**Review of Livestock Grazing Management Literature Addressing Grazing
Management for Sage-Grouse Habitat**

**July 11, 2006**

**Table of Contents**

[Grazing Management and Greater Sage-Grouse
2](#grazing-management-and-greater-sage-grouse)

[Grazing Effects on Sagebrush 21](#grazing-effects-on-sagebrush)

[Grazing Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse Cover and Food Availability
37](#grazing-effects-on-greater-sage-grouse-cover-and-food-availability)

[Leks 37](#leks)

[Nesting 40](#nesting)

[Brood Rearing 48](#brood-rearing)

[Winter 54](#winter)

[Migratory and Non-Migratory Populations
55](#migratory-and-non-migratory-populations)

[Social Science Aspects 59](#social-science-aspects)

[Effects on Local Farmers and Ranchers
59](#effects-on-local-farmers-and-ranchers)

[Effects on Local Communities 59](#effects-on-local-communities)

[Economic Effects 60](#economic-effects)

[References 64](#references)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# Grazing Management and Greater Sage-Grouse

-   Improving sage grouse habitat is best approached by minimally
    reducing sagebrush cover while increasing the availability of
    favored forbs, thus creating a mosaic of sagebrush and openings
    (Greer 1990).

-   No treatment should be considered where sagebrush cover is less than
    20 percent or within 2 miles of breeding, nesting, or brood areas
    (Greer 1990).

-   Along streams, meadows, or secondary drainages, tall dense stands of
    sagebrush may be partially controlled and reseeded with grasses and
    forbs to promote feeding habitat. However, a 200 yard buffer strip
    of sagebrush should generally be reserved along these wetland areas
    (Greer 1990).

-   In areas with old, decadent sagebrush or continuous expanses of
    dense sagebrush, limited treatment may be beneficial. Sagebrush
    should be managed using an irregular treatment pattern of localized
    patches or narrow strips. Total kill or removal of sagebrush should
    be avoided. Treatment of localized patches or narrow strips over a
    period of several years promotes uneven aged stands of sagebrush,
    thus increasing habitat diversity. These irregular mosaic treatment
    patterns provide more edge-effect (and thus more benefits to sage
    grouse) and are much more natural looking and aesthetically pleasing
    than stripped or rectangular treatment blocks. The widths of treated
    areas should be no wider than 30 yards, and untreated areas should
    remain at least as wide as treated areas. Treated patches may be
    used as feeding areas following forb recovery while untreated
    patches may be used for shelter (Greer 1990).

-   Herbicides such as 2, 4-D should be sprayed as early in spring as
    possible or prior to the emergence of forbs. Spray rates of 1 to 1.5
    pounds of active ingredient per 3 gallons of water per acre are
    suggested (Greer 1990).

-   Chaining is preferred over spraying for sagebrush control since
    forbs are not killed and all sagebrush is not uprooted. Chaining
    patterns should be in random strips, while block chaining of large
    areas should be avoided (Greer 1990).

-   When sagebrush cover is too low for chaining or burning, plowing
    with a crawler tractor may be used to reduce sagebrush. After
    plowing, forb reseeding is necessary due to high vegetative
    mortality (Greer 1990).

-   Burning small patches during late fall or early spring in brood
    rearing areas will create a mosaic of sagebrush and openings (Greer
    1990).

-   Burning in wintering or nesting habitat is undesirable (Greer 1990).

-   Stream meadows and the adjacent sagebrush buffer zone can be fenced,
    with 50 yard wide fenced corridors inserted to provide water access
    for cattle (Greer 1990).

-   Meadow grazing should be delayed until mid-August to promote sage
    grouse chick survival and growth (Greer 1990).

-   During livestock drives, nesting areas within 2 miles of breeding
    grounds should be avoided from mid-April through mid-June (Greer
    1990).

-   High intensity grazing or trampling should be avoided in nesting and
    brood rearing areas (Greer 1990).

-   Springs and reservoirs can be fenced in brood rearing areas with
    water piped to stock tanks or troughs (Greer 1990).

-   At livestock water troughs, bird ramps or hardware cloth should be
    installed (Greer 1990).

-   Try to eliminate shrub control in areas that contain between 25-33%
    total shrub cover within 5 km of occupied leks to maintain sage
    grouse habitat. When it is necessary to set back plant succession
    and increase herbaceous vegetation production, treatments should
    occur in patterns within the landscape that maintain a diverse
    mosaic of shrub seral stages (Heath et al. 1998).

-   We recommend maintaining residual grass heights \> 10 cm to provide
    nesting sage grouse with suitable concealment and screening cover
    (Heath et al. 1998).

-   Minimize livestock and human activity adjacent to leks during the
    breeding season, and continue to monitor these activities (Hanf et
    al. 1994).

-   Improve the quality of nesting habitat. This includes managing for
    appropriate habitat types and structural composition within nesting
    habitat, especially with respect to grass height (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Manage mountain big sagebrush areas and low sagebrush areas for
    increased forb production and good brood habitat (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Manage sage grouse habitats for increased forb production (Hanf et
    al. 1994).

-   Implement grazing management practices that provide periodic rest or
    deferment during critical growth stages to allow sufficient regrowth
    to achieve and maintain healthy, properly functioning conditions,
    including good plant vigor and adequate vegetative cover appropriate
    to site potential (BLM 1997).

-   Use grazing management practices developed in recovery plans,
    conservation agreements, and Endangered Species Act, Section 7
    consultations to maintain or improve habitat for federally listed
    threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals (BLM 1997).

-   Apply grazing management practices and/or facilities that maintain
    or promote the physical and biological conditions necessary to
    sustain native plant populations and wildlife habitats in native
    plant communities (BLM 1997).

-   Design management fences to minimize adverse impacts, such as
    habitat fragmentation, to maintain habitat integrity and
    connectivity for native plants and animals (BLM 1997).

-   Define wildlife requirements by specific areas and reserve
    sufficient forage to adequately provide for their habitat
    requirements (BLM 1975).

-   Continue and intensify efforts made to evaluate and provide for the
    needs of wildlife...during the planning of range improvements (BLM
    1975).

-   Existing projects should be updated to include other resource
    enhancing measures, e.g. bird and small mammal watering facilities
    and escape ramps (BLM 1975).

-   ...manage grazing at the proper level to achieve the benefits
    without adverse impacts (Willis et al. 1993).

-   ...projects that actively pursue improvements in degraded habitats
    such as monotypic stands of grass or Wyoming big sagebrush would be
    beneficial (Willis et al. 1993).

-   ...state and federal natural resource agencies and private
    landowners must coordinate efforts over at least an entire seasonal
    range to successfully implement these guidelines (Connelly et al.
    2000).

-   Manage breeding habitats to support 15-25% canopy cover of
    sagebrush, perennial herbaceous cover averaging ≥ 18 cm in height
    with ≥ 15% canopy cover for grasses and ≥ 10% for forbs and a
    diversity of forbs (Barnett and Crawford 1994, Drut et al. 1994, Apa
    1998)[^1] during spring (Connelly et al. 2000).

-   For nonmigratory grouse occupying habitats that are distributed
    uniformly...protect (i.e. do not manipulate) sagebrush and
    herbaceous understory within 3.2 km of all occupied leks (Connelly
    et al. 2000).

-   For nonmigratory grouse occupying habitats that are not distributed
    uniformly...protect suitable habitats for ≤ 5 km from all occupied
    leks (Connelly et al. 2000).

-   For migratory populations, identify and protect breeding habitats
    within 18 km of leks... (Connelly et al. 2000).

-   In areas of large-scale habitat loss (≥ 40% of original breeding
    habitat), protect all remaining habitats from additional loss or
    degradation (Connelly et al. 2000).

-   During drought periods (≥ 2 consecutive years), reduce stocking
    rates or change management practices for livestock...if cover
    requirements during the nesting and brooding periods are not met.
    Grazing pressure from domestic livestock and wild ungulates should
    be managed in a manner that at all times addresses the possibility
    of drought (Connelly et al. 2000).

-   Restore degraded rangelands to a condition that again provides
    suitable breeding habitat for sage grouse by including sagebrush,
    native forbs (especially legumes), and native grasses in reseeding
    efforts (Apa 1998)[^2]. If native forbs and grasses are unavailable,
    use species that are functional equivalents and provide habitat
    characteristics similar to those of native species (Connelly et al.
    2000).

-   The key to improving dryland range for sage grouse benefit is to
    seed forbs on depleted areas and/or control livestock use on mesic
    areas in June and July to prevent forb loss and trampling prior to
    and during brood use (Autenrieth 1981).

-   One technique for protecting meadow forbs from livestock trampling
    and grazing is to fence the stream meadow and leave access gaps for
    water (Autenrieth 1981).

-   Known nesting areas (3.2 km radius of leks) should be avoided from
    mid-April to early June to reduce abandonment (Autenrieth 1981).

-   Management of nesting habitat should concentrate on big sagebrush
    stands with an understory of native perennial grasses, whereas
    management of brood and broodless hen habitat should concentrate on
    maintenance of cover type diversity and availability of forbs
    (Crawford et al. 1992).

-   Livestock grazing is the principal land management practice and
    proximate factor that affects grass cover and height (Rickard et al
    1975)[^3] (Crawford et al. 1992).

-   Maintain or develop stands consisting of 8-12% cover of Wyoming big
    sagebrush and 15-20% cover of mountain and basin big sagebrush
    (Winward 1991)[^4] to provide nesting habitat with medium height
    (40-80 cm) sagebrush and tall (\>18 cm) residual grass cover
    (Crawford et al. 1992).

-   Maintain or develop a mosaic of low and big sagebrush habitats or
    big sagebrush habitats in an array of seral stages to provide 12-14%
    forb cover for hens with broods and broodless hens throughout the
    breeding season (Crawford et al. 1992).

-   Protect riparian habitats (lakebeds and meadows) from excessive
    grazing and rehabilitate riparian habitats in poor condition. These
    habitats are critical brood-rearing and summer use areas in regions
    with low annual rainfall and during drought years (Crawford et al.
    1992).

-   Develop programs for grazing by domestic livestock on Oregon
    rangelands to achieve a more favorable ecological balance in the
    shrub canopy and herbaceous understory (Crawford et al. 1992).

-   Livestock allocations should only be increased if it can be
    demonstrated that there are no detrimental effects on sage grouse
    habitat quality (BLM et al. 2001).

-   Where livestock grazing results in a level of forage use
    (utilization levels) determined to have detrimental effects to
    habitat quality, changes in grazing management that will improve or
    restore habitat quality will be made as soon as practical but no
    later than the start of the next grazing year pursuant to 43 CFR
    4180.2 (c). Examples of changes in management that should be
    considered include: temporary livestock exclusion (rest); permanent
    livestock exclusion; change in the season, duration, or intensity of
    use; fencing; and changes in salting and/or watering locations (BLM
    et al. 2001).

-   Provide secure sage grouse breeding ground habitat to reduce
    physical disturbance to sage grouse by managing locations of salt or
    mineral supplements within 0.4 km (1/4 mi) of lek locations (BLM et
    al. 2001).

-   Timing and location of livestock turnout and trailing should not
    contribute to livestock concentrations on leks during the sage
    grouse breeding season (BLM et al. 2001).

-   Grazing use levels within known/occupied habitat will be determined
    specifically for those habitats, not averaged with use levels for
    the remainder of the pasture or grazing units (BLM et al. 2001).

-   Avoid supplemental winter feeding of livestock in known/occupied
    habitat (BLM et al. 2001).

-   In most cases, small grazing units, comprised of single habitat
    types or a series of types of generally similar wildlife use or
    potential, would be more compatible with integrated management.
    Also, to the extent possible, those units should be designed to
    encompass complete population-habitat units for major wildlife
    species involved (Eng and Mackie 1982).

-   Where large management units, encompassing more than one major
    habitat are unavoidable, attempts should be made to include single
    habitat/ecological types within individual pastures. This would
    facilitate the implementation of modest adjustments such as
    livestock turn-in dates, duration of grazing, the placement of
    stockdams or other water sources, the location of fences, etc., all
    of which could be critical in meeting basic needs of the wildlife
    species involved (Eng and Mackie 1982).

-   ...the application of single management plans (e.g. rest rotation
    grazing) or practices (e.g. water development) must be approached
    with due consideration of opportunities and constraints associated
    with each major habitat and wildlife species involved (Eng and
    Mackie 1982).

-   In developing grazing plans for specific areas used by sage grouse,
    it is extremely important to identify potential conflicts between
    sage grouse and livestock, and spatial and temporal heterogeneity of
    the management unit (Miller and Eddleman 2000).

-   ...data supports the contention of Berry and Eng[^5] (1985) that the
    management of migratory sage grouse populations must be done on
    large ecologically defined units. Habitat management for these birds
    must also be done on a year-round scale (Wakkinen 1990).

-   The level of utilization occurring on a site-including riparian
    areas-is the most important consideration (Clary and Webster 1989).

-   ...managers should place more emphasis on proper stocking intensity
    and less on grazing system implementation (Van Poollen and Lacey
    1979[^6]) (Clary and Webster 1989).

-   Late-season grazing following earlier deferment has been recommended
    for at least 75 years because seeds trampled by livestock are
    thought to enhance production of new seedlings and thus improve the
    range. However, the literature does not support this. In addition,
    little is known about the effect of grazing on plants after
    flowering (Dwyer et al. 1984).

-   Perhaps the most important reason to use a specialized grazing
    system is to combat the effects of selective grazing and to force
    uniform grazing distribution. Often ranges are overgrazed in places
    but underutilized overall because animals are permitted to be overly
    selective and to concentrate grazing in too small an area. A grazing
    system should alter these patterns without leading to extended
    high-intensity defoliation (Dwyer et al. 1984).

-   ...a specialized system should allow for adequate plant
    reproduction. It should also spread grazing impacts more evenly over
    the plant population and thus reduce the competitive advantage of
    less palatable plants. A rigid system of grazing restricted by dates
    rather than plant requirements will not work in a drought. And a
    grazing system that will not work in a drought will not work (Dwyer
    et al. 1984).

-   A grazing system should accomplish two important goals to be
    successful: (1) it should evenly distribute livestock grazing over
    the entire grazing unit, and (2) it should reduce the high degree of
    selectivity animals exercise when permitted to do so. Though not
    well researched, systems of short-duration grazing have offered
    empirical evidence for achieving a high degree of success for both
    (Dwyer et al. 1984).

-   Management goals should not stress absolute numbers in a wildlife
    population. It is more important to manage for diversity in species
    and species function (Dwyer et al. 1984).

-   Be aware of critical periods in the livestock production cycle and
    take these into account when using specialized grazing systems or
    other management measures that stress livestock. For example,
    nutrient demands of the cow increase sharply immediately after
    calving. A rotational grazing system could be expected to impose
    nutritional stress on cows, especially first-calf heifers, during
    spring green-up shortly after calving (Malechek 1984).

-   Be aware of animal behavior as it affects animal management. For
    example, effective implementation of a specialized grazing system
    can be thwarted when old cows who are accustomed to long-standing
    patterns of grazing, watering, and travel suddenly have new
    management restrictions imposed upon them. If possible, it is wise
    to begin new grazing management practices with young animals
    (Malechek 1984).

-   Coordinate with livestock permittees to locate the placement of salt
    or mineral supplements appropriate distances from leks to avoid
    livestock concentrations and reduce the potential for harassment and
    displacement of birds during the breeding season (BLM 2000).

-   Designate livestock trailing routes, turnout locations, sheep
    bedding grounds/camp/sheep sheering facilities, and corral locations
    to ensure attainment of objectives for known sage grouse habitat.
    Evaluate existing livestock trailing routes and sheep bedding ground
    locations and make appropriate adjustments where such uses are
    precluding attainment of habitat objectives (BLM 2000).

-   Apply livestock grazing management to accomplish the four
    fundamentals of rangeland health, as described in the standards and
    guidelines: (1) watersheds are properly functioning, (2) ecological
    processes are in order, (3) water quality complies with state
    standards, and (4) habitats of protected species are in order, and
    to attain desired future condition objectives where applicable (BLM
    2000).

-   Where grazing use by wildlife (e.g. elk, deer, antelope, etc.) is
    determined to be adversely affecting sage grouse populations or
    habitat, suggest appropriate adjustments... (BLM 2000).

-   If it is determined through assessment/monitoring/observation that
    sage grouse habitat quality conditions (as described in the WAFWA
    guidelines and in relation to the specific site potential) are not
    being met, and livestock is determined to be a significant
    contributing factor, institute appropriate changes in grazing
    management prior to the next grazing year to ensure significant
    progress toward attainment of appropriate habitat objectives and the
    standards for rangeland health (BLM 2000).

-   During drought periods (i.e., a specified period of time in which
    the precipitation received is less than 75 percent of average) of
    two or more years, reduce stocking rates or change management
    practices for livestock if nesting cover and brood-rearing habitat
    requirements are not being met (BLM 2000).

-   Grazing in non-riparian sage grouse habitats should not exceed
    moderate use (see Appendix II, excerpted from Nevada Rangeland
    Monitoring Handbook, 1984, for a description of utilization levels)
    at the end of the growing season and throughout the dormant period.
    This applies to regularly authorized use, temporary non-renewable
    use (TNR), and grazing use during periods of drought and may be
    adjusted to lower levels as necessary to optimize nesting, brood
    rearing and winter habitat characteristics relative to site
    potential (BLM 2000).

-   Coordinate livestock use on wetland-riparian and streambank-riparian
    habitat to ensure known late season brood-rearing habitats are in
    optimal condition (BLM 2000).

-   Determine grazing use levels on that portion of the pasture which is
    known habitat. Grazing use levels should not be determined by
    \"average use\" throughout the entire pasture or grazing unit (BLM
    2000).

-   Avoid supplemental winter feeding of livestock in known winter sage
    grouse habitat (BLM 2000).

-   Where wild horse and burro populations are adversely affecting the
    sage grouse population or habitat, evaluate herd populations and
    adjust numbers as necessary (BLM 2000).

-   Locate wild horse and burro capture facilities at appropriate
    distances from known sage grouse habitat to avoid adverse impacts to
    the habitat (BLM 2000).

-   Call and Maser (1985)[^7] suggest that managers need to protect at
    least 50% of annual production to provide adequate litter cover and
    that Sage-Grouse winter ranges should be even more lightly grazed
    (Adams et al. No date).

-   Encourage practices that increase height and cover of sagebrush and
    of native grasses at nesting sites (Adams et al. No date).

-   Maintain light grazing intensities to produce mosaics in vegetation
    and an increase in herbage production that are favorable for
    Sage-Grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat (Adams et al. No
    date).

-   Patchy grazing will increase the availability of forbs and stimulate
    their growth in upland meadows (Adams et al. No date).

-   Practice grazing deferral to allow for undisturbed nesting (Adams et
    al. No date).

-   Grazing deferral may also prevent competition for forage, especially
    lush forbs required by young Sage-Grouse (Adams et al. No date).

-   Practices that increase the amount of rest in a pasture may be a
    useful to restore fair and poor condition range which will provide
    more cover for Sage-Grouse (Adams et al. No date).

-   Riparian area management practices are required to maintain only
    light to moderate grazing pressure on mesic meadows and riparian
    areas (Adams et al. No date).

-   Sagebrush protection is needed within at least a 1.5 mile radius of
    leks (Marshall et al. 1996).

-   Improved coordination is needed between livestock interests and
    species needs in relation to land management practices such as
    sagebrush control programs, fire management, meadow and water
    improvements, and fencing programs (Marshall et al. 1996).

-   Playas, including their water supply, need to be preserved (Marshall
    et al. 1996).

-   Every effort should be made to delay sheep bands from utilizing
    known sage grouse nesting areas until about the first week in June,
    or until young sage grouse have hatched in the particular locality.
    Domestic sheep are known to have caused considerable nest
    abandonment around bedgrounds, in trailing areas, and during normal
    feeding (Patterson 1952[^8]) (BLM 1979).

-   Livestock should not be permitted to heavily use known important
    sage grouse wintering areas. Heavy utilization may leave inadequate
    forage for sage grouse, but will depend on size of the wintering
    area and amount of sagebrush, depth of snow, and severity of the
    winter (BLM 1979).

-   Although fencing may not be the best management practice, especially
    in areas of limited water availability where mesic sites are also
    important to antelope and/or deer; until innovative range management
    strategies provide for riparian areas, it may be the only solution
    to prevent the loss of these key habitats (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   One technique for protecting meadow forbs from livestock trampling
    and grazing is to fence the stream meadow and leave fence gaps to
    provide livestock access to water (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   It may be that grazing should be allowed only once every 3 or more
    years on meadows in poor condition or in the 15-25 cm (6-10 in)
    precipitation zone. In 30 cm (12 in) zones, annual August grazing
    could probably be allowed, once adequate vegetative cover has become
    reestablished and the water table is adequate (Autenrieth et al.
    1982).

-   A cooperative agreement should be written between the state wildlife
    agency and the land management agency to coordinate the
    responsibility of opening and closing meadow gates. Enforcement
    should also be coordinated (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   In brood rearing areas springs and attendant meadow vegetation
    should be fenced and water piped to an outside stock tank with an
    atmospheric valve system. When the tank is full, water should be
    allowed to overflow into the fenced meadow (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Reservoirs should be fenced and the water piped to a trough. Dead
    storage must be provided to ensure availability of late summer water
    for sage grouse (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Catch ponds may be built in association with a snow drift fence to
    provide a seep meadow for brood use during early summer. Snow drift
    fences in nesting areas may create a temporary meadow type
    beneficial to young broods (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Guzzlers can be installed on sage grouse summer range where water is
    a limiting factor. An open trough guzzler at ground level is the
    most desirable (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   All livestock water troughs should have bird ramps installed
    (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   It is more desirable for sage grouse and other birds and small
    mammals to develop a tank overflow system which provides water at
    ground level. The BLM policy manual states water systems used by
    livestock will be left on for wildlife use even when livestock have
    been moved (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Managers should evaluate \[situations where winter and spring sheep
    range and sage grouse winter and brood use areas overlap\] and
    recommend alternate grazing sites where competition with and overuse
    by domestic livestock exists (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Known nesting areas (3.2 km (2 mi) radius from leks) should be
    undisturbed from mid-April to mid-June (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Since most grasses and forbs are more palatable to livestock than
    are shrubs, especially during the growing season, the tendency is
    for sagebrush and other shrubs to flourish at the expense of
    herbaceous species. However, properly regulated grazing can be
    compatible with a desirable mixture of vegetation and with other
    uses and values of the ranges (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

-   Heavy utilization may not be particularly injurious during certain
    seasons when the plant is dormant or when it has adequate
    opportunity for regrowth (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

-   Uniform livestock distribution and accompanying forage utilization
    can be encouraged by such simple measures as proper placement of
    salt, adequate watering facilities, riding or herding, and
    fencing-without the use of special grazing systems (Blaisdell et al.
    1982).

-   ...controlling \[tall, dense sagebrush with little understory\] and
    allowing native forbs and grasses to recover their former
    productivity would greatly improve the habitat of sage grouse
    (Klebenow 1969) (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

-   For sage-grouse, which may use ranges encompassing 2500 km^2^
    (Schroeder et al. 1999[^9]), creating suitable habitats will require
    that we focus efforts to restore entire landscapes rather than
    pursue individual unconnected efforts (Dobkin 1995, Wisdom, Rowland,
    et al. 2002, Wisdom, Wales, et al. 2002[^10]). However, the
    ecological foundation for development of overarching management
    prescriptions based on sage-grouse (Dobkin 1995, Rich and Altman
    2002[^11]) or other single-taxon approaches (such as birds) needs to
    be tested for its capability to accommodate all species associated
    with sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003).

-   The principle management technique used on the DLL is time
    controlled grazing. This involves the use of a few large herds of
    cattle and sheep that intermittently graze the pastures. Grazing
    occurs on the pastures for short periods of time when forage is
    rapidly growing (May-July), and longer periods of time when forage
    is dormant or slow growing. The season of grazing varies between
    years, and pastures receive periodic rest for a full growing season.
    This system recognizes that plant health is the key to having well
    functioning watersheds. The time-controlled grazing practices used
    at \[Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch\] since 1979 have increased
    herbaceous cover on rangelands and slowed the rate of sagebrush
    increase (Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch No date).

-   Rick Danvir of \[Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch\] said, "The
    grazing and other management techniques being used are focused on
    providing both forage for an economically viable ranching operation
    and improving habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The key
    items in our management system is the rest-rotation grazing system
    and the emphasis we place on increasing forbs, including
    inter-seeding forbs into crested-wheatgrass dominated rangeland."
    (Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch No date)

-   ...it is paramount that only light grazing be permitted on important
    sage grouse wintering areas (Call and Maser 1985).

-   Heavy grazing (in excess of 50 percent of current year's growth) may
    leave inadequate forage for grouse and will gradually cause a
    decline of sagebrush in the plant species composition (Call and
    Maser 1985).

-   Light grazing (less than 30 percent of current year's growth) may
    benefit grouse in deep snow conditions by uncovering sagebrush
    plants, making them more available for use by grouse (Call and Maser
    1985).

-   Grazing by all ungulates will need to be monitored to ensure that
    sagebrush on the important wintering areas is not permitted to
    deteriorate (Call and Maser 1985).

-   ...manage the sagebrush for an average height of 30 to 80 cm (12 to
    31 in) and an average composition of 20 to 30 percent (Call and
    Maser 1985).

-   Good grouse habitat should have from 5,000 to 10,000 sagebrush
    plants per 0.4 ha (1 acre) (Call and Maser 1985).

-   Livestock grazing of sagebrush ranges during years of unusually low
    precipitation and poor plant growth will cause an earlier than
    normal removal of grasses and forbs. This can have a serious impact
    on grouse dependent on forbs in that locality (Call and Maser 1985).

-   In important sage grouse nesting and summering areas, livestock
    grazing should be monitored to protect at least 50 percent of the
    annual herbaceous vegetation (by weight) prior to mid-September.
    After mid-September, grouse commence feeding on sagebrush and
    increased livestock grazing on herbaceous vegetation will not be
    detrimental (Call and Maser 1985).

-   Keys to management are maintaining expansive stands of sagebrush
    (*Artemisia* spp.), especially varieties of big sagebrush (*A.
    tridentata*), with abundant forbs in the understory, particularly
    during spring; undisturbed and relatively open sites for leks; and
    healthy perennial grass and forb stands intermixed with sagebrush
    for brood rearing. Within suitable habitats, areas should have 15 to
    25% canopy cover of sagebrush 30 to 80 cm tall for nesting, and 10
    to 25% canopy cover from 40 to 80 cm tall for brood rearing
    (Connelly et al. 2000[^12]). In winter habitats, shrubs should be
    exposed 25 to 35 cm above snow level and have 10 to 30% canopy cover
    exposed above snow. In nesting and brood-rearing habitats,
    understory habitats with adequate cover of grasses (\>15%) and forbs
    (\>10%) at least 18 cm tall are needed (Connelly et al. 2000b)
    (Rowland 2004).

-   Manage livestock grazing through stocking rates and season of use on
    all seasonal ranges of sage-grouse to avoid habitat degradation
    (Paige and Ritter 1999, Beck and Mitchell 2000, Wisdom et al.
    2000[^13]), especially on recently disturbed sites, such as those
    sprayed or burned (Braun et al. 1977[^14]). In nesting and
    brood-rearing habitats, ensure that grazing does not reduce
    herbaceous understory cover below levels that serve as a deterrent
    to potential predators of eggs and chicks (Connelly et al. 2000b,
    Hockett 2002[^15]). Healthy native understories also support insects
    and forbs that are important in diets of pre-laying hens and chicks
    (Johnson and Boyce 1990, Barnett and Crawford 1994, Drut et al.
    1994[^16]). Riparian areas and wet meadows used for brood rearing
    are especially sensitive to grazing by livestock; in these habitats,
    removal of livestock before the nesting season may be prudent (Beck
    and Mitchell 2000, Hockett 2002) (Rowland 2004).

-   Avoid development of livestock-watering structures in sage-grouse
    habitat (Connelly et al. 2000b). If water developments are
    constructed for sage-grouse or other wildlife, they should be placed
    to ensure that water is available during movement of sage-grouse
    from spring to summer ranges (Wakkinen 1990[^17]). Connelly et al.
    (2000b) recommended that pipelines from springs be built so that
    free water is available to maintain the spring and associated wet
    meadows (Rowland 2004).

-   Define, identify, conserve and enhance critical lek, nesting, brood
    rearing and winter habitat used by sage grouse. Characteristics of
    habitat types preferred by sage grouse at various times of the year,
    and the interrelationships between these habitat types, are not
    clearly defined. Public (landowners, land managers and other land
    users) involvement and participation in reporting sightings of sage
    grouse leks, nests, broods and winter locations should be
    encouraged. Intensive searches of sage grouse range are required to
    assess critical habitat parameters throughout the year and the
    relationships between these habitat types. Abandoned habitat should
    be assessed for seasonal deficiencies which may limit use by sage
    grouse. Critical habitat must be protected and secured. Land-use
    practices and other factors detrimental to maintenance of quality
    sage grouse habitat need to be identified. Working co-operatively
    with land managers and other land users, initiatives need to be
    developed to enhance and maintain an abundance of high quality
    habitat on private and public lands throughout the range of sage
    grouse.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establish public reporting system for sage grouse leks, nesting,
    brood and winter locations.

