Centrocercus minimus

Young, Braun, Oyler-McCance, Hupp, and Quinn, 2000

Gunnison Sage-Grouse

G2Imperiled (G2G3) Found in 1 roadless area NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
MediumThreat Impact
Gunnison Sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100905
Element CodeABNLC12020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAves
OrderGalliformes
FamilyPhasianidae
GenusCentrocercus
Other Common Names
Gunnison sage-grouse (EN) Tétras du Gunnison (FR)
Concept Reference
American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2000. Forty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 117:847-858
Taxonomic Comments
Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) formerly was regarded as conspecific with the greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus). It was recognized as a distinct species by AOU (2000) on the basis of genetic differences (Kahn et al. 1999, Oyler-McCance et al. 1999) and differences in size (Hupp and Braun 1991), courtship behavior (Young et al. 1994), and plumage (Young et al. 2000).
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2015-07-10
Change Date2015-07-10
Edition Date2015-07-10
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G.
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent5000-20,000 square km (about 2000-8000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences6 - 20
Rank Reasons
Range extent and and area of occupancy have contracted greatly (90 percent or more) over the long term; now restricted to several small areas in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah; population size now approximately 4,700 individuals; overall population relatively stable; threatened primarily by ongoing loss, fragmentation, and degradation of sagebrush habitat.
Range Extent Comments
This species occurs locally in the Gunnison Basin and southwestern Colorado, and in adjacent southeastern (San Juan County) Utah south and east of the Colorado River (AOU 2000, Beck et al. 2003, Schroeder et al. 2004, Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005, USFWS 2014). The historical range is thought to have included southwestern Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, and southeastern Utah (Schroeder et al. 2004). See Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (2005) and USFWS (2014) for fairly detailed range maps. Coded range extent is based on a minimum convex polygon encompassing the seven extent populations.
Occurrences Comments
Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (2005) identified eight extant populations (these are metapopulations, each of which includes gaps in occupied habitat). USFWS (2014) stated that the species currently occurs in seven distinct populations (again, these are metapopulations).
Threat Impact Comments
This species is expected to be affected by a large number of threats over the next 10 years or 3 generations. Alone, each threat likely will be of relatively low impact, but cumulative/synergistic effects increase the overall impact level. USFWS (2014) summarized these threats as follows (minimally edited). See USFWS (2014) for extensive further discussion of each threat.

