IWJV 2013 Implementation Plan Chapter 7: Landbirds by My Digital Nature

Cha pte r Seve n

Landbirds

Pr incipa l Autho r: Da nie l Ca sey

Photo by Daniel Casey

Inside this Chapter Introduction........................................................................................................................... 7.3

Landbirds

Definition of Biological Planning Units.. ................................................................................ 7.4 Species Prioritization............................................................................................................ 7.5 •

PIF Species Assessment Database and Continental Plan................................................... 7.5

•

PIF State Plans................................................................................................................. 7.5

•

Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Management Concern (BMC).. ........................................ 7.6

•

State Wildlife Action Plans................................................................................................ 7.6

Habitat Prioritization & Characterization............................................................................ 7.10 •

IWJV Terrestrial Habitat Overview (Landscape Characterization).. ..................................... 7.10

•

Habitat Classification Scheme: Crosswalk of Vegetative Associations.............................. 7.11

•

Decision Support Tool: The HABPOPS Database.. ............................................................ 7.12

Bird Population (Step-down) Objectives............................................................................. 7.13 •

Step-down Objectives by BCR/State Polygons ............................................................... 7.13

Habitat-based (Bottom-up) Objective Setting & Targeting Landscapes.............................. 7.25 •

Sagebrush Objectives..................................................................................................... 7.25

•

Grassland Objectives...................................................................................................... 7.36

Priority Actions . ................................................................................................................. 7.43 •

Recommended Approaches for Conservation, by BCR/State............................................ 7.43

Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 7.54 Appendix A. Landbird Science Team Members................................................................... 7.55 Appendix B. Landbird Species of Continental Importance in the Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome . ................................................................................................................ 7.56 Appendix C. Total Acreage by IWJV Habitat Type by State and BCR.. ................................. 7.57 Appendix D. Crosswalk of Vegetative Associations by IWJV Cover Types......................................................................................................................... 7.64 Appendix E. Overlaps Between Mapped Ranges of IWJV Focal Species and BCR/State Polygons............................................................................................................ 7.74 Appendix F. Population Trends of Focal Landbird Species, IWJV States, 1967–2007.......... 7.76 Appendix G. Priority Actions for Additional Habitats and Focal Species in BCRs 9, 10 and 16.. .......................................................................................................... 7.77 Appendix H. BBS Trend Maps for IWJV Focal Landbird Species......................................... 7.83

7.2

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

INTRODUCTION Landbirds as defined in this document include 285 species, the greatest proportion of the breeding avifauna of the Intermountain West. Landbirds are those birds that occupy primarily upland habitats to meet their needs throughout their life cycle. They include hawks, owls, hummingbirds, woodpeckers, flycatchers, warblers, sparrows and other groups defined in the North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). Many landbird species have shown dramatic population declines in the West, primarily in response to habitat changes resulting from altered land use and the alteration of natural ecological processes. Rich et al. (2004) placed 44 of these species on the Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List, hightlighting their particular vulnerability in the near future. The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) is the largest Joint Venture in the Continental U.S., and is comprised primarily of three of the largest Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs 9,10 and 16) south of the Boreal Forest of Canada. The Joint Venture also includes small portions of 8 other BCRs (Fig. 1). BCRs 9,10 and 16 comprise the Intermountain Avifaunal Biome addressed in the PIF Continental Plan. The area is characterized by large expanses of land in public ownership and highly diverse habitats, from deserts to alpine tundra, that vary along both elevational and climatic gradients. Many landbird Species of Continental Importance (Rich et al. 2004) have their centers of abundance here, and of those, more than half have 75% or more of their global population in this biome (Appendix A). Landbird conservation issues in the IWJV are as diverse as its landscape and vary in scale from local land use decisions to perturbations in ecological processes at landscape scales. Not all can be addressed by the IWJV and its partners. This simple fact requires us to be strategic in our selection of the species, habitats, and areas where JV resources can be most effectively brought to bear on species and habitats in need.

7.3

32 15

15 0

35 34

Figure 1 B ird Conservation Regions overlapping the Intermountain West Joint Venture.

This chapter of the IWJV Implementation Plan is meant to facilitate strategic conservation of priority birds and their habitats by JV partners throughout the IWJV landscape. It is our intent to support and strengthen, rather than supplant, those objectives and conservation strategies identified in the PIF Continental Plan, the 11 state PIF Conservation Plans, and the State Wildlife Action Plans of the 11 states. We do this by identifying focal species for conservation, and developing linked population and habitat objectives at appropriate geographic scales.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

DEFINITION OF BIOLOGICAL PLANNING UNITS

Photo by USF WS

Figure 2 B CR-state polygons used as the spatial units for landbird planning by the Intermountain West Joint Venture. These are defined by the intersection of Bird Conservation Regions, State boundaries, and the Joint Venture boundary as refined in 2010.

7.4

Supporting data for the PIF continental plan (Rich et al. 2004) included population estimates for each segment of each landbird species distribution. The basic unit of this database was a portion of a BCR within a state (Fig. 2). There are 38 of these units covering the IWJV, which has adopted these polygons as a basic geographic unit for planning. They offer several advantages: 1) they provide direct links to the PIF planning process and priority database; 2) they allow for the development of objectives at a manageable scale, within a Joint Venture that covers nearly half a billion acres; and 3) they allow for â&#x20AC;&#x153;rolling upâ&#x20AC;? population estimates, objectives, and accomplishments to either the BCR or state level. In some cases (e.g., BCR 10 in Washington) more than one polygon exists within a state that constitute part of the same BCR.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

SPECIES PRIORITIZATION Hundreds of landbird species breed, migrate through, or winter in the IWJV area. The PIF Science Committee and Regional Working Groups are currently analyzing the year-round habitat needs, limiting factors, and conservation bottlenecks for selected species, particularly in light of the recent PIF Tri-National Vision (Berlanga et al. 2010). Here we have focused on a subset of those species that breed in the IWJV, on the assumption that we must “keep the table set”, at a minimum, for those species identified as conservation priorities. We acknowledge that the actions of the joint venture will by necessity evolve over time as regional limiting factors are more clearly defined,. We considered a list of 55 species as potential focal species for terrestrial habitat conservation design in the IWJV (Table 2), and selected a set of 21 focal species for analysis and the setting of population and habitat objectives. This list of species was selected through review by the IWJV Landbird Science Team (a subset of the Western Working Group of PIF). All species considered were on one or more of the following lists:

PIF Species Assessment Database and Continental Plan The PIF Continental Plan (Rich et al. 2004:52) listed 33 Species of Continental Importance in the Intermountain West Biome. These included 23 “Watch List” species and 10 “Stewardship Species” (Appendix A). A few of these, like the McCown’s Longspur, are peripheral to the IWJV area. Also included are a few species either listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered (e.g. California Condor, Spotted Owl), and covered by Recovery Plans. Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse are both included in the PIF list, but were not considered directly by this round of planning by the Landbird Science Team, in part because of the significant amount of planning and management that has already been implemented by state agencies and their partners. But their conservation is one of the major considerations driving land-use planning and management in the West. We anticipate that coordination of objectives for other sagebrush obligate species with conservation actions undertaken for grouse will be an important part of implementation for the IWJV during the next decade and beyond. We do present broad objectives for these species in that context herein. Similarly, we assumed that some species needs might be met by conservation actions taken for our focal species, or were a lower planning priority at this time: Calliope Hummingbird, Williamson’s Sapsucker, Dusky Flycatcher, Mountain Bluebird, Green-tailed Towhee and Cassin’s Finch. Lastly, a few of the Species of Continental Concern in the Intermountain region are such 7.5

localized habitat specialists (White-throated Swift, Black Swift, Black Rosy-Finch, and Brown-capped Rosy-Finch) that the Landbird Science Team did not feel that realistic population-driven, habitat objectives could be developed to inform the typical partnership-driven conservation actions undertaken by the IWJV. The latter three species are among those most likely to be affected by climate change, however, and have significant monitoring needs (which are being addressed in part as priorities in the current 5-year Action Plan of the PIF Western Working Group (Neel and Sallabanks 2009).

The primary Continental PIF categories are defined as follows: • Watch List (W). These species had the highest combined scores in the PIF Species Assessment Database (Carter et al. 2000), or had shown population declines of >50% over 30 years. • Stewardship (S). These are species that have a proportionately high percentage of their world population in a single Avifaunal Biome (in addition to those already designated as Watch List). • Immediate Action (I): Immediate action is needed to reverse or stabilize significant and long-term declines of species with small populations, or to protect species with the smallest populations for which trends are poorly known; • Management (M): Management or other on-the-ground conservation actions are needed to reverse significant, long-term declines or sustain vulnerable populations; or • Long-term Planning and Responsibility (P): Long-term planning is needed to maintain sustainable populations.

PIF State Plans State PIF working groups completed their first state-bystate conservation plans for landbirds roughly during the period 1998-2001, and several of these have since been updated. All are available on the PIF website (http:// www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/pifplans.htm). These were developed from the same PIF database as the Continental Plan, and as such generally highlight the same priority species. Considerable time was spent by the PIF Western Working Group to coordinate elements of those plans, most notably a general nomenclature for landcover types that was used to crosswalk ecological systems from the state GAP products in a way that would allow regional coordination. That generalized habitat scheme was adopted during the prior Implementation Planning process of the IWJV, and is used again here.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

SPECIES PRIORITIZATION Although PIF state plans were rather inconsistently incorporated into State Wildlife Action Plans, the latter still focus primarily on those habitats (and conditions) that have consistently been identified as bird conservation targets. Our development of this chapter of the IWJV Implementation Plan, while not drawn specifically from western state PIF plans, is a direct descendant of those plans, the collective knowledge of the Western Working Group partners that authored them, and the continued collaboration that is driving landbird conservation in the IWJV area. The basic biology, rationale for concerns, habitat associations, and best management practices for focal species are described in the state plans, and are not reiterated here.

Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Management Concern (BMC) The BMC is a subset of all species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which pose special management challenges due to a variety of factors (e.g., too few, too many, conflicts with human interests, or societal demands) (USFWS 2004). The BMC includes both game birds below their desired condition and nongame birds. As indicated in its strategic plan (USFWS 2004), the Migratory Bird Program places priority emphasis on these birds in its activities. The BMC list for USFWS Region 6 includes 96 species that occur regularly in the region.

State Wildlife Action Plans Each of the eleven State Wildlife Action Plans identified avian Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) at ecoregional scales within the states. Although the number and diversity of SGCN varied greatly among states, many of our focal species were listed by multiple states, and this was one criteria considered by the Landbird Science Team when selecting species for our Habitats and Populations Strategies (HABPOPS) model.

Table 1 S pecies considered as potential focal species for habitat conservation implementation by the IWJV. The 55 species were listed as conservation priorities by Partners In Flight, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Wildlife Action Plans, or occur on the joint Watch List of American Bird Conservancy and National Audubon Society. See text for codes. SPECIES

PIF

BMC

Baird’s Sparrow

SWAP # 2

WATCH LIST

PRIMARY HABITAT

JUSTIFICATION

High

Grassland

Limited distribution, sensitive to range condition Mast crop dependent

Band-tailed Pigeon

Forest

Bell’s Vireo

Riparian

Desert

Mixed

Tundra

Limited range, and sensitive to climate change

Riparian

Habitat specialist, sensitive to climate change

Grassland

Preference for wet meadows/hay

Sagebrush

Sage obligate

Tundra

Limited range, and sensitive to climate change

Grassland

Prairie dog community, nearobligate

Bendire's Thrasher

Black-chinned Sparrow Black Rosy-Finch

Black Swift

Bobolink

Brewer’s Sparrow

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Burrowing Owl

Calliope Hummingbird

Cassin’s Finch

Decl

California Condor

7.6

Significant declines

Mixed Decl 2

Mixed

Declining species

Forest

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

SPECIES PRIORITIZATION Table 1 (Continued) Species considered as potential focal species for habitat conservation implementation by the IWJV. The 55 species were listed as conservation priorities by Partners In Flight, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Wildlife Action Plans, or occur on the joint Watch List of American Bird Conservancy and National Audubon Society. See text for codes.

SPECIES

PIF

BMC

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Clark’s Nutcracker

WATCH LIST

PRIMARY HABITAT

JUSTIFICATION

Decl

Grassland

Significant declines; dependent on native grassland

Crissal Thrasher Dusky Flycatcher

SWAP #

Forest X

Desert

Mixed

Forest

Grassland

Widely recognized as priority by partners (e.g., SWAP)

Forest

Snag nester in dry forests where fire ecology is disrupted.

Forest

Dependent on ponderosa pine in the southwest

Grassland

Requires taller grasses

Juniper/Sage

Also in ponderosa pine in parts of its range

Juniper

Limited range, affected by tree removal in sage

Dusky Grouse Ferruginous Hawk Flammulated Owl

Grace’s Warbler

Grasshopper Sparrow

Rare

Gray Flycatcher

Gray Vireo

Green-tailed Towhee

Greater Sage-Grouse

Decl

Sagebrush

Declining range wide; habitat losses, conflicts with energy

Gunnison Sage-Grouse

High

Sagebrush

Candidate Species

Rare

Sagebrush

Hammond’s Flycatcher

Forest X

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-billed Curlew

Le Conte's Thrasher Lewis’s Woodpecker

Desert High

Decl

MacGillivray's Warbler WP

Mountain Bluebird

7.7

Population declines, snag dependent

Sagebrush

Unique ecology (carnivore), depends on high shrubs

Grassland

Highly imperiled, area sensitive

Mixed

McCown's Longspur

Mountain Plover

Riparian

Grassland

Shortgrass; peripheral to IWJV

Mixed 4

High

Grassland

High level of habitat specificity

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

SPECIES

PIF

BMC

Mountain Quail Northern Goshawk

SWAP #

WATCH LIST

PRIMARY HABITAT

JUSTIFICATION

Mixed

Forest

Mature forest required for nesting

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Decl

Forest

Requires particular seral habitats

Pinyon Jay

Rare

Juniper

Rare, declining, dependent on mature pinyon/juniper.

Plumbeous Vireo

Forest

Red-naped Sapsucker

Forest

Aspen habitat declining

Rufous Hummingbird

Riparian

Riparian willow communities

Sage Sparrow

Sagebrush

Requires robust sage with good understory condition

Sage Thrasher

Sagebrush

Requires robust sage with good understory condition

Grassland

Dense grasses needed (e.g. CRP associate); declining

Forest

Listed Species, peripheral to IWJV

Grassland

Past declines, raptor guild.

Mixed

Mountain shrub communities: development risks

Forest

Requires open, mature ponderosa pine

Short-eared Owl

Decl

4 X

Decl

Spotted Owl

Swainson’s Hawk

Virginia’s Warbler

White-headed Woodpecker

White-throated Swift

Williamson’s Sapsucker

Decl

Forest

Declining and snag dependent

Willow Flycatcher

Decl

Riparian

Needs high quality riparian shrub layer; declining

Riparian

Riparian obligate sensitive to habitat condition; declines

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Rare

Cliff/Canyon

In considering potential species for setting regional habitat-based population objectives, we screened these lists for those species meeting the following criteria: • Focal or keystone species indicative of specific habitat conditions needed by a suite of species; • Identified nearly universally as a conservation priority; • Representative of habitat conditions that are in a threatened or declining status; 7.8

• Representative of conservation issues identified in multiple State Wildlife Action Plans for priority habitats; The final list of focal species selected by the Landbird Science Team (Table 2) forms the basis of our process to tie habitat objectives to population objectives through a “bottom-up” process. They generally represent those habitat associations or conditions that are limited in extent, declining, or are particularly vulnerable to continued perturbations in ecological processes (e.g. fire,

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

SPECIES PRIORITIZATION succession/encroachment, and invasives). In some cases (e.g. sagebrush and ponderosa pine dependent species) the IWJV also encompasses the majority of the species continental ranges. We included the Long-billed Curlew in the landbird chapter (in consultation with the Shorebird

Science Team) because it is an upland breeder highly dependent on grassland and agricultural landscapes, making it more suitable to our HABPOPS modeling process than the planning process used by the Shorebird Science Team.

