We will seek to develop and validate models that evaluate the effects of conifer removal treatments on mitigating resistance to sage-grouse movements and habitat-use in an anthropogenic-altered landscape that is managed by multiple jurisdictions. We will also seek to validate the effect of mechanical conifer treatments of sage-grouse population stability and growth. This research will provide land managers with added information regarding the scale and placement of mechanical treatments to mitigate the potential effects anthropogenic disturbances on sage-grouse populations in conifer-encroached areas in northwestern Utah.

1. What effects have the scale and placement of mechanical conifer removal treatments completed in the Box Elder SGMA had on sage-grouse vital rates and population trends? 2. What effects have scale and placement of mechanical conifer removal treatments completed in the Box Elder SGMA has had on mitigating resistance to sage-grouse movements and habitat-use in an anthropogenic-altered landscape? 3. What scale of mechanical conifer removal treatments is desired to mitigate resistance to sage-grouse movements and habitat-use in an anthropogenic-altered landscape?

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).

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.

Not applicable

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. We will document any changes in mesic site in the confier removal areas.

Not applicable

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.

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)

West Box Elder CRM, PacifiCorp, BLM, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, UDWR, and the Utah Public Land Policy Coordination Office.

We will use a Resource Selection Function to determine whether sage-grouse are utilizing one habitat type (sagebrush, phase I, II, III juniper invaded areas, or juniper removal areas) over another and then investigate if these behaviors are different survival rates and movement patterns (Gilles et al. 2006, Sandford et al, 2016[in review]). The location data collected from radio-marked female sage-grouse will be used to conduct a landscape analysis and logistic regression to evaluate a range of resistance models in terms of their ability to depict and predict empirical patterns of lek occupancy and individual sage-grouse habitat-use based on the type, age, scale and location of mechanical conifer removal treatments (Shirk et al. 2015).

Documentation of sage-grouse and livestock response to conifer removal.

07/01/2017

06/30/2018

2018

By the end of July, we redeployed 3 GPS transmitters and 5 VHF collars. All functional GPS transmitters recovered during the field season were refurbished and redeployed as quickly as possible to ensure we maximized their capabilities relative to their cost. For the 2018 field season, 14 females (both GPS and VHF birds) initiated nests. Of those 14, 7 were predated and 1 was abandoned. The last 2 nesting females hatched in late June. One was a re-nest and she had 6 chicks and her first predated nest had 9 eggs. This was our only re-nest this season. Historically, re-nesting has being rare in the West Box Elder SGMA. But we have now documented at least one re-nest each over the past three field season. Four out of 6 broods were successful for the 2018 field season. One GPS female lost her brood in the Ruby Pipeline reclamation area within a week of hatching and one VHF female that hatched late lost her brood in Dunn Canyon. Three of the successful females brooded on top of the Grouse Creeks by Muddy Creek pass and 1 resided up Dunn Canyon north of Park Valley. For this field season, there have been 6 GPS and 8 VHF female mortalities. This is a 27% increase from last year's mortalities at this point. Five of the GPS females showed signs of mammalian predation and one is undetermined. Five of the VHF mortalities showed signs of avian predation, 2 mammalian predation and 1 was undetermined. Because of the dry 2018 field season, our radio-marked birds dispersed over the landscape in search of quality habitat and sufficient green groceries to meet their nutritional requirements for nesting and brooding. From June through August, all marked birds occupied higher elevation habitat or lower irrigated agriculture fields; no birds utilized any dryer transitional areas within the SGMA. For the 2018 field season, all females we radio-marked were located and monitored. We radio-marked 5 broods with small VHF backspacks, for a total 25 individual chicks. This gave us the ability to observe at a finer scale, not only how the brooding females were interacting with the habitat, but also their chicks. Furthermore, it gave us the ability to know for sure just how many chicks were present throughout the brood monitoring period and at the 50 day flush. Of the 25 chicks marked 12 survived to 50 days (48% success rate). We will replicate this process for the 2019 field season.

We are documenting greater sage-grouse habitat-use, seasonal movement, and vital rate data relative to pinyon-juniper (conifer) removal projects within the Park Valley area of the Box Elder Sage-grouse Management Area (SGMA). The purpose of the research is to develop a tool that can be used to better predict sage-grouse use and survival relative to the placement of removal projects. We hope that this tool will be used as part of the Utah Department of Natural Resources Compensatory Mitigation Program to enhance mitigation credits accrual for participating landowners. This is the third of four field seasons. Currently, we have deployed 11 global positioning system (GPS) rump-mounted transmitters on female sage-grouse. We also have 5 GPS marked females in the West Grouse Creek area that we will monitor remotely. With the GPS transmitters, data downloads are being gathered every 4 hours on a 24 hour cycle throughout the study period. Most of the GPS transmitters are additionally equipped with a small VHF antenna to aid in recovery of transmitters in the advent they default or left upside down after a mortality occurs. The transmitters have been deployed on females near juniper treatment areas. The location data collected from transmitters will help us refine conifer removal strategies and placement, and also allow us to develop a tool for managers to use to optimize sage-grouse response to management actions within the SGMA. This larger data set will allow us to research and observe more closely sage-grouse utilization of treatment areas in reflection to overall population fitness at the landscape level. Additionally, we have deployed 15 very high frequency (VHF) necklace-style radio-collars across the study area and to determine if vital rates may differ by type of radio transmitter. New for the 2018 field season, we attempted to mark up to 55 sage-grouse chicks with small VHF backpacks. These VHF backpacks were sutured onto the chick's backs and will remain active until around the 70 day mark. This will allow us to track the complete life cycle of sage-grouse within the SGMA and obtain the finest scale data possible to observe how individual sage-grouse chicks are responding to conifer treatments across the SGMA. We will also mark chicks in the 2019 field season.

We have completed the third year of a four year field project. We will replicate our field method in 2019 to include radio-marking sage-grouse chicks. In 2019, we will have 8 years of sage-grouse movement and vital rate data. These data will allow use to determine if the landscape level conifer removal projects implemented in the SGMA have increased the overall population.