Habitat loss due to residential and infrastructural development (including roads and powerlines) is a current and future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse range-wide. Due to habitat decline, the seven individual populations are now mostly isolated, with limited migration and gene flow among populations, extirpations. Functional habitat loss also contributes to habitat decline as sage-grouse avoid areas due to human activities and noise, even when sagebrush remains intact. The collective disturbance from human activities around residences and infrastructure results in habitat decline that negatively impacts Gunnison sage-grouse survival. Human populations are increasing across the species’ range, a trend expected to continue into the future. Resulting habitat decline is diminishing the probability of Gunnison sage-grouse survival and persistence, particularly in the satellite populations. Other habitat-related threats that are impacting Gunnison sage-grouse include grazing practices inconsistent with local ecological conditions, fences, invasive plants, fire, mineral development, piñon-juniper encroachment, and large-scale water development and irrigation. The cumulative presence of all these features and activities constitutes a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse as they collectively contribute to habitat decline. In particular, the satellite populations are less resilient and more vulnerable to extirpation and environmental pressures including habitat loss and fragmentation. Several issues discussed above, such as fire, invasive species, and piñon-juniper encroachment, may not currently have a substantial impact on Gunnison sage-grouse. For example, while it may be impacting individual birds or populations, piñon-juniper encroachment does not currently pose a threat to the species because of its limited distribution throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. However, the documented synergy among these three issues (piñon-juniper encroachment, fire, and invasive species), results in a high likelihood that they will pose a threat to the species in the future. Nonnative invasive plants, including cheatgrass and other noxious weeds, continue to expand their range, facilitated by ground disturbances such as fire, grazing incompatible with local ecological conditions, and human infrastructure. Invasive plants negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse primarily by reducing or eliminating native vegetation that sage-grouse require for food and cover, resulting in habitat decline (both direct and functional). Cheatgrass is present at varying levels in nearly all Gunnison sage-grouse population areas, but there has not yet been a demonstrated change in fire cycle in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. However, climate change will likely alter the range of invasive plants, intensifying the proliferation of invasive plants to the point that they become a threat to the species. Even with aggressive treatments, invasive plants will likely persist and continue to spread throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. Livestock management inconsistent with local ecological conditions has the potential to degrade sage-grouse habitat at local scales by causing the loss of nesting cover and decreases in native vegetation, and by increasing the probability of incursion of invasive plants. Given the widespread nature of grazing within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, the potential for population-level impacts is probable. Effects of domestic livestock grazing inconsistent with local ecological conditions are likely being exacerbated by intense browsing of woody species by wild ungulates in parts of the Gunnison Basin. We conclude that habitat degradation that can result from grazing practices inconsistent with local ecological conditions is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. We do not consider nonrenewable energy development to be impacting Gunnison sage-grouse habitat to the extent that it is a threat to the long-term persistence of the species at this time, because its current and anticipated extent is limited throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. We do not consider renewable energy development to be a threat to the persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide at this time. However, geothermal and wind energy development could increase in the Gunnison Basin and Monticello areas, respectively, in the future. We recognize ongoing and proposed conservation efforts by all entities across the range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and commend all parties for their vision and participation. Local communities, landowners, agencies, and organizations in Colorado and Utah have dedicated resources to Gunnison sage-grouse conservation and have implemented numerous conservation efforts. We encourage continued implementation of these efforts into the future to promote the conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse. Our review of conservation efforts indicates that the measures identified are not fully addressing the most substantial threats to Gunnison sage-grouse including habitat decline, small population size and structure, drought, climate change, and disease. All of the conservation efforts are limited in size and the measures provided to us were not implemented at the scale (even when considered cumulatively) that would be required to effectively reduce the threats to the species and its habitat across its range. The Gunnison Basin CCA, for example, provides some protection for Gunnison sage-grouse on Federal lands in the Gunnison Basin, but does not cover the remaining, more vulnerable satellite populations. Similarly, the existing CCAA benefits Gunnison sage-grouse on participating lands, but does not provide sufficient coverage of the species’ range to ensure the species’ long-term conservation. Thus, although the ongoing conservation efforts are a positive step toward the conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and some have likely reduced the severity of some threats to the species, on the whole we find that current conservation efforts are not sufficient to offset the full scope of threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. We have evaluated the best scientific information available on the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Gunnison sage-grouse’s habitat or range. Based on the current and anticipated habitat threats identified above and their cumulative effects as they contribute to the overall decline of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, we have determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat poses a threat to the species throughout its range. This threat is substantial and current, and is projected to continue and increase into the future with additional anthropogenic pressures.

Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse.

The only disease that is known to be a threat to the survival of the Gunnison sage-grouse is West Nile virus. This virus is distributed throughout most of the species’ range. However, despite its near 100 percent lethality, disease occurrence is sporadic in other taxa across the species’ range and has not yet been detected in Gunnison sage-grouse. While we have no evidence of West Nile virus acting on Gunnison sage-grouse individuals or populations, because of its presence within the species’ range, its lethality to sage-grouse, and the continued development of anthropogenic water sources in the area that support mosquito vector populations, the virus is a future threat to the species. We anticipate that West Nile virus will persist within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse indefinitely and that the threat it presents will be exacerbated by any factor (e.g., drought, climate change) that increases ambient temperatures and the presence of the vector on the landscape. The best available information shows that existing and future habitat decline, and fragmentation in particular, will increase the effects of predation on this species, particularly in the six smaller populations, resulting in a reduction in sage-grouse productivity and abundance in the future. We evaluated the best available scientific information regarding disease and predation and their effects on the Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on the information available, we have determined that predation and disease are threats to the species throughout its range at the present time and are likely to increase in the future. In particular, West Nile virus poses a substantial threat to Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide in the foreseeable future.

Some regulatory mechanisms are in place to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse, but individually or collectively they do not fully address the substantial threats faced by Gunnison sage-grouse across their range. Further, while these existing regulatory mechanisms may help reduce current threats to the species, they are insufficient to fully reduce or eliminate the increase in threats that may act on the species in the future.

