Modified Tuesday, June 10, 2003

Box Elder Local Working Group

Box Elder Sage Grouse LWG November 2001 meeting minutes

Grouse Creek School
Grouse Creek, Utah
November 29, 2001

The meeting began at 2:00 p.m.

The group decided on a leadership committee which will consist of Kirt Enright (UDWR), Nate Packer (BLM), Jay Tanner (Agriculture), and Jerry Mason (Utah Wildlife Federation).

Terry pointed out that the conservation plans and agreements that are prepared through this process are strictly voluntary. However, it is hoped that including goals and objectives in these plans that represent all stakeholders will ensure that even though voluntary the implementation will take place. He also pointed out that the process needs to adapt. If we work to improve sage grouse populations and forage production and individual methodologies do not work, we can move on and try other options.

Gary Rose inquired as to the information we have for a baseline count of sage grouse in the county. If we want to use sage grouse numbers to evaluate the effectiveness of our work we need to have a good starting point.

Kirt pointed out that the DWR counted 24 of 54 leks in 2001. Certainly, the division doesn't have a complete count and there may also be unknown lek locations. The DWR uses their counts as an index to populations. If the numbers go down year to year on the leks they count it is assumed that the population is declining overall. He pointed out that there is a need for much more manpower than currently exists to count all the leks.

Much discussion ensued on the issue of a good number on how many birds are really in the county. We need to know if leks are moving from year to year, how many leks are present that we don't know about yet, and if the birds move from lek to lek within the strutting season. We also need to know how high the numbers need to get on a lek before we start getting satellite lek formation.

Kirt mentioned that Nevada uses helicopters to cover more country. This process is very expensive and can be hazardous, but done correctly could be cost effective.

Jerry pointed out that we do need a goal and the count will probably be a major part of that.

The question was raised as to the impact that hunting was having on this population.

A long discussion ensued on the current level of hunting pressure compared to historic levels. It was felt that generally hunting pressure is down, however due to the closure of many private lands to hunting the pressure may have shifted and some landowners may be seeing a large increase in hunter numbers. The issue of ATV use during the hunting season was also discussed. The general consensus was that increased enforcement is necessary to alleviate the problem.

Jerry mentioned that it may be easier to control harvest numbers by subdividing hunt units and increasing enforcement.

The group also felt it was necessary to look at the effects of predators on sage grouse. Several members indicated that the numbers of coyotes and cougars in the area were way up.

Another major topic of discussion was the current habitat quality compared to habitat conditions in the past. The group would like to see what habitat data is available from the DWR, BLM, and USFS to try and evaluate if and how things have changed since the data was initially collected. The BLM has a major habitat evaluation project that should be finished by the end of January and will be presented at the next meeting. Joel will follow up with the other agencies and see what information is available and have it for the next meeting.

Kirt felt that since the focus of much of the DWR range trend data was focused on big game winter habitat we may need to establish and increase the number of permanent transects to look at current habitat conditions and evaluate future efforts aimed at improving range condition.

The primary focus of the group will be to determine what habitat information is available, how it relates to sage grouse habitat, and what the deficiencies in the data are. From that point we can begin to look at establishing additional habitat transects to use as a measuring tool for future management.

The group will also focus on determining what the current numbers for all of Box Elder County are. If we can identify all of the leks in the county and get a good baseline number for sage grouse we can then establish a long term goal with numbers.

The group also discussed the possibility of radio-collaring sage grouse to determine seasonal habitat use. To protect and enhance sage grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat we need to know where the birds are throughout the year and at present that information is lacking.

The DWR has received a large amount of money that is to be focused on sage grouse and sagebrush habitat enhancement projects. This is something the group would like to tap into to address the information gaps in lek count data, habitat data, and potentially seasonal habitat use.

A draft Memorandum of Understanding will be brought to the next meeting to attempt to get enough initial funding and commitment to begin addressing the most pressing issues.

The next meeting will be January 31st, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. in Snowville, Utah.