Table 2 S pecies selected for inclusion in HABPOPS modeling and planning in the IWJV. PIF Watch List (W) and Stewardship (S) species and USFWS Birds of Management Concern (BMC) are noted, as well as the number of IWJV states (N=11) listing each as a “Species in Greatest Need of Conservation”. SPECIES

PIF

Band-tailed Pigeon

BMC

# SWAP

HABITAT

Pine-Oak

Bendire's Thrasher

Desert Scrub

Brewer's Sparrow

Sagebrush (near obligate)

Grassland (large blocks)

Mature Dry Forest (heterogeneous, snags)

Ferruginous Hawk Flammulated Owl

Grace's Warbler

Grasshopper Sparrow

Southern Ponderosa Pine Forest X

Grassland/Agricultural (tall bunchgrass)

Gray Flycatcher

Gray Vireo

Pinyon Juniper

Lewis's Woodpecker

Wooded Riparian/Dry Forest/Burns (snags)

Grassland; “Highly imperiled”

Long-billed Curlew

Ponderosa/Pinyon Juniper/Sage

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Spruce-Fir Forest/Recent Burns (seral)

Pinyon Jay

Pinyon/Juniper (Mature)

Red-naped Sapsucker

Aspen (multi-aged stands)

Rufous Hummingbird

Riparian Shrubland

Sage Sparrow

Sagebrush (mature)

Sage Thrasher

Sagebrush (robust, with diverse understory)

Swainson's Hawk

Grassland/Riparian

Virginia's Warbler

Montane Shrubland

White-headed Woodpecker

Mature Dry Forest (open, large snags)

Willow Flycatcher

Riparian Shrubland (in good condition)

7.9

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT PRIORITIZATION & CHARACTERIZATION In order to move forward with setting strategic, ecoregional habitat objectives tied to population response objectives, we needed to identify and prioritize habitats in light of the habitat associations of our selected focal species. In order to be most meaningful, such objectives must be drawn from reasonably accurate spatial data, be expressed in easily understood terms, be directly linked to bird populations, and have direct ties to measurable variables describing habitat condition. Furthermore, these variables should define poor, fair, and good habitat for selected focal species or suites of species. Such is the essence of the HABPOPS decision support tool built for landbird conservation planning and assessment in the IWJV. Habitats selected for this process met the following criteria: • Importance to a variety of priority bird species; • Presence of one or more “focal” species, identified in multiple plans, and for which population objectives can be tied directly to habitat objectives; • Widespread in distribution and well-mapped, or at least mapped consistently throughout their distribution; • With identifiable threats and well-known trends in condition (i.e. condition can be categorized as poor/fair/ good, as defined by specific variables); • Inclusion in specific initiatives, mandates, partnerships or other opportunities for conservation. The 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan “rolled up” the planning processes of 11 state steering committees, each of which had identified 7-13 moderate to high priority habitats. These were selected based on: • Statewide importance to priority bird species; • The relative degree of threat (anticipated loss or degradation); and • Opportunities for conservation, including the feasibility of protection, restoration, or enhancement. The IWJV identified seven habitats of primary concern (Table 3). Because of the level of engagement and continued investment in the conservation of these habitats by partners in the 11 state steering committees, now referred to as State Conservation Partnerships, these remain our highest priority habitat categories joint-venture wide, although Aquatic/Wetland types are not treated in this chapter. Agricultural habitats, which will play a large role in providing opportunities for habitat restoration or enhancement on private lands, are also not treated separately in this chapter. Their acreages are included in several species models, primarily those for grasslanddependent focal species. 7.10

Table 3 P riority habitats from the IWJV 2005 Implementation Plans. Those states where IWJV Steering Committees listed each type as high priority are noted. HABITAT

IWJV PRIORITY

IWJV STATES (N=11)

Grassland

AZ,CA,MT,NM,OR,WA,WY

Sagebrush Steppe

All except AZ

Aquatic/Wetland

All 11 States

Riparian

All except NV

Aspen

All except NM

Dry (Ponderosa Pine) Forest

CO,ID,MT,OR,WA,WY

Agricultural

OR (9 others listed it as priority B)

IWJV Terrestrial Habitat Overview (Landscape Characterization) The original state PIF plans completed during 1999-2003 and the 11 state Implementation Plans completed by IWJV State Steering Committees adopted a standardized nomenclature for broad scale habitat (cover) types. This facilitated ecoregional objective setting and inter- and intraregional cooperation between partners. The list of twenty generalized types we adopted are more specific than the National Land Cover Data Set used by some joint ventures for regional modeling, and with peerreviewed crosswalk, allowed us to utilize regional GAP (ReGAP) layers as our base layers for planning. With the completion of the SW ReGAP dataset (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah) in 2004 (Prior-Magee et al. 2007), and the NW (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming) ReGAP in 2009 (http://gap.uidaho.edu/index. php/gap-home/Northwest-GAP), we had “wall-to wall” updated imagery to inform our efforts. Except where it was overlain by the more recent NW ReGAP imagery,we used the 2002 California Wildlife Habitat Relationships dataset (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr/whrintro. html) for the California portion of the joint venture,. A list of our generalized habitat types and their distribution throughout the IWJV is presented in Fig. 3. Total acreages of each (by state and BCR) are presented in Appendix B.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT PRIORITIZATION & CHARACTERIZATION Habitat Classification Scheme: Crosswalk of Vegetative Associations In order to maintain the level of specificity characteristic of the spatial habitat data available, we maintained classifications at the Vegetative Association level in our GIS analysis and in the construction of the HABPOPS database. This facilitated linking specific density values for focal species to each of the habitat associations included in the individual species models. We ended up with a final list of 361 unique habitat associations from the three large habitat layers we used for our analysis

(Appendix D). Each was given a unique code in the HABPOPS database, and each was assigned (crosswalked) to one of our 20 generalized cover types. As in any habitat classification system, assigning such a broad selection of vegetative associations to discrete cover type classes involved some subjectivity. Where we felt that a given association did not contribute value as breeding habitat to one or more of our focal species, or did not easily fit one of our primary cover types, it was lumped into an Other Habitats category.

Figure 3

eneralized habitat G scheme used for conservation planning in the Intermountain West Joint Venture. Habitat categories were developed from reclassified vegetation associations mapped in regional landcover datasets (SWReGAP, NWReGAP, California WHR).

Agriculture Grassland Mountain Shrubland Other Shrubland Greasewood/Saltbush Sagebrush Steppe Other Forest Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest Pine-Oak Woodlands Juniper/Pine Woodlands Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer Spruce-Fir Aspen Open Water Wet Meadow/Marsh Other Wetland Riparian Woodland Riparian Herbaceous Riparian Shrubland Other/Unvegetated

7.11

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT PRIORITIZATION & CHARACTERIZATION Our datasets include 154 association codes found only in the NW ReGAP layer; 47 found in both the NW and SW ReGAP layers; 77 in the SW ReGAP layer only; 62 found only in the California layer; and 21 additional types we derived through our analysis of recently burned habitats and roads in BCR 9 and 10. The latter analysis has not yet been completed for the remainder of the IWJV.

Decision Support Tool: The HABPOPS Database The IWJV HABPOPS database is a Microsoft Access database based on the successful Heirarchical AllBird Strategy (HABS) database of the Playa Lakes JV. It combines estimates of current habitat extent and condition with the best available data describing focal species occupancy rates and density to derive population estimates at the BCR/State polygon scale. It can be used as a strategic tool for the development of habitat projects and programs, by predicting the change in breeding populations that will result from changes in the extent and condition of one or more habitats in a specified geographic area. It also allows us to develop “bottomup” habitat objectives by providing a tool to examine the overall potential to change carrying capacity on the landscape and to test various scenarios to see how (or if) we can meet trend-based goals. The basic building blocks of the HABPOPS database are: • Acreage. The acreage of each habitat (vegetative association) within each BCR-State polygon. These were calculated from analysis of NW ReGAP, SWReGAP and California WHR layers, with the latter reclassified to 30-m pixels for consistency with the other layers. • Condition Classes. The percentage of each habitat in defined condition classes (e.g. poor/fair/good as defined variably by canopy coverage, structure, or vegetative composition; young/mature/old growth). Our assumptions of the percentages of any given vegetative association in each condition class came from the summaries in PIF and previous IWJV state plans, or from the literature. Little is available in the way of regional spatial datasets that specify habitat condition at the association level. For the interior Columbia Basin, we extrapolated from “Range Integrity Ratings” in the support documents for the muti-agency planning documents for the region (Quigley et al. 1996).

7.12

• Predicted Occurrence. The amount of potential habitat for each focal species in each BCR-State polygon, based on predictive models combining deductive habitat associations with the mapped known range of the species. We used shapefiles of the mapped ranges (from Nature Serve) of each focal species to clip raster files of the habitats assigned as suitable for each species. Species-habitat relationships were provided by PIF state plans, review by the Landbird Science Team, and ReGAP vertebrate modeling. • Occupancy, Density. Occupancy rates and breeding density values for each condition class of each predicted habitat type for each focal species, locally-derived when available, or the best available information, were used for population estimation. Where voluminous density values that included 0 values were available, we used a default value of 1.0 for occupancy. For most others, where density values were limited and until better occupancy rates are available, we used a default of 0.8 (i.e. 80% occupancy for selected types). All assumptions used in assigning occupancy and density values in the database were tracked and summarized for inclusion in the companion HABPOPS report (see below). • Carrying Capacity. Carrying capacity for any given region or habitat was calculated by multiplying the area of habitat assumed to be suitable for the species times the occupancy rate, times the appropriate density value. The HABPOPS database is being continually expanded for additional focal species across the entire IWJV landscape. This chapter focuses primarily on BCRs 9, 10 and 16, and grassland- and sagebrush-dependent species for which the database is most complete. We envision that there will be regular updates to this document as the database becomes fully operational for the entire list of focal species and all BCR polygons in the JV. A separate document outlining the particulars of the construction, data assumptions, and use of the HABPOPS database will be available to IWJV in 2013. We will continually update the source data, through peer and literature review. We envision an interactive web interface for the database that will allow IWJV partners to test project, and program scenarios, assess the potential population effects of proposals, and improve and refine IWJV objectives over the next 5 years and beyond.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES The PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004) established trend-based objectives for all North American Landbirds. Using an approach based on the successful model of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, objectives were based on population changes over the history of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), which in the West at the time of that plan’s preparation was 1967 through 2003. The basic premise is that we would try, over a 30-year period, to reverse delines and restore populations to 1967 levels. The Plan established 4 categories of objectives: • for those species that increased significantly, maintain populations; • for those where data are inconclusive, maintain or increase populations; • for those that have declined by 15-50% (-0.4 to -1.75% annually), increase current populations by 50%; and • for those species that have declined by 50% or more, double populations. Note that these objectives are independent of the actual population size estimates. This approach was deliberate, recognizing that the population estimates made by Rich et al, (2004) were preliminary and would be subject to revisions and, hopefully, increased accuracy. Population sizes were estimated from the BBS and certain other data that provided densities that could be extrapolated across geographic polygons, given a number of assumptions and adjustment factors (Rich et al. 2004). The PIF Science Committee made it clear that the population estimates and trend-based objectives for landbirds in the Continental Plan should serve as a starting point, and that as regional population estimates and habitat-based objectives are developed and refined, they should drive the conservation efforts of partners. Our HABPOPS tool is allowing us to derive population estimates and realistic objectives at multiple ecoregional scales that tie those populations to habitats on the ground, but the stepped-down trend-based objectives from PIF do serve as our starting point. Indeed, testing the validity of the continental, stepped-down objectives against bottomup calculations is an important aspect of the feedback loop of strategic conservation planning at the JV, BCR, and continental scales.

7.13

Step-down Objectives by BCR/State Polygons At face value, the continental PIF plan allows direct step-down of continental population objectives to regional (in this case, IWJV) objectives by applying the continental trend objective against the regional population estimates developed by PIF for each BCR-state polygon, and then summing those for all the polygons within the Intermountain West. We did this, with two modifications. The first was to correct each polygon’s population estimate by the percentage that is included in the IWJV. For example, all of BCR 9 in California is in the IWJV, so no correction was applied to the PIF estimates for that polygon; but because only 33% of the Arizona portion of BCR 34 is in the IWJV, the PIF population estimates for that polygon were adjusted accordingly. The second necessary modification was to account for those BCR-state polygons where the species is known to occur, but for which PIF developed no estimates. This would generally be the case where a species was not recorded on any BBS routes in the polygon. For these polygons, we applied the mean density (birds/km2) from all the IWJV polygons with PIF estimates, and applied them to the total area of the missing polygons. In each case, we have assumed even density across the polygon, with density in this case being a relative measure that includes gaps in distribution. For example, a low apparent density for an individual polygon could occur either from widely distributed birds present at low actual densities, or from a very limited distribution within a polygon, regardless of actual densities. Table 4 summarizes our adjusted, stepdown population estimates and preliminary trend-based objectives using these methods. Appendix D summarizes species’ occurrence within BCR-state polygons, and therefore which polygons support the greatest numbers of our focal species. Our use of this technique resulted in population estimates that exceeded the summed step-down PIF estimates by as little as 1%, to more than 500%. Not surprisingly, widespread songbird species recorded easily on BBS routes required little correction, but those species poorly surveyed by BBS (e.g. Band-tailed Pigeon, Flammulated Owl, White-headed Woodpecker) resulted in the highest correction factors using our method. These figures will serve as a holding place in lieu of our ongoing calculations and refinements of bottom-up estimates based on habitat affinity and density, as described in the following sections.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Table 4 Summed adjusted PIF population estimates, trend-based objective multipliers, and preliminary population objectives for focal landbird species in the IWJV, compiled from step-down estimates from the PIF Continental Plan. The Long-billed Curlew figures are from the N. American Shorebird Plan and the Long-billed Curlew Conservation Plan (Fellows and Jones 2009). The delta column is the (%) difference between our adjusted estimates and the original summed PIF estimates for BCR-state polygons in the IWJV; X is the trend-based multiplier. BCR/STATE POLYGONS WITH IWJV ESTIMATES

POPULATION

OBJECTIVE

∆

Band-tailed Pigeon

335,731

2.0

671,462

105%

Bendire’s Thrasher

115,275

2.0

230,550

48%

Brewer’s Sparrow

15,291,448

2.0

30,582,896

Ferruginous Hawk

10,266

1.0

10,266

28%

Flammulated Owl

199,907

2.0

399,815

588%

Grace’s Warbler

1,292,187

1.5

1,938,281

88%

Grasshopper Sparrow

431,961

1.0

431,961

Gray Flycatcher

1,152,382

1.0

1,152,382

Gray Vireo

461,327

1.0

461,327

50%

Lewis’s Woodpecker

117,005

1.1

128,717

11%

Long-billed Curlew

160,000

1.3

208,000

Olive-sided Flycatcher

157,365

2.0

314,730

Pinyon Jay

4,058,707

2.0

8,117,415

Red-naped Sapsucker

738,535

1.0

738,535

Rufous Hummingbird

588,362

2.0

1,176,725

28%

Sage Sparrow

3,705,928

1.0

3,705,928

Sage Thrasher

8,442,260

1.0

8,442,260

Swainson’s Hawk

99,985

1.1

109,884

Virginia’s Warbler

544,939

1.1

599,433

67%

White-headed Woodpecker

98,266

1.0

98,266

204%

Willow Flycatcher

856,474

1.5

1,284,711

18%

SPECIES

7.14

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES These BCR trend-based objectives offer a starting point for the development of regional habitat-based conservation approaches. Continental objectives might be inappropriate at smaller scales, however, if differences in population trends are occurring at those scales or if regional habitat trends differ substantially from continental trends. For example, a species might be stable at the continental level, but performing poorly enough in one habitat or physiographic area that declines are evident. Building objectives to stem local declines may be necessary to maintain stable populations at the larger scale over the long term. One way to approach setting regional objectives is to use locally-derived trend data to develop local population (and hence habitat) objectives. We compared continental trends to trends within the three primary BCRs comprising the IWJV (BCRs 9, 10, and 16) for a variety of focal species. In addition, we compiled state trends for our focal species (Appendix E). Clearly, if a species has shown significant declines at both the BCR and state level, then a priority for that BCR-State polygon should be to maximize conservation efforts (habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration) toward an objective of stopping and reversing those declines. Furthermore, if declines are shown by several species using similar habitats we know that we will need to use our decision support tools (e.g., the HABPOPS model) to assess the

amount and type of habitat treatment that might be needed to reach trend objectives, or indeed whether it appears that they can be reached. Use of HABPOPS will also allow us to optimize strategies to meet the needs of species with compatible or conflicting habitats or conditions. The following groupings (Tables 5-11) represent suites of species or habitats where we have used the comparison of regional and continental BBS trends for focal species to set a logical starting point for BCR-state population and habitat objectives.

Sagebrush In sagebrush habitats, for example (Table 5), the Brewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sparrow shows significant downward trends both continentally and in BCRs 9 and 10 (as well as in CA, CO and OR, Appendix E). Sage Thrasher also shows a significant decline in BCR 9, and in NM. These BCRstate polygons should clearly recieve higher priority for sagebrush steppe enhancement/restoration, whereas apparently stable populations in BCR10 might imply that habitat protection is the more logical strategy. And the similarity between regional trends and continental trends merits the acceptance of the PIF trend-based objectives until multiple scenarios can be run using the HABPOPS database.

Table 5 P opulation trends (annual % change) for three focal landbird species reliant on sagebrush habitat in the IWJV, 19662007, derived from BBS data, for the three primary BCRs in the joint venture. Those trends in bold are statistically significant (N = number of BBS routes). SPECIES:

BREWERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S SPARROW

SAGE SPARROW

SAGE THRASHER

Trend

N. Am.

-2.1

<0.01

517

-0.1

0.92

250

-0.6

0.25

345

BCR 9

-2.2

0.01

143

1.00

-1.3

<0.01

148

BCR 10

0.98

106

0.5

0.81

1.1

0.47

BCR 16

-2.4

<0.01

120

-0.1

0.96

-0.2

0.88

7.15

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES We have combined the BCR and state trend data into an index to develop maps of conservation opportunity to highlight specific geographies for conservation (which also help define trend-based objectives at the BCR/ State polygon level). Fig. 4 includes three such maps, for our sagebrush-dependent focal species. The scores used to develop these maps come directly from the PIF Species Assessment Database population trend scores PT-R SCORE

(PT-r), which indicate vulnerability due to the direction and magnitude of recent changes in population size within a given BCR (or state, as we applied it here). Species that have declined by 50% or more over 30 years are considered most vulnerable, whereas species with increasing trends are least vulnerable. Categorical definitions for PT-r are as follows:

% CHANGE OVER 30 YRS

EQUIVALENT % ANNUAL CHANGE

QUALITATIVE DEFINITIONS

≥ 50% increase

≥ 1.36%

Large population increase

15-49% increase, OR < 15% change

0.47 to 1.36%, OR -0.54 to 0.47%

Possible or moderate population increase OR

Highly variable, OR Unknown

N/A

Uncertain population trend

15-49% decrease

< -0.54 to -2.28%

Possible or moderate population decrease

≥ 50% decrease

≤ -2.28%

Large population decrease

Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Brewer’s Sparrow

Population stable

Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Sage Sparrow BBS Scores

BBS Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Sage Thrasher BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7.16

Figure 4 P rioritization of BCR-State polygons within the IWJV based on regional BBS trend scores for BCRs 9, 10, and 16, combined with BBS trend scores for states, within the ranges of 3 sagebrush-dependent focal species in the IWJV. See text for trend scores. Higher scores (red) represent more significant declines; moderate scores (yellow) represent stable or unknown trends; and low scores (green) represent more significant increases.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Grassland BCR trends seem consistent with continental trends for grassland focal species, at least in our three primary BCRs (Table 6). In The Grasshopper Sparrow was not identified as a Watch List species, in spite of its significant rangewide declines, in part because it has such a broad range and has relatively low threats elsewhere in its breeding range. Regional data (Table 6, Fig. 5) suggest that it should have an objective of “Increase 100%” based on past and ongoing declines. Table 6 P opulation trends (annual % change) for 4 focal landbird species reliant on grassland habitats in the IWJV, 1966-2007, derived from BBS data, for the three primary BCRs in the joint venture. Those trends in bold are statistically significant (N = number of BBS routes). SPECIES

FERRUGINOUS HAWK

SWAINSON’S HAWK

LONG-BILLED CURLEW

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW

Trend

N. Am.

+2.6

0.01

265

-0.3

0.61

752

-0.8

0.16

280

-3.6

<0.01

1659

BCR 9

+0.8

0.72

2.0

0.16

1.5

0.28

-2.3

0.21

BCR 10

+0.1

0.99

-0.6

0.81

0.9

0.62

-10.6

<0.01

BCR 16

5.2

0.51

2.7

0.45

-1.5

0.86

-20.5

0.17

Pinyon Juniper Population trends for Pinyon-Juniper birds are consistent at BCR and continental scales (Table 7, Fig. 6). Pinyon Jays are showing rather drastic declines continentally, and in BCR 16, as well as in California, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada (Appendix E). Gray Flycatchers appear to be increasing substantially. In areas where we need to control junipers to emphasize sagebrush, we may be able to do so without compromising regional Gray Flycatcher populations. Our HABPOPS database will allow us to test this potential. Table 7 P opulation trends (annual % change) for 3 focal landbird species reliant on pinyon-juniper woodlands in the IWJV, 1966-2007, derived from BBS data, for the 3 primary BCRs in the joint venture. Those trends in bold are statistically significant (N = number of BBS routes). SPECIES

GRAY FLYCATCHER

GRAY VIREO

PINYON JAY

Trend

N. Am.

4.6

0.01

145

1.5

0.43

-4.4

<0.01

199

BCR 9

4.6

0.09

-4.5

0.14

BCR 10

8.5

0.06

-0.5

0.84

BCR 16

1.8

0.24

-0.8

0.72

-4.7

<0.01

101

7.17

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Coniferous Forests Olive-sided Flycatchers seem to be declining nearly everywhere they occur, except in the southern (BCR16) portion of their range (Table 8, Figure 7). As with all migrants, these declines may not be the result of problems on the breeding grounds, but rather may be due to issues with winter or migration stopover habitats. And while White-headed Woodpeckers appear to be doing well continentally and perhaps even regionally based on BBS data, our concerns regarding the historic and ongoing loss of mature ponderosa pine with high densities of large snags merits conservation (enhancement) where the potential exists. Although the sample size is relatively small, the apparent steep decline of Lewisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Woodpecker in BCR 10 deserves more scrutiny. Flammulated Owls are not surveyed by the BBS. Table 8 P opulation trends (annual % change) for 3 focal landbird species reliant on coniferous forests in the IWJV, 1966-2007, derived from BBS data, for the 3 primary BCRs in the joint venture. Those trends in bold are statistically significant (N = number of BBS routes). SPECIES

LEWISâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S WOODPECKER

WHITE-HEADED

OLIVE-SIDED

BAND-TAILED PIGEON

WOODPECKER

FLYCATCHER

Trend

N. Am.

-1.2

0.6

2.1

<0.01

-1.4

0.05

232

-3.3

<0.01

826

BCR 9

-2.6

0.38

0.7

0.76

-4.9

0.39

-2.2

0.02

BCR 10

-9

0.02

15.9

0.02

-3.7

<0.01

128

BCR 16

-2.1

0.53

-4.8

0.17

-0.2

0.87

Photo by Rio de la Vista

7.18

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Swainsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hawk

Ferruginous Hawk

BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Long-billed Curlew

Grasshopper Sparrow BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 5 P rioritization of BCR-State polygons within the IWJV based on regional BBS trend scores for BCRs 9, 10 and 16, combined with BBS trend scores for states, within the ranges of 4 grassland-dependent focal species in the IWJV. See text for trend scores. Higher scores (red) represent more significant declines, moderate scores (yellow) represent stable or unknown trends, and low scores (green) represent more significant increases. 7.19

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Pinyon Jay BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Gray Vireo

Gray Flycatcher

BBS Scores BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 6 P rioritization of BCR-State polygons within the IWJV based on regional BBS trend scores for BCRs 9, 10 and 16, combined with BBS trend scores for states, within the ranges of 4 grassland-dependent focal species in the IWJV. See text for trend scores. Higher scores (red) represent more significant declines, moderate scores (yellow) represent stable or unknown trends, and low scores (green) represent more significant increases. 7.20

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Olive-sided Flycatcher

Band-tailed Pigeon

BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Lewisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Woodpecker

White-headed Woodpecker BBS Scores

BBS Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 7 P rioritization of BCR-State polygons within the IWJV based on regional BBS trend scores for BCRs 9, 10 and 16, combined with BBS trend scores for states, within the ranges of 4 grassland-dependent focal species in the IWJV. See text for trend scores. Higher scores (red) represent more significant declines, moderate scores (yellow) represent stable or unknown trends, and low scores (green) represent more significant increases. 7.21

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Rufous Hummingbird

Red-naped Sapsucker BBS Scores BBS Scores

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Willow Flycatcher BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 8 P rioritization of BCR-State polygons within the IWJV based on regional BBS trend scores for BCRs 9, 10 and 16, combined with BBS trend scores for states, within the ranges of 4 grassland-dependent focal species in the IWJV. See text for trend scores. Higher scores (red) represent more significant declines, moderate scores (yellow) represent stable or unknown trends, and low scores (green) represent more significant increases. 7.22

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Riparian Both the Rufous Hummingbird and Willow Flycatcher show significant downward trends in BC9, and both are declining continentally, the hummingbird significantly so (Table 9). Interestingly, trend patterns for Rufous Hummingbird trends differ dramatically within the IWJV states, with significant declines in Oregon and Washington, and significant increases in Montana and Idaho (Fig. 8). Table 9 P opulation trends (annual % change) for 3 focal landbird species reliant on riparian and aspen woodland habitat in the IWJV, 1966-2007, derived from BBS data, for the 3 primary BCRs in the joint venture. Those trends in bold are statistically significant (N = number of BBS routes). SPECIES

RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER

RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD

WILLOW FLYCATCHER

Trend

N. Am.

0.9

0.38

280

-2.4

<0.01

233

-0.9

0.06

1271

BCR 9

0.4

0.76

-1.7

0.02

-2

<0.01

BCR 10

2.7

0.09

124

0.7

0.62

-1

0.68

134

BCR 16

4.3

<0.01

-0.6

0.81

BCR16. We are currently expanding our HABPOPS source material to build the model for additional speices in BCR 16 and more southwestern BCRs (33-35). Bendire’s Thrasher will be a focal species for the protection , enhancement, and restoration of Desert Shrub communities, Virginia’s Warbler for mountain shrub, and Grace’s Warbler for southern coniferous forests (in addition to other more widespread focal species). All three show decreases in BCR 16 (Table 10, Fig. 9). Table 10 P opulation trends (annual % change) for three focal landbird species with southerly distribution in the IWJV, 1966-2007, derived from BBS data, for the three primary BCRs in the joint venture. Those trends in bold are statistically significant (N = BBS routes). SPECIES

BENDIRE’S THRASHER

VIRGINIA’S WARBLER

GRACE’S WARBLER

Trend

N. Am.

-5.7

0.01

-1.4

0.1

102

-1.9

0.05

BCR 9

BCR 10

BCR 16

-4.8

0.21

-3.2

0.45

-1.4

0.34

7.23

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES Bendire’s Thrasher BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Virginia’s Warbler

Grace’s Warbler BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BBS Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 9 P rioritization of BCR-State polygons within the IWJV based on regional BBS trend scores for BCRs 9, 10 and 16, combined with BBS trend scores for states, within the ranges of 3 focal species with a southerly distribution in the IWJV. See text for trend scores. Higher scores (red) represent more significant declines, moderate scores (yellow) represent stable or unknown trends, and low scores (green) represent more significant increase 7.24

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES To date we have used the HABPOPS database to revise population estimates by BCR-state polygons in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 for those species where adeqate density data allowed for such calculations. We have also tested certain scenarios to assess the feasibility of meeting the trendbased objectives put forth by PIF and adopted as our preliminary IWJV objectives, focusing on three sagebrush obligates (Brewer’s and Sage Sparrows, Sage Thrasher) and two grassland obligates (Grasshopper Sparrow, Long-billed Curlew). Ongoing implementation planning will expand the effort to include revised population estimates for all 21 species where they occur in BCRs 9, 10, 16 and the other partial BCRs in the Joint Venture. All population estimates and preliminary objectives presented herein should be considered provisional, as they will undergo continual review and revision by the IWJV Landbird Science Committee, the PIF Western Working Group, and our partners. They do however establish the order of magnitude of effort required to meet trendbased objectives for our focal species. We present data for the two highest priority widespread habitats in the IWJV landscape, sagebrush and grasslands, and it is for these species for which we conclude this chapter with a “Priority Actions” section. Additional habitats,species, and needed conservation actions in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 are included in Appendix F.

Sagebrush Objectives A direct comparison of our habitat-based, bottom-up population estimates with the stepped-down population estimates from the PIF Continental Plan revealed some noteworthy differences, particularly for Brewer’s Sparrow and Sage Sparrow (Table 11). For example, population estimates exceeded the PIF estimates by factors of 3x to 8x for both Brewer’s and Sage Sparrow but were comparable between the two methods for Sage Thrasher. We view the local and regional habitat-based population estimates as improvements on the PIF stepped-down regional population estimates and as the best benchmark to use in establishing regional population objectives. Our population estimates reflect the current capacity of

7.25

the landscape to support populations of the three priority species, and allow for a local, habitat-based determination of the effort required to meet PIF continental population objectives. The process not only provides conservation partners with a population baseline based on habitat capacity, but also provides an approach to pragmatically assess existing opportunities to maintain or improve habitat conditions for the three sagebrush-obligate priority species. We also provide estimates that can be refined over time as additional information on habitat associations, occupancy rates, and breeding densities becomes available. Use of the HABPOPS model to test scenarios for these three sagebrush obligates showed that for each, population increases of 20-100% would be possible in OR and WA through concerted management to increase sagebrush cover, and to maintain or improve diversity and quantity of native grasses and forbs in the understory. Table 12 shows the relationship between converting 100 ha (247 ac) of three selected sagebrush associations, from poor to fair to good condition, in terms of the increase in population carrying capacity. Note that responses are not linear, and indeed in some cases field studies revealed counterintuitive results (with highest densities at “poor” or “fair” habitat conditions). This is in part because when working at such large geographic scales, we defined these condition classes broadly by necessity, relative to such characteristics as shrub canopy cover, diversity of understory vegetation, or forest age and structural classes, rather than defining them individually by species, e.g. for sagebrush associations: Poor Condition: (<10% sage, very low diversity/few native plants, high invasives) Fair Condition: (10-20% sage, moderate native plant cover, some invasives) Good Condition: (>20% sage, diverse native understory, little or no invasives)

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES Table 11 C omparison of stepped-down Partners in Flight population estimates, IWJV corrected step-down estimates, and NWReGAP habitat-based bottom-up population estimates for three sagebrush-obligate priority landbird species in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 within the IWJV. SPECIES

BCR

STATE

PIF ESTIMATE

IWJV CORRECTED

HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE

Brewer’s Sparrow

500,000

963,300

Brewer’s Sparrow

1,000,000

8,381,500

Brewer’s Sparrow

7,000,000

20,248,800

Brewer’s Sparrow

1,500,000

7,678,800

Brewer’s Sparrow

600,000

3,810,000

Brewer’s Sparrow

140,000

2,465,700

BCR 9 in IWJV

10,741,100

43,549,000

Brewer’s Sparrow Brewer’s Sparrow

200,000

626,200

Brewer’s Sparrow

200,000

2,430,000

Brewer’s Sparrow

500,000

2,898,800

Brewer’s Sparrow

150,000

2,866,300

Brewer’s Sparrow

40,000

342,000

Brewer’s Sparrow

118,458

75,500

Brewer’s Sparrow

1,600,000

12,583,600

2,690,000

2,808,458

21,822,400

Brewer’s Sparrow

BCR 10 in IWJV

Brewer’s Sparrow

130,000

125,093

1,365,600

Brewer’s Sparrow

600,000

1,979,000

Brewer’s Sparrow

5,000

25,100

Brewer’s Sparrow

200,000

844,100

Brewer’s Sparrow

400

Brewer’s Sparrow

800,000

3,513,100

Brewer’s Sparrow

11,000

9,152

186,300

1,746,400

1,739,645

7,913,200

Brewer’s Sparrow

BCR 16 in IWJV

Sage Sparrow

60,000

330,300

Sage Sparrow

60,000

1,358,900

Sage Sparrow

1,800,000

8,238,700

Sage Sparrow

300,000

1,549,200

Sage Sparrow

190,000

1,502,500

Sage Sparrow

14,000

4,600

Sage Sparrow

BCR 9 in IWJV

2,424,070

12,841,900

Sage Sparrow

7.26

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES Table 11 Continued. Comparison of stepped-down Partners in Flight population estimates, IWJV corrected step-down estimates, and NWReGAP habitat-based bottom-up population estimates for three sagebrush-obligate priority landbird species in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 within the IWJV. SPECIES

BCR

STATE

PIF ESTIMATE

IWJV CORRECTED

HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE

Sage Sparrow

50,000

440,300

Sage Sparrow

400

68,200

Sage Sparrow

4,000

312,600

Sage Sparrow

4,165

96,700

Sage Sparrow

500,000

3,906,300

BCR 10 in IWJV

554,400

558,165

4,824,100

Sage Sparrow Sage Sparrow

120,000

115,470

343,000

Sage Sparrow

20,000

583,900

Sage Sparrow

1,900

2,400

Sage Sparrow

170,000

215,000

Sage Sparrow

300

Sage Sparrow

300,000

2,026,100

Sage Sparrow

400

333

10,600

BCR 16 in IWJV

612,600

608,046

3,181,000

Sage Sparrow Sage Thrasher

200,000

217,000

Sage Thrasher

500,000

936,800

Sage Thrasher

4,000,000

2,470,100

Sage Thrasher

1,000,000

783,200

Sage Thrasher

300,000

472,900

Sage Thrasher

60,000

268,900

Sage Thrasher

500

BCR 9 in IWJV

6,060,500

5,148,930

Sage Thrasher Sage Thrasher

200,000

144,100

Sage Thrasher

40,000

94,900

Sage Thrasher

70,000

56,147

135,800

Sage Thrasher

50,000

205,700

Sage Thrasher

8,000

33,500

Sage Thrasher

72,371

6,600

Sage Thrasher

1,100,000

1,085,214

494,900

BCR 10 in IWJV

1,468,000

1,511,732

1,115,500

Sage Thrasher

7.27

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

BCR

STATE

PIF ESTIMATE

IWJV CORRECTED

HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE

Sage Thrasher

40,000

38,490

123,800

Sage Thrasher

300,000

10,000

Sage Thrasher

1,100

2,400

Sage Thrasher

40,000

69,900

Sage Thrasher

100

Sage Thrasher

160,000

232,100

Sage Thrasher

1,300

1,082

22,400

542,500

540,772

460,660

Sage Thrasher

BCR 16 in IWJV

Photo by USF WS

7.28

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES Table 12 gives us an idea of the order of magnitude of habitat improvement to increase populations of target species. In the case of the Brewer’s Sparrow, it would take treating a minimum of 15 million acres to achieve a doubling of the population in Oregon and Washington alone over the next 30 years, given our assumptions regarding habitat condition. It is at this point we must decide whether doubling the populations of species that

have undergone serious declines is feasible, and if not, at what level we should set our objectives. Multiple iterations of scenario testing with HABPOPS, with review by key partners with knowledge of the realistic possibilities to manage large acreages, will be necessary to refine habitat objectives (and hence bottom-up, habitat-based, rather than trend-based population objectives).

Table 12 Examples of estimated population response of three sagebrush-obligate species to habitat enhancement in selected sagebrush habitats in eastern Oregon and Washington. All values are the number of additional individual birds expected by moving 100 ha (247 ac) of habitat from one condition class to another (e.g. poor condition to fair condition). SPECIES

ACRES

POOR TO FAIR

FAIR TO GOOD

POOR TO GOOD

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland

Brewer’s Sparrow

247

-16

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe

Brewer’s Sparrow

247

-12

Interm. Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Brewer’s Sparrow

247

144

186

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland

Sage Sparrow

247

-4

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe

Sage Sparrow

247

Interm. Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Sage Sparrow

247

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland

Sage Thrasher

247

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe

Sage Thrasher

247

Interm. Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Sage Thrasher

247

-6

-4

Species Models - Maps Brewer’s Sparrow is the most widespread of these three sagebrush obligates, and the only one with a continental trend-based objective to double populations. As such, it is likely to be the primary driver of conservation planning and assessment in sagebrush systems, outside of those areas where Sage-Grouse conservation is a primary focus. We mapped carrying capacity for Brewer’s Sparrow by developing an index to show potential densities (Figs. 10, 11). This index was based on multiplying the

7.29

occupancy rate and density figure from our HABPOPS database for the best possible habitat condition in each vegetative association in our Brewer’s Sparrow model. This opportunity map shows us where the highest densities might be achieved (through a combination of protection, enhancement and restoration). We developed a similar process for the Sage Sparrow (Figs. 12, 13) and Sage Thrasher (Figs. 14, 15).

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 10 Brewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sparrow habitat model, BCRs 9 and 10 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to the potential carrying capacity of the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model, under the best habitat conditions (highest densities) for the species.

7.30

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 11 Brewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sparrow habitat model, BCR 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to the potential carrying capacity of the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model, under the best habitat conditions (highest densities) for the species.

7.31

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 12 S age Sparrow habitat model, BCRs 9 and 10 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to the potential carrying capacity of the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model, under the best habitat conditions (highest densities) for the species.

7.32

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 13 S age Sparrow habitat model, BCR 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to the potential carrying capacity of the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model, under the best habitat conditions (highest densities) for the species.

7.33

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 14 S age Thrasher habitat model, BCRs 9 and 10 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to the potential carrying capacity of the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model, under the best habitat conditions (highest densities) for the species.

7.34

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 15 S age Thrasher habitat model, BCR 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to the potential carrying capacity of the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model, under the best habitat conditions (highest densities) for the species.

7.35

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES Grassland Objectives Grasshopper Sparrows breed in the IWJV portions of eight western states. Our bottom-up estimates of population size differed only slightly from those generated by PIF from the BBS data for BCR 9, but were less than half the PIF estimates for BCRs 10 and 16 (Table 13). Grasshopper Sparrow was not considered a Species of Continental

Importance in the Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome in the PIF Continental Plan, and thus no population objective was provided. However, using the process described in the Continental Plan for setting continental population objectives, Grasshopper Sparrow would have an objective to double the population (i.e., increase by 100%) based on its long-term significantly declining trend of -3.8% per year (P <0.01) in the IWJV.

Table 13 C omparison of stepped-down PIF population estimates, IWJV corrected step-down estimates, and NWGAP habitat-based “bottom-up” population estimates for the Grasshopper Sparrow in BCR 9, 10 and 16 within the IWJV. SPECIES

BCR

STATE

PIF ESTIMATE

IWJV CORRECTED

HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE

Grasshopper Sparrow

30,000

44,600

Grasshopper Sparrow

4,000

300

Grasshopper Sparrow

9,000

16,400

Grasshopper Sparrow

40,000

6,000

Grasshopper Sparrow

140,000

184,000

Grasshopper Sparrow

223,040

251,300

Grasshopper Sparrow

BCR 9 in IWJV

Grasshopper Sparrow

30,000

900

Grasshopper Sparrow

60,000

48,126

21,100

Grasshopper Sparrow

900

200

Grasshopper Sparrow

1,205

700

Grasshopper Sparrow

1,400

4,400

Grasshopper Sparrow

15,000

14,798

13,700

107,300

96,429

41,000

Grasshopper Sparrow

BCR 10 in IWJV

Grasshopper Sparrow

900

Grasshopper Sparrow

200

Grasshopper Sparrow

4,000

Grasshopper Sparrow

30,000

900

Grasshopper Sparrow

300

250

4,300

35,400

35,350

5,240

Grasshopper Sparrow

7.36

BCR 16 in IWJV

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES The Long-billed Curlew was not addressed in the PIF Continental Plan because it is a shorebird species. However, it is reasonably monitored by BBS in terms of sample size, and if a population objective was to be applied based on the PIF process, Long-billed Curlew would have a trend-based objective to increase the population by 50% based on its declining trend of -1.3% per year (P =0.14). The U.S. Shorebird Plan (Brown et al. 2001) originally proposed an objective to increase the population of Long-billed Curlew by 30% from 20,000 to 28,500. A subsequent plan (Fellows and Jones 2009) revised the population estimate to approximately 160,000, but did not specifically retain the objective to increase the population by 30%. Our analysis nevertheless was aimed at testing whether a 30% increase is reasonable or achievable, and at finding ways to highlight those landscapes with the most potential for conservation success. Our bottom-up estimate of Long-billed Curlew populations in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 (239,200; see Priority Actions section) exceeded the continental estimate (161,181; range 120,882 – 549,351) of Fellows and Jones (2009).

Habitat Scenarios Because both Grasshopper Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew have continental objectives to increase their populations, we examined the two habitat-based strategies to increase populations of bird species: create new suitable habitat that is subsequently used, or improve the quality of existing habitat that results in increased densities of birds. There are of course, non-habitat ways to increase bird populations that are not considered here such as reducing threats or other factors that limit populations. These can be a variety of individual or interrelated factors such as those that impact or limit reproductive success (e.g., cowbird parasitism, timing of human activities) or mortality issues (e.g., collisions, pesticides). Altman and Casey (2006) used existing suitable habitat and the degrees of association with suitable habitat in our species models, and looked at several “optimistically reasonable” scenarios to increase populations. These included both moving some habitats from a lower percent suitability to a higher percent suitability (i.e., making more of the landscape available as suitable habitat and increasing occupancy rate), and improving existing lower quality grassland habitats to a higher quality resulting in increased densities of each bird species. All scenario testing was done using the combination of assumed occupancy rates and density classes by

7.37

habitat (association) rather than condition; these values are currently being used in our HABPOPS model until we have more peer-reviewed density information for each species in a variety of condition classes for each association. There are likely several opportunities in the IWJV landscape for creating new suitable grassland habitat from areas that used to be grasslands but have been degraded by invasion of woody plant species. These circumstances have most often occurred from fire suppression which has allowed species like juniper and sagebrush to establish and dominate plant communities. The creation of new habitat also is possible with conversion of agricultural crop lands to grasslands or to herbaceous-dominated agricultural lands (e.g., pasture, some crops like wheat). Finally, within existing (and occupied) grassland habitats, management could be altered to improve habitat suitability for the species in question. For our purposes, we ran mathematical scenarios to assess the potential population effects of increasing the amounts and quality of nesting habitats within three broad habitat classes used by Grasshopper Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew: agricultural lands, grasslands, and woody habitats with a grass component (e.g. sagebrush steppe, juniper savannah). For both Grasshopper Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew we applied future habitat change scenarios to estimated current habitat conditions and populations, across a matrix of the habitats listed in state IWJV implementation plans. This included 32 suitable habitat types for Grasshopper Sparrow and 42 for Long-billed Curlew. We used the same assumptions as used for population estimation analyses regarding categories of percent suitability and bird density, applying them to new habitat totals in each scenario, with the outputs being a habitat-driven population objective and acreage of habitat manipulation necessary to achieve it. We expressed population outcomes as a percentage increase, acknowledging that our population estimates themselves vary rather significantly from previous population estimates for each of the species. We view this effort as an example of how an adaptive approach to regionally-derived “bottom-up” habitat and population objectives can be undertaken, providing an opportunity to assess both assumptions about these populations, and the existing objectives published by the IWJV and by the bird conservation initiatives. Version 1.1 of this chapter will include specific objectives determined in this way.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES We assessed the effects of the following scenarios, alone and in combination, for both Grasshopper Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew:

for this species within the IWJV. Our combined scenario therefore represents treating 19% of the targeted habitats to produce a 65% increase in the population.

A. Convert 10% of Agricultural Lands to Grassland of Moderate Quality;

Converting 10% of the 11.4 million ac of suitable agricultural lands within the IWJV range of the Grasshopper Sparrow to moderately suitable grassland would yield about a 4% overall increase in the IWJV population (Table 14), in part because we used the same density figures for occupied agricultural habitats (75 ac/ pr) as we did for moderate quality grasslands. The biggest change would occur under the assumption that 60% of the converted grasslands would be suitable for the species, whereas just 20% of agricultural lands were assumed to be suitable habitat. Where data are available for CRP, some of the highest densities of Grasshopper Sparrow in the West have been recorded. Unfortunately, CRP was not identified in most of the land cover layers we used for our analysis, so although we included representative CRP densities in our HABPOPS model, our population estimates for agricultural lands probably under represent the current importance of enrolled CRP lands to this species.

B. Convert 10% of tilled Agricultural Lands to Pasture; C. Alter management in Grassland Habitats to increase the % suitable by one class (e.g. from 20% suitable to 30% suitable); D. Alter management in currently occupied Grassland Habitats to increase nesting density by one class (e.g. from 100 ha/pr to 50 ha/pr); and/or E. Alter management in woody habitats with a grass component to increase the % suitable and/or nesting density. Scenarios (A) and (B) would include such activities as CRP or other agricultural incentive programs to restore native grassland or to move from row agriculture into permanent (albeit grazed) cover. Scenarios (C) and (D) model the potential population effects of improved grassland management (grazing programs, fire, and removal of invasive vegetation) on the amount and quality of nesting habitat, respectively. Scenario (E) does the same for shrub steppe and savanna habitats where removal of woody vegetation or understory modification would improve the quantity or quality of habitat for these species.

Grasshopper Sparrow We ran scenarios for 5 agricultural habitat types, 22 grassland habitat types, and 5 shrub-steppe/savanna habitat types. Combining scenarios (A), (D) and (E) yielded a habitat-based population opportunity to increase Grasshopper Sparrow populations by 65% (Table 14). This could be achieved by converting 1.1 million ac of agricultural land to grassland; managing 3.3 million ac of currently occupied grassland habitats to increase nesting density; and manipulating 77,476 ac of shrub-steppe and savanna to improve suitability and increase nesting densities. There are approximately 23.6 million ha of agricultural, grassland and shrub-steppe or savannah that we deemed at least partially suitable as breeding habitat

7.38

Our model predicted a greater gain in sparrow numbers by raising densities in 3.2 million ac of occupied areas (60% population increase) than by increasing the suitability for nesting on 2.0 million ac of various grassland types (a 20% increase in population). Clearly, these differences are in part artifacts of the broad value classes we assigned for suitability and for densities; any management actions taken to improve grassland habitat conditions across significant portions of the species’ range in the IWJV would likely increase both the amount of suitable habitat and the quality of occupied habitat (as expressed by increased bird densities) in combination. Our modeling predicted that guided habitat manipulations on 15% of the 514,485 ac of suitable shrub-steppe and savanna habitats would yield a population increase of less than 1%, because densities are low in these habitats and we assume that only 20% of the treated acreage would be occupied by sparrows. Fig. 16 displays our occupancy/density index from the HABPOPS model to highlight those parts of the Grasshopper Sparrow’s range where the greatest potential carrying capacity currently exists.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES Table 14 T otal habitat available within the IWJV, current population estimate, revised (projected) population estimate, habitat treatment objectives, and population increases (objectives) by habitat segment and for the population as a whole under various habitat manipulation scenarios for the Grasshopper Sparrow. GRASSHOPPER SPARROW SCENARIOS

ACRES (TOTAL)

POPULATION ESTIMATE

REVISED POP. EST.

ACRES TREATED

POP. INCR. (SEGMENT

POP. INCR. (IWJV)

A. Convert 10% of Agric. to Grassland

11,392,911

61,400

73,600

1,137,066

20%

B. Convert 10% of tilled to Pasture*

11,392,911

61,400

C. Increase Grassland Suitability

11,746,541

217,300

274,500

2,116,907

26%

20%

D. Increase Grassland Nesting Density

11,746,541

217,300

385,700

3,306,954

77%

60%

516,440

700

2,800

77,467

300%

23,633,628

279,400

462,100

4,521,339

65%

E. Manage Shrub-Steppe for GRSP Combination Scenario (A + D + E)

Photo by Ali Duvall

7.39

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 16 Grasshopper Sparrow habitat model, BCRs 9, 10 and 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to an index of the current estimated carrying capacity (estimated % occupancy) x (density) for the mapped vegetative associations.

7.40

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES Long-billed Curlew Long-billed Curlews breed in the IWJV portions of ten western states. Our bottom-up estimates of population size exceed those published by the USFWS (Fellows and Jones 2009), and will be refined over time. All conservation scenarios to date were run using our estimate, but it is the percent (%) response, not necessarily the number of birds, that gives us an idea of the level of effort needed to stabilize or increase populations of the species. Previous conservation scenarios (Altman and Casey 2006) for seven agricultural habitat types, 24 grassland habitat types, and 11 shrub-steppe/savanna habitat types in the IWJV yielded a habitat-based population objective to increase Long-billed Curlew populations by 51% . This could be achieved by converting 1.7 million ac of agricultural land to grassland; managing 5.7 million ac of currently occupied grassland habitats to increase nesting density; and manipulating 1.2 million ac of shrub-steppe and savanna to improve suitability and/or increase nesting densities. There are approximately 28.9 million ac of agricultural, grassland and shrub-steppe or savannah that we deemed at least partially suitable as breeding habitat for this species within the IWJV. Our combined scenario therefore represents treating 22% of the targeted habitats to produce a 51% increase in the population. Converting 10% of the 17.1 million ac of suitable agricultural lands within the IWJV range of the Long-billed Curlew to moderately suitable grassland would yield about a 1% overall increase in the IWJV population, mostly because we estimate that less than 2% of the population currently nest in these agricultural habitats. In grassland habitats, our modeling predicted the greatest gain in curlew numbers would come from managing to

7.41

raise densities in 5.7 million ac of occupied areas (a 42% population increase). Because we assigned a value of 60% suitability to all but three grassland types in our analysis, only minimal population gains (<1%) would be had by bringing the 208,908 ac of those three types up to 60% suitable (i.e., increasing occupancy). As with our sparrow analysis, these differences are in part artifacts of the value classes we assigned for suitability and for densities. Any management actions taken to improve grassland habitat conditions across significant portions of the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; range in the IWJV would likely increase both the amount of suitable habitat and the quality of occupied habitat (as expressed by increased bird densities) in combination. Continued scenario testing with our improved HABPOPS model will allow us to refine these estimates of the amount of habitat needed to achieve population goals. Our modeling predicted that guided habitat manipulations on 27% of the 4.4 million ac of suitable shrub-steppe and savanna habitats would yield an 8% overall increase in the IWJV population, by nearly quadrupling the number of curlews in this population segment. Although significant population increases can be achieved in these habitat types, this is also the habitat where the needs of other priority bird species (e.g. sagebrush species) will need to be considered in an optimization process. Fig. 13 shows our current estimate of the carrying capacity of the vegetative associations in the Long-billed Curlew portion of our HABPOPS model, identifying those landscapes where we currently estimate carrying capacity to be the greatest. Areas toward the red end of the spectrum represent places where we have the most opportunity to protect existing populations; those at the green end of the spectrum represent areas where restoration and enhancement are most needed to increase carrying capacity.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES

Figure 17 Long-billed Curlew habitat model, BCRs 9,10 and 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to an index of the current estimated carrying capacity (estimated % occupancy) x (density) for the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model. 7.42

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS Recommended Approaches for Conservation, by BCR/State Previous planning efforts by IWJV partners resulted in broad objectives to protect, enhance and restore priority habitat, with priority geographies (Bird Habitat Conservation Areas) as identified by each state steering committee to represent the nexus between opportunity, threat, priority habitats, and priority species. Certainly those areas where threats are greatest will continue to receive the focus of conservation partners in the JV, but we have now winnowed the priority species to a select few representing particular habitats and conditions of concern, have spatial layers representing species models with corresponding habitat-based population estimates, and have identified regional trend-based population objectives to inform conservation. Translating those population objectives into habitat objectives and assessing the population effect of guided conservation actions is the primary function of the HABPOPS database, and we provide sidebars to conservation for each of the types covered in this section, as well as additional habitats in Appendix F. Here we present a summary of the extent, estimated condition, and population objectives for selected focal species in grassland and sagebrush in BCRs 9, 10, and 16. Note that none of our focal species are complete obligates in the truest sense. So, for example, the cumulative estimates of occupied habitat for Long-billed Curlews in BCR9 (based on our model) exceed the grassland acreage in the BCR, because the species also inhabits some agricultural, shrub steppe and savannah habitats. As we have shown with our examples, it is clear that meeting population objectives will require not only a large-scale effort, but might be achieved through various combinations of approaches. For this reason, we are seeking more guidance from the landbird science team on the process for translating our population objectives into quantitative habitat objectives. We do have the specific HABPOPS output regarding the number of acres in each condition class of each vegetative association in the focal species models, and hence can parse out objectives based on the opportunities that each represents. Acknowledging the extent of opportunities in each type is also an important element in making bottom-up objectives both meaningful and achievable.

7.43

For each of the focal species tables in the following sections, we include BCR-state polygon specific trendbased objectives. For those with BBS trend data we used the combined BBS scores (e.g. those used for Figs. 4-9), and assigned multipliers using essentially the same system used in the PIF Continental Plan (Rich et al. 2004). Hence those polygons where declines are most severe (combined scores of 9 or 10), we have an objective to double the population (over 30 years). For moderate declines (scores of 7-8), our objective is to increase the population by 50%. Our objective for those species showing stable or unknown trend, we have adopted a 10% increase to err on the side of caution. Our goal is to maintain those species with moderate to large increases (scores of 4 or lower). Generally, it will require a combination of habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration to have any chance of increasing populations; protection alone may be adequate to maintain many populations.

BCR 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Great Basin BCR 9 Habitat: Grassland (9,448,30 acres) Protect remaining blocks of native grassland habitat, with an initial priority on the largest blocks. Manage for a diversity of conditions, but emphasize residual cover and prevent or control invasive exotics.

Estimated Extent by Condition Class: 1. P oor Condition: 1,874,278 ac (very low residual cover, few natives, <10% appropriate grasses) 2. F air Condition: 5,622,834 ac (moderate cover, moderately diverse native grass, 10-30%) 3. G ood Condition: 1,874,228 ac (good residual cover, native grass >30%, few to no invasives)

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS Highest Priority Species: LONG-BILLED CURLEW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 30%) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% OF BCR IWJV POPULATION

TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

545,644

11,900

1.3x

15,500

2,421,780

57,000

31%

1.3x

74,100

LBCU

1,366,867

27,600

15%

1.3x

35,900

LBCU

3,088,244

53,700

29%

1.3x

69,800

LBCU

665,714

14,600

1.3x

19,000

LBCU

1,030,963

20,400

11%

1.3x

26,500

LBCU

623

<1%

1.3x

9,119,835

185,210

100%

(1.3x)

240,810

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

LBCU

BCR Totals in IWJV:

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

1,667,110

44,600

30%

1.5x

66,900

11,625

300

<1%

300

GRSP

397,307

16,400

1.5x

24,600

GRSP

223,734

6,000

1.1x

6,600

GRSP

2,405,384

184,000

57%

2.0x

368,000

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

GRSP

BCR Totals in IWJV:

4,705,160

251,300

100%

(1.9x)

466,400

FERRUGINOUS HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) SWAINSON’S HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)

Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation, especially from energy exploration and development • Tilling: Conversion to cropland (and retirement of CRP enrollments) • Residential development in intermountain valleys • Invasive exotics, notably cheatgrass, and the role of grazing in decreasing native cover

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect the largest remaining blocks within Long-billed Curlew model (see Fig. 17) • Utilize Farm Bill opportunities: native CRP, Grassland Reserves, incentives within Grasshopper Sparrow model (see Fig. 16).

7.44

• Identify and maintain secure nesting sites for raptors • Strive for no net loss of native grassland BCR-wide

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Selected BHCAs from previous implementaion plan (partner buy-in) • Snake River Plain (Idaho) • Palouse Prairie (Washington): Retain/expand CRP wherever possible. • Northern Utah

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS BCR 9 Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe (65,385,827 acres) Estimated Extent by Condition Class: 1. P oor Condition: 13,077,165 ac (<10% sage, very low diversity of native plants, high invasives) 2. F air Condition: 39,231,496 ac (10-20% sage, moderate native plant cover, some invasives) 3. G ood Condition: 13,077,165 ac (>20% sage, diverse native understory, little or no invasives) Maintain and promote growth of native forbs and grasses in shrubsteppe habitats. Work to control largescale wildfires that promote cheatgrass invasion and the loss of high-value older sagebrush stands. Much of the conservation action that will take place over the next 5-10

years in sagebrush habitats in BCR 9 (and 10) will be driven by the needs of Greater Sage-Grouse, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Sage Grouse Initiative that is being supported by the IWJV. But as we have already noted, much of the range of other sagebrush obligate focal species lies outside of the range of the grouse. For example, just 38.8% of the predicted Brewer’s Sparrow habitat in these two BCRs lies within the 100% population polygons for Greater Sage-Grouse (Fig. 18). While the grouse layer does appear to include most of the highest quality habitat for Brewer’s Sparrow in these two BCRs, our HABPOPS model predicts that these areas support 15,956,000 individuals, or just 36% of the BRSP population in BCR 9, and 54% of the BCR 10 population (11,731,100 ind.). Achieving objectives of doubling populations will clearly require conservation action throughout the species’ range.

Highest Priority Species: BREWER’S SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%) SPECIES

BCR

STATE

OCCUPIED

POPULATION

% BCR IWJV

COMBINED

ACRES

ESTIMATE

POPULATION

BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

BRSP

3,481,111

963,300

1,926,600

BRSP

12,576,366

8,381,500

19%

16,763,000

BRSP

40,901,606

20,248,800

46%

40,497,600

BRSP

14,052,651

7,678,800

18%

15,357,600

BRSP

7,911,916

3,810,000

7,620,000

BRSP

4,426,720

2,465,700

1.5x

3,698,600

BRSP

1,357

900

<1%

1,800

83,351,727

43,549,000

100%

(2x)

85,865,200

BCR Totals in IWJV:

SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%) SPECIES

BCR

STATE

OCCUPIED

POPULATION

% BCR IWJV

COMBINED

ACRES

ESTIMATE

POPULATION

BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

SAGS

1,032,321

330,300

1.5x

495,500

SAGS

6,117,916

1,358,900

11%

1.5x

2,038,400

SAGS

46,702,349

8,238,700

64%

1.1x

9,062,600

SAGS

9,142,307

1,549,200

12%

1.5x

2,323,800

SAGS

9,279,082

1,502,500

12%

1.1x

1,652,800

SAGS

34,170

4,600

<1%

1.1x

5,100

72,308,145

12,841,900

100%

(1.2x)

15,578,200

BCR Totals in IWJV:

7.45

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) SPECIES

BCR

STATE

OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

SATH

2,519,273

217,000

1.5x

325,500

SATH

10,908,769

936,800

18%

1.5x

1,405,200

SATH

41,180,310

2,470,100

48%

1.5x

3,705,200

SATH

12,654,776

783,200

15%

1.5x

1,174,800

SATH

10,084,321

472,900

1.5x

709,400

SATH

3,882,427

268,900

1.1x

295,800

SATH

711

<1%

1.1x

81,230,586

5,148,930

100%

(1.1x)

7,615,900

BCR Totals in IWJV:

GRAY FLYCATCHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE)

Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation, especially due to energy exploration and development • Conversion of habitat in known core (lek) areas for Greater Sage-Grouse • Changes in fire regime – stand replacement by invasives (cheat grass) • Needs of passerines not adequately addressed in grouse conservation planning

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks (whether designated as grouse core areas or not) • Balance protection of areas with concentration of SageGrouse leks (designated core areas especially) with opportunities outside the range of the grouse.

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Nevada (particularly the northeastern quadrant): For example, one HABPOPS scenario of removing juniper from 5,000 ac to enhance shrubland habitat, and converting 10,000 each of the two most widespread sagebrush types in NV BCR 9 (Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland, and Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe) from poor condition to good condition would yield 13,800 Brewer’s Sparrows, or 0.1% of the objective for this polygon. • Central Oregon • Southcentral Washington • Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in)

• Manage fire, eliminate exotics (enhancement/restoration) • Restore structure through grazing management • Maintain 50% of stands in >30-yr old condition wherever feasible • Incorporate the needs of sage-obligate passerines in management plan and Best Management Practices revisions

7.46

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS

Figure 18 IWJV Brewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sparrow model for BCRs 9 and 10, overlain by the polygons which define 100 of the known Greater Sage-Grouse leks.

7.47

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS BCR 10 – Northern Rockies BCR 10 Habitat: Grassland (7,697,665 acres) Estimated Extent by Condition Class: 1. Poor Condition: 1,542,212 ac 2. Fair Condition: 4,616,590 ac 3. Good Condition: 1,538,863 ac

Highest Priority Species: LONG-BILLED CURLEW (CONTINENTAL OBEJECTIVE: INCREASE 30%) SPECIES

BCR

STATE

OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% OF BCR IWJV POPULATION

TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

LBCU

89,182

800

1.3x

1,000

LBCU

253,775

4,500

10%

1.3x

5,900

LBCU

966,636

7,400

16%

1.3x

9,700

LBCU

726,315

12,000

25%

1.3x

15,600

LBCU

73,342

600

1.3x

800

LBCU

60,922

600

1.3x

800

LBCU

1,732,017

21,400

45%

1.3x

27,800

3,902,189

47,300

100%

(1.3x)

61,600

BCR Totals in IWJV:

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

31,734

900

1,800

744,397

21,100

52%

42,200

GRSP

8,906

200

<1%

1.5x

300

GRSP

23,619

700

1.5x

1,100

GRSP

159,230

4,400

11%

8,800

GRSP

327,572

13,700

34%

27,400

1,295,458

41,000

100%

(2x)

81,600

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

GRSP

BCR Totals in IWJV:

FERRUGINOUS HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)

Major Threats/Issues:

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Fragmentation: energy exploration and development

• Identify and protect largest remaining blocks within Long-billed Curlew model (see Fig. 7)

• Tilling: conversion of grassland to cropland • Residential development in intermountain valleys • Invasive exotics, particularly cheatgrass

7.48

• Utilize Farm Bill in a targeted manner: identify opportunities for native CRP, incentives; target habitats within Grasshopper Sparrow priority areas (see Figs. 5, 16).

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS • Identify and maintain secure nesting sites for grassland raptors • Strive for no net loss of grassland • Build a grassland conservation initiative around the needs of Long-billed Curlew

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat) • Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model • Eastern edge of JV in Montana and Wyoming

Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe (32,945,319 acres) Estimated Extent by Condition Class: 1. Poor Condition: 6,589,064 ac 2. Fair Condition: 19,767,191 ac 3. Good Condition: 6,589,064 ac

Highest Priority Species: BREWER’S SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

1,542,505

626,200

2.0x

1,252,400

3,627,279

2,430,000

11%

1.5x

3,645,000

BRSP

4,316,150

2,898,800

13%

1.5x

4,348,200

BRSP

5,196,008

2,866,300

13%

2.0x

5,732,600

BRSP

513,357

342,000

1.5x

513,000

BRSP

108,371

75,500

1.5x

113,300

BRSP

18,952,601

12,583,600

58%

1.5x

18,875,400

34,256,271

21,822,400

100%

(1.6x)

34,479,900

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

BRSP

BCR Totals in IWJV:

SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

1,476,615

440,300

1.1x

484,300

407,929

68,200

1.5x

102,300

SAGS

2,571,747

312,600

1.5x

468,900

SAGS

513,573

96,700

1.1x

106,400

SAGS

16,233,732

3,906,300

81%

1.1x

4,296,900

21,203,596

4,824,100

100%

(1.1x)

5,458,800

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

SAGS

BCR Totals in IWJV:

7.49

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

1,605,821

144,100

13%

1.1x

158,500

1,393,142

94,900

1.5x

142,500

SATH

2,125,169

135,800

12%

1.5x

203,700

SATH

4,585,660

205,700

18%

1.5x

308,600

SATH

523,643

33,500

1.5x

50,300

SATH

69,655

6,600

1.1x

7,300

SATH

7,349,742

494,900

44%

1.1x

544,400

17,652,830

1,115,500

100%

(1.3x)

1,415,200

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

SATH

BCR Totals in IWJV:

GRAY FLYCATCHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE)

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks (whether designated as grouse core areas or not); prioritize using sagebrush species model outputs (see Fig. 4). • Balance protection of areas with concentration ofSageGrouse leks (designated core areas especially) with areas outside of the range of the grouse. • Manage fire, eliminate exotics (enhancement/ restoration) • Restore structure through grazing management • Maintain 50% of stands in >30-yr old condition wherever feasible

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Green River Basin, Wyoming: For example, one HABPOPS scenario of treating 10% of each of the two most widespread sagebrush types in WY BCR10 (Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland, and Intermountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe) from poor condition to good condition (total, 281,358 ac) would yield 158,000 Brewer’s Sparrows, an increase of 1% of the current population of the polygon, and 3% of the objective increase for this polygon. • Southwestern Montana: For example, one HABPOPS scenario of treating 125,000 ac (3%) of the sagebrush habitats two most widespread sagebrush types in MT BCR 10) to move them from from poor condition to good condition would yield 91,055 Brewer’s Sparrows, an increase of 3% of the current population of the polygon, and 6% of the objective increase for this polygon. Conversely, protecting 125,000 ac of the highest quality sagebrush habitat in this polygon would protect 3% of the population. • Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in)

• Incorporate the needs of sage-obligate passerines in management plan and Best Management Practices revisions

7.50

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS BCR 16 – Southern Rockies BCR 16 Habitat: Grassland (15,456,308 acres) Highest Priority Species: FERRUGINOUS HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) LONG-BILLED CURLEW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 30%) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% OF BCR IWJV POPULATION

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

5,857

100

1.3x

130

158,500

1,489

<1%

1.3x

142,500

LBCU

327,227

5,300

79%

1.3x

6,900

203,700

LBCU

25,543

300

1.3x

400

308,600

LBCU

39,284

1,000

15%

1.3x

1,300

50,300

399,398

6,730

100%

(1.3x)

8,770

1,415,200

OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

LBCU

BCR Totals in IWJV:

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW SPECIES

BCR

STATE

GRSP

1,329

1.5x

GRSP

34,810

900

17%

1.1x

1,000

GRSP

69,211

4,300

82%

1.5x

6,500

105,350

5,240

100%

(1.4x)

7,560

BCR Totals in IWJV:

Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation: energry exploration and development • Tilling: conversion of grassland to row crops • Residential development in intermountain valleys • Invasive exotics, particularly cheatgrass

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks • Utilize Farm Bill in a targeted manner: identify opportunities for native CRP, incentives • Identify and maintain secure nesting sites for grassland raptors • Strive for no net loss of grassland

7.51

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS BCR 16 Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe (12,450,363 acres) Highest Priority Species: GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE) GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE) BREWER’S SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

