GWA Sage Grouse Management Plan Comments

January 12, 2003

Sage Grouse Plan
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
P.O. Box 200701
Helena, MT 59620

Email Address: http://www.fwp.state.mt.us

Subject: Draft Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana (hereafter Plan).

Dear Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks:

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 wildlife populations and hunting and fishing opportunities can be conserved for future generations. GWA supports the sustainable management of fish and game populations through the appropriate regulation of fair chase public hunting and fishing opportunities. Please keep the GWA informed about all aspects of this Plan and all opportunities for public input along the way. Please also consider the following comments and scientific literature regarding this proposal.

Status Quo vs. Optimal Habitat Management Areas: The Plan seems to have a theme that status quo for existing uses and impacts will be maintained. Does the Department consider status quo sufficient for sage grouse conservation? If sage grouse are declining then how will maintaining the status quo arrest the decline? Under the Plan, sage grouse habitat and populations will still be in long term decline so what is the long term habitat and population goal?

We feel a better approach is to clearly articulate what ideal or optimal sage grouse habitat looks like, identify the three current primary limiting factors, and outline procedures or recommendations for addressing these factors. How would the Department describe optimal sage grouse habitat? What does the Department feel are the three primary factors limiting sage grouse populations? What does the Department recommend for addressing these factors? A description of optimal habitat should be provided in the plan so interested parties and working groups know what to strive for. As we mentioned at public meetings in Dillon, we believe it is appropriate for the Department to challenge each local working group to manage for optimal habitat conditions on at least one breeding complex or population of sage grouse in each of the three to four major regions identified by the Department (Southwest Montana, Glaciated Plains North of the Missouri River, Sedimentary Plains South of the Missouri River and the intermountain region near White Sulphur Springs). We suggest the Department provide this direction, establishing Optimal Habitat Management Areas (OHMAs) regionally, in the State Wide Plan as a first priority for the Regional Working Groups.

Properly Functioning Sage Grouse Habitats: A healthy ecosystem tends not to mislead. Where are the intact properly functioning sage grouse habitats or ecosystems located in Montana? Where are the non-functioning or functioning at risk or fragmented sage grouse habitats located? Please properly and clearly identify these areas on a State wide basis in the Department’s Plan.

Climax Wilderness: Sage grouse are a bird of climax sagebrush-riparian vegetation, climax processes and essentially a wilderness type environment (Patterson 1952; Hockett 2002). Where are these conditions best represented in Montana currently? The Plan claims that livestock grazing can sometimes benefit sage grouse. Where in Montana specifically has domestic livestock herbivory proven beneficial to sage grouse or sage grouse habitat?

Establish Herbaceous Cover Guideline for Brood Rearing Habitat (>8”): Regarding late brood rearing habitat features (Table VII-2) herbaceous cover of perennial grasses and forbs is important and should be added to specify > 8” is suitable habitat, 5-8” is marginal and < 5” is unsuitable (Mussehl 1963; Stauffer and Peterson 1985(a); Stauffer and Peterson 1985(b); Zwickel and others 1968). Does the Department have any information that suggests less than 8” of herbaceous grass and forb cover is desirable late brood rearing cover? We could not find any scientifically credible information that would indicate tall herbaceous cover is not important in sage grouse late brood rearing habitat. An obvious benefit is the additional food such conditions would offer. Also, Patterson (1952) notes that sage grouse prefer to freeze, crouch to avoid, and hide, rather than fly from predators or disturbances which alarm them. This behavioral characteristic indicates that tall, herbaceous late brood rearing habitat would be especially important in the immediate absence of big sagebrush cover.

