GWA Antelope Basin Comments

Jan. 24, 2003

Mark A. Petroni
District Ranger
5 Forest Service Rd.
Ennis, MT 59729

Subject: Antelope Basin/Elk Lake Revised Allotment Management Plan Updates Environmental Assessment (EA).

Dear Mark:

The Gallatin Wildlife Association (GWA) is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization representing concerned hunters and anglers in Southwest Montana and elsewhere. The GWA is an affiliate of the Montana Wildlife Federation which is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. We are volunteers working to protect habitat so fish and wildlife populations and hunting and fishing opportunities can be conserved for future generations. GWA supports sustainable management of fish and wildlife populations through fair chase regulation of public hunting and fishing opportunities. Please keep the GWA informed about all aspects of this proposal and all opportunities for public input along the way. Please consider these comments and the cited scientific literature as significant reasons to modify and update the EA to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Antelope Basin is a critical wildlife habitat and corridor for elk, mule deer, antelope, bighorn sheep, bison, sage grouse, large carnivores and other wildlife. The Antelope Basin also provides headwaters habitat for beaver, a keystone species, and arctic grayling and westslope cutthroat trout, locally imperiled Forest Service Management Indicator Species for cold water fisheries. These headwaters flow to a change of lakes eventually contributing to the world renown Madison River to the east and the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge and the Red Rock River to the west. The foothills sagebrush type of the Antelope Basin provides a narrow connection between the Centennial Valley and the Madison Valley (MSU 1973). The foothill sagebrush type is unique to southwest Montana (MSU 1973). Principle forage species include bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, big sagebrush and a diversity of forbs, other grasses, shrubs and half-shrubs. The distinguishing feature is the sagebrush covered foothills, which is surrounded by coniferous and deciduous forests. It could be easily argued that the Forest Service owns no finer piece of fish and wildlife habitat in the United States. This area is quite simply an International Treasure.

EIS Required - refer to Horse Butte cattle allotment analysis and controversy on the Gallatin National Forest (GNF) where an EIS has been scoped for public comment. Along with the bison management controversy, environmental degradation due to cattle grazing is a major issue of debate on Horse Butte. The Antelope Basin Plan is much more complex and will likely be just as controversial.

Range of Alternatives inadequate - the only alternative that prevents significant impacts to fish, wildlife and native plants, soil and water is the no grazing alternative (alternative C). The grazing alternatives (A & B) do not sufficiently mitigate the effects of livestock grazing and related developments for sage grouse (Hockett 2002). The ecological costs associated with livestock grazing are significant (Fleischner 1994). Since cattle grazing has been identified as a major factor in riparian habitat degradation on the project area and throughout the West (Belsky et al. 1999), cattle grazing should cease on the riparian areas. Lusby (1970) tested the simple hypothesis that if cattle were causing an erosion problem, then removal of cattle would cure the problem. Indeed it did. Re-distributing the problem (cattle grazing) from riparian areas to the more sensitive upland habitats just creates other significant impacts (Lusby 1970, Fleischner 1994, Hockett 2002). Antelope Basin meets the “extreme sensitivity” rating described for riparian areas in Hockett and Roscoe (1993) and should be managed under a different scenario than a domestic livestock allotment(s).

Sage grouse are a bird of climax vegetation. However, in an attempt to develop a grazing alternative that might work for sage grouse and riparian habitats please consider the following alternative. Using principles outlined in Mussehl (1963), Zwickel et al. (1968), Myers (1989), Hockett and Roscoe (1993), Bock et al. (1994), USDA Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region 3 (1998), Beck and Mitchell (2000), Connelly et al. (2000), Galt et al. (2000) and Hockett (2002) please consider managing sage grouse seasonal nesting and brood rearing habitat as climax vegetation management areas. If these seasonal habitats must be grazed by domestic livestock, do so only during the month of July. Livestock utilization should be limited to 25% in key riparian and sage grouse habitats during this July grazing period to allow for native herbivory, watershed protection (Galt et al. 2000), drought and adequate herbaceous food and cover for sage grouse during the spring, summer and fall (Hockett 2002). Cessation of grazing by August 1 should minimize livestock concentrations in wet meadows and riparian areas (Myers 1989) that are preferred by brood rearing sage grouse (Connelly 2000, Hockett 2002). Cessation of grazing by August 1 may also allow for a 30 day regrowth period for riparian vegetation (Myers 1989) and climax cool season grasses. Late summer and early fall regrowth is important for carbohydrate storage in roots and stems of cool season grasses (Stoddart et al. 1975) such as bluebunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, Idaho fescue, Indian ricegrass and the needlegrasses. Any residual herbaceous vegetation that accumulates in the late summer and fall will provide critical cover for sage grouse nesting (Beck and Mitchell 2000), protection from predators (Schroeder and Baydack 2001) and early brood rearing the following spring (Hockett 2002). Please consider all sagebrush habitats below 8,000 feet in elevation suitable habitat for sage grouse nesting and all sagebrush habitats within 0.5 miles of riparian habitats preferred areas for brood rearing. All livestock water developments and salt grounds within key sage grouse nesting and brood rearing seasonal habitat should be removed, as these developments concentrate livestock use creating areas of intensive livestock utilization and trampling which lead to earth scars, soil erosion, soil compaction, noxious and other weed infestations and sacrifice areas (Valentine 1947, Hockett 2002). These impacts are not only evident on the project area, they are prevalent.