    -   Conduct searches/surveys for active leks, nests, brood rearing
        and winter use areas throughout sage grouse range.

    -   Document habitat characteristics of lek, nesting, brood-rearing
        and winter-use areas and the interrelationships between habitat
        types.

    -   Investigate habitat parameters (lek, nesting, brood rearing and
        winter use) in areas of abandoned leks.

    -   Investigate the use of remote-sensing data systems to identify
        potential lek, nesting, brood-rearing and winter habitat.

    -   Map critical lek, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitat
        areas.

    -   Identify critical lek, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitat
        which must be protected, secured or enhanced.

    -   Identify land-use practices which are detrimental to provision
        of quality lek, nesting, brood rearing and winter habitat.

    -   Develop cooperative initiatives to protect lek sites and lek,
        nesting, brood rearing and winter habitat on public lands.

    -   Develop cooperative initiatives to protect lek sites and lek,
        nesting, brood rearing and winter habitat on private lands.

    -   Develop cooperative initiatives to enhance and improve the
        quantity and quality of lek, nesting, brood rearing and winter
        habitat (vanKooten et al. 2004).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Monitor population status. Monitoring of sage grouse populations
        has been limited to discontinuous and inconsistent lek surveys
        during the spring breeding period. Comprehensive surveys to
        monitor sage grouse populations at various stages of the life
        cycle are needed to provide a better understanding of the life
        requisites for species maintenance.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Conduct standardized annual surveys to monitor spring breeding
        populations. An annual survey which effectively monitors the
        spring breeding population is the minimum requirement for
        determining population status and trends. Annual spring lek
        surveys, which encompass four replicate surveys of each lek,
        should be operational commitments. A means to correlate lek
        survey data to the total population size should be refined.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Conduct surveys of all known active leks to document number of
        males present.

    -   Survey known inactive leks to determine if sites are being
        utilized.

    -   Search vicinity of recently inactive lek sites to determine if
        alternate lek sites have been selected.

    -   Develop a means to correlate spring lek survey data to size of
        the total sage grouse population (vanKooten et al. 2004).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Develop a survey system to monitor winter population status.
        Surveys of leks provide one measure of population status but
        there is no established relationship between number of males in
        the spring and the size of the post-fledged winter population.
        Winter surveys have not traditionally been conducted for sage
        grouse and little is known about the status of populations in
        winter. Survey techniques for monitoring winter population size
        should be developed.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Develop a standardized system for landowners, land managers and
        other land users to cooperatively report presence of sage grouse
        on their lands during winter.

    -   ...conduct aerial surveys of potential winter habitat for
        presence of sage grouse (vanKooten et al. 2004).

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Use information and extension to encourage protection and
        enhancement of habitat. Land managers within sage grouse range
        play a pivotal role in maintenance or enhancement of habitat so
        that population recovery is possible. Extension and information
        dissemination intended specifically for the land manager would
        promote cooperative participation by land managers in sage
        grouse recovery.

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Develop and distribute informative brochures and pamphlets
        describing the types of habitat that are critical to sage
        grouse.

    -   Work with landowners and land managers to develop land
        management actions which could be practiced to enhance sage
        grouse habitat.

    -   Meet and discuss sage grouse habitat concerns and issues with
        land-use policy makers.

    -   Solicit support from land management agencies to include
        information on sage grouse in newsletters, etc (vanKooten et al.
        2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Wherever possible, prevent disturbance in sage-grouse nesting and
    brood rearing habitat between 1 March and 15 June,
    including...livestock trail use... (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Where protection and restoration of sage-grouse is a major objective
    for public lands, manage grazing so that the habitat characteristics
    needed for breeding and wintering can be consistently maintained
    (Connelly et al. 2000b) (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   In general, management should be designed to increase herbaceous
    cover, improve the composition and diversity of native vegetation,
    and limit the spread of noxious weeds. This will probably require
    that grazing pressure be light (\<35% usage), seasonally rotated,
    periodically deferred, and maintained at a low enough intensity to
    enable a rapid response to drought conditions or range fires. Where
    grazing capacity survey data are available, Galt et al.[^18] (2000)
    recommend setting stocking rates based on a 25% harvest coefficient.
    However, Crawford et al. (2004) cautions against using utilization
    guidelines; grass species vary in their ability to withstand
    grazing, and with drought conditions. They suggest there is no
    substitute for long-term vegetation monitoring. Whatever method is
    used to set stocking levels, the key consideration is that the
    habitat characteristics required for sage-grouse be maintained.
    Higher utilization rates (e.g., \>40%) in early spring may allow
    regrowth and seed set of native grasses and forbs if livestock are
    removed before the soil dries out, but may not leave adequate
    residual grass for nest cover (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   On degraded sites, grazing could be part of an interim phase of a
    long-term shrubsteppe restoration plan, such as where fall grazing
    by sheep is used to decrease sagebrush density (Bork et al.
    1998[^19]) or to reduce fire hazard on annual grassland. Some sites
    degraded to an annual grassland will not recover sufficiently
    through grazing changes or livestock exclusion to be suitable for
    sage-grouse. Utilization rates on these sites may be irrelevant to
    grouse recovery unless, or until, the site is revegetated with
    native species (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Salt grounds should not be located on sites used annually by grouse.
    New livestock water developments should not located at sites used by
    grouse unless designed to improve habitat and reduce existing damage
    by livestock (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Grazing use levels should be determined by "average use" throughout
    the entire pasture. Grazing levels should be based on predicted use
    during periods of drought (i.e., less than 75% of average moisture
    during a period of \$ 6 months). Grass utilization, including
    livestock, feral horses, game and other influences, should not
    exceed 35% at the end of the growing season and throughout the
    dormant period (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Use periodic deferral of grazing and rotational grazing in all
    rangeland pastures (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   If it is determined through assessment, monitoring, and observation
    that sage-grouse habitat needs are not being met and livestock are a
    significant contributing factor, changes in grazing management
    should be made immediately to correct deficiencies (Stinson et al.
    2004).

-   Remove grazing pressure if the area is degraded and restoration is
    unlikely under an altered grazing strategy, if it is increasing
    encroachment by noxious weeds, or where it is otherwise incompatible
    with use by sage-grouse (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Avoid moderate to heavy livestock grazing, road development, and
    human disturbance in wet meadows (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Work with range managers interested in sage-grouse conservation to
    utilize range management practices that result in increased habitat
    value for sage-grouse. Private rangeland accounts for a significant
    portion of 8 of 14 sage-grouse management units in Washington.
    Assist private range managers by providing information on range
    management practices that benefit sage-grouse as described in
    Connelly et al. (2000b). For mixed ownerships and leases on public
    lands, work collaboratively through Coordinated Resource Management
    (CRM) or other processes to develop management solutions. Support
    range management practices that result in retention of residual
    perennial grass cover and healthy communities of native perennial
    grasses and the associated forb and shrub communities. Residual
    grass should be retained in sufficient quantity to support soil
    moisture retention and improved grass vigor. Dominant perennial
    grasses such as bluebunch wheatgrass can provide for sage-grouse
    nest concealment. Sagebrush canopy cover should be maintained \>15%
    (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Discourage development of additional springs and underground water
    wells for livestock, unless it can be shown that the result will
    benefit sage-grouse (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Discourage removal of sagebrush from known sage-grouse wintering
    areas and areas that provide escape cover in breeding habitat,
    especially within 3 km of leks (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Establish grass banks to provide alternative range during drought.
    Grass banks are areas that are usually ungrazed, but are made
    available for grazing during droughts so that ranches that support
    sage-grouse and other shrub-steppe wildlife can avoid overgrazing
    their rangeland (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Livestock use around water sources and wet meadows in brood-rearing
    areas should be regulated through fencing, grazing, or herding
    management to restrict overuse, thereby protecting vulnerable forbs
    and grasses. However, livestock grazing could be used periodically
    inside meadow exclosures to reduce old vegetation, thereby exposing
    and rejuvenating succulent forbs (Evans 1986[^20]) (Beck and
    Mitchell 2000).

-   ...livestock grazing should be managed to allow optimum growth of
    forbs, grasses, and sagebrush. Management for a variety of sagebrush
    covers should exist with important use areas reflecting the general
    preference of sage grouse for sagebrush cover of 5-10% in summer or
    20-35% in winter (Eng 1986[^21]). Grazing system, season of use,
    grazing duration, kind of livestock, and stocking intensity should
    be adjusted to maximize desired vegetal effects for sage grouse on
    ranges on a case-by-case basis (Beck and Mitchell 2000).

-   Managers should consider removing livestock from sage grouse nesting
    areas prior to peak standing-crop development to maintain residual
    grass growth essential for nest concealment (Gregg et al. 1994[^22])
    and then delay grazing the same areas until after nesting (Beck and
    Mitchell 2000).

-   If management goals are to provide suitable nesting and
    brood-rearing habitat, efforts should be directed toward protecting
    and enhancing sagebrush stands ≥ 30 m^2^ and increasing overall
    sagebrush cover. These stands also should have a suitable understory
    of tall grasses and forbs to enhance nest concealment (Aldridge and
    Brigham 2002).

-   Management strategies also should focus on increasing the
    availability of mesic sites and increasing the abundance of sites
    with \> 10% forb cover, to enhance brood rearing habitat (Aldridge
    and Brigham 2002).

-   Land managers implementing water developments for livestock need to
    consider the potential negative effects those developments might
    have on key wetlands and mesic sites (Aldridge and Brigham 2002).

-   ...we suggest that migratory sage grouse populations be defined on a
    temporal and geographic basis and that seasonal ranges and migration
    routes between ranges be identified (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   We further urge managers to consider all seasonal ranges when
    evaluating factors affecting sage grouse populations (Connelly et
    al. 1988).

-   ...protection of sagebrush within a 3.2 km radius of leks is not
    sufficient (Beck 1977) because protecting sagebrush habitats
    associated with leks will not ensure that year long habitat
    requirements are met for migratory populations of sage grouse
    (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Spring \[sheep\] grazing should begin only when the soil has dried
    enough to be firm after snow melt. Spring grazing can be started
    safely when there is sufficient growth to satisfy requirements of
    the sheep and still retain enough herbage to produce the plant food
    that is essential for vigorous continuing growth (Pechanic and
    Stewart 1949).

-   The key to maintaining ample forage year after year on spring-fall
    sheep range is conservative grazing, that is, stocking with only the
    number of sheep that the range can support over a period of years
    without injury to the desirable plant species or to the soil... This
    estimate may be made by one of the three following methods. 1.
    Through past stocking records. 2. Through stocking records on
    similar adjacent or nearby ranges that are conservatively grazed. 3.
    Through range surveys (Pechanic and Stewart 1949).

-   Where ranges are to be used in the fall it is unwise to rely on
    additional growth during the late summer or fall (Pechanic and
    Stewart 1949).

-   Enough herbage should be left at the end of the spring grazing
    period to provide adequate fall forage. The amount to leave will
    depend on the number of sheep to be carried on range in the fall and
    should vary with the kind of range and the palatability of forage
    plants...It is not necessary to have as much of the current herbage
    production of perennials left ungrazed at the end of the fall
    grazing season as at the end of the spring. By fall the plants are
    mature and less susceptible to injury than in spring (Pechanic and
    Stewart 1949).

-   Fewer sheep can be safely grazed where slopes are moderate to steep
    than on comparable level or moderately rolling ranges in similar
    condition (Pechanic and Stewart 1949).

-   \[The rotation grazing system\] is one of the most effective methods
    of maintaining range in satisfactory condition or improving range in
    unsatisfactory condition (Pechanic and Stewart 1949).

-   Good distribution of sheep grazing and good herding practices, use
    of bedgrounds for not more than three successive nights and
    preferably one night, proper salting, and provision of ample
    watering facilities are other practices that promote better grazing
    use of the spring-fall range. They therefore contribute toward
    maintenance or improvement of the forage cover and the most
    efficient sheep production (Pechanic and Stewart 1949).

-   As long as rest is afforded a given meadow every three years, no
    negative impact on sage grouse habitat seems to occur (Neel 1980).

-   Proper stocking levels considering values other than beef production
    are essential if rest-rotation grazing management is to be
    instrumental in improving and maintaining wildlife habitat (Neel
    1980).

-   It is recommended that light grazing only be allowed, and should be
    monitored very closely (Neel 1980).

-   Grazing should not be allowed to permanently set back the vigorous
    stands of *Aster occidentalis* or other food forbs (Neel 1980).

-   There seems to be some value in having some meadow habitat protected
    from grazing in July (Neel 1980).

-   Late August or early September grazing at light stocking levels
    (Oakleaf 1971) would seem to be the best answer to receiving some
    beef production benefits from the restoration project (Neel 1980).

-   The timing of grazing is much more important than the percentage of
    biomass removed (Frost et al. 1994).

-   Heavy stocking in the fall will not markedly affect grass and forb
    production; it may cause a decrease in shrubs if they are heavily
    utilized (Mueggler 1950).

-   Heavy spring stocking will severely reduce grass and forb production
    and greatly increase the abundance of undesirable shrubs (Mueggler
    1950).

-   A range in poor condition will improve very slowly if it is
    continually grazed in the spring at even a light stocking rate
    (Mueggler 1950).

-   It would appear that a well-planned rotation system of grazing in
    which areas in poor condition are grazed only in the fall is one
    method of improving sagebrush-grass range without necessitating a
    heavy reduction in stocking (Mueggler 1950).

-   ...long-term management and monitoring strategies must be employed
    because sagebrush steppe responds slowly (in practical terms) to
    changes in the timing of sheep grazing (Bork et al. 1998).

-   The long-term pattern of degradation and recovery within this
    rangeland appears to be complex, non-linear over time (with recovery
    being slower than degradation), and dependent on the seasonality of
    grazing (Bork et al. 1998).

-   The decision process will entail answers to these questions:

    -   What is the ecological status of vegetation on the management
        area? Is grazing of potential value in altering the structure of
        herbaceous cover for the gamebird species in question, or must
        we first disrupt a stable state?

    -   Given that grazing is useful, how many cattle should be stocked
        and over what time period to maximize space-time or to preserve
        acceptable residual cover at some critical point in time?
        Answering this question will require knowledge of vegetation
        structure acceptable to the gamebird in question, rate of
        herbaceous cover removal by cattle, and rate of forage growth.

    -   What actions (water, mineral, shade, fencing) need to be taken
        to focus grazing pressure where it is needed to improve
        structure and to reduce or eliminate grazing pressure where it
        is unnecessary or potentially damaging? (Guthery 1996)

-   For migratory populations focus livestock grazing activities during
    the growing season on sage grouse winter range. Sage grouse are 100
    percent dependent on sagebrush for forage during winter (Connelly
    2000). The removal of herbaceous understory plants preferred by
    domestic livestock during the growing season can lead to an increase
    in the density of sagebrush stands over time (Mueggler 1950, Laycock
    1967, Beck and Mitchell 2000). Livestock and sage grouse would be
    separated temporally under this scenario although impacts to other
    wildlife species may be significant (Hockett 2002).

-   Protect sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat from livestock
    use to encourage climax vegetative conditions. If this is not
    feasible, limit grazing to the month of July with the exact timing
    of grazing varying with local conditions. Defer grazing until after
    the peak of the growing season with the intent of providing
    herbaceous cover and forage for the majority of the nesting,
    hatching, and early brood-rearing. Cessation of grazing by 1 August
    is designed to minimize livestock concentrations in wet meadows and
    riparian areas with open water by avoiding "hot season" use and to
    allow a 30-day regrowth period before the first killing frost as
    recommended by Myers [^23](1989). Additionally, late summer-early
    fall regrowth is important for carbohydrate storage in roots and
    stem bases of cool season grasses (Stoddart et al. 1975) that
    enhances plant vigor while allowing residual vegetation to
    accumulate cover for nesting and early brood-rearing the following
    spring (Hockett 2002).

-   Protect sage grouse spring, summer and fall ranges during periods of
    drought. Drought alone has been identified as a major factor
    contributing to the range-wide decline of sage grouse (Connelly and
    Braun 1997[^24]). Design adaptive management strategies to protect
    against the cumulative effects of grazing use on sage grouse forage
    and cover during drought (Hockett 2002).

-   Manage 25-33 percent of the sagebrush-riparian landscape for climax
    species and processes using concepts outlined by Bock et al.
    [^25](1993). This can be done while still providing for deferred or
    rest-rotation grazing over the remaining 66-75 percent of the
    sagebrush landscape. Target key nesting and brood rearing habitat
    for climax vegetation to increase sage grouse productivity. Sage
    grouse nest densities increase along sagebrush riparian corridors
    (Patterson 1952). Therefore, manage for climax vegetative cover and
    forage along primary sagebrush-riparian interfaces including ≥0.8 km
    of sagebrush habitat type on either side of riparian corridors.
    Unless local data indicates additional protections are necessary,
    this partial climax conservation strategy on grazed sage grouse
    habitat offers some perpetual mitigation against the inevitable
    effects of drought while still allowing grazing over the majority of
    sagebrush landscape (Hockett 2002).

-   Avoid livestock water developments and salt grounds in traditional
    sage grouse spring, summer, and fall habitats. These developments
    significantly concentrate livestock and increase forage use,
    trailing, and soil compaction that fragment sagebrush habitat
    (Stoddart et al. 1975[^26]). These heavy-use areas may extend up to
    0.8 km away from the site (Valentine 1947[^27]) 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 as outlined in
    recommendations 2 and 4 above (Hockett 2002).

-   The relatively large areas and diversity of habitats used by
    migratory sage grouse should be considered in management plans for
    \[sage grouse\] (Browers et al. 1984).

-   ...land management practices that reduce herbaceous cover in
    sagebrush communities can negatively affect sage grouse nesting
    habitat...When sage grouse nesting habitat is an objective, managers
    should monitor livestock distribution and depletion of grasses to
    remove livestock before the minimum herbaceous cover and height
    needed for nesting is reached. Some rangelands may need rest from
    grazing to increase herbaceous cover and height to desired levels.
    In many situations, however, the absence of livestock grazing along
    would not increase herbaceous cover because high shrub cover
    effectively inhibits the herbaceous understory (Sneva et al. 1984,
    Laycock 1991, Winward 1991) (DeLong et al. 1995).

-   In Wyoming big sagebrush (*A.t. wyomingensis*) stands with shrub
    cover \>20% and mountain big sagebrush stands with shrub cover
    \>30%, herbaceous understories are often depleted and would require
    sagebrush thinning to reestablish the herbaceous component (Winward
    1991). Prescribed fires, herbicides, and mechanical treatments would
    reduce shrub cover and may increase herbaceous cover. Sagebrush
    reduction, however, may negatively affect sage grouse nesting
    habitat in the short term (Connelly et al. 1991), and therefore
    should be implemented only in areas where other suitable nesting
    habitat exists nearby. In the long term, once sagebrush
    reestablishes in treatment areas, sage grouse nesting habitat may be
    enhanced by an improved balance of shrub and grass components
    available to sage grouse. We recommend land management practices
    that increase cover and height of native grasses in sagebrush
    communities with medium-height shrubs as a means to enhance sage
    grouse nesting success and productivity (DeLong et al. 1995).

-   Management that protects the big sagebrush/bunchgrass community is
    essential for maintaining nesting habitat for sage grouse (Sveum et
    al. 1998).

-   Managers must implement riparian monitoring programs and document
    both successes and failures in riparian management (Myers 1989).

-   Approaches to riparian management must differ from the traditional
    approaches to management of uplands, which generally includes
    deferred and rest-rotation principles with long duration grazing
    treatments sand frequent "hot season" and fall grazing. Some
    will-meaning managers are still implementing "upland grazing
    systems" in hopes of attaining riparian site recovery (Myers 1989).

-   Provide for residual vegetative cover either through regrowth or
    rest treatments during at least 75% of the years, or annually if
    possible. Residual cover needs will vary on different streams.
    Vigorous woody growth plus at least 15.25 cm of residual herbaceous
    growth was used with this study (Myers 1989).

-   Through on-site studies, determine how much time is required to
    provide adequate herbaceous regrowth to meet floodplain function
    needs and incorporate this into the grazing prescription. Removing
    stock by about early August was required at the 1,830 m elevation in
    the study area (Myers 1989).

-   Reduce the duration of grazing treatments to the greatest extent
    practical. Grazing treatments averaged 28 d in successful systems
    and 59 d in unsuccessful ones. Many rest-rotation and deferred
    grazing systems prescribe 60-75 d of use per treatment and are
    generally unsuitable. Establish suitable length of grazing
    treatments by monitoring trampling impacts, utilization of woody
    species, particularly regeneration, plus sufficient time to provide
    necessary regrowth of herbaceous species (Myers 1989).

-   To the greatest extent practical, design grazing treatments to take
    advantage of favorable seasonal livestock dispersal behavior. This
    will vary regionally, based on precipitation patterns and plant
    phenology. Good dispersal of stock was noted in the study area from
    early May through early July and the poorest dispersal was noted
    during the "hot season" (early July to mid-September). Hot season
    grazing averaged 13 d in successful systems, compared to 33 d in
    unsuccessful ones (Myers 1989).

-   Incorporate sufficient growing season rest to provide for good vigor
    and regeneration in all riparian plants. This does not mean that a
    full year of nonuse is required. Often, growing season rest can be
    increased by using pastures more frequently with shorter duration
    use (Myers 1989).

-   Where deciduous woody species are important in the composition,
    limit the frequency of fall grazing treatments to about one year in
    four. Duration of fall treatments should be limited to the greatest
    extent practical. Fall grazing averaged 21 d in successful systems
    and 37 d in unsuccessful ones. Close monitoring is required to avoid
    excessive use on woody species during this period (Myers 1989).

-   Insist upon strict grazing system compliance. A few cattle remaining
    in a pasture after the prescribed use period can negate the benefits
    of a good system. Stray animals invariably spend the bulk of their
    time in stream bottoms. Ninety percent compliance with a grazing
    system is not adequate (Myers 1989).

-   Standardized approaches to riparian grazing management are not
    practical. Riparian areas differ in their potential for response and
    in various unique site factors. These other variables must be
    considered in the design of a grazing system (Myers 1989).

-   To restore forage and willow production in riparian zones, grazing
    systems must become whole ecosystem-oriented, not just
    upland-oriented (Kauffman and others 1983, Smith 1981[^28])
    (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   Fencing is the easiest way to obtain rapid improvement in riparian
    conditions by protecting riparian zones from improper cattle use
    (Platts and Raleigh 1984[^29]) (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   Riparian pastures are small pastures set aside to achieve desired
    vegetation response (Platts and Nelson 1985[^30]). Pastures include
    enough land to achieve balanced use between upland and riparian
    forage. Grazing can be controlled more easily when compared to
    larger pastures, and cattle are removed when forage utilization
    levels or plant phenology stages are reached (Platts 1984[^31]). If
    managed properly, the system results in better livestock
    distribution, grazing intensity, and timing. This leads to increased
    willow and sedge production and reduced effects on stream morphology
    (Platts 1986[^32]). Willow response is better if the riparian
    pasture is grazed early or after fall "green up" (regrowth of upland
    grass following fall rains). Close monitoring of forage use avoids
    the switch from grazing to browsing (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   \[Winter grazing\] is reasonably compatible with riparian habitat
    needs and has been used successfully on lower elevation ranges
    (authors' observation) (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   Pastures respond best to \[two-season grazing system\] if cattle are
    removed from the critical-use pasture before summer drought,
    allowing lightly used willows and sedges to regrow through the
    remainder of the growing season. Two-pasture rotation grazing may
    not improve pastures in poor condition (authors' observation).
    Adding years of rest, especially on degraded pastures, and careful
    monitoring of forage use will increase the effectiveness of the
    system for willows (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   Three-pasture rest-rotation allows one pasture to be rested an
    entire season while the others support the grazing...the system may
    not improve either willow or sedge production on pastures in poor
    condition (Smith 1989[^33]). In theory, willows should respond
    favorably to this system because of the rest period (Kovalchik and
    Elmore 1991).

-   Three-pasture deferred-rotation grazing moves cattle from early to
    critical-season pastures at a predetermined date or at some level of
    forage use (Platts 1984). The third pasture is used after seeds of
    upland grasses have ripened, and cattle are removed when desired use
    of upland grasses is reached. This grazing system seems desirable
    for sedges because of 2 years of late-summer rest. However, overuse
    by concentrated cattle may cause sedges to decline, especially if
    stubble height during spring runoff is too short to resist erosion.
    In theory, this system is beneficial for willows, with late-season
    grazing occurring in 1 of 3 years (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   Incompatible grazing systems for willow management include
    spring-fall pastures, deferred grazing, late-season grazing, and
    season-long grazing (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

-   Maintaining richness and cover of native species should be a high
    management priority for \[arid and semiarid\] ecosystems (Anderson
    and Inouye 2001).

-   Alterations in management plans at the watershed level may be
    necessary to dilute wildlife impacts and enhance rapid recovery of
    woody riparian species (Shaw 1991).

-   To maintain greater sage grouse populations, we recommend that
    managers limit strategies that negatively affect this type of
    habitat (i.e. prescribed fire and herbicide application) and protect
    adequate amounts of suitable nesting habitat during treatment
    (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   ...we recommend management activities that allow for maintenance or
    restoration of dense, taller residual grasses within suitable
    sagebrush stands to enhance greater sage grouse populations
    (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   ...our results suggest annual grazing in nesting habitat, regardless
    of the timing, could negatively impact the following year's nesting
    success (Holloran et al. 2005).

