Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats
664
Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats
664eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780520948686 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of California Press |
| Publication date: | 05/19/2011 |
| Series: | Studies in Avian Biology , #38 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 664 |
| File size: | 19 MB |
| Note: | This product may take a few minutes to download. |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Greater Sage-Grouse
Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats
By Steven T. Knick, John W. Connelly
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
Copyright © 2011 the Cooper Ornithological SocietyAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-520-94868-6
CHAPTER 1
Historical Development, Principal Federal Legislation, and Current Management of Sagebrush Habitats
IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION
Steven T. Knick
Abstract. The historical disposition and development of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) landscapes have resulted in land ownership mosaics and differences in environmental qualities among land managers that influence today's conservation planning. Early land-use policies following major land acquisitions from 1776 to 1867 in the western United States were designed to transfer the vast public resources to private ownership. Federal legislation enacted during the late 1800s and early 1900s encouraged development of arable regions, facilitated livestock grazing, created transportation corridors, and provided for access to minerals, coal, and petroleum. Productive lands characterized by deeper soils and access to water were transferred to private entities and converted from native habitats to agriculture. Privately owned lands are a major constituent of sagebrush landscapes in the Great Plains and Columbia Basin and are intermixed with public lands in other Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus spp.) Management Zones. The public still retains large areas and 70% of current sagebrush habitats. The Bureau of Land Management has responsibility for almost half of the sagebrush habitat in the United States; however, those lands are relatively unproductive and characterized by xeric environments and shallow soils. More recent legislation reflects changing public values to maintain or restore natural components, such as plants and wildlife, and minimize the impact of land uses in sagebrush landscapes. Multiple use dominates the management policy of most sagebrush habitat on public land; very little of the lands used by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) has protected status in national parks or reserves. Conserving sagebrush landscapes required by Greater Sage-Grouse and other wildlife will depend on engaging the mosaic of public agencies and private ownerships in management programs, understanding the broad diversity of habitat characteristics, and recognizing the limitations of environments supporting the majority of sagebrush habitat on public lands.
Key Words: federal government agencies, legislation, public land management, sagebrush.
Desarrollo Histórico, Legislación Federal Principal, y Manejo Actual de Hábitats de Artemisa: Implicaciones para la Conservación
Resumen. La disposición histórica y el desarrollo de territorios de sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) han resultado en mosaicos de propietarios y diferencias en calidades ambientales entre los administradores de tierras que influyen en los planes de conservación actuales. Las primeras políticas de uso de tierras que siguieron a grandes adquisiciones de tierras en 1776–1876 en el oeste de EE.UU., fueron diseñadas para transferir los vastos recursos públicos hacia una propiedad privada. La legislación federal redactada durante finales de 1800 y comienzos de 1900 estimuló el desarrollo de las regiones arables, facilitó el pastoreo de ganado, creó corredores de transporte, y subvencionó el acceso a minerales, carbón y petróleo. Las tierras productivas caracterizadas por suelos más profundos y acceso al agua fueron transferidas a las entidades privadas y transformadas de hábitats nativos a la agricultura. Tierras de propiedad privada son el principal constituyente de los territorios de artemisa en el Great Plains y en el Columbia Basin, y están mezcladas con terrenos públicos en otras zonas de manejo de sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.). Siguen siendo de manejo público grandes áreas y el 70% de las áreas actuales de artemisa. El Bureau of Land Management es responsable por casi la mitad de los territorios de artemisa en los EE.UU., sin embargo, esas tierras son relativamente improductivas y caracterizadas por un medioambiente xérico (adaptado a las condiciones desérticas) y suelos poco profundos. La legislación más reciente refleja valores públicos cambiantes para mantener o restaurar los componentes naturales, tales como plantas y vida silvestre, y minimizar el impacto de uso de la tierra sobre el paisaje de artemisa. Un uso variado domina la política de manejo de la mayoría de los hábitat de artemisa en las tierras públicas; muy poco de la tierra empleada por el Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) tiene el estado de especie protegida en los parques o reservas nacionales. La conservación de los paisajes de artemisa requeridos por el Greater Sage-Grouse y el resto de la vida silvestre dependerá de involucrar el mosaico de agencias públicas y propietarios privados en programas de manejo, que entiendan la amplia diversidad de características del hábitat, y que reconozcan las limitaciones que tienen los ambientes que sostienen la mayoría de los hábitats de artemisa en las tierras públicas.