Inadequate Mitigation - grazing systems with range improvements and moves based on utilization standards have proven ineffective for management indicator species, and other plants, soils, natural waters, natural processes (droughts, floods and fires) and fish and wildlife. The prescribed grazing season is too long to allow for riparian recovery (Myers 1989) and “range improvements” for livestock fragment and degrade sage grouse habitat (Hockett 2002). Fifty to fifty five percent utilization by cattle is too high (Holechek 1999, Galt et al. 2000), especially in an area so rich in native wildlife. Achieving uniform utilization is also problematic in a mountainous environment and significant resource damage (over utilization of certain plants and sites) will occur year after year (Gillen et al. 1984). Livestock grazing is an important factor in forest health issues (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997). Livestock grazing at levels proposed in alternatives A & B has disrupted natural fire regimes by significantly removing fine fuels which leads to coniferous forest, deciduous forest, upland shrub, big sagebrush and riparian health dysfunction. Fire suppression also plays a cumulative role in disrupting natural processes and ecological function, but specific fire suppression activities on the project area were not disclosed (USFS AMS 2002). Prescribed fire (man induced) can also have significant consequences for various fish and wildlife habitats, especially big sagebrush communities and the animals that use them (Personal Communication Bob Brannon and Joel Peterson FWP). The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks does not support the assertion that fire is necessary to create habitat diversity in mature sagebrush stands.(Peterson 1995).

Bison, beaver, grayling, cutthroat trout, sage grouse, bighorn sheep and pygmy rabbit habitat remains unoccupied. Electric fencing to protect riparian habitats has proven ineffective (see photos available from the author). Livestock water tanks, pipelines, fences and salt grounds (so call “range improvements”) have left earth scars, severely trampled areas, soil erosion, soil compaction, weed infestations, severe trailing erosion and severe grazing impacts including nearly complete removal of herbaceous vegetation important to sage grouse, bighorn sheep and other wildlife (see photos available from the author). These earth scars fragment and degrade otherwise excellent fish and wildlife habitat.

The Grazing alternatives merely redistribute the problems identified in moist riparian areas to more arid and sensitive uplands. Aspen habitats are also being degraded from livestock use (see photos available from the author). Summer grazing also adversely impacts sage grouse, blue grouse and ruffed grouse brood rearing habitat, removing important plants used for both cover and forage (Patterson 1952, Mussehl 1963, Zwickel et al. 1968, Zwickel 1972, Stauffer and Peterson 1985(a), Stauffer and Peterson 1985(b), Hockett 2002) These birds show fidelity to seasonal habitats preferring to use the same sites year after year (Patterson 1952, Mussehl 1960, Zwickel et al. 1968, Zwickel 1972, Berry and Eng 1985, Stauffer and Peterson 1985(a), Stauffer and Peterson 1985(b), Connelly et al. 2000, Hockett 2002). Rotational grazing systems may result in significant impacts to these seasonal habitats (Eckert Jr. and Spencer 1986), and thus bird populations (Beck and Mitchell 2000), depending on the grazing treatment (Gjersing 1975). Combined with drought, the effects of grazing in any given year can be devastating for ground nesting bird production (Patterson 1952, Connelly and Braun 1997, Connelly et al. 2000, Dusek et al. 2002, Eustace 2002, Hockett 2002).

Inadequate Analysis - Historical analysis is inadequate. The EA claims the majority of the analysis area does not have known sage grouse or their habitat (Revised EA - 152). This statement runs contrary to personal communications with FWP Wildlife Biologists Joel Peterson and Bob Brannon and Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks (2001) and Montana State University (1973). The Revised EA has failed to review historical information about sage grouse use in and around the project area (FWP, BLM and USFWS Monitoring Data on file with these respective agencies). The EA fails to mention the historical impacts livestock grazing and related developments and land and plant manipulation treatments have had on native fish and wildlife, plants, soil and water. Historically, the sagebrush habitat type has been reduced by over half (Harrington 2002) and possibly as high as 98% of the sagebrush/grassland has been altered, degraded or converted to other uses (Apa 2001). The sagebrush-riparian habitats within the antelope basin are currently not supporting many historically present native species including bison, beaver, fish, sage grouse, bighorn sheep and pygmy rabbit. Continued livestock grazing and related range developments (stock tanks, pipelines, salt grounds, roads, and fences) may preclude the natural reoccupation of this area by native species. Complete eradication of important big sagebrush habitats on other private and public lands was not adequately analyzed (USFS AMS 2002).

Livestock grazing is an important factor in forest health issues (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997). Livestock grazing at levels proposed in alternatives A & B has disrupted natural fire regimes by significantly removing fine fuels which leads to coniferous forest, deciduous forest, upland shrub, big sagebrush and riparian health dysfunction. These effects were not adequately analyzed in the EA.

Cumulative Effects - droughts, floods, fire, severe winters, livestock grazing, stock tanks, pipelines, salt grounds, roads, burning, spraying, plowing, subdivision, hunting, disease, etc. all pose potentially series side effects for native plants, soils, water, fish, sage grouse and other wildlife. These cumulative effects were not adequately analyzed in the EA.

Brucellosis - Elk have apparently transmitted brucellosis to cattle in Idaho (Governor Martz Expresses Concern Over Idaho's Confirmation of Brucellosis Infection in Cattle Herd; dated 4/19/2002 and found at: http://www.discoveringmontana.com/gov2/css/pr.asp?ID=62). As well, predators are capable of and indeed are moving dead body tissues that may harbor the disease (GYIBC Meeting, Jan. 16, 2003 Bozeman, MT). YNP is only 20 air miles from the Antelope Basin. Elk migrations to and from the Antelope Basin area are common, and Antelope Basin is critical calving and summer habitat for elk. Cattle grazing in this area in the summer put Montana’s and Idaho’s brucellosis free status at risk.

Elk in the Montana portion of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem have a brucellosis infection rate of about 1-1.5%, whereas elk on some of the feed grounds in Wyoming have infection rates of 25% or more (Personal Communication with Ken Hamlin FWP Jan. 20, 2003). The EA notes that elk calve and summer in the Antelope Basin, thus placentas are shed along with other body fluids that may contain brucellosis. Wolves, coyotes and other predators, including birds, use the Antelope Basin. These predators chase, stress and kill elk throughout the region. Traditional telemetry equipment is inadequate for monitoring specific elk movements to and from the Park (Personal Communication with Ken Hamlin FWP Jan. 20, 2003) as well as entire wolf pack emigrations (Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Nez Perce wolf pack missing from the Park, Jan. 21, 2003). Elk often migrate so fast, that traditional monitoring equipment fails to illustrate their migration routes, simply picking them up in the Park during one monitoring event and then, for example, in the Gravelly mountain range 30-50 miles away during the next monitoring period. Elk herds, infected to some degree with brucellosis, spend the spring, summer and fall within the Antelope Basin. Elk also calve, are killed by predators and die from other causes within the Antelope Basin. Elk prefer many of the same habitats preferred by cattle for foraging and watering. There is potential for significant interaction and consequences on shared ranges.

Bison, a nomadic animal by nature, walking at 2 miles per hour could easily leave the Park in the afternoon or evening and be in the Antelope Basin before sunrise. These are remote, mountainous landscapes, with limited vehicular access. Free ranging wildlife could conceivably remain unnoticed for weeks if not months. Since the Antelope Basin is historic habitat for bison, we would anticipate continued relentless attempts by wild bison to reoccupy this suitable habitat, especially as carrying capacity within the Park is exceeded. Zone 2 of the Interagency Bison Management Plan is only about 12 miles from the border of the Antelope Basin at its closest point. Bison have migrated as far as 22 miles from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) along the Madison River corridor. While grazing along the edge of the Antelope Basin during the winter of 1997 these bison were gunned down by government officials; executed by government agents acting on behalf of the livestock industry, because they apparently posed a threat of brucellosis transmission to domestic cattle (“Witnesses horrified by bison shoot” - Bozeman Chronicle Jan. 30, 1997). If this were to occur, there would be significant costs and consequences to the States livestock industry.

