yards and drinking from
livestock watering troughs. Although sage grouse apparently do not
require open water for their day to day survival, they do utilize it
when available, and attain their highest population densities in
those areas which contain abundant and well-distributed surface water
supplies. In small mountain valleys and along mountain foothills
where precipitation has stimulated the development of succulent forbs
and grasses, grouse may obtain adequate moisture from the vegetation.

11

■■■*>>' I

Since moisture in the form of open water, dew, and rain water is not
regularly available on desert ranges, their moisture requirements may
be fulfilled partially through the medium of metabolic processes within
the bird itself. In any case, while free water may not be a limiting
factor to these birds, they are normally found within a mile or two of
free water which they frequently utilize. In winter, snow takes care
of their moisture requirements, either directly or as it melts and provides
free water on warm days.

Precipitation distribution, amounts, and seasonal occurrence, all affect
sage grouse distribution to some extent. Where late spring and early
summer precipitation is abundant and widespread, the development of
succulent vegetation usually induces a wider distribution of grouse,
whereas in drought years they congregate in areas where free water is
available.

Vegetation

#

In considering the habitat requirements of sage grouse the manager must
consider the various seasonal needs of the birds and the large areas
usually involved in their annual cycle. Deep snow may cover the spring
and summer ranges forcing the birds to migrate to some distant area for
winter and to return for nesting as snow depths decrease. Where grouse
nest and raise their broods on sage-covered slopes or in mountain valleys
at high elevations, they usually must migrate to the desert floors or
other low elevations to find exposed sagebrush for food during the winter.
In many areas, summer and winter areas may be as much as 20 or more miles
apart.

Vegetation structure and composition on strutting grounds will be
different than the vegetation complex on wintering areas or in nesting
areas. Dense, tall sagebrush is seldom used for nesting cover but is
frequently used as loafing cover or as protective cover during severe
winter storms. Rogers (1964) stated that, in general, good sage grouse
habitat should contain openings less than 300 yards in circumference,
some dense stands, and about equal amounts of tall and short sagebrush
plants. In the following discussion, the various habitat components
required to fill the needs of the birds during various phases of their
life cycle are presented.

12

•

Specific Requirements

Breeding Habitat

For courtship and mating, sage grouse assemble during the breeding season
in groups on strutting grounds. Barring complete obliteration of the
physical aspects of the strutting area itself, generation after generation
of birds will utilize the same parcel of land for breeding. The duration
of occupancy of individual grounds usually extends over many years,
although in the interim, new grounds are created by young birds, and
others probably are passing out of existence due to the disintegration of
a localized male population (Patterson 1952).

Wallestad and Schladweiler (1974) recorded sagebrush height and canopy
coverage at 110 daytime feeding and loafing sites of cocks. Eighty
percent of the locations occurred in sagebrush with a canopy coverage of
20-50%. Unfortunately this is also the range of canopy coverage in which
vegetal control is most likely to occur.

Strutting grounds (leks) may be located at a point intermediate between
the winter range and summer range, or in some cases the summer and winter
range may be the same area. The grounds are usually small open areas
from 1/10 to 10 acres in size, but may be as large as 100 acres or more.
Snow conditions play a part in the suitability of an area for strutting
as does the amount of vegetation. The strutting ground is an area supporting
low, sparse sagebrush or else an area denuded of vegetation. Grassy swales,
natural and irrigated meadows where grass has been removed, burned areas,
cultivated fields adjacent to sagebrush-grass rangelands, cleared roadsides,
abandoned homesteads, dry lake beds, etc., serve for this purpose often
with seemingly little attention paid to other land uses. (Bean 1941,
Carhart 1941, Patterson 1952, Dalke et al. 1963.) Strutting grounds are
often located near water. Fig. 2 shows a strutting ground in southwestern
Utah.

Studies show there may be a gradual shift in strutting ground locations
over a long period. Also, a shift in use of grounds, small grounds being
abandoned and larger grounds increasing in use, may occur toward the end
of the breeding season (Dalke et al. 1960).

Because of the utilization of strutting grounds, sage grouse population
estimates can be made by counting the total number of grouse using all
grounds during the mating season. Population trends can be estimated by
counting the birds on all strutting grounds in an area for a period of
several years. Because of some movement of birds between grounds in any
given year, and some shift from adult males to juveniles on the grounds
towards the end of the breeding season, some interpolation of counts must
be provided. Sage grouse in most states have begun courtship behavior
on strutting grounds by mid-March. Methods for counting grouse on

13

j * - 1 - *

1 % «>** -

^

s

. j»

*> r

tit*'*'

*v

* . v. » ' ■k.Jl iK.

ti

Fig. 2. Strutting grounds are usually in open areas
or areas of relatively low vegetation. This one is in
southwestern Utah.

Fig. 3. Nesting habitat in an area of low, scattered
sagebrush in central Wyoming. The hen in the center
moved off her nest which is just outside the lower left
margin of the photograph.

14

strutting grounds are provided in Sage Grouse Investigations in Colorado,
The Sage Grouse in Wyoming } and others. Sage grouse, as a rule, pay little
attention to a vehicle driven close to, or even into, their strutting area.
Therefore, it is desirable for all strutting counts to be made from inside
a vehicle.

Nesting Habitat and Nests

Sagebrush forms the nesting cover for most sage grouse nests throughout the
West with concealment being the basic requirement of nesting cover. In
Wyoming 92% of approximately 300 nests found by Patterson (1952) were
under sagebrush. Additional nests found under sagebrush included 92% of
117 nests found in Colorado by Gill (1965); 50 nests found by Girard (1937)
in Wyoming; 94% of the nests located by Keller et al. (1941) in Colorado;
35 nests found by Gray (1967) in Idaho; and all 41 nests located in Montana
by Wallestad and Pyrah (1974). Other researchers have recorded the same
general findings. Fig. 3 shows a nest site in central Wyoming.

