CHANGES in the Distributionand STATUS of Sagegrouse

western north american naturalist 632 200302003 pp 203 214 CHANGES IN THE distribution AND STATUS OF sagegrouseSAGE GROUSE IN UTAH

jeffrey L becki dean L Mitchellmitchell2424 and brian D Maxfieldmaxfield33

ABSTRACT sagegrousesage grouse centrocercusCentro cercus sppapp were abundant in all of utah s 29 counties at the time of european settlement wherever sagebrush artemisia sppapp occurred greater sagegrousesage grouse C urophasianus inhabited areas north and west of the colorado river and gunnison sagegrousesage grouse C minimus occupied suitable habitat south and east of the colorado river the largest greater sagegrousesage grouse populations in utah are currently restricted to suitable habitats in box elder garfield rich uintah and wayne counties A remnant breeding population of gunnison sagegrousesage grouse occurs in eastern san juan county we stratified greater sagegrousesage grouse populations 1971 2000 by counties where the 1996 to 2000 moving average for estimated spring breeding populations was 500 gt500 or 500 lt500LT500 males per lek declined in all populations from 1971 to 2000 however there were consistently more males observed on gt500 than on lt500 leks juveniles per adult hen including yearling hens greater sagegrousesage grouse in the 1973 2000 fall harvest in box elder rich and wayne counties did not differ from 2252.25 a ratio suggesting sustainable or increasing sagegrousesage grouse populations declines are attributed to loss fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush habitat sagegrousesage grouse conservation ultimately depends on management and enhancement of remaining sagebrush rangelands in utah

key words sage grouse sagebrush habitats habitat loss utah Centrocentrocercuscercus urophasianus Centrocentrocercuscercus minimus greater sage grouse gunnison sage grouse artemisia tridentata

sagegrousesage grouse Centrocentrocercuscercus sppapp are recog- smaller sagegrousesage grouse populations saw an over- nized for their obligate relationship with sage- all mean decline of 37 in breeding popula- brush artemisia sppapp braun et al 1976 rober- tions from 1985 to 1994 compared to the long- son 1984 and persist in utah and 10 other term average connelly and braun 1997 states california colorado idaho montana however a rough estimate of breeding popu- nevada north dakota oregon south dakota lations in 1998 indicated 10610.6 of all sage washington and wyoming and 2 canadian grouse were found in utah braun 1998 provinces alberta and saskatchewan where recent work on courtship behavior young sagebrush occurs connelly and braun 1997 et al 1994 genetics kahn et al 1999 oyler braun 1998 sagegrousesage grouse have been extirpated mccance et al 1999 morphometricsmorphometrics hupp in areas on the periphery of their core habitat and braun 1991 and plumage young et al including arizona kansas nebraska new 2000 led to recognition of 2 distinct species of mexico oklahoma and british columbia sage grouse gunnison sagegrousesage grouse C min- braun 1998 johnson and braun 1999 sage imus and greater sagegrousesage grouse C urophaswrophas grouse populations have declined throughout ianus AOU checklist committee 2000 also their remaining range at increasing rates due preferred or known by others as northern sage to habitat loss fragmentation and degradation grouse young et al 2000 in utah sagegrousesage grouse connelly and braun 1997 braun 1998 occurring south and east of the colorado river in at least 9 states and alberta males per in grand and san juan counties are gunnison lek an index of yearly breeding populations sage grouse whereas sagegrousesage grouse north and declined 1700179o179017 47 x 33 from 1985 to 1994 west of the colorado river are greater sage from longtermlong term averages calculated through grouse young et al 2000 the current gun- 1984 connelly and braun 1997 utah and nison sagegrousesage grouse population of approxi- other states and provinces alberta north mately 120 150 birds in utah represents 3 dakota south dakota and washington with of an estimated population of 4000 5000 in

idepartment of fish and wildlife resources university of idaho moscow ID 83844113683844 1136 2utahzutahbutah division of wildlife resources 1594 west north temple suite 2110 box 146301 salt lake city UT 84114630184114 6301 butah3utahtah division of wildlife resources 152 east 100 north vernal UT 84078212684078 2126 corresponding author