Palabras Clave: agencias federales de gobierno, artemisa, gestión de tierras públicas, legislación
The mosaic of land ownerships and land uses in the western United States presents challenges for conserving large sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) landscapes required by Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Today's mix of ownership and administrative responsibilities is a direct result of the historical sequence of public land law policies that have guided disposition and use of sagebrush habitats since Euro-American settlement. These policies also left a landscape in which environmental characteristics and management objectives differ among ownership and management agencies, thus affecting conservation options and restoration potential.
Early settlers described an endless sea of sagebrush as they traveled westward (Frémont 1845, Young and Sparks 2002). The vast open landscapes acquired through purchases and cessions appeared to have unlimited forage for grazing livestock, minerals for mining, soils that could be converted to agriculture, and petroleum for an expanding nation's defense and infrastructure (National Research Council 1989, Flores 2001, Dombeck et al. 2003). Early policies by the federal government encouraged privatization, development, and use of these extensive lands (Bean and Rowland 1997). Resource availability (especially water for irrigation) dictated which lands were transferred to private entities, which were claimed for grazing or minerals, and which remained in the public trust (Talbert et al. 2007). But resources were not unlimited, and land-use policy increasingly recognized management and conservation beginning in the early 1900s (Clawson and Held 1957, Poling 1991). Most recently, greater demand for resources coupled with human population growth, urban development, and increasing intensity of land use are decreasing the amount of land available throughout much of the western United States for both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses (Holechek et al. 2006).
I first review the important federal legislation that has governed sagebrush habitats in the western United States through three primary periods: (1) initial acquisition, (2) disposition and transfer from public to private enterprise, and (3) management and conservation (Clawson and Held 1957, Poling 1991). These statutes guiding agricultural development, livestock grazing, and use of mineral and petroleum resources form the legal and policy foundation underlying current distribution of ownership and management of sagebrush habitats. I then describe the environmental characteristics of sagebrush habitats within the Sage-Grouse Conservation Area (SGCA), the region containing the pre–Euro-American settlement distribution of sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004) relative to public and private ownership. These characteristics, a direct result of the legislative disposition of sagebrush lands, are significant components affecting conservation strategies. I focus primarily on historical use of sagebrush habitats in the United States, but have added Canadian legislation where parallel developments are relevant.
PUBLIC LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
Land Acquisition
Sagebrush lands were contained in the territories acquired by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the Oregon Compromise (1846) and ceded by Mexico (1848). Consequently, the federal government became responsible for large amounts of land and resources within a short period. In addition to western lands, the Alaska Purchase in 1867 added 1,500,000 km2 to the federal land base. Acquisitions outpaced dispositions until 1850; the total net area in the public domain has subsequently declined following this peak (Clawson and Held 1957). Lands not specifically titled to individuals or corporations remained in public ownership as part of conditions for statehood (Dombeck et al. 2003).
Land and Resource Disposition
Disposition of land and resources to the private sector became a major priority of the federal government as an encouragement for settlement and as a means to fuel national economic growth (Clawson and Held 1957). Thus, initial legislation guiding use of public lands was directed toward granting lands to states for schools, developing irrigated agriculture, providing forage for livestock, creating or improving transportation, and mining for coal and mineral resources (Table 1.1).
