(A) IWJV 2013 Implementation Plan - View Entire Plan by My Digital Nature

I n t e r mo u n t a i n We s t Jo i n t Ve n t u r e 2 013 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n Stre ngthe ning Scie nce a nd Pa r tne r ships

2 013 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Pl a n S t r e n g t h e n i n g S c i e n c e a n d Pa r t n e r s h i p s

Intermountain West Joint Venture 1001 S. Higgins Avenue, Suite A1 Missoula, MT 59801 T. 406.549.0732 F. 406.549.0496 E. info@iwjv.org

www.iwjv.org Citation: Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2013 Implementation Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Strengthening Science and Partnerships. Intermountain West Joint Venture, Missoula, MT.

Cover Photos: Working Ranch Photo-John Ranlett; Rancher-Lori Reed; Sage-grouse-Ron Stewart; Northern Pintail-USFWS; Sandhill Crane-Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Mule Deer-Mike Keller

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Plan represents an important benchmark for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West, made possible by the tireless efforts of individuals who care deeply about the remarkable landscapes and natural resources of this region. The crafters of this Plan believe that the best way to sustain bird populations at desired levels is to conserve habitat through a science-driven, partnership-based approach that considers the needs of wildlife and people. We are forever grateful to the folks that graciously contributed their time and energy to this Plan. The partnership is truly stronger than the sum of its parts. – Dave Smith, Intermountain West Joint Venture Coordinator, March 2013

The 2013 Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) Implementation Plan was developed through extensive collaboration among some of the best avian ecologists and habitat conservationists in the Intermountain West, organized through the IWJV Science Teams for Waterfowl, Shorebirds, Waterbirds, and Landbirds. This Plan is a product of the IWJV Science Team members, Management Board and staff, and other Joint Venture partners who contributed to its development and presentation. All played crucial roles in bringing this project to fruition, but the principal authors listed below truly did the heavy lifting – and for those contributions we are extremely grateful.

Special Recognition Goes To: Principal Authors • Brad Andres, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Daniel Casey, American Bird Conservancy

Plan Contributors IWJV Science Team Members Waterfowl Science Team

• Ashley Dayer, Strategic Communications Consultant

• Tom Aldrich, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

• Patrick Donnelly, Intermountain West Joint Venture

• Brad Bales, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Alison Duvall, Intermountain West Joint Venture

• Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Gary Ivey, International Crane Foundation

• Bruce Dugger, Oregon State University

• Don Paul, AvianWest, Inc.

• Joseph Fleskes, U.S. Geological Survey

• Mark Petrie, Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

• Don Kraege, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Dave Smith, Intermountain West Joint Venture

• Craig Mortimore, Nevada Department of Wildlife

• Kelli Stone, Two Birds One Stone LLC

• Mike Rabe, Arizona Game & Fish Department

• Sue Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Dan Yparraguirre, California Department of Fish and Game

• Josh Vest, Intermountain West Joint Venture • Tara Zimmerman, Kinglet Consulting, Inc

i.1

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Waterbird Science Team

Landbird Science Team (see note below)

• John Alexander, Klamath Bird Observatory

• Suzanne Fellows, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Bob Altman, American Bird Conservancy

• Jenny Hoskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Geoff Geupel, PRBO Conservation Science

• Dave Mauser, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Michael Green, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Colleen Moulton, Idaho Department of Fish and Game

• David Hanni, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

• John Neill, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

• Aaron Holmes, PRBO Conservation Science

• Andrea Orabona, Wyoming Game & Fish Department

• Larry Neel, Nevada Department of Wildlife

• Don Paul, AvianWest, Inc.

• Russ Norvell, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

• Dave Shuford, PRBO Conservation Science

• Terry Rich, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Jennifer Wheeler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Rex Sallabanks, Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Shorebird Science Team • Brad Andres, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Daniel Casey, American Bird Conservancy • Wendell Gilgert, Natural Resources Conservation Service • Suzanne Fellows, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• 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.

• Gary Ivey, International Crane Foundation • Dave Mauser, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Colleen Moulton, Idaho Department of Fish and Game • Larry Neel, Nevada Department of Wildlife • Don Paul, AvianWest, Inc. • Mark Petrie, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. • Bridget Olson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Dave Shuford, PRBO Conservation Science • Kelli Stone, Two Birds One Stone LLC • Sue Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

i.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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Other Contributions Graphic Design, Photos, Technical Assistance, and Management Board Leadership We extend our sincere appreciation to Sara Kauk, DesignMissoula, and Amy Farrell, times2studio, for formatting the Plan. We also recognize the individuals, organizations, and agencies that contributed photos: Daniel Casey, Colorado Division of Wildlife & Parks, Larry Kruckenberg, Jeremy Roberts of Conservation Media, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We thank the following IWJV Staff members, contractors, or partners that contributed to the project: Barb Bresson, Susannah Casey, Geodata, Inc., Randall Gray, Katie Guenzler, Lori Reed, Terry Mansfield, Christopher Rustay, and former Waterbird Science Team Leader, Nanette Seto. We also thank the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for significant contributions from its Migratory Bird Management Program, Region 1, and the national North American Waterbird Conservation Plan Coordinator; these funds played an instrumental role in the shorebird and waterbird conservation planning.

i.3

Further, we offer sincere thanks to the IWJV Management Board for leadership, direction, and guidance. Each and every member of the Management Board from 2007 to 2013 played an important role in this process, and we are eternally grateful for those contributions. We are especially indebted to the following Board Chairs for their leadership and savvy in the project: Alan Clark (20112013), Brad Bortner (2009-2011), and Larry Kruckenberg 2007-2009). Collectively, they brought many decades of experience to the development of this Plan. The staff of the IWJV offers sincere and heartfelt thanks for those contributions!

Contact Dave Smith Intermountain West Joint Venture Coordinator 1001 S. Higgins Avenue, Suite A1 Missoula, MT 59801 Dave_W_Smith@fws.gov 406.549.0287 (office) 406.370.7729 (cell) www.iwjv.org

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

The mission of the Intermountain West Joint Venture is to conserve priority bird habitats through partnership-driven, science-based projects and programs. We bring people and organizations together to leverage technical and financial resources, building our collective capacity to achieve conservation at meaningful scales.

Photo by USF WS

ii.1

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Photo by Rio de la Vista

The 2013 Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) Implementation Plan (Plan) – the third in the history of the Joint Venture – establishes a framework for sciencebased, habitat conservation that supports the work of a diverse and substantial network of conservation partners. The Plan will direct efforts of the Joint Venture over at least the next five years. The Plan is built upon the model of Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC – i.e. the iterative cycle of biological planning, conservation design, habitat delivery, monitoring, evaluation, and research). For migratory birds, this involves translating continental bird population objectives to ecoregional scales and identifying the quantity and quality of habitat needed to support priority bird populations at goal levels. The geographic and taxonomic scope of the IWJV requires a much different approach than has been used with the implementation plans of other Joint Ventures. The Intermountain West is characterized by an extremely high level of habitat heterogeneity, which requires establishing a relatively small number of focal species and carrying out biological planning and conservation design in focal landscapes or ii.2

ecoregions. This precludes the IWJV from developing a synthetic Implementation Plan for all priority birds, JVwide, at the present time. Nevertheless, the Plan lays out a vision for addressing IWJV science needs in a systematic, step-wise, and transparent manner. This approach is demonstrated through the presentation of populationhabitat modeling completed to date for specific groups of birds in specific landscapes for four major bird groups – waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds. Biological planning and conservation design required to establish defensible habitat objectives has been underway for several years and is complete for certain groups of birds at certain times during their annual life cycle in certain portions of the Intermountain West. For example, the Plan comprehensively identifies habitat needed to support spring-migrating waterfowl at North American Waterfowl Management Plan goal levels in Southern Oregon and Northeastern California. Likewise, it includes the results of the most detailed conservation strategy ever developed for shorebirds at the Great Salt Lake, one of the most important stopover sites for shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Remaining data gaps clearly hinder our ability to develop habitat objectives or spatially explicit decisionsupport tools for many priority species. However, this Plan consolidates our current knowledge of certain priority avian species, species-habitat relationships, and the quantity and location of habitat needed to support populations of those birds at goal levels â&#x20AC;&#x201C; beginning in landscapes with the greatest continental significance to shorebirds and waterfowl. It will be immediately valuable to habitat mangers in those landscapes and will provide a framework for future efforts to establish habitat objectives for other species or in other landscapes. The Plan includes a Habitat Conservation Strategy (Chapter 8) that defines the IWJV approach to habitat conservation delivery through establishment of habitat goals, objectives, and priorities. This chapter is included to reflect the emphasis and strength of the IWJV partnership in delivering on-the-ground habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Habitat conservation delivery has long been the hallmark of the IWJV partnership. Today, the Management Board allocates a significant amount of funding and staff resources to strengthening the habitat delivery capacity and effectiveness of a wide array of IWJV partners. We are actively engaged with partners in facilitating effective delivery of Farm Bill conservation programs; assisting state fish and wildlife agencies in habitat conservation through partnerships; working with the land-protection community to foster strategic habitat protection for priority avian habitats; and delivering a Capacity Grants Program intended to help IWJV partners capitalize on existing funding sources from public and private conservation programs.

ii.3

The Habitat Conservation Strategy provides an overview of the mechanisms available to the IWJV partnership for conservation delivery implementation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a key cog in the SHC wheel. This chapter describes, to the best of our ability at the present time what needs to be done to facilitate landscape-scale habitat conservation. As such, it provides a critical connection to the science platform established in the Waterfowl, Shorebird, Waterbird, and Landbird Chapters and provides an overview of some of the programmatic and funding mechanisms needed to influence avian habitats in key landscapes. Finally, the Plan includes a comprehensive Strategic Communications Plan to promote effective integration of biological planning, conservation design, on-theground habitat conservation, and monitoring, evaluation, and applied research among an incredibly diverse and extensive array of conservation partners. The Strategic Communications Plan will facilitate transfer of key findings of this Implementation Plan to the vast array of partners working to conserve avian habitats in the Intermountain West. This Plan represents a significant step in the evolution of the IWJV toward science-based, partnership-driven habitat conservation. Its defining characteristic isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the number of explicit decision-support tools it contains, but rather the foundation it provides for increasingly tightening the linkage between science and habitat conservation delivery. Foremost, it establishes a strategic framework for the future business of this diverse Joint Venture across the vast landscapes of the Intermountain West.

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

Inside this Document

Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s

Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1.2 Plan Overview.. ...................................................................................................................... 1.4 Foundation & Focus of the Plan............................................................................................ 1.5 Mission & Goals.. ................................................................................................................... 1.6 History................................................................................................................................... 1.7 •

1994-2005 Era.................................................................................................................. 1.7

•

2006-2013 Era.................................................................................................................. 1.7

Administrative Structure.. .................................................................................................... 1.10 Relationship to National Bird Plans & Initiatives................................................................. 1.11 •

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)................................................... 1.11

•

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP)....................................................... 1.12

•

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP).. .................................................. 1.12

•

North American Landbird Conservation Plan.. .................................................................. 1.12

•

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)........................................................ 1.13

Chapter 2 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 2.2 Ecological Setting................................................................................................................. 2.3 •

Northwestern Forested Mountains Ecological Region (162.2 million acres).. ........................ 2.3

•

North American Deserts Ecological Region (278.9 million acres).. ....................................... 2.4

•

Temperate Sierras Ecological Region (19.9 million acres)................................................... 2.7

Defining an Ecological Framework.. ...................................................................................... 2.9 •

Global/Intercontinental Scale (Level I Ecoregions).. ............................................................ 2.9

•

National/Sub-continental Scale (Level II Ecoregions).. ...................................................... 2.10

•

Regional Scale (Level III Ecoregions)............................................................................... 2.12

•

Local Scale (Level IV Ecoregions).................................................................................... 2.14

Conservation Estate & Landownership Patterns................................................................. 2.15 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 2.17

ii.4

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

Chapter 3 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 3.2

Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s

Biological Foundation Framework Overview ........................................................................ 3.4 Identify Priorities for Conservation Science.. ........................................................................ 3.5 •

A Strategic Framework for Conservation Science Priorities................................................ 3.5

Biological Planning . ........................................................................................................... 3.10 •

Assess Population Status.. .............................................................................................. 3.10

•

Determine Population Objectives.. ................................................................................... 3.10

•

Identifying Limiting Factors............................................................................................. 3.11

•

Estimating Net Landscape Change.................................................................................. 3.11

Conservation Design........................................................................................................... 3.13 •

Species-Habitat Models.................................................................................................. 3.13

•

Focus Areas................................................................................................................... 3.14

•

Characterize Past, Current and Potential Future Landscapes........................................... 3.14

•

Biological Capacity and Habitat Objectives..................................................................... 3.17

•

Decision Support Tools................................................................................................... 3.17

Monitoring & Evaluation...................................................................................................... 3.18 Assumption-driven Research ............................................................................................. 3.19 Initiating a Strategic Plan for Science Priorities ................................................................ 3.20 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 3.21

Chapter 4 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4.2 Non-Breeding Waterfowl....................................................................................................... 4.4 •

Structure of Non-Breeding Waterfowl Plan.. ....................................................................... 4.4

•

Biological Planning........................................................................................................... 4.4

•

Conservation Design......................................................................................................... 4.6

•

Habitat Delivery................................................................................................................ 4.6

Southern Oregon & Northeastern California (SONEC).. ......................................................... 4.7 •

Biological Planning........................................................................................................... 4.7

•

Conservation Design....................................................................................................... 4.14

•

Habitat Objectives for SONEC: Spring............................................................................. 4.24

Great Salt Lake.................................................................................................................... 4.25 •

Biological Planning......................................................................................................... 4.25

•

Conservation Design....................................................................................................... 4.30

Columbia Basin.. .................................................................................................................. 4.37 •

Biological Planning......................................................................................................... 4.37

•

Conservation Design....................................................................................................... 4.42

Breeding Waterfowl............................................................................................................. 4.53 Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 4.55 Appendix A. Waterfowl Science Team Members.. ................................................................ 4.58

ii.5

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

Chapter 5

Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 5.3 •

Guiding Documents.......................................................................................................... 5.3

•

Partnership Guidance....................................................................................................... 5.4

•

Planning Approach: Key-Site Strategy, Bioenergetics Modeling.. ........................................ 5.4

•

Description of the Region.. ................................................................................................ 5.4

An Introduction to Biological Planning for Shorebirds.......................................................... 5.5 Shorebirds of the Intermountain West.. ................................................................................. 5.6 Shorebird Habitat Types........................................................................................................ 5.9 Population Status & Trends................................................................................................. 5.11 Threats & Limiting Factors.................................................................................................. 5.13 •

Water Quantity and Quality.. ............................................................................................ 5.13

•

Habitat Loss or Degradation.. .......................................................................................... 5.13

•

Agriculture.. .................................................................................................................... 5.13

•

Rural Urbanization.......................................................................................................... 5.14

•

Invasive Species............................................................................................................. 5.14

•

Contaminants and Disease Outbreaks............................................................................. 5.15

•

Other Anthropogenic Factors.......................................................................................... 5.15

•

Climate Change.............................................................................................................. 5.15

Population Estimates & Objectives..................................................................................... 5.16 •

Population Estimates...................................................................................................... 5.16

•

Assumptions and Limitations of Data.. ............................................................................. 5.16

•

Regional Population Objectives....................................................................................... 5.16

Key Sites for Shorebird Conservation................................................................................. 5.19 •

The Great Salt Lake Key Site Conservation Strategy........................................................ 5.21

•

Blanca Wetlands Shorebird Habitat Strategy.. .................................................................. 5.22

Breeding Shorebird Focal Species...................................................................................... 5.22 •

Focal Species Profiles.. ................................................................................................... 5.23

Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 5.25 Appendix A. Shorebird Science Team Members.................................................................. 5.27 Appendix B. Status of Shorebird Species.. .......................................................................... 5.28 Appendix C. Common & Scientific Names of Shorebird Species Listed in this Document.. ..................................................................................................... 5.30

ii.6

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

Chapter 6 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 6.3

Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s

Waterbirds & The Intermountain West Region.. ..................................................................... 6.6 Overview of Planning Approach............................................................................................ 6.9 Waterbird Population Status & Trends.. ............................................................................... 6.10 •

Eared Grebe................................................................................................................... 6.12

•

Double-Crested Cormorant............................................................................................. 6.12

•

White-faced Ibis............................................................................................................. 6.13

•

Sandhill Cranes.............................................................................................................. 6.13

•

Caspian Tern.................................................................................................................. 6.15

Threats & Limiting Factors.................................................................................................. 6.16 •

Loss and Degradation of Wetland Habitat........................................................................ 6.16

•

Water Supply and Security.............................................................................................. 6.16

•

Water Quality.. ................................................................................................................ 6.18

•

Loss of Foraging Habitat................................................................................................. 6.18

•

Climate Change.............................................................................................................. 6.18

Population Estimates & Objectives..................................................................................... 6.20 Focal Species...................................................................................................................... 6.21 •

Focal Species Approach................................................................................................. 6.21

•

Focal Species and Conservation Planning....................................................................... 6.24

•

Focal Species Profiles.. ................................................................................................... 6.25

Population Inventory & Monitoring...................................................................................... 6.28 •

Western Colonial Waterbird Survey, 2009–2011............................................................... 6.28

•

North American Marsh Bird Monitoring............................................................................ 6.28

•

Continental Marsh Bird Monitoring Pilot Study.. ............................................................... 6.29

•

Periodic or Annual Waterbird Surveys.. ............................................................................ 6.29

•

Species-Specific Surveys.. .............................................................................................. 6.30

Next Steps........................................................................................................................... 6.32 Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 6.33 Appendix A. Waterbird Science Team Members.................................................................. 6.39 Appendix B. Double-Crested Cormorant Breeding Pairs in the Intermountain West.......... 6.40 Appendix C. Caspian Tern Breeding Pairs in the Intermountain West.. ............................... 6.41 Appendix D. White-faced Ibis Breeding Pairs in the Intermountain West........................... 6.43 Appendix E. Focal Area Profiles – Descriptions & Threats.................................................. 6.46 Appendix F. Literature Cited in Appendices........................................................................ 6.64

ii.7

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

Chapter 7 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 7.3

Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s

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

ii.8

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

Chapter 8 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 8.2

Ta b l e of Co n t e n t s

Targeting Conservation......................................................................................................... 8.3 Wetland Habitat Conservation............................................................................................... 8.4 •

Priority Wetland Dependent Bird Species.. ......................................................................... 8.6

•

Key Threats to Wetlands................................................................................................... 8.6

•

Southern Oregon and Northeastern California (SONEC)................................................... 8.10

•

Great Salt Lake (GSL)..................................................................................................... 8.13

•

Status of Conservation Planning and Science for Wetland Focal Areas............................. 8.16

•

Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................... 8.16

•

Resources...................................................................................................................... 8.16

Sagebrush Habitat Conservation.. ....................................................................................... 8.17 •

Priority Sagebrush Bird Species...................................................................................... 8.18

•

Key Threats to Sagebrush Habitat................................................................................... 8.18

•

Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................... 8.24

•

Resources...................................................................................................................... 8.24

Grassland Habitat Conservation.. ........................................................................................ 8.25 •

Priority Grassland Bird Species....................................................................................... 8.25

•

Key Threats to Grasslands.............................................................................................. 8.25

•

Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................... 8.27

•

Resources...................................................................................................................... 8.27

Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 8.28

Chapter 9 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9.2 Summary of the Communications Plan................................................................................. 9.3 Approach............................................................................................................................... 9.4 •

Background to Strategic Communications......................................................................... 9.4

•

Capacity Building & Engagement Approach....................................................................... 9.4

History & Past Accomplishments of IWJV Communications................................................. 9.5 Needs Assessment for Defining 5-Year Goals....................................................................... 9.6 Audience Assessments & Situational Analyses..................................................................... 9.8 Communications Campaigns.. ............................................................................................. 9.12 •

Communications Goals................................................................................................... 9.12

•

Communications Objectives and Messages .................................................................... 9.17

•

Tactics & Tools.. .............................................................................................................. 9.27

•

Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 9.35

Implementation.. .................................................................................................................. 9.38 Future Vision.. ...................................................................................................................... 9.40 Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 9.41 Appendix A. Desired Characteristics of JV Matrix for Communications, Education, & Outreach...................................................................... 9.42 Appendix B. Audiences Referenced.................................................................................... 9.43

ii.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

Cha pte r O ne

Introduction

Pr incipa l Autho r: Dave S mith

Photo by USF WS

Inside this Chapter Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1.2

Introduction

Plan Overview.. ...................................................................................................................... 1.4 Foundation & Focus of the Plan............................................................................................ 1.5 Mission & Goals.. ................................................................................................................... 1.6 History................................................................................................................................... 1.7 •

1994-2005 Era.................................................................................................................. 1.7

•

2006-2013 Era.................................................................................................................. 1.7

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)................................................... 1.11

•

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP)....................................................... 1.12

•

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP).. .................................................. 1.12

•

North American Landbird Conservation Plan.. .................................................................. 1.12

•

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)........................................................ 1.13

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) encompasses the largest and most ecologically complex region among those defining the 18 U.S. Habitat Joint Ventures Fig. 1. Exceeding 486 million acres, it includes portions of 11 states and a wide variety of habitats important to birds during the breeding, migration, and wintering portions of their annual life cycles. The IWJV boundary encompasses much of the Intermountain Region, from the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Sierras and Cascades on the west, and from the Canadian border on the north to the Mexican border on the south. The IWJV includes portions of 11 Bird Conservation Regions as designated by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) including the entirety of the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau and Great Basin, half of the Northern Rockies, and portions of Badlands and Prairies, Sonoran and Mojave Deserts, Sierra Madre Occidental, Chihuahuan Desert, Shortgrass Prairie, Pacific Rainforest, Sierra Nevada, and Coastal California Conservation Regions. The Intermountain West is also characterized by a diverse community of conservation partners that share a vision for healthy landscapes that sustain birds, other wildlife, and people. The IWJV has built a solid foundation for delivery of coordinated bird conservation over the past 18 years by assembling a strong and diverse public-private partnership. The crafters of the IWJV had foresight to include a mix of federal agencies, state agencies, non-governmental 1.2

Figure 1 M igratory Bird Joint Ventures. Arrow indicates Intermountain West Joint Venture (1 of 18 U.S. Habitat Joint Ventures)

conservation organizations, and for-profit corporations on the Management Board, and then work to extend the IWJV partnership network to a wide array of conservation partners across the Intermountain West. The Joint Venture model is rooted in two simple concepts: 1) science-based habitat objectives result in delivery of focused and successful habitat programs, and 2) partnerships catalyze progress far exceeding what could be attained through independent efforts of individual agencies and organizations. In short, the Joint Venture partnership is more effective and stronger than the sum of its parts.

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

Photo by USGS

Achievement of desired future populations of birds and their habitats requires swift and decisive action on many fronts over the next two decades. The core bird conservation plans have been developed, a strong and diverse Joint Venture partnership is in place, and unparalleled funding opportunities for bird conservation exist through a broad array of sources including the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Farm Bill conservation programs, and a host of other programs and funding sources. However, the threats to bird habitats from development-induced habitat fragmentation, water demands, energy development, and a host of other factors 1.3

that accompany the transitioning economy of the “New West” have never been greater. Habitat conservation must move forward rapidly while the science foundation for bird conservation is strengthened through additional biological planning, conservation design, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive management. Time is both friend and enemy: ecologically complex habitats still exist and the cost of conservation remains relatively reasonable in many locations, yet the rush of humanity to this region seeking assets ranging from energy to “quality of life” seriously threatens the capability of the landscape to sustain desired bird populations over the long term.

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

PLAN OVERVIEW

Photo by Ali Duvall

The 2013 Implementation Plan (Plan) is built upon the model of Strategic Habitat Conservationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the iterative cycle of biological planning, conservation design, habitat delivery, monitoring, evaluation, and research (see Chapter 3). For migratory birds, this involves translating continental bird population objectives to ecoregional scales and identifying the quantity and quality of habitat needed to support priority bird populations at goal levels. The Plan lays out a vision for addressing IWJV science needs in a systematic, step-wise, and transparent manner. This approach is demonstrated through the presentation of population-habitat modeling for specific groups of birds in specific landscapes for the four major bird groups â&#x20AC;&#x201C; waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds. The science vision and related examples present an approach to establish our priorities for further strengthening IWJV science foundation over the next decade, and carrying out biological planning and conservation design for priority species in key landscapes. The Plan also defines the IWJV approach to delivery of focused habitat conservation at the landscape scale, identifies bottlenecks to delivery, and presents

1.4

solutions to overcoming these impediments through collaboration among members of the IWJV partnership. It provides an overview of some of the programmatic and funding mechanisms needed to influence bird habitats at a landscape scale. Finally, the Plan includes a comprehensive Strategic Communications Plan to promote effective integration of biological planning, conservation design, on-the-ground habitat conservation, and monitoring, evaluation, and applied research among an incredibly diverse and extensive array of conservation partners. The geographic and taxonomic scope of the IWJV requires a much different approach than has been used with the implementation plans of other Habitat Joint Ventures. The Intermountain West is characterized by an extremely high level of habitat heterogeneity (see Chapter 2), which requires establishing a relatively small number of focal species and carrying out biological planning and conservation design in focal landscapes or ecoregions. This precludes the IWJV from developing a synthetic Implementation Plan for all priority birds, JV-wide, at the present time.

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

FOUNDATION & FOCUS OF THE PLAN The Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the third in the history of the Joint Venture â&#x20AC;&#x201C; constitutes a major revision rather than an update of the 2005 Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan (2005 IWJV Implementation Plan). It embodies a new approach and business model for the IWJV, founded on the principles of SHC and rooted in the establishment of JV-wide bird conservation priorities and habitat objectives with explicit connections to continental bird population objectives. The 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan and related 11 state-level IWJV Coordinated Plans for Bird Conservation (IWJV State Plans) identified priority habitats and focal areas, JV-wide. The 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan was truly built from the ground up through an expert opinion process conducted in 2003-2005 through 11 state-level bird conservation working groups or State Steering Committees. The Management Board supported the approach to promote local buy-in and subsequent implementation of Plan recommendations. Based on bird values, threats, and conservation opportunity, the plans identified and classified 13 habitats in 382 Bird Habitat Conservation Areas totaling 128 million acres as either moderate priority or high priority focal areas. The IWJV State Plans established a solid foundation for subsequent efforts by consolidating existing knowledge of avian habitat needs and capturing land cover information for landscapes with biological value. The current Plan builds upon the foundational data presented in the 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan, but progresses from an expert-opinion framework to an explicit modeling framework. Rooted in the principles of SHC and greater quantitative rigor, the current planning is conducted for certain priority birds or bird groups in certain landscapes, rather than in a seamless manner across the entire JV. Biological planning and conservation design toward defensible habitat objectives has been underway for several years and is complete for certain groups of birds in certain landscapes of the Intermountain West. For example, the Plan comprehensively identifies habitat needed to support spring-migrating waterfowl at North American Waterfowl Management Plan goal levels in Southern Oregon and Northeastern California. Likewise, it includes the results of the most detailed conservation strategy ever developed for shorebirds at the Great Salt Lake, one of the most important stopover sites for shorebirds in the Western Hemisphere.

1.5

Remaining data gaps clearly hinder our ability to develop habitat objectives or spatially explicit decision support tools for many priority species, but the IWJV partnership has conveyed a clear message that the results of the population-habitat modeling conducted will be much more compelling than past Joint Venture science products. As such, this Plan consolidates our current knowledge of priority bird species, species-habitat relationships, and the quantity and location of habitat needed to support these populations at goal levels. It will be immediately valuable to habitat managers and conservation practitioners in certain landscapes, and also provide a framework for future efforts to establish habitat objectives for other species in other landscapes. The Plan serves as an important benchmark in the history of the IWJV relative to the establishment of science-based bird conservation priorities. It provides examples of the types of science products that will be developed in the future. It establishes a vision for the IWJV Management Board and partnership to move forward in strengthening our science foundation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; embodied by a set of Monitoring and Evaluation priorities that will likely help secure funds for monitoring, evaluation, and applied research. Additionally, the Plan includes a Habitat Conservation Strategy (Chapter 8). While not common in most JV Implementation Plans, this chapter reflects the emphasis and strength of the IWJV partnership in delivering on-theground habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. Habitat conservation delivery has long been the hallmark of the IWJV partnership. Today, the Management Board allocates a significant amount of funding and staff resources to strengthening the habitat delivery capacity and effectiveness of a wide array of IWJV partners. We are actively engaged with partners in facilitating effective delivery of Farm Bill conservation programs; assisting state fish and wildlife agencies in implementation of their State Wildlife Action Plans; working with the land conservation community to foster strategic habitat protection for priority bird habitats; and delivering a Capacity Grants Program intended to help IWJV partners capitalize on existing funding sources from public and private conservation programs. In summary, the Plan conveys the commitment of the IWJV Management Board to: 1) bridging science with on-the-ground habitat conservation delivery, and 2) maintaining an influential, engaged, and diverse publicprivate partnership.

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

MISSION & GOALS

Photo by John Ranlet t

The mission of the IWJV is to conserve priority bird habitats through partnership-driven, science-based projects and programs. We bring people and organizations together to leverage technical and financial resources, building our collective capacity to achieve conservation at meaningful scales. Specifically, the IWJV strives to ensure adequate habitat exists to support priority birds at continental goal levels. In simple terms: The IWJV strives to â&#x20AC;&#x153;set the tableâ&#x20AC;? with the quantity and quality of habitat needed to meet the life cycle needs of the birds during the portion of the year they occur within the Intermountain West. The IWJV is committed to conserving habitats in the Intermountain West that are capable of sustaining bird populations at desired levels. To achieve this goal, we will employ the following strategies: 1. Broaden and strengthen public-private partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 2. Increase funding for federal and state funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 1.6

3. Provide funding, foster leverage opportunities, and enhance partner access to federal, state and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 4. Develop a strong science foundation, linking continental, regional, and local population goals and habitat objectives, to inform and empower strategic habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 5. Employ strategic communications to communicate effectively with target audiences that are necessary to engage for bird conservation. 6. Conduct science based monitoring and evaluation of conservation outcomes capable of measuring their contribution to stated bird population goals and/or habitat objectives. The IWJVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach of strengthening its science foundation is necessary to develop specific and defensible habitat objectives related to the outcomes goals stated above. This is being done for certain groups of priority birds in certain landscapes to provide examples of conservation planning that will be conducted in the future.

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

HISTORY The IWJV was established in June of 1994 to serve as the implementation arm of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan in the Intermountain Region. Consequently, the primary initial focus of the Joint Venture was conservation of wetlands and associated habitats important to waterfowl.

1994-2005 Era The IWJV developed its first Implementation Plan in 1995, a document that identified nine focal landscapes for waterfowl and provided recommendations for waterfowl habitat conservation. Plan development involved the “collective and collaborative thinking of wetland ecologists, biologists, natural resource managers, conservationists, user groups, private landowners, and local governments as to how the historic values and functions of the wetland ecosystem of the Intermountain area can be maintained, restored and enhanced.” The 1995 Plan nonetheless operated the same then as now, stating: “The Joint Venture is a collaborative effort at all levels. A myriad of participants are already involved and any stakeholder in wetlands issues is welcomed and encouraged to join in this milestone conservation effort.” In June of 1999, the IWJV Management Board voted to expand the mission of the Joint Venture to include conservation actions for all bird habitats within the Joint Venture boundary. The intent was to provide for assistance with implementation of all major bird conservation initiatives, including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Partners in Flight, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the Western States Sage Grouse Working Group (an entity then aligned with the North American Grouse Plan). This decision has charted the work of the IWJV for the last 14 years. The IWJV approach during this era was very much centered on building partnerships for on-the-ground habitat conservation, as was stated in an IWJV Management Board policy adopted in 2002: The business of the Joint Venture still centers on assistance with partnership efforts to accomplish on-the-ground conservation for important Intermountain avian habitats. To accomplish this objective our strategic planning must be organized to accommodate and recognize the needs of our state partnerships. Thus, biological planning in the IWJV is rooted in our respective State Steering Committee’s planning efforts. Their work will identify key species, which require specific key habitats, both of which converge at key geographical locations in every state. Any subsequent planning must be driven by the Committees’ work on this basic concept.

1.7

This evolution of the IWJV continued from 2003-2005 with significant investments by the IWJV to establish Bird Conservation Region Coordinators for the Northern Rockies, Great Basin, and Southern Rockies Regions. Three skilled avian ecologists were hired and tasked with advancing bird conservation planning with partnerships throughout each Region. The IWJV became closely aligned with Partners in Flight during this time period and greatly advanced its level of commitment to allbird conservation. This period was also marked by an investment by the IWJV in acquisition and analysis of geospatial data, leading to a seamless land cover data layer for the entire JV Area. The Management Board grew to 29 members by 2005, representing a wide array of conservation interests.

2006-2013 Era This period was marked by significant changes in the Management Board. Out of concerns over the lack of governance procedures, the Management Board developed and ratified a detailed set of Bylaws that govern the partnership. The Bylaws capped the Management Board at 21 individuals and established detailed governance procedures for all other aspects of JV business. In 2008, the JV Coordinator established a process of developing an Annual Operational Plan that links performance objectives to budgetary needs and allocations. This trend of increased accountability fostered a business-like culture that has now become a trademark of the JV. The Board developed a set of Board Member Recruitment and Retention Principles that encourages Board participation at high levels within member organizations (e.g., CEO, Director, State Conservationist, and Deputy Director); this approach has further strengthened the Board by bringing decisionmakers from participating organizations to the JV table. This principle of partnership diversity was also utilized in efforts to energize and support the State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs), formerly called State Steering Committees, and other aspects of the IWJV partnership network. The IWJV continued to maintain a $300,000 annual grants program – now devoted to helping our partners build capacity for bird conservation – an approach that was determined early in the IWJV evolution to be very important to sustained partner engagement.

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

HISTORY

EV AL

UA TI

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING

Photo by Ali Duvall

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

NG CONSERVATION DESIGN

PROGRAM DELIVERY IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 2 C onceptual diagram of the Strategic Habitat Conservation process. 1.8

In 2008, the IWJV Management Board made a solid commitment to Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC), a concept currently being used to move wildlife management beyond the opportunistic and into the strategic realm (see Chapter 3). The document entitled, Strategic Habitat Conservation: Final Report of the Ecological Assessment Team, published by the FWS and U.S. Geological Survey in July 2006, suggests that habitat conservation for all species build on the outstanding model of migratory bird conservation pioneered by NAWMP and the Joint Ventures. To support SHC, the IWJV established fundamental guidelines for the biological planning and conservation design of its four Science Teams: • Establish explicit linkages between populations and habitats through development and use of populationhabitat models (versus establishing habitat objectives based on what we think we can accomplish or what “seems reasonable” to meet the needs of priority species).

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

HISTORY • Use these population-habitat models to develop spatially explicit decision-support tools that can help JV partners target habitat delivery. • State all assumptions explicitly so that models can be improved over time through monitoring, evaluation, and applied research. • Implement SHC progressively across the region by BCR/state polygon and sub-region (e.g. priority landscapes for wetland-dependent species) to ensure tangible progress, at least at the landscape scale, in the foreseeable future. For example, detailed SHC-based planning for non-breeding waterfowl and shorebirds is underway at the Great Salt Lake currently and will produce some model-driven habitat objectives in the reasonably near future. • Maintain initial focus on building our science foundation through biological planning and conservation design (e.g., develop models, characterize landscapes, establish habitat objectives, and construct decision-support tools). Support limited and highly selective applied research needed to facilitate modeling in key landscapes. This shift away from project-based monitoring does not preclude occasional support for collaborative inventory, monitoring, or evaluation projects, but dedicated IWJV science funding will remain focused largely on the “front end” of the science equation for the foreseeable future. In 2008, the IWJV launched two major initiatives – the Farm Bill Initiative and State Wildlife Action Plan Initiative – designed to increase JV collaboration with and relevancy to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the 11 state fish and wildlife agencies. Consequently, the JV shifted priority from funding BCR Coordinators tasked with broadly championing all aspects of bird conservation in their respective Region to acquiring the services of seasoned professionals with significant knowledge of the operations of the NRCS and state fish and wildlife agencies.

