United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Intermountain

Region

Caribou-

Targhee

National

Forest

USDA Forest Service

Intermountain Region

Caribou - Targhee National Forest

1405 Hollipark Drive

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

ii

Curlew National Grassland

Grassland Plan Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report

Abstract

The Curlew National Grassland (hereafter generally referred to as the “Grassland”) is a portion of 

the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Administrative Unit. Specifically administered as a part of the 

Westside Ranger District, the Grassland is situated in southeast Idaho, north of the Utah-Idaho 

State line. It encompasses approximately 47,600 acres of federal land intermixed with private land. 

It is located approximately 17 air miles west of Malad, Idaho. 

The Curlew National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan was signed in February of 

2002. The monitoring activities in the Plan were developed to address priority management 

emphasis, goals and objectives. Monitoring and evaluation activities may vary each year in 

response to changing issues, budgets, science and methodologies. The monitoring program 

outlined in the Plan is the optimal level, assuming the plan is fully funded. In fiscal years 2002 and 

2003, forest funding fell short of optimal levels but the majority of the monitoring was 

accomplished. 

This document reports and evaluates monitoring and accomplishments in the first year of 

implementation of the Plan. Where available, information from 2003 has also been reported. The 

Curlew Plan has annual monitoring as well as monitoring required at different intervals. The Plan 

separated monitoring into 2 priority groups, in anticipation of budget limitations. In 2002, all of the 

Priority Group 1 annual monitoring was completed to the level specified in the Grassland Plan. 

The monitoring has identified some problems to address but overall, standards and guidelines are 

effective and helping accomplish the resource objectives. 
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

iii

Table of Contents

Grassland Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report.......................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................II

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................ III

FOREST SUPERVISOR’S MESSAGE........................................................................................................1

OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................................2

Ecological Processes and Patterns ...............................................................................................2

General Ecological Conditions............................................................................................................................................ 2

Physical Elements.......................................................................................................................2

Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Biological Elements .....................................................................................................................2

Fisheries, Water, and Riparian Resources ......................................................................................................................... 2

Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Forest Use and Occupation..........................................................................................................3

Heritage Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Production of Commodity Resources............................................................................................3

Livestock Management....................................................................................................................................................... 3

ÙRx 2.8.8 Riparian/Wetland Areas..............................................................................................4

M Rx 3.4.1 Special Wildlife Areas................................................................................................5

ı Rx 6.5 Rangeland Vegetation And Upland Bird Habitat Management..........................................5

MONITORING ITEMS— CURLEW GRASSLAND PLAN ..................................................................................6

Table of Monitoring Items and Results ............................................................................................................................... 6

ANNUAL MONITORING RESULTS AND EVALUATION .................................................................................10

Vegetation................................................................................................................................10

Long-term Vegetation Benchmarks .................................................................................................................................. 10

Water and Riparian ...................................................................................................................11

Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Wildlife--Management Indicator Species......................................................................................11

Sage Grouse and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse .......................................................................................................... 11

Riparian Breeding Birds.................................................................................................................................................... 13

Livestock Grazing......................................................................................................................13

Livestock Utilization........................................................................................................................................................... 13

Recreation and Access..............................................................................................................21

Developed Site Conditions................................................................................................................................................ 21

Dispersed Area Use and Condition................................................................................................................................... 21

Travel and Recreational Activity Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS ...................................................................................................................22
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

1

Forest Supervisor’s Message

This report is the first Curlew National Grassland Monitoring and Evaluation Report. The Land and Resource Management 

Plan for the Curlew National Grassland was approved by Regional Forester Jack Troyer on February 8, 2002. The actual time 

period covered by this Monitoring and Evaluation Report is from March of 2002 through August of 2003. 

The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Chapter 5 of the Grassland Plan, was designed to meet the requirements set forth in the 

National Forest Management Act. The results of our annual monitoring activities have been evaluated to verify the propriety of 

current actions, standards and guidelines; and to determine the need to change them. To assess the performance of the 

Grassland Plan, the Monitoring Items are separated into three types: implementation, effectiveness, and validation. 

Implementation monitoring forms the basis for all other monitoring since it measures the actual use of standards and 

guidelines. Effectiveness monitoring answers the question, “Is implementation of the standards and guidelines showing the 

results we expected?” Validation monitoring is conducted to verify the basic assumptions in the RFP. 