203 204 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN naturalist volume 63 utah and colorado USDI fish and wildlife state university WSU ornithological collec- service 2000 young et al 2000 in december tion in ogden and accession records from the 2000 gunnison sagegrousesage grouse were added to major north american museums we derived the list of candidate species for listing under the current distribution of sagegrousesage grouse in utah the endangered species act of 1973 USDI from information and maps provided by BLM fish and wildlife service 2000 UDWR and USFS biologists this information an analysis of the distribution and status of was digitized into a GIS arearcviewtarcview version sagegrousesage grouse in utah is needed to assist in the 323.2 environmental systems research insti- conservation and management of populations tute redlands CA and essential habitats within the state similar historical distribution of sagegrousesage grouse in syntheses have been completed for sagegrousesage grouse utah was mapped using the current distribu- in colorado braun 1995 oregon willis et al tion map as the initial data layer and then 1993 and washington schroeder et al 2000 adding areas of historical distribution as sup- our paper clarifies what is known about the porting evidence was found historical obser- original and current distribution of sagegrousesage grouse vations of sagegrousesage grouse from early research in in utah provides historical and current status utah early scientific explorations and UDWR information about the species and discusses job progress reports were all used to identify causes of sagegrousesage grouse declines and the need for historical distribution of sage grouse litera- conservation in relation to habitat conditions ture was reviewed to obtain estimates of the in our synthesis we 1 reviewed literature ex- original distribution of big sagebrush A tri amined museum specimens and performed dentadentatatd and other species of sagebrush low geographical analyses to evaluate the current sagebrush A arbuscula black sagebrush A and historical distribution of sagegrousesage grouse in nova and threethreetiptip sagebrush A triparttripartitetripartitatriptripartitalartitaital utah and 2 analyzed population data to eval- beetle 1960 kuchlerkiichler 1964 foster 1968 bailey uate trends 1971 2000 in sagegrousesage grouse abun- 1976 mcarthur and ott 1996 we used the dance and productivity in the state utah GAP vegetation coverage to add areas of historical sagebrush distribution to the initial METHODS sagegrousesage grouse distribution layer if these areas were not already identified edwards et al personnel from the US bureau of land 1995 additional cover types from utah GAP management BLM US forest service were added to the historical map if topgraphi USFS US natural resources conservation cal relief was moderate and if sagebrush was service and utah division of wildlife res- an important component of the plant commu- ources UDWR met in 4 interagency region- nity eg gambel s oak quercus gambeliigambelligambgambefifleliieill al meetings in 1998 and 1999 and compiled sagebrush salt desert scrub sagebrush and available data retrieved from each of the pinyon pinus sppappspp1 juniper juniperus spp1sppapp respective agency s files on sagegrousesage grouse pop- sagebrush to account for the diversity of habi- ulationsulations and habitat new spatial data were tats within the sagebrush biome miller and combined with existing spatial data and are eddleman 2001 maintained in UDWR s geographic informa- current status tion system GIS database sagegrousesage grouse population data were combined into a database data collected since 1959 by UDWR on maintained by UDWR we incorporated these greater sagegrousesage grouse were stratified by coun- data sets in our analyses ties according to whether the breeding population of sagegrousesage grouse in each county exhibited historical and a 5year5 year 1996 2000 moving average of greater current distribution than 500 gt500 persistent or less than 500 we constructed a list of sagegrousesage grouse collected lt500 at risk of extirpation braun 1995 in utah by examining ornithological collec- gunnison sagegrousesage grouse were considered sepa- tions at brigham young university BYU in rately from greater sage grouse counties rep- provo college of eastern utah in price and resent discrete geographical populations from university of utah UU in salt lake city CE which data have been recorded since 1959 braun personal communication july 2002 maximum number of males observed from the provided survey information for the weber highest of 3 lek counts was the sample statistic 200320031 STATUS OF SAGEsagegrouseGROUSE IN UTAH 205 used to estimate breeding population size rel- maximum males per lek were averaged by ative to each lek beck and braun 1980 with year for gt500 lt500 and gunnison sage the assumptions that 1 75 of all males were grouse populations correlations were per- observed during the peak count and 2 the formed between males per lek in all popula- maletofemalemale to female ratio was 12012.0 CE braun tions gt500 lt500 and gunnison sage personal communication january 2002 grouse and year to evaluate the relationship we define a lek as a traditional strutting of lek counts over time procPROCPROG gorkgorrCORRCORK SAS ground where sagegrousesage grouse congregate to dis- institute inc 2000 A generalized ANOVA play and breed in spring furthermore UDWR using maximum likelihood with a time series considers historical leks to be those where dis- error structure was used to test the hypothesis playing male sagegrousesage grouse have not been ob- that males observed per lek were higher in served for 5 or more years and inactive leks to gt500 populations than in lt500 populations be those where displaying males have not beerbeen from 1971 to 2000 procPROCPROG MIXED SAS insti- observed for up to 3 years active leks com- tute inc 2000 prise those where males were observed during productivity wings from greater sage at least I1 of the 2 previous years grouse harvested from 1973 to 2000 in gt500 grouse A greater sagegrousesage lek was established counties were used to calculate annual juve in an isolated area of north central san juan nile to adult female including yearyearlingsyearningslings ratios county by birds translocatedtranslocated in 1976 reese to evaluate productivity eng 1955 autenrieth and connelly 1997 these grouse were not et al 1982 we estimated mean juvenile to analyses as they artifi- considered in any were adult female ratios with a 2stage2 stage approach cially placed within historical gunnison sage using a stratified cluster sample counties were grouse habitat and no males have been strata stage 1 and wing samples were clusters observed on this lek since 1996 initial collec- stage 2 within these counties scheaffer et al tion of data sets began at different dates for 1996 box elder rich and wayne counties different populations however by spring 1971 werewere selected as strata due to missing data lek counts represented most sagegrousesage grouse pop- from garfield and uintah counties sufficient ulatulationsions in the state statistical testing thus data for comparing populations were represents data collected from 1971 to 2000 lt500 not available after 1981 wing ratios were statistical significance was set at a 0050.05oos weighted by mean proportion of total males LEK COUNTS all lek count data were collected by UDWR biologists biologists were counted on leks in these 3 counties over this 28 period to make each s directed to count male sagegrousesage grouse on leks 28yearyear county contri- according to the following protocol 1 observe bution to the estimated mean ratio propor- each lek a minimum of 3 times annually at tional to population size recommendations approximate weekly intervals between 20 march by connelly et al 2000a suggest a ratio of and I1 may and 2 record the maximum num- 2252.25 juveniles per adult hen including year- ber of male sagegrousesage grouse observed at each in- ling hens should indicate a stable to increas- stance of lek observation biologists were also ing population we used a samplesampieisample1sampleI1 t test instructed to conduct lek counts 1 following PROC TTEST SAS institute inc 2000 to the peak ofbreeding mid march to early april test the null hypothesis that mean juveniles the apex of male lek attendance jenni and per adult hen did not differ from 2252.25 from hartzler 1978 emmons and braun 1984 2 1973 to 2000 within half an hour before and after sunrise to we calculated lambda k Ntnln Nt the coincide with the period of greatest daily lek finite rate of increase akcakayaakqakayaAkcakayaninet al 1999 attendance jenni and hartzler 1978 and 3 for lek counts in box elder rich and wayne when weather conditions permitted optimal counties from 1973 to 2000 we correlated visibility and did not hinder grouse activity these VsA s with lagged juveniletoadultjuvenile to adult includ- autenrieth et al 1982 we assume biologists ing yearling hens hen ratios eg mean wing followed the protocol above to collect lek ratio from 1973 correlated with X1l from 1974 count data yearly maxima from each lek were 1973 to evaluate the relationship of change in used to evaluate trends in male lek attendance annual growth rates with productivity from over time jenni and hartzler 1978 autenri- the previous fall PROC CORR SAS institute eth et al 1982 inc 2000 206 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN naturalist volume 63