1.9

The IWJV Farm Bill Coordinator subsequently implemented a vast body of work that has aligned the IWJV as an instrumental partner with NRCS (and the Farm Services Agency) in implementation of several hundred million dollars of Farm Bill conservation program funding within the Intermountain West annually. The initiative also resulted in development, printing, and distribution of the Field Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for Fish and Wildlife Conservation, a nationally recognized product of the IWJV and North American Bird Conservation Initiative, written by IWJV Farm Bill Coordinator. He also brokered increased capacity for Farm Bill program implementation, an activity that has resulted in incremental funding devoted to IWJV habitat priorities. Likewise, the IWJV SWAP Implementation Initiative, funded by a foundation grant, greatly accelerated state fish and wildlife agency engagement with IWJV staff, SCPs, and the Management Board. Finally, this evolution resulted in the development of a Strategic Communications Plan (see Chapter 9). Although the IWJV had effectively carried out certain communications activities (e.g., Congressional Communications) over its history, the current plan significantly “raises the bar” for the IWJV and the other 17 U.S. Habitat Joint Ventures, it has already been recognized as something of an “industry standard” for JVs, and provides a detailed roadmap for achieving JV objectives. Most importantly it was developed using the principles of adaptive management or SHC, typically referenced in the science arena.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE The IWJV operates in accordance with a detailed set of Bylaws, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) JV Policy (721 FW 6), its Implementation Plan, and Annual Operational Plans (AOP) that are ratified by the Management Board each year at the Fall Board Meeting. Funding for Joint Ventures is provided through the North American Waterfowl Management Plan/Joint Ventures Program Element of the FWS Migratory Bird Conservation and Management Program in the annual FWS budget. The IWJV receives the second or third highest amount of any JV, slightly less than the Prairie Pothole JV and commensurate with the Atlantic Coast JV. The IWJV also currently receives substantial operational funding from the NRCS and corporate partners. We have received grant funding from other agencies and foundations to facilitate implementation of priorities established by the Management Board (e.g., Farm Bill Initiative, State Wildlife Action Plan Initiative) and will continue to operate in an entrepreneurial manner in the future to best address our objectives across this vast landscape. The annual FWS IWJV funding allocation (approximately $1.05 million per year) is clearly inadequate to meet the full range of IWJV all-bird conservation needs that have been identified and supported by the Management Board, but provides critical support for leveraging other federal, state, and private funds needed to address IWJV objectives. The IWJV core staff is currently comprised of a JV Coordinator, Assistant Coordinator, Science Coordinator, Spatial Ecologist, Farm Bill Coordinator, and Operations Specialist. The staff is a mix of federal employees and contractors working together to carry out the objectives put forth by the Management Board. This 2013 Implementation Plan provides the Management Board and staff with a strategic vision that will support and strengthen the AOPs that have been developed annually since 2008. The IWJV office and Management Board actively work to broaden the external partnership with relevant individuals and organizations. The IWJV maintains strong professional contacts and connections, networking to keep the partners abreast of current conservation issues and techniques. The IWJV office identifies partner capabilities to address our mission and works with partners to address

1.10

its capacity needs through arrangements with partner agencies and organizations. Led by the Congressional Communications Committee of the Management Board and in cooperation with other JVs, the IWJV helps develop common JV messages to Congress and cultivates informational relationships with its Congressional delegation and staff. This work also extends to other relevant national entities. The IWJV is highly successful in this arena with staff connections at many layers of the bird conservation community. Further, we are strongly engaged with state wildlife agencies through the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and collaborate with national staff of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The IWJV Management Board operates at a very high level due to the establishment of solid governance procedures, the development and approval an AOP each year linking performance objectives to budgetary needs and allocations, and the execution of four Management Board Meetings per year. Since its inception in 1994, the IWJV has actively catalyzed, coordinated and enhanced partnerships among diverse interests. The partnership network of the IWJV includes private landowners, non-profit organizations, local land trusts, state wildlife agencies, land management agencies, and other federal agencies. (See Chapter 9 for more information on the partners.) One of the key mechanisms for partnership coordination is the IWJVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SCPs. The IWJV has recently rejuvenated its SCPs with staff support, increased communication, and grant funding to address high-priority capacity needs. The SCPs are evolving toward active, self-directed state-level working groups that extend the reach of the IWJV in ways that would otherwise not be possible with limited staff and a large geographic area. Above all, the IWJV is an organization of its partners. The founding Management Board members had the foresight to create 11 state-level working groups and a vast array of partner affiliations at multiple levels (State Conservation Partnerships). The IWJV maintains a headquarters office with a small staff in Missoula, Montana, but the scope of the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work is truly implemented by an active network of conservation partners across the Intermountain West.

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

RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL BIRD PLANS & INITIATIVES

P h o t o b y S t e v e Te s s m a n n

The IWJV strives to conserve habitat in the Intermountain West as needed to sustain bird populations at goal levels, as defined by the primary continental bird conservation initiatives – the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Partners in Flight, and North American Bird Conservation Initiative. These initiatives, as described below, are at the heart of the IWJV’s bird conservation mission and provide continental connection to our work in the Intermountain West.

North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP)

Vision: To sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving landscapes, through partnerships, guided by sound science. Developed in 1986 through collaboration by government agencies and private organizations concerned about declining waterfowl populations, NAWMP was the first continental wildlife conservation plan. The primary goal of the NAWMP is to restore waterfowl populations to levels recorded during the 1970s, a period of relatively high duck abundance. Specifically, the NAWMP vision statement identifies three broad strategies to achieve NAWMP goals: 1) conserve landscapes to sustain waterfowl populations, 2) broaden partnerships, and 3) strengthen the biological foundations of waterfowl conservation. North American Joint Ventures were established in an effort to reach defined waterfowl population goals through regional partnerships to manage and conserve habitats important to waterfowl. The NAWMP has recognized the need to broaden partnerships with other migratory bird conservation initiatives

1.11

encourage and support conservation partnerships with communities. Of note the North American Wetlands Conservation Act was created to provide a funding source to assist the implementation of NAWMP projects. The NAWMP was updated three times since 1986 and then was thoroughly revised in 2012 with an associated Action Plan. A central theme of the current revision is to improve coherence among waterfowl habitat management and conservation, waterfowl harvest strategies, and human dimensions related to the waterfowl management enterprise. The 2012 NAWMP Revision and associated Action Plan adopted three overarching goals: 1. Abundant and resilient waterfowl populations to support hunting and other uses without imperiling habitat. 2. Wetlands and related habitats sufficient to sustain waterfowl populations at desired levels, while providing places to recreate and ecological services that benefit society. 3. Growing numbers of waterfowl hunters, other conservationists and citizens who enjoy and actively support waterfowl and wetlands conservation. An Interim Integration Committee (IIC), prescribed in the Action Plan, has been charged with facilitating the integration of waterfowl management and advancing many of the specific recommendations identified in the Revision and Action Plan. The IWJV is assisting the IIC and will work to support achievement of NAWMP goals and objectives in the future.

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

RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL BIRD PLANS & INITIATIVES United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (USSCP)

Vision: To ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of all shorebirds are distributed throughout their range and diversity of habitats in the United States and Western Hemisphere, and that species which have declined in distribution or abundance are restored to their former status to the extent possible at costs acceptable to society. Developed as a national partnership between federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, and researchers, the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) is committed to the conservation of shorebirds that depend on wetland communities. The USSCP calls for the development of integrated management practices and regional conservation planning to protect shorebirds. The plan identifies goals at several scales, including a hemispheric goal, which addresses the need for international cooperation. National and regional goals and potential management activities are also provided. They generally aim to 1) develop monitoring programs related to shorebirds, 2) conduct research to determine factors limiting shorebird populations, 3) address known limiting factors, and 4) develop coordinated shorebird conservation efforts. Regional shorebird conservation plans under the umbrella of USSCP have been developed including the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan. The regional plan addresses issues facing shorebird conservation in the Intermountain West through five goals including habitat management, monitoring and assessments, research, outreach, and coordinated planning.

North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan (NAWCP)

Vision: To restore and sustain the distribution, diversity, and abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds are sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The NAWCP provides an overarching continental framework and guide for conserving waterbirds. It sets forth goals and priorities for waterbirds in all habitats from the Canadian Arctic to Panama, from Bermuda through the U.S. Pacific Islands, at nesting sites, during annual migrations, and during nonbreeding periods. It advocates continent-wide monitoring; provides an impetus for regional conservation planning; proposes national, state, provincial and other local conservation

1.12

planning and action; and gives a larger context for local habitat protection. Specific goals of the NAWCP are to 1) ensure sustainable abundance, diversity, and distribution of waterbird species, 2) protect, restore, and manage key sites and high quality habitat for waterbirds, 3) disseminate information on waterbird conservation to decision makers, the public, and those whose actions impact waterbirds, and 4) coordinate and integrate waterbird conservation efforts, guided by common principles, across geo-political boundaries. The plan also provides a list of scientific information needs, including management-oriented research and ecosystem and landscape issues related to waterbirds. In 2006, the Intermountain West Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan (IWWCP) was developed as a step down plan from the NAWCP. The IWWCP addresses the populations, habitats, and general conservation strategies for the Intermountain West region. The purpose of the IWWCP was to fill knowledge gaps and aid in all-bird conservation efforts of the Intermountain West Joint Venture, 11 States, and other entities associated with the geographic scope of the IWWCP.

North American Landbird  Conservation Plan

Vision: To ensure the long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds, through the development of voluntary, non-regulatory bird conservation plans that, proactively, provide frameworks to develop and implement habitat conservation actions on species identified as having the greatest need for conservation. Concern about significant population declines for several songbird species, notably Neotropical migrants, resulted in a group of bird conservationists encouraging legislative action for nongame birds. This culminated in an amendment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 and development of Partners in Flight (PIF), an initiative to conserve nongame landbirds in the United States. Guiding principles of PIF included restoring populations of the most imperiled avian species and preventing other birds from becoming endangered -- “keeping common birds common.” This plan provides a continental synthesis of priorities and objectives to guide landbird conservation actions at national and international scales. The PIF 2004 continental plan also identifies seven large-scale avifaunal biomes in North America, encompassing 37 BCRs. Bird species warranting attention due to concern (currently “in trouble”) are labeled “watch list” species, and those that are common

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

RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL BIRD PLANS & INITIATIVES

Photo by USF WS

but occur primarily in only one of the seven biomes have been identified as “stewardship species.” The plan presents global population estimates for 448 species of North American landbirds as well as continental-scale conservation and stewardship priorities and population objectives for priority species. Priority research and monitoring needs for landbirds are also identified in the plan. In 2010, PIF released Saving Our Shared Birds: Partners in Flight Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation. This plan built upon the 2004 plan and presented a comprehensive conservation assessment of landbirds in Canada, Mexico, and the continental U.S. This tri-national vision encompasses the complete range of many migratory species and highlights the vital links among migrants and highly threatened resident species in Mexico.

North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI)

Vision: Populations and habitats of North America’s birds protected, restored or enhanced through coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state and local levels, guided by sound science and effective management.

1.13

Increased interest over the past three decades has stimulated the development of major bird conservation initiatives, including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Landbird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The primary role of the NABCI is to coordinate, not duplicate, efforts of the four major bird plans. Specifically, NABCI is intended to 1) increase the effectiveness of existing and new initiatives, 2) foster greater cooperation among the nations and peoples of the continent, and 3) build on existing structures such as joint ventures, plus stimulate new joint ventures and mechanisms as appropriate. NABCI promotes planning by ecologically distinct bird conservation regions (BCRs) with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCRs are scale-flexible, nested ecological units delineated by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. NABCI has promoted planning by BCRs because they facilitate communication among the bird conservation initiatives, systematically and scientifically apportion North America into conservation units, facilitate a regional approach to bird conservation, promote new and expanded partnerships, and identify overlapping or conflicting conservation priorities.

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

Cha pte r Two

C h a r ac t e r i z a t i o n of t h e I WJ V L a n d s c a p e Pr incipa l Autho r: Patr ick D onne lly

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

Inside this Chapter

C h a r ac t e r i z a t i o n of t h e I WJ V L a n d s c a p e

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 2.2 Ecological Setting................................................................................................................. 2.3 •

Northwestern Forested Mountains Ecological Region (162.2 million acres).. ........................ 2.3

•

North American Deserts Ecological Region (278.9 million acres).. ....................................... 2.4

•

Temperate Sierras Ecological Region (19.9 million acres)................................................... 2.7

Defining an Ecological Framework.. ...................................................................................... 2.9 •

Global/Intercontinental Scale (Level I Ecoregions).. ............................................................ 2.9

•

National/Sub-continental Scale (Level II Ecoregions).. ...................................................... 2.10

•

Regional Scale (Level III Ecoregions)............................................................................... 2.12

•

Local Scale (Level IV Ecoregions).................................................................................... 2.14

Few North American Joint Ventures rival the ecological and geo-political diversity of the Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV). The IWJV encompasses 486 million acres of the Intermountain West, spanning nearly half the northern temperate zone, from 31.8° N to 48.8° N latitude. Within this region, elevational gradients climb from the lowest point on the continent (–282ft) to over 50 of the tallest peaks (>14,000ft) in the continental United States. Conservation stakeholders within the Intermountain West include eleven western states and a conservation estate defined by a continuous amalgamation of federal/state managed lands and private land ownerships. Outlining the general landscape characteristics of the IWJV is appropriately done from the perspective of a broad ecoregional scale. Ecoregional boundaries are defined by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Level I Ecoregions (Fig. 1).

1 Arctic Cordillera 2 Tundra 3 Hudson Plain 4 Taiga 5 Northern Forests 6 Northwestern Forested Mountains 7 Marine West Coast Forest 8 Eastern Temperate Forests 9 Great Plains 10 North American Deserts 11 Mediterranean California 12 Southern Semiarid Highlands 13 Temperate Sierras 14 Tropical Dry Forests 15 Tropical Wet Forests Water IWJV Boundary

2.2

Figure 1 Level I CEC ecological regions highlight the major biomes at the continental scale and provide the broad backdrop to the ecological mosaic of North America, putting the IWJV into context from a continental perspective.

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

ECOLOGICAL SETTING At broad ecological scale, the IWJV intersects three Level I Ecoregions: Northwestern Forested Mountains, North American Deserts and Temperate Sierras (Fig. 1). Combined, these regions describe the broad ecological processes that persist across the Intermountain West and inform the potential bounds of ecological threats and limiting factors. Described below are the ecological characteristics identifying those biotic and abiotic factors associated with the CEC Level I Ecoregions. Descriptions of these factors are limited to areas of ecological within the IWJV.

Northwestern Forested Mountains Ecological Region (162.2 million acres)

Within the Intermountain West, this ecological region extends from the Canadian border south to Northern New Mexico. It contains many of the highest mountains of North America and some of the continent’s most diverse mosaics of ecosystem types, ranging from alpine tundra to dense conifer forests to dry sagebrush and grasslands. Major river systems of this region include the headwaters to the Missouri, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande rivers. Surface ownership patterns are predominantly U.S. Forest Service and private land ownership. High topographic relief is the key landscape factor that permits aggregation of these systems into a single level I ecoregion.

Abiotic Setting This ecological region consists of extensive mountains and plateaus separated by wide valleys and lowlands. Most of these plains and valleys are covered by morainic, fluvial, and lacustrine deposits, whereas the mountains consist largely of colluvium and rock outcrops. Numerous glacial lakes occur at higher elevations. Small wetlands and wet meadow complexes exist within valley bottoms. Soils are variable, encompassing shallow soils of alpine sites and nutrient-poor forest soils of the mountain slopes, as well as soils suitable for agriculture and those rich in calcium that support natural dry grasslands.

IWJV Boundary Northwestern Forested Mountains Ecoregion

The climate is subarid to arid and mild in southern lower valleys, humid and cold at higher elevations within the central reaches, and cold and subarid in the north. Moist Pacific air and the effect of orographic rainfall control the precipitation pattern such that both rain shadows and wet belts are generated, often in close geographic proximity to each other. The rain shadow cast by the massive coastal mountains results in a relatively dry climate, and the Rocky Mountains also impede the westward flow of cold, continental Arctic air masses. Mean annual temperatures range between 21°F in the north to 44°F to 50°F in the south. Mean summer temperatures range from about 50°F to 70 F. Annual precipitation varies with elevation, from 102” in the Cascade Mountains to the north, to 15” in other mountainous areas, to between 10”-20” in the valleys.

Figure 2 N orthwestern forested mountains ecological region within IWJV boundary.

2.3

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

ECOLOGICAL SETTING Biotic Setting Vegetative cover is extremely diverse: alpine environments contain various herb, lichen, and shrub associations; whereas the subalpine environment has tree species such as lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, silver fir, grand fir, and Engelmann spruce. With decreasing elevation, vegetation of the mountainous slopes and rolling plains turns into forests characterized by ponderosa pine; interior Douglas fir; lodgepole pine, and aspen in much of the southeast and central portions; and western hemlock, western red cedar, Douglas fir and western white pine in the west and southwest. Shrub vegetation found in the dry southern interior includes big sagebrush, rabbit brush, and antelope brush. Most of the natural grasslands that existed in the dry south have vanished, replaced by urban settlement and agriculture.

North American Deserts Ecological Region (278.9 million acres)

Threats and Human Activities Commercial forest operations have been established in many areas of this region, particularly in the northern interior sections. Mining, oil and gas production, and tourism are the other significant activities. Many lower mountain valleys not currently within the federal conservation estate have been altered at some level as a result of conversion to range and agricultural uses. Expanding urbanization threatens these areas further. Climate change poses the broadest threat to water and wetland resources of the region. Alterations to the distribution and volume of snow pack in conjunction with increased evaporation rates have the potential to impact wetlands, even within areas that are otherwise well protected.

IWJV Boundary North American Deserts Ecoregion

Figure 3 N orth American deserts ecological region within IWJV boundary.

The North American Deserts ecological region encompasses the majority of the ecological setting within the Intermountain West. The region is distinguished from the adjacent forested mountain ecoregions by its aridity and associated landscapes dominated by shrubs and grasses. Desert river corridors include the Rio Grande and Colorado rivers. Surface ownership patterns are predominantly Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Tribal lands, and private land ownerships. Aridity is the primary ecological factor characterizing this region.

2.4

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

ECOLOGICAL SETTING Abiotic Setting The North American Deserts are comprised of a mix of physiographic features but, primarily consists of plains with hills, mountains, and tablelands of high relief. In the north, the flat to rolling topography of the Columbia and Snake River Plateaus consist of loess and volcanic ash deposits on basaltic plains. The Great Basin and its adjacent mountains contain hundreds of north–south trending fault-block mountain ranges separated by broad valleys; the valley floor elevations often exceed 3,000 ft in elevation and many of the ranges surpass 10,000 ft. To the south, the mountain ranges are smaller and less regularly oriented and rise from lower base levels. The lowest basin point, Death Valley, is 282 ft below sea level. Playas systems are abundant in this region. Coalescing alluvial fans characterize transition zones from valley bottoms to mountain slopes. Substantial areas of depositional sand dunes occur in some regions. Landscapes of the Colorado Plateau include uplifted and deeply dissected sedimentary rocks. Soils of the region are dry, generally lacking organic material and distinct soil profiles, and are high in calcium carbonate. This ecological region has a desert and steppe climate, arid to semi-arid, with marked seasonal temperature extremes. The aridity of the region is a consequence of the rain shadow effects resulting from interception of

westerly winter air masses by the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains . The Rocky Mountains to the east also act as barrier to moist air masses that move across the Great Plains from their origin in the Gulf of Mexico. Average annual precipitation ranges from 5” to 14”. The southern deserts have higher average temperatures and evaporation rates, with record-high temperatures in Death Valley reaching 134°F. Some southern areas, such as the Chihuahuan desert, are dominated by a more episodic summer rainfall pattern, while the northern deserts tend toward a winter moisture regime with some precipitation falling as snow.

Biotic Setting Vegetation communities within the desert region are predominantly low-growing shrubs and grasses. Variability in their distribution coincides with corresponding elevational, latitudinal, and geomorphic diversity. In northern desert regions, most native grassland and sagebrush steppe habitats have been converted to agriculture. Areas of the desert Great Basin can be characterized by sagebrush, with shadscale and greasewood on more alkaline soils. Plants of the Chihuahuan desert scrub include tarbush and creosote bush as dominant shrubs with warm season grasses intermixed throughout.

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

2.5

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

ECOLOGICAL SETTING

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

Threats and Human Activities Human activities are generally sparse outside of large population centers, but often have substantial impacts on the limited resources of the region. Large federally funded reclamation projects have encouraged development of large-scale irrigated agriculture in parts of the Columbia Plateau, Snake River plain, Wasatch piedmont, upper Rio Grande, and San Luis Valley. Although only a small fraction of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land base is cultivated, irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water resources, which originate largely outside the ecological region as winter snow pack. Hydrologic modifications, salinization, sedimentation, pesticide contamination, and declining water quantity and quality are growing concerns in these areas. Invasive species such as salt cedar are also pervasive in many wetland and riparian areas and threaten habitats associated with these systems. Crops in the north include wheat, dry peas, lentils, potatoes, hay, alfalfa, sugar beets, apples, and hops, while southern irrigated areas mainly produce cotton and alfalfa. The economy of the region has historically been based on primary production, especially from irrigated agriculture and ranching (sheep and beef). The introduction of domestic livestock grazing in the mid- to late-nineteenth 2.6

century has had significant ecological and hydrological effects. Cattle grazing is common throughout the North American Deserts ecological region, as well as in many of the surrounding mountainous regions. Mining is also an important economic factor in the Region. Mining in the area has led to the appearance and abandonment of many small towns devoted to tapping mineral resources such as copper, gold, silver, iron, coal, uranium and salts. Today, tourism and recreation are becoming increasingly important contributors to local and regional economies. Human population density in the region remains relatively low outside large population centers, but persistent urban expansion continues to apply stress to limited water resources of the region. Water rights devoted to agriculture are being converted to domestic water use, limiting conservation opportunities and potentially altering wildlife resource availability by reducing the extent of cropped acreage. Development of alternative energy resources is also expanding throughout the region. As with traditional energy extraction practices, the development of infrastructure associated with these practices increases threats of habitat fragmentation as well as the potential to bird fatalities resulting from impacts caused by wind turbines.

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

ECOLOGICAL SETTING Temperate Sierras Ecological Region (19.9 million acres)

Abiotic Setting This ecological region consists of extensive volcanic and fault-block mountain chains and plateaus separated by wide valleys and plains. Most plains and valleys are covered by fluvial and lacustrine deposits, whereas the mountains consist largely of colluvium and rock outcrops. Surface water is limited and many stream and arroyos are intermittent at middle and lower elevations. Soils are variable, encompassing shallow soils of alpine sites and nutrient-poor forest soils of the mountain slopes, as well as soils suitable for agriculture and those rich in calcium that support natural dry grasslands. The climate is subarid to arid in lower valleys, reaching near temperate conditions at higher elevations. Precipitation patterns of the region are episodic in nature driven by Pacific frontal passages and orthographic rain and snow fall during winter months and convective monsoonal events occurring from influxes of moist air off the Gulf of California and Gulf of Mexico. Annual precipitation totals vary by elevation from 10” to 28”. Mean annual temperatures range between 44°F to 50°F.

Biotic Setting

IWJV Boundary Temperate Sierras Ecoregion

Figure 4 T emperate sierras ecological region within IWJV boundary.

The Temperate Sierras ecoregion falling within the IWJV boundary encompasses the forested mountainous landscapes of Arizona and New Mexico. This area of the region is representative of the ecotones between the North Western Forested Mountains and Temperate Sierra Ecological regions of Mexico. A majority of the ecological characteristics of the North Western Forested Mountains also exists within this region. Ecosystem types range from dense conifer forests, aspen stands, pinion juniper forest, to grassland savannas. Major river systems of this region include the headwaters to the Gila River and major tributaries to the Rio Grande. Surface ownership patterns are predominantly U.S. Forest Service and private land ownership. High topographic relief, persistence of forest and woodland plant community types, and episodic precipitation patterns are the key landscape factors that permit aggregation of these systems into a single level I ecoregion. 2.7

Vegetative cover is extremely diverse: subalpine environments include tree species such as Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, cork bark fir and interior Douglas fir. Open ponderosa pine savannas with grassland understories characterize forest types. Pinion pine, juniper, and oak woodlands on lower slopes transition into semiarid grasslands that dominate valley bottoms and plains. Grassland species in this ecotone are dominated by grama and galleta species. Existing riparian corridors contain galleries of narrow leaf cottonwood, Goodings, and coyote willow. This region represents the northern extent inhabited by many tropical and subtropical migratory bird species (red-faced warbler, painted redstart) that do not occur elsewhere in the United States.

Threats and Human Activities Commercial forestry operations have been established in some areas of this region, but have been less intensive than those conducted in more northerly forests. Past fire suppression policies of the U.S. Forests Service have altered forest density and structure over much of the region. Shifts in forest densities have reduced productivity of understory grasses and increased the risk of catastrophic fires. Long-term and poorly managed grazing on public and private lands have degraded rangeland productivity and severely impacted riparian resources in the region. Climate change poses the broadest threat to water and wetland resources of the region. Alterations to

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

ECOLOGICAL SETTING the distribution and volume of snow pack in conjunction with increased evaporation rates have the potential to impact wetlands, even within well protected areas. Although characterizing the ecological diversity of the IWJV in narrative terms provides insight to its complexity, it does not explicitly define the distribution and interspersion of landscape factors and threats necessary for supporting a strategic habitat conservation design. In moving toward a more strategic and scientific approach to landscape conservation we have defined a spatially explicit and ecologically based framework that identifies the conceptual, administrative, and ecological scales appropriate for supporting strategic habitat conservation. Such a framework provides the basis for biological planning and promotes coordination and collaboration among partners in the development and implementation of landscape conservation strategies. The adoption of such a framework promotes the stratification of the landscape into ecologically meaningful units required to initiate strategic wildlife and habitat models and systematic approach to evaluating and ranking conservation priorities. An ecoregional framework also provides a logical (ecologically based) means to summarize, measure, monitor, and aggregate habitat and population metrics across variable landscape scales. Finally, an ecological framework fosters and communicates an ecological understanding of bird conservation, rather than an understanding based on a single-resource, singlediscipline, or single-agency perspective.

Establishing linkages between regional and continental conservation goals for migratory birds is a primary task of Joint Venture conservation science. Consequently, planning scales that are broader and external to the IWJV play an important role shaping our conservation science. However, we focus here on the ecoregional extents that aggregate to the IWJV administrative boundary (Fig. 5).

IWJV Boundary Continental Extent North American Joint Venture Boundaries

Figure 5 I WJV boundary nested hierarchically within the continental scale extent. North American Joint Venture boundaries are displayed as reference.

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

2.8

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

DEFINING AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK An ecological framework should define individual landscapes in an ecologically meaningful way by stratifying landscape variability across the Intermountain West in a spatially explicit manner. Ecological regions (ecoregions) represent the extent that biotic, abiotic, anthropogenic, terrestrial, and aquatic capacities and potentials are similar (Omernik 1987). Ecoregional distributions provide insight to biological planning and landscape/population models; they also inform development of decision support tools within the Intermountain West. Ecoregional extents traverse political boundaries and facilitate bird conservation across state and administrative borders. The framework is flexible and allows aggregation and stratification up and down the hierarchy to encompass both avian population and habitat distribution parameters. The ecoregional classification system adopted for this framework was defined and delineated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (1997). The CEC classification was adopted by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative in 1999 and used as the basis for delineating Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs; North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2000). The CEC ecoregions represent four different ecoregional scales within a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units. From ecoregional level I to ecoregional level IV, the spatial resolution of the ecoregions increases

and encompasses areas that are progressively more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics. Below each level is defined and summarized within relevance to the JV.

Global/Intercontinental Scale (Level I Ecoregions) Level I ecological regions (Fig. 1) highlight the major ecological biomes at a continental scale and provide the broad backdrop to the ecological mosaic of North America, putting the IWJV in context at a global or intercontinental perspective. The large area of the North American desert biome internal to the IWJV boundary is informative in regard to the extent of water-limited ecosystems the IWJV encompasses. This perspective supports the emphasis the IWJV has put on waterdependent bird species and associated wetland habitats. Limited wetland habitat continues to be impacted by anthropogenic modifications in this biome with the extent of wetland habitats and wetland productivity trending down (Dahl, 2008). Future projections indicate climate change could modify the hydro-periodicity and distribution of many wetland systems by altering the distribution and volume of snow pack across the Intermountain West (Harpold et al. 2010, McMenamin et al. 2008, Lawler and Mathias 2007).

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

2.9

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

DEFINING AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK National/Sub-continental Scale (Level II Ecoregions) Level II ecological regions (Fig. 6) provide a more detailed description of the large ecological areas nested within the level I regions. For example, the North American Deserts Level I ecoregion which intersects the IWJV is composed of two ecological regions at Level II, Cold and Warm Deserts. Level II ecological regions are useful at

national and sub-continental scales when summarizing broad landscape physiographic characteristics, wildlife distributions, and land use practices. The spatial extents of Level II ecoregions are coincident in many cases with BCR boundaries. The IWJV encompasses significant portions of five Level II ecoregions (Fig. 6) and seven BCRs (Fig. 7). Figure 6

orth American CEC N Level II Ecoregions. Only Level II ecoregions intersecting the IWJV boundary are described in the figure legend.

6.2 Western Cordillera 9.3 West-Central Semiarid Prairies 9.4 South Central Semiarid Prairies 10.1 Cold Deserts 10.2 Warm Deserts 11.1 Mediterranean California 13.1 Upper Gila Mountains 0.0 Water IWJV Boundary

Table 1 Level II ecoregional areas within the IWJV. LEVEL II ECOREGION

ECOREGION ACRES

IWJV ECOREGION ACRES

IWJV %

Mediterranean California

19,474,493

675,291

3.5%

West-Central Semiarid Prairies

188,065,747

2,790,955

1.5%

South Central Semiarid Prairies

119,885,169

13,223,530

11.0%

26,901,624

19,859,713

73.8%

Warm Deserts

158,085,499

32,404,645

20.5%

Western Cordillera

244,731,062

162,224,991

66.3%

Cold Deserts

248,654,382

246,453,973

99.1%

Upper Gila Mountains

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

2.10

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

DEFINING AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 7 N orth American BCRs. Only BCRs intersecting the IWJV boundary are described in the figure legend. Badlands and Prairies (BCR 17) Chihuahuan Desert (BCR 35) Coastal California (BCR 17) Great Basin (BCR 9) Northern Pacific Rainforest (BCR 5) Northern Rockies (BCR 10) Shortgrass Prairie (BCR 18) Sierra Madre Occidental (BCR 34) Sierra Nevada (BCR 15) Sonoran and Mojave Deserts (BCR 33) Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau (BCR 16)

Table 2 Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) within the IWJV.

BCR ACRES

IWJV BCR ACRES

IWJV %

BCR NAME

Coastal California (BCR 32)

47,294,986

712,132

1.5%

Badlands and Prairies (BCR 17)

90,877,294

2,608,428

2.9%

Sonoran and Mojave Deserts (BCR 33)

Shortgrass Prairie (BCR 18)

95,097,525

BCR NAME

Northern Pacific Rainforest (BCR 5) Sierra Nevada (BCR 15)

136,413,183

13,616,123

Sierra Madre 107,015,553 Occidental (BCR 34)

2.11

3,091,304

4,082,088

5,202,338

14,554,203

BCR ACRES

IWJV BCR ACRES

IWJV %

96,704,687

16,234,281

16.8%

141,849,002

21,628,017

15.2%

3.3%

Chihuahuan Desert (BCR 35)

240,066,651

118,918,270

49.5%

3.0%

Northern Rockies (BCR 10) Southern Rockies/ Colorado Plateau (BCR 16)

128,062,728

126,002,050

98.4%

Great Basin (BCR 9)

191,795,903

173,020,527

90.2%

38.2%

13.6%

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

DEFINING AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Regional Scale (Level III Ecoregions) Level III ecological regions describe smaller ecological areas nested within level II regions (Fig. 8). At this scale Level III ecoregions enhance regional environmental monitoring, assessment and reporting. They allow locally defining characteristics to be identified, and more regionally specific management strategies

6.2.3

Columbia Mountain/Northern Rockies

6.2.4

Canadian Rockies

6.2.5

North Cascades

6.2.8

Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills

6.2.9

Blue Mountains

to be formulated. Level III ecoregions provide the biological foundation for stratifying landscapes across the Intermountain West into meaningful units that are appropriate to develop habitat/population model. The IWJV encompasses all or significant portions of 21 Level III ecoregions.

6.2.10 Middle Rockies 6.2.11 Klamath Mountains 6.2.12 Sierra Nevada 6.2.13 Wasatch and Uinta Mountains 6.2.14 Southern Rockies 6.2.15 Idaho Batholith 9.4.3

Southwestern Tablelands

10.1.2 Columbia Plateau 10.1.3 Northern Basin and Range 10.1.4 Wyoming Basin 10.1.5 Central Basin and Range 10.1.6 Colorado Plateaus 10.1.7 Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 10.1.8 Snake River Plain 10.2.1 Mojave Basin and Range 10.2.2 Sonoran Desert 10.2.4 Chihuahuan Desert 13.1.1 Arizona New Mexico Mountains

Figure 8 C EC Level III Ecoregions, intersecting IWJV boundary. Only Level II ecoregions intersecting the IWJV boundary are described in the figure legend.

2.12

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

DEFINING AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Table 3 Level III ecoregional areas within IWJV extent

LEVEL III ECOREGION NAME

ECOREGION ACRES

IWJV ECOREGION ACRES

IWJV %

Northwestern Glaciated Plains

99,914,031

99,013

0.1%

Northwestern Great Plains

88,151,715

2,691,942

3.1%

California Coastal Sage, Chaparral, and Oak Woodlands

19,474,493

675,291

3.5%

High Plains

70,758,582

3,994,752

5.6%

Madrean Archipelago

18,504,491

1,247,587

6.7%

Canadian Rockies

25,841,279

3,202,103

12.4%

Chihuahuan Desert

126,062,629

16,835,170

13.4%

Klamath Mountains

11,978,288

1,889,825

15.8%

Cascades

11,449,173

2,067,574

18.1%

Southwestern Tablelands

49,126,587

9,228,778

18.8%

Sierra Nevada

13,024,095

4,948,842

38.0%

8,689,192

3,824,863

44.0%

Columbia Mountains/Northern Rockies

44,160,295

20,199,546

45.7%

Mojave Basin and Range

32,022,870

15,569,475

48.6%

Arizona/New Mexico Mountains

26,901,624

19,859,713

73.8%

Middle Rockies

36,128,290

33,488,083

92.7%

Arizona/New Mexico Plateau

37,083,001

35,630,932

96.1%

Southern Rockies

35,975,520

35,246,157

98.0%

Wyoming Basin

32,733,155

32,180,200

98.3%

Columbia Plateau

20,683,605

20,488,914

99.1%

Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills

13,857,376

13,730,443

99.1%

Central Basin and Range

76,523,537

76,522,842

100.0%

Blue Mountains

17,484,325

100.0%

Colorado Plateaus

33,318,402

100.0%

Idaho Batholith

14,863,494

100.0%

Northern Basin and Range

35,085,836

100.0%

Snake River Plain

13,226,846

100.0%

Wasatch and Uinta Mountains

11,279,736

100.0%

North Cascades

2.13

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

DEFINING AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Local Scale (Level IV Ecoregions) Level IV ecological regions describe smaller ecological areas nested within level III regions. Like Level III ecoregions, Level IV provide a detailed stratification of ecological processes that support regional and local conservation objectives. At this scale Level IV ecoregions also provide a meaningful summarization agent, linking ecoregional objectives and local habitat delivery actions. Currently Level IV ecoregions have been developed for 10 of 11 western states within the Intermountain West. The remaining state, Arizona, is expected to be finalized in the near future. The IWJV is unique among the habitat joint ventures when measured by the diversity and extent of state and federally managed lands encompassed. Of the more than 486 million acres that make up the IWJV, over 70% (>335 million acres) are public lands (Figs. 9, 10). Understanding the ecological factors linked to public and private land distribution and the underlying land management practices they represent can provide critical insight to associated levels of land protection and potential habitat quality.

BIA

DOD

Other

USDA

Water

BLM

DOE

Private

USFS

IWJV Boundary

BOR

DOI

State

USFWS

COE

NPS

State Park

WMA

Figure 9 C onservation estate and landownership patterns in the Intermountain West.

Photo by Patrick Donnelly

2.14

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

CONSERVATION ESTATE & LANDOWNERSHIP PATTERNS Defining the extent and capacity of the conservation estate based on the single factor of public or private ownership often obscures the perspective of conservation actions. Although public lands in many circumstances are afforded more protection from direct human impacts, they may be more susceptible to indirect and unintended impacts that result from public land management policies. When applied over broad areas consistently over time, such policies can impact millions of acres and act as change agents at a broad ecological scale. The USFS fire suppression policy

provides an example. Implemented from 1935 to 1978, this policy was meant to protect forest resources across the western United States but resulted in shifts in forest density and increased fuel loads that altered the health and structure of many forested habitats across this region. This landscape alteration has undoubtedly impacted bird habitats in portions of the Intermountain West and should be considered a landscape factor in modeling exercises. The USFS currently administers >107 million acres (22.3%) of the IWJV.

Table 4 S ummary of surface ownership within IWJV boundary

OWNER

ACRES

HECTARES

51,299

20,760

<0.1%

US Department of Agriculture

256,045

103,618

0.1%

State Park

374,492

151,552

0.1%

Other Govâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t.

668,862

270,680

0.1%

State Wildlife Management Area

939,096

380,040

0.2%

Bureau of Reclamation

1,398,258

565,857

0.3%

Department of Energy

1,541,764

623,932

0.3%

US Fish & Wildlife Service

3,097,142

1,253,374

0.6%

Department of Defense

9,043,505

3,659,791

1.9%

National Park Service

12,682,798

5,132,567

2.6%

State

22,933,022

9,280,702

4.8%

Bureau of Indian Affairs

33,342,227

13,493,175

7.0%

US Forest Service

107,027,928

43,312,839

22.3%

Private

141,645,141

57,321,984

29.5%

BLM

141,823,200

57,394,042

29.6%

Corps of Engineers

2.15

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

CONSERVATION ESTATE & LANDOWNERSHIP PATTERNS Examining the conservation estate from an ecoregional perspective is important when attempting to identify those ecological factors that characterize the extent and interspersion of public and private lands within the Intermountain West. Ecological regions are often associated with persistent ownership patterns that are linked to the social and physical geography of a landscape. The assessment of these relationships often reveals consistent associations of land ownership and land-use practices within ecoregional boundaries. As a result, ownership within ecological regions is often characterized by 1 to a few dominant land-use practices. This characteristic can be illustrated by the distribution of USFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands among ecological regions within the Intermountain West.