Drought: Drought is common in Montana (NOAA Paleoclimatology Program Instrumental Data 1895-1995). Drought usually results in significant adverse impacts to sage grouse habitat and populations throughout their range (Connelly and Braun 1997), and is believed to be a significant factor in sage grouse populations declines in Montana (Dusek et al. 2002, Eustace 2002). Drought significantly limits herbaceous cover and forage available for sage grouse (Patterson 1952). Livestock grazing is cumulative to the adverse effects of drought (Patterson 1952, Hockett 2002) and livestock grazing has been identified as a major factor in the range wide decline of sage grouse (Connelly and Braun 1997). Establishing OHMAs or productive climax vegetation in known nesting and brood rearing areas for sage grouse would serve to mitigate the inevitable effects of drought on a regional basis (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Hockett 2002, Prellwitz 2002). We feel this is an excellent idea for sage grouse and other fish and wildlife in Montana. Please analyze and discuss the pros and cons of such an alternative in the Plan.

On Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, even though greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat may be less than optimal due to a low density of plains silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana cana), sage grouse use of the refuge during spring, summer and fall appears stable (Prellwitz 2002). Most of the refuge has been ungrazed by livestock since the mid 1970’s. However, pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana) heavily browse much of the plains silver sagebrush annually. Prellwitz (2002) attributes the survival of chicks to the abundance and proximity or moist areas where lush forbs and insects are available for food.

During the severe drought of 1988, a sage grouse nest was found on the refuge with seven eggs in dense grass cover beneath one of only a few plains silver sagebrush plants in the area. The nest hatched at least four eggs by June 27, 1988 during one of the hottest months on record. Daytime high temperatures were >32C on 22 days with nine of those days exceeding 38C (1988 was a severe drought year across the northern great plains in Montana). Several nests of other ground nesting species dehydrated and were lost during the same time period. Total precipitation in 1988 was 24.4 cm, far below the long-term average of 31.9 cm (Prellwitz 2002).

The sage grouse choosing to breed and nest on Bowdoin NWR appear to be productive with good survival of chicks, despite no big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and less than optimal cover of plains silver sagebrush (Prellwitz 2002). The refuge is located about 32 km (19.8 miles) from prime big sagebrush and plains silver sagebrush habitat. Sage grouse strutting grounds have been documented within 32 km of the refuge. Prellwitz (2002) suggests that sage grouse may be dispersing from those large blocks of sagebrush to better nesting conditions on the ungrazed refuge.

Rest-rotation: The Plan should define rest-rotation grazing (II-8). Rest-rotation grazing is a livestock production system that takes many different forms and yields many different results. Rest-rotation livestock grazing often involves fences, stock tanks and salt licks all of which can lead to “sacrifice areas” (Hockett 2002). These so called “range improvements” often fragment and degrade sage grouse habitat. Does the Department believe rest-rotation livestock grazing and all that goes with it is better than no livestock use on key seasonal sage grouse habitats? If so, where can the Department specifically show that rest-rotation livestock grazing has benefited sage grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat over areas protected from livestock impacts? How does the Department define “over” grazing?

Sage grouse show fidelity to seasonal habitats (Berry and Eng 1985; Fischer et al. 1993; Connelly et al. 2000; Hockett 2002) and seasonal movements tend to be traditional (Connelly et al. 1988). Rest-rotation grazing does not take this fidelity into account. Patterson (1952) documented sage grouse alone “overgrazing” some of their preferred habitat. As well, drought is a significant factor impacting sage grouse habitat and populations. We suggest that certain key seasonal habitats such as nesting and brood rearing areas should be managed for climax vegetation and completely protected from livestock use (Bock et al. 1993, Beck and Mitchell 2000, Hockett 2002). A variety of incentives can be developed that make it voluntarily and economically the right choice to protect key seasonal habitats for sage grouse. These incentives, should be specifically spelled out in the Plan.

We refer the Department to Hockett (2002) for a detailed literature review regarding the effects of livestock grazing on sage grouse habitat and recommendations regarding controls, climax management areas, drought and grazing management prescriptions. Both Patterson (1952) and Hockett (2002) refer to sage grouse as birds of climax vegetation. Patterson (1952) also describes excellent sage grouse habitat as having wilderness characteristics. Riparian areas important to sensitive species are best managed as special use areas or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Hockett and Roscoe 1993). We agree and feel these characteristics of good to excellent sage grouse habitat should be specifically outlined in the Department’s plan.