RESULTS pioneers recalled substantial populations of sagegrousesage grouse on the benches of utah county in historical distribution heber and strawberry valleys in wasatch franciscan missionaries silvestre velezv61ez de county summit county the benches of cache escalante and francisco atanasio dominguez county and box elder county eg utah fish and their exploring party visiting utah valley and game 1953 sagegrousesage grouse were abundant in september 1776 were the first europeans near sevier lake in millard county in the to describe sagegrousesage grouse in utah they mid 1800s christensen and johnson 1964 reported that wild hens ie sagegrousesage grouse pine valley in north central washington county andor columbian sharptailedsharp tailed grouse tym- was populated by sagegrousesage grouse until at least the panpanuchusuchus phasianellus columbianuscolumbianus around mid 1900s behle 1943 aldrich and duvall utah lake were abundant and used by native 1955 jense and trevortbrevort 1973 americans as a source of food auerbach we found 108 greater sagegrousesage grouse museum 1943 early naturalists visiting utah observed specimens andor egg sets representing beaver that sagegrousesage grouse were abundant even near box elder cache carbon daggett duchesne settlements until at least the 1870s alienalienallenailen grand salt lake thoeletooele uintah utah and 1872 henshaw 1875 hayward et al 1976 wasatch counties no specimens of gunnison henshaw 1875437 reported sagegrousesage grouse were found of note were I1 specimen collected in salt lake county in decem- the sage hen is very numerous throughout ber 1892 american museum of natural his- utah its predilection as its name implies tory no 353711 and I1 egg set royal ontario being for the open barren plains ofartemisia museum toronto no 8385 collected in salt and whenever this plant exists abundance in county in may 1902 earliest col- whether on the extensive stretches of open lake the BYU 5 july 1926 plain on the lowlands entirely barren but for lected specimens at dated the growth of this shrub or in the valleys were 2 from the strawberry reservoir area of high up among the mountains this bird will wasatch county in the UU collection the ear- not be looked for in vain liest records were of 2 sagegrousesage grouse collected on 5 september 1932 in the lynn canyon area his observations suggest sagegrousesage grouse origi- of box elder county the single specimen at nally occurred in all of utah s 29 counties co- WSU no 00060 was collected I1 august 1898 incident with sagebrush communities fig 1 in the vicinity of heber city wasatch county sagegrousesage grouse declined near settlements con- early records of sagegrousesage grouse from utah county current with early agricultural development include egg sets collected from west mountain alienallenailen 1872 christensen and johnson 1964 1893 and 1913 and other locations in 1898 alienallenailen 1872 noted the magnitude of agricul- 1901 and 1927 in the collection of the west- tural development in the salt lake valley in ern foundation of vertebrate zoology we are autumn 1871 while ornithologizingornithologizing7 between uncertain of the exact collection locale most ogden and salt lake city ie davis salt lake likely in eastern thoeletooele county for a speci- and weber counties his party collected sage men university of missouri columbia no and sharptailedsharp tailed grouse specimens but ob- 04001335 reportedly taken 40240.2 km 25 mi served only about a dozen of each species west of salt lake city on 26 september 1966 even though they were informed of their for- mcarthur and ott 1996 reported total po- mer abundance there tential cover of big sagebrush and its close rel- sagegrousesage grouse apparently were abundant atives in utah following kuchlerkuehlerkiichkilehKilchlerier s 1964 map where suitable habitat existed throughout vegetation types 38 and 55 was 35315 km2 utah until at least the early 1900s hayward et and following bailey s 1976 map ecoregionsecoregions al 1976 and were distributed in many areas 3131 3133 and a3142 was 17489 km2 these across the state until at least the 1950s lords areas are respectively equivalent to 160516.05 1951 aldrich and duvall 1955 from 1949 to and 7957.95 of the total area of utah mcarthur at least 1954 the utah fish and camegame bulletin and ott 1996 however west 1983a 1983b published a series of articles entitled stories indicated that in utah the total cover of sage- of old timers these articles featured inter- brush semidesert was isilsi15115.1 27000 km2 and views with settlers who lived in utah during sagebrushsteppesagebrush steppe was 242.4 11100 km2 thus the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s these prior to settlement big sagebrush communities 200312003 STATUS OF SAGEsagegrouseGROUSE IN UTAH 207

ch counties lakes and reservoirs colorado river current distribution box eideelde historical distribution

