**DILLON AREA SAGE GROUSE LOCAL WORKING GROUP**

**ACTION PLAN**

**April 29, 2005**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Working Group Charter 1

Co-Chairs 3

Action Plan 2004-2005 4

**Dillon Sage Grouse Local Working Group Charter**

**April 29, 2005**

*Note to readers: The following uses the comparable portions of the
state plan as a starting point. In some cases the language is exactly
the same as the state plan (e.g. "mission") and in other cases it has
been added to or slightly modified.*

**1. Mission**

Provide for the long-term conservation and enhancement of the sagebrush
steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex in a manner that supports sage
grouse, a healthy diversity and abundance of wildlife species, and human
uses, including continued livestock grazing.

**2. Objectives**

-   Maintain *or improve* distribution and integrity of sagebrush steppe
    communities

-   Maintain *or improve* sage grouse populations

**3. Role of Local Working Group**

The role of Local Sage Grouse Working Group is to develop and facilitate
implementation of local conservation efforts and projects for the
benefit of sage-grouse and their habitats.

**4. Membership/Organization**

a.  Membership in the Local Working Group is open to all but should
    include a balance of local stakeholders.

b.  Local Working Group members will be expected to:

    i.  Attend as many scheduled meetings as possible

    ii. Speak up and offer their thoughts in the meetings

    iii. Communicate with others in a respectful manner

    iv. Share information about the work of the Local Working Group with
        other interested individuals and groups as appropriate

c.  The organization is informal, but with designated co-chairs (elected
    at a meeting of the group). At least one co-chair will be from the
    private (e.g. non-government) sector.

**5. Expectations of Local Working Group**

a.  Coordinate issues and solutions with appropriate agencies

b.  

c.  Develop action steps to implement the *state* plan

d.  Identify priority areas

e.  Have at least one project funded and implemented by January 2006

f.  Continue to develop other projects and conservation efforts

g.  Provide *brief a*nnual written updates of progress to the MT FWP
    (and/or statewide sage grouse group)

h.  Conduct public information efforts that will both inform the public
    of the Local Working Group's goals, efforts, and accomplishments and
    build support for those actions.

i.  *Let the public know about the meetings*

j.  *Keep a record of who attended the meetings and any decisions that
    were made*

> **6. Guiding Principles**

a.  Conservation actions implemented for sage grouse will contribute to
    the overall health of sagebrush communities across the landscape

b.  Conservation strategies will integrate local, regional, and national
    needs for conservation planning

c.  Wildlife professionals, land managers, private landowners, and all
    others who have a stake in sagebrush communities will be tolerant,
    understanding, and respectful of other perspectives and focus on
    areas of common interest

d.  The state plan is not intended to exclude any uses or activities or
    infringe on legally defined property rights; rather, it serves to
    provide solutions to problems and address issues that negatively
    affect sage grouse and degrade sagebrush community health

e.  *Projects will include clear objectives, measurable results, cost
    and funding sources, parties responsible for project implementation,
    a timetable for completion, and a monitoring schedule.* *(Designed
    to meet PECE- Policy for Evaluating Conservation Effectiveness
    Criteria)*

> **7. Authority**

# The Local Working Group is an autonomous body. The Sage Grouse Management Plan will serve as the guiding document for the work of the Local Working Group, however, under that umbrella, the Local Working Group is free to develop and prioritize local actions. The Local Working Group has the potential to influence practices on private lands and agency policy, but cannot change agencies' policies nor mandate management strategies on private land. 

> **8. Decision-making**
>
> The Local Working Group will identify group decisions by consensus of
> persons present at a meeting. Where consensus is not reached, the
> meeting notes will clarify differences of opinion.
>
> **9. Time Frame**
>
> It is anticipated that the need to continue to address this on a local
> basis will continue for some time (10 years or more) due to the
> long-term nature of effecting and measuring change in sage grouse
> population and habitat.

