https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/068376b2098890e376047cdb6a4394d1.pdf 2f08199765c27641894fcc772ec3a93e 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 0659 N/A Federal Aid Project No. N/A : : : : Division of Parks and Wildlife Avian Research Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Development of landscape scale resource selection models for the management of Gunnison sagegrouse in the Gunnison Basin population Period Covered: September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015 Author: M. Rice Personnel: A. Apa, N. Seward, J Wenum 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 Information MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED OR QUOTED without permission of the author.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 Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) have declined substantially from their historica range and were listed as threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November of 2014. GUSG are distributed into seven isolated populations in Colorado and one population, Gunnison Basin (GB) comprises 85-09% of all GUSG in the state. Concern over the small population size and isolated and fragmented nature of many of the smaller populations has led to interest in the habitat use of GUSG. Much of the information that has been used on GUSG habitat selection has come from studies pertaining to Greater Sage-grouse. Currently the USFWS have designated most of the Gunnison basin as critical habitat, but there may be some variability to the quality and use of that critical habitat which could refine those maps for better management of the species. To successfully manage and understand the Gunnison sage-grouse, we must identify the habitat that is most important to the birds using data driven models. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has collected radio-telemetry data from almost 200 birds from 2004-2010 which could be used to model habitat selection with a robust dataset specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison basin. We utilized radio-telemetry data from individual GUSG caught during the spring and fall periods 2004-2010. Following release, radiotelemetry locations of radio-marked individuals were estimated on the ground using hand-held Yagi antennas once every 1-3 days (from date of capture through September) to monitor status (dead or alive) and movement patterns. We were able to estimate resource selection models for the breeding (April to July 15) and summer seasons (July 16 to September). We used 188 birds and 3,936 locations for the breeding season model and 171 birds and 3,721 locations for the summer model. We buffered each use location by the average daily movement which was 180.5m in the breeding period and 223m in the summer period. We generated 9,000 “available” locations across the entire Gunnison basin and used the same seasonal buffers. Vegetation, topographical, and development variables were extracted for each buffer to be used in the analysis. Development variables included roads, subdivisions, trails, easements, and address points collected by Gunnison County. We used a generalized �mixed linear model with a logistic link and a random effect for individual birds to model habitat use. We used all linear combinations of variables and model averaged over the 95% model set. We utilized an average prediction surface in ArcMap 10.1. The breeding model indicated that GUSG were 2.24 times as likely to be located in sagebrush and 1.5 times as likely to be located in high densities of trails (Table 1). Being closer to subdivisions and easements and further from wetlands were also important predictors. Finally, GUSG are 1.49 more likely to NOT be located in forest. There were also smaller effects including being located in grassland, slightly higher elevations, in areas with higher water density, in areas with high road density and further from class 1 and 2 roads and further from address points (Table 1). The resulting prediction surface indicated that large swaths of sagebrush had a higher relative probability of GUSG presence and many of the drainages were avoided (Figure 1). The summer model indicated that GUSG were 3.64 times as likely to be located in sagebrush, 2.41 times as likely to be located in irrigated agriculture, 1.41 times as likely to be in grassland, and 1.8 times as likely to be in alpine(Table 2). Being closer to subdivisions and easements and further from house address points were also important predictors. Finally, GUSG are 1.49 more likely to NOT be located in forest. GUSG are more likely to be in areas with high trail densities, low road densities, and high water densities. GUSG are also more likely to be closer to roads and slightly further from wetlands. They are also going to be located