summit duchesn tooelethoele atcabc X h N juab

N millardmiliard ete emery grand

wayne

0 garfield p CP san juan

washington kane

100 0 100 kilometers

fig 1 current and historical distribution of sagegrousesage grouse in utah gunnison sagegrousesage grouse are found south and east of the colorado river and greater sagegrousesage grouse inhabit areas north and west of the colorado river 208 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN naturalist volume 63 the core of sagegrousesage grouse habitat probably cov- sagegrousesage grouse from 1996 to 2000 counties with ered about 8 17517.5 of utah less than an estimated 500 breeding greater sagegrousesage grouse from 1996 to 2000 included current distribution beaver cache carbon daggett duchesne our geographical analyses indicate utah emery iron juab kane millard morgan consists of 219838 km2 of which historically plute Sansanpetepete sevier summit tooelethoele utah 72995 km2 or 33233.2 may have been used and wasatch sagegrousesage grouse no longer occur in by sagegrousesage grouse greater sagegrousesage grouse 32232.2 davis salt lake and washington counties 70696 km2 and gunnison sagegrousesage grouse 101.0io sagegrousesage grouse were last observed on leks in 1994 2299 km2 fig 1 our analyses also indicate in emery county 1988 in millard county 1983 29821 km2 13613613.6 of utah currently provides in sanpete county and 1977 in utah county habitat for sagegrousesage grouse fig 1 greater sage and may now be extirpated in these counties grouse inhabit 29208 km2 97997997.9 and gun- only 1 male sagegrousesage grouse has been observed nison sagegrousesage grouse 613 km2 21212.1 of this area spring 2000 on a lek in summit county since the current distribution of sagegrousesage grouse repre- 1995 sents 40940.9 of the historical distribution of the only sagegrousesage grouse observed on a lek in sagegrousesage grouse in utah thus greater and gun- sevier county since 1978 were birds translo nison sagegrousesage grouse may currently occupy 41341.3 catedbated from 1987 to 1990 that formed a new lek and 26726.7 respectively of their potential his- reese and connelly 1997 leks are not known torical distribution the largest greater sage in eastern weber county and birds harvested grouse populations in utah are presently re- there through the 1970s most likely attended strictstricteded to blue and diamond mountains in adjacent leks in cache and morgan counties uintah county parker mountain mainly in only historical leks are known in northern wayne county rich county western box grand county thus sagegrousesage grouse harvested elder county and western garfield county there by hunters through the early 1990s dis- fig 1 played on leks in nearby uintah county in addition a small population of cunnisongunnison sage lek counts grouse that breeds in mesa county colorado grand three hundred twenty sagegrousesage grouse leks are frequents county along the east central known in utah of which 162 51 were state boundary males lek declined all actively used from 1998 to 2000 thirtytwothirty two per in populations from 1971 to 2000 gt500 0.38 P 10 were inactive and 124 39 were his- r 038 003970.0397 lt500 r 0780.78 FP 000010.0001 gunni- torical and not active from 1996 to 2000 lek son sage grouse 0740.74 P 000010.0001 table counts by county were initiated in box elder r 111 fig 2 highest number of males per and rich in 1959 summit in 1962 cache in gt500 lek was observed in 1979 30730730.7 s 1966 garfield plute sevier uintah and sifsir 494.9 n 62 and lowest was observed in 1996 wayne in 1967 beaver carbon emery iron 19712712.7 sifs 161.6lgig n 88 in lt500 populations san and 1968 morgan 1969 juan thoeletooele in in highest number of males per lek was observed daggett duchesne and wasatch in 1970 juab in 1972 20620620.6 s5esaes 292.9 n 41 and lowest was and sanpete in 1971 millard in 1975 utah in observed in 1996 62gg626.2 sts 131.3 n 46 fig 1976 and kane in 1983 lek sampling intensity 2 longtermlong term 1971 2000 average males ob- leks and males total subsequently counted served on leks in gt500 populations was 20420.4 generally increased from 1959 to 2000 table s 080.8 12512.5 sts 070.7 in lt500 popula- 1 the highest number of leks counted since tions and 13813.8 sy 11liii1.1 for gunnison sage 1959 was 167 in 1988 and 2000 the lowest grouse in san juan county number of males number of leks counted was 13 in 1959 and per lek in gt500 populations was higher than 1961 1 one hundred sixty seven leks table sixtyseven in lt500 populations from 1971 to 2000 f129F 29 were counted throughout utah in spring 2000 919591.95 P 000010.0001 with 57 gunnison and 3459 greater sage productivity grouse males observed table 1 breeding populations in box elder garfield longtermlong term 1973 2000 mean juveniles per rich uintah and wayne counties were esti- adult hen including yearyearlingsyearningslings analyzed from mated at greater than 500 breeding greater wings from hunterharvestedhunter harvested sagegrousesage grouse in 200320031 STATUS OF saceSAGEsagecrousesagegrouseCROUSEGROUSE IN UTAH 209