This federal action to consider authorizing domestic livestock use in historic and currently desirable bison habitat is a major federal decision with significant ramifications and consequences for both native wildlife and livestock. Native, wild bison would likely take up residence in the Antelope Basin where they were historic inhabitants, given the chance. There are currently approximately 4,000 bison in the Greater Yellowstone herd. This number will likely expand significantly next year, especially if this mild winter continues. The pressure for bison to migrate from depleted winter ranges near the Park will be even greater next year. Although the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP 2000) does not currently recognize the Antelope Basin as habitat available for bison, this plan is based on adaptive management principles. The fact that the Forest Service is contemplating either grazing or not grazing this significant piece of historical bison habitat so close to Yellowstone National Park with domestic livestock is truly significant for both wildlife and the State’s livestock industry. The Forest Service is attempting to avoid this point by merely pointing the finger toward the IBMP (2000) assuming this plan is not flexible, and then claiming bison migrations to the Antelope Basin area are not foreseeable (G-11 in the revised EA).

Which of the three alternatives best serve the interest’s of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP 2000) which emphasizes measures to maintain a free ranging bison herd, and temporal and spatial separation between bison and cattle? It seems apparent that alternative C best meets the goals of the IBMP. The risks associated with alternatives A & B warrant an EIS, given that elk, bison and the predators that eat them including birds, wolves and coyotes are potential vectors (organisms that carry pathogens from one host to another) or bridges for transmission of brucellosis. Even if the Forest Service does not foresee bison using the Antelope Basin area (G-11 in the revised EA), the Forest Service must not ignore the risks of brucella aborta being transported to the Antelope Basin via other means. Significant consequences warrant an EIS.

Cattle impacts to predator-prey relationships were not adequately analyzed. Cattle compete with elk, moose, deer, antelope, bighorn sheep, bison, sage grouse and other wildlife for plants used for both forage and cover. These animals provide the prey base for wolves, grizzlies, other carnivores and human hunters. Cattle-wolf and/or grizzly bear conflicts were not adequately analyzed. There are at least two confirmed wolf dens/packs in the Gravelly Mountain Range (PC Ken Hamlin, FWP, Jan. 20, 2003). Wolf-cattle conflicts have occurred in the area resulting in the death of both cattle and wolves. Cattle also remove herbaceous understory plants critical for a variety of small mammals that provide a prey base for a variety of predators that may otherwise prey on sage grouse.

Management Indicator Species (MIS): It is apparent the Forest Service has no intention of enhancing sage grouse habitat, a Forest Plan MIS for sagebrush, as the purpose of this proposal is to graze cows (G-7 in the revised EA). This is especially disheartening given the fact the Forest Service recognizes problems with sage grouse habitat exist to the point it is anticipating appeals, lawsuits, etc. (USFS Analysis of Management Situation on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 2002). What better time then now to change? The current Forest Plan can be amended if necessary.

The Forest Service has not adequately disclosed or reviewed relevant data it is required to collect regarding MIS. However, we know that the Missouri Flats lek near the Forest in the Madison valley has been abandoned and the Fish Creek lek near the Forest in the Centennial Valley is still occupied (Personal Communication with Bob Brannon, FWP Wildlife Biologist). Therefore, without further information, at least 50% of the breeding complexes of the area have been lost. Connelly et al. (2000) recommends in areas of large scale habitat loss (>40% of original breeding habitat) protect all remaining habitats from additional loss or degradation. Connelly and Braun (1997) discuss livestock grazing as one of the primary factors that may lead to habitat fragmentation, loss and deterioration, which in turn leads to population declines. The authors suggest the development of Conservation Strategies for the protection and rehabilitation of sagebrush rangelands to halt the decline of sage grouse and initiate recovery.

