Sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) communities provide habitat for hundreds of wildlife species, many of which are sagebrush obligates or near-obligates. Additionally, many ecosystem services from sagebrush landscapes provide significant benefits to our society, including water resources, agricultural production, and recreational opportunities. The sagebrush biome in Utah and across the West is one of the most imperiled ecosystems in the world (Knick et al. 2003). Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereinafter sage-grouse) have been considered by many as an umbrella species (i.e., representing multiple other sagebrush-associated species) for sagebrush systems (Knick and Connelly 2011). Multiple threats endanger the persistence of this system, the wildlife habitat, and ecosystem services sagebrush communities provide. Loss due to fire, especially within Great Basin, is one of the most significant threats to sagebrush systems. Fire frequency and intensity have shifted from historic regimes, largely due to invasive plant species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (USFWS 2021). Cheatgrass can quickly become the dominant feature, changing soil and vegetation conditions along with influencing fire dynamics, eventually supplanting sagebrush communities permanently (Boxell and Drohan 2009). In recent decades on an annually basis, millions of acres of sagebrush habitat in Utah and across the Great Basin have been lost due to catastrophic wildfire. Wildfire has been identified as one of the top threats to sage-grouse within the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse (Utah 2019). Conversely, largely due to the lack of fire as a natural disturbance conifer encroachment predominantly from pinyon (Pinus spp.) and juniper (Juniperus spp.; PJ) has slowly overtaken sagebrush communities (Reinhardt et al. 2020). Yet, the threat of cheatgrass has led to a no-win situation when it comes to fire management that addresses confer expansion. Because of these issues, rehabilitation of sagebrush has generally turned towards vegetation management in the form of fire rehabilitation and conifer removal projects (Clark et al. 2017). In response to wildfire and conifer removal, rehabilitation has commonly included rangeland seeding in many areas. The Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI) has expended significant resources for fire rehabilitation and conifer removal in recent years. Along with the goal of protecting soil and water resources, in most cases vegetation management projects have been geared towards helping wildlife, often with sage-grouse as one of the key target species. In addition to sage-grouse, other sagebrush obligate bird species (SOBS), such as Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), and sagebrush sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis), could be impacted by fire, conifer removal, and subsequent rehabilitation. While we have begun gaining some information on how sagebrush communities, and thus habitat, recover following fire or conifer removal, we currently have a paucity of information concerning the direct response of these species to the habitat loss and rehabilitation. Nor do we understand how much time and recovery is needed before sage-grouse and SOBS will use and thrive in rehabilitated sagebrush habitats. For most sagebrush communities managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Rangeland Health Assessments are done to ensure desired conditions on these rangelands (https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/rangeland-health). Both qualitative and quantitative information are used for these assessments. In grasslands information used within Rangeland Health Assessments, such as vegetation volume, bare grouse, and litter, were important predictors of passerine abundance (Henderson and Davis 2014). Similar components could be important for SOBS within sagebrush communities. As the frequency of conifer removal projects have increased across the West and especially her in Utah with the WRI program, concerns for wildlife species that depend on PJ have intensified. Of note, we have seen increased interest in pinyon jays (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) and the potential impacts of conifer removal projects on this understudied species (Boone et al. 2018). Pinyon Jays are a PJ obligate that require conifer cover for most of their life-cycle. Little is currently known on the species' habitat requirements and potential impacts of conifer removal. There remains concern that, although conifer removal in sagebrush encroachment areas may be a suitable management practice, it may be detrimental to remove trees from PJ ecological sites (i.e., where PJ has been historically and sagebrush has never dominated). Conifer removal in the name of sagebrush conservation may need to become more prescriptive than it has been to date. It is critically important to understand the response of vegetation management projects, whether due to conifer removal or fire rehabilitation. Often it is assumed that wildfire in sagebrush automatically results in a permanent loss of sage-grouse and SOBS habitat. In contrast, we have some evidence that vegetation recovery can result in adequate habitat characteristics as quickly as 5-10 years post-fire in certain areas. However, we are currently missing information on sage-grouse and SOBS occupancy and use of previously burned areas and how they respond to shifting vegetation communities. Anecdotal observations have documented sage-grouse using burned areas relatively quickly post-fire. Additionally, we are still gaining information on how sagebrush and SOBS respond to conifer removal projects. We have almost no information on the response of pinyon jays to conifer removal projects. Therefore, questions still remain such as: 1) do sage-grouse and SOBS keep using the burned area due to fidelity or, 2) are these areas just sink habitats that ultimately result in ecological traps and population declines, 3) how do sage-grouse and SOBS vital rates respond to loss of sagebrush cover or the removal of conifer cover resulting in rehabilitated vegetation post-management, 4) how does habitat rehabilitation, either post-fire seeding or conifer removal, impact sage-grouse and SOBS habitat use, and 5) how have pinyon jays responded to conifer removal projects geared towards sagebrush habitat rehabilitation. In addition to wildlife responses to vegetation management, it is important for federal management plans to include information on how sage-grouse populations are connected, especially across state lines. The West Box Elder sage-grouse population is connected to populations in Idaho and Nevada. Current federal sage-grouse conservation planning requires inter-state coordination and gaining information on sage-grouse movements in this tri-state area would be beneficial to these efforts (BLM 2015). In West Box Elder, past radio-telemetry information from grouse marked with Very High Frequency (VHF) radios has demonstrated cross-border movements, however this information has been extremely limited. VHF radios require consistent monitoring through ground- or aerial-based efforts to record locations and documenting large movements has proved extremely difficult. GPS-PPT ARGOS radios have been used successfully on sage-grouse for multiple years. GPS radios take multiple locations per day and upload their data to satellites (ARGOS System) every few days. Our ability to capture large movements has improved dramatically. Although GPS-PTT radios have been used in the West Box Elder population for a few years now, radio-marking efforts have primarily occurred east of the Grouse Creek Mountains and south of the Raft River Range, in the Park Valley area. Therefore, to date the probability of inter-state movements has been extremely low for GPS-PTT marked grouse. Radio-marking grouse along the Nevada and Idaho borders would greatly increase the probability of monitoring inter-state movements and coincides with multiple historic burn areas. As previously mentioned, fire and associated annual grass invasion has become one of the most significant threats to sagebrush systems across the West. Most studies have shown significant detrimental impacts of cheatgrass invasion to native sagebrush obligate species, such as sage-grouse and SOBS. However, conversion of the system from native vegetation (e.g., sagebrush, perennial grass, forbs, etc.) to increases in exotic annual grasses may benefit other non-native species such as chukar (Alectoris chukar) and gray partridge (Perdix perdix). These two partridge species are important upland game resources managed by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Chukar and gray partridge evolved with cheatgrass in their native systems and continue to rely on the consumption of green cheatgrass growth as one of their primary winter foods, especially across their distributions within the Great Basin. However, these species are also known to use sagebrush cover for nesting and brooding activities and total loss of sagebrush cover may be detriment long-term (Knetter et al. 2017). Currently, little to no research exists to help understand the response of these non-native species to fire-related ecosystem shifts that occur in sagebrush systems, especially as it relates to the response of native sagebrush obligate species to the same fire-altered landscapes. Past burn areas in West Box Elder provide an opportunity to start to understand how these cheatgrass-adapted species, in relation to native sagebrush obligates, respond to post-fire habitat conditions, changes in annual grass cover, and the recovery of vegetation following rehabilitation efforts. Relatedly, the influence of free water on partridge in North America is not well understood. Larsen et al. (2010) found that adult survival of chukar was influenced by the availability of free water (i.e., guzzlers) but not necessarily reproductive success. The siting of new guzzler construction is a concern to both the BLM and NGOs interested in supporting partridge populations. More concerning may be the influence of guzzler placement on non-target species (e.g., neotropical migrant songbirds, meso-predators, and small mammals) which may be influenced by free water in these dry semi-desert systems (Larsen 2008). Literature Cited BLM. 2015. Utah greater sage-grouse approved resource management plan amendment. DOI-BLM-UT-0000-2013-0001-RMP-EIS. Boone J. D., E. Ammon, and K. Johnson. 2018. Long-term declines in the Pinyon Jay and management implications for piñon-juniper woodlands in Trends and traditions: avifaunal change in western North America. Studies of Western Birds 3:190-7. Boxell, J., and P. J. Drohan. 2009. Surface soil physical and hydrological characteristics in Bromus tectorum L. (cheatgrass) versus Artemisia tridentata Nutt.(big sagebrush) habitat. Geoderma 149:305-311. Clark, A. G., T. W. Thompson, J. L. Vernon, and A. Whittakker. 2017. Utah's watershed restoration initiative: restoring watersheds at a landscape scale. Human-Wildlife interactions 11:302-310 Henderson, A. E., and S. K. Davis. 2014. Rangeland health assessment: a useful tool for linking range management and grassland bird conservation? Rangeland Ecology & Management 67:88-98. Knetter, J. M., D. A. Budeau, and S. P. Espinosa. 2017. Western States Chukar and Gray Partridge Management Guidelines. 32 pp. Western States Partridge Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M. Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. The Condor 105:611-634. Knick, S. T., and J. W. Connelly, eds. 2011. Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Vol. 38. Univ of California Press. Larsen, R. T., J. A. Bissonette, J. T. Flinders, M. B. Hooten, and T. L. Wilson. 2010. Summer spatial patterning of chukars in relation to free water in western Utah. Landscape Ecology 25:135-145. Larsen, R. T. 2008. A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Effects of Wildlife Water Developments in the Western United States. Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, USA. Reinhardt, J. R., S. Filippelli, M. Falkowski, B. Allred, J. D. Maestas, J. C. Carlson, and D. E. Naugle. 2020. Quantifying Pinyon-Juniper Reduction within North America's Sagebrush Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology & Management 73:420-432. USFWS. 2021. Sage-grouse, sagebrush and the threat posed by invasive annual grasses/increased fire frequency. Fact Sheet 101813. https://www.fws.gov/sagebrush/threats-to-wildlife/invasive-species/#feature-image Utah. 2019. Utah conservation plan for greater sage-grouse. https://wildlife.utah.gov/greater-sage-grouse.html

Our objectives are to: 1) Assess the response (i.e., selection and survival) of sage-grouse, SOBS, and pinyon jays (conifer only) to sagebrush conservation practices (e.g., fire rehabilitation and conifer removal) across a temporal gradient (i.e., time since disturbance) of rehabilitation/recovery within sagebrush habitats. 2) Gain understanding of sage-grouse movements and habitat selection at the landscape scales (2nd and 3rd HAF orders) within the tri-state intersection of Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. 3) Assess the response (selection and population levels) of cheatgrass-adapted species (i.e., partridge) to post-burn vegetation rehabilitation and recovery, their correlation with sagebrush obligate species' response, and their spatial relationship to free-water. 4) Evaluate the relationship of SOBS with Rangeland Health Assessment information to see if SOB data could be used as an indicator of rangeland health for assessments.

Not Applicable - This project is primarily monitoring

Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse -- Sagebrush conservation, risks to sage-grouse habitat, fire/cheatgrass associations, fire management, and sagebrush rehabilitation are key components to this plan. Each of our objectives will address, directly or indirectly, the information needs to guide the implementation of this plan. Specifically, the results of this research will apply to all fire management issues, including rehabilitation, within this plan. Utah's Governor's Executive Order EO/2015/001: Implementing the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse -- This Executive Order is in place and directs for the implementation of the Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse. This research will support this Executive Order (see description above). Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM) -- Sage-grouse conservation policy now dominates BLM resource management plans where sagebrush habitat is concerned. This plan amendment includes conservation of sage-grouse habitat as it relates to fire and our results will help to make more effective implementation. Moreover, this plan amendment is connected to similar plan in neighboring states. By understanding sage-grouse movements and habitat use in the study area connections with populations in Idaho and Nevada will be better understood. This will especially help the BLM with 2nd order definitions within the HAF. West Box Elder Coordinated Resource Management Plan -- Sage-grouse and fire management are significant concerns of the West Box Elder CRM and are addressed within the plan. Conserving sage-grouse populations, sagebrush habitat, and guiding fire management within sagebrush are important to this group. The information from this research will be regularly shared with this CRM group and help address the implementation of this plan. Western States Chukar and Gray Partridge Management Guidelines (WAFWA) - These guidelines point out that we currently have little scientific understanding of how to manage partridge in the western US as we move into the future. This research would start to bridge that gap and provide key information, not only to Utah, but to other western states. Western States Chukar and Gray Partridge Management Guidelines (WAFWA) - In 2017, WAFWA developed management guidelines for partridge in western states. This publication reported in their research needs that there currently exists a significant paucity of available scientific information to guide management within western North America. The authors call for increased research attention for these species, especially research conducted within this region. By better understanding the response of partridge to burns and rehabilitation we will be able to help revise the policy recommendations included in this WAFWA publication.

Not Applicable - This project is primarily monitoring

Not Applicable -- This project is primarily monitoring and will not directly impact water resources. However, the information from this research could help with the prioritization of new guzzler constructions that could benefit not only upland game species, but other non-game species.

Not Applicable -- This project does not include any potential to affect cultural resources, NEPA, or ESA species.

Study Area This research will occur in the West Box Elder Resource Area, which extends from the intersection of Utah Highway 42 and the Idaho border, west to the Nevada border, south along the Nevada border to the Pilot mountains, and back northeast along Highway 30 to its intersection with Immigrant Pass Road, east to Kelton and then north to Highway 30, east to the junction of Highways 30 and 42, and lastly back north to the Idaho border. In addition to our study area in Utah, nearby areas in Nevada and Idaho may also provide important areas that could help meet project objectives. Our study area has experienced significant numbers of fires of various sizes and rehabilitation management within sagebrush communities over the last 20 years. Additionally, our study area has had some of the most significant number and areas of conifer removal projects over the last decade or more. Most likely our sampling sites will occur in medium to high resistant-resilient (RR) sites that, pre-fire or pre-conifer treatment, were intact sagebrush communities. The majority of low RR areas have or had significant salt desert scrub components to the vegetation community. Such areas have a low probability of having been, and/or being rehabilitated to, intact sagebrush communities that sage-grouse, SOBs, and partridge inhabit. Field Methods We will implement four methodologies to meet our objectives: 1) Telemetry - GPS-PTT Rump-mount Radios attached to sage-grouse, and if additional funding for radios becomes available we will capture, mark, and monitor pinyon jays. 2) Line transect detection surveys - i.e., pellet counts and bird dogs (DISTANCE sampling) 3) Population surveys - i.e., sage-grouse lek counts, SOBs breeding surveys (point counts), pinyon jay breeding surveys (point counts and road surveys within 5x5 km2 grids), and partridge breeding surveys (point counts and electronic call-back along roadways). 4) Vegetation sampling - using standard sage-grouse monitoring (i.e., HAF protocols), collected AIM data, historical vegetation data (i.e., previous USU study), and GIS spatial vegetation cover data (e.g., Rangeland Analysis Platform (https://rangelands.app/), USGS landcover products (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog), Landfire (https://www.landfire.gov/), etc.), or other related products. Sage-Grouse Radio Telemetry.--We will capture sage-grouse during the spring lekking, summer brooding, and fall periods. We primarily use the OHV-spotlighting method for trapping. Sage-grouse will be fitted with 12.5 g rump-mount GPS-PTT ARGOS radios. Radios will be programmed to record 4 to 6 locations per day based on season. Our focus for capture will primarily be on females, although some males may also be marked to aid in movement information. By radio-marking females we will be able to not only monitor movement and habitat use, but also the key vital rates that matter to sage-grouse populations; e.g., female survival, chick survival, nest survival, etc.). Trapping efforts will be focused around historic burn areas. Because sage-grouse exhibit high location fidelity and tend to move greater distances during the breeding season, trapping in late summer and fall near historical burn areas may provide more consistent information related to habitat rehabilitation. We plan to maintain a radio-marked sample around 30 adult grouse annually over four field seasons (March to August). A database of GPS locations will be managed throughout this project and shared with Utah's statewide database in cooperation with USU, BYU, UDWR, and BLM. Data can then be used to assess this study's objectives, but also used for statewide assessments and analyses. Upon request, updated telemetry location data will be made available to BLM at any time during the study. Pinyon Jay Radio-Telemetry.--at the beginning of this project we do not have funding for radio-marking pinyon jays. However, we will continue to look for opportunities to obtain funding for radios to mark individual pinyon jays to monitor movements and habitat selection within our study area. Specific information needs include assessment of movements at multiple scales, caching habitat selection, nesting colony habitat selection, and foraging behavior and habitat selection. Currently there is no standard or regularly used radio type for pinyon jays, but we will consult with others researching this species to get the best available products and techniques for this purpose. GPS radios are needed as ground-based telemetry using VHF would likely be insufficient due to the large movements pinyon jays undertake an lack of fidelity to specific areas. To date, small walk-in funnel traps that are baited have been the most successful capture method and we plan to use this for capture; however, if other methods become available we will incorporate them as needed. Line Transect Detection Surveys.-- Although radio-marked grouse locations within burn areas would be extremely desirable and aid in meeting our objectives, we have found in past research that sage-grouse movements and habitat selection are often at spatial scales much larger than our specific areas of interest. Therefore, pellet and bird dog surveys can be used to capture sage-grouse and partridge use information at the experimental sites even if by chance radio-marked individuals select habitat in other areas (Dahlgren et al. 2006, Dahlgren et al. 2020). We will establish paired (i.e., treatment and reference) stratified random line transects in past burn areas and nearby representative reference areas, focusing primarily on areas that historically had been sage-grouse seasonal habitat. We will coordinate sampling with Dr. Eric Thacker's recent research assessing rehabilitation post-fire in the West Box Elder resource area. We will be able to leverage the vegetation data already collected from this past research to better understand sage-grouse and SOBs response to recovery of sagebrush habitat. We will conduct pellet (i.e., fecal matter) surveys for sage-grouse and partridge using Distance Sampling protocols (Dahlgren et al. 2006). This will allow for both occupancy sampling, as well as the potential to estimate pellet densities if enough detections allow for model convergence. At minimum, detections per transect length can be used as a metric for analytical comparisons. Through either occupancy modeling or density estimates we will assess sage-grouse use of rehabilitated burned areas, in relation to reference areas, with various stages of recovery (i.e., time since fire and/or recovery of vegetation cover). Although game bird pellets can last on the landscape for more than a year, rarely do they remain intact for more than 2-3 years (Dahlgren et al. 2006). Therefore, the detection of pellets would indicate relatively recent use. Furthermore, over time pellets change color from dark green with a white tip, to light green with a white tip, to light brown/tan with a white tip, to completely white or dull grey. We have found in the past that pellets that are dark green were likely deposited within a few weeks, light brown within at least a few months, and white to dull grey being the oldest. As such, pellet color can also help us refine the relative timing of use for these experimental areas. Most likely using the same, or similarly placed, transects as above for pellet surveys, in March-April, July-September, and November to February we will conduct pointing dog surveys to detect grouse and/or partridge within burn areas (Dahlgren et al. 2020). We plan to conduct bird dog surveys during the pre-laying and lekking periods, then again during the late brooding, fall, and winter periods. Notably, it is not desirable to use dogs for sampling transects during the nesting and/or early brooding periods (i.e., mid-May to mid-June) when sage-grouse nests and/or chicks might be vulnerable to disturbance by the dog. The PI for this project has had considerable experience using dogs to research gamebirds, especially sage-grouse (Dahlgren et al. 2020). Similar to pellet surveys, protocols will also be designed in a Distance Sampling framework. Grouse per km of transect and/or simple occupancy by transect can be used if detection rates are too low for model convergence during Distance analysis. Population Surveys.-- Sage-grouse male lek counts have been conducted in the study area since the mid-20th Century and are overseen by the UDWR. From March to early May, we will participate with the UDWR in lek counts as well as searching for previously unknown lek sites on an opportunistic basis. Lek counts have been reliably linked to sage-grouse population change over time (Dahlgren et al. 2016). SOBS breeding surveys will be conducted from May to July. We will use a grid-point sampling design similar to Norvell et al. (2014). We will wait to select a grid size and base that size on the scale of burn and treatment areas that are ultimately selected for sampling. In a stratified random subset of grids we will conduct nest surveys and nest monitoring for SOBs to gain an understanding of nest survival and fledging rates. Passerine nest monitoring is highly intensive work requiring significant labor and cannot be conducted within all experimental areas. Pinyon jay breeding surveys will consist of 5x5 km2 grids randomly stratified to conifer removal and reference areas. Point counts and roadside surveys, placed at randomly selected locations within the grid, will be used to detect pinyon jays. All detections will be recorded including the number of jays, their behavior, and their distance from our survey point. Observers will pay special attention to behavioral signs indicating a nesting colony and all detected colonies will be mapped (i.e., GPS) and described. Our protocols will generally follow those produced by the Partners in Flight Pinyon Jay Working Group (https://partnersinflight.org/resources/pinyon-jay-working-group/). Slight adjustments may be needed based on our specific project objectives. Partridge detection surveys will be conducted from early-February to late May. Roadside surveys will be delineated in a randomized fashion within the study area with regularly spaced point-count intervals (Ratti