TABLE 1 number ofofleksleks counted and high counts of male sagegrousesage grouse on leks in utah 195920001959 2000 greater sagegrousesage grouse stratified by counties as lt500 less than 500 or gt500 greater than 500 for the 1996 2000 average breeding population

greater sagegrousesasagege grouse cunnisoncungunnisongunnison sagegrousesagelsage igrouse LT 500 GT 500 total count year leks males leks males leks males leks males 1959 NA NA NA NA 13 442 13 442 1960 NA NA NA NA 14 522 14 522 1961 NA NA NA NA 13 623 13 623 1962 NA NA 4 129 10 343 14 472 1963 NA NA 3 21 15 534 18 555 1964 NA NA 4 51 11 245 15 296 1965 NA NA 4 33 12 194 16 227 1966 NA NA 5 57 13 236 18 293 1967 NA NA 7 116 34 853 41 969 1968 2 8 16 151 35 929 53 1088 1969 3 42 25 562 46 1765 74 2369 1970 6 123 27 668 58 1811 91 2602 1971 6 156 41 809 63 1389 110 2354 1972 6 175 41 846 71 1507 118 2528 1973 6 105 32 498 64 1238 102 1841 1974 6 137 55 887 76 1431 137 2455 1975 6 115 47 881 64 1262 117 2258 1976 6 98 61 1096 58 1302 125 2496 1977 5 117 67 1107 75 1831 147 3055 1978 5 96 60 908 57 1674 122 2678 1979 4 67 48 793 62 1902 114 2762 1980 5 41 37 535 63 1354 105 1930 1981 4 63 69 721 82 1717 155 2501 1982 4 47 49 590 50 1362 103 1999 1983 4 59 55 667 62 11781 121 1904 1984 3 51 19 181 31 547 53 779 1985 3 32 34 371 84 1252 121 1655 1986 3 18 46 594 56 1054 105 1666 1987 3 21 50 475 61 1294 114 1790 1988 3 21 55 573 109 1944 167 2538 1989 3 30 51 707 85 1962 139 2699 1990 3 28 58 598 86 2151 147 2777 1991 3 24 50 594 76 1725 129 2343 1992 3 36 43 426 64 1258 110 1720 1993 3 38 26 200 58 971 87 1209 1994 3 35 33 213 74 1087 110 1335 1995 3 38 20 147 61 811 84 996 1996 3 28 46 285 88 1117 137 1430 1997 3 25 44 344 103 1356 150 1725 1998 3 32 49 386 93 1688 145 2106 1999 5 46 52 688 105 2135 162 2869 2000 5 57 62 887 100 2572 167 3516 aerialaaerialaderial counts were conducted for grouse on all leks in wayne county in 1983 and 1984

box elder rich and wayne counties was 242.4 creased in box elder county 53353353.3 but de- sifsafs3fs 020.2 fig 3 mean juveniles per adult creased in rich 17317.3 and wayne 12812.8 hen in fall harvests in these counties from counties in the period from 1973 1986 to 1973 to 2000 did not differ from 2252.25 427t 1987 2000 table 2 we detected a moderate 0730.73 P 047400.4740 wings received from hunters relationship between ratio ofjuveniles per adult declined in box elder 53 and wayne 23 hen the previous fall and growth rates X for counties and increased in rich county 46 males per lek the following spring r 0360.36 n while the ratio of juveniles to adult hens in 27 P 006820.0682 210910glo WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN naturalist volume 63

30 gt500 lt500

year

fig 2 males per lek af5f ssy gt500 and lt500 greater sagegrousesage grouse county populations utah 1971 2000

discussion across utah as an incremental process estab- lishmentlishment of settlements along sagebrush foot- historical and hills and in valleys and subsequent plougsloughingploughinghing current distribution of arable areas led to initial habitat loss alienalienallenailen the accuracy of our GIS analyses on histor- 1872 christensen and johnson 1964 settle- ical and current distribution of sagegrousesage grouse in ment was closely followed by livestock graz- utah is unknown however our analyses indi- ing which degraded surrounding habitats by in- cate a decline in potential habitat of at least ducing changes in sagebrush community com- 60 and 70 for greater and gunnison sage position cottam and stewart 1940 cottam grouse populations respectively in addition 1947 49 of known leks throughout utah are no livestock overgrazing agricultural activi- longer used by sage grouse lek counts repre- ties and fire disturbances promoted establish- sent only a 42year42 year period 1959 2000 conse- ment of annual weeds in particular cheatgrasscheatgrass quentquentlyly the number of historical leks is not bromus tectoriumtectorumtectorum stewart and hull 1949 clear therefore we argue that the decline in young and alienallenailen 1997 cheatgrassCheatgrass was first sagegrousesage grouse distribution in utah since histori- collected in utah in 1894 warg 1938 and cal times is far greater than 50 as suggested expansion since then has led to increased fire by the utah division of wildlife resources frequencies in xeric often wyoming big sage- 1997 brush A t wyomingensiswyomingemisj communities bunt- throughout the range of sage grouse habi- ing et al 1987 which subsequently limits tat loss fragmentation and degradation have recovery of broodbroodrearingrearing habitats in dry sage- reduced the quantity and quality of habitat brush types fisher et al 1996 following world especially for nesting and early broodrearingbrood rearing war II11 additional sagebrush was lost andor connelly and braun 1997 reduction in degraded as ranges were converted through quantity and quality of sagegrousesage grouse habitat can mechanical and chemical means to increase occur over a short time period enyeart 1956 grass forage usually crested wheatwheatgrassgrass agropy- swenson et al 1987 or can occur gradually ron cristatumcristatum for livestock enyeart 1956 beck welch et al 1990 loss fragmentation and and mitchell 2000 fire suppression and over- degradation of sagegrousesage grouse habitat has occurred grazing have facilitated invasion of sagebrush 200320031 STATUS OF SAGEsagegrouseGROUSE IN UTAH 211

