Sharp-tailed Grouse Lek Surveys, Northwest Region, 2005

CONSERVATION REPORT SERIES The Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.

CONSERVATION REPORT

SERIES 25% Post Consumer Fibre When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable

Sharp‐tailed Grouse Lek Surveys, Northwestern Alberta, 2005

Robb B. Stavne Alberta Conservation Association Bag 900‐26 Peace River, Alberta, T8S 1T4 Report Series Co‐editors PETER AKU KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 59 Tuscany Meadows Cres NW #101, 9 Chippewa Rd , AB T3L 2T9 AB T8A 6J7

Conservation Report Series Type Data

ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐7084‐4 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐7085‐1 Publication No.: T/189

Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report.

Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project.

Suggested citation: Stavne, R.B. 2006. Sharp‐tailed grouse lek surveys, northwestern Alberta, 2005. Data report, D‐2006‐011, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 11 pp + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless

Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1998 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2005, ACA completed sharp‐tailed grouse lek surveys as part of an initiative launched from 1996 to 2000 and resumed in 2004. The program was designed to monitor leks throughout the Peace River region and to obtain current information on sharp‐tailed grouse attendance at leks. Lek sites were surveyed to assess their status (active or non‐active) and define habitat characteristics at 0.64 km2 scales immediately surrounding them. Of the 48 sites that were surveyed in 2005, 31 were designated as non‐active in 2004. Three of the sites designated as non‐active in 2004 had between seven and 12 sharp‐tailed grouse in attendance in 2005; although, two of these leks appear to have shifted to new locations. Six of 17 additional sites last active in 2000 were active in 2005. Relative to non‐active leks, most active leks were surrounded by landscapes that had a lower proportion of cultivated land and a higher proportions of perennial cover (i.e., native grass, tame hay, pasture, forest). I recommend that lek site monitoring continue on a regular basis (i.e., semi‐annual) to maintain up‐to‐date information on lek activity and to detect locational shifts of sharp‐tailed grouse in response to changes in land use. Similar to past studies, I further recommend the adoption of land use practices that increase the amount of perennial cover surrounding historic lek sites.

Keywords: Attendance, lek, Peace River region, perennial cover, sharp‐tailed grouse, survey, Tymphanucus phasianellus jamesi.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Ken Wright for project leadership. Thanks also to Ryan Hermanutz who coordinated field activities and conducted the majority of lek surveys, along with Cynthia Jones and Jennifer Straub. Stephanie Grossman provided survey datasheets and background information for lek sites in northwestern Alberta. We are grateful to local landowners for providing access to observers, and for continuing to protect sharp‐ tailed grouse habitat. Thanks again to Ken Wright and an anonymous reviewer for providing comments on earlier drafts.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iv LIST OF FIGURES...... v LIST OF TABLES...... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ...... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 General introduction ...... 1 1.2 Study rationale and objectives...... 1 2.0 STUDY AREA...... 2 2.1 Description ...... 2 2.2 Ecoregion and land cover...... 4 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 4 3.1 General sampling methods ...... 4 3.2 Land cover mapping ...... 5 4.0 RESULTS ...... 5 4.1 Lek activity ...... 5 4.2 Land cover associated with active and non‐active lek sites ...... 6 4.3 Conclusions and future recommendations...... 8 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 9 6.0 APPENDIX...... 12

iv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Locations of sharp‐tailed grouse leks in northwestern Alberta surveyed in 2005...... 3 Figure 2. Land cover at the 0.64 km2 scale surrounding 48 sharp‐tailed grouse lek sites (eight active) surveyed in 2005...... 7 Figure 3. Land use (cultivated or non‐cultivated) surrounding active and inactive leks surveyed in 2005...... 8

v LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Land cover types surrounding leks surveyed in 2005...... 5 Table 2. Sharp‐tailed grouse attendance at lek sites surveyed in 2005...... 6

vi LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Physical characteristics and attendance of historic sharp‐tailed grouse leks surveyed in 2005...... 12

vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General introduction

Declines in sharp‐tailed grouse (Tymphanucus phasianellus jamesi; hereafter sharptail) numbers throughout Alberta have resulted in the species being listed as “sensitive” and “requiring special management” by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (2000). This decline is thought to be due to increased conversion of native grassland to agriculture, and the subsequent loss of breeding habitat (Broatch 2002; Grossman and Stavne 2005).