# Grazing Effects on Sagebrush

-   Since sagebrush competes with grass for moisture, it is often killed
    to allow ranges to produce more grass for livestock (Poley 1969).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   When large sagebrush eradication programs are carried out on prime
    sage grouse range, the birds are reduced in numbers and often
    "eradicated" (Poley 1969).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rangeland improvement programs which reduce sagebrush habitat
    generally impair the welfare of sage grouse (Greer 1990).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Continued use of ranges in a degraded condition may inhibit recovery
    of herbaceous vegetation and promote sagebrush dominance (Coggins
    1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In Wyoming big sagebrush habitats, resting areas from livestock
    grazing may improve understory production as well as decrease
    sagebrush cover[^34] (Wambolt and Payne 1986) (Connelly et al.
    2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the absence of fire, changes that usually occur with excessive
    grazing in the different sagebrush types are an increase in density
    and cover of shrubs, annuals forbs, and annual grasses (especially
    introduced species), and a decrease in perennial forbs and grasses
    (Branson 1985, Tisdale 1994)[^35] (Miller and Eddleman 2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Over and above the influence of climate, the intensity and periods
    of grazing had a profound effect upon the grazing value of the
    spring-fall range (Craddock and Forsling 1938).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Livestock grazing may affect sage-grouse habitat directly by
    altering structural habitat factors or plant community composition,
    or indirectly by altering abiotic processes (e.g., MFRI) and
    invasibility of sagebrush plant communities (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   While the impact of grazing on sagebrush plant communities varies
    with site potential, ecological condition, and climate variables,
    the aspects of livestock grazing that are controlled by management
    are, principally, the timing and intensity of defoliation (Crawford
    et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Research suggests that moderate livestock grazing or less in mid to
    late summer, fall, or winter is generally compatible with the
    maintenance of perennial grasses and forbs in sagebrush habitat
    (Pechanec and Stewart 1949, Mueggler 1950, Laycock and Conrad 1967,
    1981, Gibbens and Fisser 1975, Miller et al. 1994, Bork et al.
    1998)[^36] (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Herbaceous species in sagebrush plant communities are predominantly
    cool-season (C-3) plants that are vulnerable to defoliation during
    late spring and early summer (Crawford et al. 2004). Heavy grazing
    (approximately 60% or greater utilization by weight) during this
    time has predictable results: 1) the vigor, yield, and cover of
    late-seral grasses and forbs decrease; 2) early-seral species
    (including annual grasses) may increase; 3) sagebrush density and
    canopy cover may increase (Craddock and Forsling 1938[^37], Pechanec
    and Stewart 1949, Mueggler 1950, Laycock 1967, Bork et al. 1998);
    and 4) transition of sagebrush uplands to higher ecological status
    is inhibited (Mueggler 1950, Eckert and Spencer 1986[^38],
    Laycock 1987) (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cattle, sheep, and horses (*Equus caballus*) in sagebrush habitat
    eat grass-dominated diets in all seasons of the year (Severson et
    al. 1968, Harrison and Thatcher 1970, Mackie 1970, Uresk and Rickard
    1976, Olsen and Hansen 1977, Reiner and Urness 1982, Krysl et al.
    1984, Ngugi et al. 1992, Crane et al. 1997, Glidewell et al.
    2001[^39]) although sheep may consume a higher percentage of their
    diet as forbs. Livestock usually consume little to no sagebrush (\<
    10%) unless snow depth exceeds 20 cm (Harrison and Thatcher 1970),
    but winter sheep use of low elevation basin big sagebrush may be
    much greater (Cook et al. 1954[^40]) (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Shrub utilization should not exceed 50--60% during the growing
    season, and at least 50% protective ground cover (i.e., plant basal
    area + mulch + rocks + gravel) should remain after grazing (Mosley
    et al. 1997[^41]).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   While hydrophytic shrubs may not directly serve as sage-grouse
    habitat, they do impact the stability of riparian and meadow
    habitats important to sage-grouse (Winward 2000[^42]) (Crawford et
    al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A recent modeling exercise (Wisdom et al. 2002[^43]) incorporated 50
    and 100% reductions in the detrimental effects of livestock grazing
    into a population level model for sage grouse in the Interior
    Columbia Basin. The model predicted improved performance of sage
    grouse populations with a combination of active habitat restoration
    and reduced livestock stocking rate, and equated reductions in
    livestock stocking rate to decreased detrimental effects of
    livestock on sage grouse habitat at a 1 to 1 ratio. While this
    approach may appear empirically appealing in that it allows "what
    if" scenario modeling, caution is merited when assuming that
    reductions in livestock stocking rate are in a constant 1 to 1 ratio
    with changes in sage grouse habitat quality, given that the exact
    slope of this relationship is unknown (it may be substantially
    greater or less than 1) and is variable in accordance with timing
    and intensity of livestock grazing, environmental factors, and
    specific type of sage grouse habitat (e.g., nesting, brood-rearing,
    etc.). Given the complexity of the successional dynamics of
    sagebrush plant communities, combined with the multivariate nature
    of the effects of livestock grazing on these plant communities, it
    remains difficult to draw large-scale (time and space) conclusions
    regarding the impact of current livestock grazing practices on sage
    grouse populations (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   But, once sagebrush cover reaches an upper threshold, livestock
    exclusion may have little effect on reversing the immediate trend
    (Johnson and Payne 1968, Rice and Westoby 1978, Sanders and Voth
    1983, Wambolt and Payne 1986[^44]) (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Over long time intervals (40 years or more), sagebrush abundance may
    decline with a concomitant increase in understory herbaceous species
    (Anderson and Inouye 2001[^45]). On Wyoming big sagebrush sites with
    dense sagebrush and an understory of annual grasses, reductions in
    livestock grazing can hasten further habitat degradation if ungrazed
    fuel loads promulgate wildfires that burn uniformly and kill
    sagebrush on vast areas (Peters and Bunting 1994, West 1999[^46])
    (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Timing of grazing greatly influences the effects of livestock
    grazing in meadows and riparian areas. These sites are particularly
    vulnerable in late summer when excessive grazing and browsing may
    damage riparian shrubs, reduce the yield and availability of
    succulent herbs (Kovalchik and Elmore 1992[^47]), and cause
    deterioration of riparian function over time (Klebenow 1985[^48]).
    However, moderate utilization by livestock in spring, early summer,
    or winter is sustainable in non-degraded meadow and riparian areas
    within sagebrush habitat (Shaw 1992, Clary et al. 1996, Mosley et
    al. 1997[^49]). Moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble
    height for most grasses and sedges and 5-cm for Kentucky bluegrass
    (Mosley et al. 1997, Clary and Leininger 2000[^50]) (Crawford et al.
    2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The length of time livestock have access to meadows may be more
    important than the level of utilization; it has been suggested that
    livestock access be limited to \< 3 weeks (Myers 1989, Mosley et al.
    1997[^51]) (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In riparian and meadow habitat degraded by heavy livestock
    utilization, rest from grazing may be necessary for recovery (Clary
    and Webster 1989[^52]) (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some perennial grasses, such as Indian ricegrass (*Oryzopsis
    hymenoides* (R. & S.) Ricker), needle-and-thread (*Stipa comata*
    Trin. & Rupr.), Nevada bluegrass (*Poa nevadensis* Vasey ex
    Scribn.), and Sandberg bluegrass, can withstand severe grazing
    (approximately 80% or greater utilization) as long as defoliation
    does not occur during the plants' reproductive period (Pearson
    1964[^53]). Other grasses such as Idaho fescue, Thurber needlegrass
    (*Stipa thurberiana* Piper), and bottlebrush squirreltail (*Sitanion
    hystrix* (Nutt.) J.G. Smith) decrease with heavy grazing (Rickard et
    al. 1975, Eckert and Spencer 1987[^54]) (Crawford et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Excessive, or poorly managed livestock grazing, such as too high a
    stocking rate over the grazing period, or uncontrolled or poorly
    timed grazing, causes degradation of sagebrush ecosystems. Improper
    livestock grazing practices change the proportion of shrubs,
    grasses, and forbs, increase the opportunity for invasion and
    dominance by exotic annual grasses and forbs, shorten the growing
    season, and can cause an overall decline in site potential through
    loss of topsoil. This decline in site potential often decreases the
    ability of soils to capture, store, and release water, causing
    sagebrush ecosystems to become more arid, which in turn provides
    less green plant material for shorter periods of time (Miller and
    Eddleman 2000) (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is well established that excessive livestock grazing increases
    the cover of Artemisia in many systems by reducing the competition
    from other plants (Whisenant 1990, Daddy 1988[^55]). Very often it
    is these other plants, especially native bunchgrasses and forbs,
    that are far below healthy levels in the ecosystem and that are the
    first to be eliminated under excessive livestock grazing (Watts and
    Wambolt 1996, West and Young 2000[^56]). While sagebrush densities
    could be increased in this way, it would likely be incompatible with
    attainment of BLM's Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Archer and Smeins (1991, in Hann et al. 1997[^57]) proposed that
    some traditional livestock grazing management practices are not
    compatible with native plant communities. They identified several
    examples of poor compatibility that are applicable to the sagebrush
    biome: (1) Traditionally, livestock are concentrated at artificially
    high levels. In contrast, densities of native herbivores varied
    seasonally and annually; (2) Fences prevent livestock from moving to
    new areas when the abundance of desired forages decreases.
    Consequently, traditional grazing practices result in higher
    frequencies and intensities of defoliation than would have occurred
    with pre-Euro-American settlement grazing regimes; (3) Mortality of
    native herbivores was a feedback loop that reduced grazing pressure,
    permitting recovery of native vegetation after periods of forage
    overuse. Supplemental feeding precludes mortality of livestock and
    thus maintains grazing over a greater portion of the year and over a
    higher frequency of years, compared with grazing that was exerted by
    native herbivores; and (4) Prolonged grazing in the sagebrush biome
    has decreased the capacity of grasses to competitively exclude woody
    plants, such as sagebrush. Therefore, sagebrush density and canopy
    cover increases at a faster rate compared with no grazing (BLM
    2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Under specific circumstances, rest-rotation, deferred, deferred
    rotational, and seasonal grazing methods have all been demonstrated
    to sustain rangeland plant communities within the sagebrush biome
    (Vallentine 1990, in Hann et al. 1997). However, none of these
    grazing methods have been conclusively more effective than light to
    moderate stocking rates under continuous seasonal grazing (Hart and
    Norton 1988, Heady 1975, Stoddart et al. 1975, Vallentine 1990, in
    Hann et al. 1997[^58]). Despite the array of grazing methods
    conceived and promoted since 1950 in the United States, there has
    been, and continues to be, considerable debate over compatibility
    with native plant communities. In addition, all of the livestock
    grazing recommendations for the sagebrush biome summarized in this
    section are based upon either short-term studies or short to
    long-term observations, rather than long-term studies (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grazing methods, and no grazing, are unlikely to elevate many plant
    communities that are in a low successional steady state to a higher
    successional state (Archer and Smeins 1991, in Hann et al. 1997).
    Sustainable grazing management relies on knowledge of critical
    thresholds and manipulation of livestock so these critical
    thresholds are not exceeded. Continued stocking at near-normal
    levels during periods of moderate to severe drought is probably the
    greatest cause of rangeland deterioration (Vallentine 1990, in Hann
    et al. 1997[^59]). Reduced stocking rates during drought, and for
    some time after drought, are necessary to minimize damage and hasten
    recovery of perennial vegetation (Vallentine 1990, in Hann et al.
    1997; Holechek et al. 1999[^60]) (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Holechek et al. (1999) report that improvement in rangeland
    vegetation can be achieved through changes in livestock grazing
    methods, and through changes in livestock stocking rates. They
    present two science findings that are very important to the
    sagebrush biome: (1) rotation livestock grazing methods in semi-arid
    and desert areas, which includes the sagebrush biome, show no
    advantage compared with continuous or season-long grazing methods;
    and (2) research shows that stocking rate reductions, from heavy
    down to conservative (35% or less forage use) have much greater
    probability of improvement in rangeland vegetation, compared with
    rotation livestock grazing methods. The greatest benefit accruing to
    light or conservative stocking (35% or less forage use on palatable
    forage species) in terms of forage production occurred in dry years
    (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Where invasive exotic annual plants, such as cheatgrass and
    mustards, have produced an unnaturally high density of fine fuels
    that make sites much more susceptible to fire, grazing can reduce
    these fuels and lessen the likelihood of wildfire (Vallentine and
    Stevens 1994[^61]). However the timing of the livestock grazing is
    critical. It has to be judiciously applied within a very short
    window of time in early spring, before remnant native perennial
    species are growing, or else the livestock will consume the remnant
    native species along with the exotics (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Late autumn browsing by sheep can reduce sagebrush cover. When
    suitable alternative forage is lacking, animals are essentially
    forced to browse sagebrush because herbaceous growth is dried,
    reduced and less palatable (Laycock 1967[^62]). Very heavy browsing
    by cattle also can reduce cover of *A. t. wyomingensis* purely
    through mechanical damage (Watts and Wambolt 1996[^63]). If these
    extreme stocking levels are repeated through time, rather than
    during a one-time event, the understory grasses and forbs can be
    extirpated from the site (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In Oregon, domestic sheep showed highest preference for low
    sagebrush (*A. arbuscula* spp. *arbuscula*) and medium preference
    for black sagebrush (*A. nova*). Sheep utilized, but did not prefer,
    Bolander silver sagebrush (*A*. *cana* spp. *bolanderi*) and
    mountain and foothill big sagebrush. They showed least preference
    for Wyoming and basin big sagebrush (Sheehy and Winward 1981[^64])
    (BLM 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dominant trends emerged along a complex gradient of shrubland
    disturbance regimes following intensive grazing pressure and drought
    (West and Young 2000[^65]). In northern, eastern, and more mesic
    regions of the sagebrush biome, fire was not an important
    disturbance necessary to maintain perennial grasses and forbs.
    Rather, grazing by buffalo was the primary agent of grazing
    disturbance. In those regions, introduction of domestic livestock
    increased the site-specific frequency of grazing (Mack and Thompson
    1982[^66]). Improper grazing that depleted the grass and forb
    understory facilitated invasions by exotic plants species because of
    loss of understory, altered soils, or loss of microbiotic crusts in
    these systems (Mack and Thompson 1982). In more xeric and southern
    sagebrush regions, possible increases in shrub cover that resulted
    from grazing further reduced the low cover of native perennials and
    created a system largely resistant to recolonization by the native
    flora but increasingly vulnerable to invasion by exotic plants
    (Young and Sparks 2002[^67]) (Connelly et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Livestock grazing can affect soils, vegetation, and animal
    communities (Jones 2000[^68]). Livestock consume or alter
    vegetation, redistribute nutrients and plant seeds, trample soils
    and sagebrush plants, and can disrupt microbiotic crusts (Miller et
    al. 1994, West 1996, Belnap and Lange 2001[^69]). The extent to
    which these mechanisms influence habitats depends on the
    relationship between level of grazing disturbance and the resiliency
    of the habitat. At unsustainable levels of grazing, these changes
    can lead to loss of vegetative cover, reduced water infiltration
    rates, and increased soil erosion (Society for Range Management
    1995[^70]). Indirect effects of livestock grazing can amplify or
    facilitate other disturbance. For example, landscapes in
    southwestern Idaho in which grazing combined with other disturbances
    experienced the greatest rate of shrub loss and increase in
    cheatgrass compared to landscapes having a single source of
    disturbance (Knick and Rotenberry 1997[^71]). In shrublands
    dominated by cheatgrass, grazing can reduce further the remaining
    perennial grasses or permit excessive growth of cheatgrass if left
    ungrazed (Young and Allen 1997[^72]) (Connelly et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In sagebrush grasslands, herbivory of herbaceous plants during the
    growing season tends to favor sagebrush growth until sagebrush
    becomes so dense that the competition of sagebrush restricts
    recovery of herbaceous plants (Reichenberger and Pyke 1990[^73])
    (Connelly et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adjustments to grazing seasons or reductions in numbers of livestock
    will only show improvements in sage-grouse habitat quality if the
    vegetation community is a sagebrush grassland mix before grazing
    changes are implemented. This community retains both the sagebrush
    and the tall bunchgrass necessary for quality habitat. The release
    from livestock grazing should allow the full expression of
    vegetation height for hiding cover and nest protection. Improvements
    could be expressed in the next growing season, but might take 3 to 5
    years for pre-existing plants to fully express themselves and 10 to
    15 years for seed production and new plant recruitment to occur
    assuming the site is not fully occupied by other species. Any other
    community whether in this vegetation state or in another state will
    require either additional manipulations to the community to adjust
    the vegetation composition, or may require additions of life forms
    through revegetation to improve the habitat (Connelly et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Heavy, excessive grazing too soon after disturbances such as fire,
    may lead to permanent reductions in food plants and nesting cover.
    Current BLM policy provides for a minimum of two growing seasons for
    rest following fire (BLM 2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Drought can lead to increased competition between livestock and sage
    grouse for food and cover. Drought will exacerbate the adverse
    effects of heavy, excessive livestock grazing on vegetation and
    soils (Valentine 1990[^74]). In some instances, the failure to make
    timely adjustments in livestock use during drought has resulted in
    limited plant regrowth, overuse in wet meadows and riparian areas,
    and has negated gains in rangeland conditions made during
    higher-precipitation years (Thurow and Taylor 1999[^75]) (BLM 2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grazing by livestock has occurred on virtually the entire range of
    sage grouse (Braun 1998[^76]), thus its influence is potentially the
    most pervasive of any land management practice (Rowland and Wisdom
    2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Heavy grazing can lead to an expansion in big sagebrush shrub canopy
    cover as the shrub acts as an increaser6 due grazing pressure.
    Managed grazing can be used in a prescriptive way create more
    patchiness within otherwise continuous sage canopies (Beck and
    Mitchell 2000) (Adams et al. No date).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The grazing response of silver sagebrush seems much different from
    that of big sagebrush. Silver sagebrush does not establish the same
    height or cover characteristics as big sagebrush and occupies a
    lesser prominence on Alberta Sage-Grouse ranges. It also appears
    that silver sagebrush behaves more like a decreaser species in
    response to grazing, trampling and drought, although it has a strong
    potential to resprout and regenerate in favorable periods of
    moisture and rest. Being lower in stature, silver sagebrush is
    likely more vulnerable to trampling by livestock, especially
    vegetative sprouts and juvenile plants. Trampling may be the
    principal cause of silver sagebrush decline on livestock wintering
    sites (Adams et al. No date).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A number of sources (Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986)[^77]
    suggest that appropriate grazing management can be used to stimulate
    the productivity of forbs important as Sage-Grouse food. This will
    be particularly important on rangelands with a history of light
    grazing where forb cover has become reduced by graminoid
    competition, a common feature of dry mixed grass prairie plant
    communities (Adams et al. No date).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...grazing considerations will always be important to maintain
    habitat quality, but, do not appear as important in the next three
    to five years for the recovery of sage-grouse as are fire, habitat
    loss, invasive species and the other alternatives\... (Wambolt et
    al. 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...public land grazing lessees and others contend that current
    grazing regimes should not be seriously altered until several other
    things happen. First, other activities that clearly have a negative
    effect on the grouse should be addressed. These include fire in the
    sagebrush ecosystem; landscape fragmentation from energy
    development, subdivisions and utility corridors; and outright
    removal of sagebrush for farming and other uses. Many grazing
    lessees are adamant that the negative impacts from these other
    activities are better understood and should be considered before
    grazing plans are seriously altered. Second, research on the
    specific relationships between grazing and grouse needs should be
    conducted to explicitly understand how to best change grazing
    patterns to benefit grouse. Changes to grazing would then be based
    on locally specific research (Wambolt et al. 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Columbian Sharp-tailed grouse status (Rees 1993)

    -   Federal status- C2

    -   California status- extirpated

    -   Nevada status- sensitive taxa with state status

    -   Oregon status- extirpated

    -   Utah status-sensitive

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sage grouse status (Rees 1993)

    -   Federal status- C2

    -   Oregon status-sensitive

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Under lower levels of use, Holechek et al.[^78] (1989) concluded
    rest-rotation was a good system to consider in rugged terrain
    (Miller et al. 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \[In eastern Idaho (Mueggler 1950, Laycock 1967[^79])\] both fall
    grazing and total protection maintained plant communities in good
    ecological condition while heavy spring use allowed sagebrush to
    increase and perennial grasses and forbs to decline (Miller et al.
    1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In general, where proper grazing management was applied, desirable
    perennial herbaceous vegetation increased both with and without
    grazing (Gibbens and Fisser 1975, Sneva et al. 1984, Kindschy
    1987[^80]). However, on sites where competition from woody plants or
    exotic annuals limited the reestablishment of desirable plant
    species, little change or a decline in desirable species occurred
    both inside and outside the exclosure (Hughes 1980, Anderson and
    Holte 1981, Sanders and Voth 1983, West et al. 1984[^81]) (Miller et
    al. 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...sage grouse (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) are affected by
    broad-scale attempts to reduce sagebrush to favor grass production
    via herbicides, prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, etc
    (Severson and Urness 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The implication here is that if past sagebrush control operations
    have negatively affected sage grouse or pronghorn populations,
    sagebrush could be reestablished by judicious use of spring grazing
    by livestock (Severson and Urness 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Hanley and Page[^82] (1982) reported a situation where livestock
    grazing decreased plant structural diversity on xeric sites and
    increased it on more mesic sites (Severson and Urness 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   West et al.[^83] (1984) found no significant vegetative changes in a
    big sagebrush type in Utah after 14 years of livestock exclusion
    (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tisdale et al.[^84] (1969) stated that vigorous stands of sagebrush
    in Idaho may indefinitely delay the recovery of the herbaceous
    understory even after 20-25 years of protection from grazing
    (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sanders and Voth (1983) found no improvement over a 45-year period
    in three exclosures dominated by big sagebrush in southwestern Idaho
    (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In southeastern Idaho, Anderson and Holte[^85] (1981) found that
    both big sagebrush and grasses increased substantially when
    protected from grazing for 25 years (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In northern New Mexico, exclusion of cattle grazing for 22 years had
    little effect on sagebrush or understory species in either an upland
    or a lowland site (Holechek and Stephenson 1983[^86]) (Laycock
    1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Potter and Krenetsky[^87] (1967) found that ground cover of grass,
    forbs, and browse decreased in both protected and grazed sagebrush
    plots in New Mexico, and stated that grazing management alone had
    "poor possibilities" for improvement of dense sagebrush stands
    (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Turner[^88] (1971) found that exclusion of livestock for 10 years
    had little effect on shrub communities dominated by big sagebrush,
    shadscale and Nuttall saltbush in western Colorado (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Whisenant and Wagstaff [^89](1991) concluded that season of grazing
    had more effect on vegetation composition than intensity of grazing
    and that spring grazing was particularly damaging (Laycock 1994).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   As summer progresses and forage drys, \[sage grouse\] are moved to
    high elevation meadows, irrigated meadows in lowlands, or onto
    playas from which water is receding and succulent forage is emerging
    (Marshall et al. 1996).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Winter habitat is comprised of dense sagebrush stands that are
    sufficiently free of snow to provide food, which at that season
    consists of sagebrush (Marshall et al. 1996).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Heavy grazing in the short term, implying overgrazing if continued
    over time, may have the following apparent advantages:

    -   Result in more uniform grazing pressure on all species,
        especially the less palatable species.

    -   Increase efficiency of forage consumption (but decrease forage
        availability and intake at very high stocking levels).

    -   May effectively delay seedstalk formation and induce vegetative
        regrowth during active plant growth period (but only under ideal
        conditions of temperature, soil moisture, and soil fertility)
        (Vallentine 1990).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Bluebunch wheatgrass (*Agropyron spicatum*), an important forage
    plant on many western ranges, has received considerable attention.
    Hanson and Stoddart[^90] (1940) observed that heavily grazed plants
    of bluebunch wheatgrass were smaller, produced fewer seeds, and had
    a markedly reduced root system (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ellison[^91] (1960) concluded that the usual effect of grazing
    certain species in a community is to handicap them while encouraging
    others (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some studies suggest that forage plants respond as well under light
    grazing as no grazing. However, other studies show injurious effects
    even at light intensities (Johnson 1956[^92]) (Blaisdell et al.
    1982).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cattle tend to graze the grasses most heavily, whereas sheep exhibit
    a preference for forbs (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rotation of use between cattle and sheep can prove beneficial,
    especially to fair and good condition sagebrush-grass ranges
    (Blaisdell et al. 1982).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Since most of the herbaceous species are more palatable than
    sagebrush, the former were reduced while the shrubs flourished
    (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981[^93]) (Hays et al. 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alternatively, changes in water and nutrient cycling caused by
    grazing can promote the spread of invasive species, which then
    degrade native bird habitats by altering fire and disturbance
    regimes (Rotenberry 1998[^94]) (Knick et al. 2003).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grazing exclosure data \[from Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch\]
    suggest: a. grass production depends on prior-year precipitation,
    and b. excluding livestock increases shrub production, reduces forbs
    and fails to increase plant species diversity (Deseret Land and
    Livestock Ranch No date).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The removal of cover by cattle can impact sage grouse populations
    either by reducing habitat suitability, or by increasing the
    exposure of birds to predators and extreme weather (Aldridge 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...even under complete protection from grazing change is slow and
    the existing grazing pressure did not have a marked effect on grass
    cover (Gibbens and Fisser 1975).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fortunately, some changes resulting from livestock grazing,
    agricultural practices, and other land uses may have benefited sage
    grouse. The creation of openings in large sagebrush stands, from
    whatever causes, produced feeding and brooding areas and may have
    benefited sage grouse especially where water is close by. The
    creation of meadows (or meadowlike areas) within sagebrush stands
    improved the summer food supply of sage grouse. Where land use
    practices removed large, decadent sagebrush stands and permitted
    development of new, young plants, sage grouse habitat may have been
    improved. But the overall habitat is generally better where patches
    or strips of tall, dense sagebrush are retained for use as an escape
    cover or for roosting (Call and Maser 1985).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In general, good habitat for sage grouse should contain openings
    less than 274 m (300 yd) in circumference, some dense sagebrush
    stands, and about equal amounts of tall and short sagebrush plants
    (Rogers 1964[^95]) (Call and Maser 1985).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...association with dense stands of sagebrush usually begins in
    September and continues through the breeding and nesting seasons. In
    fact, 15 percent canopy cover of sagebrush appears to be the minimum
    acceptable for sage grouse winter and nesting habitat (Wallestad
    1971, 1975; Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974[^96]) (Call and Maser
    1985).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Although openings in sagebrush habitat may be created by killing the
    shrubs, increased grass density may prevent the openings from being
    used (Carr 1968[^97]) (Call and Maser 1985).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Spring and early summer grazing by livestock removes a high
    percentage of grass and forbs at the time when sage grouse are
    turning to forbs as their primary forage (Call and Maser 1985).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   During times of drought, cattle are attracted to moist areas.
    Failure to reduce stocking rates during these periods may result in
    greater impact in the form of reduced vegetative cover (Aldridge,
    1998[^98]) (vanKooten et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Nevada Plots exclosure system was constructed in 1937 following
    passage of the Taylor Grazing Act to assess long-term effects of
    livestock grazing on Nevada rangelands. A comparison of vegetation
    characteristics inside and outside exclosures was conducted during
    2001 and 2002 at 16 sites. Data analysis was performed with a paired
    t test. Out of 238 cover and density comparisons between inside and
    outside exclosures at each site, 34 (14% of total) were different (P
    \< 0.05). Generally, where differences occurred, basal and canopy
    cover were greater inside exclosures and density was greater
    outside. Shrubs were taller inside exclosures at 3 sites grazed by
    sheep (*Ovis aries*). Perennial grasses showed no vertical height
    difference. Aboveground plant biomass production was different at
    only 1 site. Plant community diversity inside and outside exclosures
    were equal at 11 of 16 sites. Species richness was similar at all
    sites and never varied \> 4 species at any site. Few changes in
    species composition, cover, density, and production inside and
    outside exclosures have occurred in 65 years, indicating that
    recovery rates since pre-Taylor Grazing Act conditions were similar
    under moderate grazing and grazing exclusion on these exclosure
    sites (Courtois et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Despite the pervasive influence of livestock grazing in sage grouse
    range, there have been no experimental studies of the impact on
    sage-grouse populations (Stinson et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   \[Welch and Criddle 2003[^99]\] concluded that grazing may or may
    not increase big sagebrush cover (Stinson et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Beck and Mitchell (2000) reviewed the effects of grazing on
    sage-grouse habitat. They found that little was known about the
    direct impacts on sage grouse, but more was known about indirect
    effects. Direct negative effects included deterioration of wet
    meadow hydrology and destruction of sagebrush in wintering habitat
    by sheep. Positive effects included an increase in growth or
    availability of forbs in dense grassy meadows. Several studies
    indicate that sage-grouse select meadows grazed by cattle over
    ungrazed meadows in early spring (Miller and Eddleman 2000[^100])
    (Stinson et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Livestock grazing is compatible with sage-grouse where the habitat
    characteristics needed for breeding and wintering can be
    consistently maintained (Connelly et al. 2000b; Wambolt et al. 2002,
    Rowland and Wisdom 2002, and Crawford et al. 2004). Whether this is
    possible on any particular site probably depends on many factors
    including the grazing history of the site, site condition,
    precipitation zone, livestock involved, the season, intensity,
    frequency and duration of grazing (Stinson et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Over time, sheep grazing can shift ranges toward grass dominance,
    whereas cattle grazing can cause rangeland to be composed of more
    forbs (Beck and Mitchell 2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There seems to be evidence to conclude that rest-rotation grazing
    has benefited sage grouse habitat in the Lone Willow area. Food forb
    production is higher on the ...sites under rest-rotation...than on
    similar sites not under rest-rotation...(Neel 1980).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use \[of meadows\] seemed to be linked to availability of food forbs
    rather than structural parameters. Sage grouse seemed to show
    preference for grazed meadows where meadow conditions were otherwise
    equal (Neel 1980).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grazing sheep and cattle together (i.e. common use or multispecies
    grazing) may increase livestock production on sagebrush-grass
    rangeland (Glidewell et al. 2001).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...the long-term vegetational differences described by
    Mueggler (1950) and Laycock (1967) on the long-term fall and spring
    sheep-grazed study area, continue to persist (Bork et al. 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ...this study area appears to have relatively low resilience
    following prolonged spring sheep grazing, potentially an indication
    that spring grazing results in a change in competitiveness among
    growth forms and eventually, the establishment of a new steady state
    (Friedel 1991, Laycock 1991[^101]) (Bork et al. 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Positive influences of controlled grazing by domestic animals on
    rangelands include the following:

    -   Loosening of the soil surface during dry periods.

    -   Removal of excessive vegetation that may negatively affect net
        carbohydrate fixation and increase water transpiration losses.

    -   Incorporating mulch into the soil profile, which speeds
        development of humus.

    -   Recycling nutrients and making some nutrients more available.

    -   Maintaining an optimal leaf area index of plant tissue.

    -   Trampling seeds into the ground.

    -   Reducing excessive accumulations of standing dead vegetation and
        mulch that may chemically and physically inhibit new growth.

    -   Inoculating plant parts with saliva that may stimulate plant
        regrowth (Reardon et al. 1974[^102]).

    -   Reducing fire, insect, and rodent problems resulting from
        accumulations of vegetation (Ellis et al. 1987).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   According to Donald Klebenow, a wildlife professor at the University
    of Nevada, sage grouse seem to do best with moderate mid-summer
    cattle grazing that leaves unused vegetation in an irregular pattern
    with clumps of partially grazed plants just big enough to somewhat
    conceal adult birds (Swanson et al. 1987).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The best explanation \[of heavy, moderate, and light grazing\] we've
    found was provided by Klipple and Bement[^103] (1961). They define
    heavy grazing as a degree of herbage utilization that does not
    permit desirable forage species to maintain themselves. Moderate
    grazing means a degree of herbage utilization that allows the
    palatable species to maintain themselves but usually does not permit
    them to improve in herbage producing ability. Light grazing means a
    degree of herbage production that allows palatable species to
    maximize their herbage producing ability (Holechek et al. 1999).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the semi-arid and desert range types, rotation grazing systems
    generally showed no advantage over continuous or season-long grazing
    (Holechek et al. 1999).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In mountainous areas rotation grazing systems give convenient areas
    (riparian zones) opportunity for recovery, and can be advantageous
    over season-long grazing (Holechek et al. 1999).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In most studies, continuous or season-long grazing has given higher
    calf crops and animal weight gains than rotation grazing when
    stocking rates were the same (Holechek et al. 1999).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Eleven of 16 analyses \[of the effects of cattle grazing in arid
    systems of 16 response variables ranging from soil bulk density to
    total vegetative cover to rodent species diversity\] (69%) revealed
    significant detrimental effects of cattle grazing, suggesting that
    cattle can have a negative impact on North American xeric ecosystems
    (Jones 2000).

    -   Livestock grazing had significant effects on vascular plants for
        4 of 8 vegetation response variables analyzed. Cover of grasses
        and shrubs, as well as total vegetation biomass, was reduced
        significantly by grazing (Jones 2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Successful \[riparian grazing\] systems had lower average stocking
    rates (4.9 hectares/AUM) than unsuccessful systems (3.8
    hectares/AUM) though the difference was not statistically
    significant. This 22% difference in stocking rate would not be
    expected to appreciably influence riparian vegetation response to a
    grazing system (Myers 1989).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The success or failure of livestock grazing systems in providing for
    stream riparian site recovery is related to riparian plant
    phenology, floodplain function, and livestock use behavior in
    riparian areas (Myers 1989).

