https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/e696fbd8c8b9bc87f9489c261c8493ef.pdf 938b2fff5a8ec06a400c8d2295be4ef8 PDF Text Text Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife September 2013-September 2014 WILDLIFE RESEARCH REPORT State of: Cost Center: Work Package: Task No.: Colorado 3420 0660 N/A Federal Aid Project No. N/A : : : : Division of Parks and Wildlife Avian Research Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Evaluating Lek-Based Monitoring and Management Strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan Population in Northwestern Colorado Period Covered: September 1, 2013 – August 31, 2014 Author: B. L. Walker Personnel: B. Holmes, S. Duckett, B. Petch, B. deVergie, J. T. Romatzke All information in this report is preliminary and subject to further evaluation. Information MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED OR QUOTED without permission of the author. Manipulation of these data beyond that contained in this report is discouraged. ABSTRACT Implementing effective monitoring and mitigation strategies is crucial for conserving populations of sensitive wildlife species. Concern over the status of greater sage-grouse populations has increased rangewide and in Colorado due to population declines, range contraction, loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, and recent listing of the species as warranted but precluded under the Endangered Species Act. Despite untested assumptions, lek counts are widely used as an index of abundance by state agencies to monitor sage-grouse populations. Lek locations are also commonly used to identify and protect important sage-grouse habitat. However, the use of lek counts and locations to monitor and manage sage-grouse populations remains controversial because it is unknown how closely lek-count data track actual changes in male abundance from year to year or if lek buffers are effective at protecting habitat for male sagegrouse during the breeding season. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is deploying solar-powered GPS satellite transmitters on male greater sage-grouse to obtain data on male survival, lek attendance, inter-lek movements, and diurnal and nocturnal habitat use around leks and conducting double-observer lek counts to estimate detectability of males on leks during the breeding season in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population in northwestern Colorado. These data will allow us to evaluate whether current lek-based monitoring methods provide reliable information about sage-grouse population trends and whether current lek buffers are effective at protecting breeding males. Fourteen GPS males marked prior to 1 Sept 2013 were monitored for part or all of the 1 September 2013 - 31 August 2014 period. Field crews also captured and deployed GPS transmitters on 21 additional males during the 2014 March-May breeding season. One new potential lek was found by tracking GPS males in 2014, but at least 4 would have been found had field crews not detected them earlier in the breeding season. Field crews conducted 93 standard lek counts at 29 different leks, 28 unreconciled double-observer counts at 14 leks, and 46 paired ground and helicopter counts at 21 leks in spring 2014. We obtained breeding-season location data for a total of 31 GPS males in spring 2014. We plan to capture additional GPS males on Chevron in March-April 2015. 1 �COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH REPORT EVALUATING LEK-BASED MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE IN THE PARACHUTE-PICEANCE-ROAN POPULATION IN NORTHWESTERN COLORADO BRETT L. WALKER PROJECT OBJECTIVES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Use locations of GPS males to find, verify, and count new leks Estimate the number of known and unknown leks in the population Estimate age-specific rates of male lek attendance Estimate the frequency, timing, and distance of inter-lek movements by males Estimate detectability of males attending leks using paired helicopter and ground counts and paired ground counts (6) Use these parameters in simulations to quantify how variation in lek attendance, inter-lek movements, detectability, and count effort affect lek-count data and estimates of population trends collected using standardized protocols (7) Quantify male habitat use around leks to inform use of lek buffers SEGMENT OBJECTIVES (1) Capture and deploy solar GPS PTT transmitters on males during the spring 2014 breeding season to reach a sample size of 25 GPS adults and 20 GPS yearlings. (2) Use locations of GPS males to locate, verify, and count new leks in the study area in spring 2014 (3) Conduct standard counts, unreconciled double-observer counts, and paired ground and helicopter counts at leks (4) Enter and proof spring-summer field data INTRODUCTION Implementing effective monitoring and mitigation strategies is crucial for conserving populations of sensitive wildlife species. Concern over the status of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations has increased both range-wide and in Colorado due to historical population declines, range contraction, continued loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, and recent federal listing of the species as warranted but precluded under the Endangered Species Act in 2010 (Connelly et al. 2004, Schroeder et al. 2004, CGSSC 2008, USFWS 2010). This concern is heightened in oil and gas fields due to recent studies based on lek-count data that suggest negative impacts of development on sage-grouse abundance (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Doherty et al. 2010b, Harju et al. 2010, Tack 2010) and identification of energy development as a threat factor in the eastern portion of the species’ range (USFWS 2010). However, the use of lek-count and lek location data to monitor and manage sage-grouse populations remains controversial. This uncertainty, in turn, has the potential to cause disagreement, controversy, and conflict among agencies, industry, and other stakeholders where sage-grouse and oil and gas resources overlap. For this reason, there is a crucial need to collect empirical data that evaluate whether current lekbased monitoring methods provide reliable information about population trends and whether current lekbased management strategies are effective for conserving greater sage-grouse in areas with expanding energy development. Each spring, male sage-grouse congregate on traditional mating grounds, or leks, to display and mate with females (Schroeder et al. 1999). Males attending leks are then counted by observers on the 2 �ground or from aircraft following standardized protocols (Jenni and Hartzler 1978, Beck and Braun 1980, Autenrieth et al. 1982, Connelly et al. 2000). Lek counts are the primary index used by all state wildlife agencies in the western U.S., including the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW), to monitor changes in sage-grouse abundance (Connelly et al. 2004, CGSSC 2008, WAFWA 2008, Fedy and Aldridge 2011). Lek-count data are also commonly used to investigate how regional and range-wide populations respond to changes in habitat and to anthropogenic stressors (e.g., Braun et al. 2002, Walker et al. 2007, Aldridge et al. 2008, Doherty at el. 2010b, Harju et al. 2010, Tack 2010). However, the use of lek-count data as an index of abundance has been called into question because the quantitative relationship between lek counts and population size has never been clearly established. The use of lek counts to measure population size rests on untested assumptions about that proportion of leks in the population that are known and counted, the proportion of males that attend leks, the proportion of males on leks that are detected by observers, and how often males move between leks during the breeding season (Beck and Braun 1980; Applegate 2000; Walsh et al. 2004, 2010; CGSSC 2008; WAFWA 2008). At present, too few quantitative data are available to estimate these parameters and their associated variances. CPW initiated a project to estimate the number of leks and the proportion of known leks in each population around the state using dual-frame sampling (Haines and Pollock 1998). Preliminary data from the first three years of that project indicate that the proportion of known leks in each population varies depending on their size and how well surveyed the population was prior to sampling (P. Lukacs, CPW, unpublished data). Male lek attendance varies with age, time of day relative to sunrise, date, weather, annual snowpack, renesting rates of females, predator activity, and human disturbance, but previous studies of male lek attendance have not reported data in ways that allow us to quantify how variation in male lek attendance influences annual lek-counts (Patterson 1952, Dalke et al. 1963, Rogers 1964, Hartzler 1972, Jenni and Hartzler 1978, Beck and Braun 1980, Autenrieth et al. 1982, Emmons and Braun 1984, Ellis 1984, Dunn and Braun 1985, Connelly et al. 2000, Connelly et al. 2003, Boyko et al. 2004, Walsh et al. 2004). Although standardization of lek-count protocols minimizes some sources of variation in lek attendance (e.g., time of day, weather, date), a substantial amount of variation is not accounted for. In the most rigorous studies to date, Walsh et al. (2004, 2010) emphasized the importance of individual heterogeneity, age, sex, time of day, and date in determining