Work Space 
The things we work out here will be brought to a final vote later..

Feel free to change any of your exemptions or comment using the input above.
  

   Suggested Exemptions  

 

 1. Zone-tailed Hawk - Washington county  (comment)

2. Acorn Woodpecker - Zion National Park and Kolob Terrace.  (comment)

 
          3. Boreal Owl - Uinta Mnt. (comment)

          4. Ruddy Turnstone - Davis County (comment)

          5. Red Phalarope - Davis County. (comment)

          6.  White-winged Crossbill - Northern Utah (Wasatch County and north)

          7. Hooded Oriole - Washington County. (comment)

          8. Costa's Hummingbird - Washington County. (comment)

   Comments about specific Exemptions                   

          1. (Zone-tailed Hawk) Washington county, where they are known to occur annually.

          2 (Acorn Woodpecker) We could go all WA county but records in the Pine Valley Mnt still need some clarification on their status there. Also seen sporadically in SE Utah, but I do not propose exempting then from there.

          3. (Boreal Owl)  As discussed, county lines don't work in this case. Exempting them in all of Wasatch, Summit, Uinta Duchesne and Daggett county doesn't really work.

          4. (Ruddy Turnstone) The Ruddy Turnstone continues on the review list, oddly, after it was placed there contingent on another eco-region initiative that didn't pass. Ruddy Turnstones are annual and expected along Antelope Island Causeway were the access is good, but not seen elsewhere in the state where access is poor. Sightings outside of Davis County are exceptional.
              4a.(Ruddy Turnstone)-  I agree RUTU should be exempted from the Antelope Island Causeway. However elsewhere in Davis county they are quite rare, only 1 record at Farmington Bay with no comments or photos. Also a RUTU at Bountiful Peak would certainly be exceptional. How do we exempt saltwater mudflats of Great Salt Lake?

         5. (Red Phalarope) Red Phalaropes are annual and expected particularly along Antelope Island Causeway where human access is good and therefore, sightings at least in Davis County are not notable. They're likely annual in most open lake areas of Great Salt Lake where access is not good and it may be appropriate to exempt the species in all Great Salt Lake Counties. However, a sighting of this species documented in record 2022-56 in Summit County was notable and would be appropriate for a record.
                5a. (Red Phalarope) -This species should be expected in fall(Aug-Nov.) anywhere large numbers of Red-necked Phalarope gather at GSL. So Antelope Island Causeway, but also South shore of GSL near Saltair has several records. They are unusual even at fresh water site at GSL, such as Farmington Bay-Bear River MBR. A REPH a Farmington lake at 8000ft would be very exceptional even if in Davis county. Again, county lines don't really work

        7. (Hooded Oriole)  The Hooded Oriole isn't on the review list due to its regular presence in the Mohave Desert Ecosystem of Washington County. But records of previous years in Grand, Salt Lake and Morgan Counties and other places outside Washington County are notable.
                 7a. Hooded Oriole-Costa's Hummingbird: This IS a can of worms, and the reason Regional review lists were advocated for by some. There are many Mojave desert species that are exceptionally rare outside WA county. How do we deal with this? I advocate starting with adding exemptions to species already on the review list, then we can think about adding species that will then be exempted from some regions of the state.

        8. (Costa's Hummingbird) - The Costa's Hummingbird isn't on the review list due to its regular presence in the Mohave Desert Ecosystem of Washington County. But the only two records in eBird outside of that area in Grand County are notable.

   General Comments

          1.  More species probably fall into the same category as the Hooded Oriole and Costa's Hummingbird and are not presently on the review list at all, but sightings outside Washington County are notable and should be reviewed. Same for some Northern Utah species like Gray Partridge and Sharp-tailed Grouse. This may be the can of worms that advocates for simplicity don't want to open. (Kris Purdy)

          2. (From RecCom) I’ve had some correspondence with Milt about the exemption list and wanted to reach out to clarify what we are actually doing with this process…

Seeing Costa’s Hummingbird, Hooded Oriole, Common Black Hawk, etc. on the list of species suggested for regional review got me thinking more about our process. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we did settle on proceeding with this "regional exemption" process ONLY for species currently on the review list?

Kris's "can of worms" comment on the Worksheet got me thinking about how (for example), it may not make any more sense to review Zone-tailed Hawks outside of Washington County than it does to review Common Black Hawks outside of Washington County, and the same could be said for a bunch of additional species that have a limited range within the state...

I am very open to proceeding with a review process that carves out regional exemption areas, but I am not sure it makes sense if we are "cherry-picking" certain species while excluding others that would make just as much sense to review. A more comprehensive process that includes adding species not currently on the review list would seem to make the most biological sense, but I understand there is some complexity there, and I recall some have spoken out against that...

The 7 to 2 vote in favor of Bryant's bylaws proposal indicates strong support for this exemption process. However, I think we need to clarify the specifics of what this means, including which species are even "eligible" for exemption/review, and whether we are okay with idiosyncrasies such as the ZTHA / COBH example I mentioned above...

Apologies if all of this has been addressed already. It's been a busy / whirlwind past few months... (Mike Schijf)

          3. (From RecCom)  Mike et al
I think we can always propose any new species to be added to the review list, which will then be voted on case by case basis, just as we always have. There are a number of Washington county only species that could be added, which is one argument for having regional review lists as opposed to 1 state list. But it seems the majority want to keep it to one list then add regional exemptions to it, so that may end up with MANY Washington county birds being added to the review list but then being exempted from Washington county.

I propose tackling the low hanging fruit first, such as species already on the review list, before we take on adding new species to the list. Let's start with some species we all can agree on, then build the "new" review list with exemptions as we go, (Bryant Olsen)

          4.  Thanks for the reply. I was thrown off when I saw a couple of those species that had been recommended, but I agree that we should start with the "low hanging fruit" and then have a separate process for adding additional species. I do believe that "step 1" makes more sense if there will be "step 2" (adding more species), but either way, addressing things one step at a time is probably the best approach...(Mike Schijf)

          5. I keep on looking for a set of criteria to use similar to the "exceptions" to the 20 sightings in 10 years for inclusion on the Review List.  The exemptions we're working on, could be somewhat similar?  Here are some ideas that may suggest guidelines for our exemptions. (They may be appropriate in one direction or the other).
    - The species is easily confused with similar species (so may need documentation).
   - Access may be limited so they may be underreported.
   - May not be easily observed because of daily activity. (Swifts, for example)
   - How reliable they are to be seen in their regular area could be a factor.
   - How likely they are move around seasonally might be considered as well.

Knowledgeable members of the committee are likely to come up with better guidelines than these and would likely to be able to make a judgment on exemptions using similar guidelines -- everything depends on the vote of the committee.  (It might be good to include some guidelines in the bylaws for future continuity).

There are 24 species on our checklist designated as "Mostly Washington County" and there were 4 species on the 2004 checklist designated as "Mostly Northern Utah."  These species looks to be headed the exemption way.  Unless we have some way to limit the number of these exemptions, I think we may be fishing with Kris's can of worms. :-)  (Milt)