Resiliency, redundancy, and representation in Gunnison sage-grouse are inadequate, or will be inadequate in the near term, to ensure the species’ long-term viability. The best available information indicates population redundancy, in particular, will be limited or compromised in the near term, due to the probable extirpation of one or more satellite populations, thereby decreasing the species’ chances of survival in the face of limiting factors. The rangewide cumulative effects of ongoing and future threats will further compromise resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species. Current and future threats to the Gunnison Basin population (in particular, drought, climate change, and disease), combined with the probable loss of satellite populations and overall reduction of range indicate the long-term persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse is at risk.
Drought has contributed to substantial declines in all Gunnison sage-grouse populations. Drought is a substantial threat to Gunnison sage-grouse populations rangewide, both now and into the future.

Recreational activities generally do not singularly pose a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. However, there may be certain situations where recreational activities are impacting local concentrations of Gunnison sage-grouse, especially in areas where habitat is already fragmented such as in the six satellite populations and in certain areas within the Gunnison Basin.

At present, there is no information available to indicate that either herbicide or insecticide applications, or contaminants, pose a threat to the species.
Small population size and structure is a threat to the six satellite populations of Gunnison sage-grouse, both now and into the future. Genetics risks related to the small population size of Gunnison sage-grouse are a threat to the species.

Many of the threats to Gunnison sage-grouse may cumulatively or synergistically impact the species beyond the scope of each individual threat. For example, grazing practices inconsistent with local ecological conditions alone may only affect portions of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. However, grazing practices inconsistent with local ecological conditions, combined with invasive plants, drought, and recreational activities may collectively result in substantial habitat decline across large portions of the species’ range. In turn, climate change may exacerbate those effects, further diminishing habitat and increasing the isolation of already declining populations, making them more susceptible to genetic deterioration, disease, or catastrophic events such as drought and fire. Drought, a substantial threat to Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, likely intensifies other threats such as predation, invasive plants, habitat loss, and fire. The impact of residential development is increased by the additional disturbance footprint and area of species’ avoidance of other infrastructure such as roads, powerlines, and fences. Further, predation on Gunnison sage-grouse may increase as a result of the increase in human disturbance and development. The impact of residential development can be increased by other anthropogenic stressors resulting in habitat loss and decline, such as powerlines, roads, and other infrastructure. Numerous threats are likely acting cumulatively to further increase the likelihood that the species will become extinct in the future. The cumulative effects of ongoing and future threats and small and declining population size and structure, in particular, are likely to further reduce resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the species.
Ecology & Habitat

Description

This is a large grouse, dark gray overall, with a long, pointed tail, pale breast, and black belly (Sibley 2003). Males are larger than females; adult total length averages around 22 inches (56 cm) in males, 18 inches (46 cm) in females; body mass is around 2,100 grams in males, 1,100 grams in females (Sibley 2003).

Diagnostic Characteristics

Gunnison sage-grouse are significantly smaller than greater sage-grouse in size of culmen, carpel, and tarsus, and they weigh approximately 1/3 less (Hupp and Braun 1991, Young et al. 2000). The two species also exhibit genetic differences (Kahn et al. 1999, Oyler-McCance et al. 1999). Additionally, Gunnison sage-grouse males have more elaborate head plumes than do greater sage-grouse males, and they have broader white barring on the tail feathers (Young et al. 2000). The two species also differ in male display behavior; for example, the Gunnison sage-grouse display ends with a tail-shaking motion of the raised tail (absent in greater sage-grouse) (Barber 1991;Young et al. 1994, 2000).

Habitat

Most information is based on studies of the greater sage-grouse but likely applies to a large degree to Gunnison sage-grouse as well.

Sage-grouse use a variety of habitats throughout the year, but the primary component necessary is sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), especially big sagebrush (A. tridentata) (Braun 1995). Sagebrush is used for hiding and thermal cover as well as for food in the winter (Hupp and Braun 1989).

Leks, used for male displays from mid-March to early June, consist of open areas with good visibility (for predator detection) and acoustics (for transmission of male display sounds).