lek attendance, but because results were based on only one year of data from one small, geographically isolated population, they concluded that additional research is needed before we can develop a comprehensive understanding of annual and geographic variation in lek attendance. No published studies have quantified variation in detectability of males on leks from year to year or how much detectability varies among observers, or with weather, distance from lek, equipment used (binoculars vs. spotting scopes), or count method (e.g., ground vs. aerial counts) (Connelly et al. 2003, Walsh et al. 2004). Age-specific inter-lek movements by males have been reported in several studies, with 4-50% of males known to have attended more than one known lek during a single breeding season (Dalke et al. 1963, Gill 1965, Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974, Emmons and Braun 1984, Dunn and Braun 1985, Bradbury et al. 1989, Walsh et al. 2004), but the effect of inter-lek movements on annual lek count data has not been quantified. Methodological considerations may also affect lek counts. The sample of leks counted in any given year may depend on which leks are accessible due to road conditions, snowpack, landowner permission, etc. This may bias count data if access and attendance are correlated (e.g., if attendance is lower in areas with more roads). Count effort (i.e., the number of counts per lek per breeding season) can also influence trend estimation because often only the maximum count of males is recorded in state-wide databases. A maximum count based on more visits is likely to be higher because additional visits are more likely to coincide with peak male attendance (Walsh et al. 2004, CGSSC 2008, Fedy and Aldridge 2011). Investigating the reliability of lek-count data for monitoring changes in actual population size is a range-wide research priority for greater sage-grouse (Naugle and Walker 2007). Despite numerous criticisms, lek-count data continue to be widely used as an index of abundance. Large decreases in lek counts or disappearance of leks over large areas over time are thought to indicate population decline or 3 �range contraction in response to anthropogenic stressors (Walker et al. 2007, Aldridge et al. 2008, Doherty et al. 2010b, Harju et al. 2010). The fact that state and regional core areas have been established based largely on counts of males on leks and of lek density also reflects that state and federal agencies consider higher lek counts, on average, to represent larger populations (CGSSC 2008, NRCS 2009, Doherty et al. 2010a, Hagen 2010, State of Wyoming 2010). Indeed, lek counts remain the only widelyused method for monitoring populations of greater sage-grouse and there is general agreement among wildlife professionals that they have inherent value for monitoring (Connelly et al. 2003, Naugle and Walker 2007, CGSSC 2008). This raises an important question. Because state agencies and others continue to use lek counts for monitoring, and because lek counts are affected to an unknown degree by variation in attendance, inter-lek movements, and detectability, how much of a change in lek-count data is required to reliably detect an actual change in male population size? In other words, how much do lekcount data bounce around due to unexplained variation in these parameters even when we follow standardized count protocols even if male population size remained the same? Understanding the uses and limitations of lek-count data will require both empirical field data from marked males and simulations that illustrate how much standard lek counts vary when lek attendance, inter-lek movements, and detectability are not accounted for. Lek-based management strategies for greater sage-grouse also require evaluation. Leks are typically centrally located within nesting areas and often overlap with other seasonal habitats (Connelly et al. 2000, Doherty et al. 2010c, Aldridge et al. 2011, Fedy et al. 2012), so lek locations are commonly used to help identify and protect important sage-grouse habitat. There is also concern that disturbance at leks may cause abandonment of those leks or reduce rates of nest initiation or reproductive success (Lyon and Anderson 2003, Holloran et al. 2010). For these reasons, state and federal agencies typically recommend restrictions on surface occupancy, timing restrictions during the breeding season, or both, within a certain buffer distance around leks in oil and gas fields (CGSSC 2008). Agencies have also delineated “core areas” or “priority breeding habitats” by placing buffers around leks that meet minimum male count and lek density criteria (e.g., CGSSC 2008, Doherty et al. 2010a, Hagen 2010, State of Wyoming 2010). However, these types of lek-based management strategies are subject to two major criticisms. First, lek-based management strategies incorrectly assume that all lek locations are known (CGSSC 2008). New lek locations are discovered each year in northwestern Colorado (CPW, unpublished data) and hundreds of new leks have been discovered in the past decade throughout the species’ range (WAFWA 2008). Because lek-based oil and gas lease stipulations (e.g., lek buffers) can only be applied to leks whose locations are known, the presence of undiscovered leks in oil and gas fields may result in inadequate protection for populations. Although lek-based monitoring data can be adjusted to account for unknown leks, lek-based management strategies cannot. For this reason, appropriately managing sagegrouse in oil and gas fields using a lek-based approach requires estimating the total number of leks in the field, estimating the proportion of those leks that are known, identifying where unknown leks are most likely to occur, and finding, verifying, and counting new leks. A second criticism of lek-based management strategies is that they have not been empirically validated for specific local populations. Current federal oil and gas leases typically contain stipulations for either no surface occupancy (NSO) or restricted surface occupancy (RSO) within certain buffer distances around leks. Historically, the Bureau of Land Management implemented a 0.25-mi. NSO or RSO buffer around leks to minimize disturbance to lekking males and to protect habitat that males use during the breeding season, with the overall intention of minimizing long-term population declines and preventing extirpation in areas with development (CGSSC 2008). However, a 0.25-mi. stipulation has no credible scientific basis (p. B-5, Appendix B, CGSSC 2008). More recently, a review of six range-wide studies of male diurnal habitat use and movements during the lekking season suggested that a 0.6-mile buffer around leks may be more appropriate (p. B-6, Appendix B, CGSSC 2008). This criterion is now recommended by state and federal agencies in Colorado (CGSSC 2008). However, some studies have 4 �questioned whether lek buffers designed to protect males are adequate to prevent sage-grouse populations in oil and gas fields from declining below desired thresholds (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Harju et al. 2010). In contrast, other authors have questioned whether it is appropriate to apply a one-size-fits-all lek buffer based on range-wide data to local populations with different topography and vegetation and subject to different types and intensities of energy development (Harju et al. 2010). Lek buffers are also sometimes criticized for including habitat within the buffer that is clearly unsuitable for sage-grouse or being so large so as to effectively preclude energy development. No studies to date have empirically tested how large buffers actually need to be to protect habitat for males during the lekking season or quantified what level of protection buffers of different sizes provide for year-round habitat in any given local population. It remains unclear whether a 0.6 mi. buffer is too large, adequate, or too small, or whether other buffer sizes would be more appropriate. For this reason, field research is needed that quantifies the size of lek buffer required to adequately protect male sage-grouse during the breeding season in local populations subject to oil and gas development by intensively tracking both diurnal and nocturnal habitat use of males around leks. These data will allow us to develop scientifically defensible recommendations regarding the appropriate size and use of lek buffers for specific oil and gas fields. Recent technological advances have led to production of 30 g, solar-powered, global positioning system (GPS) satellite transmitters suitable for use with greater sage-grouse. GPS transmitters have several advantages over traditional VHF transmitters that make it possible to generate the data needed to resolve lek-based monitoring and management issues. GPS transmitters can be programmed to record multiple locations at specific times of day, logistical problems that prevent crews from locating birds on the ground (e.g., bad weather, poor road conditions, truck breakdowns, lack of access, etc.) do not bias data collection, data are gathered without disturbing the bird or its flock mates, and the units provide the high-resolution data needed to estimate male lek attendance, inter-lek movements, and diurnal and nocturnal habitat use around leks. I propose a three-year research project to evaluate greater sage-grouse lek monitoring and management strategies in oil and gas