Livestock grazing, weather patterns (primarily drought) and fire were the only known factors occurring throughout most of the range of sage grouse that could be related to wide-spread population declines through deterioration, loss or fragmentation of habitat (Connelly and Braun 1997). However, predation can be a significant problem when nesting habitat, which is enhanced by a dense tall herbaceous understory within the sagebrush community, is in poor condition (Gregg 1991). Predation can also become a problem for prairie grouse in highly fragmented habitats (Schroeder and Baydack 2001), such as currently exists within the Antelope Basin project area. Beck and Mitchell (2000) identified livestock grazing as a factor associated with the widespread decline and degradation of sage grouse habitat. Overall, livestock grazing appears to most affect productivity of sage grouse populations (Beck and Mitchell 2000). Residual grass cover is essential to conceal sage grouse nests from predators (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Schroeder and Baydack 2001). Grazing probably most affects nesting success of sage grouse because nests in sagebrush areas with greater residual cover of herbaceous plants have a greater likelihood of success. Suitable nesting habitat for sage grouse should be found within the sagebrush-grasslands at elevations at or below 8,000 feet. This describes a majority of the sagebrush-grasslands within the Antelope Basin.

Water developments and salt grounds significantly concentrate livestock and increase forage use, trailing and soil compaction that fragment sagebrush habitat (Stoddart et al. 1975). Heavy use of vegetation around watering points is well documented; two long-term studies show that forage production is most severely reduced in the zone within 0.5 miles (0.8 km) of water (Valentine 1947, Fusco et al. 1995). These heavy use areas may extend up to 0.5 miles (0.8 km) away from the site (Valentine 1947) providing a niche for noxious weeds and other undesirable or unpalatable vegetation to take hold. Such developments should only be considered if accompanied with climax management areas that are free of livestock impacts (Hockett 2002). The existing landscape is dotted and severely fragmented with such developments, including fences, and the proposed action contemplates more of the same (revised EA). This is a nightmare for sage grouse viability. It is no wonder that sage grouse have been virtually extirpated from this landscape. The good news is though, all of these government transgressions are removable or reversible. However, cattle grazing in mountainous terrain will inevitably lead to severely grazed areas, even within so called “properly” grazed ranges (Gillen et al. 1984). This is clearly no place for cows, unless significant impacts to soil, water, plants, fish and wildlife are acceptable.

Connelly et al. (2000) - The USFS has failed to develop Conservation Strategies for sage grouse as outlined in Connelly and Braun (1997) and Connelly et al. (2000) or to protect the remaining habitat in areas experiencing a >40% loss of breeding habitat by establishing ungrazed comparison areas (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Hockett 2002). There are at least two documented leks, or sage grouse breeding grounds near the project area, one of which that has apparently been abandoned. This loss of breeding habitat has significant consequences for sage grouse populations and thus management guidelines as outlined by Connelly et al. (2000). This loss of breeding habitat has been downplayed or ignored by the Forest Service (Revised EA-152).

The proposal to graze domestic livestock while adding to the already intensive fragmentation brought on by fencing, stock water distribution and salting areas will at best maintain status quo. There has been a significant departure or loss of native biological diversity from this landscape including local extirpations of, but not limited to, native plants, native fish, sage grouse, beaver, bighorn sheep, bison and large carnivores. Many of these species are climax species that are capable of self-regeneration in the absence of disturbance. Domestic livestock, and the related intensive management developments that have been imposed on this landscape have significantly disturbed the habitats of these species, leading to localized extirpations. Only alternative C can remove or reverse these significant developments.

Most livestock exclosure studies suggest that, in fact, livestock operate as a keystone species in rangeland ecosystems (Bock et al. 1993). Although the authors state the presence of domestic livestock usually does not preclude native vegetation or wildlife, livestock frequently determine which species will thrive and which will diminish. The Forest Service is apparently intending on applying some of this knowledge to portions of the identified grayling habitat by protecting them from livestock impacts. Thank you. What about westslope cutthroat trout and sage grouse habitat?

Maintaining viability of native species is paramount to the Forest Service’s mission under the National Forest Management Act. Neither alternative A or B provide for that opportunity, instead allocating critical resources (soil, water and vegetation) to an exotic domestic farm animal that imposes significant disturbances to the landscape, and essentially replaces native climax species and disrupts climax processes in a wildland environment. In the absence of an alternative that will meet the needs of sage grouse and other fish and wildlife, we encourage the Forest Service to adopt alternative C and begin the process of removing past disturbances and restoring fragmented and degraded fish and wildlife habitats.

Sincerely,

Glenn Hockett
President, Gallatin Wildlife Association
P.O. Box 5276
Bozeman, MT 59717

Literature Citations

Apa, A.D. 2001. Nature does not recognize borders: Managing for regional or local populations. The Wildlife Society, Sage-grouse: The biology and management of a declining species - a symposium. Reno/Tahoe, Nevada.

Beck, J.L., and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28(4):993-1002.

Belsky, A.J. and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils of upland forests of the Interior West. Cons. Biol. 11:315-327.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil and Water Cons. 54:419-431.