Agricultural Development and Land Transfer
A succession of homestead acts beginning in the 1800s initiated a series of legislative actions by the federal government to transfer resources contained on public lands to the private sector for development and agriculture. The original Homestead Act, signed by President Lincoln in 1862, allowed a person older than 21 years of age to obtain title to 160 acres (65 ha) of undeveloped land, provided the individual built a home on it and developed the land for 5 years. Sixty-five hectares of land was too small for viable agriculture business in much of the arid regions of the western United States, and subsequent homesteading acts were passed to increase the acreage of lands that could be settled and to encourage dry-land farming (Table 1.1). Approximately 1,200,000 km2 of public lands were transferred to private ownership under the homestead acts (Ross 1984).
The Desert Land Act (1877) allowed a settler to obtain 640 acres (259 ha) at $1.25/acre, provided the lands would be irrigated within 3 years. The Carey Act (1894) transferred an additional 404,700 ha of federal lands to the states (Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming each were awarded a total of 809,371 ha, and Idaho received a total of 1,214,057 ha), on the condition that the lands were irrigated for agriculture. States then could pass 65-ha tracts to private ownership.
The Dominion Lands Act (1872) promoted a similar pattern of development in the prairies in western Canada. A male farmer who was a born or naturalized British subject could purchase 65 ha of land for $10 (female farmers could buy the same amount of land for up to $5,000), provided he agreed to cultivate at least 16.25 ha and build a permanent dwelling within 3 years. Unlike the American Homestead Act, a Canadian farmer could purchase the adjacent lot for the same price, thus doubling the size of his landholding. The Dominion Lands Act also established cadastral surveys similar to the United States Land Ordinance (1785) that gridded the land into townships consisting of 36 sections.
Railroads
Large amounts of land were also granted to private companies to build railroads connecting eastern and western states. The Pacific Railway Act of 1862 facilitated building a railroad and telegraph line connecting the Pacific Coast and Missouri. The Union Pacific Railroad and the Central Pacific Railroad were granted 25.9 km2 under the 1862 act to be distributed in alternate sections on each side for every 1.6 km of completed track (Table 1.1). A subsequent amendment in 1864 increased the land area given to railroad companies to 51.8 km2 for each mile of track completed (note the private railway corridor through predominantly public lands and checkerboard ownership in southern Wyoming, northern Utah, and Nevada; Fig. 1.1). Similarly, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was granted 100,000 km2 in alternating sections (1.6 km) to build a railroad across Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company could replace land not suited for settlement by selecting other lands vested in the Canadian government (Innis 1923).
Livestock Grazing
The livestock industry expanded rapidly during the mid- to late 1800s, facilitated by establishment of railroads that connected open ranges with markets and transported people seeking opportunities in the western United States (Holechek 1981). Little effort was directed toward grazing restrictions or land management because the federal government was attempting to dispose of public lands at this time (Lieurance 1979, Ross 2006). Large ranching enterprises capitalized on free use of vast expanses of unfenced rangelands and forage (Box 1990, Flores 2001, Young and Sparks 2002, West 2003a).
Mineral and Energy Resources
The primary legislation governing mining and minerals has remained unchanged since passage of the General Mining Act of 1872 (Table 1.1). Discoverers had the right to extract gold, silver, and other valuable deposits under the General Mining Act by staking a claim to lands in the federal public domain. The federal government did not require royalties to be paid on minerals mined and sold from claims because miners and industry were important to settling western lands. The Oil Placer Act, passed in 1897, further extended the General Mining Act to include disposition of petroleum resources on public lands, which were declared free and open to exploration and purchase.
Management and Conservation
Legislation that guided separate development of land uses was enacted concurrently but not systematically, often creating conflicts over appropriate purposes for public lands that have resulted in today's multiple-use policies (National Research Council 1989, Bean and Rowland 1997). The prevailing attitude that public lands were best transferred to private citizens during the early period of territory acquisition and settlement was also changing by the mid-1900s, concurrent with an increasing awareness of conservation, preservation, and later environmental issues (Dombeck et al. 2003). The importance of nonconsumptive purposes began to dominate legislation beginning in the 1960s. Conflicts with traditional uses of public lands were to be resolved by land management agencies through land-use planning (Holechek 1981, Ross 2006).
Livestock Grazing
Unrestricted grazing coupled with increasing and unsustainable numbers of livestock, particularly on higher-elevation rangelands used during summer, resulted in conflicts among cattle and sheep grazers and calls for regulation (Carpenter 1981, Poling 1991, Donahue 1999). A series of legislative actions beginning in 1891 created forest reserves, regulated grazing on public lands, developed permit and fee systems, and delegated responsibility for administrating public land grazing to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Department of Agriculture and to the Grazing Service in the Department of the Interior (Donahue 1999). The Organic Act of 1897 (Table 1.1) gave the USFS the right to manage grazing on forest reserves. Subsequently, permits were established to graze a specified number of animals exclusively on tracts within the forest system.
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (Table 1.1), the first statute to govern management of unreserved and unappropriated lands in the public domain, was enacted to achieve orderly use of rangelands and allow for their regeneration (Lieurance 1979, Poling 1991, Bean and Rowland 1997). The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 terminated the open range policies that still existed on non-USFS lands and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved land from any parts of the public domain, excluding Alaska, which were not national forests, parks, and monuments; Indian reservations; railroad grant lands; or revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, and which were valuable chiefly for grazing and raising forage crops (Taylor Grazing Act: 43 USC 315–316). The Secretary of the Interior was also authorized to issue permits to graze livestock upon annual payment of fees, of which a portion was returned to individual states. Public lands not reserved or withdrawn as refuges were designated as national resource lands and placed under the jurisdiction of the federal Grazing Service. The Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office to form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 1946.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Greater Sage-Grouse by Steven T. Knick, John W. Connelly. Copyright © 2011 the Cooper Ornithological Society. Excerpted by permission of UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface / xiSteven T. Knick and John W. Connelly
Foreword / xiii
John C. Freemuth
Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush:
An Introduction to the Landscape / 1
Steven T. Knick and John W. Connelly
Part I • Management and Conservation Status
1 • HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, PRINCIPAL FEDERAL
LEGISLATION, AND CURRENT MANAGEMENT
OF SAGEBRUSH HABITATS: IMPLICATIONS FOR
CONSERVATION / 13
Steven T. Knick
2 • THE LEGAL STATUS OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE:
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PLANNING
EFFORTS / 33
San J. Stiver
Part II • Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse
3 • CHARACTERISTICS AND DYNAMICS OF GREATER
SAGE-GROUSE POPULATIONS / 53
John W. Connelly, Christian A. Hagen,
and Michael A. Schroeder
4 • CHARACTERISTICS OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE
HABITATS: A LANDSCAPE SPECIES AT MICROAND
MACROSCALES / 69
John W. Connelly, E. Thomas Rinkes,
and Clait E. Braun
5 • MOLECULAR INSIGHTS INTO THE BIOLOGY OF
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE / 85
Sara J. Oyler-McCance and
Thomas W. Quinn
6 • PREDATION ON GREATER SAGE-GROUSE: FACTS,
PROCESS, AND EFFECTS / 95
Christian A. Hagen
7 • HARVEST MANAGEMENT FOR GREATER SAGEGROUSE:
A CHANGING PARADIGM FOR