2.16

Because the natural resource missions of these land management agencies are correlated to specific ecological factors (i.e., plant community distributions) their extent is largely coincident with ecoregional boundaries (Fig. 10). In the same manner, the distribution of private lands can also be associated with the extent and inherent value of natural resources. The ecological factors associated with private ownership differ from public ownership factors and were often determined by historic economic values common to Western agricultural development and range land productivity. The outcome of these factors has been a relatively small land base of private ownership within the Intermountain West, but one that potentially represents a disproportionately high bird habitat value. Future biological planning should evaluate this assumption.

BIA

DOD

Other

USDA

Water

BLM

DOE

Private

USFS

Level III Ecoregional Boundaries

BOR

DOI

State

USFWS (1) Idaho Batholith

COE

NPS

State Park

WMA

(2) Northern Great Basin

Figure 10 Land ownership patterns and ecoregional boundaries in the IWJV. 1 = Idaho Batholith, 2 = Northern Basin and Range.

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 Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 1997. Ecological Regions of North America, Toward a Common Perspective, Communications and Public Outreach Department of the CEC Secretariat. Technical Report.

McMenamin S.K., E.A. Hadly, and C.K. Wright. 2008. Climatic change and wetland desiccation cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 105:16988â&#x20AC;&#x201C;16993.

Harpold A. A., S. Rajagopal, I.Heidbuechel, C.Stielstra, A. B. Jardine, and P. D. Brooks. 2010. Trends in Snowpack Depths and the Timing of Snowmelt in the River Basins of the Intermountain West American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #H31I-08.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). 2000. Bird Conservation Region Descriptions, Supplement to the North American Bird Conservation Imitative, Bird Conservation Regions Map. Technical Report.

Lawler J. J. and M. Mathias. 2007. Climate Change and the Future of Biodiversity in Washington. Report prepared for the Washington Biodiversity Council.

2.17

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

Cha pte r T hre e

S t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e B i o l og i c a l Fo u n d a t i o n Pr incipa l Autho r s: Jo s h Ve st & Patr ick D onne lly

Photo by USF WS

Inside this Chapter

S t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e B i o l og i c a l Fo u n d a t i o n

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 3.2 Biological Foundation Framework Overview ........................................................................ 3.4 Identify Priorities for Conservation Science.. ........................................................................ 3.5 •

A Strategic Framework for Conservation Science Priorities................................................ 3.5

Biological Planning . ........................................................................................................... 3.10 •

Assess Population Status.. .............................................................................................. 3.10

•

Determine Population Objectives.. ................................................................................... 3.10

•

Identifying Limiting Factors............................................................................................. 3.11

•

Estimating Net Landscape Change.................................................................................. 3.11

Conservation Design........................................................................................................... 3.13 •

Species-Habitat Models.................................................................................................. 3.13

•

Focus Areas................................................................................................................... 3.14

•

Characterize Past, Current and Potential Future Landscapes........................................... 3.14

•

Biological Capacity and Habitat Objectives..................................................................... 3.17

•

Decision Support Tools................................................................................................... 3.17

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) is among the largest and most ecologically diverse Joint Ventures in North America, encompassing parts of 11 western states and 10 different Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). Consequently, the challenges to sustaining avian populations throughout the IWJV are also diverse and complex. The IWJV has recognized the need for a stronger biological foundation to address increasingly complex challenges to the conservation of birds and their habitats within the Intermountain West. Given the large spatial extent, ecological and political complexity, and a mandate to facilitate the implementation of four national bird conservation initiatives, the IWJV is developing a framework that guides the activities of staff and resources to optimize efficiencies for habitat conservation to achieve sustainable priority bird populations. In order for our conservation actions to be truly effective and measurable, this framework must be developed in the context of science-based principles. Conservation partners in the Intermountain West have been very successful to date in conserving (i.e., protecting, restoring, enhancing, and managing) habitats for migratory birds. Additionally, partners 3.2

have invested considerable resources in bird monitoring, evaluation, and applied research to better understand bird abundance, distribution, and specieshabitat relationships. However, local conservation actions have seldom been linked to continental objectives for migratory bird populations. For example, annual benchmarks for progress have been measured in acres conserved, restored, or enhanced across the Intermountain West versus acres meeting habitat objectives that are linked to continental or regional population objectives. Consequently, conservation partnerships have had limited success in defining or quantifying the results of cooperative conservation efforts to benefit migratory birds. Adoption of a science-based framework to guide conservation partners is needed for the following reasons: 1) the Intermountain West is immense, ecologically complex, and politically diverse; hence, clear consensus is needed on priorities for spending limited resources, 2) tools and techniques that were previously lacking are being developed to quantify and measure objectives within a science-based framework, and 3) the approach allows us to learn from our actions and provides a mechanism to be adaptable and

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 strategic. Remaining data gaps clearly hinder our ability to develop habitat objectives or spatially explicit decision support tools for avian populations in the Intermountain West. This Plan reflects initial steps by the IWJV to integrate a stronger science-based strategy into its operational structure. As such, this Plan advances the conservation of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds in four continentally significant landscapes. Specifically, efforts seek to identify science-based habitat objectives for springmigrating waterfowl in the Southern Oregon and Northeastern California region, for migrating shorebirds and waterfowl at the Great Salt Lake, for wintering waterfowl in the Columbia Basin, and for shorebirds in the San Luis Valley. Planning efforts in these landscapes recognize their significance to continental populations during appropriate life cycle events. The Plan does not outline a comprehensive conservation strategy for all avian habitats across the entire IWJV, and hence should be viewed as an incremental step toward more strategic bird habitat conservation that serves as an update to objectives identified in prior IWJV plans. However, objectives and strategies identified in this plan will be immediately valuable to habitat mangers in those landscapes and will provide a framework for future efforts to establish habitat objectives for other species or in other landscapes. The IWJV has only recently invested in filling core science capacity needs through the establishment of a Science Coordinator and Spatial Ecologist to facilitate the development of a science-based framework to inform future conservation actions. Although this represents a substantial investment by the IWJV to strengthen the biological foundation, it is an important step. The IWJV will need to commit resources to core science priorities to make substantial and meaningful progress within a science-based framework. First, priorities must be established and key information needs identified and prioritized. Subsequently, IWJV resources should be dedicated to catalyze and leverage opportunities to fill these needs with our partners.

3.3

Shifts in both the conservation paradigm and geopolitical landscapes require the IWJV partnership network to be more accountable with our resources and to not only develop meaningful objectives but also to measure progress toward those objectives. Conservation strategies are intended to evolve from conserving “more” habitat to targeted conservation actions based on a better understanding of what actions are needed, and where, to sustain bird populations. The IWJV intends to address the questions “why”, “how”, “how much”, and “where” to sustain populations of migratory birds through conservation programs: Why: Threats to avian species and their habitats are increasingly complex and urgent. Key threats include land-use changes (e.g., exurban development, energy development, agricultural practices), water supply and quality, invasive species, and climate change. How: The IWJV partnership invests in science to focus resources toward shared priorities. The IWJV will be transparent and explicit in stating 1) population and habitat objectives for migratory birds, 2) what is needed to accomplish these objectives, and 3) how progress will be measured. The IWJV will use the best science available to target conservation efforts and ensure efficiency with limited resources. How Much and Where: Through investments in sound science the IWJV partnership will be able to develop strategic conservation strategies at appropriate ecoregional scales that address key limiting factors impacting priority bird populations. Development of spatially explicit population and habitat objectives linked to expectations of biological outcomes will provide the means to articulate conservation actions in a defensible manner. Working within a strategic framework will facilitate achieving meaningful biological outcomes for priority populations.

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

BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATION FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW

Photo by Ali Duvall

• Monitoring and Evaluation– Use monitoring programs to track priority populations; track and evaluate effects of conservation actions on habitats and populations, compare observed with predicted responses, and provide feedback on the effectiveness of conservation actions. • Assumption-driven Research– Encourage, facilitate, and coordinate applied research to test key planning assumptions and reduce management uncertainties.

3.4

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

UA TI EV AL

• Program Delivery–Implementation of habitat conservation and management actions to achieve objectives.

• Conservation Design– Develop and apply spatially informed species-habitat models to identify priority areas for conservation actions and the amount and types of habitat needed to attain population objectives.

• Biological Planning– Compile and assess information on priority species and habitats to provide a biological foundation for prioritizing conservation actions.

ASSUMPTION RESEARCH CONSERVATION DESIGN

• Identify Priorities– Assess priority species and habitats to focus conservation planning and science on. Linkages to continental bird conservation plans, state wildlife action plans, and other ecoregional plans should be assessed within appropriate ecoregional contexts.

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING

The framework for the science-based biological foundation of the IWJV is organized into the following five elements with further detailed descriptions of these elements provided in subsequent sections of this document:

Priorities

PROGRAM DELIVERY

IMPLEMENTATION Figure 1 C onceptual diagram of the Strategic Habitat Conservation framework.

These elements are organized in an adaptive, iterative cycle following adaptive resource management approach (Fig. 1). This framework encourages “learning by doing,” but with explicit recognition that future iterations will either reduce the uncertainty in planning models or lead to new models and conservation actions. This framework is referred to as Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) and is described further in the National Ecological Assessment Team (2006, 2008) reports. Conservation delivery through coordinated implementation of on-the-ground actions through partnerships guided by the biological foundation is a focus of IWJV efforts. The conservation delivery element (i.e., implementation) identified in SHC and Fig. 1 is not included in the biological foundation described here but is addressed in the Habitat Conservation Strategy of the Implementation Plan.

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

IDENTIFY PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE Implementation of SHC requires thoughtful prioritization of wildlife and their habitats that will be used in the iterative process of conservation planning, implementation, and evaluation. The Intermountain West provides important habitat for dozens of priority bird species identified by the four continental bird conservation plans – North American Waterfowl management Plan (NAWMP), U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), Partners in Flight (PIF), and the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP). Any of these could serve as the basis for SHC in the Intermountain West. To provide meaningful outcomes the IWJV should provide focused support to supplement the bird conservation planning of its many partner agencies and organizations. Consequently, a continental and JV-wide view of options must be assessed and a set of priorities established for carrying out SHC. Measureable progress in implementing SHC for a subset of priority species will strengthen the collective ability of the JV partnership to deliver targeted conservation as necessary to provide habitat that supports bird populations at continental goal levels. By focusing our efforts on a suite of priority species and habitats within the SHC framework the IWJV will be able to objectively demonstrate progress toward shared goals of the partnership. It is anticipated the ability to measure progress toward shared goals in a science-based framework will result in increased funding, leveraging, and capacity opportunities for avian habitat conservation in the future. Considerations of species and habitat priorities are obscured by the broad ecological and geo-political complexities within the Intermountain West. However, defining focused conservation priorities is a crucial element in our ability to strategically target limited resources and facilitate meaningful and measurable conservation outcomes at ecoregional and continental scales. Formalizing specific priorities will allow us to begin to work within a SHC framework by defining defensible and meaningful priorities for future science investments. To identify priorities, the IWJV will utilize criteria grounded in existing science-based biological planning efforts and principles embraced by the diverse sociological, economic, and environmental interests of the IWJV partnership. To initiate this effort the IWJV is adopting an approach that uses a conceptual model, or framework, to identify and evaluate species and habitat priorities. The process is intended to formalize the method

3.5

of evaluating priorities and communicate the process to the partnership in a concise and transparent manner. Results of this process will: • Identify focused conservation priorities within the context of measurable eco-regional and continental bird population and habitat objectives. • Define criteria necessary to focus goals and objectives of IWJV conservation science and delivery. • Facilitate partnership opportunities and support within a strategic habitat conservation framework. • Produce decision-support tools for proven conservation delivery programs that can effect landscape-scale habitat conservation delivery and inform policy decisions. The first step is to develop a process for identifying species or suites of species that will serve as the basis for SHC. Formalizing this process through the development of conceptual models is a necessary step when scrutinizing conservation priorities. The resulting conceptual framework provides the means to illustrate the logical sequence of criteria used to make selections in a manner that is transparent to all stakeholders involved. Results define focused species and habitat priorities necessary to produce meaningful and measurable conservation outcomes across variable landscape scales. This process draws upon the investment by partners in bird conservation science to date and facilitates a strategic investment of resources to sustain migratory bird populations at a landscape scale– extending beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries.

A Strategic Framework for Conservation Science Priorities Science priorities will be established through engagement of Technical Committees, State Conservation Partnerships, Flyway Habitat Committees, and Management Board at different points within this process, thereby ensuring that the priorities are representative of and broadly supported by the conservation partnership. A hierarchical framework will be used to identify and evaluate species and habitat priorities for science-based planning (Fig. 1). Each level of the hierarchy serves as a filter and defines the criteria and factors used to evaluate priorities. Level I and level II criteria are considered discrete in nature. To be considered for advancement to successive levels of the hierarchy, species or habitat priorities must be identified within existing plans listed below in Tiers I and II of the framework.

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

IDENTIFY PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE Level I. Continental Plans from the 4 Bird Initiatives

Level II. SWAPS & Ecoregional Plans

Table 1 C ontinental and Regional Plans used to identify potential priority bird species in Levels I and II of the IWJV Strategic Framework. FRAMEWORK TIER Level I

PLAN SCOPE Continental

Level III. Extent of Biological & Landscape Information

• North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) • Partners in Flight Tri-national Vision for Landbird Conservation (PIF-TVLC)

Level V. Conservation Delivery or Policy

A species must first be identified in one of the 5 national bird conservation plans (Table 1) to be considered a priority species.

Level II. State Wildlife Action Plans and other Regional Bird Conservation Plans. For priority consideration, a species or habitat association should also be identified as a priority by State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) within the Intermountain West. Additionally, a species should be recognized by the USFWS lists for Birds of Management Concern and Birds of Conservation Concern. Central and Pacific Flyway Management Plans will also be assessed as will PIF State and Physiographic Regional Plans for priority species consideration (Table 1). Other regionally-based plans such as The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Plans should also be considered in species and habitat priority assessments.

3.6

• Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (PIFNALCP)

trategic framework used by the IWJV to identify S species and habitat priorities required to focus conservation actions and sustain priority avian populations within the Intermountain West.

Level I. Continental Bird Conservation Plans.

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) • United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP)

Level IV. Conservation Estate

Figure 2

PLAN

Level II

Regional

• State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAP) • USFWS Birds of Management Concern USFWS Focal Species Plans • Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan • Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan • Pacific & Central Flyway Management Plans • PIF Bird Conservation Plans for States and Physiographic Regions • TNC Ecoregional Plans

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

Once species and habitat lists are compiled from criteria identified in Levels I and II, three categories will be used to identify potential priority species – Highest, High, and Moderate - based on rules and criteria (Table 2) with some modification within each taxonomic group to accommodate differences among and special issues associated with each group or guild. These rules and criteria are generally based on assessing the continental and BCR “concern” for a species and measure of the “responsibility” each BCR has for that species. Concern is generally defined as a combination of the species priority designation within its respective continental bird plan and an assessment of that species population status (e.g., birds of management concern). Responsibility is generally a measure of the significance a BCR has towards meeting the annual life cycle requirements of the species relative to other BCRs. This approach will facilitate the assignment of species to categories based primarily on objective criteria, with each species being evaluated using information from the continental, national, and regional bird conservation plans. Table 2 C onservation science priority categories and criteria used for bird species in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) within the IWJV.

PRIORITY

CRITERIA/RULE

HIGHEST

High BCR Concern and High BCR Responsibility AND High or Moderate Continental Concern

HIGH

High Continental Concern and Moderate BCR Responsibility OR Moderate BCR Concern and High BCR Responsibility

MODERATE

Moderate BCR Concern and Moderate BCR responsibility OR High Continental Concern and Low BCR Responsibility OR High BCR Responsibility and Low BCR Concern

3.7

Continental/BCR Concern

IDENTIFY PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE

MODERATE

HIGH

HIGHEST

MODERATE

HIGH

MODERATE

BCR Responsibility Figure 3 C onceptual diagram of decision matrix used to assign science conservation priority categories from species identified in Levels I and II of the Strategic Framework based on relationships to Bird Conservation Regions (BCR).

These three categories reflect levels of priority for conservation science, but no ranking is yet assigned to the species within each category. Priority species from all three ranks can be sorted according to the dominant habitat type associations, forming species-habitat suites within each rank. These groupings will allow for the prioritization of habitats according to the distribution of priority species and the identification of issues, goals, and implementation strategies common to species using these habitat types. Subsequently, a subset of surrogate species (e.g., focal species) can be identified for more detailed conservation planning and evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat conservation for the larger set of species associated with that particular habitat type based on successive levels of the Strategic Framework. Given the ecological complexity and extent of the Intermountain West, a focal species approach will be integral to achieving meaningful and measurable progress toward avian habitat conservation. The BCRs serve as primary spatial extents for continental and national bird conservation initiatives and therefore are a useful spatial extent for identifying priorities species andpopulations within the Intermountain West. However, nearly all (≥ 90%) of BCRs 9 (Great Basin) and 16 (Southern Rockies) and half of BCR 10 (Northern Rockies) are contained within the IWJV and these three BCRs comprise 86% of the spatial extent of the IWJV. Thus, biological planning endeavors within these three BCRs will take precedence over smaller BCR components within the IWJV boundary because the IWJV has disproportionate responsibility for these 3 BCRs. Due to the large geographic extent and heterogeneity of BCRs within

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

IDENTIFY PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE the Intermountain West, sub-BCR spatial extents will be more appropriate for most biological planning endeavors. The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Level III and IV Ecoregions serve as useful sub-BCR spatial extents because they can easily be aggregated to BCR scales. Chapter 2 provides further detail on appropriate spatial extents for conservation planning in the Intermountain West.

Level III. Extent of Available Biological and Landscape Information. Level III is determined through a ranked value. The volume and utility of science-based biological information for a species is evaluated by its ability to inform strategic biological planning and conservation design. Information and data gaps are identified through literature reviews and data-mining exercises. These gaps are evaluated relative to the capacity required to overcome them and the expected benefits of the conservation actions that would result. Key biological data should include, at minimum, estimates of population size and trends, although information about functional relationships between environmental variables or other limiting factors and demographic parameters is preferable. Information can be extracted from existing regional management or conservation plans for several species which contain various degrees of data and other information describing population sizes, trends, and objectives or descriptions of limiting factors associated with these or other demographic parameters. Ranked assessments of available biological data for potential priority species will directly inform the types of species-habitat models that can be developed within appropriate ecoregional context over identified planning horizons. Assessments of the extent and types of geospatial data required to develop species-habitat models and assessments of current and future landscape conditions within an ecoregional context will also be required. Geospatial data that quantifies landscape composition and habitat conditions for priority species or suites of species will be paramount to developing meaningful and spatially explicit specieshabitat models. The availability, quality, age, and extent of geospatial data will be critical factors in evaluating how and when potential priorities are undertaken in a sequential manner. In some cases, new geospatial data may have to be obtained (e.g., remote sensing) to fully inform redundant biological planning and conservation design efforts. Thus, assessments of both biological and landscape information will be required to distinguish the types of models or tools that can be developed to inform conservation actions as well as identify the information gaps and challenges that must be addressed to develop effective conservation strategies. 3.8

Level IV. Conservation Estate The conservation estate is loosely defined as currently conserved land which benefits one or more bird species. A spatially explicit decision support tool will be used to evaluate the composition of the conservation estate in the context of an individual species or suite of species geographic extent and their life cycle events. Results will measure primary land stewardships within core habitats and identify existing management responsibilities; i.e. Forest Service, BLM, state, or private land ownerships. This evaluation will help to identify appropriate conservation delivery tools and to estimate the impact the partnership may have. Species distributions generally occurring outside the land management responsibility of federal and state agencies will receive additional consideration.

Level V. Habitat Delivery and Policy Level V is determined through a ranked value. Funding sources, political will, and links to proven habitat conservation delivery mechanisms (e.g., Farm Bill, NAWCA) will be considered as factors in this evaluation. The intent of this criterion is to evaluate species and habitats from the perspective of available implementation resources and the degree to which these resources can affect the conservation estate to meet the biological requirements of birds. This evaluation takes into account political factors that influence partnership involvement and also the availability of funding sources and capacity within state and federal programs. However, direct conservation mechanisms may not currently exist to address some limiting factors identified in specieshabitat relationships and may require modifying existing mechanisms or influencing higher policy-level decisions either from within or outside the existing partnership. Identifying connections, or lack thereof, between potential priorities and habitat delivery programs will define the context of science-based biological planning and conservation design.

Science Priorities Through this process, science priorities will reflect a sub-set of the priorities of the IWJV partnership network. Evaluation of potential species and habitat priorities through the Strategic Framework identified above will ensure that capacity and resources are focused on meaningful conservation activities that are important to the partnership and that can achieve measurable progress toward established goals and objectives. Establishing priorities within a strategic framework will enable the IWJV partnership to clearly define meaningful biological objectives and measure progress towards objectives. This will facilitate the partnerships ability to focus resources

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

IDENTIFY PRIORITIES FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE

Photo by Ali Duvall

and capacity on shared priorities and create leveraging opportunities so that shared goals can be accomplished more efficiently. Other organizations and agencies that have been successful in articulating their priorities and use a science-based framework to guide their activities have experienced improved funding opportunities and enhanced credibility among partners. Use of this Strategic Framework will also allow us to formalize the challenges and opportunities to develop effective conservation

3.9

strategies for priority species and habitats within the Intermountain West. Consequently, this information will inform how conservation planning, implementation, and priority research needs are addressed in a successive manner, with limited capacity, in a large and complex Joint Venture. Maintaining a focus on key priorities will ensure the IWJV is value-added to the partnership and able to achieve our program mission.

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

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING

Photo by Ali Duvall

Assess Population Status

Determine Population Objectives

Estimating current and historical population levels of priority species at multiple spatial scales provides a measure of the current capability of habitats to support populations and a starting point for determining the difference between current population levels and a population objective. A number of continental, national, regional and state surveys and atlas efforts have documented historical and current distribution and abundance information for bird species in the Intermountain West during various segments of the annual life cycle. This information can be assembled to help assess the current status, distribution, and abundance of priority species including overlap of important areas for these species. Future efforts are needed to estimate population levels for all priority species in the Intermountain West and to continue to refine these estimates based on additional surveys and monitoring. Additional efforts are also needed to better estimate the current state of populations during migration in the Intermountain West.

Population objectives are measurable expressions of societal desires for a given population. They can be expressed as abundance, trend, vital rates, and other measurable indices of population status. These objectives generally represent value-based goals from an estimate of what constitutes a healthy and sustainable population or of how many individuals of a species society wants and will support through conservation. For example, for most waterfowl species, the NAWMP population objectives are based on duck population levels measured in the 1970s when these populations were generally considered to be at desirable levels and provided adequate opportunities for harvest. Partners in Flight, on the other hand, generally set population objectives based on estimated populations at the beginning of the Breeding Bird Survey in the mid1960s.

Although estimates of bird population size are important indices of current state, and hence provide a starting point for evaluating success of conservation efforts, population size is but one measure of population status. Conservation actions that ultimately influence population size do so through influencing demographic parameters such as rates of survival and productivity. Our ability to measure and indicate the status of these demographic parameters will be increasingly important to relate conservation actions to population response. 3.10

Ecoregional or landscape scale objectives in the Intermountain West have been stepped down from continental-scale objectives as stated in bird initiative plans. This stepping-down process has the advantage of linking regional and local conservation actions to continental or national strategies. For some species, particularly land birds, some waterfowl, and some threatened and endangered species, range-wide and ecoregional population objectives have already been developed. Next steps include completion of this process for species where objectives have been established at continental scale but not at BCR or sub-BCR scales. Most bird populations identified in the four continental bird plans are migratory and hence considered federal trust

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

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING resources. Identifying any potential objectives for nonfederal trust resources must be accomplished in close cooperation with state wildlife agencies charged with those trust responsibilities. Although a “step-down” approach has much utility, it is based on the assumption that local or regional populations are hierarchical in nature and can be aggregated to a larger spatial scale. However, there is no clear consensus on the functional form of this relationship. For example, there is no easy way to relate continental breeding objectives to populations that migrate through or winter in the Intermountain West. For most species, information is not available regarding seasonal (e.g., during migration and overwinter) survival rates that are necessary for the development of reasonable estimates of migratory or wintering population sizes based on breeding ground objectives. Continuing efforts are needed to address the uncertainties associated with the development of biologically reasonable population objectives at multiple spatial scales, and this constitutes a significant challenge to all Joint Ventures. Surmounting these challenges can only be accomplished through coordination of and investment in science and research efforts with not only adjacent Joint Ventures but with the continental Joint Venture science community. An alternative approach to determining population objectives is to assess the present capability of the landscape to support populations by measuring available habitat and translating it to a population goal through a metric such as density or a species-habitat model. Population objectives can then be set by estimating the expected net change in the capability of habitats in the landscape to support populations based on loss or gain in quantity and quality. However, considerable challenges exist to the development of these landscapebased (“bottom up”) objectives. Principally, the availability and quality of habitat data is often limiting at the scales and resolution necessary to relate to many species in a reliably meaningful way. Also, our understanding of species-habitat relationships at multiple spatial scales is inadequate for many species and therefore limits our ability to develop reliable estimates at large spatial scales.

Identifying Limiting Factors Identification of factors thought to be limiting population growth of species below objective population levels need to be identified or hypothesized. For many species this has already been done by the respective bird initiatives. Designing effective conservation actions for a particular species is impossible without knowing what factors contribute to demographic performance and at what spatial scales those factors operate. These relationships are an

3.11

important component of species-habitat relationships and are necessary for the development of useful decisionsupport tools designed to address these limiting factors. Therefore, the extent and dynamics of limiting factors must be measured through time and spatially explicit linkages of population performance within an ecoregional context must be developed. Once limiting factors have been identified, the hypothesized relationship between the limiting factors and demographic parameters should be tested and evaluated at appropriate spatial scales. Determining the exact cause(s) of population declines (or lack of population growth) is often difficult, but in most cases it should be possible to make reasonable hypotheses that can be explored. Conducting field research may be cost prohibitive to identify precise causes of population decline and in such cases simulation models may be used to assess the likelihood that the proposed mechanism has the ability to limit population growth. In such cases, using a simple rapid prototype model may reduce cost of the modeling exercise while providing quick and useful insights about the modeled system (Blomquist et al. 2010). After limiting factors for any given species or group of species are identified, partners will be able to target conservation actions that address these factors. Consequently, monitoring programs should be designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation actions employed with the results of this evaluation being applied to improve future conservation. Migratory birds are likely to have different factors that are limiting at different times in their annual life cycle. In fact, the most important limiting factors may occur outside of the Intermountain West as is the case with some northern breeding duck and shorebird populations. In these cases, conservation actions should be undertaken by partners in those regions to address those factors. However, IWJV partners still have responsibility for ensuring that habitats in the Intermountain West such as fall and spring migration habitat do not become limiting when the species is restored to objective levels. A detailed assessment of limiting factors may only be possible for a relatively small and hopefully representative group of species. Thus, using a focal species approach, as identified through the Strategic Framework, is a desirable and necessary approach to conservation planning and delivery within the Intermountain West.

Estimating Net Landscape Change Approaching questions associated with habitat and species relationships from a landscape perspective requires an understanding of distribution and extent of those related resources. At ecological scales, these relationships are

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

BIOLOGICAL PLANNING intrinsically spatial in nature. Alterations to habitat extents and densities over time are often reflected in changes to the distribution and abundance of associated wildlife species. To inform and model these relationships the IWJV has identified the need to acquire or develop spatial habitat inventories to quantify habitat trends, in some instances over the last 30 years, identify agents of landscape change and inform conservation design and habitat delivery. This information will provide the spatial framework to model landscape ability to support a given number of individuals within a population and determine at what level existing population objectives are being met. Consequently, the IWJV has begun to examine the status and strategies to compile, update, and analyze representative landscape inventory datasets in anticipation of future modeling needs. Although more specific needs for spatially explicit habitat inventories and analysis will be identified once science priorities are known, five datasets are considered essential:

representative of current landscape conditions. At an average age of 30+ years, concern that current NWI data are not fully representative of existing wetland conditions are substantial. The extent of wetland impacts over the past 30 years within the Intermountain West is unclear. The NWI program has established a statistical monitoring protocol to assess national estimates of wetland trends. Although informative at a national scale, the results lack sufficient ecoregional context needed in many cases to inform wetland trends and impacts at regional scales; thus, utility of NWI to inform conservation needs in the Intermounatain West faces some limitations.

1. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 2. Continuous landcover datasets: NLCD, ReGAP, TNC landcover data 3. Farm Service Agency (FSA) crop database 4. Satellite and Aerial Imagery: Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), FSA aerial imagery 5. Digital elevational data: National Elevational Dataset (NED)/LiDAR Of the five data needs identified, NWI data is of particular importance because three of the four continental bird plans are associated with wetland dependent bird guilds and the conservation of their associated wetland habitats. The importance of these habitats is highlighted further when stepped down to the predominantly arid ecoregional setting of the Intermountain West. Initial assessment of NWI status indicates that only 63% of the Intermountain West has digital wetlands inventory available. This status leaves considerable portions of Idaho, Montana, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico without digital NWI coverage (Fig. 4). The majority (89%) of NWI data across the Intermountain West is between 25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;40 years old with a mean acquisition date of 1981. Although NWI data provides utility regardless of age, older information is less likely to be

3.12

Age (years) 1-5

21 - 25

6 - 10

26 - 30

11 - 15

31 - 35

16 - 20

36 - 40

No digital date

Figure 4 E xtent and age of digital NWI coverage currently available across the Intermountain West.

To meet the limitations associated with NWI data in particular, it will be necessary to develop contemporary habitat inventory techniques to update wetland data and conduct spatially explicit wetlands trend assessment within identified priority habitat areas.

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

CONSERVATION DESIGN

Photo by Ali Duvall

Conservation design encompasses a series of steps that use the results of biological planning and produce tools that guide decisions about the delivery of conservation actions as efficiently as possible. Ideally, this process also explicitly evaluates the trade-offs involved between species with different habitat requirements instead of considering each species independently. Optimization of conservation strategies to meet the myriad of habitat needs for multiple species will necessarily occur in an iterative and incremental fashion within the Intermountain West due to limitations described above for biological planning inputs. Conservation design in the Intermountain West will involve addressing habitat related limiting factors for bird populations. This will be achieved by understanding and modeling relationships between populations and their habitats, assessing the present and likely future capacity of habitats to support populations, and developing decisionsupport tools to guide habitat conservation actions based on this information. This step includes identification of geographic priorities for conservation. These geographic priorities can be developed from a variety of mechanisms ranging from expert opinion derived focus areas to areas identified from spatially explicit habitat-suitability models that account for a diversity of land management challenges and habitat delivery needs. Current bird conservation planning does not allow for a quantitative assessment of either the capability of landscapes to sustain populations in land use at objective levels or the impact of net change. Current bird conservation planning also is hampered by the inability to assess holistically (i.e., for all species-habitat suites) the current or likely future landscape condition and its ability to support sustainable bird populations. The IWJV is developing bird conservation plans for several sub-BCR areas that identify: 1) priority species and habitats, 2) threats and limiting factors, and 3) population and habitat objectives for bird conservation. The components of conservation design can be described in five steps: develop species-habitat models, develop focus areas, characterize landscapes, evaluate biological capacity and habitat objective, and develop decision-support tools. These processes are discussed in further detail below.

3.13

Species-Habitat Models The list of priority species for a BCR provides a starting point to select a smaller representative subset of species (foal species) to use in conservation design. Focal species as identified through the Strategic Framework are used to represent the needs of larger guilds of species that are assumed to use similar habitats, but are more specialized with respect to habitats, landscape context, and habitat management. The use of focal species is a conservation assessment “shortcut” that reduces the number of models that must be developed and applied to relate the full suite of species to their habitats; however, the assumption that other species will respond similarly to habitat protection, restoration, and management must be evaluated. Developing an efficient Habitat Conservation Strategy requires an understanding of the relationship between populations and habitats. After focal species are selected, the description of the effects of limiting factors on populations should be codified as models – descriptions of what is known or assumed to be true about population-habitat relationships. Models are used to predict factors such as apparent habitat suitability, relative density, or demographic rates. In some cases the primary purpose of developing and applying a model is production of a final product to aid in making decisions, such as identifying priority landscapes for specific conservation actions. Models also may be developed to assess the relative efficiency of different conservation actions. They may also be used to predict the consequences of public policy changes or economic forces that affect habitat. At other times, the primary purpose of a model is to “explore” a relationship, carefully evaluate assumptions, and perhaps change thought processes about a management or conservation action and its consequences for a focal species. The models developed to advance our conservation design efforts will represent a wide array of possibilities. The modeling strategy used for any given focal species will depend upon the level of our understanding of its interactions with its biotic and abiotic environment as well as the amount of empirical data (e.g., survey data) available within appropriate ecoregional contexts. Model types may include conceptual models of species-habitat relationships,

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

CONSERVATION DESIGN empirical models, or habitat-suitability index models. Each of these model types has various degrees of utility to inform conservation actions.

Conceptual Models of Species-Habitat Relationships For species lacking adequate empirical data necessary to develop a statistical model, conceptual models can be developed, drawing on the knowledge of experts to derive ranges of parameter values. Such models should be considered hypotheses, and refined based on research projects designed to validate the conceptual hypotheses. Rule sets based on these parameter values can be applied to geospatial information to inform where the hypotheses can be tested.

Empirical Models of Species-Habitat Relationships An example of empirical models commonly used in Joint Venture planning include bioenergetics models that relate food energy supplies to food energy requirements for bird populations within a landscape to establish habitat objectives. These bioenergetics models may be developed in the form of simple daily ration models or more complex spatially-explicit depletion models.

Habitat Suitability Index Models A habitat suitability index (HSI) is a numerical index of habitat suitability on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale based on the assumption that a positive relationship exists between the index and habitat carrying capacity. Historically, models were composed of one or more variables representing life requisites for a species, often called suitability indices. These variables were combined in an arithmetic equation to estimate the HSI. Recent development of HSI models has resulted in models that can be applied to large landscapes using Geographic Information Systems. These models typically rely on data layers derived from remote sensing and other existing spatial data bases or large-scale inventories. Because of the focus on larger scales and their use of GIS technology they can better address ecological and landscape effects on wildlife such as area sensitivity, edge effects, interspersion, landscape composition, and juxtaposition of resources. HSI models can fill a knowledge gap between research and real-world conservation efforts because they can be developed with existing knowledge for scales relevant to conservation planning. A potential weakness is that few such models have been validated (Shifley et al. 2009).

Focus Areas Ideally, designation of conservation focus areas should be driven by empirical assessments of those areas relative to the magnitude of importance for populations of focal species 3.14

identified through the Strategic Framework. Designation of focus areas should ideally also be informed through species-habitat models. Areas for which high concentrations of priority species regularly occur or that are integral to meeting annual life cycle requirements for a significant segment of a focal species population should be considered for focus area designation. Landscapes for which these criteria are met for multiple high-priority species (e.g., Great Salt Lake) should be considered higher priority areas. Thus, reliable estimates of priority species abundance and distribution within annual life cycle segments will be important to identifying focus areas. In the absence of data on bird distribution or demographics, assessments of priority habitat distribution across ecoregional extents should inform focus areas based on assumptions of habitat relationships for priority species. For example, evaluations of wetland densities or complexes and their trends through time across the Intermountain West should inform decisions related to focus areas. In the absence of empirical models of species-habitat relationships, partners can indicate the relative importance of certain landscapes based on expert opinion and the best available information on species and habitat distributions by mapping focus areas and indicating the priority species, threats and needed conservation actions for each. This process was used extensively in development of the 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan. The next logical steps are to identify population objectives and limiting factors for priority species, conduct landscape characterization and assessment to ascertain the habitat needed to sustain these populations, and develop model-driven habitat objectives. The SHC approach requires significant investments in science but can ultimately yield more defensible habitat objectives than have been established through planning based on expert opinion, thereby catalyzing conservation program funding to address habitat objectives.

Characterize Past, Current and Potential Future Landscapes Landscape modeling tools will be utilized to characterize historic and predict future bird habitat status, distribution and trends. Acquisition of satellite imagery is required to conduct change detection analysis necessary for tracking changes in historic land use, urban expansion, invasive species, and other associated habitat stressors (Fig. 5). To conduct these investigations satellite resources from the Earth Resource Observation and Science (EROS) Center of the U.S. Geological Survey will be utilized. EROS currently provides the most comprehensive library of continuous orbital land-based monitoring data available, spanning the time period 1974 to present.

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

CONSERVATION DESIGN

Landsat 5 September 21, 1985

8 Miles

 N

Landsat 5 September 10, 2010

8 Miles

 N

Figure 5 L andsat TM satellite data acquired in 1985 (left) and 2010 (right) are used to measure recovery efforts at Owens Lake. Owens Lake is a significant inland water body situated in the Owens Valley between the Sierra Nevada and Inyo Mountains, CA. Historically the lake was an important stopover site for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds.

However, in the early 20th century water sources supporting the lake were diverted, impacting the lake levels and habitat productivity. Beginning in 1999, a plan was put in place to restore the lake region and reestablish habitat for migratory birds. This information will provide the capability to measure historical landscape conditions necessary to establish baseline habitat conditions and habitat delivery objectives (Fig. 6). The ability to forecast future land cover composition will be important in the development of efficient conservation strategies. Thus, identifying landscape level simulation models that are currently available and assessing their utility to evaluate future land cover composition relevant to priority bird habitats will be required.