The ecological costs of livestock grazing have been downplayed in the Plan and not adequately reviewed (Fleischner 1994). Adverse impacts related to domestic livestock grazing in habitat used by sage grouse are well documented, often despite intensively managed grazing systems like rest-rotation (See Literature Citations, Attachment A). As well, the benefits related to cessation of livestock grazing on habitats used by sage grouse are equally well documented (See Literature Citations, Attachment B). It is also clear that late season or “hot season” livestock grazing has proven detrimental to many semi-arid riparian areas (See Literature Citations, Attachment C). Thus, the Plan should recognize protection from livestock grazing and trampling impacts as a best management practice for sage grouse seasonal habitats.

Aren’t climax vegetative conditions, both in sagebrush and riparian habitat types, good for sage grouse? What evidence does the Department have that man induced removal of herbaceous or woody vegetation by livestock within sage grouse habitats is beneficial to sage grouse? Despite less than optimal habitat conditions for sage grouse due to a sparse cover of plains silver sagebrush and no big sagebrush, Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge consistently produces sage grouse broods (Prellwitz 2002). The refuge has been virtually ungrazed by livestock since the mid 1970’s (Prellwitz 2002). Economic incentives should be clearly outlined that will address the potential significant impacts of livestock use in sage grouse habitat.

Consider this simple analogy. A farmer planting a crop of spring wheat protects this field from grazing livestock, because grazing the crop would decrease or even eliminate the potential yield of grain. Thus, he opts not to graze this area. If raising sage grouse is the goal, protection of forage, cover and water in key seasonal habitats makes sense.

Economic Incentives: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is an example of an economic incentive and voluntary win-win management alternative that was developed in response to recognizing dryland farming, especially summer-fallow cropping, as a major soil erosion problem. The 2002 Federal Farm Bill has many different conservation provisions and economic incentives similar to CRP that may prove beneficial to sage grouse habitat. We suggest the Plan offer a voluntary CRP type solution (protection from livestock grazing for a specified period of time) for suitable or occupied private land sage grouse habitat. We feel a similar opportunity may exist to restore former big sagebrush sage grouse winter habitat on private land that has been plowed and planted to agricultural crops, for example in the Sheridan/Alder/Twin Bridges area, Lima/Dell/Dillon area and the Horse Prairie country. Does the Department foresee these individual private landowners undertaking such an activity as replanting big sagebrush to benefit sage grouse on their own without any economic incentive? We believe a voluntary economic incentive based habitat restoration or protection program for private lands is the best option available for motivating change without conflict.

Hunting: Sage Grouse conservation is best considered in the context of restoring productive habitat. However, we support the concept of an adaptive harvest management strategy (II-8) that is conservative, especially initially. In highly fragmented habitat, such as we see in southwest Montana and the area between White Sulphur Springs and Livingston, we feel the sage grouse hunting season limit and length should be modified until sage grouse habitat conditions can be improved to ensure increasing populations.

Patterson (1952) and others have shown that an early hunting season (when broods are still with hens and still primarily utilizing riparian areas) can result in relatively high hen harvest. Similar finding have been discussed for blue grouse (Zwickel 1968). Working with the BLM and Forest Service in southwest Montana we have found it very difficult to capture hens for banding on leks (Roscoe 2002). Hens appear to be in short supply in southwest Montana (Roscoe 2002). We suggest the season opener be delayed until the first weekend in October as soon as possible, to coincide with the traditional opening day for waterfowl. We also suggest the season limit be changed to 2 if not 1 bird per day until habitat and populations have recovered. Please discuss the pros and cons of such a proposal in the Plan.

