1. Population Analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse in Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
ESRM 458: Conservation and Governance of Rare Species
Professors John Marzluff and Marc Miller
Project Team:
Sage Alexander -
Zach Gregory -
Johnny Howe -
Liz Muntean -

2. Overview Sage-grouse background Our client Project information
Methods, data collection and analysis
Interpreting our findings
Recommendations

3. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
- Largest grouse
- Population trends
- >1,000,000 down to
100,000
- Declining range
- Reliance on sagebrush
- History with ESA
- Federal Candidate
- Warranted, but
precluded

4. Client Information Judge Steve Grasty Harney County
Contact through Professor Marzluff
Data box >500 documents
FWS Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances

5. Why Population Analysis?
Data regarding population counts dating back to 1954
Harney County
Geographically similar to Lake County
Judge Grasty’s request
Fire
CCAA

6. Methods Valid documents
Information pertaining to Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge
Collected in a consistent surveying method
Logged in a legible manner
Long-term population counts (~10 years or longer)
Invalid documents
Information pertaining to areas outside of Hart Mountain N.A.R (i.e. Sheldon National Antelope Refuge)
Trainee reports
Vague wildlife summaries
Poorly structured records

7. Data Collection and Analysis
Organization
Documents from 1950’s to 2000
Compilation of census counts
Statistical tests
linear regressions - correlation
(directional)
2 tailed unpaired t-test (dichotomous & continuous)

8. Data Collection and Analysis (cont.)
p=0.03

9. Data Collection and Analysis (cont.)
Don’t forget p-value

10. Data Collection and Analysis (cont.)
p=0.002

11. Data Collection and Analysis (cont.)
p<0.001

12. Data Collection and Analysis (cont.)

15. Implications of Data
P-values: signify population declines, lek attendance more ambiguous
Trends: number of adults are likely very low, number of reproducing adults and surviving chicks even lower

16. Male Breeding Behavior (Strutting)

17. Effective Population Seemingly healthy sage-grouse population in US
100,000 birds
Does not function as a single population
Smaller, separate breeding populations
Breeding grounds called leks
Much more susceptible to stochastic effects
Could limit genetic variation

18. Stochasticity and Genetic Variation
Demographic Stochasticity
Few dominant males breed with majority of females in each lek
Environmental Stochasticity
Wildfires
Droughts
Genetic variation limited by effective population size
Habitat fragmentation
Conversion of land
Fires
Breeding behavior

19. Reasons For Decline
Most dramatic decrease in population size due to hunting/overharvesting
Recent decreases due to:
Fires
Mostly prescribed
Droughts
Habitat destruction and fragmentation
All contribute to:
Compounding stochastic effects
Limited gene flow

20. General Recommendations
Conservation planning
Clear drop in data
Sage grouse as candidate
Preventative measures
Habitat conservation/restoration
Step-up monitoring
Recommendations based on data analysis and listing history, because the sage-grouse isn’t listed yet but is a candidate, it’s a safe recommendation to our client to begin planning immediately for conservation efforts before the grouse get to that level. Our data from Lake County, which can be transferred to Harney County, shows a clear drop in all numbers, especially breeding hens and overall populations. Once at listing recovery will most likely be harder due to status of most species at time of listing as well as private landowner cooperation, so if they are serious about avoiding a definite listing process then it is wise to begin preventative measures now. This includes restoration of sagebrush habitat that is necessary for connectivity and support of larger populations, as well as conserving existing habitat. Finally, from our experience with the types of historic data, monitoring needs to be continued of course but changed. New monitoring techniques should be adapted that are more advanced and structured so as to get accurate and useful resources for future efforts.

21. Policy Recommendations
PVA not recommended
Data limitations
Sampling issues
Gaps
Harney County CCAAs
Importance of private land
Habitat importance
Working Examples
As I said, the data was not routine. There were irregular sampling and large gaps in data which results in inability to perform reliable PVA for a recovery plan, so we would not advise using this data for more complicated projections of populations other than trend analysis. There were many issues with the sampling approaches in the data we sifted through and there are some obvious gaps that are visually noticable in the graphs.The main threat to Sage-grouse has not been stochastic events, genetic issues, or over-hunting, but it has been habitat loss. Therefore, private landowners have an invaluable role to play in the protection of the species, which depends on the management of their lands. In fact, adjacent counties of Baker and Malheur have already established Candidate Conservation Aagreements with local farmers and ranchers. And currently Harney Country has set up a Sage-grouse Steering Commitee for CCAAs, which are Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, basically furthering landowners incentives to work with the government on species conservation. This is positive news and shows that Oregon is serious abotu protecting their sage-grouse populations.

22. Thank you!
this picture is so silly I just wanted to show everyone - we don’t have to include this slide at all

23. Sources
Harney County CCAA information -
CCA information - image -
Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver Conservation Assessment
of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Draft Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances and Receipt of Application for an
Enhancement of Survival Permit for the Greater Sage-Grouse on Private Rangelands, Baker and Malheur Counties, Oregon. (2014) US Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
Endangered Species Act. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
Knick, Steven T, and John W. Connelly. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a
Landscape Species and Its Habitats. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, Print.
Lynch, M. A Quantitative-Genetic Perspective on Conservation Issues. In: Conservation
Genetics: case histories from nature. New York City, New York: Chapman and Hall; 1996.
Rhodes, Edward C., Jonathan D. Bates, Robert N. Sharp, and Kirk W. Davies. "Fire Effects on
Cover and Dietary Resources of Sage-Grouse Habitat." Journal of Wildlife Management 74.4 (2010): Oregon State University, 13 Dec Web. 2 Feb
Semcer, Catherine. "Protecting the Sage Grouse, Protecting Our Land - Lay of the Land." Sierra
Club. 21 Feb
Species Fact Sheet: Greater Sage-Grouse. (2015, February 4). Retrieved March 5, 2015.
Threatened and Endangered Species and the Private Landowner. US Department of Agriculture.
Retrieved March 1, 2015 from
Wambolt, C, Harp, A, Welch, B, Shaw, N, Connelly, J, Reese, K, Braun, C, Klebenow, D,
McArthur, E, Thompson, J, Torell, L and Tanaka, J. (2002) Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse on Public Lands in the Western U.S.: Implications of Recovery and Management Policies. Policy Analysis for Western Public Lands. Retrieved from
Zeigler, S, Che-Castaldo, J, Neele, M. Actual and Potential Use of Population Viability Analyses
in Recovery of Plant Species Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology, 2013.