Figure 6 P ortion of 1935 historic habitat inventory on the Rio Grande floodplain, New Mexico. The Rio Grande has undergone significant anthropogenic modifications as a result of water “reclamation” impacts. Better understanding of historic conditions that characterized this system has provided essential insight to the levels of habitat modification and is being used to target riparian and wetland restoration opportunities. The inventory was developed using historic 1935 aerial photo prints as a basis to model the extent of habitat features. 3.15

Cultivated/Planted Deciduous Open Tree Canopy Deciduous Shrubland Closed Canopy Deciduous Shrubland Open Canopy Deciduous Shrubland Sparse Canopy Herbaceous Graminold / Forb Vegetation Temporarily Flooded Sandbars Temporarily Flooded Sandbars Sparse Vegetation Temporarily Flooded Sandflats Temporarily Flooded Sandflats Sparse Vegetation Unconsolidated Material Sparse Vegetation Water

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

CONSERVATION DESIGN Numerous factors can work independently or synergistically to impact the amount, quality, and distribution of important bird habitats. Some of the primary factors within the Intermountain West are listed below.

Impacts of Urban and Exurban Growth The Intermountain West has experienced dramatic population increases over the past 2 decades. This population increase has not been uniform across the Intermountain West and is linked to availability of natural resources, particularly water resources. Based on current trajectories of human population expansion in the western U.S., human populated areas will increasingly dominate western landscapes at the expense of ranch and farmlands. These farm and ranch properties are currently being converted to small-lot housing projects at unprecedented rates, and the effects on ecological processes are poorly understood (Leu et al. 2008). However, fragmentation of habitat and landscape features is known to have negative impacts on many bird and other wildlife populations. Human population growth in the Intermountain West has had and will continue to have direct and dramatic influences on all other key factors mentioned below.

Invasive Species Invasive plant and animal species often have both direct and indirect impacts on the amount and quality of habitat available to native birds and other wildlife populations. Invasive species can often have cascading effects on the function and integrity of ecosystem processes. Risks of invasive species are often linked directly to land-use patterns and anthropogenic alterations of the landscape.

Water Management and Water Quality The management and availability of quality water supplies is likely the single greatest ultimate factor related to sustaining the majority of priority migratory bird populations in the Intermountain West. Growing human populations will continue to place water resources in the West in direct competition with both agricultural needs and the needs for wildlife populations. Historic water and land use practices in the West have resulted in decreased water quality in a significant number of watersheds through several mechanisms including increased sedimentation and contaminants.

Changes in Land Management • Federal Land Management and Protection Policies Federal lands comprise a substantial proportion (58%) of the Intermountain West. Changes to policies related to protection and land management activities on these federal lands can therefore result in extensive alterations 3.16

to habitat quality and the conservation estate relative to bird and other wildlife populations. • Changes in Agricultural Practices Agricultural areas account for at least 10% of the western United States landscapes and are closely associated with the fertile and highly productive lowelevation valleys and their water resources. Conversion to agricultural production has negatively impacted many bird populations but also has provided important habitat to many others. Changes in agricultural patterns and management practices can greatly alter the availability and quality of these areas for bird populations. For example, conversion from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation limits the availability of foraging habitat for many wetland dependent birds such as White-faced Ibis, Sandhill Crane, and Northern Pintail. • Public Land Grazing Practices and Policies Most of the public land acres in the Intermountain West have associated grazing allotments. Historic grazing patterns in many areas have resulted in extensive degradation of habitat quality and suitability for birds and other wildlife. However, proper grazing management can not only be compatible with wildlife objectives but can enhance the quality of habitat for birds and other wildlife species. Therefore, grazing policies and grazing management activities on public lands can have considerable impact on the distribution, amount, and quality of available habitats. • Energy Development The Intermountain West has experienced a dramatic increase in energy development over the past 2 decades. For example, oil and gas development has doubled since 1990. Modifications of landscapes due to energy development may alter both habitat use and vital rates of sensitive bird and other wildlife species. Energy development footprints across the West can therefore impact the amount, distribution, and suitability of habitats for bird populations and other wildlife.

Climate Change Uncertainty in the exact magnitude of predicted changes is substantial, but most global climate change models suggest that global temperatures will continue to rise at unnaturally fast rates, sea levels will rise as a result of melting ice fields, and precipitation patterns will change. Thus, understanding the potential impacts of climate change is important so that appropriate management plans can be developed. Predicted changes in the amount and phenology of snow melt within the Intermountain West will likely have dramatic impacts to exogenous wetland

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

CONSERVATION DESIGN systems reliant upon snowpack. A general northward migration of ecosystem types is expected to result from increasing temperatures (U.S. Department of State 2002, Smith 2004). In light of such large potential impacts, partners must be aware of how current conservation actions may be impacted by future system changes. An understanding of species-habitat relationships and assessment of habitat capacity can be combined with these predictions to guide current conservation efforts. • Alternate Management Scenarios Future landscape conditions also are affected by conservation actions taken by the partners to protect, restore, enhance, and manage habitats. The effect of various levels of conservation actions by particular programs can be evaluated, and comparisons of the future capability of landscapes to support populations with or without these programs can be made (e.g., the ability of agricultural landscapes to support early successional species with or without Farm Bill practices). Such analyses can serve as a basis for collaboration with ongoing evaluation programs such as the Conservation Effects Assessment Program of the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Ultimately, the IWJV needs to be able to realistically simulate future land cover conditions under a variety of alternative management scenarios. These scenarios will need to be developed in conjunction with all stakeholders in the areas being simulated. Stakeholders should include joint venture partners as well as representatives from industries and other groups that influence land-use decisions.

Biological Capacity and Habitat Objectives Once species-habitat models for priority species and habitat characterizations are available, carrying capacity can be estimated at appropriate scales. By focusing on demographic parameters instead of just population estimates it will be possible to estimate whether populations are sustainable. In the immediate future, the IWJV will likely be limited in our ability to make such estimates and will have to rely on evaluating estimates of population trends under various management scenarios. However, once this stage is reached, it will be possible to estimate how many acres of habitat are necessary to support a species population target within a region (i.e., what is the population-based habitat objective). Given that all the tools developed to this stage are spatiallyexplicit it will be possible to target conservation to the best areas in order to maintain or increase our biological capacity most efficiently.

3.17

Decision Support Tools The principal questions that must be answered to strategically apply habitat conservation are: • What kind of habitat is needed? • How much habitat is needed? • Where should habitat conservation be targeted? These questions are answered by compiling the biological foundation articulated in biological planning into one or a few products that are easily understood by those making management decisions. For example, the development of maps predicting patterns in an ecosystem is particularly useful because these maps are a means of summarizing the predictions from complex, multidimensional models in a much more easily understandable two-dimensional format. They typically include an assessment of the potential of all habitats to address the needs of a population or set of populations. This means that geographic units with high, moderate, and even low potential to affect populations are included. Decision-support tools are developed to target specific types of management treatments (e.g., sagebrush restoration or wetland protection) that are suited to overcome factors that limit populations of priority species. By building a portfolio of decision-support tools, the IWJV develops the capability to respond quickly to information needs, including opportunities to influence and benefit delivery of programs outside the IWJV partnership (e.g., federal conservation programs). Therefore, the biological foundation should result in the development of spatially-explicit decision support tools that will allow habitat managers and policy makers to: • Determine priority conservation areas for priority species, • Assess the capacity of current landscapes to support populations of priority species, • Resolve conflicts among “competing” habitat types that support priority species, • Predict impacts from land cover changes due to management actions or other causes (e.g., succession, climate change, urbanization) on populations of priority species, • Incorporate adaptive resource management paradigm of explicitly stating assumptions that can be tested and are used within an evaluation framework.

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

MONITORING & EVALUATION

Photo by Ali Duvall

The ability to assess the impacts of conservation actions depends largely upon the effectiveness of monitoring programs, needed to demonstrate progress toward the goal of maintaining sustainable bird populations to stakeholders, policy makers, and program managers. Equally important, data from these programs are needed to parameterize models of bird-habitat relationships, evaluate limiting factors, and test assumptions made in the decision-making process. Monitoring may involve assessing demographic parameters (i.e., vital rates) as opposed to counting individuals. Effective monitoring programs allow us to alter future management decisions in a true adaptive management paradigm. Monitoring population and habitat change is a central activity that is critical for providing information for the biological foundation described in this document and for assessing the effectiveness of conservation actions. The IWJV partnership supports the recommendations in the Framework for Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the Northeast (2007) developed by the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee. Both of these efforts recommend that bird monitoring move beyond the surveillance type monitoring that is typical of most designs, 3.18

to a paradigm that stresses evaluation of management actions. Note that this shift in paradigm does not negate the ability to assess population trajectories, but it enhances confidence that management actions are having the expected effect on bird populations. This paradigm shift only requires changes in objective setting and design of future bird monitoring projects. Where compatible, the IWJV strongly encourage partners to consider alterations to existing monitoring programs in order to add the valuable component of assessing management effectiveness. The ability to map and model bird abundance and distribution for all priority species will require additional surveys of habitat structure and quality plus data on bird densities. If these additional surveys are planned strategically, they could serve to supplement and validate existing models as well as to begin developing a long-term data set for future analyses. Such data also will be valuable for assessing trends in habitat quality and quantity over time. The Continental Assessment of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan recommended the large-scale monitoring of wetland habitat as a top priority action of the Plan community. Similar efforts in other habitat types would provide a holistic view of change within the Intermountain West.

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

ASSUMPTION-DRIVEN RESEARCH A key component of evaluation is the ability to track conservation projects in a way that allows an assessment of the contributions of these projects to the population and habitat objectives of the IWJV partnership. At present, habitat conservation projects by IWJV partner agencies and organizations are tracked annually and cumulatively in a database. This database attempts to record basic information on individual projects including location, acres, and costs. Although this information allows for some coarse assessments of progress by general geographic area, it does not allow for assessments of the amount of habitat conserved or how that habitat conservation could contribute to population objectives. An increased ability to track accomplishments in terms of the specific areas will allow for a better ability to track progress relative to goals. In addition, an increased ability to track other partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s accomplishments such as those accomplished through the Farm Bill will allow for a better assessment of net habitat change. Without monitoring and research, strategic habitat conservation is not an iterative process by which managers learn and increase their efficiency. Research must be

carried out to evaluate assumptions made in determining limiting factors, developing population-habitat models and decision-support tools, and assessing and predicting effects of management on habitat and species. In the biological planning process, knowledge about populations and habitats are critically applied to answering explicit management questions. In doing so, uncertainties in the biological foundation for management are highlighted. In the absence of perfect knowledge, assumptions, which are essentially testable hypotheses, most be made. However, not all assumptions are equally important. We may consider each assumption in light of two factors: 1) how tenuous it is, and 2) how much better information would affect future management decisions. Assumptions that are both tenuous and high impact are priorities for research. In order for the IWJV to addresses key uncertainties in biological planning, research priorities must be identified and clearly communicated to the broader partnership.

P h o t o b y J o s h Ve s t

3.19

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

INITIATING A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SCIENCE PRIORITIES

P h o t o b y B r u c e Ta y l o r

The ecological diversity and scale of the Intermountain West pose considerable challenges to biological planning. Conservation needs currently outstrip the capacity of the IWJV to develop comprehensive conservation strategies across the Intermountain West. Therefore, limited resources must be allocated strategically to maximize the integrity of landscapes and achieve long-term avian population and habitat goals at multiple scales. The IWJV must continue to improve understanding of multi-scale linkages for priority avian populations to effectively implement the continental bird plans. Consequently, further refinement of existing IWJV planning and development of additional biological plans and conservation objectives for priority habitats is required. Development of conservation objectives that are linked to biological outcomes will require prioritization among planning and science investment options through a strategic, science-based framework. At a coarse scale, sagebrush and wetlands are among the highest priority habitats associated with IWJV science and information needs. Near-term evaluations of potential science investment strategies will be focused on these habitats. The IWJV will use the Priority Framework 3.20

described previously and work through a Technical Committee to develop priority science and biological planning strategies. A series of step-down plans will be developed that describes the scope and context of nearterm science investments by the IWJV, the prioritization process, and associated investment strategies. Initiation of identified strategies will require the development of stakeholder working groups and biological planning efforts associated with the identified strategies. These planning efforts will facilitate identification of explicit conservation objectives and implementation plans for the IWJV. The Priority Framework is intended to inform conservation science investments and enable limited resources to be focused on priority habitats and landscapes capable of returning meaningful and measurable biological outcomes for avian populations. By embracing a strategic conservation approach the IWJV will strengthen linkages between continental avian population goals, regional habitat objectives, and local conservation actions. Continued development in biological planning and conservation will ensure that investments made at local levels have relevance to regional and continental 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

LITERATURE CITED Blomquist, S. M., T. D. Johnson, D. R. Smith, G. P. Call, B. N. Miller, W. M. Thurman, J. E. McFadden, M. J. Parkin, G. S. Boomer. 2010. Structured decisionmaking and rapid prototyping to plan a management response to an invasive species. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1:19–32. Leu, M., S. E. Hanser, and S. T. Knick. 2008. The human footprint in the West: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecological Applications 18: 1119–1139. National Ecological Assessment Team. 2008. Strategic Habitat Conservation Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. Available online: (http://www.fws.gov/science/doc/SHCTechnicalHandbook. pdf).

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee. 2007. Opportunities for Improving Avian Monitoring. U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA, USA. Available online: (http://www.nabci-us.org/) Shifley, S. R., C. D. Rittenhouse, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2009. Validation of landscape-scale decision support models that predict vegetation and wildlife dynamics. Pages 415–448 in J. J. Millspaugh and F. R. Thompson, III, eds. Models for Planning Wildlife Conservation in Large Landscapes. Elsevier Incorporated, San Diego, California, USA.of IWJV conservation science and delivery.

Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership. 2007. A Framework for Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the Northeast. Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership Report. Available online: (http://www.nebirdmonirot.org/framework)

3.21

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

Cha pte r Four

Wa t e r fow l

Pr incipa l Autho r s: Ma r k Petr ie, Jo s h Ve st, Dave S mith

Photo by USF WS

Inside this Chapter Introduction........................................................................................................................... 4.2

Wa t e r fow l

Non-Breeding Waterfowl....................................................................................................... 4.4 •

Structure of Non-Breeding Waterfowl Plan.. ....................................................................... 4.4

•

Biological Planning........................................................................................................... 4.4

•

Conservation Design......................................................................................................... 4.6

•

Habitat Delivery................................................................................................................ 4.6

Southern Oregon & Northeastern California (SONEC).. ......................................................... 4.7 •

Biological Planning........................................................................................................... 4.7

•

Conservation Design....................................................................................................... 4.14

•

Habitat Objectives for SONEC: Spring............................................................................. 4.24

Great Salt Lake.................................................................................................................... 4.25 •

Biological Planning......................................................................................................... 4.25

•

Conservation Design....................................................................................................... 4.30

Columbia Basin.. .................................................................................................................. 4.37 •

Biological Planning......................................................................................................... 4.37

•

Conservation Design....................................................................................................... 4.42

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) contains eight areas of continental significance that are recognized in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2004), including the Klamath Basin, Malheur Basin, Carson Sink, Ruby Lake, Great Salt Lake and marshes, YellowstoneIntermountain region, Columbia Basin, and Bitterroot Intermountain. The IWJV also is the only US habitat Joint Venture sharing boundaries with both Canada and Mexico. Wetlands of the Intermountain West thus provide habitat throughout the annual cycle of waterfowl–breeding, migration, and wintering. Winter conditions in much of the Intermountain West tend to be relatively severe, and many species of waterfowl migrate out of the Intermountain West for winter. However, some waterfowl species such as Canada geese, Mallards, Redheads, Common Goldeneye, and the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans rely on lake and river systems during winter. Overall, the primary contribution of the Intermountain West to continental populations of waterfowl lies mainly within the breeding and migratory periods of the annual cycle.

4.2

Intermountain wetlands are often highly productive but often set in predominantly xeric landscapes and hence are reliant on annual variation of snow-pack for water supplies. Particularly within the Great Basin, marshes and wetlands are of higher value to waterfowl than are many areas in wetter regions; the very rarity of marshes in a dry region adds to their inherent value. At upper elevations, lakes of glacial origin and wet meadows often provide substantial benefit as breeding habitat but generally minimal value in migration or winter periods. Lower elevation marsh and lake complexes in valley floors thus provide the majority of migration habitat for waterfowl in the Intermountain West. Although the IWJV partnership has been successful at wetland conservation in the Intermountain West, this has occurred without explicit linkages to NAWMP goals. The NAWMP (2004) is predicated on the premise that cumulative effects of many targeted local-scale management actions will ultimately benefit continental waterfowl populations through improvements in recruitment and survival. A primary NAWMP objective is to provide sufficient habitat to

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

Photo by USF WS

maintain continental waterfowl populations at goal levels during periods characterized by â&#x20AC;&#x153;average environmental conditions.â&#x20AC;? This IWJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Update is an initial effort to link local and regional habitat objectives to continental population goals set forth in NAWMP. This initial planning effort focuses on three regions that are recognized as continentally significant by NAWMP and also expected to host the greatest concentrations of waterfowl in the Intermountain West during the nonbreeding period. These include the Columbia Basin of Washington and Oregon, southern Oregon and northeastern California (SONEC) which includes Klamath and Malheur basins, and the Great Salt Lake (GSL) marshes of Utah; all areas have been identified in the NAWMP (2004, 2012). Although the IWJV maintains significant importance to breeding waterfowl (indeed the IWJV was established based largely on its importance to breeding waterfowl), sufficient information is currently 4.3

lacking to establish breeding habitat objectives linked to demographic parameters at meaningful scales. Breeding waterfowl planning in the IWJV will evolve in future planning iterations. Habitat objectives for non-breeding waterfowl were generated based on available information regarding life history requirements for selected waterfowl species, and these objectives are directly linked to regional population objectives. The intent in this plan is to establish explicit regional population and habitat goals and also to assemble recent research results to increase planning effectiveness. A science-based process was used in the planning process for setting objectives, a process that identified assumptions that requiring testing to improve subsequent iterations of the plan. Although the document was written with goals expressed over a 15-year time horizon, the plan is dynamic and will be refined as knowledge of regional waterfowl conservation improves and new spatial data can be incorporated.

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

NON-BREEDING WATERFOWL Structure of Non-Breeding Waterfowl Plan In 2005 NAWMP underwent the first assessment in its 20-year history, an assessment focused on Joint Ventures and their collective efforts to meet the needs of waterfowl in North America. The NAWMP Assessment steering committee identified several characteristics believed important to Joint Venture success, and these traits were incorporated into a matrix describing desired characteristics of a Joint Venture implementation plan. Concurrently the USFWS introduced its Strategic Habitat Conservation framework or SHC (National Ecological Assessment Team 2006). The SHC framework promotes a more strategic approach to habitat conservation, where the traditional emphasis on more – more protection, more restoration – gives way to the science of “how much more” and “where?” SHC relies on an iterative cycle of Biological planning, Conservation Design, Habitat Delivery, and Monitoring and Research to achieve landscapes that meet a predetermined goal – e.g. support bird populations at some desired and sustainable level. The Joint Venture matrix and SHC share the same principles for developing effective conservation programs. Moreover, all elements of the Joint Venture matrix can be nested under one of SHC’s four major components. The structure of the IWJV plan (hereafter “JV”) reflects this integration. This plan is structured and organized around three important ecoregions to waterfowl within the IWJV: 1) Columbia Basin, Washington, 2) SONEC, and 3) the GSL. Within each ecoregion, planning is organized by SHC’s major components. Biological Planning and Conservation Design serve as primary headings in the plan, while elements of the Joint Venture matrix occur as subsections under these headings (Fig. 1). Habitat Delivery is addressed in a separate chapter of this current Implementation Plan. Monitoring and Research will be addressed in a separate JV document.

4.4

Ecoregional Planning Unit

Biological Planning

Conservation Design

Spatial Planning Unit

Landscape Characterization and Assessment

Population Objectives and Priority Species

Conservation Goals and Objectives

Special-Habitat Models

Decision Support Tools

Habitat Delivery

Program Objectives

Figure 1 O rganizational structure of the nonbreeding waterfowl section. Habitat Delivery can be found in the separate Habitat Delivery chapter of the 2012 Implementation Plan Update.

Biological Planning Within the Biological Planning section for each ecoregion the JV waterfowl spatial planning units are generally defined and the seasonal importance of these units to waterfowl is described. This section provides a general description of each planning unit and defines its geographic location within the IWJV. Historic and current habitat conditions in each planning unit are compared and habitat changes evaluated from a waterfowl perspective. In many cases it is simply not possible to restore landscapes in ways that closely resembles ‘historic” conditions. Irreversible changes in hydrology, alternative land uses, and political realities often prevent the re-creation of historic conditions on anything but very small scales. Still it is important to understand how waterfowl were adapted to these historical landscapes and to design conservation programs that reflect those adaptations. In the Biological Planning section, population objectives for priority waterfowl species are also established. Factors thought to limit these populations arestated explicitly in the context of species / habitat models. Similar limiting factors are identified for each ecoregion, and similar species/habitat models are used to understand relationships between nonbreeding waterfowl and their habitats. Therefore, an overview of these limiting factors and modeling process is provided 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

NON-BREEDING WATERFOWL Limiting Factors/Speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Habitat Models: TRUEMET This plan addresses the biological needs of waterfowl during the non-breeding period, which includes fall and spring migration as well as winter. Food availability is a key factor limiting waterfowl during migration and winter (Miller 1986, Conroy et al. 1989, Reinecke et al. 1989), and habitat conditions during the non-breeding period may influence reproductive success (Heitmeyer and Fredrickson 1981, Kaminski and Gluesing 1987, Raveling and Heitmeyer 1989). The JV assumes that food limits populations during migration and winter. Specifically, food is the primary need of waterfowl during migration and winter. Providing adequate foraging habitat for priority species will ensure that survival outside of the breeding season does not limit their population growth. Joint Ventures have been encouraged to develop biological models that explicitly link bird population objectives to habitat objectives, and to undertake rigorous analysis of habitat carrying capacity based on these population-habitat models (NAWMP Assessment 2007). The bioenergetic model TRUEMET (Central Valley Joint Venture 2006) was used to evaluate current habitat conditions for priority waterfowl species and to inform future habitat objectives. TRUEMET is a type of daily ration model which provides an estimate of population food-energy demand and food-energy supplies for specified time periods (Fig. 2). Population energy-demand is a function of periodspecific population objectives and the daily energy requirement of individual birds. Population energy supply is a function of the foraging habitats available and the biomass and nutritional quality of foods contained therein. A comparison of energy supply vs. energy requirements provides a measure of carrying capacity relative to bird population objectives.

Results produced by TRUEMET are a function of model structure and parameter inputs. Thus, two types of inherent error must be considered in any such modeling exercise: conceptual (theoretical assumptions used to build the model) and empirical (the availability, precision and accuracy of data used for model inputs). Model structure was determined by the set of rules that dictated how birds foraged. It was assumed that: 1) birds were ideal free foragers (Fretwell 1972) and were not prevented from accessing food resources due to interference competition; 2) birds switched to alternate foods when preferred foods were depleted below some foraging threshold; 3) the functional relationships that determined population energy demand and population food energy supplies were linear; and 4) that there was no cost associated with traveling between foraging patches. Empirical work has shown these assumptions to be false in some cases (Nolet et al. 2006); but valid in others (Goss-Custard et al. 2003, Arzel et al. 2007,). Additional studies of waterfowl foraging ecology could either improve model structure or confirm the validity of the daily ration approach. Although the model can be used to evaluate carrying capacity of existing landscapes, it can also be used to predict how changes in policy, land use, or habitat programs might impact priority bird species. Six explicit inputs are required for each model run: 1. Time periods being modeled. 2. Waterfowl population objectives. 3. Waterfowl daily energy requirements. 4. Amount of each habitat type available in each time period. 5. Biomass of food in each habitat type on day one. 6. Nutritional quality of each food type.

Time Periods Being Modeled

Figure 2 H ypothetical population food energy demand vs. population food energy supply as estimated by the TRUEMET model in kilocalories (kcal). Food energy supplies are deemed adequate if supply exceeds demand. 4.5

Within TRUEMET the user must first define the length of the non-breeding period (e.g. October to April). The non-breeding period can then be sub-divided into as may time segments as desired. For example, population energy demand vs. habitat energy supply may be modeled on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis within the larger nonbreeding period. The length of these time segments is usually determined by data restrictions. Modeling energy demand vs. supply on a bi-weekly or monthly basis is most common (e.g., Central Valley Joint Venture 2006).

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

NON-BREEDING WATERFOWL Waterfowl Population Objectives Waterfowl population objectives used in TRUEMET are specific to each time segment (e.g. the month of October). Ideally, these time specific population objectives are derived from the NAWMP.

Waterfowl Daily Energy Requirements Within TRUEMET the user may sub-divide waterfowl into separate foraging guilds that have access to specific foraging habitats. For example, population objectives for each dabbling duck species may be combined into a single “dabbling duck” guild. TRUEMET requires an estimate of the daily energy requirement of the average bird in each foraging guild. To estimate the daily energy requirement of this average bird a resting metabolic rate (RMR) is calculated using the following equation (Miller and Eadie 2006), where RMR is multiplied by a factor of three to account for energy costs of free living: RMR (kJ/day) = 433 * (body mass in kg)

0.785

Body mass is equal to the average body mass of birds in a foraging guild within a specified time period.

Habitat Availability and Biomass and Nutritional Quality of Foods TRUEMET requires information on the availability of waterfowl habitat, the biomass of foods in those habitats, and the nutritional quality of those foods. Habitat availability is a function of habitat area (e.g. acres) and the ability of waterfowl to access foods produced in a habitat type. For example, managed wetlands may total 500 acres but these habitats may only become available after October 1 when they are intentionally flooded. Estimates of Food biomass are obtained by local sampling or from published sources. However, waterfowl abandon feeding in habitats before all food is exhausted because at some point the costs of continuing to forage on a

4.6

diminishing resource exceeds energy gained; this value is called the giving-up-density or foraging threshold (Nolet et al. 2006). For example, Mallards feeding in dry fields in Texas reduced corn densities to 13 lbs / acre before abandoning fields (Baldassare and Bolen 1984). Consequently, biomass estimates were adjusted by subtracting published estimates of giving up densities– 13 lbs/acre for agricultural foods (Baldassare and Bolen 1984) and 30lbs/acre, for seed resources in wetland habitats (Naylor 2002). Although waterfowl carrying capacity is strongly dependent on food biomass, the energy or calories provided by these foods is also important. True metabolizable energy (TME) provides a measure of the caloric energy waterfowl are able to extract from foods.

Conservation Design The Conservation Design section includes a description of existing landscapes and their capacity to support waterfowl populations at desired levels. The section also includes a set of explicit conservation objectives. Joint Ventures have been encouraged to undertake a rigorous analysis of habitat carrying capacity for waterfowl (NAWMP Assessment) because such analyses can help evaluate landscape capacity to support waterfowl populations at NAWMP goals and thus inform conservation objectives and strategies. Waterfowl carrying capacity was evaluated for each spatial planning unit, including in some cases how this may have changed over time. Conservation objectives and strategies that were at least partly based on these carrying capacity results were subsequently developed.

Habitat Delivery Habitat delivery is addressed in the Habitat Conservation Strategy (Chapter 8) of this Implementation Plan. As part of that chapter, conservation goals, objectives, and actions are defined addressing waterfowl habitat in the SONEC and GSL landscapes.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Biological Planning Spatial Planning Unit The SONEC planning unit includes all major wetland complexes in the intermountain basins of southern Oregon, northeastern California and extreme northwest Nevada in the northwest portion of the hydrologic Great Basin (Fig. 3), and the description here relies heavily on Fleskes and Battaglia (2004). The SONEC region comprises approximately 10% of the Great Basin, although waterfowl habitat covers considerably less area. SONEC is generally “basin and range” topography with major uplift regions running mostly north and south. Average basin altitude is 4,000 ft above sea level and most wetlands important to waterfowl are in these basins. It contains watersheds that are connected to the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Klamath and Pit Rivers) as well as those that drain into terminal closed basins.

minimums averaging 19 °F. As in most dry climates, daily temperatures vary widely with rapid cooling after sunset leading to cold nights and rapid warming producing high daytime temperatures. Water supplies derive mainly from snowmelt, and wetlands experience wide fluctuations in hydrology that are directly related to annual snow pack. Malheur Lake for example, which is essentially a marsh, was dry and being farmed in 1934 but had increased in size to approximately 40,000 acres by 1938 (Duebbert 1969). The importance of SONEC habitats to waterfowl was emphasized by Kadlec and Smith (1989) who stated: “In contrast to the perception that the region is a “desert” with little value to waterfowl, the reality is that the marshes and wetlands are of higher value to waterfowl than are many areas in wetter regions. In fact, the very rarity of marshes in a dry region adds to their value.” Historically, peak waterfowl abundance in SONEC likely occurred during fall and spring migration. Wintering waterfowl populations were probably small as minimum winter temperatures are well below freezing and most wetland habitats were likely frozen. In most years fall migrating waterfowl likely would have encountered relatively dry landscapes with most available wetland habitat occurring in terminal basins. These were likely permanent or semi-permanent wetlands as this region experiences one of the highest evapotranspiration rates in North America (Engilis and Reid 1996). During fall migration it seems likely that waterfowl were historically confined to a few large wetland complexes.

Figure 3 S patial planning unit for the southern Oregon and northeastern California (SONEC) region and subregion within SONEC.

The complex topography of SONEC produces highly variable and localized climate conditions with some of the most extreme weather in California and Oregon occurring there. Temperatures are highly variable throughout the year with summer maximums averaging 91°F and winter 4.7

Although changes in land use have greatly altered the terminal basins of SONEC, such areas continue to support nearly all of the region’s fall migrating waterfowl. P h o t o b y I WJ V Virtually all of these habitats are publicly owned with very few wetlands occurring on private lands during fall. This provides a stark contrast to other areas of the U.S. where the bulk of fall migration habitat is provided on private lands (e.g., the California Central Valley). Moreover, the importance of publically owned habitats in SONEC places the JV in a unique conservation planning position. Although most Joint Ventures incorporate public lands into overall

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) implementation plans, planning for fall migrating waterfowl in SONEC is largely synonymous with planning on publicly managed lands. Historically, habitat conditions during spring migration varied widely among years, mostly in relation to snow pack. In addition to permanent or semi-permanent habitats, many SONEC terminal basins contain shallow lakes and palustrine wetlands that were fed almost exclusively by snowmelt and which likely provided significant food resources. When snowfall was abundant spring migrants would have access to large areas of these seasonally flooded habitats. In contrast, shallowly flooded habitats may have been limited in years of low snowfall. Regardless of snowfall most of these shallowly flooded habitats were probably dry by fall. Most of SONEC spring-flooded wetland habitat is currently used for hay production and grazing. The Chewaucan marsh provides a typical example. The Chewaucan River P h o t o b y M i ke S h a n n o n drains into the Upper and Lower Chewaucan Marshes before terminating in Lake Abert, the largest saline lake in the Pacific Northwest. Historically, the Chewaucan Marsh totaled about 30,000 acres of emergent marsh and provided significant habitat for spring migrating waterfowl in years of high runoff. Today the former Chewaucan Marsh is devoted to forage production for cattle and is grazed and hayed annually. However, every spring land owners divert water across much of the Marsh through flood-irrigation. Spring migrating waterfowl make extensive use of these flood-irrigated lands (Fleskes and Yee 2007, Fleskes and Battaglia 2010). Flood irrigation is a common practice throughout SONEC and occurs mostly on altered seasonal wetlands that were historically dependent on natural flooding from snowmelt. For example the Silvies River Floodplain near Malheur Refuge and northern portions of the Goose Lake Basin contain extensive tracts of flood-irrigated lands, and flood irrigation may have increased reliability of spring habitat in SONEC. Private landowners have developed the infrastructure needed to divert water over large areas of hayed and grazed lands. Prior to settlement many of these former wetlands may have experienced little or no seasonal flooding in years of low snowfall. Today the practice of 4.8

flood irrigation may result in more shallowly flooded habitat than historically occurred under similar snow pack levels. However, it seems unlikely that the increased “stability” of spring habitat in SONEC compensates for the overall loss of migration habitat within this part of the Pacific Flyway.

Summary Points 1. Historically, fall migrating waterfowl in SONEC probably depended on a small number of permanent to semi-permanent wetlands that occurred in terminal basins. The same is largely true today. 2. Virtually all fall migration habitat in SONEC is located on public lands. Private lands provide relatively little fall migration habit relative to other areas of the U.S. 3. Most of the seasonal emergent marsh wetland habitats that were historically important to spring migrating waterfowl in SONEC are currently part of working ranches managed for hay and fall/winter grazing. However, much of these agriculturally managed wetlands are flood irrigated and today provide important spring migration habitat.

Population Objectives and Priority Species The SONEC region experiences peak waterfowl populations in fall and spring. Wintering waterfowl populations in these areas are relatively small because low temperatures make most wetland habitats unavailable. Fitting migration data to a NAWMP midwinter objective to generate monthly population objectives as done for the CB is therefore not appropriate in SONEC. As a result, the JV used alternative methods for establishing monthly population objectives for SONEC that still maintained a strong connection to the NAWMP.

Ducks – Fall and Winter The fall-winter period was defined as September 1 to January 31. The majority of fall and winter waterfowl habitat in SONEC occurs on public lands (see discussion under “Spatial Planning Units”). As a result, establishing waterfowl population objectives during fall and winter is largely synonymous with establishing population objectives for important public habitats in SONEC. To date, fall and winter population objectives have only been established for the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (Lower Klamath) and the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Tule Lake). Although these two refuges account for only a small fraction of the SONEC landscape they support a significant fraction of the waterfowl that use SONEC in fall and winter (Kadlec and Smith 1989, Fleskes and Yee 2007).

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) In order to link management efforts for ducks at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath to the NAWMP, waterfowl surveys conducted during the 1970’s were used to establish duck population objectives. Efforts to survey waterfowl populations at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath began as early as 1944. Waterfowl were primarily censused from the ground until 1953 when refuge biologists began conducting two or more aerial surveys per year. Beginning in the early 1960’s both ground and aerial surveys were conducted bi-weekly. Waterfowl surveys began in late August or early September to coincide with arrival of early migrants and continued through late April or early May. Although aerial surveys have continued at both refuges, ground surveys were largely discontinued after 1977 (Gilmer et al. 2004). Bi-weekly aerial surveys from the 1970’s were used to develop population objectives for ducks at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath for each two week interval between September 1 and January 31. Population objectives for each interval were based on survey counts from 1970 to 1979 and were set equal to the 75th percentile of these counts (Tables 1, 2). The 75th percentile rather than the mean was chosen because mean populations based on aerial surveys often are negatively biased when not all birds are counted, and because annual waterfowl use of the refuges may frequently exceed population objectives that are based on a ten year mean.

Table 1 F all and winter waterfowl population objectives for Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge. DATE

SWANS

Sept 1

53,100

4,270

14,680

Sept 15

54,725

2,990

10,630

Oct 1

292,200

6,998

37,460

Oct 15

281,100

10,730

82,170

Nov 1

765,901

16,440

136,413

260

Nov 15

268,328

11,088

146,605

713

Dec 1

193,700

3,825

50,275

1,230

Dec 15

262,400

2,200

64,608

1,125

Jan 1

37,015

193

9,240

640

Jan 15

91,955

675

4,040

4,205

Divers include Canvasback, Redhead, Ruddy Duck, Bufflehead, Ringnecked Duck, Goldeneye, and Scaup

Table 2 F all and winter waterfowl population objectives for Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. DATE

DABBLERSA

DIVERSB

GEESEC

SWANS

Sept 1

213,521

2,270

7,640

Sept 15

219,869

1,791

5,820

Oct 1

401,738

3,708

51,610

Oct 15

597,010

7,385

36,095

Nov 1

597,536

6 ,313

34,160

1,545

Nov 15

487,361

5,783

46,855

3,193

Dec 1

372,560

1,250

19,475

930

Dec 15

198,118

855

12,488

1,398

Jan 1

10,594

160

7,430

2,490

Jan 15

27,171

305

12,990

7,211

Dabblers include Mallard, Gadwall, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Cinnamon Teal, and Northern Shoveler

4.9

GEESEC

Geese include Canada Goose, Cackling Goose, Greater White-fronted Goose, Lesser Snow Goose, and Ross’ Goose

Geese and Swans – Fall and Winter Although duck population objectives were derived from the 1970’s, population objectives for geese and swans were based from 1990 to 1999. Goose and swan populations in the Pacific Flyway have undergone major changes in size and distribution since the 1970’s, so more recent counts of geese and swans were used to establish population objectives. Bi-weekly aerial surveys from the 1990’s were used to develop population objectives for geese and swans at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath for each two week interval between September 1 and January 31. Population objectives for each interval were based on survey counts from 1990 to 1999 and were equal to the 75th percentile of these counts (Tables 1, 2)

DIVERSB

Dabblers include Mallard, Gadwall, Northern Pintail, Green-winged Teal, Cinnamon Teal, and Northern Shoveler

DABBLERSA

Divers include Canvasback, Redhead, Ruddy Duck, Bufflehead, Ringnecked Duck, Goldeneye, and Scaup

Geese include Canada Goose, Cackling Goose, Greater White-fronted Goose, Lesser Snow Goose, and Ross’ Goose

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Ducks - Spring NAWMP mid-winter objectives alone are of limited value where peak waterfowl populations occur in fall or spring. However, mid-winter population objectives can be used to help establish a spring population objective if the probability that birds will transition from a wintering area to a spring staging area is known (Petrie et al. 2011). Nearly half of all ducks that migrate through SONEC in spring are Northern Pintail (Fleskes and Yee 2007). During winters 2000–2003, 140 female Northern Pintails were captured in the Central Valley and fitted with backmounted satellite transmitters (Miller et al. 2005). One objective of the study was to identify spring migration routes and staging areas used by pintails. Eighty-percent of all pintails marked in the Central Valley used SONEC in spring. Four wintering areas that potentially “supply” SONEC with spring migrating waterfowl were identified: 1) the West Coast of Mexico including the Baja Peninsula, 2) the Central Valley, 3) California counties that lie outside of the Central Valley, and SONEC, and 4) Oregon and California counties within SONEC. NAWMP mid-winter population objectives have been established for most of these areas (Koneff 2003). If 80% of the ducks wintering in these areas use SONEC in spring (the value estimated for Central Valley Northern Pintails), the JV can begin constructing spring population objectives for SONEC. The JV initially focused on pintails before expanding the discussion to other waterfowl species.

south to Mexico’s west coast did not use SONEC in spring (Haukos et al. 2006). Although some pintails wintering on the Baja Peninsula or Mexico’s west coast undoubtedly migrate through SONEC, this number is assumed small. For the purpose of establishing spring population objectives for SONEC it was assumed that pintails wintering in these areas do not use SONEC in spring. Central Valley The Central Valley was defined as all California counties included in the Central Valley Joint Venture (CVJV) primary, secondary, and tertiary areas of interest (Central Valley Joint Venture 2006; Fig. 4). The NAWMP midwinter population objective for Northern Pintails in the Central Valley Joint Venture region is 2,394,926 (Table 3). Eighty percent of all Northern Pintails that winter in the Central Valley use SONEC in spring (Miller et al. 2005). Thus, the JV assumes that the Central Valley contributes 1,915,941 birds to the spring population in SONEC when Northern Pintails are at NAWMP goals (2,394,926 * 0.80).