fields in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population of northwestern Colorado using GPS transmitters deployed on males. This study will directly complement a second, overlapping research project sponsored by CPW and Colorado State University (Fort Collins) and funded by Exxon-Mobil to examine alternative methods of population monitoring, including: dual-frame sampling of leks and non-invasive genetic sampling for sex ratio and population estimation. Data collected on this project will allow us to judge the reliability of lek-count data for producing defensible estimates of male population size and trend over time as energy development proceeds, thereby directly informing whether sage-grouse management and conservation efforts by industry, agencies, and other stakeholders in oil and gas fields are effective. This research will also provide insight into the ecological and methodological factors that need to be considered when collecting and analyzing lek-count data and appropriate uses and limitations of lek-count data for monitoring. This research will also provide local data that landowners and managers can use to test and make informed decisions about the effectiveness of lek buffers for mitigation. These expected results, in conjunction with studies in other parts of NW Colorado, will in turn have both state-wide and region-wide implications for monitoring and managing both greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse (C. minimus). STUDY AREA The study area encompasses the current occupied range of greater sage-grouse in the ParachutePiceance-Roan (PPR) population (Fig. 1), one of 7 geographically distinct populations in northwestern Colorado. The PPR population is experiencing rapid changes to sage-grouse habitat due to expanding oil and gas development (CGSSC 2008). Ownership within occupied range in the PPR is 65% private (primarily ranches and energy companies), 33% federal (primarily Bureau of Land Management), and 2% 5 �State of Colorado (PPR-GSGWG 2008). Based on 2007 lek-count data, the PPR population represents approximately 4% of the total population of greater sage-grouse in Colorado (CGSSC 2008). The population appears to have experienced a recent decline since 2006; counts in 2011 totaled 106 males on 32 leks, for an average of 3.3 males per active lek (CPW, unpublished data; Neubaum 2011). Count data in 2011 are approximately one-half the known high count of 204 males on 28 leks in 1976 (7.3 males/active lek; Krager 1977) or the high count of 226 males in 2006 (PPR-GSGWG 2008). Many of the 88 known lek locations in the PPR population are unoccupied (Fig. 1), but new leks have been found recently, in part due to greater aerial survey effort since 2005 and intensive tracking of marked birds by research crews since 2006 (PPR-GSGWG 2008, Apa 2010). Sage-grouse in the PPR population inhabit the tops of ridges and plateaus dominated by mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata vaseyana) and mixed sagebrush and “mountain shrubs” (e.g., serviceberry, Amelanchier spp.; Gambel oak, Quercus gambelii; snowberry, Symphoricarpus sp.; antelope bitterbrush, Purshia tridentata; and mountain mahogany, Cercocarpus sp.). These habitats occur between 6,500-9,000 feet and are often interspersed with patches of aspen (Populus tremuloides) and conifer forest. These ridges and plateaus are intersected by relatively steep drainages and bordered at lower elevations by pinyon-juniper woodland. Birds only use certain areas that have suitable local topography and local- and landscape-scale vegetation features (Apa 2010, Walker 2010), so sage-grouse habitat in the PPR is actually more restricted than indicated by the occupied range boundary (CGSSC 2008). Due to the elevation, males display slightly later in the PPR than in lower-elevation populations. Males in the PPR typically begin to display on leks in late March or early April (depending on the year) and may continue to display though early June, with a peak of lek activity from mid-April to mid-May. Snowpack depth and duration in the PPR varies from year to year, and strutting is thought to start later following winters when snowpack lasts longer, presumably because snow covers potential nest sites and delays forb growth important for females prior to incubation (Gregg et al. 2008). METHODS Capture and Handling I plan to capture and attach 30-g, rump-mounted solar-powered GPS PTT satellite transmitters (Northstar Science and Technology, King George, VA) on adult male greater sage-grouse in OctoberNovember and on yearling males in March of each year. Adult males will be captured in fall prior to the onset of the breeding season to prevent biasing data on lek attendance the following spring (Walsh et al. 2004). Yearling males will be captured in March-April to allow them to reach larger body size prior to deploying the transmitter, thereby reducing the chance that they will outgrow the harness. Trapping effort will be distributed across the population so that it is, as much as possible, proportional to, and representative of, the amount of local breeding habitat present as identified in seasonal habitat models (Walker 2010). I selected 30-g transmitters because they have larger battery capacity than 22-g models, which decreases risk of transmitter failure under low-light conditions (e.g., during winter, or if birds burrow under the snow during storms). A 30-g GPS transmitter with harness (38 g total) represents ~1.11.9% of male body mass, depending on age. GPS males will also receive individually numbered aluminum leg bands (size 16). Transmitters from birds that die may be recovered, cleaned, refurbished, and redeployed as necessary to maintain sample sizes. Capture and handling methods will follow standard CPW operating procedures established for sage-grouse, with the exception that field crews will deploy GPS transmitters (as described in detail below), and the decision whether injured birds will either be released or euthanized will be made by the PI rather than transporting birds back to Fort Collins. No known rehabilitators in western Colorado currently have the facilities to care for wild sage-grouse. Crews will capture males using net launchers (Giesen et al. 1982), night-time spotlighting and hoop-netting (Wakkinen et al. 1992), walk-in traps modified for sage-grouse (Schroeder and Braun 1991), Super Talon® net guns (Advanced Weapons 6 �Technology, La Quinta, CA), MagNet® net guns (Wildlife Capture Services, Flagstaff, AZ), or throw nets, all of which have been approved for capture of greater sage-grouse in this population by CPW’s Animal Care and Use Committee. Sample Size I selected a sample size of 20 adults and 15 yearlings for the first year of the study as a compromise between getting sufficient data to ensure I can estimate the parameters needed and minimizing impacts on the population should GPS transmitters have any possible detrimental effect on males. Once data are available from a concurrent study regarding impacts of GPS transmitters on male survival and for variance estimates for lek attendance, inter-lek movements, and detectability parameters, I will conduct a power analysis to assess whether sample sizes should be increased in the future. Deploying more than 35 GPS transmitters in the first year might be considered an unacceptable risk to the population and may not be supported by stakeholders or cooperators until we know from other studies whether GPS transmitters affect annual survival. I will increase sample sizes in the second and third years of the project to 30 adults and 25 yearlings if the first year of data from PPR or if data from an existing study in the Hiawatha region in northwestern Colorado indicate no obvious impacts of GPS transmitters on male survival. I will report survival rates of GPS males in my annual reports to the ACUC committee as those data become available. I will also report the number of injured or euthanized birds to ACUC. This will help establish standardized protocols for the use of GPS transmitters with greater sage-grouse. Band-recapture data suggest that survival rates of male sage-grouse vary annually and by age (0.635 ± 0.034 SE for yearlings vs. 0.368 ± 0.007 SE for adults; Zablan et al. 2003). I plan to deploy 20 transmitters on adults in fall because I anticipate some level of transmitter failure and mortality (possibly as many as 5 units) prior to the spring breeding season, thereby resulting in approximately equal sample sizes of adults and yearlings (~15 each) in spring 2012. GPS Transmitter Attachment I will use a rump-mounted, leg-loop harness attachment for GPS transmitters based on the method B design described in Bedrosian and Craighead (2007) modified for sage-grouse (Figs 2, 3). GPS transmitters cannot be used with necklace collars because solar cells under the neck receive insufficient sunlight to charge the battery. A thin layer of neoprene (1/8”) is glued to the bottom side of the transmitter to ensure that contact between the transmitter material and the bird’s lower back is padded and insulated. The harness material is 0.55-cm (0.25-inch) wide, brown Teflon ribbon (Bally Ribbon Mills, Bally, PA). A 12-16 cm length of 0.55-cm wide elastic cord is sewn into the center of a 75-cm (36-inch) length of Teflon ribbon such that 4-6 cm of expandable Teflon ribbon extends out from the attachment points on either side (Fig. 2). The elastic gives the harness