-   Providing for herbaceous \[riparian\] regrowth may also extend the
    growing season rest needed to sustain plant vigor (Myers 1989).

-   Grazing systems must accommodate \[restoration of major stream
    banks\] by providing residual cover for sediment filtering and good
    vegetative vigor for stability. Residual cover is a function of both
    utilization level and for herbaceous species, post-grazing regrowth.
    Removing livestock by early August to accommodate at least 30 d of
    regrowth probably meets floodplain function needs on the study area,
    though more data are needed (Myers 1989).

-   On the study area, successful grazing systems were found to provide
    for more (p=0.05) post-grazing herbaceous regrowth (34.9 d),
    compared to only 20.8 d in unsuccessful systems. Also, through a
    combination of both regrowth and rest treatments, successful systems
    provided post-growing season residual riparian cover 75% of the
    years, as compared to only 38% of the years in unsuccessful systems
    (Myers 1989).

-   On the study area, successful grazing systems were found to have
    significantly (p=0.01) less grazing during the "hot season" \[July
    through early September\] (12.5 d) than unsuccessful systems with
    33.4 d. Likewise, the duration of all livestock treatments was
    significantly (p=0.001) shorter in successful systems (28.2 d)
    compared to 59.3 d in unsuccessful systems. Given the reluctance of
    cattle to disperse from riparian areas, the duration of grazing
    treatments becomes a key factor in determining the severity of
    impacts such as trampling and mechanical damage, soil compaction,
    and utilization. In a rest-rotation system Platts[^104] (1981) noted
    significant riparian habitat alterations at 65% utilization levels,
    but no detectable impacts at 25% utilization (Myers 1989).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A combination of longer duration and more frequent fall grazing
    deteriorated woody species vigor and regeneration, contributing to
    diminished floodplain function and reduced riparian dependent values
    (Myers 1989).

-   Plots having higher species richness tended to maintain higher
    levels of cover and to vary less in cover relative to their mean
    level, indicating links between species richness and function.
    Abundance of nonnative species was negatively correlated with cover,
    but not with richness of native species. Thus, adequate cover of
    native species can render these semiarid communities more resistant
    to invasion (Anderson and Inouye 2001).

-   Density of Pacific willow seedlings did not vary among treatments or
    years. Increase in sandbar willow seedling density over time was
    similar for the spring grazing, fall grazing, and protected
    treatments, but declined over time in control pastures. Within
    species, seedling growth was similar in spring, fall, and protected
    pastures, exceeding that of controls (Shaw 1991).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rest alone resulted in a 29% reduction in sagebrush canopy during
    the study period \[1963-1981\] (Wambolt and Payne 1986).

-   From this study at present it is difficult to see any direct
    competition with livestock and this bird on areas of highly
    productive summer ranges as concerns their feeding habitats. It is,
    however, logical to suppose that in areas where the entire
    understory of weeds and grasses have been destroyed that conditions
    would not be favorable for the young birds to obtain the varied
    plant diet they use during their first summer (Rasmussen and Griner
    1938).

-   Some competition is believed to exist \[on sagebrush winter ranges\]
    that is of extreme importance to the welfare of the grouse. The use
    of the open ridge tops as bed grounds for sheep and the resultant
    destruction of sagebrush vegetation from these ridges, which
    provides the regular winter feeding areas during periods of deep
    snows, are certainly of importance in the lives of the sage grouse
    (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

# Grazing Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse Cover and Food Availability

## Leks

-   Eighty percent of the locations \[of feeding and loafing sites of
    strutting cocks\] occurred in sagebrush with a canopy coverage of
    20-50 percent[^105] (Wallestad 1975).

-   Sharptails did not alter their distribution or habitat use when a
    major segment of their home range was subjected to intensive grazing
    following a rest period (Eng and Mackie 1982).

-   \[Stockponds\] tend to concentrate cattle such that shrubby cover
    critical to wintering sharptails is destroyed (Nielsen and Yde
    1981)[^106]. This concentration effect and the intensity of grazing
    pressures on certain pastures under rest-rotation systems led
    Mattise [^107](1978) to conclude that year-long grazing with less
    complete herbage removal over large areas may be better than
    rest-rotation for sharptails (Eng and Mackie 1982).

-   Sage grouse use of grazed meadows was significantly greater than use
    of ungrazed meadows in late July and throughout August (Evans 1986).

-   Forb regrowth, stimulated by grazing prior to the cessation of plant
    growth, was available to sage grouse on grazed meadows throughout
    most of the summer, while forbs on ungrazed meadows became mature
    and unpalatable by late July (Evans 1986).

-   Eighty percent of the \[daytime feeding and loafing sites of cocks\]
    occurred in sagebrush with a canopy coverage of 20-50% (Wallestad
    and Schladweiler 1974[^108]) (BLM 1979).

-   The strutting ground is an area supporting low, sparse sagebrush or
    else an area denuded of vegetation (BLM 1979).

-   Grassy swales, natural and irrigated meadows where grass has been
    removed, burned areas, cultivated fields adjacent to sagebrush-grass
    rangelands, cleared roadsides, abandoned homesteads, dry lake beds,
    etc., serve \[as strutting grounds\] with seemingly little attention
    paid to other land uses (Bean 1941, Carhart 1941, Patterson 1952,
    Dalke et al. 1963[^109]) (BLM 1979).

-   Strutting grounds are often located near water (BLM 1979).

-   Sage grouse in most states have begun courtship behavior on
    strutting grounds by mid-March (BLM 1979).

-   Males begin returning to strutting grounds in late winter, and begin
    displaying and establishing territories on leks as soon as snow
    begins to disappear (Aldridge 1998).

-   During years of low population size, smaller dancing grounds tend to
    be abandoned (Dalke et al. 1963[^110]) (Aldridge 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Displaying male sage-grouse require relatively open areas during the
    breeding season (Scott 1942; Patterson 1952; Dalke et al. 1963;
    Klebenow 1973, 1985; Autenrieth 1981; Schroeder et al. 1999[^111]).
    Such sites are typically adjacent to sagebrush with adequate cover
    for nesting hens as well as protection from avian predators, and
    support low, sparse vegetation, if any at all (Scott 1942, Petersen
    1980[^112], Autenrieth 1981, Klebenow 1985). Flat or gently sloping
    terrain is a common characteristic of leks (Rogers 1964[^113]), as
    is their location in valley bottoms or draws (Patterson 1952, Rogers
    1964). There is no evidence that suitable habitat for leks is
    limiting for sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 1999) (Rowland 2004).

-   Of 10 leks surveyed in Mono County, California, six were in meadows,
    although meadows composed only 9% of the available sagebrush/meadow
    habitat (Gibson 1996[^114]) (Rowland 2004).

-   Habitat type did not appear to be the primary factor in lek
    location, however; instead, female dispersal traffic (patterns of
    travel between wintering and nesting areas) appeared to most
    strongly influence lek location (Bradbury et al. 1989a[^115], Gibson
    1996). In addition to open areas for display by males and traffic by
    hens, protection from raptors is a factor in lek location (Bradbury
    et al. 1989b[^116]) (Rowland 2004).

-   Forty-one leks in Nevada and Utah were preferentially located in
    black sagebrush habitats (based on use versus availability) (Nisbet
    et al. 1983[^117]). Environmental variables beyond vegetation type
    that were included in a lek preference model were slope (\<10%),
    precipitation (\>25 cm), distance to nearest water source (\<2,000
    m), and predicted encroachment by pinyon (*Pinus* spp.)/juniper
    (Juniperus spp.) woodlands (Nisbet et al. 1983). In North Park,
    Colorado, mating areas (arenas) within leks had an average canopy
    cover of only 7.3% and a mean vegetation height of 5.3 cm; sagebrush
    species present included big sagebrush, alkali sagebrush (*A.
    arbuscula longiloba*), and black sagebrush (Petersen 1980).
    Rogers (1964) reviewed characteristics of 120 leks throughout
    Colorado during 1953-1961 and found that, on average, half were in
    sagebrush; 54% were on gentle slopes; 55% were in bottoms; only 5%
    were within 200 m of a building; and that although 42% were \>1.6 km
    from an improved road, 26% were within 100 m of a county or state
    highway. During daytime, male sage-grouse in northeastern Utah used
    areas near leks that had comparatively greater canopy cover (mean =
    31%) and taller shrubs (mean = 53 cm) than did nearby non-use areas
    (Ellis et al. 1989[^118]). Minimum core day-use areas of males were
    0.25 km2 in size, and the birds often walked to such sites for
    feeding and loafing (Ellis et al. 1989) (Rowland 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sage-grouse establish leks not only in native habitats but also in
    altered or recently disturbed environments (Schroeder et al. 1999).
    Leks have been found on airstrips, firing ranges, gravel pits, sheep
    bedding grounds, cultivated fields, recently burned sagebrush,
    plowed fields, cleared roadsides or roadbeds, and actively occupied
    ant mounds (Batterson and Morse 1948, Patterson 1952, Dalke et al.
    1963, Rogers 1964, Klebenow 1973, Giezentanner and Clark 1974,
    Autenrieth 1981, Connelly et al. 1981, Gates 1985, Hofmann
    1991[^119]). This flexibility suggests that man-made leks are a
    potential management tool when traditional leks are destroyed, such
    as by wildfire or human activities (Connelly et al. 1981) (Rowland
    2004).

-   Leks vary in size; Klebenow (1973) reported a typical range from
    0.04 to 4.0 ha. Scott (1942) reported a range of 0.4 to 16 ha, based
    on his work on the Laramie Plains in Wyoming; one lek, however, was
    about 20 ha in size and supported 400 strutting males.
    Hofmann (1991) reported a mean size of 36 ha for the four largest
    leks in a study in central Washington (Rowland 2004).

-   Leks often occur in complexes, with satellite leks on the periphery
    that may not be used in all years, depending on population size or
    weather (Dalke et al. 1963, Rogers 1964, Wiley 1978[^120]). In a
    study of 31 leks in Idaho, mean interlek distance (i.e., distance
    between nearest neighbor leks) was about 1.6 km (Wakkinen et al.
    1992[^121]). Of 13 leks examined in the Upper Snake River Plains in
    Idaho, 10 were in threetip sagebrush (Klebenow 1969). For two of
    these leks, interlek distance was 0.8 km, and for eight others, 2.4
    km. In Wyoming, lek density of 29 leks within a water-reclamation
    project area averaged 6.8 leks per 100 km^2^, compared with 8.4 leks
    per 100 km^2^ for 18 leks in nearby, undeveloped sagebrush habitats
    (Patterson 1950). Similar lek densities were reported in Oregon;
    there were 4.3 leks per 100 km^2^ at Hart Mountain National Antelope
    Refuge and 4.7 leks per 100 km^2^ at Jackass Creek (Willis et al.
    1993[^122]) (Rowland 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   On the basis of similar dispersal distances and distribution
    patterns, we believe that breeding male sage grouse in other areas
    most likely continue to select the same day-use areas year after
    year. Such areas, once identified, should be protected to the
    greatest extent possible. Alteration of these areas may cause
    abandonment of a lek (Ellis et al. 1987).

## Nesting

-   From data collected in 1968, if was found that females began nesting
    in late May (Poley 1969).

-   Observations indicated that sage grouse hens acted as individuals as
    opposed to following general patterns (Poley 1969).

-   Relatively dense (20-40 percent coverage) sagebrush stands are used
    for nesting (Greer 1990).

-   Removing less than 50% of the herbaceous vegetation production
    appear to have similar affects on sage grouse nesting and early
    chick survival (Heath et al. 1998).

-   Taller grass was found at nest sites than at random sites and
    successful nesting sites had taller grass than unsuccessful sites
    (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Medium and tall shrubs were also recurrent components of successful
    nest sites (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Grazing that occurs just prior to nesting (winter and early spring)
    has the most immediate effect on residual cover; adequate herbaceous
    cover should be left for concealment of nests (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   On better ranges, litter and grass-forb understory was thought to
    contribute to successful nesting by helping to camouflage nests
    (Willis et al. 1993).

-   Wallestad and Pyrah[^123] (1974) found sagebrush cover was the most
    important factor to nesting sage grouse in Montana and that
    successful nests were located in stands of sagebrush with a higher
    canopy coverage than those of unsuccessful nests (Willis et al.
    1993).

-   ...mean nest initiation and renesting rates increased concordantly
    with spring forbs, which increased 2- to 3-fold in several key cover
    types between periods (Coggins 1998).

-   ...mean nesting success increased concomitantly with increases in
    tall grass cover during spring (Coggins 1998).

-   Nesting areas are found on gradually sloping sagebrush-covered hills
    from one to five miles from the strutting grounds and from 100 to
    400 feet higher in elevation. Most nests are built at the foot of a
    sagebrush and under an over-hanging limb...(Batterson and Morse
    1948).

-   When heavy use occurs within the traditional sage grouse nesting
    and/or brood rearing habitats the result appears to be negative both
    in terms of harassment and competition for forbs. It is not valid to
    assume sage grouse can move elsewhere during heavy livestock use
    (Autenrieth 1981).

-   Greater amounts of residual tall grass cover and medium height shrub
    cover at nests likely provided increased nest concealment from
    predators and resulted in greater nest success than at sites with
    less tall grasses and medium shrubs (Crawford et al. 1992).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sage grouse apparently require stands of medium height (40-80 cm)
    sagebrush with an understory of tall (\>18 cm) residual bunchgrasses
    for successful nesting (Crawford et al. 1992).

-   Heterogeneity of habitat appears to be important in maintaining
    nesting areas, and height of grass may be important in nest site
    selection and nest success. (xeric) \[26\]

-   ...sage grouse use different portions of the available habitat for
    nesting in different geographic areas (Wakkinen 1990).

-   Several studies (Gray 1967, Klebenow 1969, Wallestad and Pyrah 1974,
    Peterson 1980[^124]) have indicated that sage grouse nest in stands
    with the maximum big sagebrush height and canopy cover available for
    nesting. Autenreith[^125] (1981) found that hens in Idaho select
    less than maximum available canopy cover (Wakkinen 1990).

-   Grass cover and/or height may contribute to suitable nesting habitat
    and, possibly, success (Klebenow 1969, 1972, Autenreith 1981, Call
    and Maser 1985[^126]) (Wakkinen 1990).

-   ...data suggests that grass height may be a factor in both nest site
    selection and nest fate (Wakkinen 1990).

-   Excessive livestock grazing has negatively impacted sage grouse
    habitat by creating seral conditions that favor annual grass
    dominance and by reducing perennial grasses used as nesting and
    escape cover (Beck and Mitchell 2000[^127]). However, the specific
    relationship between grazing pressure and sage grouse nest success
    has not been empirically evaluated (Crawford et al. 2004).

-   Heavy use of riparian meadows by livestock reduces the availability
    of succulent plant species and may induce avoidance of these
    habitats by sage grouse (Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, 1985[^128])
    (Crawford et al. 2004).

-   Nest destruction by livestock trampling is rare, however, the
    presence of livestock can cause sage grouse to abandon their nests
    (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, Patterson 1952, Call 1979[^129])
    (Crawford et al. 2004).

-   Managers should consider delaying grazing of known nesting areas
    until after nesting (Beck and Mitchell 2000[^130]) (Crawford et al.
    2004).

-   Rotational grazing systems are one way to provide areas (i.e.,
    pastures) free from livestock disturbance during nesting. This
    benefit may be offset if heavy use occurs in the grazed pastures
    (Holechek et al. 1982[^131]), especially since sage grouse can
    display high site fidelity (Fischer et al.1993[^132]) (Crawford et
    al. 2004).

-   One advantage of rest rotation grazing is that rested pastures can
    provide emergency forage (Ratliff and Reppert 1974[^133]), which may
    prevent excessive grazing in the used pastures during drought. This
    added residual cover may be important to sage grouse, but light to
    moderate utilization of grasses in well-managed continuously grazed
    systems may also provide sufficient residual cover (Crawford et al.
    2004).

-   Grazing systems in riparian areas have met with mixed results and
    their influence on system recovery and vegetation response will vary
    based on site potential, ecological condition, stream morphology,
    and climate (Elmore and Kauffman 1994[^134]) (Crawford et al. 2004).

-   Compared with no grazing, rest rotation grazing increased forb
    abundance on sage grouse meadow habitat in Nevada (Neel 1980[^135])
    (Crawford et al. 2004).

-   Grazing during the late spring nesting period can reduce herbaceous
    cover necessary for concealing nests from predators (Beck and
    Mitchell 2000[^136]). Heavy grazing reduces cover and increases the
    chance of predation, especially by ground squirrels (*Spermophilus*
    spp.)(Braun 1987[^137]) (Adams et al. No date).

-   The greatest potential for nest impacts on Sage-Grouse may be
    associated with forced livestock movements across nesting areas
    (Autenrieth 1981[^138]). Call and Maser (1985[^139]) and Aldridge
    (Personal comm.) suggest that so long as key vegetation components
    do not deteriorate, cattle are not a serious factor in destruction
    of nests (Adams et al. No date).

-   Hens nest in short sagebrush of medium density, such as is found on
    drier sites, in preference to the dense, tall brush found along
    watercourses and on moist areas (BLM 1979).

-   Height of sagebrush commonly used for nesting varies between 7 and
    31 inches (17 to 79 cm) with most nests located under the tallest
    bushes available at a particular site (Keller et al. 1941, Patterson
    1952, Trueblood 1954, Gray 1967, Klebenow 1969, Wallestad and Pyrah
    1974[^140]) (BLM 1979).

-   Stands of 20-40% canopy coverage were most frequently selected for
    nesting (BLM 1979).

-   Successful nests had greater sagebrush cover within 24 inches of the
    nest and were located in stands of sagebrush with a higher average
    canopy coverage (27%) than those of unsuccessful nests (20%)
    (Wallestad and Pyrah 1974) (BLM 1979).

-   Patterson (1952) measured height of nesting cover in Wyoming and
    reported that 216 of 262 nests measured had nesting cover between 10
    and 20 inches tall (BLM 1979).

-   In Montana, Wallestad (1975) stated that average sagebrush height
    over nests was 15.9 inches (BLM 1979).

-   Nest sites are usually located within 2 miles of a strutting ground
    (BLM 1979).

-   ...Patterson (1952) reported that on 2 occasions bands of sheep
    caused birds to flush and simultaneously to flip eggs out of their
    nests (BLM 1979).

-   There was no indication that livestock is a serious factor in nest
    destruction, although nest desertion from livestock activities was
    of frequent occurrence under certain conditions (Patterson 1952)
    (BLM 1979).

-   Desertion was most prevalent in the vicinity of sheep bedgrounds.
    Bands of from 2,000 to 3,000 sheep were serious disturbances to
    nesting activities (Patterson 1952) (BLM 1979).

-   Patterson (1952) noted that it was significant that several thousand
    sheep began moving into his study area en route to their summer
    ranges coincident with the period of nest desertion (BLM 1979).

-   When \[heavy use of pasture in rest rotation grazing systems\]
    encompasses nesting and/or brood rearing habitats the results are
    negative (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   It is known that hens abandon nests with little provocation while
    laying (mid-April through early May). It is also known that yearling
    hens are prone to nest abandonment when disturbed, even during
    incubation. Since yearling hens comprise about 35% of the
    reproductive segment, the impact of livestock drives could be severe
    (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Males also remain near leks during the nesting season, with one
    study reporting that 76% of all movements during this season were
    within one kilometer of the dancing grounds (Wallestad and
    Schladweiler 1974[^141]) (Aldridge 1998).

-   Greater Sage-Grouse nest in a variety of cover types, but most nests
    are under big sagebrush (Patterson 1952, Gill 1965, Wallestad and
    Pyrah 1974, Petersen 1980, Wakkinen 1990, Connelly et al. 1991, Drut
    et al. 1994a, Gregg et al. 1994, Sveum et al. 1998, Schroeder et al.
    1999[^142]). Other shrubs used for nesting cover include
    bitterbrush, greasewood (*Sarcobatus vermiculatus*), horsebrush
    (*Tetradymia* spp.), low sagebrush, mountain mahogany (*Cercocarpus*
    spp.), rabbitbrush, shadscale saltbush (*Atriplex confertifolia*),
    snowberry (*Symphoricarpos* spp.), and western juniper (*Juniperus
    occidentalis*) (Patterson 1952, Klebenow 1969, Wakkinen 1990,
    Connelly et al. 1991, Crawford and Davis 2002[^143]). Nests also
    have been found on bare ground devoid of cover (Patterson 1952) and
    under basin wildrye (*Leymus cinereus*) (Wakkinen 1990, Crawford and
    Davis 2002). Young[^144] (1994) reported a Gunnison Sage-Grouse nest
    beneath a Douglas-fir (*Pseudotsuga menziesii*) tree (Rowland 2004).

-   The most suitable nesting habitat includes a mosaic of sagebrush
    with horizontal and vertical structural diversity. A healthy
    understory of native grasses and forbs provides 1) cover for
    concealment of the nest and hen from predators, 2) herbaceous forage
    for pre-laying and nesting hens, and 3) insects as prey for chicks
    and hens. Mean sagebrush canopy cover at nest sites ranges from 15
    to 38%, and mean sagebrush height ranges from 36 to 79 cm (Schroeder
    et al. 1999). Mean distance between nests and nearest leks varies
    from 1.1 to 6.2 km; however, nests have been found \>20 km from the
    nearest lek (Connelly et al. 2000b) (Rowland 2004).

-   In central Oregon, nests were most common in mountain big sagebrush
    (*A. t. vaseyana*); however, the percentage of nests in this type
    was similar to the availability of the type (Hanf et al.
    1994[^145]). Although mountain shrub types (mountain big
    sagebrush/antelope bitterbrush) and native grasslands were less
    commonly used, sage-grouse appeared to select these types for
    nesting; that is, use exceeded availability (Hanf et al. 1994). In
    southeastern Oregon, Drut et al. (1994a) found that 13 of 18 nests
    were in big sagebrush. In another study in southeastern Oregon,
    Gregg et al. (1994) found that 94% of all nests of radio-marked hens
    were under sagebrush in an area where sagebrush composed 87% of the
    shrubs (Rowland 2004).

-   Sveum et al. (1998) evaluated nesting habitat selection at the
    Yakima Training Center in Washington, which contains some of the
    most intact sage-grouse habitat remaining in the state. Most first
    nest attempts (64% of 72) were in the big sagebrush/bunchgrass cover
    type. This type was preferred (use exceeded availability) in 1 of 2
    yr of study. Sage-grouse nested in stiff sagebrush (*A.
    rigida*)/bluegrass (*Poa* spp.) and grassland cover types less than
    expected in both years. They showed no preference (i.e., use was
    proportional to availability) for nesting in big
    sagebrush/bunchgrass that had reduced shrub cover and increased bare
    ground resulting from military training activities, or in riparian
    cover types (ephemeral streams and wet areas). Shrub cover at nest
    sites averaged 51% (1992) and 59% (1993), compared with 6 to 7% at
    random sites. Shrub height was greater (59 and 63 cm) at nest sites
    than at random sites (15 and 13 cm) (1992 and 1993, respectively).
    Nest sites also had less cover of short (\<18 cm) grasses, greater
    vertical cover height, less bare ground, and more litter than random
    sites (Rowland 2004).

-   In an Idaho study, 216 nest bushes were taller and larger than big
    sagebrush shrubs in 40- m^2^ plots surrounding the nests (Autenrieth
    1981). Mean height of nest bushes ranged from 58.2 cm to 79.3 cm,
    compared with 30.2 to 54.9 cm in the plots. Mean diameter of nest
    bushes ranged from 93.9 to 109.7 cm, compared with 42.7 to 61.0 cm
    for other sagebrush shrubs in the plots (Autenrieth 1981). Canopy
    cover in the surrounding plots ranged from 23.4 to 38.1%. Distance
    from nests to water varied from 530 to 2,257 m (Rowland 2004).

-   Patterson (1952) recorded \>200 sage-grouse nests during 1949-50 in
    the Eden Valley- Pacific Creek area in Wyoming. Height of cover at
    nest sites ranged from 0 to 102 cm, with a mean of 36 cm; nests were
    most commonly placed beneath "short sagebrush of medium density,
    such as is found on drier sites, in preference to the dense, tall
    sagebrush found along watercourses...." (Patterson 1952:114).
    Although the specific taxa of sagebrush were not mentioned, this
    area is an arid Wyoming big sagebrush (*A. tridentata wyomingensis*)
    site, thus accounting for the relatively shorter stature of nesting
    shrubs compared to those reported for Washington and Idaho (Rowland
    2004).

-   In the Green River Valley in Wyoming, Lyon[^146] (2000) compared a
    suite of variables at 50 nests with random vegetation plots.
    Compared with independent, random sites, nest-use plots had taller
    average live sagebrush (32.7 vs. 27.6 cm), more grass cover (10.6
    vs. 5.4%), more forb cover (8.2 vs. 4.3%), and taller nest bushes
    (44.4 vs. 21.4 cm) (Rowland 2004).

-   Of 61 sage-grouse nests at the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge
    (NWR) in Nevada, 41% were in mountain big sagebrush, 31% were in
    mountain shrub (including mountain big sagebrush, antelope
    bitterbrush, bluegrass, and needlegrass \[*Achnatherum* spp.\]), and
    13% were in low sagebrush cover types (Crawford and Davis 2002).
    Neither cover type, medium-height (40 to 80 cm) shrub cover, nor
    total forb cover were related to nest success, and no relationship
    was found between age of hen and type of cover used for nesting
    (Crawford and Davis 2002). Compared to random sites, nest sites had
    greater tall (\>18 cm) residual grass cover and greater cover of
    medium-height shrubs (Rowland 2004).

-   In North Park, Colorado, Petersen (1980) studied breeding biology of
    sage-grouse hens; mean sagebrush canopy cover at 35 nest sites was
    24% (range from 9.4 to 52.6%), and mean sagebrush height was 32 cm
    (range 11.1 to 59.8 cm), with no differences between nest sites used
    by adult versus yearling hens. Slope at nest sites was gentle, with
    85% of nests on slopes of \<12% (Petersen 1980). Gill (1965), also
    working in North Park, located 92% of 117 nests under sagebrush;
    mean height of cover at the nest was 43 cm. Nests were typically on
    flat ground, with mean slope of 2% (Gill 1965) (Rowland 2004).

-   In southcentral Idaho, Klott et al.[^147] (1993) found four
    sage-grouse nests in Wyoming big sagebrush, two in low sagebrush,
    and one each in mountain big sagebrush and crested wheatgrass. No
    nests were found in quaking aspen (*Populus tremuloides*), mountain
    mahogany, mountain shrub, or meadow habitat types (Rowland 2004).

-   In the Upper Snake River Plains of southeastern Idaho, sage-grouse
    nested primarily in threetip sagebrush (Klebenow 1969). Mean height
    of shrubs under which sage-grouse nested was 43 cm, whereas mean
    height of threetip sagebrush in the study area was only 20 cm. Mean
    total shrub cover in the vicinity of nest sites was 18.4%, compared
    with 14.4% in the threetip sagebrush community overall. Although big
    sagebrush density and crown cover were greater near nests than in
    the general area, sage-grouse nests were not found in big sagebrush
    stands with cover exceeding 25%. Bitterbrush provided all or part of
    the nesting shrub cover for 29% of the nests. The author used
    stepwise discriminant function analysis in an attempt to distinguish
    between nest sites and the surrounding habitat in the threetip
    sagebrush community; however, a satisfactory model could not be
    developed with the data collected (Klebenow 1969) (Rowland 2004).

-   In addition, current guidelines for sage-grouse recommend protecting
    breeding habitat within 3.2 km of the lek for nonmigratory
    populations, and within 18 km of the lek for migratory populations
    (Connelly et al. 2000b) (Rowland 2004).

-   Density of sage-grouse nests varies across the range of the species,
    with densities of 3.8 to 55.6 per km2 reported by Schroeder et al.
    (1999). Nest densities averaged 16.2 per km2 over two breeding
    seasons within big sagebrush habitats in Wyoming (Patterson 1952).
    In southeastern Idaho, there were 3.8 nests per km2 in a big
    sagebrush/threetip sagebrush site; however, nests were not evenly
    distributed across the study area, and in some areas nest density
    reached 24.7 nests per km2 (Klebenow 1969). Across North Park,
    Colorado, nest density was estimated at 12.4 per km2 (Gill 1965). In
    the most productive nesting habitat in the Strawberry Valley in
    Utah, Rasmussen and Griner[^148] (1938) found 36 nests per km2. This
    habitat was composed of recently disturbed (e.g., from burning or
    flooding) sites in which big sagebrush or black sagebrush had
    recovered so that \>50% of total cover was in sagebrush, and shrubs
    were \>45 cm tall (Rowland 2004).

-   Of 161 nests examined in Utah, two were trampled by livestock (one
    sheep, one cattle) and five were deserted due to disturbance by
    livestock (Rasmussen and Griner 1938) (Rowland 2004).

-   In Wyoming, nesting densities of sage-grouse were considerably lower
    (10 nests/100 ha) in areas heavily grazed by domestic sheep compared
    to adjacent sites with moderate grazing (28 nests/100 ha) (Patterson
    1952). Nest desertion caused by migrant bands of sheep also was
    documented (Patterson 1952) (Rowland 2004).