Most of the sharptail life cycle is completed within a short (1 ‐ 2 km) distance of a given lek. Several habitat requirements must be met within this area, including availability of forage, coarse marsh vegetation to supply winter cover, perch sites in small clumps of aspen, and escape cover (Pepper 1972; Moyles 1981; Johnsgard 1983). Unbroken native grasslands that include low shrubland habitat are preferentially used by sharptails throughout all life stages (Moyles 1981; Manzer 2004). Although tame hayland and lightly grazed pastures are used in absence of native cover, cultivated land is generally avoided (Pepper 1972; Broatch 2002; Grossman and Stavne 2005). The sharptail breeding cycle begins in early spring (late March through May) when males gather at leks to display and compete for mating opportunities with attending females. Following courtship, females disperse within a 2‐km radius to nest and brood their young (Evans 1968; Pepper 1972; Klott and Lindzey 1990).

In the Peace region of Alberta, less than 0.5% of native grassland remains (Baker 2002). More than 99% of this historically expansive area has been converted to agriculture (Alberta Environmental Protection 1997; Baker 2002). The loss of native grassland has been associated with substantial declines of traditional sharptail habitat throughout the Peace region (Goddard 1995).

1.2 Study rationale and objectives

Between 1996 and 2000 the “Sharp‐tailed Grouse Program” was carried out by the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) to address loss of habitat throughout the

1 province (Broatch 2002). In northwestern Alberta (Peace River region), the program focused on determining trends in sharptail populations and use of habitat, as well as developing an understanding of the relationship between land use and quality of sharptail grouse habitat (Broatch 2002).

In 2004, ACA resumed its sharptail lek surveys to monitor known leks throughout the Peace River region. Lek sites were surveyed to assess their status (active or non‐active) and define habitat characteristics at 0.64‐km2 scales immediately surrounding active and non‐active leks (Grossman and Stavne 2005). Because of time and staff constraints, not all known leks were visited in 2004; furthermore, leks previously identified as non‐ active were not visited. To address concerns about gaps in data, ACA continued lek surveys in 2005 with objectives to: 1) visit leks known to be active in 1999, but were not visited during 2004 surveys, 2) revisit leks identified as non‐active in 2004 to verify their status, and 3) collect information on habitat occurring within a 0.64 km2 area surrounding each lek. This information will help update the status of leks in northwestern Alberta.

2.0 STUDY AREA

2.1 Description

The study area is located in the Peace River region, primarily within the white zone (privately owned or public land leased for agricultural production) of the northwest region (Figure 1). This area includes all known lek locations originally identified and mapped prior to 2000 (Broatch 2002). Although a few leks occur within provincial grazing leases or in the green zone (public land that is mostly forested), the majority are located on private land (Alberta Public Lands 2004).

2

Figure 1. Locations of sharp‐tailed grouse leks in northwestern Alberta surveyed in 2005.

3 2.2 Ecoregion and land cover

The study area falls within the Peace Lowlands Ecoregion (Environment Canada 2004) and consists primarily of the dry mixedwood natural subregion and a portion of the Peace River parkland natural subregion (Strong and Leggat 1992; Achuff 1994). Most of this ecoregion is settled and over the last 100 years nearly half of the landscape (approximately 2.8 million ha) has been converted to agricultural land use (Statistics Canada 2001). Agricultural land in the Peace River region is approximately equally divided between cereal cropland and pasture or tame forage production (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development 2001). Interspersed within this agricultural landscape is a mosaic of native dry mixedwood and aspen parkland forest with some small remnant native grasslands. In general, low topographical relief and cool temperatures characterize the Peace Lowlands Ecoregion relative to similar mixedwood and parkland ecoregions to the south (Strong and Leggat 1992).

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 General sampling methods

Known lek sites were identified, mapped and partially surveyed in 2004 (Grossman and Stavne 2005). In 2005, sites that were missed or found to be non‐active during the survey in 2004 were visited to determine their status (active or non‐active). Additionally, some sites that previously had low activity (≤ 2 birds) or were convenient to sample (in close proximity to priority sites) were also visited.