Female nesting sites typically are in relatively tall and dense stands of sagebrush, about 0.2-8.0 kilometers from the leks. Nest sites also have grass and forbs that provide additional hiding cover. Females with young remain in sagebrush uplands if hiding cover is adequate and if food (succulent forbs and insects) is available. As chicks mature and vegetation in the uplands desiccates, females move their broods to wet meadow areas that retain succulent forbs and insects through the summer (Klebenow 1969, Wallestad 1971). Preferred wet meadow areas also contain tall grasses for hiding and sagebrush stands at least 150 meters wide (Dunn and Braun 1986) along the periphery for hiding and foraging.

From mid-September into November all individuals use upland areas with 20 percent or greater sagebrush cover and some green forbs. As winter progresses and snow cover is extensive (> 80 percent) and deep (> than 30 centimeters), individuals forage in tall sagebrush (> 41 centimeters) in valleys and lower flat areas (Hupp and Braun 1989) and roost in shorter sagebrush along ridge tops. Roosting and foraging is typically restricted to south- or west- facing slopes where snow is typically shallower and less extensive (Hupp and Braun 1989). Small foraging areas that have 30-40 percent big sagebrush canopy cover also are important.

Ecology

Sage-grouse are strong fliers but tend to travel slowly on foot unless threatened, in which case the grouse tend to hide or fly (less likely to run long distances) (Patterson 1952, Schroeder et al. 1999).

Reproduction

The life cycle involves several significant stages, minimally including wintering, lek attendance, nesting, and brood rearing.

In Colorado and likely Utah, males display on leks from mid-March through late May, depending on elevation and conditions (Rogers 1964). Females visit leks, mate with one or more males, then depart to begin nesting. Clutch size averages around 6-7 (Young 1994, USFWS 2010). Incubation, by the female alone, lasts about 4 weeks. Hatching begins around mid-May and may extend into July; the peak usually is in mid-June (Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 2005). Chicks leave the nest with the female shortly after hatching. Females infrequently renest if they lose their first nest.

In greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus), yearling males are capable of breeding, but most breeding is done by older males; yearling females often breed but somewhat less frequently than do older females (see Schroeder et al. 1999). Most Gunnison sage-grouse live less than 2 years in the wild.
Terrestrial Habitats
Shrubland/chaparralSavannaGrassland/herbaceous
Palustrine Habitats
Riparian
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN2
ProvinceRankNative
ColoradoS1Yes
UtahS1Yes
OklahomaSXYes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquaculturePervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3 - Energy production & miningSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsSmall (1-10%)Serious - moderateHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useNegligible or <1% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceNegligible or <1% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7 - Natural system modificationsNegligible (<1%)High (continuing)
7.1 - Fire & fire suppressionLow (long-term)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useNegligible (<1%)High (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionNegligible or <1% pop. decline
10 - Geological eventsNegligible (<1%)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (1)
South Dakota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Indian CreekBuffalo Gap National Grassland24,666
References (42)
  1. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 2000. Forty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 117:847-858
  2. Apa, A. D. 2004. Habitat use, movements, and survival of Gunnison sage-grouse in southwestern Colorado. Unpublished report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado, USA.
  3. Barber, H. A. 1991. Strutting behavior, distribution and habitat selection of sage grouse in Utah. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.
  4. Beck, J. L., D. L. Mitchell, and B. D. Maxfield. 2003. Changes in the distribution and status of sage-grouse in Utah. Western North American Naturalist 63:203-214.
  5. Braun, C.E. 1995. Distribution and status of sage grouse in Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 27(1):1-9.
  6. Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.
  7. Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
  8. Copelin, F. F. 1963. The Lesser Prairie Chicken in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department Technical Bulletin 6.
  9. Dunn, P. O., and C. E. Braun. 1985. Natal dispersal and lek fidelity of sage grouse. Auk 102:621-627.
  10. Dunn, P. O., and C. E. Braun. 1986. Late summer-spring movements of juvenile sage grouse. Wilson Bulletin 98:83-92.
  11. Giesen, K. M. 1991. Population inventory and habitat use by Lesser Prairie-Chickens in southeast Colorado. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Report W-152-R, Colorado Division of Wildlife.
  12. Giesen, K.M. 1998. Lesser prairie-chicken (<i>Typanuchus pallidicinctus</i>). In A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 364. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 20 pp.
  13. Girard, G. L. 1937. Life history, habits and food of the sage grouse, <i>Centrocercus urophasianus</i> Bonaparte. University of Wyoming, Laramie. Publication 3.
  14. Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. 2005. Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.
  15. Horkel, J. D. 1979. Cover and space requirements of Attwater's prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO ATTWATERI) in Refugio County, Texas. Ph.D. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 96 pp.
  16. Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1989. Topographic distribution of sage grouse foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:823-829.
  17. Hupp, J. W., and C. E. Braun. 1991. Geographic variation among Sage Grouse in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 103:255-261.
  18. Kahn, N. W., C. E. Braun, J. R. Young, S. Wood, D. R. Mata, and T. W. Quinn. 1999. Molecular analysis of genetic variation among large- and small-bodied Sage Grouse using mitochondrial control-region sequences. Auk 116:819-824.
  19. Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:649-662.
  20. Lupis, S. G, 2005. Summer ecology of Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) in San Juan County, Utah. M.S. thesis, Utah State University, Logan.
  21. Lupis, S. G., T. A. Messmer, and T. Black. 2006. Gunnison sage-grouse use of Conservation Reserve Program fields in Utah and response to emergency grazing: a preliminary evaluation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:957-962.
  22. Nelson, O. C. 1955. A field study of sage grouse in southeastern Oregon with special reference to reproduction and survival. Master's thesis. Oregon State College, Corvallis.
  23. Oyler-McCance, S. J., N. W. Kahn, K. P. Burnham, C. E. Braun, and T.W. Quinn. 1999. A population genetic comparison of large- and small-bodied Sage Grouse in Colorado using microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA markers. Molecular Ecology 8:1457-1466.
  24. Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc., Denver, CO. 316 pp.
  25. Pelren, E. C. 1996. Blue grouse winter ecology in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
  26. Prather, P. R. 2010. Factors affecting Gunnison sage-grouse (<i>Centrocercus minimus</i>) conservation in San Juan County, Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
  27. Rogers, G.E. 1964. Sage grouse investigation in Colorado. Colo. Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Tech. Publ. 16.
  28. Schroeder, M. A. 1991. Movement and lek visitation by female greater prairie-chickens in relation to predictions of Bradbury's female preference hypothesis of lek evolution. Auk 108:896-903.
  29. Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1993. Partial migration in a population of greater prairie-chickens in northeastern Colorado. Auk 110:21-28.
  30. Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, S. M. McAdam, C. W. McCarthy, J. J. McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106:363-376.
  31. Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young and C. E. Braun. 1999. Greater sage-grouse (<i>Centrocercus urophasianus</i>). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, editor). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/425.
  32. Sibley, D. A. 2003. The Sibley field guide to birds of western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
  33. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980a. Fall-winter movements, ranges, and habitat use of lesser prairie chickens. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:521-524.
  34. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980b. Status, Ecology, and Management of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-77, 15 p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
  35. Taylor, M. A., and F. S. Guthery. 1980c. Dispersal of a lesser prairie chicken (TYMPANUCHUS PALLIDICINCTUS). Southwestern Naturalist 25:124-125.
  36. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Notice of designation of the Gunnison Sage Grouse as a candidate species. Federal Register 65:82310-82312.
  37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 28 September 2010. Determination for the Gunnison sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species. Federal Register 75(187):59804-59863.
  38. Wallestad, R. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage grouse broods in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 35:129-136.
  39. Wallestad, R. O, J. G. Peterson, and R. L. Eng. 1975. Foods of adult sage grouse in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:628-630.
  40. Young, J. R. 1994. The influence of sexual selection on phenotypic and genetic divergence among sage grouse populations. Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
  41. Young, J. R., C. E. Braun, S. J. Oyler-McCance, J. W. Hupp, and T. W. Quinn. 2000. A new species of Sage-Grouse (Phasianidae: <i>Centrocercus</i>) from southwestern Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 112:445-453.
  42. Young, J. R., J. W. Hupp, J. W. Bradbury, and C. E. Braun. 1994. Phenotypic divergence of secondary sexual traits among Sage Grouse, CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS, populations. Animal Behaviour 47:1353-1362.