Project Details

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

Previous research has documented sage-grouse avoidance of conifer cover (Doherty et al. 2008), negative effects of conifer cover on lek counts (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013), and increased sage-grouse use of sagebrush landscapes following conifer removal in anthropogenic-altered landscapes (Frey et al. 2013, Cook 2015)0. Cook et al. (2016 [in review]) reported sage-grouse use was positively associated with irrigated pasture and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) hay within 0.6 mile (1 km) and negatively associated with conifer canopy cover within 0.3 mile (500 m) of treatments completed in the Box Elder Sage-grouse Management Area (SGMA) in Utah. Additionally, percent cover of mesic habitats and sagebrush canopy were higher within 0.6 mile (1 km) of treatments where sage-grouse were detected. Sandford et al. (2015) documented sage-grouse nesting in an active conifer mastication treatment in the Box Elder SGMA. These studies validated that the placement of mechanical conifer treatments adjacent to occupied sage-grouse habitats will enhance sage-grouse seasonal use and nesting (Frey et al. 2013, Cook 2015, Sandford et al. 2015).

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), through its Sage-grouse Initiative (www.sagegrouseinitiative.com), has provided cost-share to landowners to mechanically remove or reduce thousands of acres of conifer woodlands on private lands in the western U.S. Similar projects have been implemented range wide on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) administered lands. In Utah alone, conifers have been removed from > 500,000 ac (200,000 ha) of sagebrush landscapes since 2006 under the Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR) Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI; UDNR 2014). Mechanical conifer reduction projects are relatively low cost on a per acre basis, and may have potential for increasing usable habitat for sage-grouse (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013, Dahlgren et al. 2016a, Cook et al. 2016 [in review]), and may also mitigate the impacts of previous anthropogenic development on sage-grouse seasonal movements (Beck et al. 2006, Johnson et al. 2011, Knick et al. 2013, Messmer 2013). In addition, in June 2015, the BLM published the Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) -- Technical Reference 6701 (Stiver et al. 2015). The HAF provides the BLM with a multiple-scale, sage-grouse habitat assessment tool that can be integrated into the landscape monitoring approach that will be used to implement the BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments (BLM 2015). The HAF establishes indicators to determine the status of sage-grouse habitat needs at multiple scales for seasonal habitats. This work will provide data to support the HAF.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

In 2015, we began to deploy geographic positioning system (GPS) transmitters on female sage-grouse in the Box Elder SGMA following protocols described by Connelly et al. (2003). To date we have deployed eight backpack style GPS transmitters (Microwave Telemetry, Inc. 22g PTT-100 Solar Argos GPS Transmitter) on female sage-grouse. In the spring of 2016, we will deploy 12 additional GPS transmitters in areas where mechanical conifer removal projects have been completed. Up to 30 female sage-grouse will also be fitted with a 18-g necklace style very high frequency (VHF) radio transmitters in the same areas (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Insanti, MN and American Wildlife Enterprises, Monticello, FL). The combination of GPS and VHF radio-transmitters will also allow us to evaluate if the type of transmitter deployed may affect vital rates. Caudill et al. (2014) reported sage-grouse fitted with back-mounted radio-transmitters had lower survival rates than birds fitted with necklace-style radio-collars. Every sage-grouse captured is weighed, sexed, aged, evaluated for general health, and receives a numbered leg band.  Every capture site is recorded (UTM, 12N, NAD 1983).    Birds are handled and released at the capture site.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

The radio-marked sage-grouse will be located a minimum of twice a week during nesting and brood rearing season. Nest will be visually confirmed, and then monitored 2-3 times per week from the furthest distance that observer can confirm the female's location without risk of disturbance.  After hatching, females with broods are located 2-3 times per week.  Broods are flushed 50 days post-hatch to determine brood success and approximate brood size.  The presence of a minimum of one chick per hen is classified as brood success.  In fall and winter months, GPS  radio-marked sage-grouse will be re-located weekly via Movement (Movebank Animal Tracking Data 2015) and VHF radio-marked sage-grouse will be re-located bi-monthly via fixed-wing aircraft to estimate survival and record habitat use.  
Vegetation surveys will be conducted at all nest sites, every other brood site, and one random site for every other measure brood site.  These vegetation surveys provide information about cover and forage plant preferences in utilized areas (Connelly et al. 2003).  Each survey consists of four transects placed in cardinal direction from the used site.  Transect are 15m and 10m at nest and brood sites, respectively.  We will record GPS locations at every sage-grouse use and observation site.  All locations are overlaid on remotely sensed conifer map cover map to determine thresholds of use based on conifer cover (Stankey and Germiono 2008, Fedy et al. 2014)

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.