The Curlew Grassland Plan also identified goals and objectives for resource management. Goals describe desired conditions

for the future; they are typically general, without a specific timeframe for achieving them. In planning, one way to track how we 

achieve our goals is through the measurement of objectives. An objective is a quantifiable statement of achievement expected 

within a determined time frame. In this Monitoring and Evaluation Report, we have measured our progress towards meeting 

the objectives in the Curlew Plan. 

Based on the information in this report, we have not identified any changes needed in the 2002 Curlew Grassland Plan. I 

certify that implementing direction in the Plan will continue to move the Grassland toward desired future conditions.

Jerry B. Reese

JERRY B. REESE

Caribou - Targhee National Forest Supervisor
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

2

 Objectives 

The Curlew Plan identified goals and objectives for forest management over the next decade. 

Goals describe desired conditions for the future; they are typically general, without a specific 

timeframe for achieving them. In planning, one way to track how we achieve our goals is through 

the measurement of objectives. An objective is a quantifiable statement of achievement expected 

within a determined time frame. The implementation of the Grassland Plan is displayed in the table 

of objectives and timeline for meeting those objectives in Chapter 5 of the Plan (Plan, Table 5.1). 

This schedule is being used to help design the program of work for each resource group and to 

assist budget allocations each year. The following discussion lists actions we have taken towards 

meeting the objectives in the Grassland Plan. Currently we are in the second year of the 10-year 

Plan so many of the objectives have not been met.

Ecological Processes and Patterns

General Ecological Conditions

• Within 10 years after signing the ROD, reassess vegetation PFC of ecosystems on the Grassland and 

adjacent areas, to determine if resources are moving toward DFCs.

Physical Elements

Water Quality

• Proactively address all impaired waterbodies within 5 years subject to funding and State schedules.

Biological Elements

Fisheries, Water, and Riparian Resources

• Establish an upward trend on all perennial riparian systems within the next decade.

 ̨ In 2003, Grassland managers developed a proposal to exclude certain 

riparian areas from grazing and to graze others as riparian pastures. This 

interdisciplinary proposal was included in the scoping statement for the 

Curlew and Buist Allotment Management Plan (AMP) updates, sent to the 

public in June, 2003.

Vegetation

• Treat 12,100 acres of sagebrush over the next 10 years. 

 ̨ Grassland managers have been refining the canopy cover maps to develop a 

proposal for sagebrush treatments. A proposed action is not likely to be 

finalized until 2004. That proposal would then be sent to the public for review 

and comment and subject to environmental analysis.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

3

Wildlife

• Assess the changes to sagebrush habitats in the Greater Curlew Valley, including canopy cover, adjacent 

land use, understory conditions, every five years. Coordinate with interested groups.

• Build a blind for lek observation.

• Develop a map in cooperation with IDFG to identify functional and degraded breeding habitat within 2 

years of the signing of the ROD.

 ̨ The Grassland wildlife biologist and a biologist from Idaho Fish and Game are 

working together to define breeding habitat features specific to the Grassland.

• Map stream reaches and identify existing and potential willow shrub communities within 2 years of signing 

the ROD. 

 ̨ In the summer of 2003, the Forest contracted with the Idaho Conservation 

Data Center (CDC) to have a botanist survey and map willow shrub 

communities. Most of the floristic inventory was completed in the summer of 

2003; the remainder of the work will be done in the 2004 field season.

Forest Use and Occupation

Heritage Resources

• Inventory 100 to 500 acres of the Grassland each year to locate and identify archaeological and historic 

properties.

 ̨ Approximately 300 acres were surveyed in 2002 and 2003. Two sites were 

located and evaluated for eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places. 

 ̨ In 2002, Weber State University Field School excavated one of the above 

sites and determined that it was eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

• Within 5 years of signing the ROD, develop a predictive model to guide the design and completion of 

cultural resource inventories.

 ̨ The Forest archeologist has the northern Curlew Valley prehistoric settlement 

system mapped. This map will be used to predict the probability of 

archeological sites on that portion of the Grassland. This will be refined as 

more data is available.

Production of Commodity Resources

Livestock Management

• Within 3 years of signing the ROD, AMPs will be updated for the Curlew Valley and Buist Association 

fields.

 ̨ The proposed action for updating the AMP’s on these allotments was sent out 

for public review in June of 2003. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) is reviewing 

public comments and identifying significant issues currently. An 

environmental assessment will be prepared in the fall of 2003. A decision is 

scheduled for early winter or spring of 2004.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

4

• Within 2 years of signing the ROD, develop a monitoring protocol for livestock use monitoring and 

recording on the Grassland, following the C-T Rangeland Monitoring Protocol and FS Handbook direction.