flexibility when the bird extends its legs during take-off and when males are displaying. Yearling harnesses were sewn with more elastic (16 cm) to accommodate any possible increase in body size over time. Transmitters are manufactured with a medium-brown, sandtextured finish to reduce reflected light and the sides, front, and back are painted with a camouflage pattern to decrease visibility to predators (Fig. 3). Problems with back feathers near the front and sides of the transmitter covering the solar panel and leading to transmitter failure led us to develop an improved design that uses thicker neoprene (1/4”) and longer and wider neoprene under the front half of the transmitter (Fig. 3). The new design should prevent feathers in front of, and on the sides of, the transmitter from covering the solar panel. I selected a light, flexible antenna to minimize interference with the bird’s upright tail display while strutting. The transmitter is mounted on the bird’s lower back centered between the legs (as seen from behind and as seen from the side of the bird) with the antenna extending toward the rear above the tail (Fig. 4). Harness leg-loops on each side are fitted while the bird is held on its side to allow careful placement of the Teflon ribbon under body feathers and under the leg. The leg-loop is fitted down, around, and underneath the legs, then back up and through the attachment loops on the transmitter, then secured in place using a small section of 0.55-cm (0.25-inch) diameter copper tubing as a crimp (Fig. 2). The final fit is checked with the bird held in a normal, standing position. Transmitters are fitted as loosely as possible, but just snugly enough to prevent birds from 7 �dropping transmitters. Copper crimps quickly become tarnished with exposure to the elements, but as a precaution, crimps are marked with black ink before release to reduce reflection. Field crews will trim the Teflon ribbon at an angle and leave just enough excess ribbon on each side (~3 cm) to allow refitting or enlargement of the harness should it become necessary. The end of the excess ribbon is dabbed with Superglue® (Super Glue Corporation, Rancho Cucamonga, CA) to prevent fraying. The life span of the exposed Teflon ribbon and elastic inserts has not been experimentally tested, but harnesses from transmitters on females recaptured after >30 months in the field show no signs of fraying, wear, or deterioration. The GPS transmitters are solar-powered and may last for 3-5 years, which is longer than the life span of almost all male sage-grouse (Zablan et al. 2003). All transmitters are pre-programmed to collect 8 locations per day from March-May to gather data on early morning lek attendance (6 am, 6:30 am, 7 am, 7:30 am, 8 am), mid-day feeding/loafing areas (12 pm), evening feeding areas (6 pm), and night roost locations (12 am). Transmitters are programmed to collect two locations per day at 12 pm and 12 am from June-Feb to capture basic patterns of seasonal habitat use and movements while reducing demand on the battery during low-light conditions encountered in fall and winter. I anticipate studying males for multiple seasons, so I do not plan to remove GPS transmitters from males until summer 2014 following the final breeding season. I will clean and redeploy GPS transmitters recovered from mortalities on additional males as needed to maintain sample sizes. I was trained in attachment techniques in the field by Bryan Bedrosian, who has used GPS transmitters with raptors, corvids, and sage-grouse (Craighead and Bedrosian 2009). I have successfully deployed GPS transmitters on 34 females and 35 males from March 2009 - March 2011. There is some concern that GPS transmitters attached using a rump-mount harness may negatively affect male survival, movement, or strutting. Annual survival of female greater sage-grouse with GPS transmitters in northwestern Colorado was lower than females with VHF transmitters from 5 April 2009 to 23 June 2010 (0.494 ± 0.109 SE, n = 40 for VHF vs. 0.346 ± 0.109 SE, n = 52 for GPS) (B. Walker, unpublished data). However, harnesses have since been made more flexible by sewing in extra elastic, transmitter camouflage was improved (Fig. 3), and 30-g transmitters (38 g including harness and crimps) represent proportionally less of the body mass of males (1.1-1.9%, depending on male age; ~2000-2400 g for yearling males, ~2800-3300 g for adult males; Beck and Braun 1978) than of females, all of which should minimize possible negative impacts of transmitters. CPW deployed GPS transmitters and color-bands on male greater sage-grouse in fall 2010 and spring 2011 as part of a similar study in the Hiawatha Regional Energy Development project area in northwestern Colorado. Preliminary data from the Hiawatha project indicate that a lower proportion of color-banded GPS males (0.59 of 32 adults; 0.44 of 18 yearlings) were resighted at least once on leks in spring 2011 than were color-banded only males (0.77 of 43 adults; 0.60 of 5 yearlings), but estimates of annual survival of color-banded GPS males versus color-banded only males won’t be available until after resighting data are collected in spring 2012. A recent comparison of movement data from greater sage-grouse females with GPS vs. VHF transmitters throughout Wyoming found no evidence of a difference in distance traveled during seasonal or migratory movements (Fedy et al. 2012). Observers at leks in Hiawatha in spring 2011 noted that transmitter antennas are pushed to the side during strutting and do not appear to interfere with the bird’s upright tail display. Moreover, a paired comparison of strutting behavior on leks detected no difference in mean display rate between males with GPS transmitters (4.06 displays/min ± 0.45 SE) and adjacent, unmarked males in the same age class (3.61 displays/min ± 0.36 SE) (paired t-test; t = 0.254, n = 43). Several males with GPS transmitters have disappeared both in this study and in another study in the Hiawatha region. To improve our ability to determine the fate of GPS males whose transmitters stop transmitting and to relocate transmitters that disappear, we added a 5.3-g auxiliary VHF mortality microtransmitter (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Model A2720, Isanti, MN) on the underside of most GPS transmitters starting in fall 2012 (Fig. 3). 8 �Lek and Lek Attendance Definitions I define a lek as any restricted geographic area within which ≥ 2 males have displayed during the breeding season in ≥ 2 years (over any number of years), which is consistent with previous state-wide and range-wide definitions (Connelly et al. 2000, 2004; CGSSC 2008). I use this definition to ensure that small leks and “satellite” leks are included, but that locations where males do not consistently display are excluded (i.e., one-time use locations). It is possible that one-time use locations are important in small populations like the PPR (S. Duckett, CPW, pers. comm.). If so, this will cause us to underestimate lek attendance because we are unable to confirm strutting at these locations based on a single morning GPS location. The status of a lek may be active or inactive in any given year. Leks used by displaying males at least once within the past 5 years are considered active (CGSSC 2008). Newly-discovered leks > 500 m from all other known leks will be designated as potential leks. If those locations are documented to have displaying males in ≥ 2 years, they will be classified as new leks and assigned a name based on local geography. Field crews will delineate a “count boundary” for each known lek. The count boundary represents the specific perimeter within which males would be visible and available for counting by observers during any given count. The purpose of establishing a count boundary is to ensure that the geographic area of observation for each lek is consistent over time. This prevents the characteristics of specific leks (e.g., their size, location, topography, etc.) from changing over time. This count boundary will necessarily be larger than the outer perimeter around displaying males on any given date because: (a) observers can typically see and count males over an area larger than just the area where displaying males are found, (b) males may shift the location where they strut slightly from day to day, and (c) observers typically adjust the location from which they count males from day to day to maximize their ability to obtain complete counts of males. It is also important to unambiguously define lek “attendance” because some males use habitat near leks, but they may or may not be within the area that can be counted by observers. I define lek attendance as the presence of the male at a location that falls inside within 26 m the count boundary (i.e., visible and available for counting by observers) at any time during the standard count period (0.5 hrs before sunrise to 1.0 hr after sunrise) during the breeding season (15 March – 15 June). A male is not considered to have attended a lek if the male is either: (a) outside the count boundary (i.e., not visible and unavailable for counting) during the standard count period, or (b) inside the count boundary at a time other than during the standard count period or outside the breeding season. Lek attendance of GPS males should be straightforward to assess when resighters are present, but there may be some ambiguity about lek attendance for GPS males that are not directly observed (those that attend leks at which no observers are present). The positional accuracy of locations derived from GPS transmitters is typically ≤ 26 m. GPS males with early morning locations within 26 m of the count boundary will be considered inside the count boundary. Lek Counts CPW lek-count protocol instructs observers to obtain a maximum count of males by conducting repeated counts 5-10 minutes apart over a 30-minute period between 0.5 hr before and 1.0 hr after sunrise. Although no specific guidelines are given for the distance at which leks should be surveyed, an informal survey of NW region biologists and wildlife managers suggest that they typically count leks from 50-400 m, depending on topography, access, and to avoid disturbing birds at the lek. Observers use whichever optics are required to obtain a reliable count (binoculars or spotting scope) and whichever mode of transportation (truck, ATV, on foot) gets them close enough to the lek to count it. Field crews will focus on collecting double-observer count data at leks at least once a week. In the PPR, not all leks are accessible early in spring due to snowpack and road conditions. Observers will work in pairs, and each pair will conduct a 30-minute lek count during the standard count period at two leks per day, if possible. Each 30-minute visit to a lek will be divided into six 5-minute scan intervals. 