**SAGE GROUSE LOCAL WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIR**

**Draft Job Description**

ROLES

-   Provide leadership for the local working group and willingness to
    work to increase awareness about sage grouse related issues in the
    local area

-   Develop agendas for meetings

-   Work with local agency representatives who will send out the
    invitations, meeting notes, and news releases about meetings

-   Identify topics of interest for news releases or special
    presentations

-   Willing to attend statewide or other meetings related to sage grouse
    on an as available basis

-   Chair the meetings

-   Sign letters regarding consensus issues as needed (e.g., letters of
    support for agency projects)

-   Submit the annual summary to FWP

-   Elevate issues that could be larger in geographic scope than the
    local working group area to the appropriate level (state, and/or
    multi-state regional)

REQUIREMENTS FOR CO-CHAIRS

-   At least one co-chair is from the private sector

-   Ability to listen to a variety of view points, present ideas without
    dominating

-   Familiarity with state plan and local working group progress to date

**DILLON AREA LOCAL WORKING GROUP**

**ACTION PLAN for April 2004-April 2005**

*Note to readers: The following is prepared primarily for use by the
local working group, but it is also anticipated that others outside of
the local working group may have interest in this document. So, it is
written to provide some basic information to persons who may not be
familiar with the local geography, surroundings, and issues.*

BACKGROUND

[Introduction]{.underline}

The Dillon area working group is one of 11 working groups identified in
the "Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in
Montana." Dillon is the only working group in the southwestern portion
of Montana; all of the other 10 locations are to the east. The next
closest working group location is White Sulphur Springs.

The Dillon Local Working Group began meeting in December of 2003.
Meetings were open to all and participants included agricultural
interests, sportsmen, power companies, and representatives of state,
federal, and tribal agencies and nongovernmental organizations.
Approximately 20-35 persons attended each meeting. There were eight
meetings between December 2003 and April 2005. Primary focus of the
meetings was to review the issue topics in the state Management Plan,
review programs providing financial assistance to landowners for sage
grouse-related improvements and conservation measures, and begin
on-the-ground projects.

[Geographic Area]{.underline}

There was no pre-determined geographic area for the Dillon area working
group. Participants in the meetings have included persons from
Beaverhead and Madison Counties in Montana.

Landownership and public land management in this portion of Montana
include:

-   Private landownership

-   Land and minerals managed by the Bureau of Land Management

-   Lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service

-   Lands managed by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
    Conservation

-   Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service)

[General Description of Habitat]{.underline}

Southwestern Montana is within the Mountain Foothills Mixed Sagebrush
ecotype. In this part of Montana, sagebush steppe occurs in
high-mountain valleys and on forested mountain slopes at elevations
ranging from 5500 to 8000 feet. Slope varies from nearly level to 45
degrees on some mountainsides. Grass and sagebrush are interspersed with
forested areas. Major drainages include Red Rock, Big Hole, Beaverhead,
and Ruby Rivers, and Blacktail Deer Creek.

The area includes one of the three areas in the nation identified as in
"exceptional" drought, with the rest of the area classified as in
"extreme" or "severe" drought. The area has received less than average
precipitation every year out of the past eight years.

[General Description of Sage Grouse Population]{.underline}

Based on available data and anecdotal information, sage grouse
populations in these counties experienced declines in the latter half of
the 20^th^ century, but more recently appear to have stabilized based on
lek counts and fall harvest wing counts.

Despite harsh winters that can occur in this part of Montana, sage
grouse survive winters well, especially compared to other upland game
birds. Sage grouse use sagebrush for food and shelter during the winter
months. (Refer to the "Management Plan" for more information on seasonal
habitat needs.)

Some sage grouse in southwestern Montana migrate (sometimes up to 50
miles) between separate summer and winter areas. Ongoing research has
documented migratory movement from eastern Idaho to Big Sheep Creek
Basin in southwestern Beaverhead County.

Research on habitat and sage grouse populations is being conducted by
FWP, BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and National Wildlife Federation in the
Dillon Local Working Group Area. This includes work on lek counts,
habitat mapping, and migration patterns.

Figure 1: Strongholds for breeding populations of sage-grouse in western
North America

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.497222222222222in"}

Darker shades represent the greatest densities of males/km^2^.

