Abstract: Population declines of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and alterations and loss of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) have prompted petitions to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. Our objectives were to present an unbiased assessment from an ecological perspective of the current status and the potential factors that influenced the long-term conservation of greater sage-grouse populations and the sagebrush ecosystems on which they depend. We reviewed the primary literature, and conducted new analyses and presented results on data collected for greater sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitats. Our approach was large-scale, and was intended to identify regional patterns of disturbances, land use practices, and population trends. A blind review of this document was conducted by the Ecological Society of America. In addition, members of the National Sagegrouse Conservation Planning Framework Team and representatives from each state and province in the current range of greater sage-grouse reviewed the document for completeness and technical accuracy. In this chapter, we present the background, objectives, perspective, and geographical and temporal scope for the Conservation Assessment. Because 70% of the lands dominated by sagebrush cover are managed by public agencies, we summarized the primary legislation directing the historical disposition and governing the use of public lands. We also presented information on the administrative jurisdiction of sagebrush habitats because many of the stressors on sagebrush ecosystems involve land use and management practices. However, we did not provide management recommendations. Rather, this document was intended as an objective scientific presentation of the individual and cumulative influences on greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Range-wide Conservation Assessment Background and Rationale Historically, greater sage-grouse occurred in parts of 12 states within the western United States and 3 Canadian provinces (Fig. 1.1) (Schroeder et al. 2004). Greater sage-grouse populations have declined throughout much of their former range and have been extirpated from Nebraska, and British Columbia (Connelly and Braun 1997, Schroeder et al. 1999, Schroeder et al. 2004). The historical distribution of greater sage-grouse in Arizona currently is being questioned. Estimates of regional declines ranged from 17 to 47% (Connelly and Braun 1997). Greater sage-grouse currently occupy 670,000 km, or 56%, of their potential pre-settlement range, which once covered approximately 1,200,000 km (Schroeder et al. 2004). Current distributions of “fringe” populations are fragmented and increasingly disjunct from core regions of the distribution (e.g., Mono Lake, California; eastern Washington; southern Utah) (Schroeder et al. 1999). Despite widespread concerns regarding the species’ status and declining numbers, there has been no definitive range-wide assessment of sage-grouse populations and habitats. The greater sage-grouse is entirely dependent on sagebrush ecosystems that dominate much of western North America. The sagebrush biome, comprised primarily of 20 taxa encompassing 11 major Artemisia species and subspecies groups (McArthur and Plummer 1978, McArthur and Sanderson 1999), covers approximately 480,000 km (118.6 million acres) and Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats Connelly et al. Introduction 1 2 includes 14 states (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota) (sagebrush habitats in Oklahoma and Kansas were outside of the pre-settlement range of greater sage-grouse were not included in this assessment) and 3 provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan) (Fig. 1.2). Vegetation and wildlife communities vary greatly across the range covered by sagebrush as a function of differences in underlying soils, climate, elevation, and geographic location (Miller and Eddleman 2001). The relatively simple structure and floristic characteristics of sagebrush landscapes (West 1996, West and Young 2000) mask complex community dynamics, disturbance regimes, and system resiliency. Three fundamental characteristics of the landscape that early European explorers once described as a vast sea of sagebrush (Fremont 1845) have been altered from pre-settlement conditions. First, the total land area dominated by sagebrush has been reduced in many regions of the sagebrush biome. For example, approximately 75% of the shrubsteppe habitats occurring on deep, loamy soils in the state of Washington and virtually all of the basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) habitats in southern Idaho have been converted to agricultural croplands (Hironaka et al. 1983, Noss et al. 1995, McDonald and Reese 1998, Vander Haegen et al. 2000). Second, the composition of sagebrush communities has been changed, primarily through alterations in the understory vegetation and soils. Replacement of native perennial bunchgrasses by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), an exotic annual, has profoundly altered the fire regime and led to extensive loss of large expanses of sagebrush habitats (d’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, West and Young 2000, Brooks and Pyke 2001). Finally, the configuration of sagebrush habitats within the larger context of the landscape has been changed. The increased edge in landscapes fragmented by roads, power-lines, fences, and other linear features promote spread of exotic invasive species (Gelbard and Belnap 2003), facilitates predator movements (Tewksbury et al. 2002), and isolates wildlife populations (Saunders et al. 1991, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Changes in quantity, composition, and configuration of sagebrush habitats have consequences on the ecological processes within the sagebrush ecosystem and the resources available to support wildlife (Wisdom et al. 2002). Few pristine and intact sagebrush ecosystems remain (Noss and Peters 1995, Noss et al. 1995, West 1996, Mac et al. 1998). Over 350 species of flora and fauna depend on sagebrush habitats for all or part of their existence; a high proportion of the endemic and imperiled species in the western United States are found within the sagebrush distribution. The Great Basin ecoregion contains the second highest number of imperiled endemic species in the United States (Chaplin et al. 2000:166). The Columbia Basin population of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) and Gunnison sagegrouse (Centrocercus minimus) are highly dependent on sagebrush habitats and currently are candidate species for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). The current range occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse has been reduced to 5,000 km from its pre-settlement distribution of 45,000 km Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats Connelly et al. Introduction 1 3 primarily because of habitat loss and alteration (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, Schroeder et al. 2004). Petitions filed to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act are based on concerns for long-term conservation because of potential threats to the species and the sagebrush habitats on which it depends (Wambolt et al. 2002). Public perception has progressed beyond the prediction that the “much-maligned sagebrush will be regarded with increasing favor by land managers” (McArthur and Plummer 1978) to genuine concern about these ecosystems (Braun et al. 1976, Knick 1999) to requests for legal action (Chapter 2). A decision to give the greater sage-grouse protected status across its entire range has significant consequences for management and use of a large part of the western United States. Less than 1% of the 668,412 km currently occupied by greater sage-grouse, and very little sagebrush habitat is legally protected (Caicco et al. 1995, Stoms et al. 1998, Scott et al. 2001, Wright et al. 2001, Knick et al. 2003). Multiple-use management dominates approximately 70% of the sagebrush habitats, which are owned publicly (Box 1990, Poling 1991). Consumptive uses that potentially influence sagebrush habitats include livestock grazing, mining, energy development, conversion to agriculture, and urbanization. Non-consumptive uses, such as use of off-road vehicles for recreation, also have the potential to influence habitats and populations of sage-grouse. Greater sage-grouse also are legally hunted in 10 states, and some populations are also subject to subsistence hunting by Native Americans. Objectives and Perspective of the Conservation Assessment Our primary objective was to document the current status and the potential factors that influence the long-term conservation of greater sage-grouse populations and the sagebrush ecosystems on which they depend. We based our analysis throughout this document on an ecological perspective of the dynamics inherent in sagebrush ecosystems and the requirements of greater sage-grouse. In contrast, land-use perspectives have goals to maximize a particular function that may have objectives competing with other resource use. For example, evaluation of sagebrush communities primarily based on their ability to provide forage for livestock may result in extensive alterations that are unsuitable for greater sage-grouse and other species dependent on sagebrush habitats (Schneegas 1967, Klebenow 1970, Braun et al. 1976, Reynolds and Trost 1981, Crawford et al. 2004). An ecological perspective is critical to providing a common denominator within which land uses can be evaluated in relation to disturbance and resiliency of the system. We have used ecological terms to describe population or habitat patterns and processes rather than value-laden terms which may have alternate connotations. Commonly used terms, such as “decadent” or “catastrophic” evoke an attitude that somet