Predator Control: Does the Department support or condone sage grouse conservation measures that focus on temporary increases of sage grouse in marginal or degraded habitat, such as predator control? If so, how does the Department justify such actions? We agree with Schroeder and Baydack (2001) that the best predator management option is through indirect protection and management of habitat. Sage grouse evolved in a world teaming with natural predators. Excessive predation should be viewed as a symptom of larger habitat fragmentation or degradation issues and local working groups should not be mislead. Clearly state the Department’s position regarding predator management options and what if any funds will be expending in direct control activities. We believe predators should be managed just like big game species with regulated public hunting where appropriate. We oppose the Department spending in excess of $100,000 annually (gifted to the Department of Livestock) (II-3) on predator control. We also oppose an aerial gunning of predators, except under the most extreme cases of human health concern. There are many biological predator avoidance options that private landowners have used successfully that can be employed where necessary to protect private property. Specific incentives and alternative methods to reduce the impact of predators on livestock should be outlined in the Plan (II-3), if the Department feels this is an issue that warrants discussion in a sage grouse conservation plan.

Noxious Weeds: Weeds typically are a symptom of other disturbances such as roads, trails, livestock use, farming and other ground disturbing activities. The best weed control is preventive care or avoidance in the first place. That sage grouse are birds of climax vegetation and lands with wilderness characteristics (roadless) (Patterson 1952) should be emphasized by the Department, even though ideal conditions may not be obtainable. Human disturbances should be minimized in sage grouse habitat to avoid noxious and other weed management problems. Livestock grazing, especially in concentrated areas such as salt licks and watering sites, that create “sacrifice areas” and niches for weed establishment should be avoided in important sage grouse habitats (Hockett 2002). This is not adequately addressed in the Plan

Roads: We believe there are too many roads in sage grouse habitat. Roads and/or off road travel (vehicles) have significantly degraded and fragmented sage grouse habitat and contributed to the sage grouse’s demise (Patterson 1952). Roads, especially on BLM lands, continue to be a significant and expanding problem in sage grouse habitat. Therefore road closures, rehabilitation and seasonal management will be required to address the problem. This is not adequately addressed in the Plan.

As hunters, we do not agree that roads on our Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) should be managed to accommodate hunter harvest of sage grouse (II-3). Our WMAs may serve as one of the best opportunities to manage optimally for sage grouse. Nor should the Department wait to respond to proposals for managing motorized travel on public lands, but rather act proactively to identify and reverse road created conflicts in sage grouse habitat. Guidelines should be established and presented in the Plan.

Mining and Oil and Gas Development: Rather than engaging in mining and oil and gas development (introductory letter to draft Plan), the Department should spell out the hazards associated with this type of development in sage grouse habitat and avoid such disturbances or specify mitigation measures where disturbances can not be avoided. Although subdivision is a fact of life, does the Department condone it in prime sage grouse habitat? We see mining and oil and gas development in the same light as subdivision.

Fire: The Department appears to take its strongest position in regards to fire prevention. Why? Isn’t fire an important natural component of properly functioning sage grouse habitat? What has caused fire to be such a concern in sage grouse habitat? This fact has not been adequately discussed in the management plan. Aren’t problems associated with natural and prescribed fire merely symptoms of other problems, such as ecosystem dysfunction, artificial grazing impacts, noxious weed infestations (cheatgrass), fragmented habitat, perceptions of sagebrush as an agricultural weed, and/or landowner or agency management objectives? What about identifying ideas or programs that can be used to restore properly functioning habitats (sagebrush-riparian ecosystems) that can tolerate, in fact need, natural fire regimes and the processes necessary to maintain them? A healthy ecosystem or properly functioning “climax” sage grouse habitat is not static. Rather, functioning ecosystems both tolerate and depend on natural processes such as native herbivory, drought, flood and fire.

Antelope as an Indicator: The Department made no connection between antelope habitat use and sage grouse. Why? We believe antelope presence on the landscape in many cases provides insight into the historical suitability of the area for sage grouse (Pyrah 1987; Prellwitz 2002). Antelope, require (or at least prefer) residual herbaceous cover for fawning in the spring, forbs and grasses for spring, summer, fall feeding and typically sagebrush for winter habitat. Antelope seem an ideal “indicator” of historic sage grouse habitat potential, especially on sagebrush habitat lost to the plow. Does the Department see any connection between antelope and historic sage grouse potential?