The survey method used in 2005 was identical to that used by Grossman and Stavne (2005) modeled after Broatch (2002). Lek site surveys were initiated approximately 1.5 h before sunrise and were carried out until 2.5 h after sunrise. Trained observers approached each site on foot to assess lek status (active or non‐active) and counted male and female sharptails in attendance following Baydack (1986). Lek sites unattended by sharptails were inspected over a 10‐min period for evidence of activity (fresh feathers or scat and trampled vegetation) to verify their status. If lek sites were determined to be non‐active, an ad‐hoc survey commenced whereby investigators

4 walked across or drove around the 0.64 km2 (one quarter section) area of land immediately surrounding the site to identify potential locational shifts of lek sites. All surveys occurred between 26 April and 27 May 2005.

3.2 Land cover mapping

Aerial photos captured between 2000 and 2004 were ground‐truthed during lek surveys to classify land cover into seven distinct types (Table 1) within a 0.64‐km2 area immediately surrounding the lek (modified from Broatch 2002).

Table 1. Land cover types surrounding leks surveyed in 2005. The proportion of each habitat type occurring within a 0.64‐km2 area surrounding leks sites was visually estimated.

Land Cover Definition Cultivated Annual crop Tame hay Tame grass with no evidence of grazing activity Pasture Tame grass with evidence of grazing activity Forest All trees > 6 m, generally dominated by aspen Shrubland Woody perennial plants < 6 m tall Native grass Grasslands dominated by native graminoid species All native Includes shrubland, native grass, and forest land cover types

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Lek activity

A total of 48 known lek sites were visited in 2005. Seventeen historic (i.e., known to be active between 1996 and 2000) sites had not been surveyed for at least four years; the remainder (n = 31) were lek sites identified as non‐active (i.e., attended by ≤ 2 sharptail) in 2004 (Table 2). Six of the 17 historic leks were active in 2005; numbers of sharptail ranged from four to 23 (average = 13.5). Because non‐random site selection criteria (i.e., sample population was known to be biased towards sites that were likely to be inactive) were used to choose sites for 2005 surveys, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding attendance rates at lek sites. It is interesting to note however, that three leks identified as non‐active in 2004 were attended by seven to 12 (average = 9) sharptail in

5 2005. Two of these leks appeared to have shifted by approximately 1 km from historic locations, presumably in response to cattle grazing or cultivation. These shifts probably contributed to poor detection in 2004. The third site did not appear to have shifted in location. Two sharptail were observed on this site in 2004; only seven birds were recorded in 2005. The apparent plasticity of sharptail to shift lek site locations highlights the importance of regular lek monitoring in order to detect shifts in response to land use changes or other localized disturbances. Additionally, historic sites that appear inactive, along with surrounding areas, should be resampled within the same year to accurately verify inactive leks.

Table 2. Sharp‐tailed grouse attendance at lek sites surveyed in 2005. Historic leks are identified as sites known to be active between 1996 and 2000, but were not surveyed in 2004. Revisits are leks that were surveyed and found to be non‐active or had ≤ 2 sharp‐tailed grouse in attendance in 2004.

Site n Active leks Non‐active leks Average number of (% of total) (% of total) sharptail attending active sites Historic leks 17 6 (35%) 11 (65%) 13.5 Revisits 31 3 (10%) 28 (90%) 9 All leks 48 9 (19%) 39 (81%) 12

4.2 Land cover associated with active and non‐active lek sites

Agricultural production (designated as cultivated, tame hay and pasture) dominated land use immediately surrounding leks surveyed in 2005 (Figure 2). Conversely, very little natural cover was available on the landscape. As a result, most leks occurred in areas of heavy disturbance. On average, lek sites were surrounded by land that was approximately 33% cultivated, 32% devoted to tame forage production, 19% pasture, and 11% remaining in native cover (shrub, native grass and forest). Because of low sample sizes, and a non‐random selection criterion that largely targeted leks known to be non‐active in 2004, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions concerning lek attendance in relation to surrounding land use. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note the dichotomy in lek activity (active vs. non‐active) between sites dominated by cultivated land and sites surrounded by permanent cover (Figure 3). Sites surrounded by

6 permanent cover (particularly tame hay) were more likely to be active, relative to sites surrounded by cultivated land.