West Coast of Mexico / Baja Peninsula Mid-winter waterfowl surveys in the 1970’s indicated that about 16% of all Northern Pintails in the Pacific Flyway wintered along the west coast of Mexico, with less than 1% wintering along the Baja Peninsula. Mid-winter surveys of ducks in western Mexico have largely been discontinued though surveys were conducted in 1997 and 2000. During these two years Northern Pintail counts on Mexico’s west coast averaged 109,000 birds (10% of the Pacific Flyway total), down from an average of 600,000 in the 1970’s. Northern Pintail numbers on the Baja Peninsula averaged less than 1,500 birds during the 1997 and 2000 surveys. The apparent decline in pintail numbers on Mexico’s west coast may be related to loss of the local rice industry (M. Miller pers. com.). Northern Pintail migration corridors described by Bellrose (1980) indicate that the majority of Northern Pintails wintering on Mexico’s west coast migrate east of SONEC in spring. Pintails that were fitted with satellite transmitters in New Mexico and which later migrated

4.10

Figure 4 J oint Ventures that contribute to spring Northern Pintail populations in southern Oregon and northeastern California (SONEC) region.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Table 3 W intering areas that supply SONEC region with spring migrating Northern Pintails. PINTAIL POPULATION OBJECTIVE

WINTERING AREA Central Valley Non-Central Valley Counties SONEC Total

PINTAILS SUPPLIED TO SONEC

2,394,926 b a

537,013

1,915,941

429,610

72,409

3,004,348

2,417,960

C alifornia counties outside the boundaries of the Central Valley Joint Venture excluding counties in SONEC.

E ighty-percent of all pintails wintering in these areas are assumed to migrate through SONEC in spring.

California Counties outside the CVJV (excluding CA counties in SONEC) California contains 58 counties; 26 within the CVJV boundary, 4 within SONEC. The remaining 28 counties fall within the boundaries of the Pacific Coast, Intermountain West, San Francisco Bay, and Sonoran Joint Ventures (Fig. 4). The combined mid-winter population objective for Northern Pintails in these 28 counties stepped down from the NAWMP is 537,013 (Table 3). Although these counties lie outside the Central Valley we assumed that a similar percentage wintering in these counties use SONEC in spring. Thus, these 28 counties would contribute 429,610 Northern Pintails to SONEC when continental population of Northern Pintail is at NAWMP goals (537,013 * 0.80). Many of these counties border the Pacific coast and some of these birds may use a coastal migration route that takes them west of SONEC (Miller et al. 2005). However, the total population objective for Northern Pintails in these coastal counties is less than 140,000 birds. California and Oregon counties within SONEC SONEC includes seven counties, all of which occur in the IWJV (Fig. 4), with a NAWMP mid-winter population objective of 236,961 Northern Pintails (Koneff 2003). Long-term surveys of waterfowl in SONEC from fall through spring indicate that peak waterfowl numbers occur outside the mid-winter period (Gilmer et al. 2004). This contrasts with the Central Valley and other parts of California where peak waterfowl numbers occur during mid-winter. The mid-winter Northern Pintail population objective for SONEC is likely a significant overestimate. NAWMP mid-winter objectives for areas that experience peak bird abundance in fall or spring are likely associated with a high degree of sampling error (Petrie et al. 2011). Counts of Northern Pintails in sub-regions of the Pacific Flyway

4.11

Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey that corresponds to SONEC (OR 69-3 & CA 14-2) averaged only 52,000 birds during the 1970’s. Even if a visibility correction factor is applied to these counts they are well below Koneff ’s (2003) midwinter pintail population objective for SONEC counties. The JV established a mid-winter pintail population objective of 72,409 birds for SONEC counties. This is equivalent to the mean mid-winter count of Northern Pintails in these counties during the 1970’s (52,093) adjusted for visibility bias in aerial surveys of wintering ducks (Pearse et al. 2008). Mid-winter counts of in SONEC during the 1990’s averaged 44,139 Northern Pintails, and more recent counts by Fleskes and Yee (2007) averaged 38,957 in early January (both uncorrected for visibility bias). It was assumed that 100% of the Northern Pintails present in SONEC during mid-winter also occur there in spring. In summary, the IWJV estimate that 2,417,960 Northern Pintails use SONEC in spring when the continental population is at the NAWMP goal (Table 3).

Daily Northern Pintail Population Objectives for Spring Northern Pintail migration through SONEC is staggered from early February to early May, with peak numbers occurring in mid-March (Miller et al. 2005, Fleskes and Yee 2007). Establishing time-specific population objectives across this 3-month period can help deliver conservation programs that are well timed to migration events. Fleskes and Yee (2007) used aerial survey data to index changes in SONEC Northern Pintail abundance between early January and early May in 2002 and 2003. These surveys were used to partition use-days into discreet time intervals and convert those use-days into daily population objectives as described below. Fleskes and Yee (2007) obtained Northern Pintail counts in SONEC for 5 January, 21 February, 13 March, 16 April, 30 March, and 3 May. The JV partitioned the spring migration period into five time intervals that were similar in length and which were bracketed by these survey dates: a) 6 – 21 February, b) 22 February – 13 March, c) 14 March – 30 March, d) 31 March – 16 April, and e) 17 April 17 – 3 May. Northern Pintails that winter south of SONEC do not begin migration into SONEC until the first week of February (Miller et al. 2005), so we assumed that Northern Pintail numbers remained constant from 5 January to 5 February and that the number of birds present in SONEC on 5 February was equal to the number observed by Fleskes and Yee (2007) on 5 January. Northern Pintail counts on 5 January for 2002 and 2003

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) averaged 38,957 birds (Fleskes and Yee 2007). For the period 6 February – 21 February we assumed Northern Pintail numbers increased linearly from 38,957 on 5 February to 440,056 on 21 February 21 (440,056 was the number observed on the February 21 survey date). This process was repeated for the remaining time intervals. To calculate Northern Pintail use-days in each time interval, daily estimates of Northern Pintail numbers were based on the assumption that their numbers increased or decreased in a linear manner between survey dates. Use-days in each time interval was then divided by total Northern Pintail use-days for all intervals. For example, 16.5% of all Northern Pintail use-days occurred in the 5–21 February time interval. The estimated number of use-days that would occur when Northern Pintails are at the NAWMP goal was used to calculate daily population objectives. During spring migration Northern Pintails spend an average of 21.5 days in SONEC (Miller et. al. 2005). The number of Northern Pintails using SONEC when they are at the NAWMP goal is estimated to be 2,417,960 birds (Table 3). Thus, an estimated 51,986,140 Northern Pintail use-days occur in SONEC when the NAWMP goal is met (2,417,960 * 21.5). For each time interval this use-day number was multiplied by the fraction of total use-days estimated for that interval. For example 16.5 % of all Northern Pintail use-days occur in the 5–21 February interval which results in an estimated 8,577,713 use-days for this interval (0.165 * 51,986,140). To convert these use-days into daily population objectives we calculated average number of birds per day that corresponded to use-day totals for an interval. The 5–21 February interval spans 17 days. As a result, the average number of birds per day in this interval equals 504,571 (8,577,713 / 17). The average number of birds per day was equal the mid-point daily population objective for that interval and birds were assumed to increase or decrease in a linear manner in each time interval (Fig. 5).

Figure 5 D aily population abundance objectives for Northern Pintails in the SONEC region during spring migration. 4.12

SONEC Subregion Northern Pintail Population Objectives The SONEC planning unit has been divided into several subregions to facilitate conservation planning (Fig. 3). Daily Northern Pintail population objectives should be distributed among subregions in a way that reflects bird use of these basins in both space and time. Fleskes and Yee (2007) reported aerial survey results by subregion as well as for the entire SONEC region for 5 January, 21 February, 13 March, 16 April, 30 March, and 3 May. These surveys provided an estimate of Northern Pintail distribution among subregions throughout the spring migration period. To establish daily population objectives for each subregion the same time intervals as Fleskes and Yee (2007) were adopted and it was assumed the fraction of total SONEC Northern Pintails in a subregion increased or decreased linearly in each time interval. For example 17% of all SONEC Northern Pintails were observed in the Upper Klamath subregion during the 21 February survey, and 14% were observed in this subregion during the 13 March survey. The fraction of total SONEC pintails in the Upper Klamath subregion were assumed to exhibit a linear decline within the 22 February–13 March interval from about 17% to 14% of all birds. The fraction of total SONEC Northern Pintails in a subregion was multiplied by the overall SONEC Northern Pintail population objective for that date to establish a daily Northern Pintail population objective (Fig. 5). For example, 15.6% of all SONEC Northern Pintails are estimated to be in the Upper Klamath subregion on March 3 (the mid-point of the 22 February–13 March interval), while the 3 March objective for SONEC is 1,108,727. Thus, the 3 March Northern Pintail objective for the Upper Klamath subregion is 172,961 birds (0.156 * 1,108,727).

Spring Population Objectives for Other Dabbling Duck Species Spring population objectives were also established for five other dabbling duck species: American Wigeon, Mallard, Green-winged Teal, Northern Shoveler, and Gadwall. Unfortunately, data to establish population objectives for spring diving ducks were insufficient. It was assumed most dabbling ducks that migrate through SONEC originate from one of three wintering areas; 1) the Central Valley, 2) California counties outside the Central Valley, excluding California counties in SONEC, and 3) Oregon and California counties within SONEC (Fig. 4). Mid-winter dabbling duck population objectives stepped down from the NAWMP are available for each of these areas (Koneff 2003). These mid-winter population objectives for the first two wintering areas were adopted assuming that 80% of these birds use SONEC in spring as

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) estimated for Northern Pintails (Miller et al. 2005). For Oregon and California counties in SONEC, mid-winter surveys were relied upon to establish winter population objectives as described for Northern Pintails and it was assuming that 100% of these birds use SONEC in spring (Table 4). The only exception was Mallard. For all species except Mallards Fleskes and Yee (2007) documented large increases in bird numbers from early February through mid to late March as birds left their California wintering grounds and migrated into SONEC. In contrast, Mallard numbers in SONEC declined after early February. This is consistent with other work that suggests most Central Valley Mallards are year-round residents (Central Valley Joint Venture 2006). Population objectives for Mallards were established by using direct counts of Mallards that were adjusted for visibility bias and un-surveyed areas (Fleskes and Yee 2007). Table 4 N umber of dabbling ducks that migrate through SONEC in spring when dabbling duck populations are at NAWMP goals. SPECIES

Northern Pintail

2,418,000

American Wigeon

1,140,000

Northern Shoveler

613,000

Green-Winged Teal

520,000

Gadwall

111,000

Mallard Total a

NUMBER OF BIRDS USING SONEC

Spring Population Objectives for Geese and Swans Many North American goose and swan populations have significantly increased or undergone major changes in wintering distribution since the 1970’s. As a result, Joint Ventures are advised to use more recent information when establishing population objectives for geese and swans (M. Koneff pers. comm.). Snow geese, Ross’s geese, White-fronted geese, Canada geese, and Tundra Swan all use SONEC in spring. Fleskes and Yee (2007) surveyed goose and swan populations in SONEC on 21 February, 13 March, 30 March 16 April, and 3 May in both 2002 and 2003. For both geese and swans the spring migration period was partitioned into five intervals of similar length; 1) 9 February – 2 March, 2) 3 March – 21 March, 3) 22 March – 7 April, 4) 8 April – 24 April, 5) 25 April – 11 May. Each survey date corresponded to the mid-point of an interval (e.g., the 21 February survey serves as the mid-point for the 9 February – 2 March interval). The number of birds observed during these mid-point surveys served as population objective for that interval (Table 5). Table 5 S pring population objectives by time interval for geese and swans in SONEC.

66,000 4,868,000

allard numbers in Table 4 are an estimate of the peak population size M occurring in SONEC, not an estimate of the total number of mallards using SONEC in spring. As a result, this number should be considered a minimum estimate of population size.

Daily population objectives for each of the five dabbling duck species were established between 5 February and 3 May using the same methods described for Northern Pintails and assuming the same duration of stay in SONEC (i.e. 21.5 days). Daily population objectives for each dabbling duck species were distributed among the seven SONEC subregions also using the same methods described for Northern Pintail. Mallard, Northern Pintail, and American Wigeon have all been designated as Birds of Management Concern by the USFWS and are further classified as Game Birds Below Desired Condition. The IWJV recognizes Northern Pintail, Mallard, and American Wigeon as priority dabbling duck species based on their USFWS status and their contribution to SONEC fall, winter, and spring dabbling duck population.

4.13

a b

CANADA GEESE

WHITE GEESEB

INTERVAL

GWFGA

SWANS

TOTAL

Feb 9Mar 2

150,741

20,340

179,216

67,902

418,199

Mar 3Mar 21

183,964

11,616

280,774

25,652

502,006

Mar 22Apr 7

179,250

11,547

255,701

3,328

449,826

Apr 8Apr 24

163,589

8,135

105,848

277,587

Apr 25May11

57,774

7,066

16,710

81,566

Greater White-Fronted Geese Includes Lesser Snow Geese and Ross Geese

Limiting Factors/Species–Habitat Models Limiting factors and species-habitat models used to evaluate population carrying capacity are described previously in this chapter under the “Structure of the Nonbreeding Waterfowl Plan” section.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Conservation Design Landscape Characterization and Assessment: SONEC Fall and Winter Most waterfowl in SONEC rely on public lands to meet their food energy needs. Although SONEC contains several publicly managed areas, Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWR are especially important to waterfowl. These refuges are managed by the USFWS as part of the Klamath Basin NWR Complex. The Klamath Basin is recognized as a region of continental significance to North American waterfowl populations (NAWMP Plan Committee 2004). Conservation and management of waterfowl habitats on both refuges depend heavily on water supplies, and increasing competition within the Klamath Basin for water requires the USFWS be able to articulate and defend habitat requirements and water needs. Both refuges recently underwent intensive planning efforts focused on three main objectives; 1) evaluate current refuge habitat management practices relative to waterfowl food energy needs; 2) identify foraging habitat deficiencies that may exist; and 3) evaluate potential management alternatives for meeting waterfowl food energy needs (Dugger et al. 2008). Planning for fall and winter waterfowl in SONEC is largely synonymous with public land planning, so key elements of the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath plans are included here. Future updates to the IWJV implementation plan should include summaries of other public land plans as they become available and will reflect the JV’s commitment to help agencies meet their goals for waterfowl on public habitats. The Tule Lake and Lower Klamath plans were based on SHC principles and relied on the TRUEMET model. The carrying capacity analyses that addressed the three main objectives of the refuge plans are described below. Further details are provided in Dugger et al. (2008).

Model Inputs Time Periods Being Modeled The fall-winter period in SONEC is defined as September 1–January 31. Waterfowl food energy needs and habitat food energy supplies were modeled at two-week intervals within this five-month period for each refuges.

4.14

Population Objectives by Time Periods Population objectives for all time periods in fall-winter were established for dabbling ducks, diving ducks, geese, and swans for both Tule Lake (Table 1), and Lower Klamath (Table 2). Daily Energy Requirements of a Single Bird Waterfowl requirements were modeled by foraging guild (e.g., diving vs. dabbling ducks). A weighted body mass was calculated for each guild because species vary in size. We assumed a balanced sex ratio for all species. Body mass values for all duck species and for swans was obtained from Bellrose (1980). A weighted mean for each two week period was calculated to account for changes in species composition of a foraging guild as indicated by aerial surveys (Gilmer et al. 2004). Body mass was considered constant across time for dabblers, divers, Western Canada geese, and swans, but was allowed to vary for Ross’ Geese, Lesser Snow Geese, Greater Whitefronted Geese, and Cackling geese based on data from Ely and Raveling (1989), McLandress (unpublished data), and Raveling (1979). Habitat Availability and Biomass and Nutritional Quality of Foods Six habitat types including harvested and un-harvested grain crops, harvested potato fields, alfalfa/hay, and seasonal and permanent wetlands are available on the refuges (Table 6). Seasonal wetlands are typically flooded in fall or winter and dewatered in spring or early summer; permanent wetlands are flooded year round. Seasonal wetlands were further divided into early and late successional habitats to reflect differences in seed production and permanent wetlands were divided into area dominated by SAV or robust emergent vegetation (primarily hardstem bulrush and cattail). Food production in permanent wetland areas dominated by robust emergents was set at 0.0 because the dense growth and tall, robust stature of these plants make foods in these habitats generally unavailable to waterfowl. Seeds that might have been produced by this plant community that dispersed into other habitats would have been included in food abundance estimates. Refuge personnel provided information on existing habitats at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath for 2005. Waterfowl that rely on the refuges were assumed to exploit both agricultural and wetland habitats to meet food energy needs.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) possible (Table 8). When the TME value of a food was unknown, value for a similar food type was used. When a comparable species was not available, TME was estimated using a regression relationship between TME value and the proximate composition of a food (Petrie et al. 1998).

Table 6 H abitat composition (acres) at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges during 2005. REFUGE

HABITAT TYPE

LOWER KLAMATH

TULE LAKE

Table 7 F ood densities from agricultural and wetland habitats at Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs.

SEASONAL WETLANDS Early Succession Late Succession

4,834

11,280

155

REFUGE

PERMANENT WETLANDS Submerged Aquatic Veg.

7,355

11,539

Robust Emergent Veg.

1,839

3,030

Harvested Grains

6,534

8,471

Standing Grains

1,057

249

2,703

2,018

3,405

34,917

29,552

Harvested Potatoes Green Browse Total Habitat

Availability refers to the ability of waterfowl to access foods produced in a habitat. Availability varies with flooding conditions and crop harvest practices and can vary among guilds for a specific habitat type. For example, Mallard and Northern Pintail commonly feed in dry agricultural fields or wetland basins lacking surface water, but many species of ducks (e.g., diving ducks) do not feed unless surface water is present. Information provided by refuge staff was used to determine when and how quickly foods in each habitat type became available. Foods in permanently flooded wetlands and unharvested grain fields were considered 100% available at the beginning of fall (September 1). Seasonal wetlands began flooding during mid-September and filled at a constant rate until January 1 when all were filled. It was assumed grain crops are harvested and available by September 15. Potatoes were considered available starting October 1 because harvesting is initiated about October 1 and proceeds at a steady rate until all fields are harvested by about November 1. Wetland food densities were determined by sampling refuge habitats (Table 7). True metabolizable energy of refuge foods was obtained from published sources where

4.15

TLNWR (lbs/acre)

HABITAT TYPE Harvested Potatoes a

437

—

176

157

156

41.9

56.0

Barley

4,960

Oats

4,464

—

Wheat

5,952

—

5,675

4,960

Seeds-Early Succession Seasonal Wetlands

875

Seeds-Late Succession Seasonal Wetlands

489

Roots / Tubers Permanent Wetlands

49.4

218

Leafy Vegetation Permanent Wetlands

121.7

214

Green Forage (Pasture) HARVESTED GRAIN

Barley Oats Wheat Weighted Mean UNHARVESTED GRAIN

Weighted Mean WETLANDS

Spring Invertebrates All Wetlands

a b

LKNWR (lbs/acre)

From Kapantais et al. 2003. M ean value that reflects the proportional contribution of each crop type to the category total. H arry Carlson, University of California, Research and Extension Office, Tule Lake, California. Dusser et al. 2008.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC)

Photo by USF WS

Table 8 T rue metabolizable energy (TME) of waterfowl foods at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWR. Adapted from Dugger et al. (2008) Table 4-3. TME VALUE (kcal/g)

FOOD TYPE OR CATEGORY Grains 1

3.0

Potatoes 2

4.0

Alfalfa Pasture 3

2.4

Seasonal Wetland Seeds (early succession) Seasonal Wetland Seeds (late succession) Leafy Vegetation

1 2 3 4

5 6

2.4 1.6 2.0

Roots / Tubers 5

2.5

Aquatic invertebrates 6

2.5

From Sugden (1971) based on proximate composition (Petrie et al. 1998). from Petrie et al. (1998) T hese metabolizable energy estimates were combined with published TME values of other moist-soil seed resources to gene rate an average TME value for seeds in early and late succession seasonal wetlands (Checkett 2002). based on foods of similar proximate composition from Purol (1975)

4.16

Carrying capacity analyses conducted at large scales (e.g., Joint Venture or ecoregion) usually assume that waterfowl meet all food energy needs within the planning area. However, at smaller scales such as refuges this is unlikely as some species consume foods outside the refuge boundary. Information from the published literature and observations of refuge staff were used to determine what percentage of each guilds daily energy needs are met on site and the habitats and food types each guild likely used to satisfy their daily energy needs (Table 9). Diving ducks and swans were assumed to satisfy 100% of their energy needs by foraging on the tubers of submerged aquatic vegetation. Although the diet of diving ducks differs, this constraint was felt to be appropriate as Canvasback was the most common species in the diver guild. Geese were assumed to forage on harvested and unharvested grain crops, (regardless of flooding status), harvested potatoes, and pasture. Dabbling ducks were assumed to feed on seeds and invertebrates in seasonal wetlands and on harvested and unharvested, flooded or unflooded, grain crops (Table 9). The extent to which each guild met their energy needs on the refuges was assumed to vary. Diving ducks and swans were allowed to meet 100% of their needs on refuge for every model simulation, while we reduced this figure to 75% for dabbling ducks and geese.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Table 9 F ood types used by waterfowl guilds to meet daily energy demands on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake. Adapted from Dugger et al. (2008) Table 4-4.

GUILD

STANDING GRAIN

HARVESTED GRAIN

Dabbling Ducks

HARVESTED POTATOES

ALFALFA PASTURE

SEASONAL WETLAND SEEDS

PERMANENT WETLAND LEAFY VEGETATION

PERMANENT WETLAND ROOTS AND TUBERS

Diving Ducks

Dabbling Ducks Geese

Swans

Coots

Model Results Refuge habitat management practices relative to waterfowl food-energy needs Current habitats at Lower Klamath provided sufficient food-energy to meet population objectives for swans and diving ducks (Fig. 6) and dabbling ducks (Fig. 7) in fall-winter and through spring. However, Lower Klamath could not support goose population at objective levels, being exhausted prior to the March 1 interval, 6 weeks before the end of spring (Fig. 8). At Tule Lake, food resources were adequate to meet the energy needs of diving ducks and swans (Fig. 9), but were insufficient to meet the needs of dabbling ducks (Fig.10), and geese (Fig. 11). Dabbler foods were exhausted early in the fall, well before traditional peak migration in November. Goose needs were met through most of fall and winter but not spring.

Supply

Figure 7 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for dabbling ducks at Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) relative to refuge population objectives.

Demand

Supply

Figure 6 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for diving ducks and swans at Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) relative to refuge population objectives.

4.17

Demand

Figure 8 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for geese at Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) relative to refuge population objectives.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC)

Demand

Supply

Figure 9 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for diving ducks and swans at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge relative to refuge population objectives.

Demand

Figure 11 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for geese at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge relative to refuge population objectives.

LOWER KLAMATH

Supply

1970’s 1990’s

Figure 10 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for dabbling ducks at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge relative to refuge population objectives.

Carrying capacity results were consistent with waterfowl population differences on both refuges during the 1970s versus 1990s. Dabbling duck numbers at Tule Lake have significantly declined since the 1970’s (Fig. 2). During this time the amount of standing grain grown for waterfowl was reduced from 2,000 to 250 acres. The decline in dabbling duck abundance from the 1970s to the 1990s is consistent with this loss of standing grain and with evaluations of carrying capacity at Tule Lake (Fig. 10; Dugger et al 2008)). In contrast, dabbling duck counts at Lower Klamath have remained stable or increased from the 1970’s (Fig. 12) and are consistent with model results for the refuge (Fig. 7).

4.18

TULE LAKE 1970’s 1990’s

Figure 12 M ean aerial survey counts of dabbling ducks by date at Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWR’s in 1970–1979 and 1990–1999.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Evaluation of potential management alternatives for meeting waterfowl food energy needs Dugger et al. (2008) evaluated several management alternatives for meeting waterfowl food energy needs at Tule Lake and Lower Klamath. The JV included one management alternative for each refuge to demonstrate the utility of this planning approach. Lower Klamath: the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Big Pondâ&#x20AC;? scenario The evaluation of current habitat conditions for Lower Klamath assumed that flooding of seasonal wetlands began in early September and progressed until all wetlands were full by January 1, the pattern representing historic management hydroperiod. However, chronic water shortages during summer and fall during the last 15 years have made achieving this flooding schedule increasingly difficult. Consequently, managers at Lower Klamath are exploring ways to capture water during winter and early spring, a time when water is typically in abundance. One alternative, called the Big Pond Scenario, would create a 13,000 acre unit on the southern half of Lower Klamath, where management would focus on capturing water in winter and spring to fill the unit and then allow levels to gradually recede during the summer and fall, essentially mimicking conditions on historic Lower Klamath Lake. This would require approximately 50,000 to 70,000 acre-feet of water to fill the unit, and water depths would range from seven feet at deepest part to inches at the margins. Preliminary hydrologic analysis indicates sufficient water is available in most years to fill the Big Pond. Even with no water deliveries in summer, the area would support large numbers of colonial nesting waterbirds as well as molting and breeding waterfowl. Approximately half of the surface area would remain flooded during fall migration. Similar management on smaller areas at Lower Klamath has provided impressive habitat response and high use by waterbirds. Dugger et al. (2008) used TRUEMET to understand the consequences of the Big Pond Scenario to foraging waterfowl by altering the composition of wetland habitat types on the refuge. The first step was to assign the 13,000 acres associated with the scenario to wetland categories. The predicted hydroperiod assumes that half (6,500 acres) of area draws down naturally between May and November as a result of evapotranspiration. Thus, half of the area was classified as a seasonal wetland and the remaining half as permanent wetland. Half of the seasonal wetland

4.19

component (3,250 acres) would occur at elevations high enough for moist soil plants to germinate and mature (i.e., water would draw down early enough). For these acres, a food density equal to other Lower Klamath seasonal wetland habitats was used; however, because low lake levels will keep these areas dry in fall, these acres would only be available to foraging waterfowl beginning 1 March when flooding begins. It was assumed that flooding progressed in a linear fashion from 1 March until the area is full on 15 April. For the remaining 3,250 acres of the seasonal wetland portion of the Big Pond waterfowl foraging value was set to zero. The number of acres dedicated to agriculture on the refuge was not altered so all habitat distribution changes came soley from existing wetlands acres. The total wetland acreage on Lower Klamath is 25,308 acres. After allocating 13,000 to the Big Pond Unit, the remaining acreage was allocated to seasonal wetlands. The final allocation resulted in little change in seasonal wetland acres but a significant decline in permanent wetland acres (Table 10). Table 10 A cres dedicated to wetland habitat types under current conditions and under the Big Pond Scenario at Lower Klamath NWR, California. WETLAND TYPE Permanent wetland

BIG POND SCENARIO

9,194

6,500

Seasonal wetland

16,114

15,558

No feeding value a

3,250

25,308

TOTAL a

CURRENT

he number of acres in the Big Pond Unit that will dry during summer but T not produce moist soil plants

Dugger et al. (2008) used TRUEMET to simulate how the Big Pond Scenario influenced energy supplies for dabblers, divers and swans. Geese were not modeled because agricultural habitats were not influenced and geese obtain their energy from the agricultural crops. Results suggest that it may represent a reasonable alternative strategy for meeting waterfowl needs if long-term solutions are not found to alleviate water shortages during summer and early fall. Dabbling duck food resources were adequate under this management alternative (Fig. 13), as were the food energy needs of diving ducks and swans (Fig. 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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC)

Demand Supply

Figure 13 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for dabbling ducks at Lower Klamath NWR under habitat conditions outlined in the Big Pond Scenario.

Dabbling duck and goose populations at Tule Lake have substantially declined since the 1970s (Fig. 12), as has the acreage of standing grains. Dugger et al. (2008) modeled the management alternative of increasing standing grain acreage to 1970s levels (2,000 acres) to determine if dabbling duck and goose population objectives could be supported at population objective levels (Table 1). Increasing unharvested grains from 250 to 2,000 acres would allow Tule Lake to meets the foraging needs of dabbling ducks (Fig. 15) and geese (Fig. 16). From a purely energetic standpoint, the decline in dabbling duck and goose populations since the 1970s on Tule Lake is consistent with the reduction in unharvested grains.

Demand Supply

Figure 14 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for diving ducks and swans at Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge under habitat conditions outlined in the Big Pond Scenario.

Figure 15 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for dabbling ducks at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge with standing grain acreage restored to 1970s level.

Tule Lake: Increased Standing Grain Tule Lake NWR staff farmed approximately 2,000 acres of small grains during the 1970s to provide food for waterfowl and depredation relief to farmers on private lands. This program was discontinued in the 1980s in favor of a program using cooperating farmers. Under this program, the farmer provided all costs of establishing a crop, harvested two-thirds of the crop, and left one-third standing for waterfowl consumption. This was deemed an acceptable change because populations of waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway (particularly geese) in the 1980s were lower than previous decades, and much of the standing grain was not used. The cooperative farming program was further reduced in the 1990s and availablity of unharvested grain declined from about 2,000 acres in the 1970s to 250 acres by 2005.

4.20

Figure 16 P opulation energy demand versus food energy supplies for geese at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge with standing grain acreage restored to 1970s level.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Spring Although waterfowl that use SONEC in fall and winter rely mostly on public habitats to meet their food energy needs, private lands play a critical role during spring migration. Many of these private lands are former seasonal wetlands that are now devoted to forage production for cattle. Ranchers flood irrigate these lands during spring to increase soil moisture and they are heavily used by spring migrating birds (Fleskes and Yee 2007) . A more detailed description of these flood irrigated habitats can be found in the Biological Planning section . Virtually all flood-irrigated wetland habitat in SONEC is unprotected. To inform protection objectives for this habitat type two carrying capacity analyses were done for each subregion; 1) the overall capacity of flood-irrigated habitats to meet food energy needs of dabbling ducks during spring migration in each of SONEC’s subregions, and 2) the amount of flood-irrigated habitat needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs during spring. Model inputs and results of these analyses are specific to dabbling duck populations because diving ducks and geese are seldom associated with flood irrigated habitats.

Model Inputs Time Periods being Modeled The spring period in SONEC is defined as early February through early May and was divided into eight time periods of similar length; 1) 6 Feb - 16 Feb, 2) 17 Feb - 27 Feb, 3) 28 Feb – 10 Mar, 4) 11 Mar – 21 Mar, 5) 22 Mar – 1 Apr, 6) 2 Apr – 12 Apr, 7) 13 Apr – 23 Apr, and 8) 24 Apr – 4 May. Dabbling duck food energy needs and food energy supplies were modeled for each of these intervals.

Habitat Availability and Biomass and Nutritional Quality of Foods The amount and distribution of flood-irrigated habitat in SONEC was determined using LandSat Thematic (TM) satellite imagery from February and April 2002 and from February and May 2003 (Fleskes and Gregory 2010). The amount of flood-irrigated habitat varied within and among years, with habitat generally increasing from February to May as temperatures warmed and land owners diverted water onto hay and pasture lands. For each SONEC subregion, the peak estimate of flood irrigated habitat in 2002 and 2003 was averaged for use in the TRUEMET model. These peak estimates mostly corresponded to the April and May satellite images. Average peak amounts of flood irrigated habitat by subregion are presented in Table 11. Food sampling of flood-irrigated habitats in spring of 2008 and 2009 indicated that these habitats provide an average of 152 lbs / acre of seeds that are consumed by waterfowl (J. Fleskes, U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished data). It was assumed that the giving-up density or foraging threshold for flood-irrigated habitats was 30 lbs / acre, which reduced the food density estimate in the TRUEMET model to 122 lbs / acre (Naylor 2002). Finally, seed resources in these habitats were assumed to provide a TME of 2.5 kcal/g (Checkett et al. 2002). Table 11 T he amount of existing flood-irrigated habitat in each SONEC subregion and the amount of flood irrigated habitat needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs.

SONEC SUB-REGION

Population Objectives by Time Period Total dabbling duck population abundance objectives for SONEC during spring equate to approximately 4.9 million birds, with Northern Pintails comprising about 50% of the total (Table 4). A description of how these population objectives were established can be found in the SONEC Biological Planning Section.

EXISTING FLOODIRRIGATED HABITAT (ACRES)

FLOOD-IRRIGATED HABITAT NEEDED TO MEET 100% OF DABBLING DUCK NEEDS (ACRES)

Modoc Plateau

13,000

18,000

Malheur

15,300

7,000

NE California

13,500

13,000

Upper Klamath

18,800

23,000

Daily Bird Energy Requirements

Summer Lake

4,100

11,000

To estimate the daily energy needs of dabbling ducks during spring, a weighted body mass was calculated for each time period to account for changes in species composition of dabbling duck populations during spring. Average body mass of adult males and females was obtained for all species from Bellrose (1980), and a balanced sex ratio was assumed.

Warner Valley

7,500

14,000

Lower Klamath

7,100

Not Determined

79,300

86,000 a

4.21

Total

This estimate excludes that portion of the SONEC dabbling duck population that relies on the Lower Klamath Subregion. 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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Model Results The capacity of flood-irrigated lands to meet the food energy needs of dabbling ducks between February 6 and May 4 (spring) was evaluated for each subregion. The amount of flood irrigated habitat needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs during this period was also estimated. In some basins flood irrigated lands can only meet a fraction of duck energy needs during spring, while in other basins these habitats can provide in excess of 100% of bird needs. However, dabbling ducks do not rely exclusively on flood-irrigated habitats to meet their food energy requirements. Managed public lands and to a lesser extent managed private lands in SONEC can also provide important food resources. Establishing protection objectives for flood-irrigated lands requires a decision about what role publicly and privately managed wetlands should play in meeting the needs of spring migrating waterfowl. For example, if managed wetlands in the Warner Valley subregion can provide 50% of dabbling duck needs then the presumption is flood-irrigated habitats must provide the rest. However, estimating the capacity of flood-irrigated lands to meet dabbling duck needs is only a first step in establishing protection objectives for these habitats. Modoc Plateau Subregion There are an estimated 13,000 acres of flood-irrigated wetlands in the Modoc subregion. These existing habitats can meet the food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations into the third week of March (Fig. 17). An estimated 18,000 acres of flood irrigated lands would be needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs for the entire spring migration period (Table 11).

Figure 17 F ood energy (kilocalories) provided by floodirrigated habitats (red) vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the Modoc subregion of SONEC.

4.22

Malheur Subregion An estimated 15,300 acres of flood-irrigated habitat exists in the Malheur subregion. These existing habitats can meet the food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations for the entire spring migration period (Fig. 18). In actuality, it was estimated that only 7,000 acres of flood irrigated lands would be needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs for the entire spring migration period (Table 11).

Figure 18 F ood energy (red) provided by flood-irrigated habitats vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the Malheur subregion of SONEC.

Northeast California Subregion An estimated 13,500 acres of flood-irrigated wetlands occur in the Northeast California subregion, and can meet the food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations for the entire spring migration period (Fig. 19). In actuality, the JV estimated that only 13,000 acres of floodirrigated lands would be needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs for the entire spring migration period (Table 11).

Figure 19 F ood energy (kilocalories) provided by floodirrigated habitats (red) vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the NE California subregion of SONEC.

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) Upper Klamath Subregion

Warner Valley Sub-Region

There are an estimated 18,800 acres of flood-irrigated wetlands in the Upper Klamath subregion. These existing habitats can meet the food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations into the first week of April (Fig. 20). An estimated 23,000 acres of flood irrigated lands would be needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs for the entire spring migration period (Table 11).

There are an estimated 7,500 acres of flood-irrigated wetlands in the Warner Valley subregion. These existing habitats can meet the food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations through mid-March (Fig. 22). An estimated 11,000 acres of flood irrigated lands would be needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs for the entire spring migration period (Table 11).