GAME BIRD MANAGEMENT / 101
Kerry P. Reese and John W. Connelly
8 • PARASITES AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES OF
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE / 113
Thomas J. Christiansen and
Cynthia M. Tate
9 • WEST NILE VIRUS ECOLOGY IN SAGEBRUSH
HABITAT AND IMPACTS ON GREATER SAGEGROUSE
POPULATIONS / 127
Brett L. Walker and David E. Naugle
Part III • Ecology of Sagebrush
10 • CHARACTERISTICS OF SAGEBRUSH HABITATS
AND LIMITATIONS TO LONG-TERM
CONSERVATION / 145
Richard F. Miller, Steven T. Knick,
David A. Pyke, Cara W. Meinke,
Steven E. Hanser, Michael J. Wisdom,
and Ann L. Hild
11 • PRE–EURO-AMERICAN AND RECENT FIRE IN
SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEMS / 185
William L. Baker
12 • ECOLOGICAL INFLUENCE AND PATHWAYS OF LAND
USE IN SAGEBRUSH / 203
Steven T. Knick, Steven E. Hanser,
Richard F. Miller, David A. Pyke,
Michael J. Wisdom, Sean P. Finn,
E. Thomas Rinkes, and Charles J. Henny
13 • INFLUENCES OF THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT ON
SAGEBRUSH LANDSCAPE PATTERNS: IMPLICATIONS
FOR SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION / 253
Matthias Leu and Steven E. Hanser
14 • INFLUENCES OF FREE-ROAMING EQUIDS ON
SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEMS, WITH A FOCUS ON
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE / 273
Erik A. Beever and Cameron L. Aldridge
Part IV • Population Trends and
Habitat Relationships
15 • GREATER SAGE-GROUSE POPULATION DYNAMICS
AND PROBABILITY OF PERSISTENCE / 293
Edward O. Garton, John W. Connelly,
Jon S. Horne, Christian A. Hagen,
Ann Moser, and Michael A. Schroeder
16 • CONNECTING PATTERN AND PROCESS IN
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE POPULATIONS AND
SAGEBRUSH LANDSCAPES / 383
Steven T. Knick and Steven E. Hanser
17 • INFLUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ANTHROPOGENIC FEATURES ON GREATER
SAGE-GROUSE POPULATIONS, 1997–2007 / 407
Douglas H. Johnson, Matthew J. Holloran,
John W. Connelly, Steven E. Hanser,
Courtney L. Amundson, and
Steven T. Knick
18 • FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH EXTIRPATION OF
SAGE-GROUSE / 451
Michael J. Wisdom, Cara W. Meinke,
Steven T. Knick, and Michael A. Schroeder
Part V • Conservation and Management
19 • GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AS AN UMBRELLA SPECIES
FOR SHRUBLAND PASSERINE BIRDS: A MULTISCALE
ASSESSMENT / 475
Steven E. Hanser and Steven T. Knick
20 • ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND GREATER
SAGE-GROUSE / 489
David E. Naugle, Kevin E. Doherty,
Brett L. Walker, Matthew J. Holloran,
and Holly E. Copeland
21 • ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION
TRADEOFFS: SYSTEMATIC PLANNING FOR GREATER
SAGE-GROUSE IN THEIR EASTERN RANGE / 505
Kevin E. Doherty, David E. Naugle,
Holly E. Copeland, Amy Pocewicz, and
Joseph M. Kiesecker
22 • RESPONSE OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE TO
THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM IN
WASHINGTON STATE / 517
Michael A. Schroeder and
W. Matthew Vander Haegen
23 • RESTORING AND REHABILITATING
SAGEBRUSH HABITATS / 531
David A. Pyke
24 • CONSERVATION OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE:
A SYNTHESIS OF CURRENT TRENDS AND FUTURE
MANAGEMENT / 549
John W. Connelly, Steven T. Knick,
Clait E. Braun, William L. Baker,
Erik A. Beever, Thomas J. Christiansen,
Kevin E. Doherty, Edward O. Garton,
Steven E. Hanser, Douglas H. Johnson,
Matthias Leu, Richard F. Miller,
David E. Naugle, Sara J. Oyler-McCance,
David A. Pyke, Kerry P. Reese,
Michael A. Schroeder, San J. Stiver,
Brett L. Walker, and Michael J. Wisdom
Literature Cited / 565
Index / 625
Series Titles / 645