Land Use Changes: Since habitat or land management is the key issue, and most of the impacts that lead to long term sage grouse habitat degradation and population declines have human origins, such as plowing, livestock grazing, prescribed fire, fences and roads, we want to know what the Department recommends in terms of land use changes? Where should these changes occur? What ideas does the Department have to motivate these changes on a timely basis for both public and private lands? We believe both the quantity and quality of sage grouse habitat must improve in order to boost sage grouse populations and provide long term sustainable conservation opportunities including public hunting. Does the Department agree or disagree and why?

Monitoring Data: Long term data indicate a significant negative trend for sage grouse and sagebrush habitats (FWP Sage Grouse Harvest Data; Connelly and Braun 1997). Long term data is less likely to mislead. While short term data may be positive, to claim credit for a temporary population upswing, which could occur because of favorable weather in degraded habitat, is short sighted. What, if any, management actions have been implemented in Montana that can be tied to short-term population swings? Long term monitoring data has not been adequately reviewed in the Plan (from pristine to present).

BLM’s Non-commitment: Finally, BLM’s commitment to the Department’s Plan (II-10&11) is inadequate, and foreshadows an attitude that the Plan is merely a paper document that will most likely be ignored on public lands administered by the BLM. Why has the BLM taken this stance?

Thank you for reviewing our comments and we look forward to reviewing the Department’s Final Sage Grouse Conservation Plan when it is complete.

Sincerely,

Glenn Hockett

President, GWA

Literature Citations

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

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., H.W. Browers, and R.J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(1):116-122.

Fischer, R.A., A.D. Apa, W.L. Wakkinen, K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Nesting-area fidelity of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Condor 95:1038-1041.

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

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

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.

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

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program Instrumental Data 1895-1995. Palmer drought severity index. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC. Http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/onlineprod/drought/main.html

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse of Wyoming. Sage Books. Denver, CO. 341 pp.

Prellwitz, D.M. 2002. Greater sage grouse at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):115-116.

Pyrah, D.B. 1987. American pronghorn antelope in the yellow water triangle, Montana: a study of social distribution, population dynamics, and habitat use. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks in cooperation with USDI, BLM. 121 pp.

Roscoe, J.W. 2002. Sage grouse movements in southwestern Montana. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):94-104.

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.

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.

ATTACHMENT A

Literature Implicating Livestock Grazing as a Major Factor in Sage Grouse Habitat Productivity Degradation and Population Declines

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

BLM. 1980. Mountain foothills grazing management program draft environmental impact statement. USDI, BLM 308 pp.

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.

Dobkin, D.S. 1995. Management and conservation of sage grouse, denominative species for the ecological health of shrubsteppe ecosystems. USDI, BLM, Portland, OR. 26 pp.

Davis, J.N., A.D. Green, and M.E. Farmer. 2002. The status of sagebrush range in Utah: current trends problems and future implications. In: WAFWA Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Symposium. Bicknell UT.

Hamerstrom, F. And F. Hamerstrom. 1961. Status and problems of North American grouse. Wilson Bull. 73(3):284-294.

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

Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3):649-662.

Laycock, W.A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect sagebrush-grass ranges. J. Range Manage. 20:206-213.

Mueggler, W.F. 1950. Effects of spring and fall grazing by sheep on vegetation of the upper snake river plains. J. Range Manage. 3:308-315.

Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse of Wyoming. Sage Books. Denver, CO. 341 pp.

Prellwitz, D.M. 2002. Greater sage grouse at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):115-116.

Robel, R.J. 2002. The plight of prairie grouse. May/June edition of SHOOTING SPORTSMAN.

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

ATTACHMENT B

Literature Supporting the Concept of Climax Management Areas or Habitat Conservation Areas as Best Management Practices (BMPs) for riparian areas, upland areas, aspen communities, and ground nesting and foraging birds

Anderson, J.E., and K.E. Holte. 1981. Vegetation development over 25 years without grazing on sagebrush-dominated rangeland in southeastern Idaho. J. Range. Manage. 34:25-29.

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 and J.L. Gelbard 2000. Livestock grazing and weed invasions in the arid west. Oregon Natural Desert Association. 31 pp.

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.