Rabbitbrush is occasionally utilized for nesting cover with greasewood
and shadscale being rarely used (Patterson 1952) . Use of other species of
shrubs for nesting is rare. Hens nest in short sagebrush of medium density,
such as is found on drier sites, in preference to the dense, tall brush
found along watercourses and on moist areas. The individual nest site
invariably provides for a quick and unimpeded escape for the hen if she
is flushed unexpectedly.

Patterson (1952) found 8 nests located on bare ground between sagebrush
clumps with no cover of any type over the nest sites. One such nest was
placed between scattered tumbleweeds. Such nests are unusual.

Height of sagebrush commonly used for nesting varies between 7 and 31 inches
(17 to 79 cm) with most nests located under the tallest bushes available
at a particular site (Keller et al. 1941, Patterson 1952, Trueblood 1954,
Gray 1967, Klebenow 1969, Wallestad and Pyrah 1974). Stands of 20-40%
canopy coverage were most frequently selected for nesting. Wallestad and
Pyrah (1974) compared the sagebrush characteristics around 31 successful
and 10 unsuccessful nests. Successful nests had greater sagebrush cover
within 24 inches of the nest and were located in stands of sagebrush with
a higher average canopy coverage (27%) than those of unsuccessful nests
(20%) . Patterson (1952) measured height of nesting cover in Wyoming and
reported that 216 of 262 nests measured had nesting cover between 10 and 20
inches tall. In Montana, Wallestad (1975) stated that average sagebrush
height over nests was 15.9 inches. Unfortunately, most studies do not
give the average sagebrush height that predominates in the area.

Nest sites are usually located within 2 miles of a strutting ground.
Results of research by Wallestad and Pyrah (1974) showed that 68% of all

15

■

•

radio marked hens nested within 1.5 miles of a strutting ground, with the
greatest distance nesting occurred from a strutting ground for one radioed
hen being 5.7 miles. In Colorado, Rogers (196A) reported an unusual
situation where hens traveled from 15 to 20 miles from the strutting ground
to nest. Hens would visit strutting grounds until bred and then moved into
a vicinity close to the location of the final nest site, and remained
relatively sedentary until they nested.

Sage grouse nests are made by scratching out a shallow depression, usually
beneath or between sagebrush plants, and then lined with dead grass, sage
twigs, and feathers (Wallestad 1975). Egg laying normally begins about
mid-April but a few renesting hens do not complete their clutches until
mid-May .

Incubation takes about 25 to 27 days with the peak of hatching varying in
different states between the last week in May to the second week in June.
Average clutch size is 6 to 8 eggs, with a few nests containing up to
12 eggs.

Brooding Habitat

Broods need appropriate food in addition to cover. Their diet is chiefly
insects early in life, shifting to succulent forbs and shrub foliage as
they develop (Patterson 1952, Klebenow and Gray 1968, Savage 1968). The
succulence of their favored foods appears to be a key factor in their
movements. Favored foods are common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) _,
common salsify (Tragopogon dubius) , western yarrow (Archillea mi Hi folium)
and others (Klebenow and Gray 1968, Savage 1968, Peterson 1970). Hens
and chicks will usually remain in the vicinity of the nests for the first
2 or 3 weeks after hatching if insects and succulent forbs are available.
As food plants mature and dry, the grouse move to areas still supporting
succulent vegetation. These may be lower elevation native meadows or
irrigated meadows when no uplands with green vegetation are in the area
(Eng 1952, Rogers 1964) or they migrate upward, seeking out habitats where
succulent forbs are still available such as more mesic swales (Klebenow 1972)
Roadsides and borrow pits are frequently used during June and July because
of moisture and succulent vegetation present. A delay in maturing of forbs
has a noticeable effect on bird movements. Savage (1968) noted that on
one study site where the range was in good condition, grouse did not use
the meadows one summer, apparently because moisture was adequate in the
outside areas to keep succulent forbs available.

Food is important, but all studies emphasize the need for cover. The usual
case, however, is that the birds appear to prefer relatively open sagebrush
vegetation types as compared to dense stands of sagebrush (Klebenow 1972) .
In southern Idaho the percent canopy cover of big sagebrush at brood sites

16

•

was 8.5, significantly less than the average for the entire area, 14.3.
Three out of 98 broods were found where total shrub cover was 40 to 49%;
the rest where cover was less than 31%. Where there was an interspersion
of openings mixed with dense sagebrush, they used the more open portions
(Klebenow 1972). Wallestad (1971) also reported that large tracts of
dense sagebrush appeared to be undesirable brood habitat.

In late August at high elevations, or in September or October in some
lower areas, the meadows dry and the incidence of frost increases, leading
to drying or killing of the foliage of forbs. The incidence of sagebrush
consumption increases at that time (Klebenow 1972). Increased moisture
content may make sagebrush more palatable than during summer.

Brood hens do not usually associate with other hens and broods early in
summer. As important food plants desiccate on upland sagebrush ranges,
broods move to lower, more mesic sites, and associate with other broods.
Late summer hen flocks vary in size from several broods to several hundred
sage grouse. These associations may be the initiation of fall and winter
hen flocks (Wallestad 1975).

In Montana, approximately 65% of all grouse observations during August
and September were recorded in bottomland types such as alfalfa fields and
greasewood bottoms (Wallestad, 1975).

While large tracts of dense sagebrush appear to have limited value as
sage grouse nesting or brooding habitat, sagebrush stands of moderate
densities are an essential part of sage grouse brood habitat, particularly
during early and late summer. Figures 4 through 7 are examples of nesting
and summer habitats.