7 2252.25 ratio estimated ratios C 6

year

fig 3 estimated ratios Y ssy of juveniles per adult hen including yearling hens greater sagegrousesage grouse in the fall harvest from box elder rich and wayne counties utah 1973 2000 estimated ratios compared to a ratio of 2252.25 juveniles per hen a level suggesting stable to increasing populations connelly et al 2000a by pinyon juniper woodlands miller et al mussen and griner 1938 welch et al 1990 1994 which has led to additional loss of sage although much work has been done to reha- grouse habitat commons et al 1999 addi- bilitatebilitate remaining big sagebrush habitat in tional losses fragmentation and degradation strawberry valley additional factors including have arisen from surface mining and energy establishment of sodformingsod forming grasses eg developments roads powpowerlineserlines fences reser- smooth brome bromus inennisermis in sagebrush voirs and housing developments braun 1987 underunderstoriesstories and colonization of an exotic 1998 predator red fox vulpes vulpes may pre- sagegrousesage grouse in strawberry valley provide a clude this population from recovering bun- particularly compelling history of habitat con- nell 2000 ditions that have induced declines in a utah longtermlong term trends 1971 2000 in utah sagegrousesage grouse population during the mid 1930s indicate marked declines in all breeding popu- an estimated population of 3000 4000 grouse lations particularly in gunnison and smaller was present during spring summer and fall greater sagegrousesage grouse populations careful man- on what was then called strawberry valley agement will be required to keep all popula- federal refuge rasmussen and griner 1938 tions from further reductions protection and within 15 years sagegrousesage grouse in strawberry enhancement of all known sagegrousesage grouse use valley excluding the area below the dam had areas and populations must be a top priority to declined to 1500 birds lords 1951 the sage insure sagegrousesage grouse remain an important com- grouse population in strawberry valley further ponent of utah sagebrush ecosystems decreased to an estimated 160 185 birds by counts 1989 welch et al 1990 loss and degradation lek of sagegrousesage grouse habitat in strawberry valley increased emphasis by UDWR to under- has resulted from overgrazing chemical con- stand population dynamics of sagegrousesage grouse trol of sagebrush reservoir enlargement sum- throughout the state led to enhanced lek sam- mer homes roads and campgrounds ras pling efforts over time lek count results since 212 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN naturalist volume 63

TABLE 2 trend in wing receipts and juveniles per adult hen including yearling hens ratios from hunterhunterharvestedharvested greater sagegrousesage grouse in box elder rich and wayne counties utah 1973 2000 wing receipts and juveniles per hen are xY sas7sy for each 14year14 year period box elder rich wayne 1973 1986 wing receipts 333 47 98 20 268 16 juveniles per hen 191.9lgig 02020.2 272.7 05050.5 252.5 02020.2 1987 2000 wing receipts 158 28 143 31 207 24 juveniles per hen 292.9 08 222.2 02020.2 222.2 02020.2 percent change wing receipts 53 46 23 juveniles per hen 53353353.3 17317.3 12812.8

differences ac0c between 1973 1986 and 1987 2000 means

1996 may thus be artiartifactualfactual and higher counts gate near moist areas at this time of year during this time period at least in part reflect braun 1998 connelly et al 2000b conse- intensified sampling efforts problems with quentquentlyly since the late 1990s sagegrousesage grouse hunt- early through the 1960s lek counts include ing seasons in utah have been shortened bag inadequate equipment personnel commitment limits reduced 1 bird daily and possession and a lack of understanding of sagegrousesage grouse limit of 2 daily bag limits since 1997 and biology braun 1998 we presented the most opening dates held later in september ard3rd precise lek sampling data as information from saturday since 1997 2nd saturday before 1997 1971 and later when leks in most areas were to conserve breeding females it is possible being counted however the accuracy of lek that prior to these new regulations ratios ex- counts is still poorly understood the relation- ceeding 2252.25925 juveniles per adult hen includ- ship between lek counts and total population ing yearling hens in the fall harvest may reflect size has not been documented even though disproportionate harvests of hens and young substantial effort has been expended on refin- near wet areas in early september in addi- ing methods to obtain lek counts beck and tion the overwinter survival rate of juvenile braun 1980 although lek counts have been and yearling sagegrousesage grouse across utah is un- used to estimate prairie grouse populations known low overwinter survival of these key they are meant to serve as indices of popula- segments of the population could also be con- tion trends over time applegate 2000 never- tributing to the decline of sagegrousesage grouse popula- thelesstheless indices of density such as lek counts tions in utah provide measures of relative population size and are useful to track yeartoyearyear to year changes in acknowledgments single populations as well as to compare the size or density of 2 populations caughley and CE braun and JW connelly provided sinclair 1994215 despite the faults of lek insightful comments as manuscript reviewers count methodologies they provide the best KPKE reese university of idaho contributed index to breeding populations over time con- helpful suggestions during manuscript prepa- nelly and braun 1997 connelly et al 2000a ration EO cartongarton and RK steinhorst uni- of idaho provided statistical advice productivity versity we thank JW alston and LKLX peterson for our results suggest juveniletoadultjjuvenile to adult hen assistance in literature searches and museum ratios may have been sufficient to promote data collection in particular we thank CE sustainable or even increasing populations of braun for providing his exhaustive list of utah sagegrousesage grouse from 1971 to 2000 connelly et al sagegrousesage grouse specimens andor egg sets repre- 2000a females and juveniles are typically senting the major north american museums harvested disproportionately to males in late the utah division of wildlife resources pro- summer hunts because broods tend to congre vided funding for publication 200312003 STATUS OF sagegrouseSAGE GROUSE IN UTAH 213