Benke, R.J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western trouts. USDA. USFS. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta., Fort Collins, CO., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-28. 45p.

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.

BLM. 1980. Mountain foothills grazing management program draft environmental impact statement. USDI, BLM 308 pp.

Brady, W.W., M.R. Stromberg, E.F. Aldon, C.D. Bonham, and S.H.Henry. 1989. Response of semidesert grassland to 16 years of rest from grazing. J. Range Manage. 42(4):284-288.

Clary. W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1990. Differences in vegetation biomass and structure due to cattle grazing in a northern riparian ecosystem. USDA. Forest Service, Int. Res. Sta., Res. Paper INT-427. 10 p.

Clary, W. P., N.L. Shaw, J.G. Dudley, V.A. Saab, J.W. Kinney, and L.C. Smithman. 1996. Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. USDA Forest Serv., Intermountain Research Station, INT-RP-492, 32pp.

DeByle, N.V. and R.P. Winokur. 1985. Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA, USFS, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. GTR RM-119. 283 pp.

Douglas, D.C., J.T. Ratti, R.A. Black, and J.R. Alldredge. 1992. Avian habitat associations in riparian zones of Idaho’s centennial mountains. Wilson Bull. 104(3): 485-500.

Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich county, Utah - a summary of 8 years of study. In: Proceedings of the Forum - Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Denver, CO. pp. 91-92.

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

Flenniken, M., R.R. McEldowney, W.C. Leininger, G.W. Frasier, and M.J. Trlica. 2001. Hydrologic responses of a montane riparian ecosystem following cattle use. J. Range Mange. 54:567-574.

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

Hobbs, R.J. 2001. Synergisms among habitat fragmentation, livestock grazing, and biotic invasions in southwestern Australia. Conserv. Biol. 15(6): 1522 -1528

Johnson, W.M. 1969. Life expectancy of a sagebrush control in central Wyoming. J. Range Manage. 22(3):177-182.

Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications...A review. J. Range. Mange. 37(5):430-438.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M, Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. J. Range. Mange. 36(6):685-691.

Leege, T.A., D.J. Herman, and B.Zamora. 1981. Effects of cattle grazing on mountain meadows in Idaho. J. Range Mange. 34(3):324-328.

Lommasson, T. 1948. Succession in sagebrush. J. Range Manage. 1:19-21

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

Maloney, S.B., A.R. Tiedemann, D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, and D.B. Marx. 1999. Influence of stream characteristics and grazing intensity on stream temperatures in eastern Oregon. USDA. USFS. PNW-GTR-459. 19 p.

Medin, D.E. and W.P. Clary. 1989. Small mammal populations in a grazed and ungrazed riparian habitat in Nevada. USDA, USFS, Intermtn. Res. Sta. Res. Paper, INT-413. 6 pp.

Mueggler, W.F. 1988. Aspen community types of the intermountain region. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-250. USDA, Forest Service, Intmtn. Res. Sta. Ogden, UT. 135 p.

Murphy, D.D. and B.R. Noon. 1992. Integrating scientific methods with habitat conservation planning: reserve design for northern spotted owls. Ecological Applications. 2(1):3-17.

Overton, K.C., G.L. Chandler, and J.A. Pisano. 1994. Northern/Intermountain region’s fish habitat inventory: Grazed, rested and ungrazed reference stream reaches, silver king creek, California. USDA, Forest Service, Int. Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report INT-GTR-311. 27 p.

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

Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western north America: Effects of livestock grazing. USDA. USFS. PNW-GTR-124. 26p.

Platts, W.S. and R.F. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Boulder, CO, Westview Press: 1105-1117.

Prellwitz, D.M. 2002. Greater sage grouse at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Montana. Intermtn. J. Sci. 8(2):115-116.

Rickard, W.H. and C.E Cushing. 1982. Recovery of streamside woody vegetation after exclusion of livestock grazing. J. Range Manage. 35(3):360-361.

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. USDA, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-302, 38 p.

Ross, L.R. and H.E. Hunter. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana: based on soils and climate. USDA, SCS, Bozeman, MT. 64 pp.