Wintering Habitat

Sage grouse live almost exclusively on the leaves of sagebrush during the
winter. In Montana when snow depth exceeded 12 inches, sage grouse were
restricted to taller sagebrush stands, a relatively small percentage of the
total range available to them in a normal (lesser snow) winter. Bean (1941)
reported that when snow depth reached 13 to 15 inches in Idaho, sage grouse
moved to taller sagebrush types. Eng and Schladweiler (1972) described
winter ranges in eastern Montana as being large expanses of dense (20% or
greater canopy coverage) sagebrush with an average height of 10 inches on
land having little if any slope. This association with dense stands of
sagebrush usually began in September (Wallestad 1971) and continued through
the breeding and nesting seasons (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974).
Wallestad (1975) reported that 78% of 151 winter locations of radioed sage
grouse occurred in the greater than 20% canopy coverage class. As weather
moderated in February, activities shifted to more open stands of sagebrush.

17

•

•

9 Vr -am*"*****

•

"**, A*

ft.* *

S"£-*#

** J

#

Fig. 4. Good habitat for sage grouse showing excellent
understory vegetation in a fairly sparse stand of sagebrush,

Fig. 5. Good nesting habitat for sage grouse in north-
eastern Utah. Springs and small streams are common
throughout the area.

18

•

•

•

Fig. 6. Sage grouse nest in central Wyoming placed in
low sagebrush and grass. Two young grouse have just
hatched.

Fig. 7. An excellent brood use area with an abundance of
dandelions and other forbs adjacent to surrounding sage-
brush cover. An adult hen and a juvenile are present.

19

•

Wintering birds respond to snow. Snow depth forces the birds to lower
elevations and appears to be a factor determining the actual wintering
site for a flock (Klebenow 1972) . Deep snow limits the availability of
food. Black, sage {Artemisia nova) was preferred as forage in southeastern
Idaho. Sage grouse remain on the areas supporting this species until the
snow covers the plants and return again when the black sage is available
(Pyrah 1954, Crawford 1960). Biologists and field personnel report a
similar preference for low sagebrush on Nevada and Utah ranges where it is
available. In North Park, Colorado Beck and Braun (1978) reported that
sage grouse wintered primarily on southwest exposures and on flat to
gentle slopes.

Winter is normally the most critical period of the year for most wildlife
and the most taxing upon their physiological systems. However, if
adequate sagebrush is available to sage grouse, they normally come out of
the winter months in fine physical condition, fully conditioned for an
arduous three-month courtship and reproductive season. In fact, Beck and
Braun (1978) found that yearling and adult males and females gained weight
during late winter (January-March) in North Park, Colorado.

In some areas, sage grouse occupy windswept sagebrush ridges in winter.
Patterson (1952) attributed the reduction in sage grouse numbers in
intensively farmed areas along lower river drainages to the elimination
of sagebrush which served as their winter range. Some wintering areas are
arid regions that would be hot and untenable for grouse in summer.

20

»

DISTURBANCE FACTORS

Sagebrush Control/Modification

The greatest adverse influence on sage grouse is the destruction or adverse
modification of their habitat. Sagebrush control may not have an immediate
noticeable effect on a sage grouse population, depending upon the size of
the area treated in relation to total habitat available. Rogers (1964)
reported that a spray project which treated 1,700 acres of sagebrush in
western Colorado apparently had little effect on the sage grouse population
using the area. However, two years later an additional 1,300 acres were
treated and he reported that the entire sage grouse population appeared to
emigrate from the area. Data to support this conclusion are lacking.

The effects of sagebrush removal and/or modification on a population of
sage grouse can be evaluated in three basic ways: (1) presence or absence
and relative use by birds of treated areas as indicated by dropping counts,
(2) changes in population levels as indicated by numbers of strutting males
(if higher counts are not found on other strutting grounds in the area) ,
and (3) direct observation of birds on and around the treated areas
(Wallestad 1975).

Effects on Breeding Activities

Wallestad (1975) reported that a 31% loss of habitat adjacent to a strutting
ground (lek) coincided with a 63% decline of strutting males in Montana.
Peterson (1970), also in Montana, noted a lek which had averaged 54 males
(for 13 years) dropped to 3 within 2 years following spraying and since
has been totally abandoned. Higby (1969) reported that a 12,000 acre
sagebrush spray project in Wyoming was responsible for the elimination of
sage grouse from a winter range that supported 1,000 sage grouse prior to
treatment. Four strutting grounds on the treatment area declined from a
total population of 50 to 0 four years after treatment with 2,4-D. Eight
years following treatment the grounds had partially recovered to a total of
31 males. Adjacent grounds in unsprayed areas had only minor fluctuations
in bird numbers during this same period.

Peterson's (1970) report is one of the best documented instances of the
detrimental effects of sagebrush removal on sage grouse. In an isolated
sage grouse population in Meagher County, Montana he noted that a 49%
decrease (11,808 acres) in sagebrush types, as a result of sagebrush
spraying and conversion to cropland, eliminated 5 strutting grounds.
Enyeart (1956) found that reseeding around leks in Utah caused sage grouse
to abandon the areas or to terminate breeding activities at an earlier
date than on undisturbed habitat. In Idaho, Autenrieth (1969) stated that
a lek in a sprayed area will continue to be used if the surrounding nesting
and brood rearing habitat has not been made uninhabitable by the removal
of sagebrush and forbs.