Figure 20 F ood energy (kilocalories) provided by floodirrigated habitats (red) vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the Upper Klamath subregion of SONEC.

Figure 22 F ood energy (kilocalories) provided by floodirrigated habitats (red) vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the Warner Valley subregion of SONEC.

Summer Lake Subregion

Lower Klamath Subregion

An estimated 4,100 acres of flood-irrigated wetlands exisist in the Summer Lake subregion and can meet food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations through early March (Fig. 21). An estimated 14,000 acres of floodirrigated lands would be needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs for the entire spring migration period (Table 11).

There are an estimated 7,100 acres of flood-irrigated wetlands in the Lower Klamath subregion (Table 11). These existing habitats can only meet the food energy needs of target dabbling duck populations through early February (Fig. 23). The Lower Klamath subregion contains the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, both of which have traditionally supported large numbers of spring migrating waterfowl. As a result, dabbling duck population objectives for the Lower Klamath subregion far surpass that of other SONEC subregions. It is anticipated that dabbling duck needs in this subregion will be largely met on refuge lands. Therefore, the amount of flood irrigated lands needed to meet 100% of dabbling duck needs was not estimated.

Figure 21 F ood energy (kilocalories) provided by floodirrigated habitats (red) vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the Summer Lake subregion of SONEC.

4.23

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

SOUTHERN OREGON & NORTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA (SONEC) needs in the Lower Klamath subregion. Habitat objectives for flood-irrigated habitat are a function of dabbling duck food energy needs and the fraction of energy needs to be met on flood-irrigated lands. Managed public lands and managed private lands (primarily Wetland Reserve Program tracts) also provide food resources for migrating waterfowl. Table 12 provides an estimate of the amount of flood-irrigated wetlands needed in each subregion depending on assumptions regarding the role of public and privately managed habitats in meeting dabbling duck needs. Figure 23 F ood energy (kilocalories) provided by floodirrigated habitats (red) vs. dabbling duck energy demand (black) during spring in the Lower Klamath subregion of SONEC.

Habitat Objectives for SONEC: Spring Flood-irrigated Wetlands The capacity of flood-irrigated wetlands to meet the needs of target dabbling duck populations varies widely among SONEC subregions. For example flood irrigated lands in the Malheur subregion appear able to meet > 100% of dabbling duck food energy needs, while flood irrigated habitat can only provide a small portion of duck energy

Research has estimated that that over 70% of habitat use by radio-marked Northern Pintail in SONEC, excluding Lower Klamath subregion, occur on privately owned habitats during spring migration (Fleskes et al. 2013. Additionally, 50â&#x20AC;&#x201C;75% of Northern Pintail use is estimated to occur in flood-irrigated habitat within five of the seven most important SONEC subregions for spring migrating Northern Pintails (Fleskes et al. 2013). The IWJV therefore assumes that 75% of the energy demand for spring migrating dabbling ducks will be met on privately managed flood-irrigated habitats in SONEC. Consequently, the IWJV habitat objective for flood-irrigated habitat in SONEC, outside of the Lower Klamath subregion, is 64,700 acres, as needed to sustain spring-migratory dabbling ducks at NAWMP goal levels (Table 12).

Table 12 The amount of flood-irrigated habitat (FIH) required to meet dabbling duck needs at various levels. Dabbling duck needs not met by FIH are assumed to be met by public lands or privately managed wetlands (e.g. WRP). FLOOD-IRRIGATED HABITAT (acres) REQUIRED TO MEET

EXISTING FLOODIRRIGATED HABITAT (acres)

SONEC SUBREGION

50% OF DABBLING DUCK NEEDS

25% OF DABBLING DUCK NEEDS

Modoc Plateau

13,000

13,500

9,000

4,500

Malheur

15,300

5,300

3,500

1,800

NE California

13,500

9,800

6,500

3,300

Upper Klamath

18,800

17,300

11,500

5,800

Summer Lake

4,100

8,300

5,500

2,800

Warner Valley

7,500

10,500

7,000

3,500

Lower Klamath

7,100

Not Determined

79,300

64,700

43,000

21,700

Total a a

75% OF DABBLING DUCK NEEDS

T hese estimate excludes that portion of the SONEC dabbling duck population that relies on the Lower Klamath Subregion.

4.24

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

GREAT SALT LAKE

Photo by Brad Manchas

Biological Planning Spatial Planning Unit The Great Salt Lake (GSL) is among the largest wetland complexes in the western US and is internationally recognized for its importance to wetland dependent migratory birds, particularly waterfowl (Aldrich and Paul 2002, NAWMP 2004). Bellrose (1976, 1980) suggested as many as 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;5 million waterfowl migrate through the GSL system. Although it receives only 15 inches of rainfall per year, it is surrounded by more than 470,000 acres of wetlands (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Maintained by fresh water from the Jordan, Ogden, and Bear Rivers, these wetlands provide critical waterfowl habitat in the Intermountain West. The GSL marshes are both expansive and diverse, have large areas of open water, and are rich in a variety of invertebrate and plant food resources. These features are the keystone of GSLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s value to migrating waterfowl. The evolution of waterfowl migrations through GSL is related to its historic importance in providing highquality habitat during fall and spring migration periods.

4.25

Waterfowl use of the GSL occurs throughout the year, but populations are highest during migration in late summer to early fall and again in spring. Ducks begin arriving from northern breeding areas as early as June and typically peak in September. Most migrating ducks arrive from the northwestern and mid-continent breeding areas in Canada and Alaska, but there is some exchange of birds with other breeding populations such as those of the Prairie Pothole Region and other Intermountain West regions. Based on banding data, ducks migrating through the GSL winter mainly in the Central Valley of California and the west coast of Mexico, but some populations migrate to the Gulf Coast, interior Mexico, and even South America. Migrants begin returning from wintering areas in February and peak in March. The spring migration period through the GSL is generally shorter and peak populations are lower than those observed in the fall (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Duck abundance is lowest during the mid-winter period but some species use saline resources of the GSL during winter (Aldrich and Paul 2002, Vest and Conover 2011).

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

GREAT SALT LAKE Ducks constitute the vast majority of migrating waterfowl, but GSL also serves as a major staging area for Tundra Swans and Canada Geese. Approximately 75% of the western population of Tundra Swan migrate from Alaska breeding grounds and stage at the GSL before continuing to the Central Valley of California. Although wintering Tundra Swans feed in agricultural fields in many wintering areas, use of fields around GSL is rare. Most Canada Geese migrating through the GSL are part of the Rocky Mountain Population and it is estimated that approximately 30% migrate or winter in the GSL system. Lesser snow geese and Rossâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s geese historically frequented the GSL in spring and fall, but recently their use has been restricted mostly to spring (Aldrich and Paul 2002). GSL is a terminal basin and historically most of the wetlands in the region were associated with the floodplain and terminal deltas of the Bear, Weber/Ogden, and Jordan Rivers (Fig. 24). However, numerous spring and seep wetlands in the system also provide important habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Because of its terminal nature and dependence on snow pack for river flows, the GSL system has always been a highly dynamic system in relation to waterfowl habitat. Decadal cycles of precipitation patterns were historically the largest driver of wetland and lake systems within the GSL region (Fig. 25). Increased river flows and water tables during wet cycles would create or recharge freshwater wetlands around the GSL until the saline waters of the lake itself began to increase and flood those freshwater habitats. Loss of waterfowl habitat in the GSL system due to saline flooding was likely compensated for in other Great Basin and Intermountain systems in response to regional increases in precipitation. During dry cycles, GSL elevations would recede and salinity concentrations increase within the main body of the GSL. Wetlands that had been flooded with highly saline water would be slowly flushed of those salts through natural river hydroperiods, allowing brackish and freshwater wetlands to re-establish. These dynamic conditions are directly related to high wetland productivity through space and time. The diversity and dynamic nature of wetland systems in the GSL region plays a prominent role in the observed diversity of not only waterfowl species but other wetland dependent birds.

4.26

Figure 24 Spatial planning unit for Great Salt Lake.

Figure 25 C hanges in climatic conditions can have dramatic effect on the amount, type, and distribution of wetland habitats and volume of the Great Salt Lake.

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

GREAT SALT LAKE Significant man-made alterations have occurred within the GSL system over the past century, producing dramatic impacts on wetland resources and habitat for waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds. Principally, development of water resources for agriculture, energy, industrial, and domestic use has reduced the amount and quality of fresh water reaching the lake and its marshes (Aldrich and Paul 2002, Downard 2010). The human population in the GSL region is growing rapidly, and domestic water demands will likely result in less water for upstream irrigation, GSL wetlands, and the GSL. Human development has also segmented sections of the GSL, disrupting hydrologic connectivity within the system. For example, the North Arm of the GSL is no longer connected to principal freshwater inflows which result in extreme hypersaline conditions that are unsuitable for waterfowl. Despite dramatic human alterations to the GSL system over the past century, the amount, distribution, availability, and quality of wetland resources in the GSL system remains intrinsically linked to variations in climatic conditions due to its terminal nature (Kadlec and Smith 1989, Aldrich and Paul 2002). However, increasing regional human demand for freshwater resources coupled with changes in climatic conditions (e.g., snow pack, spring run-off phenology, precipitation patterns) will create significant wetland management and conservation challenges (Bedford and Douglas 2008). Today, the GSL is bordered along its eastern side by more than 160,000 acres of publicly (90,000) and privately (50,000) managed wetland habitat complexes (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2013). The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) manages eight Waterfowl Management Areas around the GSL, encompassing approximately 90,000 acres (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2013; Fig. 26). Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, encompasses approximately 73,000 acres and was America’s first waterfowl sanctuary, established by Congress on April 23, 1928 (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2013). All private duck clubs and state owned areas manage wetland habitats for migratory waterbirds, particularly waterfowl. In managed wetland impoundments, emphasis is placed on producing submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) including sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima; Kadlec and Smith 1983). Unmanaged wetlands occur along the east shore of GSL itself, and are west of levees that separate managed areas from the lake (Figs. 25, 26). The majority of unmanaged wetlands are classified under “state management authority”, which gives DWR the ability to create and manage for 4.27

possible future wildlife areas (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2013). The extent and composition of wetland habitat varies greatly with annual changes in lake level. Consequently, unmanaged areas can have greater variation in both emergent and submerged vegetation types, including pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) alkali bulrush (Scirpus maritimus), Olney three-square (S. americanus), hard-stem bulrush (S. acutus), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and cattail (Typha spp.; Kadlec and Smith 1983).

Figure 26 M anaged wetland complexes in public (black shading) and private (gray shading) ownership and regions of unmanaged habitat (Bear River Bay, Ogden Bay, and Farmington Bay) in the Great Salt Lake System.

The GSL itself is a hypersaline terminal lake system located in north-central Utah within the Great Basin and Range Province and is a dominant water feature within the western United States (Arnow and Stephens 1990, Stephens 1990). At the average lake elevation of 4199.5 ft above sea level (range: 4,192.9–4,212.6 ft), the GSL encompasses approximately 1,700 mi 2 (range: 950–2,400 mi 2) with a maximum depth of approximately 33 ft (Arnow and Stephens 1990, Stephens 1990). The Southern Pacific

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

GREAT SALT LAKE Railroad Causeway divides the GSL into two distinct areas with unique ecological characteristics (Figs. 25, 26). The North Arm of the GSL is characterized by minimal freshwater inflow, extreme hypersaline conditions (> 20% salinity) whereas the South Arm receives > 90% of the freshwater surface inflow into the GSL and consequently has lower salinity (Stephens 1990, Loving et al. 2002). Salinity concentrations vary inversely to lake levels in the GSL but have generally averaged 16% in the South Arm (range: 6–28%) which is approximately three times the salinity concentration of oceans (Arnow and Stephens 1990, Stephens 1990, Gwynn 2002). The South Arm is populated by green and blue-green algae, diatoms, and high biomass of halophile macroinvertebrates consisting primarily of brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana) and brine flies (Ephydridae sp.). Recent research has documented the hypersaline South Arm of the GSL as important habitat to several species of wintering waterfowl (Vest and Conover 2011). The GSL biological planning unit also encompasses Utah Lake which lies 30 miles south of the GSL and provides additional habitat for the greater GSL system population of waterfowl (Fig. 24). Utah Lake is a freshwater lake with extensive wetland habitat along its eastern and southern bays.

Summary Points 1. The GSL is a terminal system and was historically a dynamic complex of wetland and lake habitats for waterfowl and remains so today, though to a lesser degree. 2. GSL marshes are both expansive and diverse, have large areas of open water, and are rich in a variety of invertebrate and plant food resources. These features are the keystone of GSL’s value to migrating waterfowl. The evolution of waterfowl migrations through GSL is likely related to its historic importance in providing high-quality habitat during fall and spring migration periods. 3. GSL serves as a continentally important staging area for millions of waterfowl. It is essentially the crossroads of the West for waterfowl that link northern breeding areas in the US and Canada with terminal wintering areas such as the Central Valley of California, west coast and mainland of Mexico, and Gulf Coast. Peak waterfowl abundance occurs during late summer to early fall. 4. Significant anthropogenic alterations to the GSL watershed have reduced quantity and quality of water supplies available to the lake and associated wetlands.

4.28

5. Waterfowl rely on both managed (public and private) and unmanaged wetland and lake complexes in the GSL system; some species utilize saline portions of the GSL during winter.

Population Objectives and Priority Species Peak waterfowl abundance in the GSL system occurs during fall migration and is lowest during the mid-winter period (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Therefore, as noted above, fitting mid-winter inventory data to NAWMP objectives to generate monthly or bi-weekly population estimates is inappropriate. Thus, alternative methods were developed for establishing period specific population objectives for GSL that maintain strong linkages to NAWMP. However, waterfowl population estimates for the entire GSL ecosystem are lacking. State and federally managed wetland complexes are currently surveyed on a systematic basis for waterfowl and other waterbirds, but survey methodologies are inconsistent. Additionally, large areas of public unmanaged and private properties remain unsurveyed. Thus, available population estimates for the GSL are likely grossly conservative (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Between August and April 2005-06 multiple waterfowl surveys were conducted in the GSL ecosystem that encompassed state and federally managed wetland complexes as well as portions of the GSL that are unmanaged and adjacent to managed wetland complexes (i.e., Bear River, Ogden, and Farmington Bays; Fig. 25). These unmanaged areas of the GSL are important waterfowl habitats but are typically not surveyed (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Thus, the fall–spring 2005-06 time period was chosen to characterize the spatial and temporal distribution of waterfowl abundance in the GSL ecosystem and to derive waterfowl population objectives because this time period comprised the most comprehensive set of waterfowl surveys to date during the migratory period. However, the 2005-06 time period was at the end of an extended regional drought and therefore temporal and spatial distribution of waterfowl may not be representative of “average” environmental conditions. Nevertheless, this was the most comprehensive data set available to characterize waterfowl use.

Managed Public Wetland Complexes The Utah Division of Wildlife conducts monthly (bimonthly during hunting season) ground surveys of all state waterfowl management areas (81,756 acres) in the GSL system, except the 1,380 acre Timpie Springs Wildlife Management area. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR), a 73,000 acre wetland/upland complex adjacent

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

GREAT SALT LAKE to the GSL and managed by USFWS, conducts bi-weekly (monthly minimum) surveys of all wetland dependent birds. Between October and April 2005-06, personnel from UDWR and Utah State University conducted monthly aerial waterfowl surveys on the GSL including Bear River, Ogden, and Farmington Bays which are adjacent to BRMBR and UDWR managed wetland complexes and are hydrologically connected to the GSL (Fig. 26). Surveys conducted on UDWR waterfowl management areas and at BRMBR did not encompass the total area of each management area. Staff from UDWR and BRMBR was contacted and estimates of proportional survey area on respective properties were obtained. These estimates (UDWR = 40%, BRMBR = 60%) were used to adjust population estimates on management areas (e.g., N UDWRt = N UDWRt / 0.4). Waterfowl abundance estimates from BRMBR weekly surveys were averaged during early (first 2 weeks of month) and late (last 2 weeks of month) time periods within months, when >1 survey/time period existed, to conform to UDWR survey periods. Monthly population estimates from the GSL aerial surveys were converted to bi-monthly estimates by assuming linear change in estimates between surveys. Estimates from each of the three surveys areas were then summed for each bi-monthly period October through April to obtain total waterfowl population estimates during the non-breeding period. Waterfowl abundance estimates were unavailable from the GSL aerial surveys in August and September 2005 because surveys were not initiated until October. We estimated GSL waterfowl abundance for August and September by applying the average ratio (= 0.80) of GSL abundance to UDWR and BRMBR abundance in October and November surveys because these months are ice-free portions of the fall migration period.

Privately Managed Wetland Complexes Tens of thousands of acres of wetland habitat occur in private ownership in the GSL system, many of which are managed to varying degree by duck hunting clubs and provide foraging habitat for waterfowl (Aldrich and Paul 2002, Johnson 2007. These areas are not surveyed however, and waterfowl abundance estimates are unavailable. Wetland management on private duck clubs generally mimics that of state WMAs and they possess

4.29

similar levels of hunting pressure which can influence waterfowl abundance and distribution. Therefore, waterfowl abundance was estimated on private wetlands by calculating the density of waterfowl on UDWR management areas and applying that density estimate to known wetland complex acreages in private ownership for each month August through April. Additionally, Utah Lake, which lies approximately 30 mi south of GSL and is an important component of the GSL ecosystem for migratory birds, is not surveyed for waterfowl. The same density estimate derived from UDWR managed areas was applied to wetland acres in Goshen and Provo Bays in Utah Lake to account for waterfowl using the Utah Lake region within the GSL ecosystem. Abundance estimates from UDWR managed areas, BRMBR, GSL, and private wetlands were then summed to obtain an overall waterfowl abundance estimate for each month August through April.

Population Objectives To develop population objectives for the GSL system and link those objectives to the NAWMP the 2005 continental BPOP was assessed for the 10 most common surveyed duck species in the traditional survey area relative to NAWMP goals. All 10 species were below NAWMP goals at that time: Mallards (–17.6%), Northern Pintails (–54.3%), American Wigeon (–25.8%), Blue-winged and Cinnamon Teal (–2.4%), Redheads (–7.5%), Canvasback (–3.6%), and Scaup (–46.2%. Total GSL population estimates for these species were adjusted according to the NAWMP goals to develop GSL population objectives for each species. This process identified a peak population objective of 2.8 million waterfowl during fall migration (Fig. 27). This estimate approximated the lower bound of population abundance identified by Bellrose (1976, 1980) and provides an independent validation of population objectives identified for the IWJV. Daily population objectives were summed within 3 nonbreeding periods to obtain total waterfowl use-days. Fall migration was defined as August 15–November 30, winter as December 1–February 14, and spring migration as February 15–April 31. A total of 294.4 million duck use-days were estimated during the entire non-breeding in the GSL (Fig. 27). Use-days were then summarized by waterfowl guild (dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and swans and geese) for each time period (fall, winter, spring).

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

GREAT SALT LAKE (12%), and Canvasback (11%); Tundra Swan and Canada Goose accounted for 9% of total use-days during spring.

Figure 27 Total waterfowl population objectives (gray bars) derived from waterfowl population estimates (black line) for the Great Salt Lake.

Northern Pintail and American Wigeon have been designated as Birds of Management Concern by the USFWS and are further classified as Game Birds Below Desired Condition. However, American Wigeon comprised a small proportion of dabbling duck objectives. The IWJV recognizes Northern Pintail as a priority dabbling duck species based on their FWS status and their contribution to the nonbreeding duck objectives. Redhead, Canvasback, and both Greater and Lesser Scaup have all been designated as Birds of Management Concern by the USFWS and as a Game Bird Below Desired Condition. The IWJV recognizes Scaup, Redhead, and Canvasback as priority species based on their USFWS status and their contribution to the diving duck objectives.

Fall Population Objectives

Limiting Factors/Species–Habitat Models

A total of 217 million waterfowl use-days were estimated during fall migration in the GSL system. Dabbling ducks comprised 93% of total waterfowl use during fall migration. Northern Pintail comprised 39% of dabbling duck use during fall followed by Gadwall (16%), Greenwinged Teal (13%), and Mallard (13%). Diving ducks comprised 6% of total waterfowl use-days. Ruddy ducks comprised 31% of diving duck use during fall migration followed by canvasbacks (21%), Redheads (21%), and Scaup (17%); Tundra Swan and Canada Goose contributed to roughly 1% of total waterfowl use. Winter Population Objectives A total of 17.4 million waterfowl-use-days were estimated during the winter period with dabbling ducks accounting for 74% of use-days. Northern Pintails accounted for 39% of dabbling duck use followed by Green-winged Teal (23%), Mallard (21%), and Northern Shoveler (11%). Diving ducks accounted for 19% of total waterfowl usedays during winter with Common Goldeneye comprising 91% of all diving duck use. Tundra Swan and Canada Goose combined accounted for 6% of total waterfowl usedays during winter. Spring Population Objectives A total of 60 million waterfowl-use-days were estimated during spring migration in the GSL system with a peak spring objective of 1.1 million waterfowl. Dabbling ducks accounted for 74% of total waterfowl use-days with Northern Pintail comprising 44%, Green-winged Teal 20%, and Northern Shoveler 10%. Diving ducks accounted for 20% of total waterfowl use-days during spring. Scaup accounted for 39% of diving duck use-days, followed by Common Goldeneye (18%), Ruddy Duck (18%), Redhead 4.30

Limiting factors and species-habitat models used to evaluate population carrying capacity are described previously in this chapter under the “Structure of the Nonbreeding Waterfowl Plan” section.

Conservation Design Landscape Characterization and Assessment: Waterfowl in the GSL rely on publicly and privately managed wetland complexes as well as unmanaged habitats to meet energetic demands during the nonbreeding period. Rapidly increasing human demand for water resources in the watershed will continue to divert fresh water from the rivers that supply wetlands and likely result in decreased wetland habitat available to waterfowl. To justify current and future water allocation for wetlands within the GSL system, managers and planners must be able to quantify the value of these habitats to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent wildlife. Managed wetlands include state, federal, and private lands contained within levees and actively managed as either waterfowl or wetland-dependent bird habitat. Unmanaged wetlands primarily include shallow water areas outside of levees that rely on freshwater outflows from the Bear, Weber/Ogden, and Jordan Rivers and are immediately adjacent to the GSL. These unmanaged wetlands are under no specified management regime and are under the greatest threat to water diversions because they are currently unprotected under Utah water laws. These unmanaged areas are characterized by highly dynamic water conditions and productivity. Additionally, they have been periodically inundated by the highly saline Great Salt Lake as a result of rising lake elevations from extended periods of high precipitation (Kadlec

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

GREAT SALT LAKE and Smith 1989). Unmanaged wetlands are therefore highly variable with respect to the amount, distribution, quality, and availability of resources to waterfowl. Thus, understanding of their availability for planning purposes is limited. Recent research has attempted to quantify waterfowl food abundance in both managed and unmanaged wetland habitats in the GSL (Johnson 2007). This work focused on wetland habitats characterized as submerged aquatic bed dominated by sago pondweed and wigeon grass. This habitat type (SAV) is a management priority on publicly and privately managed impoundments to provide food resources for waterfowl. However, significant amounts of shallower wetland habitats containing seasonal emergent macrophytes such as alkali bulrush, Baltic rush, Olney three-square, and salt grass are also available in unmanaged regions and some managed impoundments. TRUEMET was used to assess the current ability of managed habitats to meet energetic demands of waterfowl at given population objective levels.

Model Inputs Time Periods Being Modeled The non-breeding portion of the annual cycle of waterfowl was divided into 3 time periods including fall migration, winter, and spring migration. The fall time period in the GSL is defined as early August 1–November 30, winter as December 1–February 14, and spring as February 15– April 30. Fall migration was divided into 8 time periods; 1) Aug1–14, 2) Aug15–31, 3) Sep 1–14, 4) Sep 15–30, 5) Oct 1–14, 6) Oct 15–31, 7) Nov 1–14, 8) Nov 15–30. The fall time period represents the time period between late summer and average freezing/icing conditions in the GSL marshes when waterfowl abundance is highest. Winter was divided into 5 time periods; 1) Dec 1–14, 2) Dec 15–31, 3) Jan 1–14, 4) Jan14–31, 5) Feb 1–14. Winter represents the time period of lowest ambient temperature in the GSL system, low availability of wetland habitat due to freezing conditions in freshwater wetlands and consequently lowest waterfowl abundance. Spring migration was divided into five time periods; 1) Feb 15–28, 2) Mar 1–14, 3) Mar 15–31, 4) Apr 1–14, 5) Apr 15–30. The spring time period represents the period of increasing temperatures, icefree conditions, and increases in both wetland biological activity and waterfowl abundance. Population Objectives by Time Periods The capacity of wetland habitats to meet energetic needs of waterfowl in the GSL was modeled on a bi-weekly basis from August to April 31 (Table 13). A description of how these population objectives were established can be found in the Biological Planning Section.

4.31

Table 13 B i-weekly waterfowl population abundance objectives at the Great Salt Lake, Utah during the non-breeding season by dominant foraging guild. TIME INTERVAL

DABBLING DUCKS

DIVING DUCKS

SWANS & GEESE

TOTAL

Aug. 1-14

422,820

4,290

19,140

446,250

Aug. 15-31

1,560,380

21,290

23,310

1,604,980

Sep. 1-14

2,759,060

32,890

24,120

2,816,080

Sep. 15-30

2,076,260

74,410

14,440

2,165,100

Oct. 1-14

1,399,380

133,920

7,090

1,540,390

Oct. 15-31

1,396,110

181,050

10,440

1,587,600

Nov. 1-14

2,176,060

173,070

33,530

2,382,660

Nov. 15-30

1,405,700

234,540

56,370

1,696,620

Dec. 1-14

264,790

47,740

37,410

349,940

Dec. 15-31

182,060

43,840

10,150

236,050

Jan. 1-14

111,550

52,150

14,510

178,220

Jan. 14-31

96,560

48,470

6,300

151,330

Feb. 1-14

174,460

38,490

24,710

237,670

Feb. 15-28

392,990

57,420

35,820

486,230

Mar. 1-14

714,510

150,240

72,310

937,070

Mar. 15-31

860,940

184,140

90,950

1,136,020

Apr. 1-14

630,300

191,240

44,020

865,560

Apr. 15-30

363,130

171,690

4,830

539,650

Daily Energy Requirements The daily energy needs of waterfowl guilds were estimated during migration and winter by calculating a weighted body mass for each two-week time period to account for changes in species composition within foraging guilds. Species composition was determined from existing survey data in the GSL system (refer to Population Objectives in the Biological Planning Section). The average body mass of adult males and females was obtained for all species from Bellrose (1980) and a balanced sex ratio was assumed for each species. Body mass was assumed constant across time for all species. Habitat Availability and Biomass and Nutritional Quality of Foods Several wetland habitat types are available to waterfowl within the GSL system and can be categorized broadly as seasonal or permanent wetlands. Habitat characterizations and acreage estimates for privately and publicly managed impoundments were determined by available NWI data and interpretations of recent aerial photography (Ducks Unlimited unpublished data). Recent wetland

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

GREAT SALT LAKE and vegetation mapping efforts conducted by Ducks Unlimited was used to identify and estimate the extent of primary foraging habitats for waterfowl in the GSL system. This mapping effort provided more detailed assessments of potential waterfowl foraging habitat than available from NWI because it relied on direct interpretation of vegetative associations. We categorized wetlands into three habitat classes: 1) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), 2) seasonal emergent wetlands, and 3) other wetlands. SAV wetlands were defined as areas of open water with <15% emergent vegetative cover and containing submerged macrophytes such as pondweeds and widgeon grass. The seasonal emergent wetland category included areas with either 1) >50% alkali bulrush as the dominant plant form, 2) wet meadows (>25% sedges and grasses), 3) playa/mudflats with >25% vegetative cover in salt grass, Salicornia, and/or alkali bulrush, and 4) other seasonal wetlands with emergent vegetation not dominated by invasive plants (i.e., phragmites, saltcedar) or permanent wetland plant associations (i.e., cattail, hardstem bulrush). The Other Wetlands category included 1) areas dominated by invasive plants, 2) permanent and semi-permanent wetlands with >75% vegetation cover in the form of cattails or bulrush, 3) playa/mudflat areas with no vegetation, or 3) riverine habitats. We assumed 75% of vegetated playa habitat was suitable as foraging habitat for modeling purposes due to interspersion of non-vegetated areas within this habitat type. We estimated a total of 95,660 acres of seasonal emergent and 54,150 acres of SAV foraging habitat (Table 14). SAV and seasonal emergent habitats were used to evaluate energetic carrying capacity of primary foraging habitats within the GSL system. SAV habitats are a primary management focus on public and privately managed wetlands and seasonal emergent habitats such as alkali bulrush habitats also receive considerable management attention in the GSL (Kadlec and Smith 1989). Consistent with the IWJVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fall planning models for SONEC, permanent wetland areas dominated by robust emergent vegetation (i.e., cattail, hardstem bulrush) was not evaluated because their dense growth and vegetative structure generally make food resources unavailable to waterfowl. Estimates of SAV biomass were obtained from Johnson (2007) to calculate values of food density for waterfowl. Biomass estimates for seasonal emergent wetlands were obtained from habitat sampling efforts outside of GSL at other Great Basin wetland complexes in the Lower Klamath Basin of Oregon and California (Dugger et al. 2007). Plant communities were generally similar between GSL and those reported by Dugger et al. (2007). TME values from published sources were used to estimate food energy density (Petrie et al. 1998, Checkett et al. 2002, Kaminski et al. 2003, Nolet 4.32

et al. 2006, and Dugger et al. 2007). Biomass estimates of waterfowl food types were assigned to corresponding habitat acres for TRUEMET analyses. Table 14 E stimated acres of managed and unmanaged wetland habitat types in the Great Salt Lake planning area used to evaluate carrying capacity for non-breeding waterfowl. WETLAND HABITAT MANAGEMENT

SEASONAL SUBMERGED EMERGENT AQUATIC

OTHER

TOTAL

Managed

62,550

42,210

55,140

159,900

Unmanaged

33,110

11,940

308,860

353,900

Total

95,660

54,150

364,000

513,800

TRUEMET was used to model three scenarios in the GSL system which included combinations of managed and unmanaged habitats. First, waterfowl were allowed to forage in both managed and unmanaged habitats to evaluate the ability of potential resources in the GSL to meet energy demands of waterfowl. Second, waterfowl foraging was restricted to managed habitats only to evaluate the potential of managed habitats to meet population demands. Third, the ability of managed plus unmanaged habitats (total) to meet population demands were evaluated relative to recent hydrologic trends in the GSL system. Fall Migration Information from the published literature and expert opinion within the GSL system was used to assign percentages of which habitats and food types each guild likely uses to satisfy their daily energy demands during fall migration. For dabbling ducks, Cinnamon Teal, Green-winged Teal, Mallard, and Northern Pintail are assumed to meet all of their energy demand by foraging on seed resources. These seed resources are comprised of seeds obtained from SAV (e.g., sago pondweed seeds) and seasonal emergent habitats. A minimum foraging threshold of 30 lbs./acre was applied to seed resources (Naylor 2002). Prior to November 1, Gadwall and American Wigeon are assumed to meet all of their energy demands by foraging on leafy vegetation but after November 1, when leafy vegetation has senesced, they are assumed to meet all of their energy demands by foraging on seed resources. For diving ducks, all species are assumed to meet 25% of their food energy needs from leafy plant material, and 75% from tubers prior to November 1. After November 1, diving ducks are assumed to meet 100% of their energy demands from tubers. Prior to November 1, geese are assumed to meet 50% of their energy needs from

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

GREAT SALT LAKE leafy vegetation and 50% from tubers, but after November 1 they meet all of their energy demands by foraging on tubers. Prior to November 1, swans are assumed to meet 10% of their needs from leafy vegetation and 90% from tubers, but after November 1, they meet all of their energy demands by foraging on tubers. A minimum foraging threshold of 50 lbs./acre was applied to sago tubers. Winter Waterfowl populations decline to their lowest levels during the winter time period at the GSL (Aldrich and Paul 2002, Fig. 14). Freshwater wetlands typically become frozen by mid-December and experience periods of thawing and freezing through winter depending on environmental and climatic conditions (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Thus, available food resources during winter are less predictable and most waterfowl emigrate from the GSL. However, several species including Northern Shoveler, Green-winged Teal, and Common Goldeneye may remain through the winter and forage on hypersaline invertebrates to meet part of their energy demands (Aldrich and Paul 2002, Vest and Conover 2011). These three species alone comprise 43% of the total winter population use-days. The GSL annually produces an immense biomass of brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana), brine shrimp cysts, and brine fly (Ephydridae spp.) larvae which these waterfowl species forage on (Vest and Conover 2011). Recent research by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Utah State University suggest that food resources on hypersaline wetlands are not likely to be limiting for these wintering waterfowl (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources unpublished data). Consequently, the energetic demands of waterfowl were not modeled during the winter time period relative to hypersaline resources. However, refined estimates of hypersaline invertebrate densities and their availability to waterfowl will prove useful for future conservation planning and management of GSL resources (Vest and Conover 2011). Although the availability of wetland resources is highly unpredictable during winter the same foraging assumptions described for fall migration were retained assuming if food resources were available wintering waterfowl would use them.

Model Results The capacity of SAV and seasonal emergent wetland habitats to meet the food energy needs of non-breeding waterfowl was evaluated on managed and unmanaged wetland complexes adjacent to the eastern side of the GSL (Fig. 26). It is estimated there are 54,150 acres of SAV and 95,660 acres of seasonal emergent habitat in the planning area (Table 14). It is estimated there are an additional 364,000 acres of other wetland types in the planning area which includes open water portions of Farmington and Ogden Bays associated with GSL. These other wetland habitats were not included in bioenergetic assessments. Below, model results are summarized with respect to foraging guilds and management types. SAV Guild: Managed and Unmanaged Habitats Energetic calculations identify 44,700 acres of SAV habitat are required in the GSL system to meet the needs of diving ducks, swans, and geese during the non-breeding period. These SAV habitats appear able to meet waterfowl energy demands in the GSL system based on food density, habitat availability, and foraging assumptions used in developing the carrying capacity model (Fig. 28). Model results suggest a surplus of food energy in potential SAV habitats, particularly during fall migration with most of the energy supply provided from managed habitats. The lack of strong difference between managed only and managed plus unmanaged scenarios resulted from relatively low acre estimate and lower tuber biomass for unmanaged SAV habitats (Johnson 2007). Diving ducks, geese, and swans would be unable to meet their energy demands on unmanaged SAV habitats alone.

Spring Migration The same foraging assumptions assumed during fall migration were applied during spring migration and therefore did not alter foraging assumptions for this time period. It was assumed no overwinter decomposition of food items occurred given the cold climatic (â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1Â°C average) conditions and therefore food resources carried through fall and winter into spring.

4.33

Figure 28 Waterfowl population energy demand (black line) vs. habitat energy supplies in managed only (red dashed line) and in managed + unmanaged (red solid line) submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitats at the Great Salt Lake.

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

GREAT SALT LAKE Although these evaluations suggest sufficient SAV habitats exist, these analyses only reflect the potential of SAV habitats to meet waterfowl energy needs. SAV habitat estimates used here likely overestimate the amount of available acres. High evapotranspiration rates experienced at GSL (and throughout the Great Basin) result in rapidly declining water depths in impounded wetlands and can leave significant portions of these impoundments dry during the summer growing period unless adequate water supplies are provided. For example, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge has only received 15% of its water delivery allocation between July and September over the last decade. Refuge managers plan that up to 75% of wetland units will dry because of reduced summer river flows and available water (Downard 2010). The refuge prioritizes which impoundments will receive the restricted water flows in order to achieve management objectives. However, in order to maintain adequate water flowing to priority impoundments requires a tradeoff of allowing other impoundments to dry out during this period. Reduced water flows also impacts the ability of the refuge and other management areas to provide water to important unmanaged SAV areas such as Willard Spur which lies south of the refuge boundary. Water availability in the GSL system is driven primarily by regional climatic conditions and diversions for agriculture and municipal uses. Water availability is therefore highly variable. Water inflows to the GSL system (including Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge) were, on average, 50% lower over the previous decade (2000–2010) compared to the long term average (1950–2010; Fig. 29). Consequently, SAV production has undoubtedly been reduced in this system over the past decade. Therefore, we also evaluated energetic carrying capacity of SAV habitats within the context of recent (i.e., 2000–2010) hydrologic trends (Fig. 29). Approximately 78% of SAV habitat occurs in the lower Bear River hydrologic component of the GSL system. We assumed that a 50% reduction in hydrologic inflows over the past decade (Fig. 29) resulted in a proportional reduction in available SAV habitats in the Bear River hydrologic portion of GSL. Consequently, we reduced the number of available SAV acres by these proportions to further evaluate energetic carrying capacity (i.e., 0.78 x 0.50 = 39% reduction in available SAV acres). This model identified a deficit in food energy just prior to peak population demand during spring migration (i.e., mid-March; Fig. 30). Given our assumptions of average SAV food energy density, an additional 9,300 acres of SAV habitat would be required to counter this energetic deficit. Given SAV habitat availability estimates may be biased high and the potentially lower surplus of SAV food energy 4.34

during spring (Fig. 30) it is plausible waterfowl relying on SAV habitats in the GSL system could experience a food energy deficit during the spring migration period.