Schulz, T.T. and W.C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exclosures. J. Range Manage. 43(4):295-299.

Siegel, N., L.A. Shipley, and R.D. Sayler. 2002. Ecology and conservation of pygmy rabbits in the shrub-steppe of eastern Washington. Soc. Conserv. Biol. Annual Meeting, Britain, July, 2002.

Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: a review of our knowledge. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Boulder, CO. Westwood Press: pp. 1001-1103.

Szaro, R.C. and Charles P. Pase. 1983. Short-term Changes in a Cottonwood-Ash-Willow Association on a Grazed and an Ungrazed Portion of Little Ash Creek in Central Arizona. Journal of Range Management 36(3):382-384.

Tate, K.W., E.R. Atwill, M.R. George, N.K. McDougald, and R.E Larsen. 2000. Cryptosporidium parvum transport from cattle fecal deposits on California rangelands. J. Range Manage. 53:295-299.

Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. J. Range Manage. 39(3):254-258.

USDA. 1997. Final environmental impact statement Beaverhead forest plan riparian amendment. USDA, Forest Service, Dillon MT.

West, N.E., F.D. Provenza, P.S. Johnson, and M.K. Owens. 1984. Vegetation change after 13 years of livestock grazing exclusion on sagebrush semidesert in west central Utah. J. Range Manage. 37(3):262-264.

Wood, A.K., R.J. Mackie, and K.L. Hamlin. 1989. Ecology of sympatric populations of mule deer and white-tailed deer in a prairie environment. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Wildlife Division. Bozeman, MT. 97 pp.

Zacek, J.C., H.E. Hunter, T.A. Brown, and R.L. Ross. Undated. Montana grazing guides. USDA. Soil Conservation Service. 74 pp.

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.

ATTACHMENT C

Literature Supporting Cessation of Grazing by August 1 or the “hot season” and or reduced grazing (less than 55% use) as BMPs

Clary, W.P. 1999. Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. J. Range Manage. 52:218-227.

Fitzgerald, R.D., R.J. Hudson, and A.W. Bailey. 1986. Grazing preferences of cattle in regenerating aspen forest. J. Range Mange. 39(1):13-18.

Galt, D., F. Molinar, J. Navarro, J. Joseph, and J. Holecheck. 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.

Harrison, B.J. and A.P. Thatcher. 1970. Winter sheep grazing and forage preference in southwestern Wyoming. J. Range Manage. 23(2):109-111.

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

Johnston, P.W. G.M. Mckean, and K.S. Daily. 1996. Objective “safe” grazing capacities for southwest Queensland Australia. Aust. Rangel. J. 18:244-258.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M, Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. J. Range. Mange. 36(6):685-691.

Kay, C. E. and D. L. Bartos. 2000. Ungulate herbivory on Utah aspen: assessment of long-term exclosures. J. Range Manage. 53:145-153

Kie, J.G., C.J. Evans, E.R. Loft and J.W. Menke. 1991. Foraging behavior by mule deer: the influence of cattle grazing. J. Wildl. Manage. 55(4):665-674.

Klott, J.H., R.B. Smith, and C.Vullo. 1993. Sage grouse habitat use in the Brown’s bench area of south-central Idaho. USDI BLM Tech. Bull. No. 93-4. 14pp.

Kovalchik, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated plant associations in central Oregon. In Proceedings - Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA, USFS, Intermtn. Res. Sta., Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-289. pp. 111-119.

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.

Sneva, F.A. 1979. The western harvester ants: their density and hill size in relation to herbaceous productivity and big sagebrush cover. J. Range Manage. 32(1):46-47

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.

Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands - the great basin of southeastern Oregon: riparain zones. USDA, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rpt. Pacific NW Forest and Range Exp. Sta. GTR-PNW-80. 18 p.

USDA. 1987. Beaverhead National Forest, Forest Plan. Forest Service, Dillon, MT.

USDA. 1997. Final environmental impact statement Beaverhead forest plan riparian amendment. USDA, Forest Service, Dillon MT.