21

#

•

In a cooperative research project between the Bureau of Land Management
and the Montana Fish and Game Department and published as Life History and
Habitat Requirements of Sage Grouse in Central Montana, Wallestad (197 5)
reported as follows (pp. 37-39):

"Treatment of 751 acres (24% of the total suitable habitat
adjacent to the King Ranch Strutting Ground) resulted in a
50% reduction in cocks the following year. However, 3 years
post-treatment the population had recovered to pre-treatment
levels. Spraying of 640 acres (11% reduction in suitable
habitat) resulted in no significant post-treatment population
change on the adjacent South Pike Creek Strutting Ground. A
new ground (possibly because of spraying) was established 1.5
miles to the northeast, the year following treatment. Two
hundred fifty-three acres adjacent to the Highway Strutting
Ground was scheduled for a partial kill of sagebrush (65%
reduction in crown coverage); however, the small size of the
area, combined with a light actual kill (25% reduction in
coverage) produced no major effect on the strutting ground
cock population.

"Of the 1,090 acres of sagebrush sprayed adjacent to the
North Yellow Water Strutting Ground, 839 (31% of the total
suitable habitat) had a canopy coverage exceeding 15% prior to
treatment. The sprayed area was also the largest block of
continuous habitat in the area. In the two post-treatment years
there was a 63% loss in cocks on the strutting ground while other
grounds in the Triangle remained relatively stable.

"Total numbers of male sage grouse on 3 grounds within 0.5 mile
of treated area increased an average of 28% from pre- to post-
treatment years. In the face of an increasing population it
appeared that sagebrush treatment had no effect on the sage
grouse population. However, when compared to control grounds in
the same population the effect becomes more pronounced. Total
numbers of males on 2 grounds further than 2 miles from treated
areas increased an average of 323% during the same period.
Number of sage grouse observed on grounds within 0.5 mile of
treated areas and those further than 2 miles led to the conclusion
that differences were related to sagebrush spraying."
(Italics added.)

Effects on Nesting Habitat

In Idaho, Klebenow (1970) noted the cessation of nesting on newly sprayed

22

■1

areas with less than 5% live sagebrush canopy cover, and observed that
nesting was nearly non-existent in older sprayed areas with around 5%
live sagebrush cover. Broods were less affected by herbicide treatment
and continued to use some sprayed areas.

Effects on Brooding and Summer Habitat

In southwestern Montana, Martin (1970) studied the distribution of sage
grouse broods in relation to a 1900-acre allotment that had been strip
sprayed. Differential use of the sprayed and unsprayed sagebrush in that
area was demonstrated by the fact that, although the area of sprayed strips
was approximately 9 times that of unsprayed strips, the sprayed area
provided only 4% of the 415 sage grouse observations. Rogers (1964) reported
that an entire population of sage grouse appeared to emigrate from a 3,000
acre area in Colorado following several years of extensive spraying. In
Idaho, Autenrieth (1969) conducted a 3-year study after a 1965 spray project
and concluded that strip spray in a relatively high precipitation area
(13 in. annual precipitation) benefited brood rearing habitat due to a
quick recovery of important forbs such as dandelion (Taraxacum spp. ) and
western yarrow (Achillea lanulosa) . After 3 years the average coverage of
dandelions in the spray strips was 17.2% as compared with 11.2% in the leave
strips. The leave strips were utilized by broods for feeding and
occasional roosting. Due to the relatively high elevation (5,851 feet)
and annual precipitation, a mountain meadow effect was created by the
strip spray. Unfortunately, most sage grouse habitat in Idaho occurs at
low elevation with half (or less) the annual precipitation of the study
area. Brush eradication in such areas is usually detrimental to sage
grouse populations (Braun et al. 1977).

Klebenow (1970) found low sagebrush coverage due to spraying reduced the
brood carrying capacity of an area in Idaho. He noted that old sprayed
areas that had sage and forb regrowth since the original treatment were
being used by broods, but that more recently sprayed areas with high
sagebrush kills were not being utilized. Trueblood (1954) noted that sage
grouse made use of the reseeded areas for morning and evening feeding
activities in Utah. However, he concluded that suitability of reseeded
cover for sage grouse was closely linked to seasonal precipitation and
forb production.

Effects on Winter Habitat

Pyrah (1972) working with dropping counts, reported that sage grouse
winter use of an area in Montana was proportional to the severity of
treatment. Those treatments doing the least damage to sagebrush affected

23

f

sage grouse use the least and the duration of the adverse effect was
shortest. He determined that strip partial kill, block partial kill,
mechanical treatments, and total kill spray (in that order) were
increasingly detrimental to sage grouse. Virtually no winter use occurred
in total sagebrush kill areas. In Wyoming (Higby 1969) 12,000 acres were
treated and in excess of 80% of the sagebrush cover was destroyed during
a five-year period resulting in the destruction of habitat previously
supporting approximately 1,000 wintering birds. Practically no winter use
of the area has occurred since the sagebrush was killed.

Summary of Sagebrush Treatment Impacts

Considering the needs of the birds and the effects of herbicide treatment,
the possibility of conflict is great. But whether spraying is beneficial
or harmful will be determined by the individual situation. Excessive
removal of food and cover is not tolerable when the habitat is crucial for
broods. However, not all sagebrush-grassland is brood habitat and not all
brood habitat is in the most desirable condition. Cover is most significant
for nesting but not all sagebrush is nesting cover nor in the best of
condition for nesting. Some sagebrush control may be desirable in cases
where the range has degraded to the point where it is unsuitable because of
too great amounts of cover or high shrub density crowding out food plants.

Guidelines for improvement of depleted sagebrush rangelands must recognize
that different sagebrush- grass rangelands may serve different purposes for
sage grouse (Klebenow 1972). Habitat managers must recognize that some
habitats are significant and high quality for sage grouse and should be
entirely excluded from vegetal control programs Christensen 1968). These
include areas used for breeding and nesting, wintering ranges, cover
adjacent to water courses or springs, upland meadows and other summering
areas. Big sagebrush and other shrubs should be removed only to the extent
of the original meadow boundary.

Of medium importance are extensive sagebrush covered areas (usually in a
valley floor) which are not used for strutting, nesting, or as summer range
and generally receive a low amount of sage grouse use. In these cases,
control practices are allowed, but we recommend removal of sagebrush in
irregular patterns, leaving islands of brush. No large blocks should be
treated.

Nevada and other states have many areas which are unoccupied by sage grouse,
usually in valley floors or on surrounding slopes which often emcompass the
salt desert shrub vegetation type. In such areas there is no objection
to control practices so far as sage grouse habitat is concerned (Klebenow 1972)

i

24

Effects of Livestock Grazing

The effects of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat are primarily of
3 types: (1) changes in vegetation composition, density, and structure,
(2) disturbance of nesting hens and possible nest trampling, and (3)
removal of brood cover in meadows.

The presence of succulent forbs in brood areas is highly important to
young sage grouse. While the dependence of newly -hatched chicks on insects
is high, by the time they are 4 to 8 weeks old their diet consists of about
75% forbs and 15% sagebrush leaves (Savage 1969). Therefore, a rapid
removal of forbs by livestock on spring and summer ranges may have a
substantial adverse impact on young sage grouse, especially where forbs are
already scarce in the composition. By May, adult sage grouse also shift
from diets dominated by sagebrush to diets dominated by forbs.

Many sagebrush ranges on public lands are grazed by domestic sheep in
winter. Others are used by cattle either in summer or winter. In some
areas sagebrush has been grazed so heavily in winter for several years that
the brush has been almost killed. If such use occurs on important sage
grouse wintering areas, sage grouse may have difficulty in obtaining
sufficient forage for their needs, especially during severe winters. The
degree of impact then varies with the intensity of grazing and the severity
of the winter.

During his research Patterson (1952) reported that on two occasions bands
of sheep caused birds to flush and simultaneously to flip eggs out of their
nests. Sheep subsequently stepped on these eggs, destroying them, and
desertion occurred in both cases. No instances were noted of sheep breaking
up sage grouse nests by stepping into them. In a few cases, nests were
placed on open ground between shrubs and could have been destroyed by
livestock activities, but no destruction of this nature was recorded. There
was no indication that livestock is a serious factor in nest destruction,
although nest desertion from livestock activities was of frequent occurrence
under certain conditions. Desertion was most prevalent in the vicinity of
sheep bedgrounds. Bands of from 2,000 to 3,000 sheep were serious
disturbances to nesting activities. Most nests found deserted were either
unincubated or in the early stages of incubation. Patterson (1952) noted
that it was significant that several thousand sheep began moving into his
study area en route to their summer ranges coincident with the period of
nest desertion. However, he reported that nest desertion seldom occurred
after incubation was well underway. During incubation, several birds were
observed to be flushed from nests by sheep with no evidence of desertion.

25

^^^^^^M

Effects of Fire on Sage Grouse Habitat

Fire may be used as a tool to achieve one of the sage grouse habitat
management objectives i.e., a diverse habitat providing for all the needs
of sage grouse. Schlatterer (1960) and Dalke et al. (1963) mentioned how
an area that was unintentionally burned created a strutting ground that
birds were quick to occupy. These openings are necessary for the birds
and small burned areas, 1 to 10 acres in size, at the elevations utilized
for breeding may be beneficial in homogeneous sagebrush types (Klebenow
1972).

Nesting occurs in light to moderate sagebrush density. Where sage is
dense, habitat improvements could be achieved by moderate burning coupled
with grazing management to get the mosaic of shrub plus grass and forb
cover the sage grouse appear to prefer. Repeated burning could be adverse
in this case, as would large, hot fires where an excessive amount of cover
is removed. Griner (1939) noted where burning caused a decline in sage
grouse use in Utah. Pyrah (1963) also alluded that fire has been a
problem in some areas he studied. Where cover is already limited, fire
has been a problem.

Fire can be a useful tool where sagebrush rangelands interspersed with
meadows and other grassy openings have been converted to monotonous
sagebrush-covered hills and valleys. Burning small areas to achieve a
mosaic of food and cover areas should produce a pattern more suitable for
these birds. Different stages of successional growth would be desirable
in order to produce the greatest variety of forb food items. A diversity
of habitat types, both in terms of food and cover, should be an objective.
Fire creates openings and Blaisdell (1953) reported higher yields of forbs
on sites that had been intentionally burned.

In wintering habitats, there is little place for fire. Retention of
sagebrush is essential on winter ranges. Even tall, decadent sagebrush,
not useful for nesting or brooding, may be important during severe winters
when most other sagebrush could be covered by snow.

Effects of Human Disturbance on Sage Grouse Activities

Human activities in sage grouse habitat will cause varying degrees of
disturbance. Such activities will vary from occasional harassment, to
disruption of the nesting cycle, to elimination of use of critical winter
ranges. Hunting and poaching will not be discussed here as they are not
habitat-related factors.

Undue human disturbance on sage grouse strutting grounds could cause
reduction in mating, and some reduction in total production. Grouse
usually fly from the strutting ground and do not return again that morning

26

if flushed by humans. Some strutting grounds are well known to the public
and are visited frequently by photographers and other interested persons
to watch the annual courtship rituals. Such activities of the general
public may need to be curtailed if they disrupt mating. Grouse are
tolerant of automobiles and may be watched from fairly close range if the
observers do not leave their vehicles. However, the minute a person leaves
the vehicle and begins to walk across the area, the grouse become alarmed
and generally take flight, not to return again that morning. Fortunately,
the mating season is fairly long (up to 2 months) so it is unlikely that
any receptive hens will not be mated.