 ̨ Livestock monitoring in 2002 and 2003 has been done using currently 

approved protocols and forms developed at Utah State University. Once the 

FS Handbook for rangeland analysis has been finalized, the Forest will 

develop a coordinated Monitoring Protocol for the Curlew, Caribou, and 

Targhee zones. This is likely to occur in 2004.

ÙRx 2.8.8 Riparian/Wetland Areas

• For riparian improvement, by 2008 corridor fence those streams that are “at risk” and will benefit from that 

fencing.

 ̨ In 2003, Grassland managers developed a proposal to exclude the following 

riparian areas from grazing. This interdisciplinary proposal was included in 

the scoping statement for the Curlew Allotment Management Plan (AMP) 

updates, sent to the public in June of 2003. If the proposed action is chosen, 

the Forest expects to begin construction on fences in the spring of 2004.

 ̨ Meadowbrook (Huffman Spring)—this will be fenced in fall of 2003 with 

grant money from the C-T Resource Advisory Committee (RAC).

 ̨ North Canyon

 ̨ Lower Southwest Peterson-Lonigan

 ̨ Northwest Peterson-Lonigan Area

 ̨ Southwest Peterson-Lonigan Area

• On the remaining perennial streams (outside of existing riparian pastures and corridor fenced “at risk” 

streams) fence into riparian pastures using existing boundary fences by 2010.

 ̨ One of these areas was also included in the Curlew AMP Updates proposed 

action. The East Huffman Riparian Pasture would be created after the “at 

risk” streams are corridor fenced. 

East Huffman riparian area, scheduled to be fenced into a riparian pasture.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

5

M Rx 3.4.1 Special Wildlife Areas

• Maintain existing fences annually to meet wildlife habitat goals.

 ̨ In the summer of 2003, the Youth Conservation Corps crew did “heavy 

maintenance” on the fences at Sweeten Pond. Yearly maintenance on those 

fences is performed by the livestock permittees.

• Maintain water in Sweeten Pond each year, by pumping when needed.

ı Rx 6.5 Rangeland Vegetation And Upland Bird Habitat Management

• Within 10 years of the ROD, treat 2,500 acres of bulbous bluegrass and reseed with native and non-native 

grass, forb, and shrub seed mixtures. 

 ̨ Grassland managers have been refining the maps of bulbous bluegrass 

dominated fields. No new treatments are proposed at this time.

• Within 10 years of the ROD, treat 9,600 acres of sagebrush with herbicides or other appropriate methods 

to reduce canopy cover from >25% canopy cover and to achieve other resource objectives.

 ̨ Grassland managers have been refining the canopy cover maps to develop a 

proposal for sagebrush treatments. A proposed action is not likely to be 

finalized until 2004. That proposal would then be sent to the public for review 

and comment and subject to environmental analysis.

Male sage grouse on the Curlew National Grassland, photograph by Ken Timothy, USFS.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

6

Monitoring Items— Curlew Grassland Plan

This section includes the results of each monitoring item and an interdisciplinary evaluation of those results. First there is a summary table of the above 

parameters. After the summary table, there is a more detailed discussion of the monitoring results and evaluation. Information included in this section is a 

compilation of site specific monitoring conducted by the Districts, Supervisor’s Office specialists, consulting firms, State agencies, etc. 

Table of Monitoring Items and Results

Table 1: Monitoring Items from Chapter 5 of the Curlew Grassland Plan.

Resource

Parameter

Monitored

Monitoring

Activity

Type of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Measurement Priority

Results

Detrimental Soil 

Disturbance

Evaluate according to R-4 Soil Quality 

Standards. Apply Grassland-wide on 

representative sites of various land 

treatments. 

Implementation

Effectiveness Annually 2

No new land treatments 

have been implemented 

since the Plan was 

developed

Ground Cover Grassland-wide on representative sites 

or habitat types where new land 

treatments occur. Evaluate the rate at 

which habitat types recover from 

hydrologic disturbances. Include 

measurements of fine organic matter to 

address long-term soil productivity.

Implementation

Effectiveness Annually 2

No new land treatments 

have been implemented 

since the Plan was 

developed

Soils

Soil Heating Evaluate fire intensity to determine 

impacts on soil quality. Measure area 

extent of severely burned soils. 

Implementation After each fire

event. 2

No fire events have 

occurred since the Plan 

was developed
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

7

Resource

Parameter

Monitored

Monitoring

Activity

Type of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Measurement Priority

Results

Big Sagebrush and 

Mountain Brush Canopy 

Cover

Reevaluate sagebrush canopy cover 

classes using a Landsat analysis similar 

to the USU and Prevedel studies or a 

more site-specific inventory method. 