9 �Counters will follow CPW count protocols and record the maximum number of yearling and adult males and females counted during each 5-minute interval. The goal of each counter is to get an accurate count of yearling and adult males and females during each scan interval and to record any GPS males present on the lek. Counters will also record when and how many birds of each sex arrive or leave the lek during each interval. Counters will alternate between using a spotting scope and binoculars during each scan interval. Each observer will be allowed to scan the lek multiple times within each 5-minute interval to be consistent with how surveys are conducted by CPW biologists and wildlife managers. All observers will be trained in standard lek-count protocols and aging and sexing; they will practice counting under supervision prior to collecting field data; and they will collect data on standardized forms to ensure consistency. All counts will be conducted from within a realistic distance from leks, depending on topography and optics (50-400 m), and all counters will record the distance (m) to the approximate lek center using a laser rangefinder. All observers will conduct counts using the same standard make and model of 10x binoculars and 20-60x zoom spotting scopes. Aerial lek counts will be conducted from a helicopter (the pilot plus an observer). Aerial observers will focus first on counting birds at leks simultaneously being counted by ground crews, and then conduct standard counts and search for potential new leks at specific locations indicated by GPS male location data. Aerial observers will record the total number of males at a lek but cannot distinguish adults from yearlings. Objectives Objective 1: Use locations of GPS males to find, verify, and count new leks – Early morning locations of GPS males will be compared against locations of known leks as the data come in to identify potential lek locations. Males that make ≥ 2 early morning visits to the same approximate location (within 100 m) on consecutive mornings during the breeding season will be considered to have visited a potential lek location. The field crew will then visit those locations or they will be checked from the air at least once during the next 7 days under suitable weather conditions to document whether displaying males or their sign (e.g., pellets, tracks, feathers) are present. If displaying males or sign are present at a newly discovered lek, then the new lek will be added to the list of regularly counted leks following standard protocols, and the count boundary determined as soon as practicable. A GPS male that previously used a location within the count boundary of a newly discovered lek during the standard morning count period will be considered to have attended that lek on that date. Objective 2: Estimate the no. of known and unknown leks in the study area – Data from GPS males will be used in a mark-recapture framework to estimate the number of leks in the study area. Visits by marked GPS males can be used to “capture” leks and subsequent visits by marked birds to that lek constitute “recaptures” of that lek. Leks not attended by GPS-marked males are considered un-marked leks. Recapture histories for individual leks can then be derived and analyzed using an appropriate markresight model (Bartmann et al. 1987, Bowden and Kufeld 1995) in program MARK (McClintock et al. 2008, White 2010). Objective 3: Estimate age-specific lek attendance by males – I will use the GPS male dataset to estimate lek attendance as a function of male age and variables that can be measured without directly observing attending males. I will compare early morning locations of males with GPS transmitters against count boundaries for all known lek locations to determine whether or not GPS males attended leks (see definition of “attending a lek”, above). I can then estimate daily rates of lek attendance for each male using logistic regression. Field crews will document all major weather events that could influence male attendance throughout the field season (e.g., storms, high winds, etc.). Daily lek attendance for males will be modeled as a function of date, weather, previous day weather, nearest lek size, and the male’s previous lek attendance (as a measure of a male’s prior reproductive effort). Overall lek attendance for each individual over the season will be calculated by summing the total number of days that each bird attended 10 �a lek and dividing by the total number of days for which each individual was alive and its early morning location was known. Males that move outside the study area prior to the breeding season will be excluded from the analysis. Objective 4: Estimate rates of inter-lek movements of males – I will use location data from GPS males overlaid with locations of count boundaries for all known active leks to estimate the frequency, timing, and distance of inter-lek movements by yearling and adult males. Objective 5: Estimating detectability of males on leks – I will use an unreconciled, independent, double-observer approach to estimate detectability from lek-count data (Riddle et al. 2010). Standard double-observer and removal models require that observers match or reconcile specific individual animals that were or were not detected by each observer (Nichols et al. 2000). However, this is typically impossible to do with lek counts because there may be numerous males on the lek and most males are unmarked and cannot be individually identified. Unreconciled double-observer models use raw maximum counts of the number of individuals detected (in each age class or from both age classes combined) from each of two independent observers to generate a site history for each observer on each count (e.g., 13, 15) (Riddle et al. 2010). Site histories are then analyzed using the repeated-counts hierarchical model of Royle (2004) in program PRESENCE, with the only difference that data from each observer are considered independent “visits” (Riddle et al. 2010). Benefits of this approach are that leks do not actually have to be visited twice on separate occasions, and the closed population assumption is met because surveys are conducted at the same time (Riddle et al. 2010). The method may require using a negative binomial or zero-inflated Poisson distribution in place of a Poisson distribution if data are overdispersed (Riddle et al. 2010). This estimator may become unstable if detectability is low (P. Lukacs, CPW, pers. comm.). However, I anticipate relatively high detectability because observers typically position themselves to maximize their ability to detect males attending the lek. The counting protocol outlined above (under Lek counts) results in dataset with six repeated counts from the same lek on each date for each counter for each age class of males and for females, with three of the six counts by each counter done with a spotting scope and three with binoculars. Counters will record distance to approximate lek center and presence or absence of snow cover on the count as well as predator activity, weather (temperature, wind speed, precipitation, visibility, illumination), and any other disturbances (e.g., vehicle traffic, planes, deer/elk, etc.) at the end of each 5-minute interval. Predator activity will be broken into three classes (no predator detected; predator visible from the lek; predator on, over, or attacking males) based on observations of potential predators of adult sage-grouse (eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, coyote, red fox, bobcat, mountain lion, etc.) near the lek. Covariates in the analysis of site histories will include a random effect of lek, and fixed effects of lek size (i.e., max no. of males counted), distance from lek, optics used (binoculars vs. spotting scope), observer, predator activity, weather, and an interaction between optics and distance from the lek. Because the data consist of repeated counts from the same lek within and among days, this dependence will have to be addressed using a repeated-measures approach. To estimate the effect of counting males from the air on detectability, I will compare maximum counts of males conducted on the same date at the same time from a single observer on the ground against a single observer in a helicopter using an unreconciled double-observer approach. Crews will attempt to conduct at least 3 paired counts per lek per year during the standard lek-count period in April, at least for leks that are accessible to ground-based observers. Ground observers will count leks over the full standard morning count period (0.5 hrs before sunrise to 1.0 hrs. after sunrise) and will note when the helicopter flew over and any changes in the count (e.g., departures) or behavior (e.g., crouching) of males caused by the helicopter that might affect count data or male detectability. Observers will continue to count until the end of the standard morning count period (1.0 hr after sunrise) to assess how helicopter flyovers would affect count data collected from the ground following a flyover (McRoberts et al. 2011). 