Off-road vehicles will occasionally run over a nest but the amount of loss
from this activity is probably insignificant. However, organized
motorcycle or 4-wheel drive races across sage grouse nesting habitat could
cause substantial loss of production, either from direct nest destruction,
or from nest abandonment during egg-laying. No such races should be
permitted in grouse habitat.

The effects of sheep and sheepherding activities on winter habitat are
not well known, but are probably related to the total amount of sagebrush
present on a particular winter range, its availability to grouse, and the
degree of browsing by sheep. Excessive utilization by sheep should not be
permitted. However, if snow accumulates to the extent that most of the
sagebrush becomes covered and unavailable to grouse, sheep browsing may be
beneficial to the birds by uncovering browse as they feed.

27

HABITAT MANAGEMENT GUIDES

Decisions to control and/or eradicate sagebrush should not be made until
full consideration of all land use values has been given and it has been
determined that sagebrush control is necessary to achieve specific high
priority management goals.

The following recommendations for management of sage grouse habitat are
those that are considered essential to maintain crucial habitats. The
suggested procedures are primarily those that have been approved by the
Western Association of Fish and Game Commissioners and that have been
formulated to minimize the detrimental effects of sagebrush control on
the sage grouse resource (Braun et al. 1977).

Project Coordination

1. BLM should notify the state wildlife agency of each specific
proposal to control sagebrush or other vegetation a minimum of 2 years

in advance of treatment. In situations where it is not possible to provide
such notice, the state wildlife agency should be notified as soon as the
project is proposed. An adequate amount of lead time is necessary to
properly evaluate control projects during all seasons of the year.

2. BLM should provide the state wildlife agency with detailed maps
on which the proposed areas to be treated are located and defined along
with detailed plans as to the type of treatment and expected results.

3. The state wildlife agency will be expected to plot sage grouse
use areas on the maps furnished, to include: (1) strutting grounds (leks) ,
(2) nesting areas, (3) meadows and summer range or brood areas, and

(4) wintering sites.

4. Representatives of BLM and the state wildlife agency should meet
on the proposed project area for an on-the-ground inspection of the proposal
following completion of the maps.

5. No sagebrush should be treated or removed until a comprehensive
multiple-use management plan (MFP) has been formulated for the area.

6. Project plans for sagebrush control should include provisions

for long-term quantitative and qualitative measurements of vegetation before
and after control to acquire data on the effects of wildlife habitat, and
to ascertain whether the objectives of the project were accomplished. The
BLM should bear the responsibility for evaluation of the project as it
relates to changes in habitat, while the state wildlife agency should assume

28

3K

^^m

^^^^p

the responsibility of measuring the effects of the project on the sage
grouse. The results should then be exchanged and a joint evaluation
accomplished .

Project Implementation

1. No control work should be considered where live sagebrush cover
is less than 20%, or on steep (20% or more gradient) upper slopes with
skeletal soils where big sagebrush {Artemisia tvidentata) is 12 inches
(30 cm) or less in height.

2. The breeding complex (strutting grounds, or leks, and nesting
areas) should be considered as all lands within a 2 mile (3 km) radius
of an occupied lek (in some situations, depending on the quality of the
nesting habitat, this radius may well exceed 2 miles). Control of
vegetation within the breeding complex should not be undertaken within
2 miles of leks, or on nesting and brood areas. On-site investigations
by the Bureau and state wildlife agency personnel is essential in
determining inviolate areas. Areas to be protected from treatment must
be clearly defined on the project maps.

3. No control of sagebrush should be considered in any area known
to have supported important wintering concentrations of sage grouse
within the past 10 years.

4. No control should be attempted along streams, meadows, or
secondary drainages (dry and intermittent). A 100-yard strip (minimum)
of living sage should be retained on each edge of meadows and drainages.
During the on-site inspection BLM and state wildlife agency personnel will
assess the desirability of increasing or decreasing the width of untreated
strips in specific areas.

5. When sagebrush control is found to be unavoidable in sage grouse
range, all treatment measures should be applied in irregular patterns
using topography and other ecological considerations to minimize adverse
effects to the sage grouse resource. Widths of treated and untreated areas
can vary for the convenience of application technique; except, treated areas
should not be wider than 100 feet (30 m) and untreated areas will be at
least as wide as treated areas. The untreated areas should not be treated
until food and cover plants in the treated areas attain comparable
composition to that of the untreated areas.

6. Where possible, spraying should be done with a helicopter or
ground equipment. No spraying should be done when wind velocity exceeds
6 or 7 miles per hour (10 km/hr).

29

t

7. Whenever possible, complete kill or removal of sagebrush in
treated areas should be avoided. Partial kill or removal of sagebrush
may enhance the area for livestock, prevent loss of all snow cover in
winter and allow for some use of the disturbed area by sage grouse.

8. Sagebrush treatment should be confined to only the most
productive sites where the greatest favorable returns can be expected.

9. When exceptions to the above guidelines occur, sound biological
judgment should be used to arrive at appropriate recommendations. Each
individual situation should be carefully investigated and analyzed before
arriving at the final decision.

Livestock Management

1. Every effort should be made to delay sheep bands from utilizing
known sage grouse nesting areas until about the first week in June, or
until young sage grouse have hatched in the particular locality. Domestic
sheep are known to have caused considerable nest abandonment around
bedgrounds, in trailing areas, and during normal feeding (Patterson 1952).

2. Cattle are generally not considered to cause nest desertion or
nest trampling.

3. Livestock should not be permitted to heavily use known important
sage grouse wintering areas. Heavy utilization may leave inadequate forage
for sage grouse, but will depend on size of the wintering area and amount
of sagebrush, depth of snow, and severity of the winter.

4. Grazing and browsing by livestock is an accepted use of sagebrush
range. However, this use should be carefully controlled to encourage
maximum forage productivity and to prevent range deterioration.