7,321,127

1,365,600

17%

2.0x

2,731,200

6,095,469

1,979,000

25%

2.0x

3,958,000

BRSP

39,731

25,100

2.0x

50,200

BRSP

4,326,063

844,100

11%

1.5x

1,266,200

BRSP

9,739,062

3,513,100

44%

2.0x

7,026,200

BRSP

492,081

186,300

2.0x

372,600

28,013,532

7,913,200

100%

(1.9x)

15,404,400

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

BRSP

BCR Totals in IWJV:

SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) BCR

STATE

OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

SAGS

4,062,460

343,000

11%

1.1x

377,300

SAGS

6,088,990

583,900

18%

1.1x

642,300

SAGS

35,188

2,400

<1%

1.5x

3,600

SAGS

2,454,612

215,000

1.5x

322,500

SAGS

13,849,871

2,026,100

64%

1.1x

2,228,700

SAGS

123,850

10,600

<1%

1.1x

11,700

26,614,971

3,181,000

100%

(1.1x)

3,586,100

SPECIES

BCR Totals in IWJV:

SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN) OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TRENDBASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

7,293,778

123,800

27%

1.1x

136,200

323,201

10,000

1.1x

11,000

SATH

39,053

2,400

1.5x

3,600

SATH

4,932,820

69,900

15%

1.5x

104,900

SATH

1,119

<1%

1.5x

SATH

2,977,001

232,100

50%

1.5x

348,200

SATH

440,348

22,400

1.1x

24,600

16,007,319

460,660

100%

(1.4x)

628,590

SPECIES

BCR

STATE

SATH

BCR Totals in IWJV:

7.52

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

PRIORITY ACTIONS GRAY FLYCATCHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks (whether designated as grouse core areas or not) • Protect areas with concentration of Sage-Grouse leks (designated core areas especially) • Manage fire, eliminate exotics (enhancement/ restoration) • Restore structure through grazing management • Maintain 50% of stands in >30-yr old condition wherever feasible • Incorporate the needs of sage-obligate passerines in management plan and Best Management Practices revisions

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Gunnison Sage-Grouse Conservation (Core) areas as defined by partners • Greater Sage-Grouse Coservation (Core) areas as defined by partners

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat) • Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

Research/Monitoring Needs Various PIF documents have summarized research and monitoring needs, and they are not reiterated here. Our HABPOPS summary document will include detailed summaries of the specific data needs faced by the IWJV and its partners as they continue to implement Strategic Habitat Conservation. Future Revisions. This implementation plan chapter will be adapted and expanded with supplemental documents as needed, based on review and further analyses by the Landbird Science Team and the IWJV Science Coordinator, on a schedule identified by the latter. The following are the topics that will be addressed in some detail in the HABPOPS summary document and these supplements. The Western Working Group of PIF is addressing several key areas as part of the implementaton of their own 5-yr Action Plan (Neel and Sallabanks 2009). They include the implementation of rangewide Flammulated Owl surveys which are yielding data describing habitat associations, occupancy rates, and density; and grid-based monitoring for landbird communities that allow for calculation of occupancy rates and habitat-specific densities that will feed directly into the HABPOPS database. A. Species: Limiting Factors and Response to Management Actions B. Habitats: Climate Change and Response to Management Actions

C. HABPOPS Model Assumptions D. Habitat Restoration E. Habitat Enhancement F. Habitat Protection

Photo by Daniel Casey

7.53

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

LITERATURE CITED Altman, B. 2008. Ground-truthing landbird population habitats in sagebrush habitats of eastern Oregon and Washington. Unpublished Report to the USDA Bureau of Land Management Order Number LO7PX02715. American Bird Conservancy.

Fellows, S.D., and S. L. Jones. 2009. Status assessment and conservation action plan for the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol. Tech. Publ., FWS/ RTP-R6012-2009, Washington, D.C.

Altman, B. and D. Casey. 2006. Process and preliminary outcomes of setting habitat-based population objectives for priority grassland species in the Intermountain West. Unpublished Report to the Intermountain West Joint Venture and the US Geological Survey. American Bird Conservancy.

Neel, L., and R. Sallabanks. 2009. The Partners in Flight Western Working Group Five-Year Action Plan, 2008-2012. (http://sites.google.com/site/ pifwesternworkinggroup/products/archived-actionplansplans )

Altman, B. and D. Casey. 2008. Population Sizes and Response to Management For Three Priority Bird Species in Sagebrush Habitats of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Unpublished Report to the USDA Bureau of Land Management, Order Number HAP074378. American Bird Conservancy. Bart, J. 2005: Monitoring the abundance of bird populations. Auk 122:15–25. Berlanga, H., J. A. Kennedy, T. D. Rich, M. C. Arizmendi, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, G. S. Butcher, A. R. Couturier, A. A. Dayer, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, M. Gustafson, E. Iñigo-Elias, E. A. Krebs, A. O. Panjabi, V. Rodriguez Contreras, K. V. Rosenberg, J. M. Ruth, E. Santana Castellón, R. Ma. Vidal, and T. Will. 2010. Saving Our Shared Birds: Partners in Flight Tri- National Vision for Landbird Conservation. Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2nd ed. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.

Prior-Magee, J.S., K.G. Boykin, D.F. Bradford, W.G. Kepner, J.H. Lowry, D.L. Schrupp, K.A. Thomas, and B.C. Thompson, editors. 2007. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID. 441p. Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham (tech eds.). 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW GTR-382. Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY 84p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. A blueprint for the future of migratory birds: Migratory Bird program strategic plan 2004-2014. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. 21 pp

Carter, M.F., W.C. Hunter, D.N. Pashley, and K.V. Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight approach. Auk 117:541-548.

7.54

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX A. LANDBIRD SCIENCE TEAM MEMBERS • John Alexander, Klamath Bird Observatory • Bob Altman, American Bird Conservancy • Geoff Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science • Michael Green, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • David Hanni, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory • Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science • Larry Neel, Nevada Department of Wildlife • Russ Norvell, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources • Terry Rich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Rex Sallabanks, Idaho Department of Fish and Game • Jaime Stephens, Klamath Bird Observatory Note: The Landbird Strategy was developed through collaboration with the Partners in Flight - Western Working Group. We give special thanks to the working group members that provided valuable input to the Strategy.

7.55

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX B. LANDBIRD SPECIES OF CONTINENTAL IMPORTANCE IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST AVIFAUNAL BIOME (BCRs 9, 10, 16). Species in bold are Watch List, non-bold are Stewardship species (after Rich et al. 2004) % BREEDING POP.

%WINTER POP.

PRIMARY HABITAT

CONTINENTAL POP. OBJECTIVE

MONITORING NEED*

100%

Sage

Increase 100%

Greater Sage-Grouse

80%

Sage

Increase 100%

Mo2

Bendire’s Thrasher

45%

Shrub

Increase 100%

Mo2

California Condor

41%

Cliffs

Recovery Plan

Spotted Owl

20%

Conifer

Recovery Plan

Brewer’s Sparrow

94%

Sage

Increase 100%

Pinyon Jay

92%

Woodland

Increase 100%

Lewis’s Woodpecker

87%

52%

Riparian

Maintain/Increase

Mo2

Cassin’s Finch

86%

61%

Conifer

Maintain

Willow Flycatcher

46%

Riparian

Increase 50%

White-throated Swift

38%

<1%

Canyon

Increase 100%

Mo2

Rufous Hummingbird

36%

Shrub

Increase 100%

Black Swift

29%

Waterfall

Increase 50%

Mo2

Olive-sided Flycatcher

21%

Conifer

Increase 100%

Mo3

Swainson’s Hawk

15%

Grassland

Maintain/Increase

Grace’s Warbler

14%

Mixed

Increase 50%

SPECIES IMMEDIATE ACTION: Gunnison Sage-Grouse

MANAGEMENT:

LONG-TERM PLANNING AND RESPONSIBILITY: Black Rosy-Finch

100%

>99%

Tundra

Maintain/Increase

Mo2

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

100%

99%

Tundra

Maintain/Increase

Mo2

Sage Thrasher

99%

31%

Sage

Maintain

Gray Flycatcher

96%

Woodland

Maintain

Mo2

Calliope Hummingbird

95%

Shrub

Maintain/Increase

Mo2

Red-naped Sapsucker

95%

Mixed

Maintain

Williamson’s Sapsucker

94%

15%

Conifer

Maintain

Mo2

Green-tailed Towhee

92%

Shrub

Maintain

Clark’s Nutcracker

89%

Conifer

Maintain

Dusky Flycatcher

86%

Shrub

Maintain

Sage Sparrow

83%

35%

Sage

Maintain

Mountain Bluebird

76%

35%

Shrub

Maintain

Gray Vireo

68%

Woodland

Maintain

Mo2

Virginia’s Warbler

62%

Woodland

Maintain/Increase

Mo2

Flammulated Owl

40%

Conifer

Maintain/Increase

Mo1

White-headed Woodpecker

27%

Conifer

Maintain

Mo2

McCown’s Longspur

21%

<1%

Grassland

Maintain/Increase

* Monit o r i n g N e e d ( l o n g - te r m, c on tin e n ta l sc a le ) : Mo1 = n o trend data; M o 2=i mpreci se trends; M o 3= i nadequate co verag e i n norther n p orti on of ra ng e ; * * = g e n e r a l l y a de qu a te tre n d mon itor in g, bu t some i ssues (e.g . bi as) may no t have been adequatel y acco unted fo r.

7.56

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

AZ-16

AZ-33

AZ-34

AZ-35

CA-5

CA-9

AGRICULTURAL

19,390

566

6,461

3,643

42,685

539,563

2,377,966

2,999

609,000

28,276

98,716

203,465

43,215

2,315

86,368

1,365

155,486

95,699

OTHER SHRUB

3,074,999

817,001

198,503

112,834

941,315

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH

5,249,685

30,686

521,400

82,724

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

1,309,117

9,775

70,021

44,135

3,566,527

702,694

4,764

2,796,102

39,898

788,257

1,813

163,797

442

15,012

258,947

6,533,385

216,807

2,572,236

8,367

50,046

950,480

496

435,152

326,683

116,471

238,723

609,252

892,472

SPRUCE-FIR

32,456

52,307

11,520

ASPEN WOODLAND

21,833

80,413

32,065

WATER

24,188

16,675

8,772

16,040

264,105

122

104

16,082

63,321

2,379

11,682

1,277

91,566

48,551

3,494

6,931

366

3,074

122,923

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND

2,092,347

123,181

188,235

107

44,138

705,723

21,650,619

1,240,083

7,601,045

155,496

1,569,715

9,937,409

GRASSLAND MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST PINE-OAK WOODLAND JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND OTHER FOREST MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER

WET MEADOW/MARSH OTHER WETLAND RIPARIAN WOODLAND

OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

7.57

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

CA-15

CA-32

CA-33

CO-10

C0-16

ID-9

AGRICULTURAL

99,013

31,135

210

200,837

2,301,809

5,637,417

GRASSLAND

73,180

97,041

1,663

110,196

2,195,266

2,777,988

284,806

82,956

35,238

2,854,111

314,605

5,908

3,939,252

172,248

48,689

111,076

111,976

1,864,853

489,432

414,919

215,372

1,545,047

3,967,301

12,582,661

48,349

19,123

2,543,851

436,010

7,754

70,623

52,137

206,721

147,953

5,050,388

573,691

537,404

90,507

7,532

4,670

1,800,544

218,129

2,351,132

16,267

227

141

1,668,423

371,083

199

4,531,111

216,043

10,556

166

6,097

3,298,573

669,752

395,366

29,514

4,675

4,590

46,690

2,221

124

483,136

89,180

269

5,600

11,266

13,901

12,783

5,305

1,878

9,361

204,391

400,109

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS

426

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND

695,606

29,062

374,273

43,958

373,190

122,119

2,628,157

2,264,824

4,714,272

488,673

4,862,354

2,304,143

36,271,461

27,275,425

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND OTHER SHRUB GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH SAGEBRUSH STEPPE DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST PINE-OAK WOODLAND JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND OTHER FOREST MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER SPRUCE-FIR ASPEN WOODLAND WATER WET MEADOW/MARSH OTHER WETLAND RIPARIAN WOODLAND

OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

7.58

142,849

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

ID-10

ID-16

MT-10

MT-17

NM-16

NM-34

SPRUCE-FIR

32,456

52,307

11,520

359,548

1,573

1,439,221

4,725

254,209

2,759

1,689,319

1,335

3,036,858

23,622

10,144,072

1,191,341

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND

798,446

8,884

755,902

314

360,213

103,153

OTHER SHRUB

716,177

581,660

235

236,042

164,547

448

4,584,010

223,145

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

3,824,796

35,387

4,331,266

19,281

1,115,486

3,044

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST

1,971,057

276

2,766,877

1,517

2,973,448

2,047,204

3,602

194,968

35,800

3,369

51,402

9,240,942

2,509,090

OTHER FOREST

2,394,613

33,435

3,651,103

65,595

4,911

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER

6,894,060

35,860

3,679,513

939,007

156,477

SPRUCE-FIR

3,893,469

12,515

5,074,736

378,115

18,800

ASPEN WOODLAND

499,654

83,715

308,171

159

305,473

97,515

WATER

281,686

376,204

123

82,068

522

WET MEADOW/MARSH

828,638

679

1,012,187

1,260

35,527

1,421

19,038

18,478

10,511

411

447,233

2,679

661,244

4,747

298,144

18,242

90,189

2,743

196,069

161

21,531

3,479

1,236,789

1,383

2,174,934

3,331

1,650,158

119,744

25,981,036

223,927

30,115,971

59,611

32,698,155

6,860,774

AGRICULTURAL GRASSLAND

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH

PINE-OAK WOODLAND JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND

OTHER WETLAND RIPARIAN WOODLAND RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS RIPARIAN SHUBLAND OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

7.59

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

NM-35

NV-9

NV-15

NV-16

NV-33

OR-5

311,874

507,743

15,389

10,259

408

8,167,031

1,826,679

5,216

4,584

23,139

170,463

634,892

13,147

2,248

19,888

8,759,971

1,632,004

36,622

5,690,249

11,989

413,430

14,649,557

877

955

1,874,238

1,720

27,677,347

30,342

174

657,090

2,236

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST

123,817

5,401

44,155

1,527

16,465

PINE-OAK WOODLAND

723,247

309

1,583,862

8,491,827

34,800

27,048

305,284

24,228

133,306

37,181

23,480

537,035

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER

8,524

65,886

534

35,696

486,816

SPRUCE-FIR

3,229

90,173

18,738

ASPEN WOODLAND

7,556

348,207

WATER

69,559

215,600

32,937

106,315

28,808

WET MEADOW/MARSH

11,712

95,392

3,850

3,963

6,801

OTHER WETLAND

129,730

1,580,328

549

165,443

203

RIPARIAN WOODLAND

124,879

277,952

8,751

26,872

32,381

194

754

557

869,461

2,704,212

7,386

577,223

34,664

21,504,486

60,937,273

236,924

9,500,582

1,199,992

AGRICULTURAL GRASSLAND MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND OTHER SHRUB GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND OTHER FOREST

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS RIPARIAN SHUBLAND OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

7.60

71,405

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

OR-9

OR-10

UT-9

UT-10

UT-16

UT-33

AGRICULTURAL

2,841,754

412,217

1,284,455

1,276

819,795

276

GRASSLAND

2,226,958

612,423

917,709

1,688

473,052

101,531

326,086

293,860

5,990

1,681,893

54,978

14,612

10,193

2,787,461

107,165

595,045

14,586

5,385,170

9,594

2,915,812

2,383

13,425,926

3,615,581

3,856,752

541,096

5,331,320

2,202,132

1,276,978

608

500,301

137,528

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND

1,403,029

1,505,594

3,053,718

90,879

7,535,855

223

OTHER FOREST

1,187,134

442,502

87,729

435

595,744

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER

1,129,631

3,360,330

76,175

357

697,294

SPRUCE-FIR

23,718

403,529

29,519

187

1,082,754

ASPEN WOODLAND

48,631

191,458

57,083

6,871

1,803,589

WATER

331,061

31,326

1,348,168

1,427

272,242

WET MEADOW/MARSH

190,257

126,116

116,535

116,093

OTHER WETLAND

612,075

15,426

2,779,649

3,181

1,288

RIPARIAN WOODLAND

223,208

242,907

95,419

58,860

297,989

15,162

18,142

671

72,798

1,714,284

682,418

1,693,878

31,549

5,429,967

4,543

28,464,040

13,292,230

21,087,290

753,542

32,415,246

114,826

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND OTHER SHRUB GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH SAGEBRUSH STEPPE DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST PINE-OAK WOODLAND

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS RIPARIAN SHUBLAND OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