Berry, J.D. and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas by female sage grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(1):237-240.

Bock, C.E., J.H. Bock and H.M. Smith. 1993. Proposal for a system of federal livestock exclosures on public rangelands in the western United States. Cons. Biol. 7(3):731-733.

Connelly, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage grouse Centrocercus urpohasiamus populations in western North America. Wildl. Biology. 3:229-234.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 28(4):967-985.

Dusek, G.L., C.D. Eustace, and J.G. Peterson. 2002. The ecology and status of sage grouse in Montana. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):67-81.

Eckert Jr., R.E. and J.S. Spencer. 1986. Vegetation response on allotments grazed under rest-rotation management. J. Range Mange. 39(2):166-174.

Eustace, C.D. 2002. Sage grouse hatching success and chronology for south-central Montana. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):82-93.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology. 8(3):629-644.

Fusco, M., J. Holechek, A. Tembo, A. Daniel, and M. Cardenas. 1995. Grazing influences on watering point vegetation in the Chihuahuan desert. J. Range Manage. 48:32-38.

Galt, D., F. Molinar, J. Navarro, J. Joseph, and J. Holechek. 2000. Grazing capacity and stocking rate. Rangelands. 22(6):7-11.

Gillen, R.L., W.C. Krueger and R.F. Miller. 1984. Cattle Distribution on Mountain Rangeland in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 37(6):549-553.

Gjersing, F.M. 1975. Waterfowl production in relation to rest-rotation grazing. J. Range Manage. 28(1):37-42.

Gregg, M.A. 1991. Use and selection of nesting habitat by sage grouse in Oregon. Thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, USA.

Harrington, R.D. 2002. A historical perspective of Montana’s sagebrush. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):60-66.

Hockett, B. L. and J.W. Roscoe. 1993. Livestock management guidelines for grazing in southwest Montana riparian-wetland areas. Workshop on Western Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Public/Private Efforts in Recovery, Management, and Education. Thorne Ecological Institute. P. 102-106.

Hockett, G.A. 2002. Livestock impacts on the herbaceous components of sage grouse habitat: a review. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):105-114.

Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt 1999. Grazing studies: what we’ve learned. Rangelands 21(2):12-16.

Lusby, G.C. 1970. Hydrologic and biotic effects of grazing vs. non-grazing near Grand Junction, Colorado. J. Range Manage. 23(4):256-260.

Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2001. Sage grouse distribution, habitat, and leks - Region 3. MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell, MT and BLM Wildlife Biologists Billings, MT. Map. 1pp.

Montana Department of Livestock and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2000. Interagency bison management plan for the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park Record of Decision. 20 pp.

Montana State University. 1973. Vegetative rangeland types in Montana. MSU, MT. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 671. 16 pp.

Mussehl, T.W. 1960. Blue grouse production, movements, and populations in the Bridger mountains, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 24(1):60-68.

Mussehl, T.W. 1963. Blue grouse brood cover selection and land-use implications. J. Wildl. Manage. 27(4):547-554.

Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in southwest Montana. In: Practical approaches to riparian resource management: an educational workshop. Billings, MT, USDI, BLM, pp. 117-120.

Peterson, J.G. 1995. Sagebrush: ecological implications of sagebrush manipulation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wildlife Manage. Div. 49 pp.

Schroeder, M.A. and R.K. Baydack. 2001. Predation and the management of prairie grouse. Wildlife Society Bull. 29(1):24-32.

Stauffer, D.F. and S.R. Peterson. 1985(a). Ruffed and blue grouse habitat use in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(2):459-466.

Stauffer, D.F. and S.R. Peterson. 1985(b). Seasonal micro-habitat relationships of ruffed grouse in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):605-610.

Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975. Range management. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 532 pp.

USDA Forest Service Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region 3. 1998. Memorandum of understanding on operating guidelines for vegetative manipulation in certain plant community types. USDA, Forest Service, Dillon, MT and FWP, Region 3, Bozeman, MT. 8 pp with 5 appendices.

U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Draft analysis of the management situation. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. CD. 105 pp.

Valentine, K.A. 1947. Distance from water as a factor in grazing capacity of rangeland. J. Forestry. 10:749-754.

Zwickel, F.C. 1972. Some effects of grazing on blue grouse during summer. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(2):631-634.

Zwickel, F.C., O.B. Irven, and J.H. Brigham. 1968. Autumn movements of blue grouse and their relevance to populations and management. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):456-468.