SOURCE: Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver.
2004. Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush
Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished
Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

[Key Issues for Sage Grouse in this Area]{.underline}

As part of the process for determining whether to list sage grouse under
the Endangered Species Act, a panel of scientific experts ranked threats
to sage grouse across the eastern and western portions of the habitat
range. Highest ranking threats from that panel for the area that
includes the Dillon Local Working Group area were (in priority order):

1.  Invasive Plant Species (likely received this top priority because of
    large cheatgrass infestations in Nevada)

2.  Wildfire

3.  the following appeared as "tied" for 3^rd^ place:

    i.  Infrastructure (includes fences, roads, power lines,
        communication towers, and pipelines, developed for any purpose)

    ii. Agriculture (includes activities primarily associated with
        farming, e.g., turning over the soil, and separate from grazing)

4.  Conifer invasion

5.  Grazing

[Dillon Area Issues]{.underline}

The Dillon Local Working Group confirmed that the five issues identified
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (listed above) are key issues. In
addition, the group also identified the following as priority issues.

Key issues are focused on the objectives of the state plan---sage grouse
populations and sage grouse habitat. It is assumed that primary emphasis
will be given to those populations that are known or suspected to be at
risk, or where future actions could create new risk factors. Areas with
stable populations will be less of a focus (except where future actions
could be a problem).

-   Consider populations at risk:

    -   Are there populations known or suspected to be declining?

-   Identify future actions or situations that could create new risk
    factors for population viability. In this area this includes:

    -   West Nile Virus (known to kill birds that contract the disease,
        first surfaced in Montana in late summer 2003; cool weather
        conditions in 2004 did not lend themselves to production of
        mosquito that carries the disease)

    -   Increased recreation activity

    -   Potential threats from increasing use of rural areas for
        residential development

    -   Other?

-   Actions that reduce or minimize sage brush habitat. In this area
    this includes:

    -   New conversion of sage brush land to cropland

    -   Eliminating sage brush (including burning, plowing, or use of
        herbicides) as part of efforts to promote grass growth, or other

    -   Wildfire

-   Adequate seasonal habitat

    -   Drought and other factors can affect forb and insect production,
        both of which are important food sources for young sage grouse

    -   Water availability (especially during drought)

-   Effects of predation

-   Noxious Weeds

-   Conifer Expansion

ACTION PLAN

April 2004-April 2005

1.  Meetings

> The Local Working Group will meet in the spring, fall, and will also
> conduct an annual field day (either as part of the spring or fall
> meetings or held on some other date). Purpose of the meetings will be
> to:

1.  provide updates on various projects, studies, statewide and
    multi-state regional sage grouse conservation efforts

2.  provide information and training on financial assistance programs
    for sage grouse conservation efforts

3.  identify any new developments (actions or other) resulting in new
    impacts for sage grouse in the local area

4.  identify opportunities for the Local Working Group to provide
    information to the public regarding the Local Working Group's goals,
    efforts, and accomplishments, and build support for those actions

5.  identify new projects or actions of the Local Working Group

6.  elect co-chairs

7.  monitor effectiveness of ongoing projects

> Co-chairs may call other meetings as relevant, including for purposes
> of project planning, implementation, and monitoring.

2.  Logistical Support

> Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and the Bureau of Land
> Management (BLM) will coordinate with co-chairs to provide the
> following logistical support:

1)  Preparation and distribution of meeting announcements and written
    meeting summaries

2)  Management of the Local Working Group mailing list data base

3)  Preparation of news releases

4)  Meeting logistics (e.g., meeting location, refreshments, etc.)

5)  Preparation of draft annual progress report (as draft to be reviewed
    by local working group and then submitted to FWP. Annual progress
    reports are to be submitted by February 15 to FWP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Action Items for 2004-2005

> Between April 2004 and March 31 2005, The Local Working Group will:

1.  Identify and Implement at least one project (NOTE: the group
    identified the projects at past meetings and will discuss these at
    the March 16 meeting)

2.  Provide at least one public information session (e.g., presentation
    at a conservation district meeting, *grazing district*, public
    meeting, other)

3.  Update the action plan for 2005-2006 (including identifying other
    projects for subsequent years and role of local working group)

4.  Provide written information to agencies on local working group
    consensus items of relevance to agency actions (e.g., supporting
    specific agency projects)