et al. 1983, Rotella and Ratti 1988). Free-water sources will be accounted for by spatially stratifying the breeding survey location. Pepin and Foquet (1992) found that both partridge species called regularly in the morning 45 minutes before to about an hour after sunrise when total daylight time was < 13 hours (early February to mid-April), and cloud cover and wind speed were low. At each point along the survey route 15-minute stops will include: 2 consecutive listening periods of 5 minutes each and an additional 5-minute listening period that includes an electronic playback call for each species. The observer, time, date, location, cloud cover, temperature, wind speed, noise level, number of calls, number of detected individuals or groups, and their estimated location will be recorded. Vegetation Monitoring.-- For radio-marked grouse locations we will use vegetation data from the Rangelands Analysis Platform (RAP; https://rangelands.app/) and/or the USGS remotely sensed vegetation data (https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/catalogParty/show?partyId=4684). Although past sage-grouse research has collected micro-site vegetation measurements of shrub, grass, forb, litter, and bare ground, scientists have not found this information to necessarily be linked to sage-grouse survival or population change. Most habitat characteristics that influence sage-grouse occur at much larger scales and we believe using large spatial datasets that include estimates of vegetation height and cover will be much more useful and less labor intensive. Within burned areas we will conduct vegetation monitoring as needed. Because previous USU research has already characterized vegetation post-burn in this study area, we will use that data to the extent possible. However, it is likely that our sampling of our species of interest will necessitate additional vegetation sampling to build the essential linkages between on-the-ground and remotely sensed data. We will determine if more vegetation sampling is needed to understand the habitat characteristics that are being selected for by the grouse and conduct that sampling according to standard protocols (AIM, HAF, etc.). Productivity may be related to selection and/or abundance of our species of interest. The RAP includes estimates of productivity across the sagebrush ecosystem and that data will be used in our analyses. To validate the RAP productivity data, forage clipping plots will be taken in burned areas of different time-since-fire to establish a baseline of changes in productivity over time. We will use standard clip and weigh protocols. We will also have samples analyzed for nutrition value. Literature Cited Dahlgren,D. K., R. Chi, T. A. Messmer. 2006. Greater sage‐grouse response to sagebrush management in Utah. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:975-85. Dahlgren, D. K., R. D. Elmore, D. A. (Smith) Wollett, A. Hurt, J. K. Young, D. Kinka, E. B. Arnett, D. Baines, and J. W. Connelly. 2020. Use of dogs in wildlife research and management. Wildlife Techniques Manual, The Wildlife Society, Vol. 1:140-53. Dahlgren, D. K., M. R. Guttery, T. A. Messmer, D. Caudill, R. D. Elmore, R. Chi, D. N. Koons. 2016. Evaluating vital rate contributions to greater sage‐grouse population dynamics to inform conservation. Ecosphere. 7(3):e01249. Norvell, R. E., T. C. Edwards Jr., and F. P. Howe. 2014. Habitat management for surrogate species has mixed effects on non‐target species in the sagebrush steppe. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(3):456-62. Pepin, D., and M. Fouquet. 1992. Factors affecting the incidence of dawn calling in red-legged and grey partridges. Behavioural Processes 26:167-176. Ratti, J. T., L. M. Smith, J. W. Hupp, and J. L. Laake. 1988. Line transect estimates of density and the winter mortality of gray partridge. The Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1088-96. Rotella, J. J., and J. T. Ratti. 1988. Seasonal Variation in Gray Partridge Vocal Behavior. The Condor 90:304--310, https://doi.org/10.2307/1368558

See methods section above

Bureau of Land Management, Utah State University Extension, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Chukar and Wildlife Foundation, Cache Valley and Salt Lake City Pheasants Forever Chapters, West Box Elder Coordinated Resource Management Group, Idaho BLM State Office, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. Forest Service

Not Applicable - This project is primarily monitoring

By understanding the connections between recovery of sagebrush habitat post-fire and sage-grouse response we will better understand how future rehabilitation efforts can support sage-grouse populations and livestock grazing. By assessing forage (i.e, clip and weigh) production and nutrition, we will be able to better predict the resource availability, both to wildlife and to livestock. If public land grazing moves to adaptive grazing management (i.e., Outcome-Based Grazing), understanding forage availability in relation to time since fire will greatly improve grazing regimes and help establish appropriate stocking rates. We will also better understand the response of 3 different gamebirds that are currently harvested in Utah, which will enable better management for future recreational hunting as we face more fire-related issues.