Justification This species qualifies as Endangered becauseit has a very small occupied range which is severely fragmented and declining. Habitat fragmentation is particularly concerning given that the species requires a variety of adjacent habitats. Management strategies are being implemented which aim to reverse current population declines over the next 15 years.

Family/Sub-family Phasianidae

Species name author Young, Braun, Oyler-McCance, Hupp & Quinn, 2000

Taxonomic source(s) AOU checklist (1998 + supplements)

Taxonomic note Centrocercus urophasianus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. urophasianus and C. minimus following AOU (1998).

Identification Male 44-51 cm, female 32-38 cm. Small, variegated greyish-brown grouse. Black belly and long, stiff, pointed tail feathers. Male has black throat and upper neck, separated by V-shaped white line. Large white ruff on breast and some white bars on tail. Large, yellowish cervical sacs and inconspicuous yellow eyecombs. Similar spp. Allopatric Sage Grouse C. urophasianus is 30% larger. Voice Male display involves brushing wings against pouch feathers to produce loud swishing noises.

Population estimate

Population trend

Range estimate (breeding/resident)

Country endemic?

2,500 - 2,600

decreasing

9,700 km²

Yes

Range & population Centrocercus minimus is confined to the Gunnison basin in Gunnison and Saguache counties, south-west Colorado, with small, fragmented populations in Colorado and one in south-east Utah, USA^2,3,9. Historically, it presumably occurred in Arizona, Oklahoma and New Mexico¹, but the occupied range is now less than 500 km². The breeding population is less than 3,000 individuals^1,3,6,7,8. There have been long-term declines in lek sites, males at leks and offspring^1,2,3,4.

Ecology: Various adjacent habitats are required in the 2,300 m intermontane basin^3,4. These differ seasonally and for age and sex classes⁴. The species is totally reliant on sagebrush Artemisia spp. for seasonal cover and winter forage². Lek sites have low vegetation with sparse shrubs, and are often surrounded by the big sagebrush-dominated plant communities required for nesting¹. Broods are reared (May to autumn) in adjacent riparian plant communities and in mesic upland sites^1,7. In winter, it associates with watercourses on southerly or westerly slopes and ridge tops where deep snow is less likely¹.

Threats Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation is resulting from conversion to roads, reservoirs, livestock-grazing, hay and other crops, real estate developments, powerlines, land treatments and increased deer populations^1,4. Many winter sites are directly threatened and being enclosed by urbanisation³. Severely fragmented populations have low genetic variation and the recent reintroduction of the disease West Nile virus to the species's range is a concern^4,7. Disturbance from scientific study and recreational birdwatchers may cause stress and reduced lek attendance and production^1,7,8. Severe winters and potentially droughts may represent survival bottlenecks (e.g. in 1984, less than 10% of sagebrush emerged above the snow³), as may other habitat factors influencing chick survival⁷. Calls to increase gas prospecting in areas of sagebrush habitat represent a potential future threat.

Conservation measures underway In 1995 a working group was formed and, in 1998, a conservation plan identified over 200 actions^1,4. By 2004 over 95% of the population was covered by local working groups' conservation plans⁷. While the success of such local efforts may be controversial, hunting has ceased and significant gains have been made in land protection through conservation easements and land acquisitions⁷. Current actions include lek enhancement, riparian area restoration, nest habitat treatments, improved livestock management, nest predator research, and education⁴. Education measures include sponsored grouse viewing, information brochures and talks given in local schools and fairs⁵. Radio-telemetry and graduate research is helping to determine winter habitat use, and lek sites have been protected⁵. Hunting of the species has been stopped^7,8. In 2005 state and federal employees drafted a 'Rangewide Plan' and have begun contact with local landowners to present voluntary conservation agreements⁷.

Conservation measures proposed Restore and improve habitat, while continuing work to prevent further loss and fragmentation. Support its listing on the Endangered Species Act. Continue population monitoring at key sites. Conduct further ecological research, focussing on survival, dispersal and habitat use at different life stages. Encourage and facilitate the implementation of local and range-wide management plans. Reduce disturbance, especially at active leks. Investigate the possibility of using translocations to augment small populations. Continue work to raise awareness of key issues among stakeholders.

References Storch (in press). 1. BLM (1999). 2. Young et al. (2000). 3. Storch (2000). 4. J. R. Young in litt. (1999). 5. W. Martinson in litt. (2003). 6. Rich et al. 2003. 7. J. R. Young in litt. (2005) 8. C. Braun in litt. (2005). 9. K. Strom (2004).

Further web sources of information

Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) species/site profile. This species has been identified as an AZE trigger due to its IUCN Red List status and limited range.

Audubon WatchList

Conservation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

Text account compilers Phil Benstead (BirdLife International), Jeremy Bird (BirdLife International), Matt Harding (BirdLife International), Aidan Keane (World Pheasant Association), David Wege (BirdLife International)

Contributors Clait Braun (Grouse Inc.), Wayne Martinson, Jessica Young (Western State College)

IUCN Red List evaluators Jeremy Bird (BirdLife International), Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International)

Recommended citation BirdLife International (2009) Species factsheet: Centrocercus minimus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 9/2/2010

This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.

To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife

To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums