SAGEBRUSH LIZARD PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT Sheri Whitfield, Wildlife Biologist Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex Monitoring Sagebrush Lizard Habitat 2018

Home , Sagebrush lizard

SAGEBRUSH LIZARD PROJECT ANNUAL REPORT Sheri Whitfield, Wildlife Biologist Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex Monitoring Sagebrush Lizard Habitat 2018 – Update

Introduction

The Northern Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus) is a federal species of concern, is listed as a sensitive species in Oregon, and is a candidate for listing in Washington. Habitat exists for this species on Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and Cold Springs NWR in Oregon, and McNary NWR, Umatilla NWR, Toppenish NWR, Columbia NWR, and The Hanford Reach National Monument/Saddle Mountain NWR in Washington. Northern sagebrush lizards are closely associated with shrub-steppe habitat with sandy soils and sparse vegetation in the grass/forb layer. Sagebrush lizards have been documented to occur along an existing road (Columbia Lane) within the Umatilla refuge.

Habitat for this species has been impacted by multiple factors, including invasion of non-native plants, habitat conversion, and habitat fragmentation. The Complex is interested in improving habitat conditions for this species. In addition, we would like to determine what management actions could be taken to improve habitat for the lizard. Because this species is relatively rare, and it had been observed at the Umatilla NWR, sites to initiate habitat management actions were proposed and established at the Umatilla NWR in Oregon.

The sagebrush lizard project is located in the McCormack Unit of NWR. The project area is currently comprised of loamy-sandy soils, antelope bitterbrush and Wyoming big sagebrush with an understory of native grasses and cheatgrass. The project has identified objectives toward conservation of the lizard within the shrub-steppe community by 1) increasing open-ground interspersed within big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), 2) increasing connectivity for sagebrush lizards, and 3) decreasing potential mortality to lizards by creating habitat away from the existing road.

Baseline data was not collected prior to habitat treatment to determine sagebrush lizard population density. Since June 2013, sagebrush lizard habitat has been constructed on the Umatilla refuge to increase open-ground, and increase connectivity for the sagebrush lizard (See previous Annual Monitoring Report 2017).

Construction of 2018 Sagebrush Lizard Habitat

On the 22 & 23 February 2018, new areas of habitat were constructed within the existing sagebrush lizard habitat on the Umatilla NWR (Map 1). These areas were chosen to create potential movement corridors between the previously created habitat areas. The additional habitat was created using a meri crusher to remove (crush) the existing vegetation. Tree limbs were randomly placed in each of the polygons to be used by lizards for sunning.

Map 1. Northern sagebrush lizard habitat at Umatilla NWR.

To control vegetation within the sagebrush lizard habitat, a sterilant mixture (Esplanade, Viewpoint, Glyphosate and MSO adjuvant) was applied on 27 March. This herbicide application conducted using an ATV and a boom sprayer (Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5).

Figure 1. Photograph of sagebrush lizard habitat constructed February 2018.

Figure 2. Photograph of sagebrush lizard habitat constructed February 2018.

Figure 3. Photograph of sagebrush lizard habitat constructed February 2018.

Figure 4. Photograph of sagebrush lizard habitat constructed February 2018.

Figure 5. Photograph of sagebrush lizard habitat constructed February 2018.

Monitoring Objectives

A database was created in March 2018 for use on an iPad using Arc Collector. Previous monitoring sagebrush lizards indicated the lizards favored areas with open bare ground and scattered shrubs for shade and shelter. Monitoring of the sagebrush lizard activity included:

 Determine number of individuals per unit area  Used of the created habitat by sagebrush lizards  Determine adult and juvenile use in the created habitat area

Monitoring Method

A walking visual encounter survey method was used for monitoring. Lizard surveys were conducted weekly during the lizard active season April – September. Expected survey time is approximately 2 hours. Surveys were conducted on warm, sunny days (70-80 degrees Fahrenheit) with light winds (0-7 M.P.H.) when the probability of observing lizards is greatest. Typically, surveys were conducted between the hours of 0700 and 1300. Monitoring was conducted within the entire habitat modification area during each survey. Each of the habitat types (e.g. polygon, cut-in, corridor, and road) surveyed using a visual encounter survey. During the survey, the observer traveled along a line of fixed width of habitat and recorded all lizards visually observed. Start and end times would be recorded for each area being surveyed. All lizards (i.e. adults, juveniles) recorded to estimate species density per area. Female sagebrush lizards develop an orange coloration on the sides of the head and body during the spring breeding season. Surveys conducted in May and June identified a number of adult breeding sagebrush lizards within the lizard habitat (Figure 6, & 7).

Figure 6. Photograph of sagebrush lizard during the breeding season.

Figure 7. Photograph of sagebrush lizard during the breeding season.

In an effort to determine if the habitat modification design is providing useable lizard habitat, surveys would be conducted during the same time each year. Lizards were documented when seen, and their behavior was noted.

Monitoring Results

The interior of each of the polygons contain areas of open space without availability to shrub cover. Within the polygons, lizards tended to use edge areas near concealing vegetation. Shrubs and other vegetation within the perimeter of the polygons seemed to provide cover that lizards used. Observations during visual surveys indicated a relationship of lizard encounters in shrub areas with open ground in contrast to cheatgrass dominated areas.

Table 1. Overall results Northern sagebrush lizard survey. Start End Total time Temp. Temp. Wind Lizards Date Start End Counted Time Time (minutes) Speed (F) (F) 4/19/2018 3 10:14 11:40 75 63 63 1-3 4/26/2018 6 9:07 11:00 116 63 63 Calm 5/3/2018 4 9:32 11:28 117 64 65 1-3 5/7/2018 5 10:00 11:53 92 65 66 1-3 5/16/2018 6 10:15 12:00 111 68 71 4-7 5/30/2018 6 9:42 11:35 116 64 66 4-7 6/7/2018 5 9:32 10:55 74 69 72 13-18 6/14/2018 13 9:43 11:35 115 65 70 8-12 6/19/2018 7 9:20 11:15 117 71 75 1-3 6/27/2018 8 8:55 10:34 68 65 70 4-7 7/3/2018 7 8:52 10:30 107 63 65 calm 7/9/2018 5 8:30 9:50 72 69 75 1-3 7/17/2018 5 8:45 10:42 118 70 76 4-7 7/27/2018 4 7:30 9:15 111 70 75 13-18 8/1/2018 3 9:00 10:50 90 74 82 1-3 8/9/2018 10 8:00 9:48 89 72 82 4-7 8/16/2018 5 8:10 9:57 88 75 78 1-3 8/23/2018 5 8:45 10:30 111 75 82 calm 8/29/2018 10 9:50 11:24 104 69 73 1-3 9/6/2018 15 10:00 11:49 89 70 72 1-3 9/10/2018 5 10:15 12:00 111 70 74 4-7 9/19/2018 5 9:45 11:30 111 63 65 4-7 9/25/2018 6 9:00 10:49 89 64 66 1-3 38 hours TOTAL 148 and 18 minutes

In order to better document what habitat the sagebrush lizard preferred, the habitat was categorized by type (i.e. polygon, cut-in, corridor) (Map 2).

Map 2. The map displays Northern sagebrush lizard habitat types.

Map 3. The map displays Northern sagebrush lizard habitat areas.

Map 4. The map displays Northern sagebrush lizard habitat areas.

Graph 1. Northern sagebrush lizards observed by date. Northern Sagebrush Lizards Observed by Date 16 15 14 13 12 10 10 10 8 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2

5/3/2018 6/7/2018 7/5/2018 8/2/2018 8/9/2018 9/6/2018

6/21/2018 8/23/2018 4/26/2018 5/10/2018 5/17/2018 5/24/2018 5/31/2018 6/14/2018 6/28/2018 7/12/2018 7/19/2018 7/26/2018 8/16/2018 8/30/2018 9/13/2018 9/20/2018 4/19/2018

Graph 2. Total of Northern sagebrush lizards observed by habitat type during 2018. Northern Sagebrush Lizards Observed by Habitat Type 80 72 70 58 60

20 13 10 5

0 Polygon Cut-In Corridor Road

The interior of each polygon contains areas of open space without nearby shrub cover. These areas tended to be used less frequently, with lizards tending to use edge areas near concealing vegetation. Shrubs and other vegetation within the perimeter of the polygons seemed to provide cover that lizards used. Lizard observations occurred along the perimeter of each polygon close to existing large vegetation (sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush and Russian thistle) (Figure 8). Although the polygons had the highest number of observations of lizards for the season, when the density of lizards per acre is taken into account, the cut-ins provide for a greater number of lizards per area of habitat (see graph 5).

Figure 8. Sagebrush lizard seeks cover under shrub in constructed habitat.

Observations during visual surveys indicated a positive association of lizard encounters with shrubs (sagebrush and bitterbrush) surrounded by open ground in contrast to cheatgrass dominated areas.

Graph 3. Northern sagebrush lizards observed by habitat area. Northern Sagebrush Lizards Detected by Habitat Area 60 53

19 20 13 11 11 9 10 7 7 6 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 RD

C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9

CI-1 CI-2 CI-3 CI-4 CI-5 C-10 Sagebrush lizards seemed to prefer temperatures between 65 and 79 F. No lizards observed on days where temperatures at the end of the survey were under 63 F or over 85 F. Further data would need to be collected to determine how temperature affects sagebrush lizard activity, or observability.

Graph 4. Northern sagebrush lizards observed by date and end of survey temperatures. Northern Sagebrush Lizards Observed by Date and End (of survey) 16 Temperature 90 82 82 82 14 78 80 74 75 75 76 75 74 71 73 72 12 70 70 70 65 66 66 64 65 63 60 10 50 8 40 6 30 4 20 2 10

0 0

8/2/18 8/9/18 5/3/18 6/7/18 7/5/18 9/6/18

4/19/18 4/26/18 5/10/18 5/17/18 5/24/18 5/31/18 6/14/18 6/21/18 6/28/18 7/12/18 7/19/18 7/26/18 8/16/18 8/23/18 8/30/18 9/13/18 Lizards Observed

Graph 5. Number of lizards per acre in each habitat type (polygon, cut-in, corridor). The road was not included in this graph. Density Number of Lizards Per Acre 350

300

250

200

150 284 294

100 188 161 160 50 107 77 29.5 43 43 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 0 0 6.5 0 0 0 0 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 CI-1 CI-2 CI-3 CI-4 CI-5 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10

Evidence of sagebrush lizards breeding occurred during the 2018 monitoring field season. Observations of juvenile lizards documented during the month of August and September. Detections of juvenile sagebrush lizards occurred 23 times within polygon 6, corridor 6 and each of the cut-ins. Photographs taken of adult and juvenile sagebrush lizards (Figures 9 & 10).

Figure 9. Adult and juvenile sagebrush lizard taken September 6, 2018.

Figure 10. Photograph of juvenile sagebrush lizard taken September 6, 2018.

The majority of sagebrush lizards observed were near or underneath an existing shrub. At this time, the majority of the polygons only contain shrub cover along their perimeters, where most lizards observed. Presumably, lizards use these areas due to the cover and shelter provided by these vegetative features. Therefore, seedling shrubs were planted within the polygons (see below). It is anticipated that as the shrub plantings mature, lizards will use habitat within the central areas of the polygons.

The polygons that were created during 2013 (1, 2, 6, 7) had use by lizards, but surprisingly so did the newly created (2018) corridor 6. Cut-In five is now connected by a corridor to polygon 7, and lizards may have expanded into polygon seven from cut-in five. The remaining cut-ins (1, 2, 3, and 4) created in 2015 also had use during the 2018 season. All habitat created in 2018, other than corridor six, did not have any detections of lizards.

The habitat created through this management does seem to be attractive to sagebrush lizards, although we do not have baseline information on how many lizards were present prior to the habitat manipulation. During the 2018 survey, no lizards have been observed in untreated areas between the polygons and cut-ins.

Monitoring sagebrush lizards has shown the lizards favored areas with open bare ground and scattered shrubs for shade and shelter. The Cut-ins that are narrow and have proximity to edge habitat where there are shrubs had the highest use by density of lizards per acre. The availability of sandy, bare ground and large shrubs is ecologically important to sagebrush lizards because of their foraging tactics. Sagebrush lizards characterized as "sit- and-wait" predators (Rose, 1976a). They wait under a shrub that provides cover from both the sun and aerial predators, and dash into open ground to capture passing ants or beetles, the major prey for this species (Rose, 1976b; Guyer and Linder, 1985).

Detections of lizards seemed to be highest in the August and September after the emergence of juvenile sagebrush lizards.

Shrub Planting

Shrubs provide thermal cover for lizards and may be favorable for harvester ants, beetles, or other insect prey in the area. Harvester ants are an important food component for sagebrush lizards (J. Howland, pers. comm., 2017). Shrubs serve as important refugia and thermoregulatory sites for reptiles by providing shelter and shade, especially in exposed habitats (Burrow et al., 2001; Kerr and Bull, 2004), but extremely high densities of shrubs can limit sun exposure and basking sites. At this site, sagebrush lizards prefer microhabitat areas with sandy soil and little ground cover. Scattered shrubs in these areas provide shade and shelter and typically can be less than a meter in size (Jacobson, 2016). For lizards, the patchwork of shrubs and bare ground interspaces creates microenvironments that facilitate activities such as foraging and thermoregulation, while allowing lizards to avoid midday temperatures (Heath, 1965) and seek refuge from predators.

During a survey on June 19, observations of a number of shrubs, that had previously been planted within the polygons, showed obvious sign of herbicide exposure and had died. (Figure 11, & 12).

Figure 11. Shrub damaged by herbicide application.

Figure 12. Shrub damaged by herbicide application.

Management Recommendations 2019

It is hoped that management actions in the future can be modified based upon monitoring results to provide the greatest benefit for sagebrush lizards. We assume that sagebrush lizard density will be highest within the habitat that they prefer, which currently are the cut-ins. It is interesting to note that our created habitat has reduced the number of lizards using the roadway, and attracted them to the open areas. This has the benefit of protecting the lizards from the hazard of being run over by vehicles on the roadway. Our data confirm that lizards currently have the highest density within the cut-in habitats, but this maybe confounded by their proximity to the road. However, observations tend to support that lizards prefer the narrower cut-ins and the movement corridors when compared to the large created polygons. The interior parts of the polygons maybe too far from cover (thermal or hiding) to allow lizards to use all of the area that is available within the polygons. Additional shrub planting or other cover for thermal refugia and protection from predators may allow lizards to use more area within the polygon habitats. We also noted that many of the created habitats are further away from the roadway, where the lizards were initially observed prior to habitat manipulation. It maybe that the lizards require more time to travel into, or occupy the created habitats that are further distance from the roadway. Further analysis that would examine distance from the road, combined with the amount of time that has passed since each area was created, could further inform the habitat use and preference of lizards within these created habitat areas. This analysis is not attempted here but is recommended for future monitoring years. Our observations should help guide us toward management actions that are effective at providing preferred conditions for conservation of this rare species.

Our initial objectives toward conservation of the lizard within the shrub-steppe community by 1) increasing open-ground interspersed within big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), 2) increasing connectivity for sagebrush lizards, and 3) decreasing potential mortality to lizards by creating habitat away from the existing road have been addressed through this management action. The habitat creation resulted in more open – ground for sagebrush lizards (a total of 4.5 acres), lizards are using the created habitats and the corridors between the habitat areas, and fewer lizards were observed along the roadway.

During 2018, an administrative re-organization of the Mid-Columbia NWR Complex into two refuge complexes (Central Washington NWR Complex and Mid-Columbia NWR Complex) has led to some responsibilities being shifted among staff. In future seasons (2019 and beyond) responsibility for monitoring and management of sagebrush lizard habitat areas and monitoring for lizard use will be transferred to staff assigned to the Mid-Columbia NWR Complex, that includes Umatilla NWR.

 Conduct surveys within Umatilla NWR to determine other areas that may be occupied by sagebrush lizards.  Monitor to determine lizard density within polygons, cut-ins, and corridors so that comparison between these habitat types can be determined.  Conduct further analysis that would examine distance from the road, combined with the amount of time that has passed since each area was created, to further inform the habitat use and preference of lizards within these created habitat areas.  Enhance and maintain existing sagebrush lizard habitat. In particular, include habitat structure through shrub plantings or other habitat modifications to the polygon interiors to make them more suitable for lizard use.

References

Burrow, A. L., Kazmaier, R. T. Hellgren, E. C. and Ruthven. D. C. 2001. Microhabitat selection by Texas horned lizards in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:645–652.

Guyer. C, Linder AD. 1985. Thermal ecology and activity patterns of the short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi) and the sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) in southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 45:607-614.

Heath, J. E. 1965. Temperature regulation and diurnal activity in horned lizards. University of California Publications in Zoology 64:97-136.

Jacobson, C. A. 2016. Thermal Ecology of the Dune Sagebrush Lizard, Sceloporus arenicolus. Undergraduate Research Scholars program Texas A&M University.

Kerr, G. D., and C. M. Bull. 2004. Microhabitat use by the skink lizard Tiliqua rugosa: exploiting natural temperature gradients beneath plant canopies. Journal of Herpetology 38:536– 545.

Rose BR. 1976a. Habitat and prey selection of Sceloporus occidentalis and S. gracious. Ecology 57:531-541.

Rose BR. 1976b. Dietary overlap of Sceloporus occidentalis and S. gracious. Copeia 1976:818- 820.

Sagebrush Lizard Project Annual Report 2017. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex.