1. Sage-grouse Local Working Groups
November 15, 2016
Nevada Association of Conservation Districts
Photo: Todd Black

2. Overview West Desert group as an example Variation in Utah LWGs
Process
Areas of Focus
Variation in Utah LWGs
Needs Assessment
Methods
Core Findings

3. West Desert Sage-Grouse Local Working Group
WDARM: West Desert Adaptive Resource Management (a.k.a. sage-grouse group)
Facilitated by USU Extension
Meetings every two months, with a summer field tour

5. Sheeprocks SGMA

7. Benmore Pastures Lek Area
July 2011
July 2015

8. Recent Participants Tooele County Forest Service NRCS BLM Landowners
Weed Supervisor
Commissioners
Trails/Recreation/Planning
Forest Service
NRCS
BLM
2 field offices
Recreation managers, Biologists, and Habitat Managers
Landowners
State Parks
Tribes
Conservation Districts
DWR
Utah Department of Agriculture Grazing Improvement Program
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Public Lands Policy Cooriiination Office
Dugway Proving Grounds
Private Industry (Logan Simpson)
Tooele Transcript Bulletin
USU Extension

9. How does the LWG work? Multi-party involvement Information sharing
Listening
Problem identification
Policy clarity
Joint problem solving
Resource sharing
Project implementation teams
Reporting back lessons learned

10. Current Progress: Highlights
Conifer Removal
Predator Removal
Translocations
Research
Recreation Discussion
Additional topics:
Fire
Invasives
Water relationships
Photo: Todd Black

11. Conifer Removal
Lion Hill mastication near Benmore Pastures lek (2015)

12. Conifer Removal Threat: Approach Progress Next steps
Encroaching conifer lowers habitat quality and creates connectivity issues between leks and winter habitat
May be limiting overall available habitat
Approach
Broad-scale landscape planning
Multi-agency coordination
Multiple funding mechanisms (NRCS, WRI, new sources, etc.)
Progress
Preliminary maps developed
Strategy proposed: Increase connectivity, expand usable space, tier priority for implementation
Specific project planning, year by year
New funding sources (NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Planning)
Next steps
More project planning
Improve interagency coordination
Increase scale/pace of implementation

13. Predator Removal Threat Approach Progress Next steps
Nest predation by anecdotally increasing red fox populations, especially near Little Valley lek
Nest predation by corvids
Approach
Aggressive local fox and corvid control
Winter and spring, ongoing
Progress
Clarified needs and challenges
Strategy developed, assigned to a specific person
Renegotiation of statewide Wildlife Services contract
Control efforts on the ground
Next steps
Continued implementation
Monitoring of control efforts
Incorporation of new knowledge
Photo: Rylee Isitt (Creative Commons)

14. Translocations and Research
Threat
Decreasing populations, possible loss of leks
Approach
Defined need and research questions
Discussed questions
Asked USU to propose project
Progress
DWR/USU joint proposal
Funding commitments
Support from other LWGs
Graduate student committed
First year of translocations done
Next Steps
More years of translocations
Learn from first year’s data
Pursue options for other questions
Photo: Todd Black

15. Recreation Complexity
Threat
Weeds, noise disruption, habitat damage, etc. from recreation
Approach
Improve coordination for enforcement
Increase enforcement efforts
Support BLM planning
Comment as needed on infrastructure and trails proposals
Provide coordination opportunity
Progress
Policy clarity
BLM trails inventory
Improvement enforcement effort and coordination
Bringing in new partners
Next Steps
Community outreach
Improved signage
Strategy for user-created trails

16. Additional efforts Weed and invasives control Fire management
Continued joint efforts
Knapweed
Cheatgrass
Fire management
Statewide coordination
Not at LWG level
Wet areas importance
Discussion stage
Research on water/PJ

17. LWG Variety in Utah Uintah Basin Morgan-Summit
Largely BLM and Tribal land
Near Colorado – different landscape
Oil and gas industry impacts
Long history of research
Extensive PJ treatment
Working with grazing associations and industry
Largely private land
Higher elevation
Highly visible lek (birders)
Development pressures (Park City)
County planning, easements
New population research

19. Moving on to Needs Assessment…

20. Sage-Grouse Local Working Group Needs Assessmet
2007

21. Overview of Groups 60+ Local Working Groups (LWGs) range-wide
54 groups in study (excluded newest groups)
Represent 9 U.S. states
Wide variation in group memberships (5 to 160 on lists)
Source: USGS-NBII Sage-Grouse Local Working Group Locator Website

22. Mail Survey Mail survey of group participants Over 1,500 surveys sent
Overall 57% response rate
Group-level ranged from 29% to 100%
State-level ranged from 44% to 85%

23. Survey Topics Participant Characteristics Information Needs
Demographics
Level of involvement
Reasons for joining/leaving
Information Needs
Types of information needed
Preferred formats for new info resources
Trusted and previously used resources
Evaluation of Group Experience
Meeting dynamics
Successes and challenges
I would say that the survey covered lots of stuff but I am focusing on information needs in this presentation.

24. LWG Participant Profiles
All groups have strong agency representation
21% State (primarily state wildlife agencies)
26% Federal (BLM, NRCS, USFS, USFWS)
39% ranchers, farmers, or rural landowners
Energy, utility, hunting, environmental reps
82% male
55% Still attended meetings
64% then still attending were paid to attend

26. Perceptions of Threats to Sage-Grouse
Percent citing ‘Serious Threat’:
41% Development (subdivisions, roads, etc.)
38% Predators
33% Wildfire
26% Energy Development
20% Overgrazing
Responses differ by state and affiliation

29. Utility of Conservation Practice Information
Percent reporting these would be ‘very useful’
65% Seeding techniques (sagebrush/forbs)
65% Biological habitat manipulation (grazing, etc.)
59% Fire management techniques
58% Sagebrush treatment techniques
57% Predator management techniques
Key need: continued/enhanced tools to protect sage-grouse and improve habitat
NOTE DIFFERENCES (if any) between Landowners, State Agency Staff, and Fed Agency folk.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Landowners much less interested in seeding techniques (56% vs 71%)
Landowners much more interested in predator mgt techniques (73% vs 48%).

30. Information Sources Used
Percent who used these sources “a lot”
Presentations/discussions at LWG meetings (59%)
Conversations with private landowners (43%)
Scientific journal articles (40%, including 25% of rancher/landowners)
Field trips (38%)
Significant differences by respondent type
Discuss implications for outreach and education plans.

32. Most Useful Information Formats
In-Person Learning: very useful
Expert presentations (66% very useful)
On-the Ground Training (60% very useful)
Web-Based Learning: not so useful
Website or online databases (19% very useful)
Web-based trainings (7% very useful)
Note: Although web resources may be critical for inter-agency or range-wide communication, they may have limited utility for the LWGs

33. Who Do You Trust? Everyone trusts themselves most
Agency personnel trust:
University scientists 84%
State wildlife agencies 84%
Fish and Wildlife Service 68%
Bureau of Land Management 62%
Rancher/landowners trust:
Individual ranchers or landowners 76%
Farm and livestock organizations 57%
Members of other local working groups 56%
Natural Resources Conservation Service 54%

34. Key Take-Home Messages
Improve learning and research
Support information flow to working groups using in-person formats
Engage working groups in collaborative research on tools to protect sage-grouse and improve habitat
Support interagency and LWG coordination
Engage private landowners
Support research on predator impacts
Consider NRCS as a trusted vehicle for two-way information flow as well as project funding
Support project implementation
Help channel funds to working group projects
Consult plan documents, keep groups on radar

35. Questions?