Figure 29 Average water flows (cubic feet per second-CFS) measured at USGS gauging stations on the Bear, Ogden, and Jordan Rivers during three time periods: 1) 1950–2010 (long-term average), 2) 1980–1990 (corresponds to GSL flooding event), and 3) 2000–2010 (recent drought period).

Figure 30 Waterfowl population energy demand (black line) vs. habitat energy supplies in managed + unmanaged submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitats (blue line) at the Great Salt Lake based on a 39% reduction in available acres from observed hydrologic declines over the past decade.

Dabbling Ducks: Managed and Unmanaged Habitats Energetic calculations identified 106,400 acres of seed producing habitat, primarily seasonal emergent habitats, are needed to meet the energy demands of dabbling ducks during the non-breeding period. Energetic assessments identified insufficient seed resources for dabbling ducks on managed habitats with energy deficits occurring by

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

GREAT SALT LAKE the end of October within the fall migration period (Fig. 31). The addition of seed resources from unmanaged areas resulted in generally adequate food energy resources through fall migration and energy supply reached equilibrium with population demand by late November (Fig. 31). However, both managed only and managed plus unmanaged habitat scenarios suggest inadequate seed resources are available for spring migrating dabbling ducks. Overall, this assessment identified an additional 25,400 acres of seasonal emergent wetland habitat are needed to overcome energetic shortfalls in seed resources during the non-breeding period.

average seed energy density, an additional 52,600 acres of seed producing habitat (primarily seasonal emergent) would be required to counter this energetic deficit.

Figure 32 D abbling duck population energy demand (black line) vs. habitat energy supplies from seed resources in managed + unmanaged seasonal emergent habitats (blue line) at the Great Salt Lake based on a 34% reduction in available acres from observed hydrologic declines over the past decade.

Figure 31 P opulation energy demand (black line) vs. habitat energy supplies for dabbling ducks relying on seed resources in managed only (red dashed line) and managed + unmanaged (red solid line) seasonal emergent habitats at the Great Salt Lake.

Similar to SAV habitat assessments, seed resource assessments also assumed that all seasonal emergent habitat acres are available and suitable for foraging. In an attempt to more accurately reflect availability due to environmental conditions we applied a reduced habitat scenario similar to that conducted for SAV habitats. Approximately 67% of inventoried seasonal emergent habitat on the eastern portion of GSL (Ducks Unlimited, unpublished data) occurs in the lower Bear River component. We assumed that a 50% reduction in hydrologic inflows over the past decade (Fig. 29) resulted in a proportional reduction in available seasonal emergent habitats in the Bear River hydrologic portion of GSL. Therefor, we reduced the number of available acres by these proportions to further evaluate energetic carrying capacity (i.e., 0.67 x 0.50 = 34% reduction in available seasonal emergent acres). This model identified a deficit in food energy occurring in late October prior to peak energy demand (Fig. 32). Given our assumptions of 4.35

Model Interpretations Waterfowl remain abundant in the GSL system through fall with estimates of dabbling ducks alone exceeding 1 million in October and November. Clearly, dabbling ducks in the GSL system must be able to obtain food resources exceeding the estimates used for seed resources in these models. The disparity between seed energy supply versus dabbling duck population demands requires exploration of mechanisms that may influence this disparity. First, the foraging assumptions may require refinement. If either SAV vegetation or tubers are an important component of dabbling duck diets (save for Gadwall and American Wigeon), these models will require appropriate adjustments. Similarly, if aquatic invertebrates are important food resources for waterfowl then it will be necessary to re-parameterize these models. Kadlec and Smith (1989) identified the need for better information relating waterfowl food resources to waterfowl physiological requirements in Great Basin marshes, including GSL. Unfortunately, little progress has been made during this time and reliable estimates of waterfowl resource selection at the GSL is currently lacking. Secondly, estimates of seed biomass obtained from other Great Basin marshes may not be an adequate proxy for seed biomass in the GSL system. However, seed biomass estimates from emergent marsh habitats in the GSL are currently unavailable and plant communities

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

GREAT SALT LAKE in habitats dominated by alkali bulrush were generally similar between locations. Thirdly, many bioenergetics analyses have ignored, as here, the potential value of other wetland habitats to provide food resources to waterfowl. Waterfowl managers have been reasonably successful in reliably estimating waterfowl food resources in agriculture (e.g., Stafford et al. 2006) or intensively managed moistsoil habitats (e.g., Naylor et al. 2005, Kross et al. 2008). However, waterfowl managers have been less successful at deriving reliable estimates from other wetland habitats including unmanaged areas. In summary, investments to improve understanding of wetland productivity and waterfowl resource selection at the GSL will greatly improve wetland management strategies there. Conservation Needs These analyses highlight several key information needs in the GSL that are required to fully inform whether current wetland resources are able to meet the physiological requirements of non-breeding waterfowl. Primarily, reliable biomass estimates of potential waterfowl foods are needed in managed and unmanaged emergent wetland habitat. Improved understanding and estimation of the spatiotemporal variability of wetland resources are needed to better inform conservation targets. Additionally, improved understanding of waterfowl resource selection in the GSL system is needed to refine foraging guild assumptions. Although uncertainty exists in these energetic carrying capacity assessments, these models generally suggest that waterfowl relying on SAV vegetation and tubers likely have sufficient resources during fall migration. However, this relationship is more tenuous during spring migration. Consequently, maintaining existing management infrastructure and capabilities on privately and publicly managed SAV habitats in the GSL will be vital to ensuring waterfowl population demands are met. Perhaps the greatest conservation challenge for meeting waterfowl, and other wildlife, population demands in the GSL system will be the access to sufficient water supplies. Water is needed not only to meet the needs of managed marshes but also to supply the expanse of unmanaged wetlands that exist below dikes (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Water needs have long been recognized, but assessments of wetland water requirements have not been comprehensively assessed in the GSL system since Jensen (1974) estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of water is required annually to sustain GSL marshes. This represents approximately 80% of the 1.9 million acre-feet of surface inflow reaching the main body of the GSL itself. The IWJV is unaware of any comprehensive assessment of

4.36

water held by state, federal, and private interests for wetland management in the entire GSL system. Intense demands to transfer â&#x20AC;&#x153;surplusâ&#x20AC;? water to municipal use may ultimately limit water delivery capacity (Aldrich and Paul 2002, Bedford and Douglas 2008, Downard 2010). For example, the Utah Division of Water Resources has been directed to develop an additional 275,000 acre feet of Bear River water to support the rapid population growth in the Wasatch Front although many Bear River water users believe the system is already fully allocated (Downard 2010). Thus, identifying and quantifying water needed to meet waterfowl objectives will be a critical step for wetland conservation. Providing reliable water delivery for wetland systems will require innovative and collaborative approaches with a diverse group of stakeholders. Water quality issues in the GSL system are also of significant concern to wetland and wildlife managers. Elevated concentrations of some environmental contaminants (e.g., mercury, and selenium) have been detected in the GSL system including waterfowl and other wetland dependent birds (Naftz et al. 2008; Vest et al. 2009; Conover and Vest 2009a,b). High nutrient loading into GSL wetlands, especially in Farmington Bay wetlands, has caused extensive algal blooms and mats to limit the productivity of SAV beds and alter invertebrate community dynamics. Consequently, foraging resources for waterfowl have been reduced. Another primary stressor to the availability of waterfowl foraging habitats is the persistence of exotic plants in the GSL, primarily Phragmites (common reed) and tamarisk (salt cedar). Invasion and spread of phragmites throughout the GSL system has significantly diminished the quality of both managed and unmanaged wetland habitats. Dense, monotypic stands of phragmites have replaced native vegetation such as alkali bulrush and other seedproducing wetland plants. Recent mapping efforts suggest over 23,000 acres of phragmites occur in the GSL system (Lexine Long, Utah State University, unpublished data). Treatment of these exotic plants and restoration back to native plant communities that provide food resources for waterfowl could meet up to 90% of the seed energy deficit identified in carrying capacity evaluations. Control of exotic and undesirable plant communities at GSL will be a continual challenge for wetland habitat managers and conservation partners. Consequently, wetland restoration and enhancement activities that addresses exotic plant stressors will play a prominent role in meeting waterfowl objectives in the GSL landscape.

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Biological Planning Spatial Planning Unit The Columbia Basin (CB) planning unit encompasses most of eastern Washington and the northern portion of Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon (Fig. 31). Elevations range from 160 feet above sea level along parts of the Columbia River to nearly 4,000 feet on isolated hills. Precipitation increases from west to east, with most of the region receiving between 8 and 14 inches annually. With its low elevations and moderating maritime effect annual temperatures average between 40 °F and 57 °F, though temperatures can range from sub-zero to over 100 °F.

Figure 33 T he Columbia Basin Spatial Planning Unit of eastern Washington.

Prior to the initiation of the Yakima and Columbia Basin Irrigation Projects the CB consisted mostly of arid shrub-steppe lands and provided relatively little waterfowl habitat. Delivery of irrigation water from the Yakima began in 1910 while the Photo by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Columbia Basin projects began in 1950 respectively. The Yakima Irrigation Project was initiated in the early 1900’s and largely completed by the 1930’s while the Columbia Basin Project was largely constructing during the 1950’s and 1960’s, with lesser acreage added sporadically through the 1980’s.

4.37

The Yakima and Columbia Basin projects brought water to the desert and fundamentally changed the landscape from desert to agriculture. Nearly 65,000 acres of corn was being grown annually in Photo by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. the Basin by 1960. Development of the irrigation projects not only provided field feeding opportunities for waterfowl, but also resulted in the impoundment and subsequent manipulation of water levels on the Snake and Columbia rivers (Ball et al. 1989). These impoundments provided roosting habitats that were adjacent to abundant food supplies, remained largely ice-free, and provided a refuge from hunting. In some impounded areas water depths were shallow enough to support submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and some river stretches like Wells Pool became known for their phenomenal SAV production. Ice age floods that originated from Glacial Lake Missoula had previously carved topographical depressions throughout the CB, and many of these filled with water as the Yakima and Photo by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Columbia Basin irrigation projects raised water tables in the region. The best known of these water bodies is the 27,000 acre Potholes Reservoir, which serves as a major storage facility for irrigation water. Irrigation runoff from farmlands is now channeled through other drainage ways such as the Winchester and Frenchman Wasteways and returned to the Potholes Reservoir for future use. The combination of topographical depressions and a rising water table resulted in thousands of acres of seep wetlands and lakes throughout the CB. Although most of the wetlands that resulted from the irrigation projects are largely “unmanaged”, they initially provided important waterfowl foods. However, food production in these wetlands is thought to have declined as a result of wetland succession, invasive plant species, and carp infestation. In fact, recent sampling of plant communities in them indicated little or no production of waterfowl foods. Today, most of the wetlands that provide abundant waterfowl food sources during fall and winter are likely confined to publicly managed habitats (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2007).

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Mallards quickly responded to the combination of irrigated agriculture and newly created roosting and wetland habitat. Mid-winter counts of Mallards in the CB remained fairly steady between 50,000 and 100,000 between 1943 and 1950, then increased steadily to a peak of over 1,000,000 birds in January 1964 (Fig. 32). Since then Mallard numbers have varied widely. Mid-winter counts declined from the late 1960’s through the 1970’s before rebounding somewhat in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. During the past decade Mallard numbers have been significantly lower compared to most of the previous forty years. Mallards remain by far the most abundant duck in the CB during fall migration and wintering periods, however, accounting for about 60 percent of all dabbling ducks present in October and 85–90 % of those present in November through February (Fig. 33). Scaup (lesser and greater spp. combined) account for 50–60% of wintering diving ducks (Fig. 34).

Figure 36 S pecies composition of diving duck populations surveyed in the Columbia Basin from October to February. Results based on average monthly counts from mid-1970’s – mid-2000’s.

Although it is widely accepted that Mallard numbers in the CB are higher than in the pre-irrigation era it seems likely that American Wigeon and some species of diving ducks like Scaup have increased as well. These species would have benefited from an increase in SAV along impounded areas of the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Not surprisingly, American Wigeon are the second most abundant dabbling duck in the Columbia Basin and their numbers are higher now than at any time since the 1970’s (Fig. 35). Scaup numbers in the CB are also highest now since surveys were begun in the 1970’s (Fig. 36).

Figure 34 M id-winter Mallard counts in the Columbia Basin from 1955-2010.

Figure 37 Average peak counts of American Wigeon in the Columbia Basin from the 1970’s–2000’s. Peak American Wigeon counts usually occurred during November.

Figure 35 S pecies composition of dabbling duck populations surveyed in the CB from October to February. Results based on average monthly counts from mid 1970’s – mid 2000’s.

4.38

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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Figure 38 Average peak counts of Lesser and Greater Scaup (combined) in the Columbia Basin from the 1970’s–2000’s. Peak Scaup counts usually occurred during November.

For species that are not strongly associated with agriculture or do not rely on SAV the benefits of irrigation are less clear, Northern Pintails and Green-winged Teal providing cases in point. Populations of both species in the CB appeared to have been highest in the 1970’s or 1980’s but declined thereafter (Fig. 37). Both species are known to rely heavily on wetland plants that produce abundant seeds, and the decline in wetland productivity throughout the CB may have made the region less attractive over the past 20 years. However, even peak counts of Northern Pintail and Green-winged Teal using the CB in the 1970’s and 1980’s were relatively small compared to those in most migration and wintering areas (e.g., Central Valley of California). Although a decrease in wetland productivity may have also contributed to the recent decline in Mallard numbers, Mallard diets in the CB even thirty years ago were almost exclusively corn (Rabenberg 1982).

Irrigation has undoubtedly increased the amount of wetland habitat available to fall migrating and wintering waterfowl in the CB. However, both the Yakima and Columbia Basin irrigation projects also resulted in the large-scale loss of floodplain wetlands (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2007). Most floodplain wetlands in the CB were likely seasonal in nature and may have received most of their water in spring when river and creek flows were highest. This would have made them especially important to spring-migrating waterfowl. Floodplain habitat has also been lost outside of the irrigation project areas. Levees, overflow drainage canals, and large diversion structures have been constructed to regulate creek flows and protect floodplain farm fields from unwanted flooding. These alterations have completely changed the hydrology of many primary and secondary streams and their associated wetlands throughout the CB. Many of these streams are largely disconnected from their floodplain which has undoubtedly resulted in the loss of spring migration habitat.

Summary Points 1. Irrigation projects in the CB have greatly increased the region’s attractiveness to waterfowl compared to historic times. Irrigation has produced abundant field feeding opportunities and large amounts of roosting habitat by creating new wetlands and river impoundments. 2. Although Mallard numbers in the CB have varied widely over the past fifty years, they continue to dominate the region’s overall duck population. Populations of other dabbling and diving duck species are low compared to other major wintering areas, though some species such as American Wigeon and Scaup likely exceed historic levels because of increases in SAV. 3. Many of the wetlands that resulted from the irrigation projects have declined in terms of waterfowl food production. Although species such as Northern Pintail and Green-winged Teal may have been negatively affected by this decline in productivity, these species were never abundant even when their populations peaked in the CB during the 1980’s.

Figure 39 Average peak counts of pintail (black) and greenwinged teal (gray) in the Columbia Basin from the 1970’s–2000’s.

4.39

4. Although irrigation has undoubtedly increased the overall amount of wetland habitat in the CB, net losses have likely occurred in floodplain wetlands historically important to spring migrating waterfowl.

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Population Objectives and Priority Species Joint Ventures have been encouraged to identify priority waterfowl species and to develop explicit population objectives for these species. The JV recognizes three waterfowl groups based on habitat use and foraging ecology -- dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese and swans. Where possible, population objectives were established for all species in a waterfowl group. Priority species were then identified based on the designation as USFWS bird of management concern, and the relative abundance of a species in its waterfowl group. Biological requirements of these priority species are discussed below.

Columbia Basin Ducks In 1986 the NAWMP developed continental population objectives for North American duck species based on environmental conditions and breeding waterfowl numbers from 1970–1979. Waterfowl populations in the 1970’s met the demands of both consumptive and non-consumptive users and provided a basis for future conservation efforts. Population objectives from the NAWMP have been “stepped down” to Joint Ventures that support migrating and wintering waterfowl. By combining information from the mid-winter waterfowl survey with estimates of waterfowl harvest and mortality, population objectives for the mid-winter period (early January) were established for all counties in the U.S. Counties were then combined to develop Joint Venture mid-winter population objectives (Koneff 2003). The NAWMP mid-winter objective for dabbling and diving ducks in the CB is presented in Table 15. Mallards account for 82% of the dabbling duck objective, American Wigeon 12%, Northern Pintail 3%; Green-winged Teal,

Northern Shoveler, and Gadwall account for the remaining 3%. Scaup account for nearly 80% of the diving duck mid-winter objective, while Canvasback, Ruddy Duck, Redhead, and Ring-necked Duck make up the rest. Population objectives stepped down from the NAWMP only apply to the mid-winter period, but, migrating and wintering waterfowl are present in the CB for several months and population objectives must be established for this entire time period as well. Other Joint Ventures that support large numbers of migrating and wintering waterfowl typically establish population objectives on a bi-weekly or monthly basis (e.g., Central Valley Joint Venture 2006). In some cases these bi-weekly or monthly population objectives are developed by combining the Joint Venture’s mid-winter NAWMP objective with data on waterfowl migration chronology (Petrie et al. 2011). For example, assume that a Joint Venture has a mid-winter (January) NAWMP objective of 100,000 dabbling ducks. Monthly surveys indicate that dabbling duck numbers in November average 80% of January numbers. Thus, the population objective for November is 80,000 birds (0.8 * 100,000). The advantage here is that the November objective is tied to the NAWMP by “fitting” migration data to the NAWMP mid-winter objective. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has conducted monthly surveys of waterfowl in the CB since 1975 using fixed-wing aircraft. These surveys include all months from October through February, though February surveys were discontinued after 1984. The JV fitted this migration data to NAWMP mid-winter objectives for all dabbling and diving duck species in the CB to generate monthly population objectives between October and February (Table 16).

Table 15 C olumbia Basin mid-winter duck population objectives. Mid-winter population objectives do not necessarily correspond to peak population objectives. BIRD GROUP/ PRIORITY SPECIES

MID-WINTER POPULATION OBJECTIVEB

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE STATUS

CONTINENTAL POPULATION STATUS C

Dabbling Ducks

686,494

Mallard

561,747

GBBDC

No trend

American Wigeon a

83,272

GBBDC

Decreasing

Northern Pintail a

22,399

GBBDC

Decreasing

GBBDC

Decreasing

Diving Ducks Scaup a

101,011 80,225

Priority species Mid-winter population objective derived from the North American Wildlife Management Plan c Population trend 1970-2006 GBBDC – Game Birds Below Desired Conditions a

4.40

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Table 16 M onthly population objectives for dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese in the Columbia Basin.

SPECIES Mallard

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

147,335

555,243

642,369

561,747

328,755

American Wigeon

99,345

114,915

111,584

83,272

51,629

Northern Pintail

20,608

31,359

28,223

22,399

17,247

Green-Winged Teal

24,815

32,590

20,513

16,543

8768

Gadwall

1,835

1,850

1,195

7,71

995

Northern Shoveler

3,084

3,947

3,207

1,762

1,057

297,022

739,904

807,091

686,494

408,451

73,005

110,711

111,513

80,225

100281

Canvasback

6,137

8,486

9,471

7,577

7,425

Redheads

6,158

4,495

3,325

3,079

2,340

Ring-necked Duck

2,540

3,852

3,879

2,791

3,489

Ruddy Duck

6,678

10,128

10,201

7,339

9,173

94,518

137,672

138,389

101,011

122,708

391,540

877,576

945,480

787,505

531,159

43,313

60,865

39,979

25,860

Dabbling Ducks Scaup

Diving Ducks Total Ducks Canada Geese ND â&#x20AC;&#x201C; No t D e t e r mi n e d

Aerial surveys of waterfowl in the CB are not available for March and April so establishing population objectives using the method above is not possible for these months. However, during winter 2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2003 one hundred and forty female Northern Pintails were captured in the Central Valley of California and fitted with back-mounted satellite transmitters (Miller et al. 2005). One objective of this study was to identify spring migration routes and staging areas used by Northern Pintails prior to arrival on the breeding grounds. Most Northern Pintails that use the CB in spring probably originate from wintering populations in California and southern Oregon. If Northern Pintails marked with satellite transmitters in the Central Valley are representative of these wintering populations and the size of these populations is known, then the fraction of marked birds located in the CB may be used to establish a spring pintail population objective. Mid-winter population objectives for pintails have been stepped down from the NAWMP to all California and southern Oregon counties. Collectively these midwinter objectives total 3,004,000 birds. A more complete description of how these mid-winter objectives were established can be found below in the SONEC section of this plan. Five percent of all birds marked in the Central Valley were located in the CB during April (Miller et al. 2005). Assuming that 5% of all pintails wintering in 4.41

California and southern Oregon migrate through the CB in April, then up to 150,000 pintails may rely on the CB in spring (Fig. 38). Unfortunately, it is not possible to estimate the number of other waterfowl that might use the CB during spring migration. However, mid-winter population objectives for all dabbling ducks in California and southern Oregon total 6,085,000 birds. If five percent of these birds also use the CB in spring this would equal roughly 300,000 ducks.

Figure 40 M onthly population objectives for Northern Pintails in the Columbia Basin

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Mallards, Northern Pintail, and American Wigeon have all been designated as birds of Birds of Management Concern by the USFWS and are further classified as Game Birds Below Desired Condition. The IWJV recognizes Mallards and American Wigeon as priority dabbling duck species based on their USFWS status and their contribution to the dabbling duck mid–winter objective (Table 15). Although selecting priority species based on mid-winter abundance can overlook dabbling ducks that reach peak numbers during fall or spring, Mallards and American Wigeon remain the most numerous dabbling duck species in the CB from October through February (Fig. 33). Although Northern Pintail numbers in the CB are relatively low during these months, they are also considered a priority species. This designation was due to the likelihood that significant numbers of Northern Pintail use the CB during spring (Fig. 38). Between 1970 and 2006 continental Mallard populations showed no significant trend while populations of American Wigeon and Northern Pintail declined (Table 15). Continental populations of nonpriority species including Green-winged Teal, Gadwall, and Northern Shovelers all increased during this period (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Continental Progress Assessment 2007). Both Greater and Lesser Scaup have been designated as Birds of Management Concern by the FWS and are further classified as a Game Bird Below Desired Condition. The JV recognizes scaup as priority species based on their FWS status and their contribution to the diving duck goal (Table 15). While other diving ducks have been given similar FWS status they are not considered priority species due to their low numbers in the CB. Moreover, continental populations of non-priority diving duck species in CB increased or were stable between 1970 and 2006 (Progress Assessment of the North American Wildlife Management Plan 2007). Geese Many North American goose and swan populations have significantly increased from the 1970’s or have undergone major changes in wintering distribution. As a result, Joint Ventures are advised to use more recent information when establishing population objectives for geese and swans (M. Koneff pers. comm.). Nearly all geese that occur in the CB during the non-breeding period belong to the Pacific population of western Canada geese (Branta canadensis moffitti). To establish monthly population objectives counts of Canada geese were averaged from 2001 to 2005 (Table 16).

4.42

Fitting migration data to a NAWMP mid-winter objective is recommended for areas like the CB that experience peak bird abundance at or near the mid-winter period (Petrie et al. 2011). However, this approach does not work well for planning units that largely serve as migration habitat. In these areas peak bird abundance usually occurs in spring or fall, and mid-winter populations are often small. NAWMP mid-winter objectives for these areas are correspondingly small and are likely associated with a high degree of sampling error. As a result, fitting migration data to these NAWMP objectives to generate monthly or bi-weekly population objectives is not recommended (Petrie et al. 2011).

Conservation Design Landscape Characterization and Assessment: Columbia Basin Factors Influencing Mallard Numbers in the CB: A Review of Earlier Work Prior to conducting an analysis of carrying capacity some of the factors thought to influence Mallard numbers in the CB were reviewed. Mallards make up 85–95% of all dabbling ducks in the CB and rely on corn for > 95% of their diet after mid-November (Fig. 33: Rabenberg 1982). Parallel changes in Mallard numbers and field corn acreage in the CB have attracted the interest of waterfowl managers for over 50 years (Lauckhart 1961, Galbreath 1962). In the 1940’s and early 1950’s midwinter Mallard numbers in the CB remained relatively constant between 50,000 and 100,000 birds during a time when less than 10,000 acres of corn was planted annually in the CB (Rabenberg 1982). Between 1952 and 1959 corn production in the CB increased from 7,500 acres to nearly 65,000 acres (United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service [USDA-NASS] 2005). In 1955 the USFWS began standardized mid-winter waterfowl surveys. From 1955 to 1959 mid-winter counts of Mallards in the CB increased from 280,000 to 840,000 birds (Fig. 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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Figure 42 P eriods of increase and decline in Columbia Basin mid-winter Mallard counts from 1955–2006. Orange line identifies period trends.

Figure 41 M id-winter Mallard counts and acres of planted corn in the Columbia Basin from 1955–1980.

The initial increase in CB Mallard populations was influenced by increases in corn acreage. However, beginning in the early 1960’s the relationship between corn production and Mallard numbers became less clear and not necessarily one of cause and effect (Ball et al. 1989). From 1960 to 1980 there was no correlation between mid-winter Mallard counts and the amount of corn planted in the Columbia Basin; when Mallard numbers peaked in 1964 corn acreage had declined 50% since 1960 (Fig. 39; Ball et al. 1989). Mid-winter counts of Mallards in the CB significantly declined from the mid 1960’s through the late 1970’s (Fig. 39). The decline prompted further research into factors influencing CB Mallard numbers. Buller (1975) first suggested that Mallard numbers in the CB may be partially dependent on breeding distribution the previous breeding season. Breeding Mallards displaced from the southern Alberta prairies during drought migrate into northern Alberta, Alaska, and the Northwest Territories (Hansen and McKnight 1964, Pospahala et al. 1974). This northwest “shift” of Mallards during drought periods aligns them geographically with the CB and may increase the probability that these birds migrate through the CB (Fig. 40). Banding data indicate that areas northwest of southern Alberta supply 50–60% of the Mallards harvested in Washington and Oregon and may provide an even greater percentage of the Mallards present in the CB during mid-winter (Munro and Kimball 1982). 4.43

Rabenberg (1982) examined the relationship between midwinter Mallard populations in the Columbia Basin and numerous variables. Ball et al. (1989) provide a summary of this work; “Estimated Mallard breeding populations in southwest Alberta were negatively correlated with those in Alaska and the Yukon. Wintering Mallard populations in the CB were negatively correlated with those the previous spring in southwest Alberta. In addition, midwinter Mallard numbers in the CB were positively associated with warmer temperatures in November and negatively associated with snow cover in January.” The IWJV concludes that, although corn is responsible for attracting large numbers of wintering Mallards to the CB and is necessary to sustain these populations, other factors are important also. The size of the Mallard population remaining in the CB during early January (the time of mid-winter surveys) seems to depend partly upon distribution of birds on breeding grounds the previous spring and partly upon the influences of early winter weather patterns on Mallard arrival dates, rates of southward migration, chronology of the corn harvest, and snow and ice cover. The conclusion of Rabenberg (1982) that mid-winter Mallard numbers in the CB were likely to be higher in drought years is particularly interesting. Mid-winter Mallard counts in the early 1960’s were among the highest ever recorded in the CB even though the Canadian Prairies were in a period of significant drought. Conversely, Mallard numbers in the CB during much of the 1970’s were half that of the early 1960’s despite breeding conditions in prairie Canada in the 1970’s being favorable (Fig. 39). Finally, the Rabenberg (1982) analysis of Mallard numbers in the CB relied on data from 1952 to 1980. Beginning in 1981 mid-winter counts of Mallard began to rise in the CB and stayed high throughout much of that decade (Fig. 32). High CB Mallard numbers in the 1980’s coincided with

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

COLUMBIA BASIN another drought on the Canadian prairies and seemed to support Rabenberg’s earlier conclusions.

Factors Influencing Mallard Numbers in the CB: An Updated Analysis Nearly thirty years have elapsed since Rabenberg’s analysis and the subject was revisited for this plan using data from 1955–2006. Rabenberg (1982) focused on the relationship between mid-winter Mallard numbers, weather, corn production, and the distribution of breeding Mallard populations the previous spring. The updated analysis excluded effects of winter weather and evaluated the relationship between mid-winter Mallard numbers, corn production, and breeding Mallard distribution. The overall conclusions of that analysis and a general discussion of this approach are found below. This analysis included all years between 1955 and 2006, and, mid-winter Mallard counts displayed little overall trend over that time period. However, two relatively distinct periods of mid-winter Mallard population increases and two periods of decline have occurred over the 50-year period. The first period of increase occurred between 1955 and 1964, and the first period of decline occurred between 1964 and 1979. These first two periods were adopted from Rabenberg (1982), though his data set actually spanned 1952–1980. The second period of increase occurred between 1979 and 1992. After 1992 mid-winter Mallard counts entered another period of decline (Fig. 40). For all years as well as for each of the four time periods mid-winter Mallard counts were modeled as a function of planted corn acres, the number of Mallards counted in southern Alberta (SAB) during breeding pair surveys, and the number of Mallards counted in northwest (NW) breeding pair strata. Mallard counts were also modeled as a function of these three variables for 1956–1979, which generally corresponds to the period of Rabenberg’s (1982) analysis. An information theoretic approach and Akaike’s information criteria (AIC) was used to select the ‘best” approximating model. SAB was defined as breeding pair strata 26–29, and strata 75. The NW breeding pair strata included strata 13–15, 17, and 76–77 of the annual North America Breeding Waterfowl Population and Habitat Survey. NW strata were assumed to cover areas in which drought displaced Mallards from SAB are likely to be observed during the breeding pair survey. Rabenberg (1982) had included Alaska as another area that might contain drought displaced birds but the state was not included here. Alaska has experienced significant increases in breeding Mallard numbers since the 1970’s and including it likely would have confounded some results. 4.44

For all years (1955–2006) the best approximating model for explaining mid-winter Mallard counts in the CB included SAB Mallards. No other explanatory variables (i.e., corn acres or NW strata) were retained in this best fit model. However, the relationship between CB Mallards and SAB Mallards was weak (Fig. 41). Moreover, Rabenberg (1982) found a negative or inverse relationship between CB Mallards and SAB Mallards while the current analysis suggested a slightly positive relationship. For the first period of increase (1956–1964) none of the three explanatory variables were retained and there was no best fit model. In other words, CB wintering Mallards showed no relationship of any kind to corn, or to breeding Mallard populations the previous year in either SAB or NW strata. For the first period of decline (1964–1979) the best approximating model included only corn. However, the relationship between CB Mallards and corn was negative, indicating that the relationship was spurious and had no biological basis (Fig. 42). For the second period of increase (1979–1992) the best model included only NW strata. However, the relationship between CB Mallards and NW strata was negative. Rabenberg (1982) suggested that a positive relationship between CB Mallards and the number of drought displaced Mallards might exist, though he also found no statistical evidence for this. For the second period of increase (1992–2006) the best model explaining CB Mallard counts included only SAB Mallards. However, the relationship was again positive, not negative as Rabenberg (1982) had found. For the period that corresponded to the Rabenberg (1982) analysis (1955–1979) none of the three explanatory variables were retained and there was no best fit model.

Figure 43 T he relationship between mid-winter counts of mallards in the Columbia Basin (CB) and the size of mallard breeding populations in southern Alberta (SAB) the previous spring.

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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Figure 44 R elationship between total corn acres and midwinter mallard counts in the Columbia Basin years 1964–1979.

This updated analysis supported the earlier conclusion by Rabenberg (1982) that corn acres were not responsible for fluctuations in Mallard numbers. Rabenberg (1982) also found some evidence that numbers in the CB were inversely related to breeding Mallard populations in southern Alberta. However, we found no indication that Mallard numbers in the CB were dependent on the distribution of breeding Mallards the previous spring, either through a positive relationship with NW strata or a negative relationship with SAB Mallards. It may be worth noting that the Rabenberg (1982) analysis included years prior to 1955 and that the statistical relationship between CB Mallards and Mallards in southern Alberta was not especially strong. Mid-winter Mallard counts in the Columbia Basin have been depressed for nearly 20 years relative to bird numbers in the early 1960’s, early 1980’s, and early 1990’s (Fig. 32). Most Mallards that winter in the CB originate from breeding populations in SAB or from areas that correspond to the NW strata (Rabenberg 1982). Regardless of how the distribution of breeding Mallards may influence CB Mallard numbers from year to year, SAB and the NW strata collectively represent critical “source areas” for CB birds. Unfortunately, breeding pair survey indicates that the total number of Mallards in SAB and the NW strata has significantly declined since the 1950’s (Fig. 43). Most of this decline has occurred since the mid-1970’s with declines in SAB Mallards accounting for the majority of loss. Regardless of the influence of Mallard breeding distributions there are fewer Mallards currently available to migrate into the CB compared to the past.

4.45

Figure 45 L ong-term changes in the number of breeding Mallards in Alberta.

The decline in SAB Mallards contrasts sharply with Mallard populations elsewhere. Breeding Mallard populations in the rest of the Canadian prairies as well as in the U.S. have shown little change over time or have actually increased (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Much of this decline can be attributed to the continuing loss of wetlands in SAB (Fig. 44). The effects of this habitat loss are obvious when local changes in the density of breeding Mallards in SAB are observed over time (Fig. 45). While annual changes in the distribution of breeding Mallards may influence Mallard numbers in the CB (as suggested by Rabenberg [1982]), the more recent decline in CB Mallards may ultimately be due to long-term declines in breeding populations especially those in SAB.

Figure 46 P ercent change predicted in duck productivity (1971–2001) as a result of wetland loss and upland habitat change.

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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Figure 47 Change through time in the distribution of indicated breeding pairs of mallards (per square mile) in the Canadian prairies.

Carrying Capacity: Re-examining the Relationship Between Corn and Mallards Both Rabenberg (1982) and the current analysis relied on a single mid-winter count to index the size of the CB Mallard population. Detecting a statistical relationship between Mallards and corn may be difficult where a single survey provides the only measure of bird use across the entire fall-winter period (neither analysis found such a relationship). As a result, the relationship between Mallards and corn was evaluated by estimating Mallard use of the CB from fall through winter, not just early January. TRUEMET was used to evaluate the relationship between Mallard population energy demand in fall and winter and the total food energy supplied by corn for years between 4.46

1976 and 2004 (hereafter referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x153;year-specific analysesâ&#x20AC;?). For each year-specific analysis monthly waterfowl surveys and annual estimates of corn production were used. TRUEMET was also used to determine if corn production is sufficient to support Mallard population objectives established for the CB (Table 16). Model inputs and results are discussed below.

Model Inputs Waterfowl managers have typically divided the CB into the North, South, and East Subregions (Fig. 31). However, over 95% of Mallards counted in the mid-winter survey are traditionally been found in the North and South subregions. As a result the East subregion was excluded when evaluating the relationship between Mallard use of the CB and corn production. Data on waterfowl numbers and corn production were combined for the North and South Subregions in all TRUEMET analyses.

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Time Periods Being Modeled Year-specific analyses of population energy demand vs. food energy supply were modeled on a monthly basis between 1976 and 2004. For 1976 to 1984 this included all months from October to February. After 1984 the model period was restricted to October–January because of data limitations. Population Objectives by Time Periods Monthly waterfowl surveys conducted by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife were relied on for all year-specific analysis. Mallard counts from these surveys were used as monthly population inputs in TRUEMET after being corrected for visibility bias (Pearse et al. 2008). Monthly Mallard counts were available October to February 1976–1984, and October to January 1985– 2004. To determine if enough corn is now grown to meet Mallard needs the actual Mallard monthly population objectives for the CB were used (Table 16). Daily Bird Energy Requirements To estimate the daily energy requirement of Mallards in the CB the average body mass of adult male and female Mallards was obtained from Bellrose (1980) and a balanced sex ratio was assumed for the population. This resulted in an energy requirement estimate of 340 kcal / day. Habitat Availability and Biomass and Nutritional Quality of Foods Estimates of corn production used in all year-specific analyses were obtained from the USDA-NASS (2005). Corn fields in the CB were recently sampled to determine how much waste corn remained post-harvest. Approximately 40% of all corn acres in the CB are disked shortly after harvest; undisked fields averaged 269 lbs / acre of waste corn, while disked fields averaged 62 lbs / acre (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2007). Based on a weighted average of disked and undisked fields, harvested corn fields provide an estimated 186 lbs / acre of waste grain biomass. A foraging threshold of 13 lbs / acre was subtracted (Baldassare and Bolen 1984) and an overall food density of 173 lbs / acre was used (. A TME value of 3.9 kcal / g was assumed for corn (Petrie et al. 1998).

since the 1970’s (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2007), changes in waste grain biomass may have occurred. The amount of waste corn per acre is a function of standing crop biomass and harvest efficiency. Corn yields in the CB have nearly doubled since the early 1970’s (USDA-NASS 2005). However, these larger yields may have been offset somewhat by increases in harvest efficiency. Over the past thirty years the tendency in the CB has been to harvest corn at higher moisture content, a practice producing less waste grain because kernels are less likely to shatter, or dislodge from the cob (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2007). Corn yields in the CB now average about 11,000 lbs/acre (USDA-NASS 2005). The current estimate 269 lbs/acre of waste grain suggests that harvest efficiency in the CB is about 98% and reflects the trend towards high moisture corn. During the mid-1970’s corn yields in the CB averaged about 5,600 lbs/acre (USDA-NASS 2005). If the amount of waste grain was similar to today’s estimate of 269 lbs / acre then harvest efficiency would have had to equal about 95% (.05 * 5600 = 280 lbs / acre). Harvest efficiency during the mid and late 1970’s was estimated at 94% (Rabenberg 1982). As a result, the recent 269 lbs / acre waste grain estimate was used in all year-specific analyses.