11 �I will first compare the maximum count from the helicopter versus the maximum count from either observer on the ground collected over the 30-minute count period prior to arrival of the helicopter. Helicopters tend to flush males off leks and are likely influence counts made immediately after the flyover (S. Duckett, CPW, unpublished data; McRoberts et al. 2011), so I will only include data collected prior the helicopter’s arrival in the comparison. In this case, the difference in detection probability among observers (ground vs. air) represents the difference in detectability on a typical standard ground count versus a typical count from a helicopter. This comparison is appropriate because ground counts based on data from a 30-minute count period and flight counts based on data from a 1-3 minute count period are recorded with equal weight in statewide count databases. I will also compare counts recorded from the helicopter versus just the last count recorded on the ground in the 3 minutes prior to arrival of the helicopter. This allows us to estimate the effect of just the count method (helicopter vs. ground) based on a similar time period. It is unclear whether detectability will be higher or lower on helicopter counts. Detectability may be lower because data are derived from only 1-2 passes over 1-3 minutes rather than a full 30-minute period. However, it is possible that observers in helicopters may count more males if topography prevents observers on the ground from detecting hard-to-see males around the periphery of a lek. Objective 6: Simulate lek-count data – I will use estimates of the proportion of known vs. unknown leks in the population, age-specific means and variation in male lek attendance, the frequency and distance of inter-lek movements, estimated detectability, and variation in lek-count effort in conjunction with important covariates (e.g., time of day, date, weather, etc.) to simulate how much lek counts are likely to vary, even in the absence of population change, when conducted according to standardized protocols. I will simulate data for the estimated total number of leks in the population. The number of males in the simulated population will be set at a value equal to the maximum count of yearling or adult males at each lek during the period of peak attendance for each age group divided by age-specific detectability during that period. I can use these data to simulate what proportion of the simulated population of adult and yearling males would actually attend each lek during each time period of the morning on each day of the breeding season each year. I would then run scenarios using this simulated dataset with realistic combinations of measured and unmeasured variables that influence detectability (e.g., time of day, optics, distance from lek, weather, and number of counts per season). Scenarios would include counts conducted: (a) under more restrictive (0.5 hrs before to 0.5 hrs after sunrise) or less restrictive (0.5 hrs before to 1.0 hrs after sunrise) time of day requirements; (b) with binoculars versus spotting scope; (c) at various distances from leks; (d) in good versus marginal weather conditions; (e) with a variable number of counts per season (from 1 to 6) on randomly selected dates at least a week apart (to mimic data contained in state databases); (f) with varying proportions of leks counted or a biased sample of leks counted to mimic normal problems with access encountered in the field. Simulations will be set up in program R (version 2.11.0, R Development Core Team 2010). Objective 7: Test 0.6-mile lek buffer – During the breeding season, I will measure distances of three off-lek locations per day (at noon, 6 pm, and midnight) for each GPS male to the center of the lek attended that morning, the lek most recently attended, the nearest active lek (as recorded in CPW databases or by field crews), and the lek attended on the next visit. During other seasons, I will measure distances of two off-lek locations per day (at noon and midnight) for each GPS male to the center of the nearest known active lek (as recorded in CPW databases or by field crews). I will then calculate the proportion of off-lek locations (for each portion of the day) that fall within specific distances of dissolved buffers around the centers of known active leks to test the effectiveness of the current 0.6-mi. NSO/RSO stipulation for lek buffers and to make recommendations on the most efficient buffer size to use to protect specific proportions of the population. It may also be possible to use a kernel or bivariate normal mixture 12 �model to estimate the probability of males using areas within a specific distance around leks (D. Walsh, CPW, pers. comm.). I will also compare the effectiveness of conserving areas within different circular lek buffers to similar areas of high priority breeding habitat of similar size already identified using VHF locations of females (Walker 2010). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Captures Field crews captured and deployed GPS transmitters on 21 males during the March through May 2014 breeding season using hoop nets, MagNet® net guns, and lightweight throw nets. GPS Transmitters Of the 65 males successfully deployed with GPS transmitters from March 2012 through May 2014, 23 were still alive with functioning transmitters, 3 slipped out of their transmitters, 25 are known to have died, and the status of 14 could not be determined as of 31 Aug 2014. Feathers covering the solar panel were a significant factor in transmitter failure with our original transmitter design (Fig. 2). In fall 2012, we developed and implemented an improved transmitter design using thicker neoprene to prevent back feathers in front and on the sides of the transmitter from covering the solar panel (Fig. 3), that has noticeably improved data transmission. Locations of all GPS males were monitored every 3 days during the spring breeding season (~15 Mar – 20 May) in 2014 to determine: (a) locations of potential new leks for crews to check, (b) which males were alive, (c) which males remained within the study area, (d) which males were attending leks, (e) inter-lek movements, and (f) nocturnal and diurnal habitat use around leks. Lek Searching and Lek Counts Field crews located, verified, and counted 14 previously unknown leks in spring 2014. All but one of these 14 leks were either found opportunistically during trapping or field work early in the breeding season or during dual-frame sampling. However, the Tweener lek was discovered by tracking a yearling to the lek location then later confirmed by a field crew on the ground. Field crews conducted standard lek counts, unreconciled double-observer counts, and paired ground and helicopter counts at leks within the study area from 16 March - 22 May 2013. This effort resulted in data for 93 standard lek counts at 29 different leks, 28 unreconciled double-observer counts at 14 leks, and 46 paired ground and helicopter counts at 21 leks. Field crews entered and proofed all field data by July 2014. Survival, Lek Attendance, and Inter-lek Movement Small sample sizes of birds captured off lek precluded estimating population-level breedingseason survival or lek attendance for GPS males in spring 2013 or spring 2014. Data on inter-lek movements will be analyzed following the fourth and final field season in spring 2015. Male Habitat Use Around Leks We collected breeding-season location data on a total of 31 GPS males in spring 2014. Analysis of male habitat use around leks from 2012-2014 are underway. LITERATURE CITED Aldridge, C. L., S. E. Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, and M. A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 14:983-994. 13 �Aldridge, C. L., D. J. Saher, T. M. Childers, K. E. Stahlnecker, and Z. H. Bowen. 2011. Crucial nesting habitat for Gunnison Sage-Grouse: a spatially explicit hierarchical approach. Journal of Wildlife Management. In press. Apa, A. D. 2010. Seasonal habitat use, movements, genetics, and vital rates in the Parachute-PiceanceRoan Population of greater sage-grouse. Unpublished progress report. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, USA. Applegate, R. D. 2000. Use and misuse of prairie chicken lek surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:457458. Autenrieth, R., W. Molini, and C. E. Braun. 