Approved methods in the FSH 2209.11 

will be used.

Implementation 

Effectiveness

Every 10 years 1 Will be done by 2012

Changes in shrub and 

understory diversity in 

bulbous bluegrass

treatments.

Establish a monitoring plan in 

consultation with the Regional 

Ecologist, using control plots to 

determine vegetation trends. Protocol 

will include methods that will show the 

changes in understory and overstory 

vegetation and canopy cover 

reestablishment. 

Implementation

Effectiveness

Validation

Bulbous 

bluegrass 

treatments would 

be measured at 

times prescribed 

by Regional 

Ecologist

1 No bulbous bluegrass 

treatments have been 

proposed since the Plan 

was d eveloped. Forest 

managers are currently 

reviewing the second 

half of the previously 

approved North Carter 

treatment.

Changes in shrub and 

understory diversity

from other vegetation 

treatments.

Protocol will include methods that will 

show the changes in understory and 

overstory vegetation and canopy cover 

reestablishment and other shrub 

parameters. Include evaluation of sage 

grouse habitat quality.

Effectiveness 

Validation

Before treatment 

and in years 3 

and 10 after 

treatment. 

1 No new vegetation 

treatments have been 

proposed. Grassland 

biologist has been 

coordinating with Idaho 

Fish and Game to 

discuss evaluation of 

grouse habitat quality.

Long-term vegetation 

benchmarks

Establish at least one nested frequency 

transect within representative native 

vegetation in the NW unit to monitor 

long-term condition and trend.

Effectiveness Every 10 years 1 This was accomplished 

in 2002. A nested 

frequency transect was 

established in the West 

Peterson-Lonigan field. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation Changes Document and map natural and man 

caused disturbances.

Implementation Annually 1 No known natural and 

man-caused 

disturbances have 

changed vegetation 

types.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

8

Resource

Parameter

Monitored

Monitoring

Activity

Type of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Measurement Priority

Results

Riparian Properly 

Functioning Condition

Reassess streams for PFC using the 

BLM/FS Protocol and the Integrated 

Riparian Evaluation Guide or other 

established protocols. Compare 

recovery rates between annually and 

periodically grazed pastures.

Effectiveness 

Validation

Every 5 years 2 Will be conducted in 

2007.

Water and 

Riparian

Water Quality Monitor water quality on water quality 

limited streams.

Effectiveness 

Validation

Annually 1 This was conducted but 

since there was no water 

flow in the stream, no 

measurements were 

taken.

Sage Grouse and 

Columbian Sharp-tailed 

grouse

Each spring conduct sage and sharp -

tailed grouse lek surveys in cooperation 

with BLM, IDFG and other interested 

parties on known active and inactive 

leks. 

Validation Annually 1 This has been 

conducted, see write-up 

for 2001-2003 results. 

Wildlife—

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Riparian Breeding Birds Monitor riparian breeding bird habitat 

keying in on willow shrub structure. 

Methods may also include long-term 

point counts for birds. 

Effectiveness Every 5 years 1 Will be conducted in 

2007. In 2003, willow 

dominated riparian areas 

were identified and 

mapped (see objectives 

write-up).

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock Utilization Monitor grazing utilization/stubble 

height parameters; protocol to be 

established in consultation with IDT 

and Regional Ecologist. Protocol will 

include (at a minimum) yearly 

utilization mapping and upland and 

riparian key area utilization transects.

Implementation 

Effectiveness

Annually—use 

mapping on 

100% of CNG; 

transects/cages in 

at least 25% of 

pastures

1 This has been conducted 

in 2002 and 2003. See 

attached map for 2002 

utilization mapping. 

Utilization cages were 

installed, stubble height 

and percent utilization 

comparisons were made 

(see write-up).
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

9

Resource

Parameter

Monitored

Monitoring

Activity

Type of 

Monitoring

Frequency of 

Measurement Priority

Results

Developed Site 

Conditions

Review fee records and other methods 

to determine use levels and site 

conditions.

Implementation

Effectiveness

Validation

Annually 1 Use level in Curlew 

Campground increased 

in 2003 over 2002 

levels. Improvements to 

CG were made in 2002.

Dispersed Area Use and 

Condition

Use observations, road and trail 

counters to monitor resource conditions 

and use levels at dispersed recreation

sites. 