7.61

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

WA-5

WA-9

WA-10

WY-9

WY-10

WY-16

7,515,645

125,161

3,491

1,106,479

52,786

1,051

1,741,954

837,005

244

1,442,870

264,617

280

38,327

168,005

103

224,211

53,319

16,403

229,304

27,101

146

330,681

107,556

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH

24,317

4,612,398

3,317

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

4,745,575

130,197

1,362

18,984,506

691,579

678,919

420,655

9,635

420,530

148,545

155,004

24,944

5,501

850,482

162,442

34,924

371,737

370,595

638

2,321,830

516,695

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER

102,744

2,262,040

2,821,266

85,851

47,745

SPRUCE-FIR

166,488

1,332,591

81,411

5,061

2,319,330

110,819

24,608

3,127

3,017

372,334

71,106

WATER

1,603

340,836

81,103

329,038

4,135

WET MEADOW/MARSH

1,135

29,026

66,470

1,810

625,654

550

15,910

1,195

633,249

51,120

1,863

148,915

47,765

455

520,544

25,178

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND

10,574

159

44,981

12,098

1,282,581

514,065

1,496

4,320,388

9,981

338,812

20,972,808

5,700,879

27,710

39,545,356

2,321,490

AGRICULTURAL GRASSLAND MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND OTHER SHRUB

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST PINE-OAK WOODLAND JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND OTHER FOREST

ASPEN WOODLAND

OTHER WETLAND RIPARIAN WOODLAND

OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

7.62

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR COVER TYPE

WY-17

WY-18

AGRICULTURAL

180,409

653,568

GRASSLAND

934,905

1,892,076

7,258

34,720

183

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH

157,363

36,039

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

880,622

208,376

2,078

2,380

84,915

21,399

OTHER FOREST

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER

418

17,685

7,126

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND OTHER SHRUB

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST PINE-OAK WOODLAND JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND

SPRUCE-FIR ASPEN WOODLAND WATER WET MEADOW/MARSH

OTHER WETLAND

26,501

11,182

RIPARIAN WOODLAND

41,229

30,754

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND

212,397

130,213

2,545,396

3,028,462

OTHER/UNVEGETATED SUBTOTALS

Photo by Daniel Casey

7.63

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

CRP

Agriculture

Pasture/Hay

Agriculture

Cultivated Cropland

Agriculture

High Structure Agriculture

Agriculture

441

Agriculture

512

Cropland

Agriculture

517

Dryland Grain Crops

Agriculture

520

Irrigated Grain Crops

Agriculture

521

Irrigated Hayfield

Agriculture

522

Irrigated Row and Field Crops

Agriculture

535

Orchard and Vineyard

Agriculture

536

Pasture

Agriculture

541

Rice

Agriculture

Inter-Mountain Basins Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

Aspen

311

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland

Aspen

419

Inter-Mountain West Aspen-Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Complex Aspen

504

Aspen

California Montane Jeffrey Pine Woodland

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

208

Northwestern Great Plains - Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

Savanna 416

Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

436

Mediterranean California Ponderosa-Jeffrey Pine Forest and Woodland

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

539

Ponderosa Pine

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

112

Willamette Valley Upland Prairie and Savanna

Grassland

113

Klamath-Siskiyou Xeromorphic Serpentine Savanna and Chaparral

Grassland

121

California Mesic Serpentine Grassland

Grassland

123

Columbia Basin Foothill and Canyon Dry Grassland

Grassland

128

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane, Foothill and Valley Grassland

Grassland

129

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Upper Montane Grassland

Grassland

130

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie

Grassland

131

Columbia Basin Palouse Prairie

Grassland

137

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie

Grassland

138

Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie

Grassland

139

North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Dry Grassland

Grassland

7.64

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

147

Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual Grassland

Grassland

148

Introduced Upland Vegetation - Perennial Grassland

Grassland

152

Recently burned grassland

Grassland

211

California Northern Coastal Grassland

Grassland

227

Central Mixedgrass Prairie

Grassland

327

Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland

Grassland

328

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland

Grassland

338

North Pacific Montane Grassland

Grassland

339

Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland

Grassland

452

Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe

Grassland

454

Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland

Grassland

457

Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland

Grassland

476

Western Great Plains Sandhill Prairie

Grassland

478

Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie

Grassland

480

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe

Grassland

503

Annual Grassland

Grassland

537

Perennial Grassland

Grassland

119

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe

Greasewood/Saltbush

309

Inter-Mountain Basins Wash

Greasewood/Saltbush

317

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

Greasewood/Saltbush

323

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

Greasewood/Saltbush

332

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

Greasewood/Saltbush

426

Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

Greasewood/Saltbush

427

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe

Greasewood/Saltbush

453

Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

Greasewood/Saltbush

515

Desert Wash

Greasewood/Saltbush

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and Savanna

Juniper/Pine Woodland

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland

Juniper/Pine Woodland

114

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothill Conifer Wooded Steppe

Juniper/Pine Woodland

316

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Juniper/Pine Woodland

325

Inter-Mountain Basins Juniper Savanna

Juniper/Pine Woodland

418

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Juniper/Pine Woodland

421

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Shrubland

Juniper/Pine Woodland

450

Recently Chained Pinyon-Juniper Areas

Juniper/Pine Woodland

463

Madrean Juniper Savanna

Juniper/Pine Woodland

465

Madrean Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Juniper/Pine Woodland

472

Southern Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodland and Savanna

Juniper/Pine Woodland

7.65

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

473

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Juniper/Pine Woodland

525

Juniper

Juniper/Pine Woodland

538

Pinyon-Juniper

Juniper/Pine Woodland

East Cascades Mesic Montane Mixed-Conifer Forest and Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Klamath-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Klamath-Siskiyou Upper Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

North Pacific Dry Douglas-fir-(Madrone) Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

North Pacific Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Mediterranean California Mixed Evergreen Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Northern Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Woodland 80

Sierran-Intermontane Desert Western White Pine-White Fir Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

North Pacific Dry-Mesic Silver Fir-Western Hemlock-Douglas-fir Forest

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

North Pacific Lowland Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forest and Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

207

Southern Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Woodland 315

Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

414

Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

Woodland 415

Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

516

Douglas-Fir

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

518

Eastside Pine

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

523

Jeffrey Pine

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

526

Klamath Mixed Conifer

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

550

White Fir

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

107

Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland

Mountain Shrubland

318

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland

Mountain Shrubland

319

Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Mountain Shrubland

320

Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral

Mountain Shrubland

420

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland

Mountain Shrubland

423

Mogollon Chaparral

Mountain Shrubland

434

Sonora-Mojave-Baja Semi-Desert Chaparral

Mountain Shrubland

509

Chamise-Redshank Chaparral

Mountain Shrubland

530

Mixed Chaparral

Mountain Shrubland

7.66

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 531 531 556 556 39 39 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 64 64 78 78 88 88 144 144 151 151 155 155 200 200 209 209 210 210 214 214 220 220 221 221 312 312 314 314 337 337 410 410 411 411 412 412 435 435 467 467 510 510 528 528 532 532 533 533 540 540 545 545 558 558 561 561 86 86

7.67

Montane Chaparral Montane Chaparral Marine Marine Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna North Pacific Maritime Mesic Subalpine Parkland North Pacific Maritime Mesic Subalpine Parkland North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest North Pacific Mountain Hemlock Forest North Pacific Mountain Hemlock Forest North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Northern California Mesic Subalpine Woodland Northern California Mesic Subalpine Woodland Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest North Pacific Wooded Volcanic Flowage North Pacific Wooded Volcanic Flowage Introduced Upland Vegetation - Treed Introduced Upland Vegetation - Treed Recently burned forest Recently burned forest Harvested forest-tree regeneration Harvested forest-tree regeneration Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine California Coastal Closed-Cone Conifer Forest and Woodland California Coastal Closed-Cone Conifer Forest and Woodland California Coastal Redwood Forest California Coastal Redwood Forest Mediterranean California Mesic Serpentine Woodland and Chaparral Mediterranean California Mesic Serpentine Woodland and Chaparral North Pacific Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest North Pacific Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock Forest Forest Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Woodland Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Woodland Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Woodland Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Woodland Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress Lodgepole Pine Lodgepole Pine Montane Hardwood Montane Hardwood Montane Hardwood-Conifer Montane Hardwood-Conifer Red Fir Red Fir Subalpine Conifer Subalpine Conifer Redwood Redwood Unknown Conifer Type Unknown Conifer Type North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland

IWJV COVER TYPES IWJV COVER TYPES Mountain Shrubland Mountain Shrubland Open Water Open Water Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Forest Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other

Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Shrub Shrub

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 93 93 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 106 106 108 108 109 109 132 132 142 142 145 145 153 153 156 156 203 203 219 219 225 225 407 407 424 424 425 425 451 451 455 455 456 456 458 458 459 459 469 469 470 470 471 471 475 475 477 477 479 479 501 501 514 514 524 524 551 551 552 552 553 553

7.68

North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland, Fell-field and North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland, Fell-field and Meadow Meadow North Pacific Avalanche Chute Shrubland North Pacific Avalanche Chute Shrubland North Pacific Montane Shrubland North Pacific Montane Shrubland California Montane Woodland and Chaparral California Montane Woodland and Chaparral California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland Northern Rocky Mountain Avalanche Chute Shrubland Northern Rocky Mountain Avalanche Chute Shrubland Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field Ruderal Upland - Old Field Ruderal Upland - Old Field Introduced Upland Vegetation - Shrub Introduced Upland Vegetation - Shrub Recently burned shrubland Recently burned shrubland Harvested forest-shrub regeneration Harvested forest-shrub regeneration Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra/Fell-field/Dwarf-shrub Map Unit Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra/Fell-field/Dwarf-shrub Map Unit North Pacific Hypermaritime Shrub and Herbaceous Headland North Pacific Hypermaritime Shrub and Herbaceous Headland Northern California Coastal Scrub Northern California Coastal Scrub North American Warm Desert Wash North American Warm Desert Wash Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub Coahuilan Chaparral Coahuilan Chaparral Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub Alkali Desert Scrub Alkali Desert Scrub Desert Scrub Desert Scrub Joshua Tree Joshua Tree Chamise-Redshank Chaparral Chamise-Redshank Chaparral Coastal Scrub Coastal Scrub Desert Succulent Shrub Desert Succulent Shrub

IWJV COVER TYPES IWJV COVER TYPES Other Shrub Other Shrub Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other Other

Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

560

Unknown Shrub Type

Other Shrub

Temperate Pacific Intertidal Mudflat

Other Wetland

149

Introduced Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Other Wetland

162

Northern Rocky Mountain Conifer Swamp

Other Wetland

168

North Pacific Bog and Fen

Other Wetland

172

North Pacific Shrub Swamp

Other Wetland

174

North Pacific Hardwood-Conifer Swamp

Other Wetland

175

Great Plains Prairie Pothole

Other Wetland

177

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

Other Wetland

178

Temperate Pacific Freshwater Aquatic Bed

Other Wetland

182

North Pacific Maritime Eelgrass Bed

Other Wetland

183

Columbia Plateau Vernal Pool

Other Wetland

184

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen

Other Wetland

187

Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland

Other Wetland

189

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

Other Wetland

193

Inter-Mountain Basins Alkaline Closed Depression

Other Wetland

204

Temperate Pacific Freshwater Mudflat

Other Wetland

217

Mediterranean California Serpentine Fen

Other Wetland

224

Northern California Claypan Vernal Pool

Other Wetland

228

Temperate Pacific Tidal Salt and Brackish Marsh

Other Wetland

310

Inter-Mountain Basins Playa

Other Wetland

335

Mediterranean California Subalpine-Montane Fen

Other Wetland

409

North American Warm Desert Playa

Other Wetland

554

Estuarine

Other Wetland

559

Saline Emergent Wetland

Other Wetland

222

North Pacific Intertidal Freshwater Wetland

Other Wetland

527

Lacustrine

Other Wetlands

Developed, Open Space

Other Habitats

Developed, Low Intensity

Other Habitats

Developed, Medium Intensity

Other Habitats

Developed, High Intensity

Other Habitats

Quarries, Mines and Gravel Pits

Other Habitats

Unconsolidated Shore

Other Habitats

Western Great Plains Badland

Other Habitats

North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Bedrock and Scree

Other Habitats

Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock

Other Habitats

North American Alpine Ice Field

Other Habitats

7.69

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

North Pacific Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land

Other Habitats

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop

Other Habitats

North Pacific Montane Massive Bedrock, Cliff and Talus

Other Habitats

North Pacific Serpentine Barren

Other Habitats

Klamath-Siskiyou Cliff and Outcrop

Other Habitats

Columbia Plateau Ash and Tuff Badland

Other Habitats

Western Great Plains Dry Bur Oak Forest and Woodland

Other Habitats

Mediterranean California Alpine Fell-Field

Other Habitats

Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland

Other Habitats

133

Rocky Mountain Alpine Turf

Other Habitats

141

North Pacific Herbaceous Bald and Bluff

Other Habitats

146

Introduced Upland Vegetation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Forbland

Other Habitats

157

Harvested forest-grass regeneration

Other Habitats

163

Western Great Plains Floodplain

Other Habitats

166

Northwestern Great Plains Floodplain

Other Habitats

205

Non-specific Disturbed

Other Habitats

206

Geysers and Hot Springs

Other Habitats

212

Harvested forest-herbaceous regeneration

Other Habitats

213

Mediterranean California Alpine Dry Tundra

Other Habitats

215

Mediterranean California Northern Coastal Dune

Other Habitats

216

Mediterranean California Serpentine Barrens

Other Habitats

218

North Pacific Coastal Cliff and Bluff

Other Habitats

223

North Pacific Maritime Coastal Sand Dune and Strand

Other Habitats

302

Rocky Mountain Alpine Bedrock and Scree

Other Habitats

303

Mediterranean California Alpine Bedrock and Scree

Other Habitats

304

Sierra Nevada Cliff and Canyon

Other Habitats

305

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon

Other Habitats

306

Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland

Other Habitats

308

Inter-Mountain Basins Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land

Other Habitats

401

Rocky Mountain Cliff and Canyon

Other Habitats

402

Colorado Plateau Mixed Bedrock Canyon and Tableland

Other Habitats

403

North American Warm Desert Bedrock Cliff and Outcrop

Other Habitats

404

North American Warm Desert Badland

Other Habitats

405

North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune

Other Habitats

406

North American Warm Desert Volcanic Rockland

Other Habitats

408

North American Warm Desert Pavement

Other Habitats

428

Rocky Mountain Dry Tundra

Other Habitats

7.70

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

429

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow

Other Habitats

438

Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity

Other Habitats

439

Developed, Medium - High Intensity

Other Habitats

440

Barren Lands, Non-specific

Other Habitats

442

Disturbed, Non-specific

Other Habitats

443

Recently Burned

Other Habitats

444

Recently Mined or Quarried

Other Habitats

446

Invasive Perennial Grassland

Other Habitats

448

Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland

Other Habitats

460

Disturbed, Oil well

Other Habitats

461

Invasive Perennial Forbland

Other Habitats

468

Recently Logged Areas

Other Habitats

502

Alpine-Dwarf Shrub

Other Habitats

505

Barren

Other Habitats

546

Urban

Other Habitats

555

Eucalyptus

Other Habitats

557

Palm Oasis

Other Habitats

466

Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodland

North Pacific Oak Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

Mediterranean California Lower Montane Black Oak-Conifer Forest and

Pine-Oak Woodlands

Woodland 83

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland

110

California Lower Montane Blue Oak-Foothill Pine Woodland and Savanna Pine-Oak Woodlands

462

Madrean Encinal

Pine-Oak Woodlands

464

Madrean Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

507

Blue Oak Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

508

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Pine-Oak Woodlands

511

Coastal Oak Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

547

Valley Oak Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

601

Recently Burned Agriculture

613

Recently Burned Aspen

602

Recently Burned Grassland

605

Recently Burned Greasewood/Saltbush

610

Recently Burned Juniper/Pine Woodlands

611

Recently Burned Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

603

Recently Burned Mountain Shrubland

7.71

Pine-Oak Woodlands

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

607

Recently Burned Other Forest

604

Recently Burned Other Shrub

616

Recently Burned Other Wetland

620

Recently Burned Other/Unvegetated

612

Recently Burned Spruce-Fir

615

Recently Burned Wet Meadow/Marsh

608

Recently Burned Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

609

Recently Burned Pine Oak Woodlands

618

Recently Burned Riparian Herbaceous

617

Recently Burned Riparian Woodland

606

Recently Burned Sagebrush Steppe

474

Western Great Plains Floodplain Herbaceous Wetland

Riparian Herbaceous

329

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland

Riparian Shrubland

Western Great Plains Wooded Draw and Ravine

Riparian Woodland

160

North Pacific Lowland Riparian Forest and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