-   Sage grouse on the Big Desert showed strong fidelity for specific
    nesting areas, since movements between consecutive-year nests
    represented only 3.5% of their median annual straight-line movement
    (20.9km) (Fischer et al. 1993).

-   Gates [^149](1983) reported fidelity to nesting areas by three
    female sage grouse that all nested \<200m from the previous year's
    nests (Fischer et al. 1993).

-   Ground-nesting birds are probably more seriously affected by
    over-grazing than any other group of wildlife because a lack of
    vegetative cover results in high predation losses (Johnsgard
    1973[^150]).

-   Artificial nest fate was positively associated with tall grass cover
    and medium-height shrub cover collectively (p=0.01) (DeLong et al.
    1995).

-   This study supports the hypothesis that greater amounts of tall
    grass and medium-height shrub cover at nest sites lower risk of nest
    predation for sage grouse (DeLong et al. 1995).

-   Most nests \[within the Yakima Training Center study site\] (71%)
    were in big sagebrush (*Artemesia tridentata* Nutt.)/bunchgrass
    communities (Sveum et al. 1998).

-   Nest habitat was characterized by greater shrub cover, shrub height,
    vertical cover height, residual cover, and litter than at random
    locations (Sveum et al. 1998).

-   Successful 1 m^2^ nest sites within big sagebrush/bunchgrass in 1992
    had less shrub cover (51%) and shrub height (64 cm) than depredated
    nest sites (70% and 90 cm, respectively). Successful 77 m^2^ nest
    areas in big sagebrush/bunchgrass in 1993 had more tall grass (≥
    18 cm) than depredated nest areas (Sveum et al. 1998).

-   Nest sites had greater vertical cover height each year and greater
    standing dead cover than random sites in 1992 (Sveum et al. 1998).

-   Combined data from both years \[1993-1994\] indicated nearly
    one-third (32.2%) of the marked hens moved farther than 3.0 km from
    the lek to nest (Giesen 1995).

-   Shrub height, primarily sagebrush (*Artemisia* spp.) at nests
    averaged 54.6 ±14.0 cm and 57.7 ± 14.5 cm in 1993 and 1994,
    respectively. Mean sagebrush canopy cover and density at nests were
    35.3 ± 14.9% and 14,700 ± 6,000 plants/ha in 1993 and 42.8 ± 15.0%
    and 15,300 ± 6,200 plants/ha in 1994. No differences in habitat
    selected for nesting were observed by hens marked at different
    strutting grounds (Giesen 1995).

-   Ritchie et al. [^151](1994) suggested that herbaceous cover may be
    more important in determining sage grouse nest success than
    sagebrush height or cover. Results from this study, particularly the
    comparisons between nest transects and dependent random transects
    agree with this finding (Giesen 1995).

-   Greater sage grouse in Wyoming selected nesting sites with more
    shrub and residual grass cover than was present at randomly selected
    sites, supporting our hypothesis that nest sites were characterized
    by appropriate sagebrush and herbaceous cover (Connelly et al. 1991)
    (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   ...the probability plot indicated increasing sagebrush height did
    not substantially influence the probability of a nest, suggesting
    that greater sage grouse selected for increased total shrub canopy
    cover given adequate sagebrush height. This contention was also
    supported by the relative variable importance analysis (Holloran et
    al. 2005).

-   ...the confidence interval around the odds ratio for sagebrush
    height was centered about 1, suggesting that sagebrush height was
    not a good predictor of nesting habitat (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   Greater sage grouse generally select sagebrush patches in mid-range
    canopy cover conditions (i.e. 15 to 25%; Connelly et al. 2000) for
    nesting, and avoid sparse and excessively dense patches. However,
    the relationship between shrub canopy cover and the probability of a
    nest was linear (not quadratic), and suggested that selection was
    for sagebrush patches with the highest canopy cover in the range of
    canopies measured (i.e., range 15-40% for grouped means) (Holloran
    et al. 2005).

-   The relative importance analysis suggested that taller and thicker
    residual grass cover characterized successful greater sage grouse
    nesting habitat (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   Our results support findings that cover of taller grasses was
    important to nesting grouse, while further suggesting both increased
    residual grass cover and height could be important individually
    (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   The relative importance analysis additionally indicated that
    herbaceous cover and height were more important than shrub cover or
    height in distinguishing successful from unsuccessful nests.
    However, the nest selection analysis established that nests were in
    areas with increased shrub canopy cover relative to available areas.
    Thus, taller, thicker residual grass cover in dense sagebrush stands
    appeared to increase the probability of a successful nest (Holloran
    et al. 2005).

-   Our results suggest the timing and amount of moisture received were
    important to nest success...cool season grass growth during the
    preceding year (i.e., available as residual grass to nesting
    females) appeared to be important for overall greater sage grouse
    nesting success (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   ...selection was for areas with the densest residual grass available
    and, within those selected areas, nests with the densest residual
    grass were most successful (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   ...residual grass heights should be a minimum of 10 cm within
    Wyoming big sagebrush dominated habitats (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   Our results suggest that sagebrush patches with a combination of
    dense shrub (overhead) and residual grass (lateral) cover are
    preferred greater sage grouse nesting areas and that tall, dense
    residual grasses within these dense shrub stands may be important
    for nesting success. The results additionally suggest that factors
    other than the vegetative characteristics immediately surrounding
    the nest influence nesting success (Holloran et al. 2005).

-   Nesting is, as a rule, definitely under way by the middle of May in
    the Strawberry Valley. This is subject to some seasonal
    variation...Observations in the Strawberry Valley (elevation 7,550
    to 8,000 feet) show that in 1936 the nesting activity began early in
    May and nests were found between the 12th and 16^th^ of May with
    clutches from 4 to 8 eggs (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

-   Observations on some nests near Portage, Utah, at an elevation of
    near 5,500 feet showed that nesting activity began between April 15
    and April 30 in 1936 (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

-   The nesting period extended until the first week of July, the last
    hatch with definite record was on July 5, 1936...\[98\]

-   Concealment is the first and perhaps most important requisite of a
    good sage grouse nesting site (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

-   Of the 161 nests studied during the two years all were found on the
    ground, usually protected by sagebrush and never a great distance
    from these shrubs (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

-   In the case of the two nests destroyed by livestock one is
    attributed to sheep and the other to cattle, they were the only
    class of stock using the area where the desertion occurred
    (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

-   The livestock which accounted for the 5 desertions were both sheep
    and cattle. In all cases the stock either knocked eggs from the nest
    or bedded down too near the nest (Rasmussen and Griner 1938).

## Brood Rearing

-   Most researchers believe that broods stay in the vicinity of the
    nest for about two weeks before moving toward hay meadows (Poley
    1969).

-   The hen on the other nest under observation remained in the vicinity
    of the nest for 30 days before starting a very leisurely trek to a
    meadow about one mile away (Poley 1969).

-   Although the adult diet switches to forbs and insects in addition to
    sagebrush, developing young depend heavily upon insects for food
    (Greer 1990).

-   Forbs become important in the diets of juveniles as summer
    progresses. At this time, broods move to higher elevations in search
    of succulent vegetation or remain in sagebrush habitat if succulent
    forbs are readily available (Greer 1990).

-   Hens and broods are strongly attracted to lush hay meadows and
    alfalfa fields during late summer (Greer 1990).

-   Our results suggest that grazing management practices that promote
    increased height and coverage of grass will increase chick survival
    (Heath et al. 1998).

-   Selection for meadows which had been grazed was consistently higher
    for hens and juveniles (Evans 1986).

-   In general, sage grouse seemed to use meadows where cattle were
    present or in the vicinity, but appeared to avoid close contact
    (Evans 1986).

-   Autenrieth[^152] (1973) found that livestock competition with broods
    on wet meadows negatively affected some sage grouse populations in
    Idaho (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Klebenow[^153] (1982), working in Nevada, found that heavily grazed
    meadows in poor condition were avoided by sage grouse broods.
    Klebenow found that loss of cover due to heavy grazing was causing
    the avoidance of these areas (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Klebenow (1982) found that dense grassy meadows that had been grazed
    lightly or moderately were attractive to sage grouse (Hanf et al.
    1994).

-   Brood habitat was largely determined by the availability of
    succulent vegetation (Wallestad 1975).

-   Between periods brood success increased, but not significantly, with
    increased total forb cover and key food forb cover during summer
    (Coggins 1998).

-   During July, several broods unite and adult males join them; the
    grouse flocks then migrate to the alfalfa fields or other areas with
    more succulent feed in the valleys (Batterson and Morse 1948).

-   The key to sage grouse habitat enhancement is to increase favored
    forbs for brood use while minimally reducing protective sagebrush
    cover (Autenrieth 1981).

-   ...even in wet springs hens must move their broods to mesic areas in
    search of insects and forbs if domestic livestock has depleted the
    range (Autenrieth 1981).

-   Brood-rearing habitat may be enhanced by grazing practices that
    favor upland forb production (e.g., fall grazing) and prescribed
    light (\< 40%) to moderate spring grazing can remove standing
    herbage and make forbs more accessible (Smith et al. 1979, Fulgham
    et al. 1982[^154]). However, consumption of forbs by livestock may
    limit their availability to sage grouse (Call 1979[^155]) (Crawford
    et al. 2004).

-   In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer the lower
    vegetation (5--15 cm vs. 30--50 cm; Oakleaf 1971, Neel 1980,
    Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986[^156]) and succulent forb growth
    stimulated by moderate livestock grazing (Neel 1980, Evans 1986)
    (Crawford et al. 2004).

-   Prescribed livestock grazing in spring and early summer, especially
    by sheep and goats (*Capra hircus*), can help control invasive weeds
    (Mosley 1996, Olson and Wallander 2001, Merritt et al. 2001[^157])
    and woody plant encroachment (Riggs and Urness 1989[^158]) in sage
    grouse habitat and may reduce wildfire risks to low elevation plant
    communities. However, the logistics of applying such grazing
    treatments at large spatial scales remain difficult (Crawford et al.
    2004).

-   Potential for competition with Sage-Grouse young may be in
    proportion to the extent to which cattle select mesic/moist sites
    that are preferred foraging areas. Young birds seek out insects and
    succulent forbs in these habitats (Aldridge 2002, Young 1994, Paige
    and Ritter 1999[^159]) (Adams et al. No date).

-   During drought conditions, important forage plants may be grazed
    earlier than normal, thus reducing the potential forage supply for
    young birds. Conversely, dormant season grazing of brood rearing
    areas will reduce potential for overlap with Sage-Grouse diets
    (Adams et al. No date).

-   Favored foods are common dandelion (*Taraxacum officinale*), common
    salsify (*Tragopogon dubius*), western yarrow (*Archillea
    millifolium*) and others (Klebenow and Gray 1969, Savage 1968,
    Peterson 1970[^160]) (BLM 1979).

-   As food plants mature and dry, the grouse move to areas still
    supporting succulent vegetation. These may be lower elevation native
    meadows or irrigated meadows when no uplands with green vegetation
    are in the area (Eng 1952, Rogers 1964[^161]) or they migrate
    upward, seeking out habitats where succulent fobs are still
    available such as more mesic swales (Klebenow 1972[^162]). Roadsides
    and borrow pits are frequently used during June and July because of
    moisture and succulent vegetation present (BLM 1979).

-   ...birds appear to prefer relatively open sagebrush vegetation types
    as compared to dense stands of sagebrush (Klebenow 1972) (BLM 1979).

-   In southern Idaho the percent canopy cover of big sagebrush at brood
    sites was 8.5, significantly less than the average for the entire
    area, 14.3. 3 out of 98 broods were found where total shrub cover
    was 40 to 49%; the rest where cover was less than 31%. Where there
    was an interspersion of openings mixed with dense sagebrush, they
    used the more open portions (Klebenow 1972) (BLM 1979).

-   The incidence of sagebrush consumption increases \[in late August at
    high elevations, or in September or October in some lower areas\]
    (Klebenow 1972) (BLM 1979).

-   In Montana, approximately 65% of all grouse observations during
    August and September were recorded in bottomland types such as
    alfalfa fields and greasewood bottoms (Wallestad 1975[^163]) (BLM
    1979).

-   ...a rapid removal of forbs by livestock on spring and summer ranges
    may have a substantial adverse impact on young sage and grouse,
    especially where forbs are already scarce in the composition (BLM
    1979).

-   The upland meadow represents the primary summer habitat available to
    sage grouse throughout much of its range in Nevada. Past and present
    management of public lands in Nevada has regarded upland meadows as
    sacrifice areas. A serious deterioration of this habitat has been
    the inevitable result and will continue unless meadows are
    specifically managed (Oakleaf 1971[^164]) (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Meadows provided a source of food (forbs), water and cover that were
    unavailable on more xeric, but adjacent rangelands (Savage 1969)
    (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Oakleaf (1971) showed that a reduction in meadow use by sage grouse
    occurred as an increasing percentage of the juvenile population
    reached 11-12 weeks of age. He further found that the diminished
    food supply of a deteriorated meadow limited the use by sage grouse
    (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   Stewart and Smith (1955) found that valley bottoms and areas around
    water sources are used first by cattle. They indicated overgrazing
    of mesic sites was necessary to force cattle to use less accessible,
    rougher terrain. The result is that mesic sites become sacrifice
    areas (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   ...the Bureau of Land Management (USDI 1975[^165]) identified
    livestock grazing as having an adverse impact on 1,413 km (883 mi)
    of streambank riparian habitat in Nevada. This report also described
    the combined effects of water development practices and livestock
    grazing as being the primary areas where wildlife habitat conflicts
    exist, and further states that "The areas around most livestock
    waters and water courses visited (in the 3 districts) were denuded
    of vegetation and trampled by livestock." (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   When \[heavy use of pasture in rest rotation grazing systems\]
    encompasses nesting and/or brood rearing habitats the results are
    negative (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   It is not legitimate to assume sage grouse can move elsewhere during
    heavy livestock use (Autenrieth et al. 1982).

-   In Alberta, Banasch[^166] (1985) found that 85% of broods located
    were in wet meadows. Broods still remained relatively close to leks,
    with an average brood-lek distance of 2.6 km (Aldridge 1998).

-   Brood-rearing habitats for sage-grouse are typically mosaics of
    upland sagebrush and other habitats (e.g., wet meadows, riparian
    areas) that together provide abundant insects and forbs for hens and
    chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999, Connelly et al. 2000b). In two study
    sites in southeastern Oregon, Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
    and Jackass Creek, sage-grouse broods were most common in low
    sagebrush during early brood rearing (first 6 weeks post-hatch), but
    then moved to sites dominated by big sagebrush (7-12 weeks after
    hatching) (Drut et al. 1994a). Following brood breakup in August,
    sage-grouse used meadows and lake beds more frequently than earlier
    during the brood-rearing period (Drut et al. 1994a). During early
    brood rearing at Jackass Creek, forb cover at sites used by broods
    was 10 to 14% and exceeded forb cover at random sites (Drut et al.
    1994a); however, no pattern was evident during late brood rearing.
    Broods at Hart Mountain used forb cover in relation to its
    availability during early brood rearing, but selected sites with
    greater forb cover (19 to 27%) during the late brood-rearing period
    (Drut et al. 1994a) (Rowland 2004).

-   Sage-grouse broods at the Sheldon NWR used primarily sagebrush
    uplands (low sagebrush and mountain and Wyoming big sagebrush)
    during 1978 and 1980; however, during the drought year of 1979, use
    was greater in wet meadows, and upland sites were abandoned by
    broods by late summer (Klebenow 1985). Brood habitat in uplands
    differed from that in wet meadows. Upland brood sites had greater
    canopy cover of sagebrush (mean = 25 vs. 0%), less grass cover (15
    vs. 57%), and less forb cover (10 vs. 38%). Meadows into which tall
    sagebrush has encroached were seldom used by sage-grouse during
    brood rearing, with no grouse found in areas with a mean shrub
    height of 140 cm and \>40% canopy cover (Klebenow 1985). In these
    meadows, most broods occurred in sites with relatively shorter
    shrubs (60 cm) and greater dominance of grass and forb cover
    (Klebenow 1985) (Rowland 2004).

-   In a subsequent study during 1998-2000 at Sheldon NWR, broods (n =
    392 locations) used primarily low sagebrush for the first few weeks
    after hatching, moving to big sagebrush (mountain or Wyoming) or
    mountain shrub communities by 3 weeks post-hatch (Crawford and Davis
    2002). Important brood habitats were low sagebrush (40% of all brood
    locations), a 10-yr old burn in a mountain big sagebrush site (19%),
    mountain shrub (16%), and mountain big sagebrush (13%). Differences
    in vegetation characteristics (e.g., tall grass cover and forbs
    consumed by hens) were found between brood locations and random
    sites; these differences, however, varied among cover types. For
    example, in the low sagebrush cover type, cover of forbs eaten by
    hens and chicks was less at brood locations (about 5.5%) than at
    random sites (10.2 and 8.2% for hens and chicks, respectively), but
    tall grass cover was greater (4.4% at brood locations vs. 1.4% at
    random sites). By contrast, cover of forbs used by hens and chicks
    in the burn was greater at brood locations (6.7 and 5.2%) versus
    random sites (2.3 and 3.4%, respectively), but tall grass cover was
    less (18.3% at brood locations vs. 26.2% at random sites). Of the
    five cover types in which there were significant differences, cover
    of forbs used by hens and chicks was greater at brood locations than
    at random sites in four types (all but low sagebrush). No
    differences were found in vegetation characteristics between early
    and late brood-rearing habitats (Rowland 2004).

-   In southeastern Idaho, sage-grouse broods were most often found in
    big sagebrush (83% of broods), whereas sage-grouse in this area
    nested primarily in threetip sagebrush (Klebenow 1969). Mean big
    sagebrush crown cover at brood locations was 8.5%, significantly
    less than in the surrounding area (14.3%). Broods appeared to avoid
    sites with dense (e.g., 40%) big sagebrush cover and few forbs. In
    the development of a predictive model for brood habitat with
    discriminant function analysis, several variables were useful in
    distinguishing brood habitat. Compared to the available big
    sagebrush habitat, broods used areas with lower density of big
    sagebrush plants and greater frequency of three forbs: western
    yarrow (*Achillea millefolium*; 23.5%), tailcup lupine (*Lupinus
    caudatus*; 18.3%), and common dandelion (*Taraxacum officinale*;
    12.0%) (Klebenow 1969) (Rowland 2004).

-   Autenrieth (1981) summarized brood-rearing studies in Idaho and
    noted that, when broods do not migrate to upland habitats during
    summer, they rely on springs and wet meadows for succulent forbs.
    Livestock often graze these sites, so that when precipitation is
    scarce, adequate access to succulent forbs for sage-grouse can be
    difficult (Autenrieth 1981). Important forbs for sage-grouse in
    Idaho include common dandelion, prickly lettuce (*Lactuca
    serriola*), common salsify (*Tragopogon* spp.), western yarrow,
    alfalfa, and sweet clover (*Melilotus* spp.) (Autenrieth 1981)
    (Rowland 2004).

-   During summer, shifts of broods to more mesic habitats with
    substantial forb production are common, but may depend on seasonal
    moisture patterns. Increased use of meadows and riparian areas in
    mid- to late summer is common as herbaceous vegetation in upland
    habitats becomes desiccated (Schroeder et al. 1999, Connelly et al.
    2000b). In Idaho, Fisher (1994) found that when moisture in forbs
    was below about 60%, summer migration ensued; he suggested there
    might be a threshold for moisture content that triggers movement to
    areas with more succulent forage. At Sheldon NWR in Nevada,
    sage-grouse broods generally remained in upland habitats (primarily
    low sagebrush), with 92% of all brood locations in upland sites
    during two summers (1978 and 1980) (Klebenow 1985). During the
    intervening summer (1979), however, rainfall was scarce and
    sage-grouse used meadows more than upland sites (64% of locations in
    meadows vs. 36% in upland sites). Danvir[^167] (2002) found a
    similar relation, with increased use of meadows during dry summers.
    In central Montana, sage-grouse broods shifted from sagebrush
    grasslands to alfalfa fields and greasewood bottoms as forbs at
    higher elevations became desiccated (Wallestad 1971). Sage-grouse in
    Idaho formed large flocks near water and green meadows as plants
    senesced during summer (Dalke et al. 1963). In southeastern Idaho,
    broods moved to higher elevations during both summers of study,
    presumably in response to food availability (Klebenow 1969). A shift
    to sites with bitterbrush, associated with more mesic conditions,
    also was noted as the summer progressed; in June, 38% of broods were
    in this type, increasing to 53% in July (Klebenow 1969) (Rowland
    2004).

-   Seasonal shifts in brood-rearing habitat may not occur (Rowland
    2004).

-   Broodless hens may exhibit different seasonal habitat use patterns
    than hens with broods (Rowland 2004).

-   Compared to hens with broods, broodless hens used more low
    sagebrush/bunchgrass, grassland, and meadow types and less low
    sagebrush/fescue (Gregg et al. 1993) (Rowland 2004).

-   Livestock grazing during drought generally reduced grasshopper
    populations in southern Idaho rangeland (Fielding and Brusven
    1995[^168]), and grasshoppers are an important food of growing
    chicks (Stinson et al. 2004).

-   Brood sites contained more grass cover than did the random sites in
    all of the habitat types, but the difference was statistically
    significant in only the low sagebrush type (Klebenow 1981).

-   There were fewer forbs in the portions of the habitats occupied by
    broods (Klebenow 1981).

-   The meadow habitats were sites that were important for cattle as
    well as sage grouse. During summer, 1979, when grouse relied heavily
    on wet meadows, it was noted that grouse did not avoid the grazed
    areas. Rather, when the choice was possible, they sought areas in
    the meadow where the effective cover height was less than normal for
    the meadow (Klebenow 1981).

-   When cattle first began grazing a meadow containing residual grass
    remaining from the previous year, parts of the meadow were initially
    grazed more intensively than others, creating a mosaic of vegetation
    heights. Within this mosaic, grouse sought the grazed openings
    (Klebenow 1981).

-   Neel (1980) found when a meadow was bisected by a pasture fence with
    one side grazed and the other rested, the grouse selected the grazed
    side. He found on a lightly grazed meadow, that the grouse selected
    for the grazed patches with significantly lower height of cover than
    average for the meadow (Klebenow 1981).

## Winter

-   During winter, sage grouse often use tall, dense stands of sagebrush
    which remain relatively exposed through deep snow (Greer 1990).

-   During the winter, sage grouse feed almost entirely on the leaves of
    sagebrush (Hanf et al. 1994).

-   Typical winter ranges are large expanses of dense sagebrush (\>20%
    canopy cover) with and average height of 25 cm, on land having
    little, if any, slope (Eng and Schladweiler 1972)[^169] (Hanf et al.
    1994).

-   Elimination of winter range habitat would reduce sage grouse
    populations over large areas (Eng and Schladweiler 1972) (Hanf et
    al. 1994).

-   Cold weather and frosts destroy the green feed in early November
    causing sage grouse flocks to return to the sagebrush hills to spend
    the winter (Batterson and Morse 1948).

-   Sage grouse live almost exclusively on the leaves of sagebrush
    during the winter (BLM 1979).

-   In Montana when snow depth exceeded 12 inches, sage grouse were
    restricted to taller sagebrush stands, a relatively small percentage
    of the total range available to them in a normal (lesser snow)
    winter (BLM 1979).

-   Bean (1941) reported that when snow depth reached 13 to 15 inches in
    Idaho, sage grouse moved to taller sagebrush types (BLM 1979).

-   Eng and Schladweiler (1972) described winter ranges in eastern
    Montana as being large expanses of dense (20% or greater canopy
    coverage) sagebrush with an average height of 10 inches on land
    having little if any slope (BLM 1979).

-   This association with dense stands of sagebrush usually began in
    September (Wallestad 1971) and continued through the breeding and
    nesting seasons (Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974) (BLM 1979).

-   Wallestad (1975) reported that 78% of 151 winter locations of
    radioed sage grouse occurred in the greater than 20% canopy coverage
    class. As weather moderated in February, activities shifted to more
    open stands of sagebrush (BLM 1979).

-   Snow depth forces the birds to lower elevations and appears to be a
    factor determining the actual wintering site for a flock
    (Klebenow 1972) (BLM 1979).

-   Black sage (*Artemisia nova*) was preferred as forage in
    southeastern Idaho. Sage grouse remain on the areas supporting this
    species until the snow covers the plants and return again when the
    black sage is available (Pyrah 1954, Crawford 1960[^170]) (BLM
    1979).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Biologists and field personnel report a similar preference for low
    sagebrush on Nevada and Utah ranges where it is available (BLM
    1979).

-   Many sagebrush ranges on public lands are grazed by domestic sheep
    in winter (BLM 1979).

-   Management strategies that maintain or increase available sagebrush
    above snow in deep snow winters, or increase forb availability in
    droughts should reduce sage grouse mortality in poor winter years,
    thus maintaining larger populations to rebound in favorable weather
    years (Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch No date).

-   Where sage grouse nest and raise broods on sagebrush-covered
    mountain slopes or in high mountain valleys, they usually migrate to
    lower valleys in winter to find exposed sagebrush for food. This is
    common in Wyoming, Colorado and Idaho but less true in southeastern
    Oregon where winters are milder and snow seldom covers sagebrush
    plants deep enough to make locating food a serious problem (Call and
    Maser 1985).

-   During winter, sage-grouse rely almost exclusively on sagebrush for
    forage (Connelly et al. 2000b). The spatial distribution of
    sage-grouse in winter often is related to snow depth (Patterson
    1952; Dalke et al. 1963; Gill 1965; Klebenow 1973, 1985; Beck 1975,
    1977[^171]; Danvir 2002). At the onset of winter, sage-grouse
    gradually move to lower elevations with greater exposure of
    sagebrush above the snow; in migratory populations, this movement
    may extend up to 160 km (Patterson 1952). During more severe
    winters, a large proportion of the sagebrush may be beneath snow and
    thus unavailable for roosting or foraging (Rowland 2004).

-   Although snow cover was a major factor in determining areas used,
    slope and aspect further restricted amount of suitable habitat for
    sage grouse. In North Park \[Colorado\], grouse selected sagebrush
    on southwest exposures and flat to gentle slopes. Sagebrush on
    slopes greater than 15 percent was rarely used although such areas
    were present...(Beck 1977).

-   Eng and Schladweiler (1972) also reported avoidance of steep slopes
    in winter by sage grouse in central Montana (Beck 1977).

-   Disturbances of sage grouse habitat in identified winter use areas
    should be avoided or kept to a minimum (Beck 1977).

## Migratory and Non-Migratory Populations

-   \[Antelope and sage grouse\] exhibited seasonal movements from
    summer to winter ranges in essentially the same areas and at the
    same periods (Patterson 1952).

-   Sage grouse are semi-migratory and resort to seasonal changes of
    their habitat. These migrations...are of a vertical nature and are
    consistent only in the limited areas involved; under different
    conditions sage grouse have developed different migratory habitats
    (Batterson and Morse 1948).

-   Populations may have: 1) distinct winter, breeding, and summer
    areas; 2) distinct summer areas and integrated winter and breeding
    areas; 3) distinct winter areas and integrated breeding and summer
    areas; or 4) well-integrated seasonal habitats (nonmigratory
    populations) (Connelly et al. 2000).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There appears to be a major migration route from the Big Desert
    \[Idaho\] to the southwest and a secondary migration corridor to the
    northwest. Birds moving to the northwest show a gradual shift to
    higher elevations, while birds using the southwest corridor were
    found at lower elevations (Wakkinen 1990).

-   Although sage grouse will take advantage of water developments that
    are placed in traditional migration corridors, they apparently will
    not readily change these traditional movements (Wakkinen 1990).

-   Sage grouse began arriving in the strutting ground vicinities as
    soon as snow drifts melted sufficiently to expose patches of
    sagebrush (Gill 1965).

-   From April 1-15 the daily movements of adult males were all
    strutting ground oriented. Adult males rarely traveled more than 400
    yards from the strutting grounds at this time. Daily cruising radii
    at the beginning of the breeding season were within one-quarter mile
    of the strutting grounds. Movements were lengthened to one mile as
    breeding activities approached termination for the season (Gill
    1965).

-   ...during early April when adult males were attending the strutting
    grounds, females were grouped into flocks of 7 to 30 birds and were
    concentrated within a one mile radius of the strutting grounds (Gill
    1965).

-   ...near the end of the season in late May males began to gather into
    large flocks of 15 to 40 birds. A progressive movement toward the
    summer ranges began as individual flocks ceased making daily
    appearances on the strutting grounds (Gill 1965).

-   Migrations to summer ranges occurred along intermittent streams
    draining into the major rivers and streams bordering the study area
    (Gill 1965).

-   Fall distribution of sage grouse flocks appeared to be random over
    the upland sagebrush sites used during the breeding season. The only
    difference between fall distribution and spring distribution was
    that fall populations were not strutting ground oriented (Gill
    1965).

-   Winter snow accumulation determined the areas selected for winter
    ranges (Gill 1965).

-   Distances moved from breeding to wintering ranges averaged 7.9 to
    11.6 km for sage grouse in northern Colorado (Beck 1977[^172]), 28
    to 30 km in Colorado (Schoenberg 1982 [in]{.underline} Dunn and
    Braun 1986[^173]) and 11.3 km for adults in southeastern Idaho
    (Connelly et al. 1988[^174]) (Aldridge 1998).