1982. Sage grouse management practices. Western States Sage Grouse Committee Technical Bulletin 1. Twin Falls, Idaho, USA. Bartmann, R.M., G.C. White, L.H. Carpenter, and R.A. Garrott. 1987. Aerial mark-recapture estimates of confined mule deer in pinyon-juniper woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:41-46. Beck, T. D. I., and C. E. Braun. 1978. Weights of Colorado sage-grouse. Condor 80:241-243. Beck, T. D. I., and C. E. Braun. 1980. The strutting ground count: variation, traditionalism, and management needs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 60:558-566. Bedrosian, B., and D. Craighead. 2007. Evaluation of techniques for attaching transmitters to common raven nestlings. Northwestern Naturalist 88:1-6. Boyko, A. R., R. M. Gibson, and J. R. Lucas. 2004. How predation risk affects the temporal dynamics of avian leks: greater sage-grouse versus golden eagles. American Naturalist 163: 154-165. Bowden, D. C., and R. C. Kufeld. 1995. Generalized mark-sight population size estimation applied to Colorado moose. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:840-851. Bradbury, J. W., S. L. Verhencamp, and R. M. Gibson. 1989. Dispersion of displaying male sage grouse: patterns of temporal variation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 24:1-14. Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349. Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee (CGSSC). 2008. Colorado greater sage-grouse conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO, USA. Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. Station Bulletin 80, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985. Craighead, D., and B. Bedrosian. 2009. A relationship between blood lead levels of Common Ravens and the hunting season in the southern Yellowstone Ecosystem. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. Dalke, P. D., D. B. Pyrah, D. C. Stanton, J. E. Crawford, and E. F. Schlatterer. 1963. Ecology, productivity, and management of sage grouse in Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:811-840. Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. Kiesecker. 2010a. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: systematic planning for greater sage-grouse in their eastern range. Studies in Avian Biology. In press. Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, and J. Evans. 2010b. A currency for offsetting energy development impacts: horse-trading sage-grouse on the open market. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10339. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010339. Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, and B. L. Walker. 2010c. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat: the importance of managing at multiple scales. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1544-1553. 14 �Dunn, P. O., and C. E. Braun. 1985. Natal dispersion and lek fidelity of greater sage-grouse. Auk 102:621-627. Ellis, K. L. 1984. Behavior of lekking sage-grouse in response to a perched Golden Eagle. Western Birds 15:37-38. Emmons, S. R., and C. E. Braun. 1984. Lek attendance of male sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1023–1028. Fedy, B. C. and C. L. Aldridge. 2011. The importance of within-year repeated counts and the influence of scale on long-term monitoring of sage-grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1022-1033. Fedy, B. C., C. L. Aldridge, K. E. Doherty, J. L. Beck, B. Bedrosian, M. J. Holloran, G. D. Johnson, N. W. Kaczor, C. P. Kirol, C. A. Mandich, D. Marshall, G. McKee, C. Olson, C. C. Swanson, and B. L. Walker. 2012. Inter-seasonal movements of greater sage-grouse, migratory behavior, and an assessment of the core regions concept in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1062-1071. Giesen, K. M., T. J. Schoenberg, and C. E. Braun. 1982. Methods for trapping sage grouse in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:224-231. Gill, R. B. 1965. Distribution and abundance of a population of sage grouse in North Park, Colorado. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Gregg, M. A., J. K. Barnett, and J. A. Crawford. 2008. Temporal variation in diet and nutrition of preincubating greater sage-grouse. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:535–542. Hagen, C. 2010. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Unpublished report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 184 p. Haines, D. E. and K. H. Pollock. 1998. Estimating the number of active and successful bald eagle nests: an application of the dual frame method. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5: 245-256. Harju, S. M., M. R. Dzialak, R. C. Taylor, L. D. Hayden-Wing, and J. B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and time lags in the effects of energy development on greater sage-grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:437-448. Hartzler, J. E. 1972. An analysis of sage grouse lek behavior. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA. Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA. Holloran, M. J., R. C. Kaiser, and W. A. Hubert. 2010. Yearling greater sage-grouse response to energy development in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:65-72. Jenni, D. A., and J. E. Hartzler. 1978. Attendance at a sage grouse lek: implications for spring censuses. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:46–52. Krager, R. 1977. Survey of sage grouse strutting ground complexes and seasonal use areas within the Piceance Basin Wildlife Habitat Area. Unpublished progress report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491. McClintock, B. T., G. C. White, K. P. Burnham, and M. A. Pryde. 2008. A generalized mixed effects model of abundance for mark–sight data when sampling is without replacement. Pages 273–292 in D. L.Thompson, E. G. Cooch, and M. J. Conroy, eds. Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer, New York, New York, USA. McRoberts, J. T., M. J. Butler, W. B. Ballard, M. C. Wallace, H. A. Whitlaw, and D. A. Haukos. 2011. Response of lesser prairie-chickens on leks to aerial surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 35:27-31. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Unpublished report. Billings, Montana, USA. 34 p. Naugle, D. E., and B. L. Walker. 2007. A collaborative vision for integrated monitoring of greater sagegrouse populations. Pages 57-62 in K. P. Reese and T. R. Bowyer, eds. Monitoring populations of 15 �greater sage-grouse: proceedings of a symposium at Idaho State University. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 88. Moscow, ID. Neubaum, D. 2011. Parachute-Piceance-Roan Greater Sage-Grouse Newsletter, Vol. 1(1). Unpublished report, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, USA. 4 pages. Nichols, J. T., J. E. Hines, J. R. Sauer, F. W. Fallon, J. E. Fallon, and P. J. Heglund. 2000. A doubleobserver approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point counts. Auk 117: 393-408. Patterson, R. L. 1952. The sage grouse in Wyoming. Sage Books, Denver, CO USA. 339 p. Parachute-Piceance-Roan Greater Sage-Grouse Work Group (PPR-GSGWG). 2008. Parachute-PiceanceRoan (PPR) Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. R Development Core Team 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 2.11.0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Riddle, J. D., K. H. Pollock, and T. R. Simons. 2010. An unreconciled double-observer method for estimating detection probability and abundance. Auk 127: 841-849. Rogers, G. E. 1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department Technical Publication Number 16. Royle, J. A. 2004. N-mixture models for estimating population size from spatially replicated counts. Biometrics 60:108-115. Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, C. W. McCarthy. 2004. Distribution of Sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106:363-376. Schroeder, M. A., and C. E. Braun. 1991. Walk-in traps for capturing greater prairie-chickens on leks. Journal of Field Ornithology 62:378-385. Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 1999. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Account 425 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, USA. State of Wyoming. 2010. State of Wyoming Executive Department, Executive Order Number 2010-4. Office of the Governor. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 15 p. Tack, J. D. 2010. Sage-grouse and the human footprint: implications for conservation of small and declining populations. Master’s thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 96 p. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. 12-month finding for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 75(55):13909-14014. Wakkinen, W. L., K. P. Reese, J. W. Connelly, and R. A. Fischer. 1992. An improved spotlighting technique for capturing sage-grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:425-426. Walker, B. L. 2010. Greater sage-grouse research in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan Region of western Colorado: multi-scale habitat selection and seasonal habitat mapping. Unpublished interim progress report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. 28 p. Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-grouse population response to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2644-2654. Wallestad, R. and P. Schladweiler. 