Coal and Minerals Management

1. Large tracts of sagebrush range in Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana
are underlain by coal deposits. Extensive strip mining of some deposits is
now underway and it appears that strip mining will be a major disturbance in
sagebrush areas for at least the next 40 years. Present effects of increased
energy exploitation on bird life of the sagebrush type are not known. It is
anticipated that most effects will be detrimental, especially those related
to disposition of overburden, waste products, and road development. Of
considerable importance to the avifauna in areas surrounding energy extraction
sites is the unknown but assumed detrimental effects of increased human
populations living and working in the area.

30

2. Where possible , land managers should delay approval of mining
on key areas that seem to be most critical to the survival of local sage
grouse populations. Sometimes this can be done by requesting coal mining
companies to avoid initial mining activities in certain specified habitats,
In some cases the movement of a mining operation by only one-half mile
will be acceptable to a mining company and may prolong the life of sage
grouse (and other sensitive wildlife) populations by several years.

Fire Management

1. Where fire is used as a habitat management tool, it should be
used in such manner as to result in a mosaic pattern of shrubs and open
areas, with openings being from 1 to 10 acres in size.

2. Large, hot fires may remove an excessive amount of cover or may
sterilize the soil and should be avoided.

3. Burning within an area should be done on a rotational basis,
burning different patches every few years, possibly with as long as 20 years
between burning treatments on each site. This will produce a diversity

of habitat within the general area.

4. Do not burn winter sagebrush habitats that have been identified
as important wintering sites. In such areas the grouse are dependent on
the leaves of sagebrush, not the potential development of grass and forbs
in the understory or interspersed openings.

5. Fire is an inexpensive tool that may be used for habitat
manipulation but all projects must be carefully planned and supervised.

6. Use of fire should be avoided during the spring and summer when
it could destroy many small nesting birds, small mammals, snakes, etc.,
as well as young sage grouse.

7. Fire is a natural element that has occurred on deserts and prairies
for eons of time and to which most animals have become adapted over the
centuries. Many of our present native environments are really disclimaxes
that have resulted from natural fires. When properly used and managed, it
can be successfully utilized in perpetuating the kinds of habitats that are
essential to many different forms of wildlife.

31

t

•

•

Visitor/ORV Management

1. Occasional nest abandonment or destruction will be caused by
vandals, unthinking persons, or by accident incidental to human recreational
activities on the public lands. Accompanying pets may also find and destroy
an occasional nest. The amount of production lost through such activities
will probably not be significant to most sage grouse populations.

2. Of primary concern on public lands is the authorization of ORV
races across habitats that are critical to one form of wildlife or another.
BLM managers must continue to evaluate all potential impacts on the
environment during such events and, where deemed in the best public .
interest, to either stipulate that all such events must be conducted after
the reproductive period, or else be conducted in an area where no loss to
habitats of sensitive or otherwise important wildlife populations will
occur .

3. Organizers of ORV events on public lands must be warned of the
potential for fire caused by hot mufflers and tail pipes or by sparks or
hot exhaust in brushy or grassy areas. Close supervision of organized
events is essential to preclude unexpected fires from destroying important
areas of habitat.

Water Management

As discussed in the section on water (p. 11), sage grouse normally select
areas near water for rearing broods and spending the summers. This suggests
that habitat can be improved for these birds by providing water where it
is not available in otherwise suitable habitat, or by managing livestock
waters so that water can be made available to grouse throughout the summer
and fall.

In BLM Technical Note No. 305 by Lanny 0. Wilson entitled GUIDELINES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND MODIFICATION OF LIVESTOCK WATERING
DEVELOPMENTS TO FACILITATE SAFE USE BY WILDLIFE several designs are
discussed that could be utilized for watering by sage grouse. Habitat for
sage grouse and many other species of wildlife living in the same area would
be improved if some type of free water could be provided for their use every
three or four miles across sagebrush-covered valleys and foothills. It
would probably be preferable to provide such water at ground level, such as
from a water tank overflow, or by constructing small rocky pools with
concrete bottoms, but any water that could be reached would be utilized.
All water troughs or tanks in sage grouse habitat should be provided with
ramps such as those described in Tech Note 305.

32

•

•

Fig. 8. Many kinds of birds, as well as deer and other
animals, sometimes encounter difficulties with barbed
wire fences. The author has photographs of long-eared
owls, short-eared owls, burrowing owls, and prairie
falcons that are entangled in barbed wire, apparently
killed while traversing low over the countryside searching
for prey. At the site shown, which was near Randolph, Utah,
the local conservation officer counted approximately 36
carcasses of sage grouse along 2 miles of fence during
3 winter months of the first winter the fence was in place.
Steel posts were used in the fence, placed about 2 rods
apart with a stay in between, making the fence fairly
inconspicuous. Feathers on the wires are those of sage
grouse (Thomas, 1971, pers. comm.).

33

V

LITERATURE CITED

Autenrieth, R. E. 1969. Impact of strip spray on vegetation and sage
grouse use on summer habitat. Proc. Biennial Western States Sage
Grouse Workshop. 6:147-157.

Bean, R. 1941. Live history studies of the sage grouse {Centvoaercus
urophasianus) in Clark County, Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Utah State
Univ., Logan. 44 pp.

Beck, T. D. I. and C. E. Braun. 1978. Weights of Colorado sage grouse.
Condor, 80:241-243.

Blaisdell, J. P. 1953. Ecological effects of planned burning of

sagebrush-grass range on the upper Snake River Plains. U.S. Dept.
Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 1075. 39 pp.

Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. 0. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for

maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 5:3, pp. 99-106,

Bureau of Land Management. 1970. Sage grouse Technical Supplement 6601-3,
MR 6601 — Species life history and habitat requirements. Denver
Service Center, Denver, Colo. 12 pp.