50 Active Non‐Active All leks (%)

40 use

land 30

20 proportional

10 Average 0 Cultivated Tame Hay Pasture Forest Shrub Native All Native Grass

Land Cover Types

Figure 2. Land cover at the 0.64 km2 scale surrounding 48 sharp‐tailed grouse lek sites (eight active) surveyed in 2005.

7 100 Active Non‐Active All leks (%)

use 75 land

50 proportional 25 Average 0 Cultivated Non‐Cultivated

Figure 3. Land use (cultivated or non‐cultivated) surrounding active and inactive leks surveyed in 2005.

4.3 Conclusions and future recommendations

It is evident that landuse has a strong influence on sharptail activity at lek sites. Despite small sample size, it is apparent that increased cultivation translates to increased lek abandonment. Given the high rate of conversion from native grassland to cropland in the past, it is not surprising that sharptail numbers are declining. However, it is encouraging to see relatively high use of tame hayland by sharptails. Although it is difficult to restore native cover on the landscape, it may be possible to suggest landuse practices that provide economic benefit to private landowners, while simultaneously preserving suitable habitat for sharptails (e.g., conversion of cropland around lek sites to tame forage production or a well‐managed grazing regime).

8 5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Achuff, P.L. 1994. Natural subregions, subregions and natural history themes of Alberta: A classification for protected areas management. Prepared for Alberta Environmental Protection, Parks Services, , Alberta. 72 pp.

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 2001. 1996 agricultural profile – Peace Region. www.agric.gov.ab.ca [accessed 31 March 2006].

Alberta Environmental Protection. 1997. The parkland natural region of Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Recreation and Protected Areas Division, Edmonton, Alberta. 111 pp.

Alberta Public Lands. 2004. Green/white zone. Alberta Public Lands, Edmonton, Alberta. http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/land [accessed 31 March 2006].

Alberta Sustainable Resources Development. 2000. The general status of Alberta wild species, 2000. No. I/023, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta. 46 pp.

Baker, A. 2002. Peace parkland native grassland stewardship program 2001/2002. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 49, Edmonton, Alberta. 20 pp.

Baydack, R.P. 1986. Sharp‐tailed grouse response to lek disturbance in the Carberry Hills of Manitoba. Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 83 pp.

Broatch, C. 2002. Sharp‐tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesi) lek surveys: 5 year summary (1995‐1999) Northwest Region. Data report produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 8 pp + App.

9 Evans, K.E. 1968. Characteristics and habitat requirements of the greater prairie chicken and sharp‐tailed grouse – a review of the literature. Conservation Research Report No 12, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colarado, USA. 32 pp.

Environment Canada. 2004. Terrestrial ecozones map, Peace Lowland Ecoregion. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. http://www.ecoinfo.ec.gc.ca/ecozones/ecozones.cfm [accessed 31 March 2006].

Goddard, R.K. 1995. Buck for wildlife proposal outlining two program areas as recommended by the Wildlife Management Advisory Committee. Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Services – Buck for Wildlife, , Alberta. 40 pp.

Grossman, S.R., and R.B. Stavne. 2005. Use and habitat characteristics of sharp‐tailed grouse leks in Northwest Alberta. Technical Report, T‐2004‐004, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 20 pp + App.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1983. The grouse of the world. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 413 pp.

Klott, J.H., and F.G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood habitats of sympatric sage grouse and Columbian sharp‐tailed grouse in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 84‐88.

Manzer, D.L. 2004. Sharp‐tailed grouse breeding success, survival, and site selection in relation to habitat measured at multiple scales. Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 151 pp.

Moyles, D.L.J. 1981. Seasonal and daily use of plant communities by sharp‐tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus) in the parklands of Alberta. Canadian Field‐ Naturalist 95: 287‐291.

10 Pepper, G.W. 1972. The ecology of sharp‐tailed grouse during spring and summer in the aspen parkland of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Report Number 1, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 56 pp.

Statistics Canada. 2001. Census of Agriculture Table 9.1: Farm land area classified by use of land 2001. Prepared by Statistics and Data Development Unit, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta. www1.agric.gov.ab.ca [accessed 31 March 2006].

Strong, W.L., and K.R. Leggat. 1992. Ecoregions of Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Edmonton, Alberta. 55 pp + App.

11 6.0 APPENDIX

Appendix 1. Physical characteristics and attendance of historic sharp‐tailed grouse (sharptails) leks surveyed in 2005.