literature CITED CAUGHLEY G AND ARE SINCLAIR 1994 wildlife ecology and management blackwell science cambridge MA 334 AKCAKAYA HR MA BURGMAN AND LR GINZBURG 1999 appp presettle- applied population ecology principles and com- christensen EM AND HB JOHNSON 1964 ment and vegetational change three puter exercises using RAMASRAMASO ecolab 202.0 2nd vegetation in edition applied biomathematics setauket new york valleys in central utah brigham young university science bulletin biological series 16 ALDRICH JW AND AJ DUVALL 1955 distribution of 441 american gallinaceous game birds USDI fish and COMMONS ML RK BAYDACK AND CE BRAUN 1999 sage wildlife service circular 341 30 grouse response to pinyon juniper management pages 238 239239win SB monson and R stevens com- ALLEN JA 1872 ornithological notes from the west part pilers proceedings ecology and management of III111 notes on the birds of the great salt lake valley liilil within the american naturalist 63944046394 404 pinyon juniper communities interior west proceedings RMRS P 9 USDA AOU CHECKLIST COMMITTEE 2000 fortyfortysecondsecond supple- forest service rocky mountain research station ogden UT ment to the american ornithologists union check- CONNELLY AND BRAUN 1997 changes list of north american birds auk 117847 858 JW CE longtermlong term in sage grouse Centrocentrocercwcentrocercuscercus phasianusutourourophasiannsurophasianus popula- APPLEGATE RD 2000 in my opinion use and misuse of tions in western north america wildlife biology prairie chicken lek surveys wildlife society bulletin 3229 234 28457 463 CONNELLY MA SCHROEDER AR SANDS AND CE AUERBACH HS 1943 father escalante s journal 1776 77 JW BRAUN 2000a guidelines to manage sage grouse newly translated with related documents and origi- populations and their habitats wildlife society bul- nal maps utah historical quarterly 111 142 letin 28967 985 autenrieth RE WA MOLINI AND CE BRAUN 1982 CONNELLY AD APA RB SMITH AND REESE sage grouse management practices western states JW KPKE 2000b effects of predation and hunting on adult sage grouse committee technical bulletin 1 idaho sage grouse Centrocentrocerctiscentrocercuscercus urophasianus in idaho department of fish and game twin falls 42 appp wildlife biology 6227 232 BAILEY RG 1976 ecoregionsEcoregions of the united states map commCOTTAM WPWE 1947 Is utah sahara bound university of scale united states department of 17500000 utah bulletin 37111 32 agriculture forest service washington DC COTTAM WPWE AND G STEWART 1940 plant succession as BECK AND MITCHELL 2000 influences of live- JL DL a result of grazing and of meadow desiccation by stock on sage grouse habitat wildlife soci- grazing erosion since settlement in 1862 journal of forestry ety bulletin 28993 1002 3861338.613 626 BECK AND BRAUN 1980 strutting ground TDI CE the EDWARDS TC JR CG HOMER SD BASSETT A FAL- count variation traditionalism management needs CONER RD RAMSEY AND DW WIGHT 1995 utah proceedings of the western association of fish and GAP analysis an environmental analysis system wildlife 566 agencies 6055856660558 final project report 95195 1 utah cooperative fish BEETLE AA 1960 A study of sagebrush the section tri and wildlife research unit utah state university dentataedentatae of artemisia university of wyoming agri- logan 38 appp cultural station bulletin 368 university experiment EMMONS SR AND CE BRAUN 1984 lek attendance of of wyoming laramie 83 appp male sage grouse journal of wildlife management BEHLE WH 1943 birds of pine valley mountain region 481023 1028 southwestern utah bulletin of the university of ENG RL 1955 A method for obtaining sage grouse age utah biological series 3421 85 and sex ratios from wings journal of wildlife man- BRAUN CE 1987 current issues in sage grouse manage- agement 19267 272 ment proceedings of the western association of ENYEART G 1956 responses of sage grouse to grass state fish and wildlife agencies 67134 144 reseeding in the pines area garfield county utah 1995 distribution and status of sage grouse in master s thesis utah state agricultural college colorado prairie naturalist 271 9 logan sage 1998 grouse declines in western north FISHER RA KPKE REESE AND JW CONNELLY 1996 an america what are the problems proceedings of the investigation on fire effects within xeric sage grouse western association of state fish and wildlife agen- brood habitat journal of range management 49 cies 78139 156 194 198 BRAUN CE MFME BAKER RL ENG JW GASHWILER AND FOSTER RH 1968 distribution of the major plant com- MH SCHROEDER 1976 conservation committee munitiesmunities in utah doctoral dissertation brigham report on effects of alteration of sagebrush commu- young university provo UT nities on the associated avifauna wilson bulletin 88 HAYWARD CL C COTTAM AM WOODBURY AND HFHE 165 171 FROST 1976 birds of utah great basin naturalist BUNNELL KD 2000 ecological factors limiting sage memoirs 1 brigham young university provo UT grouse recovery and expansion in strawberry valley 229 appp utah master s thesis brigham young university HENSHAW HW 1875 report upon ornithological collec- provo UT tions made in portions of nevada utah california BUNTING SC BM KILGORE AND CL BUSHEY 1987 colorado new mexico and arizona during the guidelines for prescribed burning sagebrushgrasssagebrush grass years 1871 1872 1873 and 1874 in report upon rangelands in the northern great basin general geographical and geological explorations and surveys technical report int231INT 231 united states depart- west of the one hundredth meridian volume 5 ment of agriculture forest service ogden UT 33 zoology chapter 3 pages 133 507 US government PP printing office washington DC 214 WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN naturalist volume 63