-   ...one-way migrations of 80 km are not uncommon (Connelly et al.
    1988, Dalke et al. 1963, Patterson 1952) and distances up to 160 km
    have been recorded (Patterson 1952) (Aldridge 1998).

-   Movements of juveniles in Colorado are sporadic and tend to follow
    corridors of sagebrush (Dunn and Braun 1986) (Aldridge 1998).

-   In Montana, sage grouse populations are considered non-migratory,
    with minimal movements occurring between winter and summer ranges
    due to the overlap of habitats (Eng and Schladweiler 1972[^175]).
    Topographic relief (or lack thereof) in Alberta is similar to that
    of Montana, and thus, sage grouse populations in Alberta are
    probably non-migratory (Aldridge 1998).

-   Wintering grounds in southeastern Idaho also overlap with spring and
    summer ranges (Connelly et al. 1988) (Aldridge 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Migratory populations of sage-grouse may use areas exceeding 2,700
    km2 (Connelly et al. 2000b, Leonard et al. 2000[^176]), and travel
    of 35 km from a lek to a winter area has been recorded (Berry and
    Eng 1985[^177]) (Rowland 2004).

-   In eastern Idaho, the mean distance moved between summer and winter
    ranges was 48.2 km for 28 hens; this movement involved a decrease in
    mean elevation of 446 m (Hulet et al. 1986[^178]) (Rowland 2004).

-   Grouse occupying sagebrush habitats at relatively low elevation are
    sometimes nonmigratory (Wallestad 1975), and sage grouse inhabiting
    mountain valleys or areas with distinct elevational gradients are
    often migratory (Dalke et al. 1960, Connelly 1982[^179]) (Connelly
    et al. 1988).

-   Fall movements by adults ranged from 1 to 64 km...and did not differ
    (p\>0.05) from distances moved by juveniles... These movements were
    longer than those reported for sage grouse in Montana
    (Wallestad 1975) but similar to those reported for grouse in
    southeastern Idaho (Dalke et al. 1963[^180]) and southwestern
    Wyoming (Berry and Eng 1985[^181]) (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Movements to winter range were generally slow and meandering,
    beginning in late August and continuing into December (Connelly et
    al. 1988).

-   Sage grouse generally return to the same breeding complex used in
    previous years (Dalke et al. 1963). Because sage grouse winter range
    occurs in close proximity to leks in the study area, movements of
    adults to winter range represent their return to traditional
    breeding areas (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Male sage grouse from the mountain valley abandoned their leks in
    late April or early May. Their movements to summer range were more
    direct and rapid than those of females (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Females from the mountain valley did not move directly to summer
    range after nesting. Instead, these birds remained in the general
    area of the lek on which they had been captured before moving to
    summer range in early to mid-June (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Limited data on male sage grouse from the lowland area suggest that
    males moved directly to summer ranges after leaving their leks in
    late April or early May. Males normally arrived on summer range
    first but were closely followed by females without broods (Connelly
    et al. 1988).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Females with and without broods made relatively extensive movements
    during the spring (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Females with broods appeared on summer range in late June or early
    July, about 2 weeks after the arrival of males and females without
    broods (Connelly et al. 1988).

-   Grouse moved 0.2-82.0 km from winter and breeding areas to summer
    range (Connelly et al. 1988).

# Social Science Aspects

## Effects on Local Farmers and Ranchers

-   ...instances were noted where sage grouse populations have been
    heavily depleted in Wyoming as a result of intensive agricultural
    development. There are many such areas in other western states
    (Patterson 1952).

-   The only contact with farming activities is in localities where
    grouse spend the summer and fall on alfalfa and meadow lands
    (Batterson and Morse 1948).

-   A shift in the allowed amount of grazing by commercial operators
    will change the economic position of those operators (Dietz 1984).

-   Cut-backs in access will increase the cost of operations and could
    force some ranchers out of business, though in most cases this is
    not likely (Dietz 1984).

-   West[^182] (1980) argues that the elimination of provisions that
    exempted small users from allotment cuts had significant adverse
    effects on small users, and on Spanish-Americans in particular
    (Dietz 1984).

-   Increasing tension in the Nevada ranch community may have had a
    negative impact on social capital. Social capital facilitates
    cooperation in resolving social dilemmas related to public range
    management (vanKooten et al. 2004).

-   \[Survey of public grazing permit holders in Nevada\] results
    indicate that low levels of trust between ranchers and public land
    managers were most significantly related to previous disagreements
    and belief that the future of ranching is bleak. Disagreements with
    public agencies were mainly the caused by disputes concerning
    responses to wildfire, and such disagreements led to a deterioration
    of relations over time. Relations between ranchers and the USFS
    deteriorated to a greater extent than relations with the BLM, partly
    because the former have cut back on allowable grazing to a greater
    extent. While there remain opportunities to build on existing social
    capital in the community (horizontal relations), ranchers and the
    public agencies need to work on building vertical relations, thereby
    increasing trust. We argue that, even if the latter fails, new
    institutions might evolve to utilize existing social capital and
    thereby help resolve social dilemmas (vanKooten et al. 2004).

-   If public land agencies become too rigid, or fail to evolve
    sufficiently to address 'modern' needs, then ranchers will rely on
    their informal contacts with agency personnel -- their personal
    network -- to implement management activities that would otherwise
    be held up by bureaucracy and the hierarchy that inevitably
    accompanies it. However, if ranchers cannot work with the public
    agencies, range quality may deteriorate as may the habitat of
    threatened or endangered species. In such cases, other institutional
    arrangements may need to be considered, ones that yield better
    outcomes from a social viewpoint, and are also politically more
    acceptable (vanKooten et al. 2004).

## Effects on Local Communities

-   The increase in costs might reduce local incomes and employment,
    produce shifts in the occupational structure of the communities
    surrounding the resource area, and affect the fiscal balance of
    those communities (Dietz 1984).

## Economic Effects

-   \[A\] well was drilled in 1948-1949 by the Superior Oil Company on
    the Dry Sandy-Pacific Creek sage grouse study area...Studies
    conducted in close vicinity of this well revealed that the drilling
    operations had not interfered seriously with sage grouse nesting and
    strutting activities (Patterson 1952).

-   A prospective shale oil industry may also prevent a threat to the
    survival of sage grouse through the elimination of sagebrush and
    pollution of streams (Patterson 1952).

-   The livestock permittee should be assisted in animal management
    practices that will increase return per head (Dwyer et al. 1984).

-   A reduction of permitted AUMs of grazing does not necessarily mean
    the permittee will suffer a comparable loss in net return. Improved
    application of animal husbandry practices can increase calf crop and
    weaning weight so that per-head yield is substantially increased.
    The manager should help the permittee apply these practices (Dwyer
    et al. 1984).

-   ...reductions in permitted numbers, always a troublesome action,
    should be partially set-off by increased performance of individual
    animals. This effect is generally small and it would undoubtedly be
    a difficult concept to sell to a permittee as a quantitative
    advantage (Malechek 1984).

-   Specialized grazing systems, as conventionally used, rarely
    increase, and frequently decrease, individual animal production. In
    view of the long-term delay (10 or more years) in and the
    uncertainty of future stocking rate increases promoted by these
    systems in arid and semi-arid areas, informed livestock operators
    would not be inclined to willingly enter such programs. The response
    of new short-duration grazing management schemes looks promising,
    based on preliminary observations, but the final verdict, based on
    replicated research, is far from apparent (Malechek 1984).

-   Multiple-use management should be based on solid empirical analyses
    that attempt to quantify costs and benefits of the products produced
    on public lands. Whenever possible, environmental concerns should be
    directly incorporated into benefit-cost analysis rather than used as
    a separate ranking device for project selections (Workman et al.
    1984).

-   Elimination of grazing permit eligibility requirements (prior use,
    commensurability, ownership of land and water) should be considered.
    Such elimination would allow for free transfer of grazing permits
    among ranchers at market-dictated prices (Workman et al. 1984).

-   If grazing permits are permanently reduced, permittees should be
    compensated proportionately for their interest in range improvements
    just as they are for permit cancellations (Workman et al. 1984).

-   Incentives for private investment in public range improvement should
    be created by devising a system for evaluating changes in grazing
    capacity that is credible to ranchers, including a guarantee that
    increased forage will be made available to participating permittees
    (Workman et al. 1984).

-   Benefit-cost analysis of range improvements should be based on all
    costs and benefits, both private and government (Workman et al.
    1984).

-   If evaluated from a national perspective, the impact of use at other
    sites must be considered but need not be if very local
    considerations are paramount. This suggests that there exists a
    potential to overestimate the benefits of uses such as recreation,
    wildlife, etc. when shifts in use from one area to another are
    ignored (Godfrey 1984).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cook et al.[^183] (1980) found that changes in spring use had a
    greater impact on livestock sales per AUM for Colorado ranchers than
    did AUM changes in any other season (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   Van Tassell and Richardson (1998) also found that spring and summer
    forage obtained from public lands was critical to the operation of
    federally based ranches in Wyoming. Similarly, Torell et al.
    (1981[^184]) found the same situation for public land ranches in
    northern Nevada (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   Optimal production strategies and ranch income were not
    exceptionally sensitive to increases in the grazing fee, but
    production and net returns changed substantially when federal AUMs
    were removed from any season, particularly the spring season
    (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   If an altered land-use policy means that grazing will not be allowed
    during the spring period, but the number of public land AUMs allowed
    for grazing is not correspondingly reduced, it is possible that
    eliminating spring grazing and shortening the allowed grazing period
    on public lands would increase optimal herd sizes. Torell et
    al. (1981) estimated this would be the situation for northeastern
    Nevada ranchers when spring grazing was eliminated. Given the
    cost/price definition of the analysis, the profit-maximizing
    strategy was to make up lost public land AUMs during the spring
    period by feeding more hay and to substitute other forages where
    possible. Net returns were reduced, but it was most profitable to
    use BLM AUMs previously grazed during the spring in other seasons
    and to expand herd size. For other ranches with few low-cost
    alternative sources of forage, optimal herd size could decrease with
    the elimination of spring grazing (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   \[Linear programming\] studies found reductions in income and net
    ranch returns were not proportional to reductions in federal forage.
    The rigidity of seasonal forage availability meant the optimal use
    of other forages and resources were impacted when federal AUMs were
    removed. Other forages were reallocated to offset part of lost
    federal forage (Gee 1981, Van Tassell and Richardson 1998[^185])
    (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   For the Wyoming \[federally based ranches\] studies, complete
    elimination of the BLM permit was estimated to decrease annual net
    cash income by an average of \$55/BLM AUM removed \[1998 dollars\]
    (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   At the other extreme, because some western ranchers are not
    necessarily in the business to make a profit and spend more than
    they justifiably should to produce livestock, Rowe and
    Bartlett (2001) found that eliminating federal grazing permits in
    Colorado would actually benefit some ranchers by forcing them to
    reduce the size of their money-losing livestock enterprise. Economic
    changes from allotment adjustments varied widely, ranging from a
    loss of \$40/AUM to a gain of \$27/AUM \[2001 dollars\] when herd
    reductions were the assumed adjustment strategy (Torrell et al.
    2002).

-   ...eliminating BLM grazing to improve habitat for sage-grouse would
    have a significant impact on the economic viability of affected
    ranches. This is especially true during the spring period. Early
    spring grazing is valuable because few alternative forage sources
    are available at that time. In most cases, the only feasible forage
    alternative would be to feed hay (Torrell et al. 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Rowe and Bartlett[^186] (2001) concluded that once hay was needed to
    compensate for public forage losses, reducing herd size would be the
    most cost-effective adjustment (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   Making alterative grazing resources available during the spring
    always minimized losses relative to feeding hay or reducing herd
    size. If complete flexibility of other deeded forages were assumed,
    the economic loss of restricting the early use of BLM lands was
    minimal; seasonal use of alternative forages would be rearranged
    with little if any economic consequence (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   The economic value of the BLM forage during the spring period was
    found to be 5 to 10 times the value in other seasons later in the
    year for both the Idaho and Nevada models (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   The economic impacts from reducing BLM grazing in any season were
    found to vary widely depending on several key factors. First,
    individual ranches will be able to substitute alternative forages to
    varying degrees as federal AUMs are eliminated. Substituting forages
    minimizes economic losses relative to the option of feeding hay and
    reducing cow herd size. Those ranches with restricted seasons of
    forage availability will have less ability to substitute alternative
    forages if BLM grazing is removed (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   The contributory value of the federal grazing permits for livestock
    production varies widely depending on the seasonal complement of
    forage and pasture resources ranches have, and the level of
    dependency on federal lands (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   It is widely believed that the complement between public and private
    lands contributes greatly to the economics of western ranching and
    our analysis clearly shows that to be the case (Torrell et al.
    2002).

-   For those ranches with limited off-ranch wealth and income, reducing
    public land grazing capacity by even marginal amounts was found to
    greatly impact the ability of ranchers to meet annual financial
    obligations and to repay debt (Torrell et al. 2002).

-   ...significant reductions in grazing AUMs on public lands can have
    identifiable negative economic effects on individual producers and
    rural communities (Wambolt et al. 2002).

-   ...this study confirms that negative economic effects can result
    from large reductions in public land grazing. Public land grazers
    also point out that alternative management actions, such as reducing
    fire in the sage ecosystem or requiring habitat mitigation for
    sagebrush fragmentation, do not have the same negative economic
    consequences for individuals and local communities. The economic
    impacts of such actions are usually exported from the region and
    spread over many consumers nationwide (Wambolt et al. 2002).

-   Eliminating BLM grazing to improve habitat for sage-grouse would
    have a significant impact on the economic viability of affected
    western ranches. Early spring grazing is valuable because few
    alternative forage sources are available at that time. In most
    cases, the only feasible forage alternative would be to feed hay
    (Wambolt et al. 2002).

-   If complete flexibility of other deeded forages were possible, the
    economic loss of restricting the early use of BLM lands was minimal
    (Wambolt et al. 2002).

-   ...trust is related to institutions and affects the costs of
    transacting. If confidence in an enforcement agency falters, one may
    not trust others to fulfill their agreements and thus enter into
    fewer agreements. There is an element of trust in any transaction
    where one has to decide (make a choice) before being able to observe
    the action of the other party to the transaction. One has to assume
    that the other person is not acting with guile, keeping information
    hidden that could be used to their advantage at the expense of the
    other party to the transaction. Like other components of social
    capital, trust makes an economy function more efficiently (Fukuyama
    1999[^187]) (vanKooten et al. 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In the ranch community, trust, social norms (shared beliefs) and
    social networks -- social capital -- are vitally important to
    community health and that of the range ecosystem (vanKooten et al.
    2004).

-   The level of trust in public land agencies is inversely related to
    two factors -- the extent to which ranchers had disagreements with
    public land managers about how the range is utilized and the extent
    to which respondents were negative about the future of ranching
    (vanKooten et al. 2004).

-   Economic theory indicates that an increase in social capital can
    benefit the ranch community by reducing transaction costs and
    increasing opportunities to resolve range management conflicts. This
    can be accomplished primarily by restoring trust between ranchers
    and public land managers (vertical relations) and building upon
    extant relations that exist because of high levels of participation
    in community service and professional organizations (horizontal
    relations) (vanKooten et al. 2004).

-   Financial returns per acre average about 4% higher under continuous
    or season-long grazing than rotation grazing systems (Holechek et
    al. 1999).

-   Torell et al. [^188](1991) using a Colorado prairie study (Sims et
    al. 1976[^189]), found profit-maximizing stocking rates were well
    below those that would deteriorate the rangeland resource. Workman
    [^190](1986)...drew the same conclusion \[85\]

-   Rotation grazing systems have been widely recommended by various
    government agencies concerned with range management. However
    research shows stocking rate reductions from heavy to conservative,
    have much higher probability of increasing grazing capacity,
    reducing risk, increasing financial returns, and reducing erosion.
    The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
    Conservation Service continues to recommend 50% use of forage
    resources. However the research convincingly shows 40-45% use is
    moderate on most rangelands and 30-35% use is needed for improvement
    in rangeland vegetation (Holechek et al. 1999).

-   Moderate continuous grazing typically gave better vegetation,
    livestock, and financial performance than rotation grazing at heavy
    stocking rates. However under moderate stocking rates there is
    evidence that some rotation grazing systems give equal or superior
    vegetation, livestock, and financial performance to continuous
    grazing (Holechek et al. 1987, Heitschmidt et al. 1990, Taylor et
    al. 1993[^191]) (Holechek et al. 1999).

# References

Adams, B.W., J. Carlson, D. Milner, T. Hood, B. Cairns and P. Herzog. No
date. Beneficial

> grazing management practices for Sage-Grouse (*Centrocercus
> urophasianus*) and ecology of silver sagebrush (*Artemisia cana*) in
> southeastern Alberta. Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta
> Sustainable Resource Development. Pub. No. T /049.

Aldridge, C.L. 1998. Status of the Sage Grouse (*Centrocercus
urophasianus urophasianus*) in

> Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management
> Division, and Alberta Conservation Association. Wildlife Status Report
> No. 13. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Aldridge, C.L, and R.M. Brigham. 2002. Sage grouse nesting and brood
habitat use in southern

Canada. J Wildl Manage. 66(2):433-444.

Anderson, J.E., and R.S. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in plant
species abundance and

> biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over 45 years. Ecological
> Monographs. 71(4): 531-556.

Autenrieth, R. E. 1981. Sage Grouse management in Idaho. Idaho Dept. of
Fish and Game.

Authenrieth, R., W. Molina, and C. Braun, eds. 1982. Sage Grouse
Management Practices.

> Western States Sage Grouse Committee. Western States Sage Grouse
> Committee Technical Bulletin #1. Twin Falls, ID.

Bartlett, E.T.; Torell, A.; Rimbey, N.R.; Van Tassell, L.W.; and D.W.
McCollum.

> 2002\. Valuing grazing use on public land. J. Range Manage.
> 55:426-438.

Batterson, W. M., and W.B. Morse. 1948. Oregon Sage Grouse. Oregon Fauna
Series No. 1.

Oregon State Game Comm. Portland, OR

Beck, T.D.I. 1977. Sage grouse flock characteristics and habitat
selection in winter. J Wildl

Manage. 41(1):18-26.

Beck, J.L, and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on
sage grouse habitat. Wildl

Soc Bull. 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.

Blaisdell, J.P., R.B. Murray, and E.D. McArthur. 1982. Managing
Intermountain Rangelands-

> Sagebrush-Grass Ranges. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
> Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Gen. Tech. Report
> INT-134. Ogden, UT.

Bork, E.W., N.E. West, and J.W. Walker. 1998. Cover components on
long-term seasonal sheep

grazing treatments in three-tip sagebrush steppe. J Range Manage.
51:293-300.

Braun, C.E.; Connelly, J.W.; and M.A. Schroeder. 2005. Seasonal Habitat
Requirements

> for Sage-Grouse: Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter. *In:* Shaw, Nancy
> L.; Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B., comps. 2005. Sage-grouse
> habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 2001 June 4--7, Boise, ID.
> Proc. RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
> Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 130 p.

Browers, H.W., J.W. Connelly, and R.J. Gates. 1984. Movements and
habitat use of sage grouse

> in southeastern Idaho. *In*: The 37th Annual Meeting of the Society
> for Range Management. February 12-17, 1984. Society for Range
> Management. Denver, Colorado.

Buskness, N.A., R.K. Murphy, K.F. Higgins, and J. Jenks. 2001. Breeding
bird abundance and

> habitat on two livestock grazing regimes in North Dakota. Proceedings
> of the South Dakota Academy of Science. 80 :247-258.

Call, M.W., and C. Maser. 1985. Wildlife Habitats in Managed
Rangelands\--The Great Basin of

> Southeastern Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
> Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General
> Technical Report PNW-187. Portland, Oregon.

Clary, W.P., and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing Grazing of the Riparian
Areas in the

> Intermountain Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
> General Technical Report INT-263. Ogden, UT.

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. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept.
> INT-RP-492. 27:811841. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
> Intermountain Research Station.

Coggins, K. A. 1998. Relationship between habitat changes and
productivity of sage grouse at

> Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon. Oregon State Univ..
> Corvallis, Oregon.

Connelly, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage grouse
*Centrocercus*

*urophasianus* populations in western North America. Wildlife 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.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands and C.E. Braun. 2000.
Guidelines to manage sage

grouse populations and their habitats. Wildl Soc Bull. 28(4):967-985.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004.
Conservation Assessment of

> Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Unpublished Report.
> Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Courtois, D.R., B.L. Perryman, and H.S. Hussein. 2004. Vegetation Change
After 65 Years of

Grazing and Grazing Exclusion. J Range Manage. 57:574-582.

Craddock, G.W., and C.L. Forsling. 1938. The Influence of Climate and
Grazing on Spring-Fall

> Sheep Range in Southern Idaho. United States Dept. of Agriculture.
> Technical Bulletin No. 600.

Crawford, J. A., M. A. Gregg, M. S. Drut, and A. K. DeLong. 1992.
Habitat use by female Sage

> Grouse during the breeding season in Oregon. BLM Coop. Res. Unit,
> Oregon State Univ.. Corvallis, OR

Crawford, J.A., R.A. Olson, N.E. West, J.C. Mosley, M.A. Shroeder, T.D.
Whitson, R.F. Miller,

> M.A. Gregg, and C.S. Boyd. 2004. Synthesis Paper: Ecology and
> management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. J. Range Manage.
> 57: 2-19.

Dagget, D. 1995. Beyond the Rangeland Conflict: Toward a West that
Works. The Grand Canyon

Trust. Flagstaff, Arizona.

DeLong, A.K., J.A. Crawford, and D.C. DeLong, Jr. 1995. Relationships
between vegetational

structure and predation of artificial sage grouse nests. J Wildl Manage.
59(1):88-92.

Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch. No date. Deseret Land and Livestock
Ranch Livestock

> Grazing and Rangeland Management Benefit Greater Sage Grouse. Western
> Governor\'s Association, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
> Resources Conservation Service.

Dietz, T. 1984 Social Impact Assessment as a Tool for Rangeland
Management *in* NRC/NAS.

> Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management: A Report Prepared for
> the Committee on Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management.

Dwyer, D.D., J.C. Buckhouse, and W.S. Huey. 1984. Impacts of Grazing
Intensity and

> Specialized Grazing Systems on the Use and Value of Rangeland: Summary
> and Recommendations. *in* NRC/NAS. Developing Strategies for Rangeland
> Management: A Report Prepared for the Committee on Developing
> Strategies for Rangeland Management.

Ellis, K.L., J.R. Murphy, J.R., and G.H. Richins. 1987. Distribution of
Breeding Male Sage

Grouse in Northeastern Utah. Western Birds. 18:117-121.

Eng. R. L., and R. J. Mackie. 1982. Integrating grazing-range management
practices with

> management of major wildlife species on rangeland in northcentral
> Montana. Proc. West. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. Montana Agric
> Exp Stn. 62:112-119.

Evans, C. 1986. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage grouse use of
meadow habitat on the

> Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Nevada,
> Reno. Reno, NV.

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. The Condor. 95:
1038-1041.

Frost, W.E., E.L. Smith, and P.R. Ogden. Utilization guidelines. 1994.
Rangelands . 16(6):256-259.

Gibbens, R.P., and H.G. Fisser. 1975. Influence of Grazing Management
Systems on Vegetation

> in the Red Desert Region of Wyoming. Univ. of Wyoming Agriculture
> Experiment Station. Science Monograph 29. Laramie, Wyoming

Giesen, K.M. 1995. Evaluation of livestock grazing and residual
herbaceous cover on sage grouse

> nest success. Unpublished report. Colorado Division of Wildlife.
> Wildlife Research Report.

Gill, R.B. 1965. Distribution and Abundance of a Population of Sage
Grouse in North Park,

Colorado. Colorado State Univ.. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Glidewell, B.C., J.C. Mosley, and J.W. Walker. 2001. Sheep and cattle
response when grazed

> together on sagebrush-grass rangeland. Western Section, American
> Society of Animal Science. American Society of Animal Science 52.

Godfrey, E.B. 1984. Measuring the Economic Impact of Agency Programs on
Users and Local

> Communities *in* NRC/NAS. Developing Strategies for Rangeland
> Management: A Report Prepared for the Committee on Developing
> Strategies for Rangeland Management.

Greer, R. 1990. Sage Grouse Habitat Requirements and Development.
Wyoming Game and Fish

Dept..

Guthery, F.S. 1996. Upland Gamebirds. In P.R. Krausman, ed. Rangeland
Wildlife. The Society

for Range Management. Denver, Colorado.

Hanf, J. M., P.A. Schmidt, and E.B. Groshens. 1994. Sage grouse in the
high desert of central

> Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau
> of Land Management Series. Prineville, OR. P-SG-01.

Harris, W., K. Lungle, B. Bristol, D. Dickinson, D. Eslinger, P. Fargey,
J. Kroshus, T.

> Livingston, S. Lunn, S. McAdam, I. Michaud, D. Milner, T. Poirier, D.
> Scobie, and L. Veitch. 2001. Canadian Sage Grouse Recovery Strategy.

Hausleitner, D. 2003. Population Dynamics, Habitat Use and Movements of
Greater

> Sage-Grouse in Moffat County, Colorado. Master's Thesis. University of
> Idaho.

Hays, D., M. Tirhi, and D. Stinson. 1998. Washington State Status Report
for the Sage Grouse.

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA.

Heady, H.F. and R.D. Child. 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management.
Boulder,

Colorado: Westview Press.

Heath, B. J., R. Straw, S.H. Anderson, J. Lawson, and M. Holloran. 1998.
Sage-Grouse

> Productivity, Survival, and Seasonal Habitat Use Among Three Ranches
> with Different Livestock Grazing, Predator Control, and Harvest
> Management Practices. Wyoming Game and Fish Dept..

Hockett, G.A. 2002. Livestock Impacts on the Herbaceous Components of
Sage Grouse

Habitat: A Review. Int. Jour. Sci.

Holechek, J. 1980. Livestock grazing impacts on rangeland ecosystems.
Journal of Soil and

Water Conservation. 162-164.

Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing
studies: What we\'ve learned.

> Rangelands. 21(2):12-16.

Holechek, J.L.; Pieper, R.D.; and C.H. Herbel. 2001. Range Management:
Fourth

Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Holloran, M.J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (*Centrocercus* *Urophasianus*)
Population

> Response to Natural Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming. Ph.D.
> Dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Holloran, M.J., B.J. Heath, A.G. Lyon, S.J. Slater, J.L. Kuipers, and
S.H. Anderson. 2005.

> Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming.
> J Wildl Manage. 69(2): 638-649.

Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater
Sage-Grouse

Nests in Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush Habitats. The Condor
107:742--752.

Hockett, G.A. 2002. Livestock impacts on the herbaceous components of
sage grouse habitat: a

review. Intermountain Journal of Sciences. 8(2):105-114.

Hulet, B.V. 1983. Selected Responses of Sage Grouse to Prescribed Fire,
Predation and

> Grazing by Domestic Sheep in Southeastern Idaho. Master's Thesis.
> Brigham Young University.

Jones, A. 2000. Effects of cattle grazing on North American arid
ecosystems: a quantitative

review. Western North American Naturalist. 60(2):155-164.

Klebenow, D.A. 1981. Livestock Grazing Interactions with Sage Grouse
Proceedings of the

> Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symposium. April 20-22, 1981. Moscow,
> Idaho Forest, Wildlife & Range Experiment Station, Univ. of Idaho,
> Moscow. Cour d\'Alene, Idaho.

Klott, J.H. 1987. Use of habitat by sympatrically occurring sage grouse
and sharp-tailed

> grouse with broods. Master's Thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie,
> Wyoming.

Klott, J.H. and F.G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood habitats of sympatric sage
grouse and

Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 54(1):84-88.

Klott, J.H.; Smith, R.B.; and C. Vullo. 1993. Sage Grouse Habitat Use in
the Brown's

> Bench Area of South-Central Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Land Management
> Technical Bulletin No. 93-4. Boise, Idaho.

Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M.
VanderHagen, and C.

> VanRiper. 2003. Teetering on the Edge or Too Late? Conservation and
> Research Issues for Avifauna of Sagebrush Habitats. The Condor. 105:
> 611-634.

Knight, D.H. 1994. Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Wyoming
Landscapes. New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Kovalchik, B.L., and W. Elmore . 1991. Effects of cattle grazing systems
on willow-dominated

> plant associations in central Oregon. *In*: Symposium on Ecology and
> Management of Riparian Shrub Communities May 29-31, 1991. Sun Valley,
> ID.

Kuipers, J. L. 2004. Grazing system and linear corridor influences on
greater sage-grouse

> (*Centrocercus* *urophasianus*) habitat selection and productivity.
> Master's Thesis. The University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Laycock, W.A. 1994. Implications of Grazing vs. No Grazing on Today\'s
Rangelands. *in*: Vavra,

> M.; Laycock, W.A.; and R.D. Pieper, eds. 1994. Ecological Implications
> of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management.
> Denver, CO.

Leonard, K.M.; Reese, K.P.; and J.W. Connelly. 2000. Distribution,
movements and

> habitats of sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus on the Upper Snake
> River Plain of Idaho: changes from the 1950's to the 1990's. Wildlife
> Biology. 6(4):265-270.

Malechek, J.C. 1984. Impacts of Grazing Intensity and Specialized
Grazing Systems on Livestock

> Response. *in* NRC/NAS. Developing Strategies for Rangeland
> Management: A Report Prepared for the Committee on Developing
> Strategies for Rangeland Management.