1974. Breeding season movements and habitat selection of male sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:634-637. Walsh, D. P., G. C. White, T. E. Remington, and D. C. Bowden. 2004. Evaluation of the lek-count index for greater sage-grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:56-68. Walsh, D. P., J. R. Stiver, G. C. White, T. E. Remington, and A. D. Apa. 2010. Population estimation techniques for lekking species. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1607-1613. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2008. Greater sage-grouse population trends: an analysis of lek count databases 1965-2007. Sage- and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. 138 p. White, G. C. 2010. MARK, Version 6.0. http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mark/mark.htm. 16 �Zablan, M. A., C. E. Braun, and G. C. White. 2003. Estimation of greater sage-grouse survival in North Park, Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:144-154. 17 �FIGURES Fig. 1. New or potential greater sage-grouse leks (as of May 2014) discovered during field work from 2012-2014 and the estimated occupied range boundary (as of Feb 2012) in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population of northwestern Colorado, USA (including the isolated “Magnolia” section). 18 �Figure 2. Original harness and transmitter design for rump-mounted leg-loop attachment of solar-powered GPS satellite PTT transmitters to male greater sage-grouse. 19 �Figure 3. Improved harness and transmitter design for rump-mounted leg-loop attachment of solar-powered GPS satellite PTT transmitters for male greater sage-grouse. This photo also shows the underside placement of a micro-VHF mortality sensor/transmitter. 20 �Figure 4. Attachment, placement, and camouflage of rump-mounted, solar-powered, GPS satellite PTT transmitters for male greater sage-grouse. 21 �Figure 5. Drop net design for capturing male greater sage-grouse. 22 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/69269bc4b3676141be15f68b653152b0.pdf 94961bf98c00de773f77051a1bf142de PDF Text Text Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife September 2014-September 2015 WILDLIFE RESEARCH REPORT State of: Cost Center: Work Package: Task No.: Colorado 3420 0660 N/A Federal Aid Project No. N/A : : : : Division of Parks and Wildlife Avian Research Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Evaluating Lek-Based Monitoring and Management Strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan Population in Northwestern Colorado Period Covered: September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015 Author: B. L. Walker Personnel: B. Holmes, S. Duckett, B. Petch, W. deVergie, J. T. Romatzke All information in this report is preliminary and subject to further evaluation. Information MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED OR QUOTED without permission of the author. Manipulation of these data beyond that contained in this report is discouraged. EXTENDED ABSTRACT Implementing effective monitoring and mitigation strategies is crucial for conserving populations of sensitive wildlife species. Concern over the status of greater sage-grouse populations has increased rangewide and in Colorado due to population declines, range contraction, loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, and potential for listing the species under the Endangered Species Act. Despite untested assumptions, lek counts are widely used as an index of abundance by state agencies to monitor sagegrouse populations. Lek locations are also commonly used to identify and protect important sage-grouse habitat. However, the use of lek counts and locations to monitor and manage sage-grouse populations remains controversial because it is unknown how closely lek-count data track actual changes in male abundance from year to year or if lek buffers are effective at protecting habitat for male sage-grouse during the breeding season. Colorado Parks and Wildlife deployed solar-powered GPS satellite transmitters on male greater sage-grouse to obtain data on male survival, lek attendance, inter-lek movements, and diurnal and nocturnal habitat use around leks and conducted double-observer lek counts to estimate detectability of males on leks during the breeding season in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population in northwestern Colorado in spring from 2012-2015. These data will allow us to evaluate whether current lek-based monitoring methods provide reliable information about sage-grouse population trends and whether current lek buffers are effective at protecting breeding males. Chevron did not provide access in spring 2015, so no additional GPS males were marked. We monitored 17 GPS males for part or all of the 1 September 2014 - 31 August 2015 period. Analyses for this project are in progress. 1 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/f8a2b05dcf9bb2f04fe2de58de54c47b.pdf 0aa9ca0c14412a4cb82b8309736cb532 PDF Text Text Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife September 2015-September 2016 WILDLIFE RESEARCH REPORT State of: Cost Center: Work Package: Task No.: Colorado 3420 0660 N/A Federal Aid Project No. N/A : : : : Division of Parks and Wildlife Avian Research Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Evaluating Lek-Based Monitoring and Management Strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan Population in Northwestern Colorado Period Covered: September 1, 2015 – August 31, 2016 Author: B. L. Walker Personnel: B. Holmes, S. Duckett, B. Petch, B. deVergie, J. T. Romatzke All information in this report is preliminary and subject to further evaluation. Information MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED OR QUOTED without permission of the author. Manipulation of these data beyond that contained in this report is discouraged. EXTENDED ABSTRACT Implementing effective monitoring and mitigation strategies is crucial for conserving populations of sensitive wildlife species. Concern over the status of greater sage-grouse populations has increased rangewide and in Colorado due to population declines, range contraction, loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, and potential for listing the species under the Endangered Species Act. Despite untested assumptions, lek counts are widely used as an index of abundance by state agencies to monitor sagegrouse populations. Lek locations are also commonly used to identify and protect important sage-grouse habitat. However, the use of lek counts and locations to monitor and manage sage-grouse populations remains controversial because it is unknown how closely lek-count data track actual changes in male abundance from year to year or if lek buffers are effective at protecting habitat for male sage-grouse during the breeding season. Colorado Parks and Wildlife deployed solar-powered GPS satellite transmitters on male greater sage-grouse to obtain data on male survival, lek attendance, inter-lek movements, and diurnal and nocturnal habitat use around leks and conducted double-observer lek counts to estimate detectability of males on leks during the breeding season in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population in northwestern Colorado in spring from 2012-2016. These data will allow us to evaluate whether current lek-based monitoring methods provide reliable information about sage-grouse population trends and whether current lek buffers are effective at protecting breeding males. We monitored 17 GPS males for all or part of the 1 September 2014 - 31 August 2015 period and 6 males for all or part of the 1 September 2015 – 31 May 2016 period. Analyses for this project are in progress. 1 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Reports Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Evaluating lek-based monitoring and management strategies for greater sage-grouse in the Parachute-Piceance-Roan population in northwestern Colorado Description An account of the resource Implementing effective monitoring and mitigation strategies is crucial for conserving populations of sensitive wildlife species. Concern over the status of greater sage-grouse populations has increased range-wide and in Colorado due to population declines, range contraction, loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat, and potential for listing the species under the Endangered Species Act. Despite untested assumptions, lek counts are widely used as an index of abundance by state agencies to monitor sage-grouse populations. Lek locations are also commonly used to identify and protect important sage-grouse habitat. However, the use of lek counts and locations to monitor and manage sage-grouse populations remains controversial because it is unknown how closely lek-count data track actual changes in male abundance from year to year or if lek buffers are effective at protecting habitat for male sage-grouse during the breeding season. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Walker, Brett L. Subject The topic of the resource Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Parachute-Piceance-Roan (PPR) region Wildlife management Northwestern Colorado Extent The size or duration of the resource. various pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2014-2016 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/">No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Cost Center 3420 Avian Research. Work Package 0660 Greater Sage-grouse conservation