HUPP JW AND CE BRAUN 1991 geographic variation SAS INSTITUTE INC 2000 SASSTAT user s guide release among sage grouse in colorado wilson bulletin 818.1 SAS institute inc carsgarscarygary NC 103255 261 SCHEAFFER RL W mendenhall liiIII111 AND RL OTT JENNI DA AND JE HARTZLER 1978 attendance at a 1996 elementary survey sampling ath5th edition sage grouse lek implications for spring censuses duxbury press boston MA journal of wildlife management 4246 52 SCHROEDER MA DW HAYS MEMX livingston LE JENSE G AND E TREVORT 1973 sage grouse inventory STREAM JE JACOBSON AND DJ PIERCE 2000 southern region job progress report utah division changes in the distribution and abundance of sage of wildlife resources pitmannrobertsonpitmann robertson project grouse in washington northwestern naturalist 81 W 65 R salt lake city UT 19 appp 104 112 JOHNSON KH AND CE BRAUN 1999 viability and con- STEWART G AND AC HULL 1949 cheatgrassCheatgrass bromus servation of an exploited sage grouse population tectoriumtectorumtectorum L an ecological intruder in southern conservation biology 1377 84 idaho ecology 3058 74 KAHN NW CE BRAUN JR YOUNG S WOOD DR SWENSON JE CA SIMMONS AND CD EUSTACE 1987 MATA AND TW QUINN 1999 molecular analysis of decrease of sage grouse Centrocentrocercuscercus phasianusurourophasianus genetic variation among large and smallbodiedsmall bodied sage after ploughingsloughingploughing sagebrush steppe biological con- grouse using mitochondrial controlregioncontrol region sequences servation 41125 132 auk 116819 824 USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2000 endangered kochlerKUCHLER AW 1964 manual to accompany the map poten- and threatened wildlife and plants notice of desig- tial natural vegetation of the conterminous united nation of the gunnison sagegrousesage grouse as a candidate states special publication 36 american geographi- species federal register 6525082310 82312 cal society new york 166 pages and 13168000 UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES 1997 utah up- scale map land game publication 631263 12 utah division of wild- LORDS JL 1951 distribution ecology and population life resources salt lake city 54 appp dynamics of the sage grouse in utah master s thesis UTAH FISH AND GAME 1953 stories of old timers utah university of utah salt lake city fish and game bulletin junes 6 MCARTHUR ED AND JE OTT 1996 potential natural WARG SA 1938 life history and economic studies on vegetation in the 17 conterminous western united bromus tectoriumtectorumtectorum master s thesis state university states pages 16 28 in JR barrow ED mcarthur of montana missoula RE sosebee and RJ tausch compilers proceed- WELCH BL EJ WAGSTAFF AND RL WILLIAMS 1990 ings of the symposium on shrubland ecosystem sage grouse status and recovery plan for strawberry dynamics in a changing environment general tech- valley utah research paper intrp430INT RP 430 united nical report INT GTR 338 united states depart- states department of agriculture forest service ment of agriculture forest service ogden UT ogden UT 10 appp MILLER RERX AND LL EDDLEMAN 2001 spatial and WEST NE 1983a great basin colorado plateau sage- temporal changes of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush semidesertsemi desert pages 331 349 in NE west edi- brush biome oregon state university agricultural tor temperate deserts and semi deserts volume 5 experiment station technical bulletin 151 35 appp ecosystems of the world elsevier scientific pub- MILLER RERX TJ SVFJCARSVEJCAR AND NE WEST 1994 impli- lishing company amsterdam cations of livestock grazing in the intermountain 1983b western intermountain sagebrush steppe sagebrush region plant composition pages 101 146 pages 351 374 in NE west editor temperate deserts in M vavra WA laycock and RD pieper editors and semiseini deserts volume 5 ecosystems of the world ecological implications of livestock herbivoreherbivoryherbivory in the elsevier scientific publishing company amsterdam west society for range management denver CO WILLIS MJ GPGE KEISTER JR DA IMMELL DM JONES OYLER MCCANCE SJ NW KAHN KP BURNHAM CE RM POWELL AND KR DURBIN 1993 sage grouse BRAUN AND TW QUINN 1999 A population genetic in oregon E R project W 87 11 8 sub285sub 285 wildlife comparison of large and smallbodiedsmall bodied sage grouse research report 15 oregon department of fish and in colorado using microsatellitemicrosatellite and mitochondrial wildlife portland 69 appp DNA markers molecular ecology 8814571457 1466 YOUNG JA AND FLEL ALLEN 1997 Cheatcheatgrassgrass and range RASMUSSEN DI AND LA GRINER 1938 life history and science 1930 1950 journal of range management management studies of the sage grouse in utah with 50530 535 special reference to nesting and feeding habits YOUNG JR CE BRAUN SJ OYLER MCCANCE JW HUPP transactions of the north american wildlife confer- AND TW QUINN 2000 A new species of sagegrousesage grouse ence 3852 864 phasanidaephasianidae Centrocentrocercuscercus from southwestern col- REESE KP AND JW CONNELLY 1997 translocations of orado wilson bulletin 112445 453 sage grouse Centrocentrocercuscercus phasianusurourophasianus in north YOUNG JR JW HUPP HW BRADBURY AND CE BRAUN america wildlife biology 3235 241 1994 phenotypic divergence of secondary sexual traits ROBERSON JA 1984 sage grouse sagebrush relation- among sage grouse centrocercusCentro cercus phasianusurourophasianus pop- ships a review pages 157 167 in ED mcarthur ulationsulations animal behaviour 4741353 1362 and BL welch compilers proceedings of the symposium on the biology ofartemisia and chrysotham- received 7 september 2001 nus general technical report int200INT 200 united states accepted 10 june 2002 department ofagriculture forest service ogden UT