Marshall, D.B., Chilcote, M., and H. Weeks. 1996. Species at Risk:
Sensitive, Threatened, and

Endangered Vertebrates of Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.
Portland, OR.

Miller, R. F., T.J. Svejcar, and N.E. West. 1994. Implications of
Livestock Grazing in the

> Intermountain Sagebrush Region: Plant Composition. Society for Range
> Management. Denver, CO.

Miller, R.F., and L.L. Eddleman. 2000. Spatial and temporal changes of
sage grouse habitat in the

> sagebrush biome. Oregon State Univ. Agric Exp Stn. Technical Bulletin
> 151. Corvallis, OR.

Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis, and J. O\'Laughlin. 1997.
Guidelines for Managing Cattle

> Grazing in Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research
> and Best Management Practices Policy. Univ. of Idaho. Report No. 15.

Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, M.S.; and J.W. Thomas. In press (a). Factors
Contributing to

> Process Variance in Annual Survival of Female Greater Sage-Grouse in
> North-Central Montana. Ecological Applications.

Moynahan, B.J.; Lindberg, M.S.; J.J. Rotella; and J.W. Thomas. In press
(b). Factors

> Affecting Nest Survival of Greater Sage-Grouse in Northcentral
> Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management.

Mueggler, W.F. 1950. Effects of Spring and Fall Grazing by Sheep on
Vegetation of the Upper

> Snake River Plains. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
> U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Ogden, UT.

Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and Riparian Management in Southwestern
Montana. *In:* Practical

Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An Educational Workshop May
8-11,

> 1989\. Montana Chapter American Fisheries Society; U.S. Bureau of Land
> Management; Western Division American Fisheries Society; U.S. Forest
> Service, Northern Region; Society for Range Management; Montana
> Riparian Association; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. 1984. Developing
Strategies for

> Rangeland Management: A Report Prepared for the Committee on
> Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. Westview Press, Inc.
> Boulder, CO.

Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage Grouse Response to Grazing Management in Nevada.
M.S. Thesis. Univ.

of Nevada, Reno. Reno, Nevada.

Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. The relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in
Nevada.

> Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game, and Renewable Resources Center,
> University of Nevada, Reno.

Patterson, R. L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish
Comm. and Sage

Books, Inc. Denver, Colorado.

Pechanic, J.F., and G. Stewart. 1949. Grazing spring-fall sheep ranges
of southern Idaho. U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Circular No. 808. Washington,
D.C.

Pedersen, E.K.; Connelly, J.W.; Hendrickson, J.R.; and W.E. Grant. 2003.
Effect of

> sheep grazing and fire on sage grouse populations in southeastern
> Idaho. Ecological Modelling. 165(2003):23-47.

Peterson, J.G. 1970. The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile
sage grouse in

central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 34(1):147-154.

Poley, B. E. 1969. Seasonal Movements of Sage Grouse in Colorado.
Journal of Colorado Field

Ornithologists. 5:1-4.

Rasmussen, D. I., and L. A. Griner. 1938. Life history and management
studies of the Sage

> Grouse in Utah, with special reference to nesting and feeding habits.
> *In*: Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference. 3:
> 852-864.

Rees, E. 1993. Threatened, Endangered, & Sensitive Species Affected by
Livestock Production:

> A Preliminary Survey of Data Available in Ten Western States. Audubon
> Society of Portland. Portland, Oregon.

Robertson, M.D. 1991. Winter Ecology of Migratory Sage Grouse and
Associated Effects

of Prescribed Fire in Southeastern Idaho. Master's Thesis. University of
Idaho.

Rowland, M.M. 2004. Effects of management practices on grassland birds:
Greater Sage-Grouse.

Jamestown, ND Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

Rowland, M.M., and M.J. Wisdom. 2002. Research Problem Analysis for
Greater Sage Grouse in

Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.

Savage, D.E. 1969. The relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in
Nevada.

> Nevada Cooperative Wildlife Research, Nevada Fish and Game Commission,
> and Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station. 101 pp.

Schoenberg, T.J. 1982. Sage grouse movements and habitat selection in
North Park,

Colorado. Master's Thesis, Colorado State University.

Schroeder, M.A.; Young, J.R.; and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse. The
Birds of North

America, No. 425.

Severson, K.E., and P.J. Urness. 1994. Livestock Grazing: A Tool to
Improve Wildlife Habitat *in*:

> Vavra, M.; Laycock, W.A.; and R.D. Pieper, eds. 1994. Ecological
> Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range
> Management. Denver, CO.

Shaw, N.L. 1991. Recruitment and growth of Pacific will and sandbar
willow seedlings in

> response to season and intensity of cattle grazing . *In*: Symposium
> on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities May 29-31,
> 1991. Sun Valley, ID.

Stillings, A.M. Tanaka, J.A.; Rimbey, N.R.; Delcurto, T.; Momont, P.A.;
and M.L.

> Porath. 2003. Economic implications of off-stream water developments
> to improve riparian grazing. J. Range Manage. 56: 418-424.

Stinson, D.W., D.W. Hays, and M. Schroeder. 2004. Washington State
Recovery Plan for the

Greater Sage-Grouse. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,
Washington.

Sveum, C.M., W.D. Edge, and J.A. Crawford. 1998. Nesting habitat
selection by sage grouse in

south-central Washington. J Range Manage. 51: 265-269.

Swanson, S., D. Franzen, and M. Manning. 1987. Rodero Creek: Rising
water on the high desert.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 405-407.

Torell, L.A., J.A. Tanaka, N. Rimbey, T. Darden, L. Van Tassell, and A.
Harp. 2002. Ranch-

> Level Impacts of Changing Grazing Policies on BLM Land to Protect the
> Greater Sage-Grouse: Evidence from Idaho, Nevada and Oregon. Policy
> Analysis Center for Western Public Lands. PACWPL Policy Paper
> SG-01-02. Caldwell, ID.

Tweit, S. J. 2000. The \[Next\] Spotted Owl. Audubon. November-December
2000 : 64-70.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1975. Effects of
livestock grazing on

> wildlife, watershed, recreation, and other resource values in Nevada.
> U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1979. Habitat
Requirements and

> Management Recommendations for Sage Grouse. Bureau of Land Management
> TN 330. Denver, CO.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Grazing
Management for

Riparian-Wetland Areas. TR 1737-14.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Idaho
Standards for rangeland health

> and guidelines for livestock grazing management. Idaho State Office.
> Boise, ID. BLM/ID/PT-97/002+4120/rev 8/97

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Owyhee
Resource Management Plan.

Boise Field Office. Boise, ID.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Management
guidelines for sage

grouse and sagebrush ecosystems in Nevada.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Management
Considerations for

> Sagebrush (*Artemisia*) in the Western United States: a selective
> summary of current information about the ecology and biology of woody
> North American sagebrush taxa. Washington, D.C.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Bureau of Land
Management

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy.

U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest

> Service, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Dept. of State
> Lands. 2000. Management guidelines for Greater sage-grouse and
> sagebrush-steppe ecosystems.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing Management. Academic Press, Inc. San
Diego, California.

van Kooten, G.C., R. Thomsen, T.G. Hobby, and A.J. Eagle. 2004. Social
Dilemmas and Public

Range Management in Nevada.

Van Tassell, L.W.; Torell, L.A.; Rimbey, N.R.; and E.T. Bartlett. 1997.
Comparison of

forage value on private and public grazing. J. Range Manage. 50:300-306.

Vavra, M.; Laycock, W.A.; and R.D. Pieper, eds. 1994. Ecological
Implications of Livestock

Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO.

Wakkinen, W.L. 1990. Nest Site Characteristics and Spring-Summer
Movements of Migratory

Sage Grouse in Southeastern Idaho. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Idaho.

Wallestad, R. O. 1975. Life history and habitat requirements of sage
grouse in central Montana.

Montana Fish and Game Dept. Technical Bulletin.

Wambolt, C.A., and G.F. Payne. 1986. An 18-year comparison of control
methods for Wyoming

Big Sagebrush in southwestern Montana. J Range Manage. 39(4): 314-319.

Wambolt, C.L., A.J. Harp, B.L. Welch, N. Shaw, J.W. Connelly, K.P.
Reese, C.E. Braun, D.A.

Klebenow, E.D. McArthur, J.G. Thompson, L.A. Torell, and J.A. Tanaka .
2002. Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse on Public Lands in the Western
U.S.: Implications of Recovery and Management Policies. Policy Analysis
Center for Western Public Lands. PACWPL Policy Paper SG-02-02. Caldwell,
ID.

Watters, M.E.; McLash, T.L.; Aldridge, C.L.; and R.M. Brigham. 2002. The
effect of

> vegetation structure on predation of artificial sage grouse nests.
> Ecoscience 9(3)314-319.

Willis, M. J., G. P. Keister, Jr., D. A. Immell, D. M. Jones, R. M.
Powell, and K. R. Durbin.

> 1993\. Sage Grouse in Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.
> Wildlife Research Report No. 15. Portland, OR.

Winward, A.H. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian
Areas. U.S. Department

> of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. GTR
> RMRS-GTR-47. Ogden, UT.

Workman, J.P., S.K. Fairfax, and W. Burch. 1984. Applying Socioeconomic
Techniques to

> Range Management Decision Making: Summary and Recommendations *in*
> NRC/NAS. Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management: A Report
> Prepared for the Committee on Developing Strategies for Rangeland
> Management.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse

> Conservation Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 97
> pp.

[^1]: Barnett, J.F. and J.A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of
    sage grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47:
    114-118.; Drut, M.S., J.A. Crawford, and M.A. Gregg. 1994. Brood
    habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist
    54:170-176.; and Apa, A.D. 1998. Habitat use and movements of
    sympatric sage and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern
    Idaho. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.

[^2]: Apa, A.D. 1998. Habitat use and movements of sympatric sage and
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in southeastern Idaho. Dissertation,
    University of Idaho, Moscow, USA.

[^3]: Rickard, W.H., D.W. Uresk, and J.F. Cline. 1975. Impact of cattle
    grazing on three perennial grasses in South-Central Washington. J.
    Range Manage. 28:108-112.

[^4]: Winward, A.H. 1991. A renewed commitment to management of
    sagebrush grasslands. Pages 2-7 in Management in the sagebrush
    steppe. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. 880. Oregon State Univ.,
    Corvallis. 48pp.

[^5]: Berry, J.D. and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and
    fidelity to seasonal use areas by female sage grouse. J. Wildl.
    Manage. 49:237-240.

[^6]: Van Poollen, H.W. and J.R. Lacey. 1979. Herbage response to
    grazing systems and stocking intensities. J. Range Manage.
    32(4):250-253.

[^7]: Call, M. W., and Maser, C. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed
    rangelands, the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Sage-Grouse.
    U.S. Dept. Agric. Pacific Northwest For. And Range Exp. Stn., Gen.
    Tech. Rep. PNW-187.

[^8]: Patterson, R.L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Inc.
    Denver. 341 pp.

[^9]: Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, And C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse
    (*Centrocercus urophasianus*). *In* A. Poole and F. Gill \[EDS.\],
    The birds of North America, No. 425. The Birds of North America,
    Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

[^10]: Dobkin, D. S. 1995. Management and conservation of Sage Grouse,
    denominative species for the ecological health of shrubsteppe
    ecosystems. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

    Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, B. C. Wales, M. A. Hemstrom, W. J.
    Hann, M. G. Raphael, R. S. Holthausen, R. A. Gravenmier, And T. D.
    Rich. 2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush-steppe restoration on
    Greater Sage-Grouse in the Interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A.
    Conservation Biology 16: 1223--1231. Wisdom, M. J., B. C. Wales, R.
    S. Holthausen, W.J. Hann, M. A. Henstrom, And M. M. Rowland. 2002. A
    habitat network for terrestrial wildlife in the interior Columbia
    Basin. Northwest Science 76:1--13.

[^11]: Dobkin, D. S. 1995. Management and conservation of Sage Grouse,
    denominative species for the ecological health of shrubsteppe
    ecosystems. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

    RICH, T., AND B. ALTMAN. 2002. Under the Sage Grouse umbrella. Bird
    Conservation 14:10.

[^12]: Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun.
    2000. Guidelines to manage Sage Grouse populations and their
    habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

[^13]: Paige, C., and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea:
    managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight
    Western Working Group, Boise, Idaho. 47 pages. Beck, J. L., and D.
    L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock grazing on Sage Grouse
    habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:993-1002. Wisdom, M. J., R. S.
    Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J.
    Hann,

    T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000.
    Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior
    Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. U.S.
    Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report
    PNW-GTR-485. Vol. 1-3. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,
    Oregon.

[^14]: Braun, C. E., T. Britt, and R. O. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for
    maintenance of Sage Grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin
    5:99-106.

[^15]: Hockett, G. A. 2002. Livestock impacts on the herbaceous
    components of Sage Grouse habitat: a literature review.
    Intermountain Journal of Sciences 8:105-114.

[^16]: Johnson, G. D., and M. S. Boyce. 1990. Feeding trials with
    insects in the diet of Sage Grouse chicks. Journal of Wildlife
    Management 54:89-91. Barnett, J. K., and J. A. Crawford. 1994.
    Pre-laying nutrition of Sage Grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range
    Management 47:114-118. Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford.
    1994. Technical note: diets and food selection of Sage Grouse chicks
    in Oregon. Journal of Range Management 47:90-93.

[^17]: Wakkinen, W. L. 1990. Nest site characteristics and spring-summer
    movements of migratory Sage Grouse in southeastern Idaho. M.S.
    thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 55 pages.

[^18]: Galt, D., F. Molinar, J. Navarro, J. Joseph, and J. Holechek.
    2000. Grazing capacity and stocking rate. Rangelands 22(6):7-11.

[^19]: Bork, E. W., N. E. West, and J. W. Walker. 1998. Cover components
    on long-term seasonal sheep grazing treatments in three-tip
    sagebrush steppe. J. Range Management 51:293-300.

[^20]: Evans, C.C. 1986. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage
    grouse use of meadow habitat on the Sheldon National Wildlife
    Refuge. Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, USA.

[^21]: Eng, R.L. 1986. Upland game birds. Pages 407-428 *in* A.Y.
    Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart, editors. Inventory and
    monitoring of wildlife habitat. USDI BLM, Service Center, Denver,
    Colorado, USA.

[^22]: Gregg, M.A.; Crawford, J.A.; Drut, M.S.; and A.K. DeLong. 1994.
    Vegetational cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon.
    Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.

[^23]: Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in southwest
    Montana. Pp. 117-120 *in* Practical approaches to riparian resource
    management: an educational workshop. USDI Bureau of Land Management,
    Billings, MT.

[^24]: Connelly, J.W. and C.E. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage
    grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations in western North
    America. Wildlife Biology 3:229-234.

[^25]: Bock, C.E.; Bock, J.H.; and H.M. Smith. 1993. Proposal for a
    system of federal livestock exclosures on public rangelands in the
    western United States. Conservation Biology. 7:731-733.

[^26]: Stoddart, L.A.; Smith, A.D.; and T.W. Box. 1975. Range
    management. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 532 pp.

[^27]: Valentine, K.A. 1947. Distance from water as a factor in grazing
    capacity of rangeland. Journal of Forestry. 10: 749-754.

[^28]: Kauffman, J.B.; Krueger, W.C.; and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of
    late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. Journal of
    Range Management. 36(6):685-691. Smith, B.H. 1981. The ecosystem
    approach to stream habitat management. In: Rocky Mountain regional
    soil-water-air-workshop; 1981 February 2-6; Jackson Hole, WY. Rock
    Springs, WY: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
    Management. 5 p. Unpublished paper.

[^29]: Platts, W.S.; and R.F. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of grazing on
    wetlands and riparian habitat. In: Developing strategies for
    rangeland management. National Research Council. National Academy of
    Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 1105-1117.

[^30]: Platts, W.S.; and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Impacts of rest-rotation
    grazing on streambanks of forested watersheds in Idaho. North
    American Journal of Fisheries Management. 5: 547-556.

[^31]: Platts, W.S. 1984. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies
    with riparian-stream systems. In: Range watershed riparian zones and
    economics: interrelationships in management and use short course.
    Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 67-74.

[^32]: Platts, W.S. 1986. Riparian stream management. Transactions
    Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 22:90-93.

[^33]: Smith, S. 1989. \[Personal communication\] Ecologist, U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Modock National Forest,
    Alturas, CA.

[^34]: Wambolt, C.L., and G.F. Payne. 1986. An 18-year comparison of
    control methods for Wyoming big sagebrush in southwestern Montana.
    Journal of Wildlife Management 39:314-319.

[^35]: Branson, F.A. 1985. Vegetation changes on western rangeland.
    Range Monograph No. 2. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
    Tisdale, E.W. 1994. Great Basin region sagebrush types. P. 40-46
    *In*: T.N. Shiflet (ed.) Rangeland Cover Types. Soc. Range Manage.,
    Denver, CO.

[^36]: Pechanec, J.F. and G. Stewart. 1949. Grazing spring-fall sheep
    ranges of southern Idaho. U.S.D.A. Circ. 808. 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. Laycock, W.A.
    and P.W. Conrad. 1967. Effect of grazing on soil compaction as
    measured by bulk density on a high elevation cattle range. J. Range
    Manage. 20:136--140. Laycock, W.A. and P.W. Conrad. 1981. Responses
    of vegetation and cattle to various systems of grazing on seeded and
    native mountain rangelands in eastern Utah. J. Range Manage.
    34:52--58. Gibbens, R.P. and H.G. Fisser. 1975. Influence of grazing
    management systems on vegetation in the Red Desert region of
    Wyoming. Univ. of Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Sci. Monogr. 29. Miller, R.F.,
    T.J. Svejcar, and N.E. West. 1994. Implications of livestock grazing
    in the Intermountain sagebrush region: plant composition, p.
    101--146. In: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds.)
    Ecological Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Soc. for
    Range Manage. Denver, Colo. Bork, E.W., N.E. West, and J.W. Walker.

    1998\. Cover components on long-term seasonal sheep grazing
    treatments in three-tip sagebrush steppe. J. Range Manage.
    51:293-300.

[^37]: Craddock, G.W. and C.L. Forsling. 1938. The influence of climate
    and grazing on spring-fall sheep range in southern Idaho. U.S.D.A.
    Tech. Bull. 600.

[^38]: Eckert, R.E., Jr. and J.S. Spencer. 1986. Vegetation response on
    allotments grazed under rest-rotation management. J. Range Manage.
    39:166--174.

[^39]: Severson, K., M. May, and W Hepworth. 1968. Food preferences,
    carrying capacities, and forage competition between antelope and
    domestic sheep in Wyoming's Red Desert. Univ. Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta.
    Sci. Monogr. 10. Harrison, B.J. and A.P. Thatcher. 1970. Winter
    sheep grazing and forage preference

    in southwestern Wyoming. J. Range Manage. 23:109--111. Mackie, R.J.
    1970. Range ecology and relations

    of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana.
    Wildl. Monogr. 20:1--79. Uresk, D.W. and W.H. Rickard. 1976. The
    abortifacient and toxic effects of big sagebrush (*Artemisia
    tridentata*) and juniper (*Juniperus osteosperma*) on domestic
    sheep. J. Range Manage. 29:278--280. Krysl, L. J., M. E. Hubbert, B.
    F. Sowell, G. E. Plumb, T. K. Jewett, M. A. Smith, and J. W.
    Waggoner. 1984. Horses and cattle grazing in the Wyoming Red Desert,
    I. Food habits and dietary overlap. J. Range Manage. 37:72--76.

    Ngugi, K.R., J. Powell, F.C. Hinds, and R.A. Olson. 1992. Range
    animal diet composition in south central Wyoming. J. Range Manage.
    45:542--545. Crane, K. K., M. A. Smith, and D. Reynolds. 1997.
    Habitat selection patterns of feral horses in south central Wyoming.
    J. Range Manage. 50:374-380. Glidewell, B.C., J.C. Mosley, and J.W.
    Walker. 2001. Sheep and cattle response when grazed together on
    sagebrush-grass

    rangeland. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci. 52:156--159.

[^40]: Cook, C.W., L.A. Stoddart, and L.E. Harris. 1954. The nutritive
    value of winter range plants in the Great Basin. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta.
    Bull. 372.

[^41]: Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis, and J. O'Laughlin. 1997.
    Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in riparian areas to protect
    water quality: Review of research and best management practices
    policy. Univ. Idaho For., Wildl. and Range Policy Analysis Group
    Rept. 15.

[^42]: Winward A.H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in
    riparian areas. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RMRS-47.

[^43]: Wisdom, M. J., M. M. Rowland, B.C. Wales, M. A. Hemstrom, W. J.
    Hann, M. G. Raphael, R.S. Holthausen, R.A. Gravenmier, and T.D.
    Rich. 2002. Modeled effects of sagebrush steppe restoration

    on greater sage-grouse in the Interior Columbia Basin, U.S.A. Cons.
    Biol.16:1223--1231.

[^44]: Johnson, J.R. and G.F. Payne. 1968. Sagebrush reinvasion as
    affected by some environmental influences. J. Range Manage.
    21:209--213. Rice, B. and M. Westoby. 1978. Vegetative responses of
    some Great Basin shrub communities protected against jackrabbits or
    domestic stock. J. Range Manage. 31:28--34. Sanders, K.D. and A.S.
    Voth. 1983. Ecological changes of grazed and ungrazed plant
    communities, p. 176--179. In: S.B. Monsen and N. Shaw (eds.)
    Managing Intermountain Rangelands - Improvement of Range and
    Wildlife Habitats. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-157.
    Wambolt, C.L. and G.F. Payne. 1986. An 18-year comparison of control
    methods for Wyoming big sagebrush in southwestern Montana. J. Range
    Manage. 39:314--319.

[^45]: Anderson, J.E. and RS. Inouye. 2001. Landscape-scale changes in
    plant species abundance and biodiversity of a sagebrush steppe over
    45 years. Ecol. Monogr. 71:531--556.

[^46]: Peters, E.F. and S.C. Bunting. 1994. Fire conditions pre- and
    post- occurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain, p.
    31--36. In: S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen (eds.) Proc. Ecology and
    Management of Annual Rangelands. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech.
    Rept. INT-313. West, N.E. 1999b. Managing for biodiversity of
    rangelands, p. 101--126. In: W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset (eds.)
    Biodiversity in Agrosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.

[^47]: Kovalchick, B. L. and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing
    systems on willow dominated plant associations in central Oregon, p.
    111--119. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L.
    Wambolt, (eds.) Proc. Symposium on Ecology and Management of
    Riparian Shrub Communities, U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept.
    INT-GTR-289.

[^48]: Klebenow, D. A. 1985. Habitat management for sage-grouse in
    Nevada. World Pheasant Assoc. 10:34--46.

[^49]: Shaw, N.L. 1992. Recruitment and growth of Pacific willow and
    sandbar willow seedlings in response to season and intensity of
    cattle grazing, p. 130--137. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D.
    Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (eds.) Proc. Symp. on Ecology and
    Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen.
    Biol. Conserv. 6:274--284. 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. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-RP-492.

[^50]: Clary, W.P. and W.C. Leininger. 2000. Stubble height as a tool
    for management of riparian areas. J. Range Manage. 53:562--573.

[^51]: Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and riparian management in southwestern
    Montana, p. 117--120. In: R.E. Gresswell, B.A. Barton, and J.L.
    Kershner (eds.) Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource

    Management---An Educational Workshop, U.S.D.I.-B.L.M.,
    BLM-MT-PT-89-001-4351. Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis, and J.
    O'Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in riparian
    areas to protect water quality: Review of research and best
    management practices policy. Univ. Idaho

    For., Wildl. and Range Policy Analysis Group Rept. 15.

[^52]: Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian
    areas in the Intermountain Region. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., Gen. Tech.
    Rept. INT-263.

[^53]: Pearson, L.C. 1964. Effect of harvest date on recovery of range
    grasses and shrubs. Agron. J. 56:80--82.

[^54]: Rickard, W.H., D.W. Uresk, and J.F. Cline. 1975. Impact of cattle
    grazing on three perennial grasses in south central Washington. J.
    Range Manage. 28:108--112. Eckert, R.E., Jr. and J.S. Spencer. 1987.
    Growth and reproduction of grasses heavily grazed under
    rest-rotation management. J. Range Manage. 40:156--159.

[^55]: Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake
    River Plains: Ecological and management implications. Pp. 4-10 in E.
    D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith and P. T. Tueller, compilers.
    Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off and other aspects of
    shrub biology and management. USDA For. Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
    INT-276. Daddy, F. M., J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1988. Vegetation
    and soil water differences among big sagebrush communities with
    different grazing histories. Southwestern Nat. 33:413-424.

[^56]: Watts, M.J. and C.L. Wambolt. 1996. Long-term recovery of Wyoming
    big sagebrush after four

    treatments. J. Environmental Manage. 46:95-102. West, N. E. and J.
    A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower mountain slopes. Pp.
    255-284 in M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings, eds. North American
    terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, U. K.

[^57]: Archer, S. and F. E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-level processes. In
    Heitschmidt, R. K. and J. W. Stuth,

    eds. Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Portland, OR:
    Timber Press: 109-138.

    Cited in Hann et al. (1997).

[^58]: Hart, R. H., and B. E. Norton. 1988. Grazing management and
    vegetation response. In Tueller, P. T., ed.

    Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and
    management. Kluwer Academic

    Publishers. Boston, MA. pp 493-525. Cited in Hann et al. (1997).
    Heady, H. F. 1975. Range Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 460
    p. Cited in Hann et al. (1997). Vallentine, J. F. 1990. Grazing
    management. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 533p. Cited in Hann et
    al. (1997).

[^59]: Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, M. G. "Sherm" Karl, P. F. Hessburg, R.
    E. Kean, D. G. Long, J. P. Menakis, C.

    H. McNicoll, S. G. Leonard, R. A. Gravenmier, and B. G. Smith. 1997.
    An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin
    and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Vol. II. Landscape
    dynamics of the basin. U.S. Dept. Agric., Pacific Northwest Res.
    Stat., For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405, Portland, OR.

[^60]: Holechek, J.L., H. Gomez, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Grazing
    studies: What we've learned. Rangelands 21:12-16.

[^61]: Vallentine, J.F. and A.R. Stevens. 1994. Use of livestock to
    control cheatgrass--a review, p. 202-206, In:

    Monsen, S.B., and S.G. Kitchen, compilers, Proceedings--ecology and
    management of annual

    rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, Forest

    Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

[^62]: Laycock, W. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection affect
    sagebrush-grass ranges. J. Range Manage.

    20:206-213.

[^63]: Watts, M.J. and C.L. Wambolt. 1996. Long-term recovery of Wyoming
    big sagebrush after four

    treatments. J. Environmental Manage. 46:95-102.

[^64]: Sheehy, D. P. and A. H. Winward. 1981. Relative palatability of
    seven Artemisia taxa to mule deer and

    sheep. J. Range Manage. 34:397-399.

[^65]: West, N. E., and J. A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and
    lower mountain slopes. Pages 255-

    284 in M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings (editors). North American
    terrestrial vegetation.

    2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[^66]: Mack, R. N., and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with
    few large, hooved mammals.

    American Naturalist 119:757-773.

[^67]: Young, J. A., and B. A. Sparks. 2002. Cattle in the cold desert.
    University of Nevada Press. Reno,

    Nevada.

[^68]: Jones, A. 2000. Effects of cattle grazing on North American arid
    ecosystems: a quantitative review.

    Western North American Naturalist 60:155-164.

[^69]: Miller, R. F., T. J. Svejcar, and N. E. West. 1994. Implications
    of livestock grazing in the

    Intermountain sagebrush region: plant composition. Pages 101-146 in
    M. Vavra, W. A.

    Laycock, and R. D. Pieper (eds.). Ecological implications of
    livestock herbivory in the West.

    Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. West, N. E. 1996.
    Strategies for maintenance and repair of biotic community diversity
    on rangelands. Pages 326-346 in R. C. Szaro and D. W. Johnston
    (eds.). Biodiversity in managed landscapes. Theory and practice.
    Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Belnap, J., and O. L.
    Lange (eds). 2001. Biological soil crusts: structure function, and
    management.

    Springer-Verlag, New York.

[^70]: Society for Range Management, Task Group in concepts and
    terminology. 1995. New concepts for

    assessment of rangeland condition. Journal of Range Management
    48:271-282.

[^71]: Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1997. Landscape
    characteristics of disturbed shrubsteppe habitats

    in southwestern Idaho (U.S.A.). Landscape Ecology 12:287-297.

[^72]: Young, J. A., and F. L. Allen. 1997. Cheatgrass and range
    science: 1930-1950. Journal of Range

    Management 50:530-535.

[^73]: Reichenberger, G. and D. A. Pyke. 1990. Impact of early root
    competition on fitness components

    of four semiarid species. Oecologia 85:159-166.

[^74]: Valentine, J. F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press,
    Incorporated. San Diego, CA. 553pp.

[^75]: Thurow, T. L., and C. A. Taylor. 1999. The role of drought in
    range management. Journal of Range

    Management 52:413-419.

[^76]: Braun, C. E. 1998. Sage-grouse declines in western North America:
    what are the problems? Proceedings, Western Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies. 78:139-156.

[^77]: Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage grouse response to grazing management in
    Nevada. Thesis, University of

    Nevada, Reno. Klebenow, D. A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions
    with Sage-Grouse. Pages 113-123 in J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke,
    editors. In proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships
    symposium.