161

North Pacific Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

164

Northern Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and

Riparian Woodland

Shrubland 170

Columbia Basin Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

195

Mediterranean California Serpentine Foothill and Lower Montane

Riparian Woodland

Riparian Woodland and Seep 196

Northwestern Great Plains Riparian

Riparian Woodland

198

Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

330

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Woodland

Riparian Woodland

331

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

336

Great Basin Foothill and Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and

Riparian Woodland

Shrubland 430

North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and

Riparian Woodland

Shrubland 431

North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

620

Recently Burned Other/Unvegetated

432

North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque

Riparian Woodland

445

Invasive Southwest Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

513

Desert Riparian

Riparian Woodland

534

Montane Riparian

Riparian Woodland

542

Riverine

Riparian Woodland

548

Valley-Foothill Riparian

Riparian Woodland

700

Roads

7.72

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

IWJV COVER TYPES

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland

Sagebrush Steppe

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

Sagebrush Steppe

115

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland

Sagebrush Steppe

116

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe

Sagebrush Steppe

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

Sagebrush Steppe

115

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland

Sagebrush Steppe

116

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe

Sagebrush Steppe

321

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

Sagebrush Steppe

322

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush Shrubland

Sagebrush Steppe

324

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Sagebrush Steppe

326

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Sagebrush Steppe

422

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush Shrubland

Sagebrush Steppe

437

Wyoming Basins Low Sagebrush Shrubland

Sagebrush Steppe

506

Bitterbrush

Sagebrush Steppe

529

Low Sage

Sagebrush Steppe

543

Sagebrush

Sagebrush Steppe

Mediterranean California Subalpine Woodland

Spruce-fir

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Woodland and Parkland

Spruce-fir

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic-Wet Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland

Spruce-fir

313

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland

Spruce-fir

413

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland

Spruce-fir

301

Open Water

Water

126

Mediterranean California Subalpine Meadow

Wet Meadow/Marsh

134

Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Mesic Meadow

Wet Meadow/Marsh

190

Temperate Pacific Freshwater Emergent Marsh

Wet Meadow/Marsh

191

Temperate Pacific Subalpine-Montane Wet Meadow

Wet Meadow/Marsh

197

Inter-Mountain Basins Interdunal Swale Wetland

Wet Meadow/Marsh

226

Willamette Valley Wet Prairie

Wet Meadow/Marsh

333

North American Arid West Emergent Marsh

Wet Meadow/Marsh

334

Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow

Wet Meadow/Marsh

433

Temperate Pacific Montane Wet Meadow

Wet Meadow/Marsh

519

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Wet Meadow/Marsh

549

Wet Meadow

Wet Meadow/Marsh

7.73

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX E. OVERLAPS BETWEEN MAPPED RANGES OF IWJV FOCAL SPECIES AND BCR/STATE POLYGONS STATES

BCR

BTPI

BETH

BRSP

FEHA

FLOW

GRWA

GRSP

GRFL

GRVI

LEWO

P A

A P

PIJA

OSFL

LBCU

A P

A = A l l o f p o l y g o n is with in spe c ie s’ bre e din g r a n ge; P = part A n a s t e r i s k i n d i c a te s kn own r a n ge ou tside of th e Nature Serve mapped rang e G re e n = o u t s i d e t h e ma ppe d r a n ge , bu t PI F h a d a po pul ati o n esti mate.

7.74

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX E. OVERLAPS BETWEEN MAPPED RANGES OF IWJV FOCAL SPECIES AND BCR/STATE POLYGONS STATES

BCR

RNSA

RUHU

SAGS

SATH

SWHA

VIWA

WHWO

WIFL

A Spp

P Spp

Tot Spp

7.75

P A

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX F. POPULATION TRENDS OF FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES, IWJV STATES, 1967–2007 Statistically significant trends are in bold, and color (light blue for increases, red for decreases). Values are annual rates of change as indicated by Breeding Bird Survey data. SPECIES

BTPI

-0.7

-0.5

8.7

-9.0

-0.7

-0.5

BETH

-3.2

14.3

-5.5

3.8

BRSP

-5.1

-2.7

-3.0

-2.5

-1.2

-2.1

0.3

-2.3

-0.9

-0.4

-0.7

FEHA

1.1

-1.6

5.8

8.2

14.1

1.4

-1.9

-8.2

-0.3

FLOW

GRWA

-2.2

8.2

-2.6

0.4

GRSP

1.6

-4.6

-5.0

-2.8

-0.5

-0.1

36.7

-3.3

-2.4

GRFL

2.6

3.3

-0.9

18.2

6.0

8.1

1.6

4.7

GRVI

3.3

-0.8

5.9

-5.1

LEWO

67.8

-2.1

0.1

3.8

-3.6

-9.6

-5.2

-8.1

LBCU

22.8

-6.0

2.1

-0.7

-3.1

5.3

8.2

-0.4

-3.6

7.9

OSFL

7.6

-3.5

-0.2

-3.0

-0.1

2.0

-3.7

-6.1

-2.2

2.2

PIJA

-5.5

-7.7

-4.8

-2.8

-9.5

-4.2

1.8

-1.5

0.7

2.7

-0.9

5.7

5.2

5.9

5.0

2.2

3.9

4.3

15.9

RUHU

11.2

0.9

11.2

-3.7

-1.4

120

SAGS

2.5

-1.4

1.1

-3.2

1.6

-2.9

-1.9

-0.5

9.2

0.8

SATH

-0.5

0.7

0.6

-1.7

-0.7

-1.7

-6.8

-1.1

-3.1

2.8

1.4

SWHA

4.1

13.7

-2.1

3.5

0.4

3.2

-0.5

2.9

0.8

-1.2

VIWA

-2.1

-2.5

-0.3

1.6

1.9

4.0

14.9

30.9

0.9

-1.5

-0.6

-5.0

-4.9

1.5

-1.1

0.2

(RNSA)

WHWO (WIFL) In c re a s e s De c re a s e

Species Codes:

LBCU: Long-billed Curlew

BTPI: Band-tailed Pigeon

OSFL: Olive-sided Flycatcher

BETH: Bendire’s Thrasher

PIJA: Pinyon Jay

BRSP: Brewer’s Sparrow

RNSA: Red-naped Sapsucker (Sapsucker, spp.)

FEHA: Ferruginous Hawk

RUHU: Rufous Hummingbird

FLOW: Flammulated Owl

SAGS: Sage Sparrow

GRWA: Grace’s Warbler

SATH: Sage Thrasher

GRSP: Grasshopper Sparrow

SWHA: Swainson’s Hawk

GRFL: Gray Flycatcher

VIWA: Virginia’s Warbler

GRVI: Gray Vireo

WHWO: White-headed Woodpecker

LEWO: Lewis’s Woodpecker

WIFL: Willow(/Alder) Flycatcher

7.76

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16 BCR 9 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (4,120,962 acres)

BCR 9 Habitat: Aspen (1,183,363 acres)

Manage stands dominated by ponderosa pine forest to restore historic characteristics of open condition with mature trees and high snag densities. Retain old growth stands, retain and recruit large-diameter snags, and thin dense stands in order to restore the role of fire.

Highest Priority Species:

• Encroachment by conifers

• Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)

• Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock

• White-headed Woodpecker (maintain) • Flammulated Owl (maintain) • Gray Flycatcher (maintain)

Major Threats/Issues: • Out-of-balance age distribution and structure • Residential development of lower elevation forests • Disrupted fire regime, leading to stand replacement fires • “Clean” forestry that removes dead and dying trees

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks • Work with land trusts to target key habitat areas for protection • Provide outreach and incentives for snag management (BMPs) • Clarify the unique habitat features of mature pine and snags in light of extensive mortality in lodgepole pine

• Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain) • Flammulated Owl (maintain)

Major Threats/Issues:

• Poorly mapped and therefore underrepresented in spatial data sets

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Regeneration of clones through removal of encroaching conifers, prescribed fire • Strive to build multi-age stands of >40ac, with 20% mature to overmature (decadent, w/snags) • Initiate multistate conservation effort targeting private landowners • Build more reliable spatial layers to be used in targeted conservation efforts

• Attain and maintain 25% of stands in old growth condition

BCR 9 Habitat: Riparian Woodlands (1,268,980 acres)

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

Protect high quality reaches with structural diversity, and restore degraded reaches. Work to eliminate or reduce invasion by tamarisk and Russian olive. Re-establish or emulate natural flow regimes to encourage recruitment of woody vegetation and channel diversity.

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat) • Eastern Oregon, Washington; ne California, nw Nevada • Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

Highest Priority Species: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%) • Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%) • Rufous Hummingbird (increase 100%)

7.77

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16 Major Threats/Issues: • Altered flow regimes • Overgrazing and resultant lack of woody structure/ understory • Clearing/removal of overstory • Exotics: particularly Russian olive and tamarisk

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Protect and enhance existing stands, with an objective of no net loss

BCR 9 Habitat: Pine-Oak Woodlands (551,490 acres) Highest Priority Species: • Band-tailed Pigeon (increase 100%)

• Maintain and expand largest blocks of riparian woodland

• Flammulated Owl (maintain)

• Restore dynamic nature of systems through modified flows (watershed groups, irrigators, dam operations)

Major Threats/Issues:

• Work to maximize efficient and targeted delivery of WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and other Farm Bill programs.

• Altered fire regimes combined with encroachment by conifers

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat) • Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

BCR 9 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (14,497,692 acres) Retain large tracts of mature pinyon-juniper and work to ensure a supply of seed-producing pinyon.

Highest Priority Species: • Gray Flycatcher (maintain) • Pinyon Jay (increase 100%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation: energy exploration and development • Imbalance in distribution of age classes and stucture: too dense, or canopy removed altogether • Need to optimize management to balance with the needs of sagebrush birds • Overgrazed understory, invasive exotics

• Loss of oak habitat due to residential development

• Restore the role of fire, with targeted removal of encroaching conifers

BCR 9 Habitat: Mountain Shrubland (1,479,017 acres) Highest Priority Species: • Virginia’s Warbler (increase 10%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Fire, conversion and fragmentation due to residential development

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify, protect and enhance largest blocks of remaining habitat

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

• Maintain current distribution of pinyon anda limber pine stands

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• Manage for better distribution of age classes by protecting older stands, thinning, targeted burning

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

7.78

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16 BCR 9 Habitat: Mixed Coniferous Forest (4,797,373 acres)

• Provide outreach and incentives for snag management (BMPs)

BCR 9 Habitat: Spruce-Fir Forest (1,708,623 acres)

• Clarify the unique habitat features of mature pine and snags in light of extensive mortality in lodgepole pine

Highest Priority Species: • Olive-sided Flycatcher (increase 100%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Salvage logging in recently-burned forests

• Attain and maintain 25% of stands in old growth condition

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

• Even-aged timber management

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• Some managed areas might be population sinks

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Bitterroot Valley, MT; Blue Mountains, OR and WA; northern Idaho

• Maintain snags and emphasize shrub growth in managed forest landscapes • Participate in forest plan revision processes to incoporate species needs

BCR 10 Habitat: Aspen (1,387,711 acres) Highest Priority Species:

• Primarily a public land issue

• Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain)

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

• Flammulated Owl (maintain)

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

Major Threats/Issues: • Encroachment by conifers

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

• Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock

BCR 10 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (6,856,212 acres)

• Poorly mapped and therefore underrepresented in spatial data sets

Highest Priority Species:

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)

• Regeneration of clones through removal of encroaching conifers, prescribed fire

• Flammulated Owl (maintain) • White-headed Woodpecker (maintain)

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Strive to build multi-age stands of >40ac, with 20% mature to overmature (decadent, w/snags) • Initiate multistate conservation effort targeting private landowners • Build more reliable spatial layers to be used in targeted conservation efforts

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

• Identify and protect largest remaining blocks

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• Work with land trusts to target key habitat areas for protection

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

7.79

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16 BCR 10 Habitat: Riparian Woodlands (1,987,875 acres)

• Maintain current distribution of pinyon and limber pine stands

Highest Priority Species:

• Manage for better distribution of age classes by protecting older stands, thinning, targeted burning

• Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%) • Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%) • Rufous Hummingbird (increase 100%)

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

Major Threats/Issues:

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• Altered flow regimes

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

• Overgrazing and resultant lack of woody structure/ understory

• Wyoming, eastern Oregon

• Clearing/removal of overstory • Exotics: particularly Russian olive

BCR 10 Habitat: Spruce-Fir Forest (11,772,860 acres) Highest Priority Species:

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Olive-sided Flycatcher (increase 100%)

• Protect and enhance existing stands, with an objective of no net loss

• (Black Swift – maintain)

• Maintain and expand largest blocks of riparian woodland • Restore dynamic nature of systems through modified flows (watershed groups, irrigators, dam operations) • Work to maximize efficient and targeted delivery of WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and other Farm Bill programs.

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat) • Sites as indicated by HABPOPS

BCR 10 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (2,687,612 acres) Highest Priority Species: • Pinyon Jay (increase 100%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Salvage logging in recently-burned forests • Even-aged timber management • Some managed areas might be population sinks • Black Swifts: climate change/dewatering of high elevation sites

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain snags and emphasize shrub growth in managed forest landscapes • Participate in forest plan revision processes to incoporate species needs • Primarily a public land issue

• Overgrazed understory, invasive exotics

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

7.80

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16 BCR 16 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (6,870,642 acres)

• Poorly mapped and therefore underrepresented in spatial data sets

Highest Priority Species:

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)

• Regeneration of clones through removal of encroaching conifers, prescribed fire

• Flammulated Owl (maintain) • Grace’s Warbler (increase 50%) • Band-tailed Pigeon (increase 100%)

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• Identify and protect largest remaining blocks

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

• Work with land trusts to target key habitat areas for protection

• Western Colorado, northeastern Utah

• Provide outreach and incentives for snag management (BMPs)

BCR 16 Habitat: Riparian Woodlands (871,243 acres)

• Clarify the unique habitat features of mature pine and snags in light of extensive mortality in lodgepole pine

Highest Priority Species:

• Attain and maintain 25% of stands in old growth condition

• Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%)

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

• Altered flow regimes

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat) • Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

BCR 16 Habitat: Aspen (5,584,289 acres) Highest Priority Species: • Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain) • Flammulated Owl (maintain)

Major Threats/Issues: • Encroachment by conifers • Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock

7.81

• Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Overgrazing and resultant lack of woody structure/ understory • Clearing/removal of overstory • Exotics: particularly Russian olive

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Protect and enhance existing stands, with an objective of no net loss • Maintain and expand largest blocks of riparian woodland • Restore dynamic nature of systems through modified flows (watershed groups, irrigators, dam operations) • Work to maximize efficient and targeted delivery of WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and other Farm Bill programs.

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16 Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs): • Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify, protect and enhance largest blocks of remaining habitat

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

BCR 16 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (28,553,429 acres)

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

Highest Priority Species:

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model

• Gray Vireo (maintain)

BCR 16 Habitat: Spruce-Fir Forest (6,147,771 acres)

• Gray Flycatcher (maintain)

Highest Priority Species:

• Pinyon Jay (increase 100%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation: energy exploration and development

• Olive-sided Flycatcher (increase 100%) • (Black Swift – maintain)

• Imbalance in distribution of age classes and stucture: too dense, or canopy removed altogether

Major Threats/Issues:

• Need to optimize management to balance with the needs of sagebrush birds

• Even-aged timber management

• Overgrazed understory, invasive exotics

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain current distribution of pinyon and limber pine stands • Manage for better distribution of age classes by protecting older stands, thinning, targeted burning

• Salvage logging in recently-burned forests • Some managed areas might be population sinks • Black Swifts: climate change/dewatering of high elevation sites

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain snags and emphasize shrub growth in managed forest landscapes • Participate in forest plan revision processes to incoporate species needs

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):

• Primarily a public land issue

• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• recreational pressure

• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model • Primarily in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico

BCR 16 Habitat: Mountain Shrubland (5,003,882 acres) Highest Priority Species: • Virginia’s Warbler (increase 10%)

• Protect known swift nesting colonies from excessive

Major Threats/Issues: • Fire, conversion and fragmentation due to residential development

7.82

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

BAND-TAILED PIGEON

BENDIRE’S THRASHER

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

BREWER’S SPARROW

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW

7.83

FERRUGINOUS HAWK

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

GRAY FLYCATCHER

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

GRAY VIREO

GRACE’S WARBLER

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

LEWIS’S WOODPECKER

OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER

7.84

LONG-BILLED CURLEW

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

PINYON JAY

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER

RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

SAGE SPARROW

SWAINSON’S HAWK

7.85

SAGE THRASHER

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

VIRGINIA’S WARBLER

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg

APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES

Percent Change per Year

Less than -1.5  -1.5 to -0.25  > -0.25 to 0.25  > 0.25 to +1.5  Greater than +1.5 

WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER

7.86

WILLOW/ALDER FLYCATCHER

I n t e r m o u n t a i n We s t J o i n t Ve n t u re | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h r o u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | w w w. i w j v. o rg