Recreation Effectiveness Annually 1 No monitoring occurred.

and Access

Travel and Recreational 

Activity Impacts 

Use observations and surveys to assess 

resource conditions in areas of concern 

such as high use areas or along travel 

routes.

Implementation 

Effectiveness

Annually 2 No concerns of high use 

impacts in developed 

sites. Experiencing 

some motorized vehicle 

travel off designated 

routes.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

10

Annual Monitoring Results and Evaluation

Monitoring requirements and tasks are developed to be responsive to the objectives and scale of the plan, program, 

or project to be monitored. They determine how well objectives have been met and how closely management 

standards and guidelines have been applied. Monitoring generally includes the collection of data and information,

either by observation or measurement. Evaluation is the analysis of the data and information collected during the 

monitoring phase. The evaluation results form a basis for adaptively managing the Grassland. 

In this Report, the annual monitoring data has been compiled and analyzed to determine if the Forest is following the 

Plan and if the activities prescribed by the Plan are moving the Grassland toward the Desired Future Conditions. 

With adaptive management, this evaluation is critical to the success of the program. If the monitoring shows that 

activities are not moving Grassland conditions towards goals and DFC’s , then management strategies can be 

adjusted. Continual re-evaluation of conditions is designed to insure that management of the Grassland will achieve 

the goals for the next decade. 

In the Curlew Monitoring Plan, several monitoring items apply only to vegetation treatments or fires. Since no new 

vegetation treatments have been proposed or implemented, those items will not be discussed in the following 

evaluation. Only annual monitoring requirements are reported in this 2002-2003 Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

as well.

Vegetation

Long-term Vegetation Benchmarks

Requirements

The Grassland Plan requires establishment of at least one nested frequency transect within representative native 

vegetation in the NW unit to monitor long-term condition and trend.

Results and Evaluation

In 2002, a nested frequency transect was established in the West Peterson-Lonigan field. This will provide baseline 

data from which the Grassland managers can determine long-term condition and trend of native vegetation. This will 

enable us to validate whether livestock grazing levels will maintain and improve vegetation conditions. The transect 

is located in a mountain big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass habitat type. Cheatgrass and crested wheatgrass 

were also present at this site.

In the FEIS of the Curlew National Grassland Plan, only five species of noxious weeds were identified. Canada 

thistle, musk thistle and black henbane were reported as static and leafy spurge and diffuse knapweed were 

declining under intensive annual treatments. Noxious weed infestations were found along road edges and in the 

Twin Springs Campground. The Grassland is covered by the Utah-Idaho Cooperative Weed Management Area 

(CWMA) and uses an integrated pest management approach to weed treatment. Thus far, there have been no 

biological control efforts on the CNG because the infestations are too small to support insect populations. In 2003, a 

large infestation of musk thistle was discovered below the dam at Stone Reservoir. Youth Conservation Corps 

(YCC) employees were used over a three-day period to clip and bag the weeds in a 10-acre area. This area was 

then sprayed with herbicides in the fall. Some diffuse knapweed was clipped and bagged from Grandine Guard 

Station and Twin Springs Campground. The biggest threat is potentially coming from existing infestations of leafy 

spurge but the overall trend is static or some slight headway in reducing the acreage attributable to leafy spurge. 
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

11

Water and Riparian

Water Quality

Requirements

The Grassland Plan requires monitoring of water quality on water quality limited streams, annually.

Results and Evaluation

The only stream listed as water quality limited by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is the South Fork of 

Rock Creek. This is located on the northwest side of the Curlew. In both 2002 and 2003, the streambed was damp 

but there was no water flow on the Grassland portion of the stream. Thus, no measurements were taken. 

Wildlife--Management Indicator Species

Sage Grouse and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Requirements

According to the Plan, each spring sage and sharp-tailed grouse lek surveys should be conducted in cooperation 

with BLM, IDFG and other interested parties on known active and inactive leks.

Results 

In the winter of 2002/2003, Grassland biologist and Idaho Fish and Game biologists met to coordinate the continuing 

monitoring of sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse leks in the Greater Curlew Valley. Monitoring would be 

standardized to ease in data comparison and trend evaluation. In 2002, a total of 83 male grouse were counted on 

leks on the Grassland. In 2003, over 100 male grouse were counted. The table below shows fluctuations in lek 

count data collected by the Westside District since 1967.

MALE SAGE GROUSE LEK COUNTS - CURLEW NATIONAL GRASSLAND ( District files)

21

42 37

102

0

46 45

27

112

174

194

171

87

141

113

75

91 86 90

61

46

68

88 81

61

31 36

44 48

60 64 70

177

169

118

83

110

0

50

100

150

200

250

1967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003

YEAR

# OF MALE SAGE GROUSE ON LEKS
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

12

Sage Grouse Breeding Habitat

As discussed in the Curlew Plan FEIS and sage grouse management documents, herbaceous cover (grasses and 

forbs) provides hiding cover for sage grouse nests and broods. The Idaho Sage Grouse Management Plan (Idaho, 

1997) and Connelly et al. (2000) recommended that nesting and early-brood rearing habitat be managed to provide 

15 to 25 percent canopy cover of sagebrush and a seven inch stubble height of herbaceous vegetation to provide 

optimum nesting habitat during the May nesting period (Curlew FEIS, page 3-63). A seven-inch stubble height 

guideline was not adopted in the Curlew Plan for various reasons, including the difficulty of using stubble height as a 

use standard in upland vegetation. In general, livestock graze upland vegetation unevenly so average stubble 

heights are very difficult to measure. The Curlew Plan does include a guideline to lower livestock use levels “in 

areas of 16-25 percent sagebrush canopy cover to leave adequate residual vegetation for hiding cover” (Plan, page 

4-17, Livestock Management Guideline #1). 

To determine how the Grassland grazing system is providing for this residual vegetation, managers have been 

measuring percent forage utilization and stubble height to provide a “cross-walk” between the two parameters since 

1999. All of the years measured have been below normal precipitation. It is very difficult to make a Grassland-wide 

correlation between stubble height and percent utilization on uplands due to variables such as plant species and 

canopy cover of sagebrush. The following discussion summarizes the data collected over the past several years.

• In 1999, ten fields were sampled by Grassland biologists and all but three of them exceeded seven inches 

after fall re-growth. The average across all measured fields was nine inches of residual vegetation. 

• In 2000, crested wheatgrass and bluebunch wheatgrass plants were clipped and weighed to correlate 

stubble height with percent utilization. According to this information, 40 percent use by weight on 

bluebunch wheatgrass would result in a 3.5-inch stubble height. In crested wheatgrass, however, plants 

clipped to 50 percent by weight were about 5.5 inches tall (Process Paper #2, 2000). 

• In 2001, 40 percent use (by dry weight) of crested wheatgrass corresponded to an average stubble height 

of 5 inches, prior to fall regrowth (Curlew FEIS, 3-64-3-65). Under a normal precipitation pattern for this 

area, these sites would likely exceed seven inches after regrowth.

• In 2002, Grassland managers again compared percent utilization by weight to stubble heights. Average 

stubble height in the six measured crested wheatgrass fields was 7.4 inches. The table below compares 

the average stubble heights measured to the percent utilization by weight (using a weighted average).

Field Name Average % Utilization

by weight1

Average Stubble

Height (inches)

East Kurtz Riparian Pasture 32 10.9

North 13 38 7.9

West Carter 42 8

North Funk 38 5.9

Salyer 49 4.4

South Huffman 40 7.4

Average 40 7.4

1: Weighted average for the field based on utilization mapping or paired plot method.

In addition to gathering the stubble height information, Grassland managers looked at the grazing patterns to see 

how much of the Grassland was being grazed by cattle during the nesting season. Of the fields with greater than 15 

percent sagebrush canopy cover, 26 percent are actually grazed during the nesting season. Thus, because of 

rotation schedules, 74 percent of the potential sage grouse nesting habitat is not grazed during the nesting season. 

Over 90 percent of the Grassland does not have livestock on it during the nesting season for most birds (April 16th

through June 16th) (CNG grazing files, Timothy 2001).

Evaluation

As discussed above, a 50 percent utilization level in crested wheatgrass provides about 5 inches of residual 

herbaceous cover, even during extreme drought years, prior to fall regrowth. If normal weather patterns prevail, 

residual vegetation height is likely to double that. In sites dominated by native understory vegetation and sites 
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

13

dominated by bulbous bluegrass, prescribed use levels would likely result in shorter residual vegetation heights even 

though allowable utilization by cattle is lower. This is due to the different growth structure of those plants. 

Overall, the potential sage grouse nesting habitat will very nearly meet the Connelly (2000) recommendations for 

residual vegetation, even in drought years, therefore it should be met or exceeded in normal and wet years. Further, 

only one quarter of the optimum grouse nesting habitat is grazed during the nesting season in any given year. This 

indicates that the grazing systems on the CNG are leaving adequate residual vegetation to provide for sage grouse.

Riparian Breeding Birds

Requirements

The Plan requires monitoring of riparian breeding bird habitat, keying in on willow shrub structure, every five years. 

Methods may also include long-term point counts for birds.

Results and Evaluation

The breeding bird surveys will be conducted in 2007. In preparation, the Caribou-Targhee Forest contracted with the 

Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC) to have a botanist identify and map willow dominated riparian areas in the 

summer of 2003. The CDC will supply the Forest with a report detailing riparian classification and include a floristic 

inventory of upland sagebrush habitat. The botanist completed most of the inventory in the summer of 2003 but will 

do follow-up work during 2004. We expect to receive a preliminary report during the winter of 2004 and a final report 

following the 2004 field season.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock Utilization

Requirements

The Grassland Plan requires a variety of monitoring methods for measuring livestock utilization. Annual monitoring 

will include (at a minimum) yearly utilization mapping and upland and riparian key area utilization transects. The 

livestock use mapping is to be done annually on 100 percent of the Grassland and key area transects and/or 

utilization cages will be installed in at least 25 percent of the 50 pastures.

Results 

In 2002 and 2003, livestock utilization was measured using several different methods. These are described in the 

following sections. See also the Wildlife, Sage Grouse and Sharp-tailed Grouse, Sage Grouse Breeding Habitat 

section, above.

Actual Use

As explained in the Grassland FEIS, livestock are moved when the pastures meet allowable utilization 

limits. For the past 20 years, the Grassland has not been grazed by the full, permitted number of livestock. 

The following chart shows actual animal months grazed in relation to the permitted number of animal 

months.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

14

ACTUAL HEAD MONTHS GRAZED IN RELATION TO TOTAL PERMITTED HEAD MONTHS (TOTAL=21,480 HM)

18154

19817 19482

20741

17820 17785

16676

15937

17785

16961 16840

17970

17231

18709

17415

16307

17979

19078 18709

20556 20599 20682

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

YEAR

HEAD MONTHS

Annual Utilization Mapping

Annual utilization mapping is shown by utilization category and provides a pictorial view of livestock grazing 

distribution across the Curlew National Grassland. Since the 2003 grazing season is still underway, this 

mapping is only available for 2002. As required by the Monitoring Plan, 12 utilization cages were 

established in representative sites across the Grassland. The forage produced in the cages was clipped 

and weighed, as was remaining forage that had been grazed outside of the cage. These amounts were 

compared to determine the percent utilization by dry weight. This is called the “paired plot” method of 

determining livestock utilization. This method, along with ocular estimations, was used to determine the 

utilization levels depicted in the map. These maps were used to determine acres of the Grassland grazed 

to the different utilizati on level categories. The following pictures show various utilization levels on upland 

and riparian vegetation. The utilization maps are shown on the following pages.

 

South Funk field, understory dominated by crested wheatgrass. Picture on the left shows 

21 – 35 % utilization. Picture on the right shows 36 – 50 % utilization (September 2001).
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

15

 North 13 Field in July 2002, shows 36 – 50% utilization on crested wheatgrass.

Utilization cage in the North 13 Field showing 38% utilization on crested wheatgrass. 

Average stubble height in the field was 7.9 inches in 2002.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

16
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

17
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

18
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

19

Riparian Utilization

The Curlew Grassland Plan also established riparian utilization levels. According to Management 

Prescription 2.8.8—Riparian/Wetland Areas, livestock grazing utilization levels are to be set using an 

interdisciplinary process. The Caribou Riparian Grazing Implementation Guide is being used as a basis for 

establishing riparian use limits. These limits will be set in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) updates 

which are currently being conducted. Over the past several years permittees and Grassland managers 

have established several riparian pastures including Southwest Peterson-Lonigan, Sheep Creek, Strong 

Corral, Salyer, East Kurtz, Grandine Horse and Bull Pasture, and Rock Creek. These are grazed for short 

periods of time each year. Using weighted averages, the riparian pastures were grazed an average of 30 

percent utilization by weight during the 2002 season. An exclosure was created in Northwest PetersonLonigan. 

East Kurtz Riparian Pasture utilization in 2001; use is estimated at 30%. Picture shows 

riparian vegetation has become established in a formerly incised channel.