Legal land description UTM (NAD 83) # Sharptails Lek ID Qtr Sec Twp Rge Mer Easting Northing Male Female Unknown BL03c SE 2 75 13 W6 317023 6150124 0 0 0 BL06c NE 25 72 13 W6 320371 6124540 0 0 0 BL07c NE 22 72 11 W6 334993 6126146 0 0 0 BL09c NW 36 72 11 W6 337555 6129290 0 0 0 CD02c SE 24 86 8 W6 370201 6259662 0 0 0 CD03d SW 15 84 11 W6 335392 6239808 0 0 0 CD04c SE 24 86 8 W6 345360 6268566 0 0 0 CD05c SE 12 85 12 W6 330802 6248090 0 0 0 CD06d SE 23 84 11 W6 348087 6241339 0 0 0 CD07d SW 2 84 11 W6 337317 6236895 0 0 0 CD08d NW 2 84 11 W6 337348 6237700 0 0 0 EG01c NE 13 82 23 W5 472322 6218859 0 0 0 FV04bd NW 32 84 4 W6 400767 6244008 12 0 8 FV05bd SE 32 82 6 W6 382616 6223929 14 0 9 GP01c SW 11 71 8 W6 364358 6110753 0 0 0 GP03c NW 14 74 7 W6 375083 6142823 0 0 0 GP05c NW 6 71 7 W6 368019 6110231 0 0 0 GP06c NW 33 73 2 W6 420840 6136503 0 0 0 GP07c SW 30 74 4 W6 398256 6144258 0 0 0 GS01c NW 1 84 25 W5 449160 6235205 0 0 0 GS02d SE 31 83 22 W5 471965 6231757 0 0 0 GS04bd SW 9 84 22 W5 474017 6235734 11 0 0 GS09c NE 36 83 22 W5 479733 6232920 0 0 0 HL01bc SW 25 109 15 W5 537051 6483148 3 0 4 HL07c NE 29 110 14 W5 540995 6493705 0 0 0 HL08c SE 19 107 14 W5 533691 6462129 0 0 0 HP05d NW 34 72 16 W5 539053 6126673 0 0 0 HP06bd SE 19 72 17 W5 525626 6122131 0 0 4 HP07d SE 1 76 19 W5 512538 6156170 0 0 0 HP11d SW 18 74 17 W5 524663 6140196 0 0 0 HP14bd SW 2 72 16 W5 540749 6117682 0 0 13 MN02c SE 6 89 22 W5 470375 6281654 0 0 0 MN03bc NW 14 92 23 W5 457269 6317703 9 3 0 MN05c NW 24 90 22 W5 476999 6298090 0 0 0 MN09c SW 20 92 23 W5 459289 6316476 0 0 0 MN11bc SE 1 89 23 W5 468347 6282371 8 0 0

12 Appendix 1. Continued.

Legal land description UTM (NAD 83) # Sharptails Lek ID Qtr Sec Twp Rge Mer Easting Northing Male Female Unknown PR03c NE 33 80 19 W5 503195 6204202 0 0 0 PR05c NW 32 80 19 W5 503175 6241782 0 0 0 PR06d NE 7 86 19 W5 500925 6255896 0 0 0 PR07d NE 17 79 20 W5 495014 6189635 0 0 0 PR09d NW 22 85 20 W5 495271 6249062 0 0 0 SV01c NW 16 81 10 W6 343387 6211910 0 0 0 SV02c SE 10 81 10 W6 346504 6208567 0 0 0 SV04c NE 18 82 10 W6 342098 6221679 0 0 0 SV05c SE 2 81 13 W6 318769 6208024 0 0 0 SV06c SW 1 81 13 W6 319208 6208409 0 0 0 SV07c SW 2 81 13 W6 317580 6208477 0 0 0 VV01bd SE 4 77 20 W5 498277 6165350 7 0 3 aBL = Beavelodge, CD = Cleardale, EG = Eaglesham, FV = Fairview, GP = , GS = Grimshaw, HL = High Level, HP = High Prairie, MN = Manning, PR = Peace River, SV = Silver Valley, VV = Valleyview. bActive lek. cHistoric lek revisited from 2004. dHistoric lek not surveyed in 2004.

13 CCONSERVATIONONSERVATION RREPORTEPORT SSERIESERIES

The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of this project