Twenty years of GuSG conservation efforts on Piñon Mesa: 1995 to Daniel J. Neubaum Wildlife Conservation Biologist Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Transcription

1 Twenty years of GuSG conservation efforts on Piñon Mesa: 1995 to 2015 Daniel J. Neubaum Wildlife Conservation Biologist Colorado Parks and Wildlife

2 Early Efforts Woods and Braun complete first study of GuSG on Piñon Mesa Findings: 5 active leks Population estimated at approximately 100 birds Telemetry work showed use of Luster Basin and, to a lesser extent, Fish Park, during the breeding and summer/fall periods Management Recommendations state It is essential that annual patterns of movement and especially winter grounds for these grouse be identified Piñon Mesa Working Group forms and writes conservation plan Three conservation objectives identified 1) Maintain and improve the quality of habitat 2) Reduce fragmentation of habitat 3) Identify and manage physical disturbances Conservation actions were split into several categories: Information and education Monitoring Avoiding and mitigating loss of habitat Restoring or improving the quality of grouse habitat and populations Reducing physical disturbances Improving landowner and community support and participation

3 3-Year Average Population targets/lek counts Monitor 11 active, 2 inactive, 11 historic, and 4 unknown status leks (up from 5 active and 5 inactive leks; Action: Monitoring) The population is estimated to be around 167 birds; Target 200 (Action: Restoring or improving grouse populations) Year High MC YR AVG Population Estimate Year Average of High Male Lek Counts Pino n Mes a

4 Treatments & Easements 9,500+ acres of habitat treatments by 2009 (Action: Reduce fragmentation, restoring or improving the quality of grouse habitat, mitigating loss of habitat) 39,000+ acres of occupied habitat put into easements by 2009 (Action: Reduce fragmentation, avoiding loss of habitat)

5 Vegetation Transects Majority of treatments conducted in Potential habitat Line-point intercept transects suggest most treatments are meeting vegetation guidelines referenced in the GuSG Rangewide Plan Telemetry locations now occurring across a number of treatments

6 Lek Counts with Trail Cameras 2013 and 2014 When do the birds strut? Did transplanted birds strut? Who else visits the lek? Results Work well for small leks where ground counts often yield 0 s

7 Accurate counts?

8 Strutting throughout the night

9 Male & female transplants attending

10 Other visitors - Coyote

11 5 Minutes later

12 Elk & Deer

13 Trap and Transplant Efforts Sex Year Age Total Male Adult Juvenile Yearling Female Adult Juvenile Yearling * 24 Unknown Unknown Juvenile Total * One yearling hen died from transport myopathy Sex Age Transplants Mortalities Male Dropped Radio Dead Radio Unknown Drops Adult Juvenile Yearling Female Adult Juvenile Yearling 24 13* Unknown Unknown Yearling Total

14 Integration & Survival Birds appear to integrate well: at least 17% of locations for marked birds were made with unmarked incidentals (338 of 1993). Survival of female transplant birds to 12 months (0.52 ± 0.08) remarkably similar to estimates collected by Apa (2004) collected from local grouse across several satellite populations (0.52 ± 0.08). This trend was similar for males (0.46 ± 0.12 vs ± 0.09). Photos by S. Wenger

15 Leking transplants 14 male and 7 female radiotagged transplants confirmed by telemetry on or near leks during strutting hours

16 Nesting/brood rearing transplants Photos by K. Keisling & S. Wenger Hens were documented nesting on at least 14 occasions and a minimum of 47 chicks hatched Hens documented making big movements (e.g. Reservation to rim of Unaweep) with chicks

17 Winter habitat Winter movements of some birds are dependent on severity of weather and snow depths. Dryer winters with less snow allow the birds to winter at higher elevation, while harsh winters with deep snow force birds to move to lower elevations. Some GuSG move to lower elevations on their own in fall while others wait to be pushed down as snow depth covers sage. GuSG regularly found using mature oakbrush/sagebrush mix in winter

18 Seasonal Use Maps A two step model approach was used where maximum entropy modeling (MaxEnt) outputs were input into simultaneous autoregression (SAR) models. MaxEnt models incorporated surface, anthropogenic, and course-scale landcover factors Surface variables: elevation, compound topographic index (CTI), terrain roughness index (TRI), and distance to woodlands Anthropogenic variables: distance from buildings, linear road density, and distance from roads Simultaneous autoregression (SAR) models used vegetation variables delineated in the GuSG Rangewide Conservation Plan (2005) collected from transect point data (e.g. percent cover of sagebrush) Presence locations taken from telemetry points collected from (69 birds, 1,512 points)

19 Independent seasonal models were calculated to capture critical life stage requirements Elevation and distance from conifer woodland were found to be significant predictors of grouse presence across all seasons. TRI also important in winter models. Autoregression models found forb cover to be the most important predictor for breeding and summer/fall distribution. Non-sage shrub cover was important for winter distribution.

20

21 Acknowledgements: Technicians: Steve Wenger Kellen Keisling Meg Bos Clancy Jandreau NRCS BLM Grand Junction Field Office Piñon Mesa Working Group 16+ Years (Action: Improving landowner and community support and participation)