Carhart, A. H. 1941. Sage grouse survey in Colorado. Colorado Game and
Fish Comm.; Fed. Aid Proj . 4-R, Survey of 1941. 3. 31 pp.

Cary, M. 1911. A biological survey of Colorado. No. Am, Fauna. No. 33.
256 pp.

Christensen, G. D. 1968. Guidelines for sagebrush control practices in

sage grouse habitat. Nevada Fish & Game Comm. Policy No. 18. 7 pp.

Crawford, J. E. 1960. The movements, productivity, and management of sage
grouse in Clark and Fremont Counties, Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Univ.
Idaho, Moscow. 85 pp.

Dalke, P. D., D. B. Pyrah, D. C. Stanton, J. E. Crawford, and F. Schlatterer,
1960. Seasonal movements and breeding behavior of sage grouse in
Idaho. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. Conf . , 25:396-407.

_, D. B. Pyrah, D. C. Stanton, J. E. Crawford, and E. F. Schlatterer.
1963. Ecology, productivity, and management of sage grouse in Idaho.
J. Wildl. Manage. 27:810-841.

Eng, R. L. 1952. Population trends and breeding potential studies (sage
grouse brood studies). Montana Fish and Game Comm., Wildlife
Restoration Div. Quart. Prog. Rep. 3(4):56-62.

34

, and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter movements and

habitat use in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:141-146.

Enyeart, G. W. 1956. Responses of sage grouse to grass reseeding in the
Pines Area, Garfield County, Utah. M.S. Thesis, Utah State Univ.,
Logan. 55 pp.

Gill,. R. B. 1965. Distribution and abundance of a population of sage

grouse in North Park, Colorado. M.S. Thesis t Colorado State Univ.,
Fort Collins. 187 pp.

Girard, G. L. 1937. Life history, habitats, and food of the sage grouse,
Centvoaeraus urophasianus Bonaparte. Univ. Wyo. Publ., 3:1-56.

Gray, G. M. 1967. An ecological study of sage grouse broods with reference
to nesting, movements, food habits and sagebrush strip-spraying in
the Medicine Lodge Drainage, Clark County, Idaho. M.S. Thesis.
Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 200 pp.

Griner, L. A. 1939. A study of the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
with special reference to life history, habitat requirements, and
numbers and distribution. M.S. Thesis. Utah State Univ., Logan.
Ill pp.

Higby, L. W. 1969. A summary of the Longs Creek sagebrush control project.
Proc. Biennial Western States Sage Grouse Workshop 6:164-168.

Keller, R. J., H. R. Shepherd, and R. N. Randall. 1941. Survey of 1941:
North Park, Jackson County, Moffat County, including cooperative data
on previous seasons. Colorado Game and Fish Dept., Sage Grouse
Survey 4. 31 pp.

Klebenow, D. A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho.
J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3) :649-661.

. 1970. Sage grouse versus sagebrush control in Idaho. J. Range

Manage. 23:396-400.

. 1972. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and the role of fire

in management. Proceedings Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf.
pp. 305-315.

Klebenow, D. A., and G. M. Gray. 1969. Food habits of juvenile sage
grouse. J. Range Manage. 21 (2): 80-83.

35

#

Martin, N. S. 1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage grouse
occurrence. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:313-320.

Martin, A. C, H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife and
plants. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 500 pp.

Miles, W. H. 1946. Clearing and reseeding sagebrush lands. U.S. Soil
Cons. Serv. Regional Bull. No. 100, Range Manage. Series No. 10,
Albuquerque. 16 pp.

Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc.,
Denver. 341 pp.

Peterson, J. G. 1970. The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile
sage grouse in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:147-155.

Price, R. 1948. Conservation problems and practices. Pages 569-574 ±n
Grass The Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Dept. Agric.

Pyrah, D. B. 1954. A preliminary study toward sage grouse management in
Clark and Fremont Counties based on seasonal movements. M.S. Thesis.
Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 90 pp.

1963. Sage grouse investigations. Idaho Fish and Game Dept. Job
"Compl. Rept., Proj . W-125-R-2. 71 pp.

1972. Effects of chemical and mechanical sagebrush control on
sage grouse. Subject: Dropping counts. Pages 16-25 In Ecological
effects of chemical and mechanical sagebrush control. Montana Fish
and Game Dept., Job Prog. Rept. W-105-R-6. 79 pp.

Rogers, G. E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colorado

Dept. Game, Fish and Parks. Tech. Publ. 16. 132 pp.

Savage, D. E. 1968. The relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows

in Nevada. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Nevada, Reno. 172 pp.

1969. Relation of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. Job
Prog. Rept. W-39-R-9. Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game. 101 pp.

Schlatterer, E. F. 1960. Productivity and movements of a population of
sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho,
Moscow. 87 pp.

Schneegas, E. R. 1967. Sage grouse and sagebrush control. Proc. No.
Am. Wildl. and Natur. Res. Conf.

36

Trueblood, R. W. 1954. The effect of grass reseeding in sagebrush lands
on sage grouse populations. M.S. Thesis. Utah State Univ., Logan.
77 pp.

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

contemporary environmental change in the western United States.
Biol. Conserv. 6:274-284.

Wallestad, R. 0. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage grouse
broods in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 35:129-136.

1975. Life history and habitat requirements of sage grouse in
central Montana. Montana Fish and Game Dept. Tech. Bull. 66 pp.

, and D. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage grouse hens
in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:630-633.

, and C. R. Watts. 1973. Factors affecting annual sage grouse
productivity in central Montana. Montana Fish and Game Dept.
Job Prog. Rept., Proj . W-120-R-3. 23 pp.

_, and P. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season movements and habitat
selection of male sage grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:634-637.

»

i

37

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-0-679-44 2/412