    April 20-22, 1981, Coeur d\'Alene Idaho. Proceedings 10, University
    of Idaho Forestry, Wildlife

    and Range Experiment Station, Moscow. Evans, C.C. 1986. The
    relationship of cattle grazing to sage grouse use of meadow habitat
    on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Thesis, University of
    Nevada, Reno.

[^78]: Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 1989. Range
    management principles and practices. Prentice Hall,
    Engelwood-Cliffs, N.J.

[^79]: Mueggler, W.F. 1950. Effects of spring and fall grazing by sheep
    on vegetation of the Upper Snake River Plains. J. Range Mange.
    3:308-315. Laycock, W.A. 1967. How heavy grazing and protection
    affect sagebrush-grass ranges. J. Range Manage. 20:206-213.

[^80]: Gibbens, R.P. and H.G. Fisser. 1975. Influence of grazing
    management systems on vegetation in the Red Desert region of
    Wyoming. Agric. Exp. Sta. Univ. Wyoming. Sci. Monogr. 29. Sneva,
    F.A., R.L. Rittenhouse, P.T. Tueller, and P. Reece. 1984. Changes in
    protected and grazed sagebrush-grass in eastern Oregon, 1937 to
    1974. Agric. Exp. Sta. Oregon State Univ. Sta. Bull. 663. Kindschy,
    R.R. 1987. Sagehen exclosure: A history of bitterbrush reproduction.
    Rangelands 9:113-114.

[^81]: Hughes, L.E. 1980. Six grazing exclosures with a message.
    Rangelands 2:17-18. 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. Sanders,
    K.D. and A.A. Voth. 1983. Ecological changes of grazed and ungrazed
    plant communities, p. 176-179. *In*: Managing intermountain
    rangelands-improvement of range and wildlife habitats. USDA, For.
    Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-157. West, N.E., F.D. Provenza, P.S.
    Johnson, and K.M. Owens. 1984. Vegetation change after 13 years of
    livestock grazing exclusion on sagebrush semi-arid-desert in West
    Central Utah. J. Range Manage. 37:262-264.

[^82]: Hanley, T.A. and J.L. Page. 1982. Differential effects of
    livestock use on habitat structure and rodent populations in Great
    Basin communities. Calif. Fish and Game 68:160-174.

[^83]: 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 central Utah. J. Range Manage. 37:262-264.

[^84]: Tisdale, E.W., M. Hironaka, and M.A. Fosberg. 1969. The sagebrush
    region in Idaho. Univ. Idaho Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 512.

[^85]: 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.

[^86]: Holechek, J.L. and T. Stephenson. 1983. Comparison of big
    sagebrush vegetation in north-central New Mexico under moderately
    grazed and grazing excluded conditions. J. Range Manage. 36:455-456.

[^87]: Potter, L.D. and J.C. Krenetsky. 1967. Plant succession with
    released grazing on New Mexico range lands. J. Range Manage.
    20:145-151.

[^88]: Turner, G.T. 1971. Soil and grazing influences on a salt-desert
    shrub range in western Colorado. J. Range Manage. 24:31-37.

[^89]: Whisenant, S.G. and F.J. Wagstaff. 1991. Successional
    trajectories of a grazed salt desert shrubland. Vegetation
    94:133-140.

[^90]: Hanson, W.R.; Stoddart, L.A. Effects of grazing upon bunch
    wheatgrass. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 32:278-289; 1940

[^91]: Ellison, L. 1960. Influence of grazing on plant succession of
    rangelands. Bot. Rev. 26:1-78.

[^92]: Johnson, W.M. 1956. The effect of grazing intensity on plant
    composition, vigor, and growth of pine-bunchgrass ranges in central
    Colorado. Ecology. 37:790-798.

[^93]:

[^94]: Rotenberry, J. T. 1998. Avian conservation research needs in
    western shrublands: exotic invaders and the alteration of ecosystem
    processes, p. 262--272. In J. M. Marzluff and R. Sallabanks
    \[EDS.\], Avian

    conservation: research and management. Island Press, Washington, DC.

[^95]: Rogers, G.E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Tech.
    Publ. 16, 132 p. Colo. Game, Fish and Parks Dep., Denver.

[^96]: Wallestad, R.O. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage
    grouse broods in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 35:129-136.
    Wallestad, R.O. and P. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season movements
    and habitat selection of male sage grouse. J. Wildl. Manage.
    38:634-637.

[^97]: Carr, H.D. 1968. A literature review on effects of herbicides on
    sage grouse. Colo. Div. Game, Fish and Parks Comm. Spec. Rep. 13, 16
    p. Denver.

[^98]: Aldridge, C.A., 1998. Status of the sage grouse (*Centrocercus
    urophasianus urophasianus*) in Alberta. Alberta Wildl. Status Rept.
    No. 13, Alberta Environmental Protection, Edmonton, Alberta. 23 pp.

[^99]: Welch, B.L., and C. Criddle. 2003. Countering Misinformation
    Concerning Big Sagebrush. Research

    Paper RMRS-RP-40. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research
    Station, Ogden, Utah. 28 pp.

[^100]: Miller, R. F., and L. L. Eddleman. 2000. Spatial and temporal
    changes of sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Technical
    Bulletin 151. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State
    University, Corvallis. 35 pp.

[^101]: Friedel, M.H. 1991. Range condition assessment and the concept
    of thresholds: A viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 44:422-426. Laycock,
    W.A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North
    American rangelands: A viewpoint. J. Range Manage. 3:308-315.

[^102]: Reardon, P.O.; Leinweber, C.L.; and L.B. Merrill. 1974. Response
    of sideoats grama to animal saliva and thiamine. J. Range Manage.
    27:400-401.

[^103]: Kipple, G.E. and R.E. Bement. 1961. Light grazing-Is it
    economically feasible as a range improvement practice? J. Range
    Manage. 14:57-62.

[^104]: Platts, W. 1981. Sheep and cattle grazing strategies on
    riparian-stream environments. Pages 251-270 *in* Wildlife-Livestock
    Relationships Symposium Proceeding 10. University of Idaho, Forest,
    Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow.

[^105]: Wallestad, R. and P. Schadweiler. 1974. Breeding season
    movements and habitat use of male sage grouse in central Montana. J.
    Wildl. Manage. 38(4):634-637.

[^106]: Nielsen, L.S. and C.A. Yde. 1981. The effects of rest-rotation
    grazing on the distribution of sharp-tailed grouse. Proc.
    Wildlife-livestock grazing relationships symposium. Univ. of Idaho
    Forest, Wildlife & Range Exp. Sta., Moscow: 147-165.

[^107]: Mattise, S. 1978. Sharptail habitat studies. North Dakota
    Outdoors, Vol. XXXX, No. 7, p. 4.

[^108]: Wallestad, R.O. and P. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season
    movements and habitat selection of male sage grouse, J. Wildl.
    Manage. 38:634-637.

[^109]: Bean, R. 1941. Live history studies of the sage grouse
    (*Centrocercus urophasianus*) in Clark County, Idaho. M.S. Thesis.
    Utah State Univ., Logan. 44 pp. Carhart, A.H. 1941. Sage grouse
    survey in Colorado. Colorado Game and Fish Comm.; Fed. Aid Proj.
    4-R, Survey of 1941. 3. 31 pp. Dalke, P.D.; Pyrah, D.B.; Stanton,
    D.C.; Crawford, J.E.; and F. Schlatterer. 1963. Ecology,
    productivity, and management of sage grouse in Idaho. J. Wildl.
    Manage. 27: 810-841.

[^110]: Dalke, P.D.; Pyrah, D.B.; Stanton, D.C.; Crawford, J.E.; and
    E.F. Schlatterer. 1963. Ecology, productivity and management of Sage
    Grouse in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:810-841.

[^111]: Scott, J. W. 1942. Mating behavior of the Sage Grouse. Auk
    59:477-498. Patterson, R. L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming.
    Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Sage Books, Inc., Denver,
    Colorado. 308 pages. Dalke, P. D., D. B. Pyrah, D. C. Stanton, J. E.
    Crawford, and E. F. Schlatterer. 1963. Ecology,

    productivity, and management of Sage Grouse in Idaho. Journal of
    Wildlife Management 27:811-841.

    Klebenow, D. A. 1973. The habitat requirements of Sage Grouse and
    the role of fire in management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference
    12:305-315. Klebenow, D. A. 1985. Habitat management for Sage Grouse
    in Nevada. World Pheasant Association Journal 10:34-46. Autenrieth,
    R. E. 1981. Sage Grouse management in Idaho. Wildlife Bulletin
    Number 9. Wildlife Research Section, Idaho Department of Fish and
    Game, Boise, Idaho. 130 pages + appendices. Schroeder, M. A., J. R.
    Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage Grouse (*Centrocercus
    urophasianus*). No. 425 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds
    of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania; The American

    Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28 pages.

[^112]: Petersen, B. E. 1980. Breeding and nesting ecology of female
    Sage Grouse in North Park, Colorado. M.S. thesis. Colorado State
    University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 86 pages.

[^113]: Rogers, G. E. 1964. Sage Grouse investigations in Colorado.
    Technical Publication 16. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department,
    Denver, Colorado. 132 pages.

[^114]: Gibson, R. M. 1996. A re-evaluation of hotspot settlement in
    lekking Sage Grouse. Animal Behaviour 52:993-1005.

[^115]: Bradbury, J. W., R. M. Gibson, C. E. McCarthy, and S. L.
    Vehrencamp. 1989a. Dispersion of displaying male Sage Grouse. II.
    The role of female dispersion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
    24:15-24.

[^116]: Bradbury, J. W., S. L. Vehrencamp, and R. M. Gibson. 1989b.
    Dispersion of displaying male Sage Grouse. I. Patterns of temporal
    variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:1-14.

[^117]: Nisbet, R. A., S. H. Berwick, and K. L. Reed. 1983. A spatial
    model of Sage Grouse habitat quality. Developments in Environmental
    Modeling 5:267-276.

[^118]: Ellis, K. L., J. R. Parrish, J. R. Murphy, and G. H. Richins.
    1989. Habitat use by breeding male

    Sage Grouse: a management approach. Great Basin Naturalist
    49:404-407.

[^119]: Batterson, W. M., and W. B. Morse. 1948. Oregon Sage Grouse.
    Oregon Fauna Series No. 1. Oregon State Game Commission, Portland,
    Oregon. 29 pages. Giezantanner, K. I., and W. H. Clark. 1974. The
    use of western harvester ant mounds as strutting locations by Sage
    Grouse. Condor 76:218-219. Connelly, J. W., W. J. Arthur, and O. D.
    Markham. 1981. Sage Grouse leks on recently disturbed sites. Journal
    of Range Management 34:153-154. Gates, R. J. 1985. Observations of
    the formation of a Sage Grouse lek. Wilson Bulletin 97:219-221.
    Hofmann, L. A. 1991. The western Sage Grouse (*Centrocercus
    urophasianus phaios*) on the Yakima Training Center in central
    Washington: a case study of a declining species and

    the military. M.S. thesis. Central Washington University,
    Ellensburg, Washington.

[^120]: Wiley, R. H., Jr. 1978. The lek mating system of the Sage
    Grouse. Scientific American 238:114-125.

[^121]: Wakkinen, W. L., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 1992. Sage
    Grouse nest locations in relation to leks. Journal of Wildlife
    Management 56:381-383.

[^122]: Willis, M. J., G. P. Keister, Jr., D. A. Immell, D. M. Jones, R.
    M. Powell, and K. R. Durbin. 1993. Sage Grouse in Oregon. Wildlife
    Research Report 15. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
    Portland, Oregon. 70 pages.

[^123]: Wallestad, R.O. and D. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and nesting of sage
    grouse hens in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:630-633.

[^124]: Gray, G.M. 1967. An ecological study of sage grouse broods with
    reference to nesting, movements, food habits, and sagebrush strip
    spraying in the Medicine Lodge drainage, Clark County, Idaho. M.S.
    thesis. Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 200 pp. Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage
    grouse nesting and brood habitat in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage.
    33:649-662. Wallestad. R.O. and D.B. Pyrah. 1974. Movement and
    nesting of sage grouse hens in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage.
    38:630-633. Peterson, B.E. 1980. Breeding and nesting ecology of
    female sage grouse in North Park, Colorado. M.S. thesis, Colorado
    State Univ., Fort Collins. 86 pp.

[^125]: Autenreith, R.E. 1981. Sage grouse management in Idaho. Wildlife
    Bull. No. 9. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 238 pp.

[^126]: Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in
    Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:649-662. Klebenow, D.A. 1972. The
    habitat requirements of sage grouse and the role of fire in
    management. Proc. Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 12:305-315.
    Autenreith, R.E. 1981. Sage grouse management in Idaho. Wildlife
    Bull. No. 9. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game. Boise, ID. 238 pp. Call,
    M.W. and C. Maser. 1985. Sage grouse [in]{.underline} Wildlife
    habitats in managed rangelands-the great basin of southwestern
    Oregon. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-187. Pac. Northwest For.
    And Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg. 30 pp.

[^127]: Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock
    grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:993--1002.

[^128]: Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage grouse response to grazing management in
    Nevada. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada. Reno, Nev. Klebenow, D. A. 1982.
    Livestock grazing interactions with sage grouse, p. 113--123. In:
    J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke (eds.) Proc. of the Wildlife-Livestock
    Relationships Symposium. Idaho For., Wildl., and Range Exp. Sta.,
    Univ. Idaho. Moscow, Ida. Klebenow, D. A. 1985. Habitat management
    for sage-grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Assoc. 10:34--46.

[^129]: Rasmussen, D.I. and L.A. Griner. 1938. Life history and
    management studies of the sage grouse in Utah, with special
    reference to nesting and feeding habits. Trans. North Amer. Wildl.
    Conf. 3:852--864. Patterson, R.L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming.
    Sage Books, Inc., Denver, Colo. Call, M.W. 1979. Habitat
    requirements and management recommendations for sage grouse.
    USDI-BLM Denver Serv. Center

    Tech. Note 330.

[^130]: Beck, J.L. and D.L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock
    grazing on sage grouse habitat. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:993--1002.

[^131]: Holechek, J.L., R. Valdez, S.D. Schemnitz, R.D. Pieper, and C.A.
    Davis. 1982. Manipulation of grazing to improve or maintain wildlife
    habitat. Wild. Soc. Bull. 10:204--210.

[^132]: Fischer, R.A., W.L. Wakkinen, K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly.
    1993. Nesting-area fidelity of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho.
    Condor 95:1038--1041.

[^133]: Ratliff, R.D. and J.N. Reppert. 1974. Vigor of Idaho fescue
    grazed under rest-rotation and continuous grazing. J. Range Manage.
    27:447--449.

[^134]: Elmore, W. and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and Watershed
    systems: Degradation and Restoration, p. 212--231. In: M. Vavra,
    W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds.) Ecological Implications of
    Livestock Herbivory in the West. Society for Range Manage. Denver,
    Colo.

[^135]: Neel, L.A. 1980. Sage grouse response to grazing management in
    Nevada. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada. Reno, Nev.

[^136]: Beck, J. L., D. L. Mitchell. 2000. Influences of livestock
    grazing on Sage-Grouse habitat. Wildl.

    Soc. Bull. 28(4): 993-1002.

[^137]: Braun, C. E. 1987. Current issues in Sage-Grouse management.
    Proc. Western Association Fish

    and wildlife agencies. Colo. Div. Wildl., Fort Collins.

[^138]: Autenrieth, R.E. 1981. Sage grouse in Idaho. Vol. 9, Fish and
    Game Bull., Idaho State Fish and

    Game Commission, Boise, Idaho. 238 pp.

[^139]: Call, M. W., and Maser, C. 1985. Wildlife habitats in managed
    rangelands, the Great Basin of

    southeastern Oregon: Sage-Grouse. U.S. Dept. Agric. Pacific
    Northwest For. And Range Exp.

    Stn., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-187.

[^140]: Keller, R.J.; Shepherd, H.R.; and R.N. Randall. 1941. Survey of
    1941: North Park, Jackson County, Moffat County, including
    cooperative data on previous seasons. Colorado Game and Fish Dept.,
    Sage Grouse Survey 4. 31 pp. Trueblood, R.W. 1954. The effect of
    grass reseeding in sagebrush lands on sage grouse populations. M.S.
    Thesis. Utah State Univ., Logan. 77 pp. Gray, G.M. 1967. An
    ecological study of sage grouse broods with reference to nesting,
    movements, food habits and sagebrush strip-spraying in the Medicine
    Lodge Drainage, Clark County, Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho,
    Moscow. 200 pp. Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood
    habitat in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3):649-661.

[^141]: Wallestad, R.O. and R. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season
    movements and habitat selection of male sage grouse. J. Wildl.
    Manage. 38:634-637.

[^142]: Gill, R. B. 1965. Distribution and abundance of a population of
    Sage Grouse in North Park, Colorado. M.S. thesis. Colorado State
    University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 142 pages. Drut, M. S., J. A.
    Crawford, and M. A. Gregg. 1994a. Brood habitat use by Sage Grouse
    in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 54:170-176. Gregg, M. A., J. A.
    Crawford, M. S. Drut, and A. K. Delong. 1994. Vegetational cover and
    predation of Sage Grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife
    Management 58:162-166. Sveum, C. M., W. D. Edge, and J. A. Crawford.
    1998. Nesting habitat selection by Sage Grouse in south-central
    Washington. Journal of Range Management 51:265-269.

[^143]: Crawford, J. A., and D. M. Davis. 2002. Habitat use by Greater
    Sage-Grouse on Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. Final Report. Game
    Bird Research Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
    119 pages.

[^144]: Young, J. R. 1994. The influence of sexual selection on
    phenotypic and genetic divergence among Sage Grouse populations.
    Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 123
    pages.

[^145]: Hanf, J. M., P. A. Schmidt, and E. B. Groshens. 1994. Sage
    Grouse in the high desert of central

    Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993. U. S. Department of the
    Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon. 57 pages.

[^146]: Lyon, A. G. 2000. The potential effects of natural gas
    development on Sage Grouse near

    Pinedale, Wyoming. M.S. thesis. University of Wyoming, Laramie,
    Wyoming. 120 pages.

[^147]: Klott, J. H., R. B. Smith, and C. Vullo. 1993. Sage Grouse
    habitat use in the Brown's Bench

    area of south-central Idaho. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
    of Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado, and
    Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Jerome, Idaho. 14 pages.

[^148]: Rasmussen, D. I., and L. A. Griner. 1938. Life history and
    management studies of the Sage Grouse in Utah, with special
    reference to nesting and feeding habits. Transactions of the North
    American Wildlife Conference 3:852-864.

[^149]: Gates, R.J. 1983. Sage grouse, lagomorph, and pronghorn use of a
    sagebrush grassland burn site on the Idaho National Engineering
    Laboratory. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT.

[^150]: Johnsgard, P.A. 1973. Grouse and quails of North America. Univ.
    Nebr. Press, Lincoln. 553 pp.

[^151]: Ritchie, M.E.; Wolfe, M.L.; and R. Danvir. 1994. Predation of
    artificial sage grouse nests in treated and untreated sagebrush.
    Great Basin Nat. 54: 122-129.

[^152]: Autenrieth, R.E. 1973. Sage grouse research in Idaho. Proc.
    West. States Sage Grouse Workshop 8:51-52.

[^153]: Klebenow, D.A. 1982. Livestock grazing interactions with sage
    grouse. In: J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke (eds.). Proc. Wildl. Livestock
    Relationships Symposium, Univ. Idaho, For., Wildl., and Range Exp.
    Stn., Moscow. p. 113-123.

[^154]: Smith, M.A., J.C. Malechek and K.O. Fulgham. 1979. Forage
    selection by mule deer on winter range grazed by sheep in spring. J.
    Range Manage. 32:40--45. Fulgham, K.O., M.A. Smith, and J.C.

    Malechek. 1982. A compatible grazing relationship can exist between
    domestic sheep and mule deer, p. 458--478. In: J.M. Peek and P.D.
    Dalke (eds.) Proc. of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Symp.
    Idaho For., Wildl. and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, Ida.

[^155]: Call, M.W. 1979. Habitat requirements and management
    recommendations for sage grouse. USDI-BLM Denver Serv. Center Tech.
    Note 330.

    Crawford, J.A. and R.S. Lutz. 1985. Sage

[^156]: Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. Relationship of sage grouse to upland
    meadows in Nevada. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nevada. Reno, Nev. Evans, C.
    1986. The relationship of cattle grazing to sage grouse use of
    meadow habitat on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis,
    Univ. Nev., Reno, Nev.

[^157]: Mosley, J. C. 1996. Prescribed sheep grazing to suppress
    cheatgrass: A review. Sheep and Goat Res. J. 12:74-81. Olson, B.E.
    and R.T. Wallander. 2001. Sheep grazing spotted knapweed and Idaho
    fescue.

    J. Range Manage. 54:25--30. Merritt, S., C. Prosser, K. Sedivec, and
    D. Bangsund. 2001. Multi-species grazing and leafy spurge.
    U.S.D.A.-ARS Team Leafy Spurge, Sidney, Mont.

[^158]: Riggs, R.A. and P.J. Urness. 1989. Effects of goat browsing on
    Gambel oak communities in northern Utah. J. Range Manage
    42:354--360.

[^159]: Aldridge, C. L., and R. M. Brigham. 2002. Sage-Grouse nesting
    and brood habitat use in

    southern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(2): 433-444.
    Young, J.A. 1994. Changes in plant communities in the Great Basin
    induced by domestic livestock grazing. Pages 113-123 in K.T. Harper,
    L.L. St. Clair, K.H. Thorne, and W.M. Hess, editors, Natural history
    of the Colorado plateau and Great Basin. University Press of
    Colorado, Niwot. Paige, C, S. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush
    sea: Managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in
    Flight, Western Working Group.

[^160]: Klebenow, D.A. and G.M. Gray. 1969. Food habits of juvenile sage
    grouse. J. Range Manage. 21(2):80-83. Savage, D.E. 1968. The
    relationship of sage grouse to upland meadows in Nevada. M.S.
    Thesis. Univ. Nevada, Reno. 172 pp. Peterson, J.G. 1970. The food
    habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central
    Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:147-155.

[^161]: Eng, R.L. 1952. Population trends and breeding potential studies
    (sage grouse brood studies). Montana Fish and Game Comm., Wildlife
    Restoration Div. Quart. Prog. Rep. 3(4):56-62. Rogers, G.E. 1964.
    Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colorado Dept. Game, Fish
    and Parks. Tech. Publ. 16. 132 pp.

[^162]: Klebenow, D.A. 1972. The habitat requirements of sage grouse and
    the role of fire in management. Proceedings Annual Tall Timbers Fire
    Ecology Conf. pp. 305-315.

[^163]: Wallestad, R.O. 1975. Life history and habitat requirements of
    sage grouse in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 35:129-136.

[^164]: Oakleaf, R.J. 1971. The relationship of sage grouse to upland
    meadows in Nevada. Nevada Dep. Fish and Game. Fed. Aid Proj. W-28-2.
    64 pp.

[^165]: U.S. Department of the Interior. 1975. Effects of livestock
    grazing on wildlife, watershed, recreation, and other resource
    values in Nevada. U.S. Dep. Int., Bur. Land Manage. Unpubl.
    Manuscript. 96 pp.

[^166]: Banasch, D. 1985. Sage grouse in Alberta, habitat requirements,
    life history, census techniques, summer brood survey and hunter
    check station analysis. Unpubl. rept., Alberta Fish and Wildlife,
    Edmonton, AB. 52 pp.

[^167]: Danvir, R. E. 2002. Sage Grouse ecology and management in
    northern Utah sagebrush-steppe. A Deseret Land and Livestock
    Wildlife Research Report. Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch and the
    Utah Foundation for Quality Resource Management, Woodruff, Utah.
    39 + appendices.

[^168]: Fielding, D.J., and M.A. Brusven. 1995. Grasshopper densities on
    grazed and ungrazed rangeland under

    drought conditions in southern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist
    55:352-358.

[^169]: Eng, R.L. and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter
    movements and habitat use in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:
    141-146.

[^170]: Pyrah, D.B. 1954. A preliminary study toward sage grouse
    management in Clark and Fremont Counties based on seasonal
    movements. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 90 pp. Crawford, J.E.
    1960. The movements, productivity, and management of sage grouse in
    Clark and Fremont Counties, Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho, Moscow.
    85 pp.

[^171]: Beck, T. D. I. 1975. Attributes of a wintering population of
    Sage Grouse, North Park, Colorado. M.S. thesis. Colorado State
    University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 49 pages. Beck, T. D. I. 1977.
    Sage Grouse flock characteristics and habitat selection in winter.
    Journal of Wildlife Management 41:18-26.

[^172]: Beck, T.D.I. 1977. Sage grouse flock characteristics and habitat
    in winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 41:18-26.

[^173]: Dunn, P.O. and C.E. Braun. 1986. Late summer-spring movements of
    juvenile sage grouse. Wilson Bull. 98:83-92.

[^174]: Connelly, J.W.; Browers, H.W.; and R.J. Gates. 1988. Seasonal
    movements of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage.
    52:116-122.

[^175]: Eng., R.L. and P. Schladweiler. 1972. Sage grouse winter
    movements and habitat use in central Montana. J. Wildl. Manage.
    36:141-146.

[^176]: Leonard, K. M., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000.
    Distribution, movements and habitats of Sage Grouse Centrocercus
    urophasianus on the Upper Snake River Plain of Idaho: changes from
    the 1950's to the 1990's. Wildlife Biology 6:265-270.

[^177]: Berry, J. D., and R. L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and
    fidelity to seasonal use areas by female Sage Grouse. Journal of
    Wildlife Management 49:237-240.

[^178]: Hulet, B. V., J. T. Flinders, J. S. Green, and R. B. Murray.
    1986. Seasonal movements and habitat selection of Sage Grouse in
    southern Idaho. Pages 168-175 in E. D. McArthur and B. L. Welch,
    editors. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of Artemisia
    and Chrysothamnus. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
    General Technical Report INT-200. Intermountain Research Station,
    Ogden, Utah.

[^179]: Dalke, P.D.; Pyrah, D.B.; Stanton, D.C.; Crawford, J.E.; and
    E.F. Schlatterer. 1960. Seasonal movements and breeding behavior of
    sage grouse in Idaho. Trans. North Am. Wildl. And Nat. Resour. Conf.
    25: 396-407.

    Connelly, J.W. 1982. An ecological study of sage grouse in
    southeastern Idaho. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State Univ., Pullman.
    84pp.

[^180]: Dalke, P.D.; Pyrah, D.B.; Stanton, D.C.; Crawford, J.E.; and
    E.F. Schlatterer. 1963. Ecology, productivity, and management of
    sage grouse in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:396-407.

[^181]: Berry, J.D. and R.L. Eng. 1985. Interseasonal movements and
    fidelity to seasonal use areas by female sage grouse. J. Wildl.
    Manage. 41:18-26.

[^182]: West, P.C. 1980. Constraints for challenges? Social dilemmas in
    public range land management. Paper presented to the annual meetings
    of the Society of American Foresters, Spokane, Washington, 1980.

[^183]: Cook, C.W., G. Taylor, and E.T. Bartlett. 1980. Impacts of
    federal range forage on ranches and regional economics of Colorado.
    Colorado State Univ. Exp. Sta. Bull. 576S (July). Ft. Collins,
    Colorado.

[^184]: Torell, L.A., J.R. Garrett, and C.T.K. Ching. 1981. The economic
    effects of three changes in public lands grazing policies. J. Range
    Manage. 34(5):373-376.

[^185]: Gee, C.K. 1981. Estimating economic impacts of adjustments in
    grazing on federal lands and estimating federal rangeland forage
    values. Tech. Bull. 143. Colo. State Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., Fort
    Collins, Colo.

    Van Tassell, L.W., and J.W. Richardson. 1998. Impact of federal
    grazing reductions on Wyoming Ranches. In: Stubble height and
    utilization measurements: uses and misuses. p. 50-56. Ore. State
    Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 682. Corvallis, OR.

[^186]: Rowe, H.I., and E.T. Bartlett. 2001. Development and federal
    grazing policy impacts on two Colorado counties: a comparative
    study. In: L.A. Torell, E.T. Bartlett, and R. Larranaga (eds.).
    Current issues in rangeland resource economics: Proc. of a symposium
    sponsored by Western Coordinating Committee

    55 (WCC-55), N.M. State Univ., Res. Rep. 737, Las Cruces, N.M.

[^187]: Fukuyama, F., 1999. The Great Disruption. Human Nature and the
    Reconstitution of Social Order. New York.: The Free Press.

[^188]: Torell, L.A.; Lyon, K.S.; and E.B. Godfrey. 1991. Long-run
    versus short-run planning horizons and rangeland stocking rate
    decision. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 73:795-807.

[^189]: Sims, P.L.; Dahl, B.E.; and A.H. Denham. 1976. Vegetation and
    livestock response at three grazing intensities on sandhill
    rangeland in eastern Colorado. Colorado State University Exp. Sta.
    Tech. Bull. 130.

[^190]: Workman, J.P. 1986. Ranch economics. Macmillan Publ. Co., New
    York.

[^191]: Holechek, J.L.; Berry, T.J.; and M. Vavra. 1987. Grazing system
    influences on cattle diet and performance on mountain range. J.
    Range Manage. 40:55-60.