Strong Corral Riparian Pasture utilization estimated at 5% in 2001. Picture shows evidence 

of riparian area rebuilding in the bottom of a previously washed out channel.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

20

Evaluation

The Grassland Plan includes a standard and a guideline to set overall livestock utilization levels. According to 

Livestock Management Standard #1, the “average percent utilization of upland herbaceous vegetation across the 

Grassland will be 50 percent by dry weight” (Plan, page 4-17, Livestock Management Standard #1). Allowable use 

should be lower in optimum sage grouse nesting habitat and fields dominated by native vegetation. In fields 

dominated by crested wheatgrass, utilization levels may be higher (Plan, page 4-17, Guideline #1). The average use 

across the Grassland, however, must be 50 percent or less. 

After two years of intensive actual use monitoring, the data indicates that livestock permittees are complying with the 

Grassland Plan standards. While some areas were overused, the vast majority of the Grassland has been grazed 

within the new Plan standards. In 2002, 75 percent of the Curlew Allotment and 91 percent of the Buist Allotment 

was grazed at or below 50 percent. Despite the severe drought conditions, approximately 78 percent of the 

Grassland was grazed at or below 50 percent. Of the acres grazed over the 50 percent use level, most of these 

were in crested wheatgrass dominated fields where higher use is allowed (CNG Plan, page 4-17). Based on 

preliminary information, average use on the CNG in 2003 appears to be about 45 percent by weight. 

Using weighted averages, utilization in 2002 was well within the Curlew Grassland standards:

• utilization of upland vegetation averaged 38%

• utilization of riparian vegetation averaged 30% 

Acres of Grassland by grazing 

utilization categories, 2002 season

2,785

7,443

18,740

11,100 

6,814 0-20% use

21-35% use

36-50% use

51-60% use

>60% use

 

Acres of Pastures with Riparian areas by 

grazing utilization categories, 2002 season

867 3620

1,131

2,853

0 -20 %

21 - 35 %

36 - 50 %

51 - 60 %

> 60 %

These charts show the acres of the CNG grazed by utilization category during the 2002 

grazing season. The chart on the left shows total acres and the chart on the right shows 

only riparian pastures.
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

21

Recreation and Access

Developed Site Conditions

Requirements

According to the Plan, the District Recreation Specialist will review fee records and other documentation to determine 

use levels and site conditions for the Grassland’s developed recreation sites.

Results and Evaluation

There are two developed campgrounds on the Curlew Grassland: Curlew Campground and Twin Springs 

Campground. In 2001 and 2002, improvements were made to this campground at Stone Reservoir. Fee collections 

from 2002 were approximately $4,500 while fee collections from January through mid-August of 2003 were over 

$5,000. This indicates that use in this site will show a substantial increase from 2002 to 2003.

Twin Springs Campground was not a fee area in 2002. As of this date in 2003, no fees have been collected. This is

likely because the campground is a dry site that would not receive much use in dry summers. Use is most likely to 

occur during the fall hunting seasons.

Dispersed Area Use and Condition

Requirements

According to the Plan, the District Recreation Specialist is to use observations, road and trail counters to monitor 

resource conditions and use levels at dispersed recreation sites.

Results and Evaluation

This monitoring was not conducted in 2002. Results from 2003 were unavailable at the time of this Report due to 

personnel being on fire assignment.

Travel and Recreational Activity Impacts

Requirements

Annually, the District Recreation Specialist is to use observations and surveys to assess resource conditions in areas 

of concern such as high use areas or along travel routes.

Results and Evaluation

Observations and informal surveys indicate that there have not been any substantial concerns about recreation 

impacts around the Curlew Campground and Stone Reservoir. The Curlew Plan determined that motorized use 

would be on designated routes only. Grassland managers and permittees have observed some motorized vehicle 

use, both ATV and full-size vehicles, off the designated routes. Most of this activity is in the vicinity of Stone 

Reservoir and Curlew Campground. The majority of the public has been observing the new regulations, however. 
Curlew Monitoring Report: 2002-2003

22

List of Contributors 

Name Section Contributed 

(in whole or in part)

Position

Ken Timothy Range, Wildlife, Photography Wildlife Biologist

David Sleight Recreation Forester

Jan Hunt Recreation Resource Clerk

Lee Leffert Hydrology Hydrologist

Rose Lehman Rare Plants Botanist

Cheryl Probert Report compilation and publication Forest Planner

Randy Thompson Heritage Resources Archaeologist

Jerry Tower Review Westside District 

Ranger

Linda Ward AMP updates Writer/Editor

Curlew and Buist 

Association Members

Actual Use Permittees

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and 

marital or familial status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of 

communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of 

Communication at (202) 720-2791 (voice) or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). To file a complaint, 

please write the Secretary of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 

20250 or call (800) 245-6340 (voice) or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity employer.