in higher elevations (Table 2). The resulting prediction surface indicated that GUSG used a more diverse set of habitats and tended to move into higher areas within the Gunnison basin (Figure 2). Overall Gunnison sage-grouse are dependent on large swaths of sagebrush although they tend to have more diverse selection during the summer when they utilize numerous habitats including grassland, irrigated agriculture, and alpine. They tend to be close to subdivisions and easements and in areas with high levels of trail density in both seasons. Overall, not all the human related variables were negatively impacting GUSG although it was dependent on the season. These models can be used to further refine the estimated critical habitat currently being used by USFWS as they reduce the amount of critical habitat in both seasons. In addition, these models provide information regarding two seasons in the GUSG life cycle and can be used to manage the population on the ground. �Table 1: Model averaged model coefficients, confidence intervals, and odds ratios for Gunnison sagegrouse during the breeding season in the Gunnison Basin of Colorado. Variable β SE LCI UCI Odds ratio Intercept - 1.671 Sagebrush 0.805 0.065 0.712 0.899 2.24 Grassland 0.184 0.037 0.131 0.238 1.2 forest - 0.396 0.081 - 0.513 - 0.279 0.67 elevation 0.095 0.039 0.039 0.151 1.10 distance to wetlands 0.517 0.029 0.479 0.554 1.68 water density 0.230 0.029 0.189 0.271 1.26 Road density 0.139 0.032 0.093 0.185 1.15 Distance to roads 0.103 0.032 0.056 0.149 1.11 Trail density 0.463 0.029 0.421 0.504 1.59 Distance to address points 0.309 0.034 0.260 0.358 1.36 Distance to subdivisions - 0.536 0.049 - 0.607 - 0.495 0.58 Distance to easements - 0.458 0.039 - 0.514 - 0.402 0.64 Table 2: Model averaged model coefficients, confidence intervals, and odds ratios for Gunnison sagegrouse during the summer season in the Gunnison Basin of Colorado. Variable ratio Intercept Sagebrush Grassland Irrigated agriculture Alpine elevation distance to wetlands water density Road density Distance to roads Trail density Distance to address points Distance to subdivisions Distance to easements β SE LCI UCI - 1.580 1.292 0.342 0.881 0.592 0.238 0.072 0.161 - 0.356 - 0.294 0.339 0.377 - 0.655 - 0.453 0.058 0.033 0.042 0.032 0.039 0.026 0.027 0.040 0.032 0.028 0.034 0.040 0.037 1.209 0.294 0.821 0.547 0.182 0.035 0.123 - 0.413 - 0.340 0.299 0.328 - 0.713 - 0.506 1.376 0.389 0.941 0.638 0.295 0.110 0.199 - 0.299 - 0.249 0.379 0.427 - 0.597 - 0.399 Odds 3.64 1.41 2.41 1.81 1.27 1.07 1.17 0.70 0.75 1.40 1.46 0.52 0.64 �Figure 1: Relatively probability of Gunnison sage-grouse presence during the breeding season across the Gunnison basin using data from radio-telemetry data collected from 2004 until 2010. �Figure 2: Relatively probability of Gunnison sage-grouse presence during the summer season across the Gunnison basin using data from radio-telemetry data collected from 2004 until 2010. � 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 Development of landscape scale resource selection models for the management of Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin population Description An account of the resource Gunnison sage-grouse (<em>Centrocercus minimus</em>) have declined substantially from their historica range and were listed as threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November of 2014. GUSG are distributed into seven isolated populations in Colorado and one population, Gunnison Basin (GB) comprises 85-09% of all GUSG in the state. Concern over the small population size and isolated and fragmented nature of many of the smaller populations has led to interest in the habitat use of GUSG. Much of the information that has been used on GUSG habitat selection has come from studies pertaining to Greater Sage-grouse. Currently the USFWS have designated most of the Gunnison basin as critical habitat, but there may be some variability to the quality and use of that critical habitat which could refine those maps for better management of the species. To successfully manage and understand the Gunnison sage-grouse, we must identify the habitat that is most important to the birds using data driven models. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has collected radio-telemetry data from almost 200 birds from 2004-2010 which could be used to model habitat selection with a robust dataset specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison basin. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rice, Mindy B. Subject The topic of the resource Gunnison sage-grouse <em>Centrocercus minimus</em> Wildlife management Extent The size or duration of the resource. 5 pages Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2015 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 0659 Greater sage-grouse conservation