North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Recovery Project: Using Translocation to Prevent State-Wide Extirpation and Develop Rangewide Protocols

Human-altered landscapes have led to large-scale changes in rangelands and wildlife populations which require efficient and effective conservation strategies. These changes have been facilitated by increased human populations, roads, energy development, etc. Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter sage-grouse) are a widespread sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) obligate species that have been declining across their range since the mid-1900s. Population declines have been extremely evident on the north eastern edge of their distribution, such as North Dakota. Habitat has been highly altered in this region. Managers have determined that there is an increased need for innovative management techniques, including translocations, for the North Dakota sagegrouse population. Translocations have become a common tool for wildlife management. Although there is a vast amount of literature that outlines how to locate, capture, relocate, and introduce sage-grouse into novel and historical environments, there has been little research that used quantitative habitat evaluations, such as resource selection functions (RSFs), to provide guidance for choosing the best release sites. We provide an example of using locations from radio-marked sage-grouse previously released in the study area in an RSF framework to guide for future release sites in North Dakota. We also compared spatial data, provided by Rangeland Analysis Platform (www.rangelands.app), of shrub Co-authors: David K. Dahlgren, Michel Kohl, Peter S. Coates, and Shawn T. O’Niel 32 canopy cover from the late 1980s to current data to assess changes in sagebrush cover over time. We found that habitat selection was closely tied to sagebrush cover and mesic habitat, and that shrub cover decreased from 1987 to 2018, resulting in an increased selection of the remaining sagebrush cover within the study area. We provided mapping to guide managers for future translocations release locations and habitat improvement projects. Alteration of land use accompanied European settlement of the West. Human development in this region facilitated significant changes resulting in an increased risk of losing important ecosystem processes (West 1983, Whisenant 1989, Berquist et al. 2007). Wildlife populations, especially obligate species dependent on a singular ecosystem type, have been particularly at risk because of these changes. Thus, there remains an increased need to facilitate proactive conservation actions to help maintain functioning ecosystems. Translocations of wildlife are one of the examples of a conservation action that can help maintain populations and distributions of species (Wilson 1988, Griffith et al. 1989). Translocations of wildlife have been described by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as the deliberate and meditated movement and release of captive or wild animals into novel and free environments (Seddon et al. 2012). Over 700 wildlife translocations of various species have been documented from 1973 to 1986 across the globe extending from Australia to Hawaii, including North America (Griffith et al. 1989, Seddon et al. 2012). Translocations may include several objectives, singularly or combined, such as: augmentation of declining populations, removal of nuisance animals, reintroduction of an extirpated species, establishment of a non-endemic species, and increasing genetic diversity (Smith and Clark 1994, Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, 33 Gruber-Hadden et al. 2016, Mussmann et al. 2017, Miller 2018). The objectives of most past translocations have been to re-establish or augment extirpated or declining wildlife populations (Griffith et al. 1989, Seddon et al. 2007, Seddon et al. 2012, Jackowski et al. 2016). Although there has been documentation of successful translocations, many have been plagued with uncertainty and failure due to poor planning, low number of translocated individuals, and lack of essential resources (Armstrong and Craig 1995, Armstrong et al. 1999, Seddon et al. 2007, Seddon et al. 2012). Incorporating pre-project planning, habitat assessments, health risk assessments, appropriate source population, and campaigning for community support can increase the probability of success (Kleiman 1989). These attributes were exemplified when Kleiman (1989) translocated bison (Bos Bison) in Wichita, Oklahoma and during Baxter et al.’s (2008) successful translocation and augmentation of a greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter sagegrouse) population in Strawberry Valley, Utah. Sage-grouse are a sagebrush obligate species that currently occupies 11 states and two Canadian provinces (Schroeder et al. 2004). Since the mid-1900s, it has been estimated that many sage-grouse populations have decreased by more than 33% and currently the species occupies ~ 56% of their historical distribution (Aldrich 1963, Connelly and Braun 1997, Connelly et al. 2011, Schroder et al. 2004). Translocations have been used to manage sage-grouse populations since 1933 when Allred (1946) translocated sage-grouse into New Mexico. Since then translocations have occurred in seven western states (Reese and Connelly 1997). Reportedly, > 7200 sage-grouse have been translocated during > 56 translocation events in the last century (Reese and 34 Connelly 1997, Snyder et al. 1999, Coates et al. 2006). However, only a small portion of translocation efforts have used scientific study designs, and most were not monitored sufficiently post-release, and therefore provided little to no scientific information (Musil et al. 1993, Reese and Connelly 1997, Snyder et al. 1999). An evaluation of past translocations indicated that a population-level recruitment of a large number of grouse, either directly via survival of translocated individuals or indirectly via reproductive success of translocated birds, is needed over a several-year period to achieve translocation project objectives; i.e., deem the effort successful (Seddon et al. 2007, Baxter et al. 2008, Snyder et al. 1999, Seddon et al. 2012, Baxter et al. 2013). Reese and Connelly (1997) and Baxter et al. (2013) reported several environmental factors that correspond with success for translocated sage-grouse including capture locations, release location attributes, and timing of release. These attributes, however, were based on observational data from the respective studies and did not come from a robust quantitative assessment. The possibility of releasing birds into ecological traps (e.g., sink habitat) could be costly and severely impact project success and the perception of wildlife managers by the public (Schlaepfer et al. 2002, Jachowski et al. 2016). Baxter et al. (2008) recommended that translocations be implemented before a population declines to a level where it could be at risk of stochastic events leading to extirpation. North Dakota’s sage-grouse population in the extreme southwest corner of the state was an example of a declining population at risk of extirpation. North Dakota’s sage-grouse population occurred on the northeastern edge of the species’ range-wide distribution (Stiver et al. 2006, Garton et al. 2011). Historically, sage-grouse have been documented in North Dakota where sagebrush (Artemesia spp.) 35 occurs, which is the extreme southwest portion of the state (Johnson and Knue 1989, Smith et al. 2004). North Dakota’s sage-grouse have always been contiguous with much larger populations in southeastern Montana. Although male lek counts historically numbered in the hundreds, North Dakota’s relatively small sage-grouse population experienced consistent declines from the early 1970’s until the mid-2000s. However, following a West Nile virus outbreak in the mid to late 2000s (Walker and Naugle 2011) the population declined precipitously, and by 2016 biologists counted a total of 15 males across 6 active leks within North Dakota. Although this population represents only a small portion of sage-grouse range-wide, the extirpation of sage-grouse from North Dakota would be detrimental to state and range-wide conservation objectives (Robinson 2014). In order to address these concerns, we captured and translocated sage-grouse from a source population in south-central Wyoming to North Dakota in 2017 and 2018. Our primary objective herein was to determine the best release locations for future translocations of sage-grouse into North Dakota by implementing resource selection functions (RSF) using translocated sage-grouse locations to examine habitat selection based on seasonal and spatial variation. Secondarily, we also examined the difference in shrub cover from 1987 to 2018 based on data provided by Rangeland Analysis Platform (RAP) to better understand changes to sagebrush habitat in our study area. We hypothesized 1) that sage-grouse selection would be closely tied to sagebrush cover and mesic habitat, and 2) that shrub cover decreased from 1987 to 2018.