Model Results This section contains a subset of results that demonstrate how the relationship between energy demand and energy supply has changed over time. From 1976 through the early 1990’s the relationship between Mallard population energy demand and the food energy supplied by corn can be generally, but not sequentially, described as; 1) food energy moderately exceeded population energy demand through fall and winter, 2) food energy generally equaled population energy demand through fall and winter, and 3) food energy was less than population energy demand through fall and winter (Fig. 46). From the early 1990’s on the food energy supplied by corn appears to significantly exceed Mallard population energy needs (Fig. 47). These results suggest that from the mid-1970’s through the early 1990’s Mallard numbers in the CB were influenced by corn production. However, since the early 1990’s Mallard numbers appear to be well below the level that CB corn can support.

Year-specific analyses of the food energy provided by corn extended back to 1976. Although the fraction of corn fields disked in the CB does not appear to have changed

4.47

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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Figure 48 F ood energy supply (red) vs. Mallard population energy demand (black) for years that represent the period 1976 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1992 in the Columbia Basin during winter.

Figure 49 F ood energy supply (red) vs. Mallard population energy demand (black) for years that represent the period 1993 to 2004 in the Columbia Basin during winter.

4.48

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

COLUMBIA BASIN An estimated 78,000 acres of corn would be needed to support Mallard population objectives for the CB from October to February (Table 16), a figure that does not consider loss of corn that may result from decomposition or from consumption by species other than Mallards. Nor does it consider the spatial location of where corn is grown and how this may influence availability. Thus, it should be considered a minimum. The mid-winter or January population objective for Mallards in the CB is 561,747 birds (Table 15). This population objective was met four times between 1993 and 2010 after correcting for visibility bias. During this seventeen year period an average of 102,000 acres of corn was grown in the CB. Regression Analysis of Mallard Use-Days and Corn Production Monthly surveys conducted by Washington Department of Fish and Wildllife can be used to estimate the number of Mallard use- days that occur annually in the CB. One Mallard residing in the CB for a single day is equivalent to one Mallard use-day. Mallard use-days were calculated for all years between 1976 and 2004 for which data were available. For each year, Mallard use-days were determined by summing use-day totals for all months between October and January. Monthly use-days were determined by multiplying monthly survey results by days in the month. For example, 100,000 Mallards observed in the October survey equaled 3.1 million use-days for that month (100,000 * 31). The relationship between annual corn production and total Mallard use-days for that year was evaluated using simple linear regression. For all years between 1976 and 2004 there was a significant positive relationship between corn acres and total Mallard use-days between October and January (r 2 = 0.40; Fig. 48). This evaluation of carrying capacity suggested that from the mid-1970’s to the early 1990’s there was a fairly close relationship between Mallard population energy-demand and the food energy supplied by corn (Fig. 46). However, this relationship appeared to weaken from the early 1990’s on (Fig. 47). Similarly, a strong positive relationship between corn acres and Mallard use-days existed between 1976 and 1992 (r 2 = 0.63; Fig. 49), but no significant relationship existed thereafter (r 2 = 0.04; Fig. 50).

Figure 50 R elationship between annual Mallard use-days in the Columbia Basin during winter and the amount of corn planted the previous spring 1976–2004.

Figure 51 R elationship between annual Mallard use-days in the Columbia Basin during winter and the amount of corn planted the previous spring 1976–1992.

Figure 52 R elationship between annual Mallard use-days in the Columbia Basin during winter and the amount of corn planted the previous spring 1993–2004.

4.49

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

COLUMBIA BASIN Wetland Carrying Capacity: Implications for Other Dabbling Duck Species

Habitat Availability and Biomass and Nutritional Quality of Foods

Although Mallards dominate the CB dabbling duck community, other species such as American Wigeon, Northern Pintail, and Green-winged Teal are present in modest numbers (Table 16). These species are considerably more dependent on wetland food supplies than are Mallards so TRUEMET was used to evaluate the carrying capacity of wetland habitats in the CB.

Most wetlands in the CB that provide food resources for Mallard, Northern Pintail, and Green-winged Teal are likely classified as palustrine emergent (Cowardin et al. 1979). Palustrine emergent wetlands in the North and South Subbasins total approximately 63,000 acres (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2007). Approximately 5,000 of these acres are publicly managed wetlands and the remainder largely unmanaged (M. Moore, WADFW, pers. comm. Palustrine emergent wetlands were recently sampled in the CB to estimate the biomass of wetland plant seeds that are consumed by dabbling ducks. In unmanaged wetlands seed biomass was below the foraging threshold of 30 lbs/acre, indicating that most unmanaged wetlands provided little or no food for dabbling ducks (see discussion of foraging thresholds in the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Limiting Factors / Species-Habitat Modelsâ&#x20AC;? Biological Planning Section). In contrast, seed production in actively managed wetlands averaged about 180 lbs / acre. As a result, only managed habitats were included in this evaluation of wetland carrying capacity. TME of seeds produced in managed wetlands were assumed to average 2.5 kcal / gram (Checkett et al. 2002).

Model Inputs Time Periods Being Modeled The capacity of wetland habitats to meet the energetic needs of waterfowl in the CB was modeled on a monthly basis from October through February. Population Objectives by Time Period Monthly population objectives established for CB waterfowl were used to evaluate the carrying capacity of wetland habitats to meet nutritional needs of Mallard, Northern Pintail, and Green-winged Teal (Table 16). Mallards rely almost exclusively on corn from November onward. However, 25% of their diet is composed of wetland foods in October (Rabenberg 1982). Mallard consumption of wetland foods was accounted for by assuming that 25% of the October Mallard population meets its energy needs from wetlands but relies exclusively on agricultural foods thereafter. Northern Pintail and Green-winged Teal were assumed to meet 100% of their food energy needs from wetlands in all months. Although American Wigeon are the second most abundant dabbling duck in the CB they were not included in this analysis because most in the CB probably rely on SAV as their main food source. However, estimates of wetland food production in the CB are restricted to estimates of seed production (see below). Northern Shoveler and Gadwall also were excluded because of low numbers and their diets are usually dominated by foods other than seeds.

Model Results Managed wetlands in the CB appear able to meet 100% of Northern Pintail and Green-winged Teal food-energy needs between October and February when populations of these species are at NAWMP goals (Fig. 51).

Daily Bird Energy Requirements To estimate bird energy needs a weighted body mass was calculated from the contribution that Mallard, Northern Pintail, and Green-winged Teal made to the total dabbling duck population objectives used to evaluate wetland carrying capacity (Table 16). For each species the average body mass of adult male and female birds was used, assuming a balanced sex ratio (Bellrose 1980).

4.50

Figure 53 F ood energy supply (red) vs. population food energy demand (black) for Northern Pintail and Green-winged Teal in the Columbia Basin if both species rely exclusively on managed wetland food sources.

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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Photo by Phillip Geist

Conservation Objectives for the CB Mallards dominate the CB dabbling duck objective and conservation objectives for this planning unit should strongly reflect the needs of this species. Rabenbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1982) work and this recent evaluation of carrying capacity suggest that the factors regulating Mallard numbers have changed. From the early 1950â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s through the early 1990â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corn production likely played a role in determining the size of the CB Mallard population. However, the strength of that relationship was probably influenced by the distribution of breeding Mallards the previous spring and by fall and winter weather though only Rabenberg (1982) was able to find statistical evidence of this. In drought years on the Canadian Prairies many Mallards are displaced northwest of the Alberta prairies where they are better positioned to migrate into the CB. During these years, large numbers of Mallards may have entered the CB and corn production may have determined the size of the Mallard population that could 4.51

be supported. In non-drought years on the Canadian Prairies, when fewer Mallards migrated into the CB, corn production was more likely to exceed bird needs and less likely to regulate Mallard numbers. Similarly, exceedingly cold temperatures or heavy snowfall may have limited Mallards numbers in some years regardless of how breeding birds were distributed or how much corn was grown. The scenario above suggests that corn production, weather events, and the size and distribution of the Mallard breeding population work together to influence Mallard numbers in the CB. It also requires that Mallard breeding populations that supply the CB with birds remain stable in the long-term, although these populations will obviously experience periodic changes in size and reproductive success. However, breeding populations that support wintering flocks in the CB have significantly declined (Fig. 43). Regardless of how breeding distribution may influence the number of Mallards that winter in the CB,

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

COLUMBIA BASIN

Photo by Chris Bonsignore

there simply aren’t enough birds to achieve CB population levels that were observed in the early 1960’s, early 1980’s, and early 1990’s. This has reduced the probability that Mallard numbers are limited by corn. Consequently, Mallard numbers in the CB are now largely governed by external factors; specifically the decline of breeding populations in southern Alberta. The weakened relationship between corn and Mallard abundance suggests that any effort to increase waste grain supplies is unlikely to increase the number of birds wintering in the CB. However if corn production or waste grain availability was to be significantly reduced from current levels, corn supplies might again influence the upper limit of Mallard numbers in the CB. Most of the unmanaged wetlands that originated from irrigation projects in the CB now appear to provide little food at least for dabbling duck species that rely on seed production. While some management actions might be possible to increase the productivity of these unmanaged habitats, the actual number of dabbling ducks that rely on these habitats in the CB is low (Table 16). Mallards, which overwhelmingly dominate the dabbling duck community, appear to meet almost all their food energy needs from corn (Rabenberg 1982). Moreover, managed

4.52

wetlands alone appear able to meet the food energy needs of species like Northern Pintail and Green-winged Teal (Fig. 51). The IWJV suggests that wetland conservation efforts taken on behalf of fall and wintering waterfowl should focus on existing managed wetlands. These habitats will require periodic enhancement or maintenance of existing management infrastructure to sustain high levels of food production. Maintaining the quality of these publicly managed habitats may also enhance hunting opportunities on these lands, and contribute to hunter retention objectives that are anticipated to be part of the 2012 NAWMP update. Some preliminary evidence suggests that large numbers of waterfowl may rely on the CB in spring, especially Northern Pintail (Fig. 38). Although the Yakima and Columbia Basin irrigation projects increased the amount of wetland habitat available to fall and wintering waterfowl, they also resulted in the loss of floodplain wetlands that were likely important for spring migrating waterfowl. Although the IWJV does not currently possess enough information to quantify conservation objectives for spring migration habitat in the CB, it is anticipated that wetland protection and restoration efforts on behalf of spring migrating waterfowl will be an emerging conservation priority in the near future.

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

BREEDING WATERFOWL Wetland habitats in the Intermountain West have long been recognized as important breeding habitats for waterfowl. Indeed, establishment of the IWJV was in no small part due to concerns of population reductions in Redhead ducks in the Intermountain West. Crude indexes of annual breeding populations in the Intermountain West include 1.6â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2.1 million ducks, tens of thousands of Canada geese and the entire Rocky Mountain population of Trumpeter swans (â&#x2030;Ľ 2,000; USFWS 1995). Dabbling ducks are the most widespread and group of breeding waterfowl and Bellrose (1980) estimated approximately 5% of the breeding duck population in North America occupied the Intermountain West. Reliable estimates of breeding duck densities across the Intermountain West are challenging to obtain due to the heterogeneity of landscapes and variation in annual patterns of precipitation and wetland abundance. Over most areas, breeding duck densities are likely < 2 pairs/km2 but in some areas densities can exceed those observed in the Prairie Pothole Region (Gammonley 2004). High breeding pair densities are typically associated with managed wetland complexes within the Intermountain West. Some of the most important managed wetland complexes in the IWJV include the state, and federal owned lands (and in some cases privately managed wetlands) in the Great Salt Lake of Utah, the Malheur, Summer Lake Basins of Oregon, and the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California. At the Great Salt Lake, long term estimates suggest breeding densities of 75 ducks per square mile exist and as many as 100,000 ducklings have been produced annually (Sanderson 1980, Aldrich and Paul 2002). Duck production at Malheur once exceeded 100,000 ducklings but has declined significantly over the past two decades, due in large part to impacts of invasive carp on wetland quality. Also of note, the state managed Summer Lake area is also an important breeding waterfowl area in southern Oregon and has been estimated to produce 10,000 ducklings. Principal breeders in these regions include Gadwall, Mallard, Cinnamon Teal, and Redhead. Other managed areas of interest are the state and federally managed areas in the Lahontan Valley and Carson Sink of Nevada. The Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge and associated Wildlife Management Area have been estimated to produce 20,000 ducklings annually. Other managed wetland complexes across the Intermountain West provide important breeding habitat to waterfowl. For example, not only is Red Rock Lake, National Wildlife Refuge in southwest Montana a core breeding area for the Tri-State population of Trumpeter Swans, but is among the highest recorded breeding

4.53

densities of Lesser Scaup in North America with over 30 pairs of lesser scaup per square mile recorded. Many unmanaged and privately owned habitats are important for breeding waterfowl in the Intermountain West as well. For example, many private lands in the Warner Valley of southeastern Oregon are managed for livestock production that includes mosaics of floodirrigated hay meadows, small grains, and sagebrush interspersed with alkali lakes. During wet years, the valley is heavily used by breeding Mallard, Gadwall, Cinnamon Teal, and Northern Pintail. In western Montana, northern Idaho, and western Wyoming, glacially carved valleys can have significant wetland footprints. Although the hydrology in most intermountain valleys has been modified to varying extents, breeding waterfowl are attracted to these regions and are common. Breeding densities are typically lower in these Intermountain valleys as compared to low elevation wetland complexes. The NAWMP and its Science Support Team have challenged Joint Ventures to develop spatially explicit conservation objectives and strategies for breeding waterfowl based on explicit linkages to demographic parameters. Although some of the earliest investigations into North American waterfowl biology began in the Intermountain West, the IWJV is currently challenged with appropriate information to inform our understanding of breeding waterfowl population dynamics across both temporal and multiple spatial scales. The IWJV will need to assemble estimates of breeding waterfowl abundance and/or densities, measures of expected key vital rates (e.g., nest success, duckling survival), and potential limiting factors associated with recruitment rates. In the absence of empirical understanding of relationships between limiting factors and waterfowl production, hypotheses regarding the functional relationship between these parameters may be needed. As such, the IWJV should initially develop conceptual models for breeding waterfowl in the Intermountain West to guide future development of biological planning and conservation strategies for breeding waterfowl. A critical first step will be to identify priority species for which future models are based. Consequently, the IWJV has identified a suite of priority breeding waterfowl species from which a focused approach (i.e., focal species) can be developed. This priority suite is derived from the NAWMP (2004) Regional Species Prioritization approach. Guidelines described in Table 17 were used to place species within one of three categories (Highest, High, Moderate) for each of the three primary Bird Conservation

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

BREEDING WATERFOWL Regions (BCR), including the Great Basin, Northern Rockies, and Southern Rockies (referred to as Waterfowl Conservation Regions in NAWMP [2004]). Mallards were assigned to the highest category in each BCR due to their continental importance (Table 17) and significance related to Pacific Flyway harvest strategies through the Western Mallard Model. Regional information of species densities and population trends supplemented the criteria and rule sets listed in Table 17. Other supplemental information included assessments of a species uniqueness to the Intermountain West. For example, portions of the Intermountain West contain some of the highest breeding concentrations of Cinnamon Teal in North America. Thus, NAWMP regional priorities were used as guiding principles in establishing species priority suites.

BCR 9 GREAT BASIN

Lesser Scaup

High

Highest

Moderate

Mallard

High

Highest

Northern Pintail

High

Moderate

American Wigeon

Mod High

Cinnamon Teal

Mod High

Highest

High

Redhead

Mod High

Highest

High

Moderate

Trumpeter Swan-RM

Mod High

Highest

High or Moderate Continental Concern

Barrowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Goldeneye

Moderate

Highest

High Continental Concern and Moderate BCR Responsibility

Bufflehead

Moderate

Highest

Gadwall

Moderate

Harlequin Duck

Moderate

High

Ringnecked Duck

Moderate

Low

High

PRIORITY

CRITERIA/RULE High BCR Concern and High BCR Responsibility

HIGH

AND

SPECIES

BCR 10 BCR 16 NORTHERN SOUTHERN ROCKIES ROCKIES

Moderate

OR Moderate BCR Concern and High BCR Responsibility Moderate BCR Concern and Moderate BCR responsibility OR

MODERATE

IWJV PRIORITIZATION NAWMP CONTINENTAL PRIORITY

Table 17 C onservation priority categories and criteria used for waterfowl species in Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) within the IWJV.

HIGHEST

Table 18 P riority breeding waterfowl species suites for the three primary BCRs within the IWJV.

High Continental Concern and Low BCR Responsibility OR High BCR Responsibility and Low BCR Concern

Canada Goose-RM

From these criteria, 13 species were categorized into one of the three priority categories for the primary BCRs of the Intermountain West (Table 18). Based on this assessment the IWJV identifies Cinnamon Teal, Lesser Scaup, Mallard, Northern Pintail, Redhead, and the Rocky Mountain population of Trumpeter Swans as priority breeding waterfowl species to facilitate conservation actions within the Intermountain West. The IWJV will need to work closely with partners, particularly the Pacific Flyway Study Committees, USFWS Division of Migratory Birds, and State wildlife agencies, as the IWJV moves forward with science based conservation planning for breeding waterfowl in the Intermountain West.

4.54

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

LITERATURE CITED Aldrich, T. W., and D. S. Paul. 2002. Avian ecology of Great Salt Lake. Pages 343-374 in Great Salt Lake: an Overview of Change (J. W. Gwynn, Ed.). Utah Department of Natural Resources and Utah Geological Survey Special Publication, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Arnow, T., and D. Stephens. 1990. Hydrologic characteristics of the Great Salt Lake, Utah: 1847-1986. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper No. 2332, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, USA. Arzel, C., M. Guillemain, D. B. Gurdd, J. Elmberg, H. Fritz, A. Arnaud, C. Pinf, F. Bosca. 2007. Experimental functional response and inter-individual variation in foraging rate of teal (Anas crecca). Behavioural Processes 75:66–71. Baldassarre, G. A., and E. G. Bolen. 1984. Field-feeding ecology of waterfowl wintering on the southern high plains of Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:63– 71. Ball, I. J., R. D. Bauer, K. Vermeer, and M. J. Rabenberg. Northwest riverine and Pacific coast. Pages 429-449 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski (eds.). Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. Bellrose, F. C., 1976. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Second ed. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, Geese, and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Bedford, D., and A. Douglass. 2008. Changing properties of snowpack in the Great Salt Lake Basin, Western United States, from a 26-year SNOTEL record. Professional Geographer 60:374-386. Buller. R. J. 1975. Redistribution of waterfowl, influence of water, protection, and feed. International Waterfowl Symposium 1:143–154. Central Valley Joint Venture. 2006. Central Valley Joint Venture implementation plan – conserving bird habitat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California, USA. Conover, M. R., and J. L. Vest. 2009a. Selenium and mercury concentrations in California Gulls breeding on the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28:324-329.

4.55

Conover, M. R., and J. L. Vest. 2009b. Concentrations of selenium and mercury in eared grebes (Podiceps nigricollis) from Utah’s Great Salt Lake, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28:1319-1323 Conroy, M. J., G. R. Costanza, and D. B. Stotts. 1989. Winter survival of female American black ducks on the Atlantic Coast. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:99– 109. Downard, R. 2010. Keeping wetlands wet: the human hydrology of wetlands in the Bear River Basin. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Duebbert, H. F. 1969. The ecology of Malheur Lake and management implications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Leaflet 412. Dugger, B. D., M. J. Petrie, and D. Mauser. 2008. A bioenergetics approach to conservation planning for waterfowl at Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished report. Ely, C. R., and D. G. Raveling. 1989. Body-composition and weight dynamics of wintering Greater White-fronted Geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:80–87. Engilis, A., Jr., and F. R. Reid. 1996. Challenges in wetland restoration of the western Great Basin. International Wader Studies 9:71–79. Fleskes, J. P., and D. S. Battaglia. 2004. Northern Pintail habitat use and waterfowl abundance during spring migration in southern Oregon-northeast California (SONEC): final report. USDI United States Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, Sacramento, CA. Fleskes, J. P. and J. L. Yee. 2007. Waterfowl distribution and abundance during spring migration in southern Oregon and northeastern California. Western North American Naturalist 67:409–428. Fleskes, J. P., J. L. Lee, D. A. Skalos, J. D. Kohl, D. S. Battaglia, C. J. Gregory, and D. R. Thomas. 2013. Ecology of waterfowl and their habitats during spring migration in southern Oregon-northeastern California (SONEC): a major Pacific Flyway staging area. Sixth North American Duck Symposium, Memphis Tennessee. Poster presentation. Fretwell, S. D. 1972. Populations in a seasonal environment. Monograph in Population Biology 5. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

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 Galbreath, D. S. 1962. Waterfowl population increase in the Columbia Basin. Washington Game Bulletin 14:6–7. Gammonley, J. H. 2004. Wildlife of natural palustrine wetlands. Pages 130–153 in M. C. McKinstry, W. A. Hubert, and S. H. Anderson, eds. Wetland and Riparian Areas of the Intermountain West. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA. Gilmer, D. S., J. L. Yee, D. M. Mauser, and J. L. Hainline. 2004. Waterfowl migration on Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges 1953–2001. U.S. Geological Survey Biological Science Report No. USGS/BRD/BSR-20030004. Goss-Custard, J. D. R. A. Stillman, R. W. G. Caldow, A. D. West, and M. Guillemain. 2003. Carrying capacity in overwintering birds: when are spatial models needed? Journal of Applied Ecology 40:176–187. Hansen, H. A., and D. E. McKnight. 1964. Emigration of drought-displaced ducks to the Arctic. Transactions the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 29:119–127. Haukos, D. A., M. R. Miller, D. L. Orthmeyer, J. Y. Takekawa, J. P. Fleskes, M. L. Casazza, W. M. Perry, and J. A. Moon. Spring migration of northern pintails from Texas and New Mexico, USA. Waterbirds 29:127–241. Heitmeyer, M. E., and L. H. Fredrickson. 1981. Do wetland conditions in the Mississippi Delta hardwoods influence mallard recruitment? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 46:44–57. Johnson, A. M. 2007. Food abundance and energetic carrying capacity for wintering waterfowl in the Great Salt Lake wetlands. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Kadlec, J. A., and L. M. Smith. 1989. The Great Basin marshes. Pages 451–474 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski (eds.). Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. Kaminski, R. M. and E. A. Gluesing. 1987. Density and habitat-related recruitment in mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:141–148. Kapantais, K. N. D. Athearn, and J. Y. Takekawa. 2003. Waterfowl foods in agricultural fields of the Klamath Basin. Unpublished report. U.S. Geological Survey, Vallejo, CA.

4.56

Kross, J., R. M. Kaminski, K. J. Reinecke, E. J. Penny, and A. T. Pearse. 2008. Moist-soil seed abundance in managed wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:707-714. Lauckhart, J. B. 1961. Waterfowl population change. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Western Association of State Game and Fish Commission. 40:157–160. Loving, B. L., K. M. Waddell, and C. W. Miller. 2002. Water and salt balance of Great Salt Lake, Utah, and simulation of water and salt movement through the causeway, 1963-98. Pages 143–166 in Great Salt Lake: an Overview of Change (J. W. Gwynn, Ed.). Utah Department of Natural Resources and Utah Geological Survey Special Publication, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Miller, M. R. 1986. Northern pintail body condition during wet and dry winters in the Sacramento Valley, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:57–64. Miller, M. R. and J. M. Eadie. 2006. The allometric relationship between resting metabolic rate and body mass in wild waterfowl (Anatidae) and an application to estimation of winter habitat requirements. Condor 108:166–177. Munro, R. E., and C. F. Kimball. 1982. Population ecology of the mallard: VII. Distribution and derivation of the harvest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 147. National Ecological Assessment Team. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final report of the national ecological assessment team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey. http://www.fws.gov/ science/doc/SHC_FinalRpt.pdf Naylor, L. W. 2002. Evaluating moist-soil seed production and management in Central Valley wetlands to determine habitat needs for waterfowl. Thesis, University of California, Davis, California, USA. Naylor, L. W., J. M. Eadie, W. D. Smith, M. Eicholz, M J. Gray. 2005. A simple method to predict seed yield in moist-soil habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:13351341. Nolet, B. A., A. Gyimesi, and R. H. G. Klassen. 2006. Prediction of bird-day carrying capacity on a staging site: a test of depletion models. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:1285–1292.

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 North American Waterfowl Management Plan Assessment Steering Committee. 2007. North American Waterfowl Management Plan Continental Progress Assessment Final Report. http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/files/ FinalAssessmentReport.pdf North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Implementation Framework: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos naturales, 106 pp. Pearse, A. T., P. D. Gerard, S. J. Dinsmore, R. M. Kaminski, and K. J. Reinecke. 2008. Estimation and correction of visibility bias in aerial surveys of wintering ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:808–813 Petrie, M. J., R. D. Drobney, and D. A. Graber. 1998. True metabolizable energy estimates of Canada goose foods. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1147–1152. Petrie, M. J., M. G. Brasher, G. J. Soulliere, John M. Tirpak, D. B. Pool, and R. R. Reker. 2011. Guidelines for establishing Joint Venture waterfowl population abundance objectives. North American Waterfowl Management Plan Science Support Team Technical Report No. 20111. http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/NSST/files/ GuidelinesforEstablishingJVPopulationObjectives.pdf Pospahala, R. S., D. R. Anderson, and C. J. Henny. 1974. Population ecology of the mallard: II. Breeding habitat conditions, size of the breeding populations, and production indices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 115. Rabenberg, M. J. 1982. Ecology and population dynamics of mallards wintering in the Columbia Basin. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 135 pp.

Raveling, D. G., and M. E. Heitmeyer. 1989. Relationships of population size and recruitment of pintails to habitat conditions and harvest. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:1088–1103. Reinecke, K. J., R. M. Kaminski, D. J. Moorhead, J. D. Hodges, and J. R. Nassar. Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 203–247 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski (eds.). Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. Stafford, J. D., R. M. Kaminski, K. J. Reinecke, and S. W. Manley. 2006. Waste rice for waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:61–69. Stephens, D. W. 1990. Changes in lake levels, salinity and the biological community of Great Salt Lake (Utah, USA), 1847–1987. Hydrobiologia 197:139-146. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved May 2005, from http://www.nass.usda. gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp Utah Department of Natural Resources. 2013. Final Great Salt Lake comprehensive management plan and record of decision. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, Salt Lake City, Utah, Usa. http://www.ffsl.utah.gov/sovlands/ greatsaltlake/2010Plan/OnlineGSL-CMPandRODMarch2013.pdf Vest, J. L. and M. R. Conover. 2011. Food habits of wintering waterfowl on the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Waterbirds 34:40–50. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Columbia Basin Waterfowl Management Plan, 2007. Olympia, Washington. Unpublished report.

Raveling, D. G. 1979. The annual energy cycle of the cackling Canada goose. Pages 81–93 in R. L. Jarvis and J. C. Bartonek, editors. Management and biology of the Pacific flyway geese: a symposium. Oregon State University Book Stores, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

4.57

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 A. WATERFOWL SCIENCE TEAM MEMBERS • Tom Aldrich, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources • Brad Bales, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife • Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Bruce Dugger, Oregon State University • Joseph Fleskes, U.S. Geological Survey •D on Kraege, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife • Craig Mortimore, Nevada Department of Wildlife • Mike Rabe, Arizona Game & Fish Department •D an Yparraguirre, California Department of Fish and Game

4.58

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

Cha pte r Five

Shorebirds

Pr incipa l Autho r s: Sue T homa s, B r ad A ndre s, a nd Josh Ve st

Photo by Scot t Root

Inside this Chapter

Shorebird S h o r eStrategy birds

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 5.3 •

Guiding Documents.......................................................................................................... 5.3

•

Partnership Guidance....................................................................................................... 5.4

•

Planning Approach: Key-Site Strategy, Bioenergetics Modeling.. ........................................ 5.4

•

Description of the Region.. ................................................................................................ 5.4

Water Quantity and Quality.. ............................................................................................ 5.13

•

Habitat Loss or Degradation.. .......................................................................................... 5.13

•

Agriculture.. .................................................................................................................... 5.13

•

Rural Urbanization.......................................................................................................... 5.14

•

Invasive Species............................................................................................................. 5.14

•

Contaminants and Disease Outbreaks............................................................................. 5.15

•

Other Anthropogenic Factors.......................................................................................... 5.15

•

Climate Change.............................................................................................................. 5.15

Population Estimates & Objectives..................................................................................... 5.16 •

Population Estimates...................................................................................................... 5.16

•

Assumptions and Limitations of Data.. ............................................................................. 5.16

•

Regional Population Objectives....................................................................................... 5.16

Key Sites for Shorebird Conservation................................................................................. 5.19 •

The Great Salt Lake Key Site Conservation Strategy........................................................ 5.21

•

Blanca Wetlands Shorebird Habitat Strategy.. .................................................................. 5.22

Breeding Shorebird Focal Species...................................................................................... 5.22 •

Focal Species Profiles.. ................................................................................................... 5.23

5.2

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 Joint Ventures have collectively embraced all-bird conservation and have been tasked with improving the science driving species and habitat conservation actions through the use of integrated biological planning, conservation design, and delivery as well as addressing monitoring and research. One goal of this task is to link species-specific population objectives to explicit habitat targets for priority bird species in the Joint Venture. To meet that goal, a team of biologists focused on shorebird conservation in the Intermountain West (Appendix I) was convened to develop and guide the process. This Shorebird Science Team (SST) established focal species, developed population estimates and objectives, established focal species, and identified key sites.

Guiding Documents This Shorebird Conservation Strategy builds upon the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP; Brown et al. 2000) and the 2005 Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan [a.k.a. 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan (IWJV 2005)]. It is intended to provide a source of quantitative population objectives for shorebirds which have not previously been available that will facilitate the development of landscape level conservation planning for shorebirds in the Intermountain West that can be linked to continental goals. This effort expands on work accomplished in the Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan (IWRSCP; Oring et al. 2000). The 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan recognized the potential value of wetland conservation for all bird species. Therefore, the plan coordinated the needs of all birds in the Intermountain West through planning focal points set by key geographies where priority birds and priority habitats intersect. These areas were called Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCA). The plan identifies, describes, and ranks priority habitats. Furthermore, it provided habitat goals and quantifiable objectives for priority habitats by state. However, while partners use existing information, including the IWRSCP, to focus shorebird conservation efforts on priority habitats, sites and species, it fell short of developing habitat objectives specifically for shorebirds. This update will build on the strengths of the 2005 Implementation Plan’s habitat conservation actions by providing information on specific habitat characteristics important to shorebirds and species-specific population and habitat objectives. The USSCP provides continental population estimates and objectives, an assessment of conservation concern by

5.3

species, and step-down plans at the regional level. The IWRSCP includes the entirety of the IWJV and identifies the most important issues facing shorebird conservation in the Intermountain West, such as competition for water (Oring et al. 2000). Finding ample, high quality fresh water will be the greatest shorebird habitat conservation challenge in this area. The IWRSCP plan addresses this and other issues through five goals and associated objectives and strategies. The IWRSCP also identifies important shorebird habitats in the region and provides site-specific information on 11 key sites. The habitat types and key sites identified in the IWRSCP are the focal points of this strategy. Threats and conservation actions are identified by the region and key sites. The plan identifies and prioritizes breeding and migrant shorebird species, provides data on distribution and abundance by Bird Conservation Region (BCR), and identifies important habitat types. However it stops short at providing population or habitat objectives. Since completion of the IWRSCP, limited progress has been made in implementing IWRSCP habitat objectives. Thus, the goal of this strategy is to further develop and implement the objectives listed in the IWRSCP, synthesized and updated herein. • Work cooperatively with private, state, and federal interests in developing site-specific management plans for key shorebird habitats in the region. • Coordinate site-specific management activities between sites to ensure that shorebird needs are met within the region. • Identify habitats by BCR and state that are important to production of priority species dependent on these habitats (e.g., Long-billed Curlew, Wilson’s Phalarope). • Integrate restoration and enhancement action for shorebirds into existing or new wetland management plans in the region. • Facilitate development and implementation of management strategies that will conserve, protect, and enhance large blocks of upland habitat adjacent to strategically important saline and freshwater wetlands • Catalyze wetlands conservation by JV partners to address the needs of shorebirds as described in this Strategy through the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Wetlands Reserve Program, and other conservation programs. • Develop strategies that will help protect water quality and ensure sufficient water supplies for important shorebird habitats.

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

AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOLOGICAL PLANNING FOR SHOREBIRDS Partnership Guidance With the development of population estimates and objectives for the BCRs within the Intermountain West and identification of important sites, partners will have information not previously available to develop and assess conservation measures for shorebirds and their habitats (e.g., development of targeted Farm Bill or NAWCA projects). In addition, this information should also be useful in the development and ranking of NAWCA Small and Standard Grants by providing a framework from which to evaluate the relevance of sites throughout the Intermountain West and habitat objectives that are meaningful in the context of important sites and species. Development of habitat objectives will be an ongoing, iterative process. While they have been developed at a subset of sites, the intention for the JV partnership is to continue development of site-based conservation strategies for additional key sites in the future following the framework established for the current sites. This Strategy is intended to be relevant for approximately 15 years, at which time the population and habitat objectives will be reassessed if new information is available.

Planning Approach: Key-Site Strategy, Bioenergetics Modeling The IWJV’s SST recognized early in this planning that bioenergetics modeling would greatly advance shorebird conservation in the Intermountain West by establishing defensible shorebird habitat objectives. This approach has been used effectively by Joint Ventures across the Nation to identify the food energy resources needed to support non-breeding waterfowl and characterize the capability of the landscape to provide those resources. This modeling process informs habitat protection, restoration, and management by defining the amount of various habitats needed to “keep the table set” for waterfowl at continental goal populations. The SST determined that bioenergetics modeling for shorebirds would be most appropriately conducted at the “key site” scale. The SST made the decision to employ bioenergetics modeling for shorebirds in two key sites – the Great Salt Lake and the Blanca Wetlands Habitat Area. These sites were chosen to pilot the bioenergetics modeling process in the Intermountain West and serve as a prototype for similar modeling projects in the other 16 shorebird key

5.4

sites in the future. The sites were chosen because they represent the extremes in size and complexity of the key sites described in this Strategy. The Great Salt Lake is the largest, most important, and most complex of the shorebird key sites. The Blanca Wetlands is a small key site owned and managed by a single landowner, perhaps the least complex of the shorebird key sites. As such, this approach allowed the IWJV to test the bioenergetics modeling approach for shorebirds at both ends of the spectrum, a valuable step in determining appropriate population-habitat modeling approaches for migrating shorebirds in the Intermountain West. This approach was successfully employed and resulted in two sub-chapters of the 2013 IWJV Implementation Plan – The Great Salt Lake Shorebird Key Site Conservation Strategy (Chapter 5.1) and the Blanca Wetlands Habitat Strategy (Chapter 5.2). These sub-chapters are summarized within this Strategy but are presented as stand-alone documents within the context of the overall 2013 Implementation Plan. These documents will help habitat managers and members of the JV partnership carry out strategic shorebird habitat conservation in these landscapes – doing the right things in the right places – while providing a roadmap for the JV partnership to conduct shorebird conservation planning in other key sites in the future.

Description of the Region With 486 million acres spread over 11 western states, the IWJV is one of the largest JVs in North America. The IWJV boundary falls within two major flyways – the Pacific and Central Flyways, the majority of 3 BCRs – Great Basin (BCR 9), Northern Rockies (BCR 10), Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau (BCR 16), and small portions of 7 BCRs – Sonoran and Mojave Deserts (BCR 33), Sierra Madre Occidental (BCR 34), Chihuahuan Desert (BCR 35), Pacific Rainforest (BCR 5) and Sierra Nevada (BCR 15), Badlands and Prairies (BCR 17) and Shortgrass Prairie (BCR 18; Fig. 1). Because they encompass such a small area within the IWJV boundary, we will not address BCRs 5, 15, 17 and 18 in this Strategy. These BCRs have been addressed within implementation plans developed by the Pacific Coast, Central Valley, Northern Great Plains and Playa Lakes Joint Ventures respectively.

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

AN INTRODUCTION TO BIOLOGICAL PLANNING FOR SHOREBIRDS

Photo by USF WS

Figure 1 B ird Conservation Regions occurring within the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 5 = Northern Pacific Rainforest, 9 = Great Basin, 10 = Northern Rockies, 15 = Sierra Nevada, 16 = Sierra Nevada, 17 = Badlands and Prairies, 18 = Shortgrass Prairie, 33 = Sonoran and Mojave Deserts, 34 = Sierra Madre Occidental, 35 = Chihuahuan Desert.

5.5

As a result of its vast size, the Intermountain West encompasses some of the most diverse habitats of any Joint Venture due, in part, to significant ranges in degrees of latitude, elevation (â&#x20AC;&#x201C;285 to >14,000 feet), and climate. Important shorebird habitats identified by the IWRSCP include: large saline lakes; marshes and lake/ marsh complex; upland areas near wetlands; agricultural fields; ephemeral wetlands and playas; impoundments; and riparian areas (Oring et al. 2000). The vast majority of shorebird habitat in the Intermountain West exists as inland oases of discrete wetlands separated by over 600 mountain ranges and seven of the largest deserts in North America. Four Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) sites are located in the region, including: Great Salt Lake, UT (site of Hemispheric Importance); Lahontan Valley, NV (Hemispheric); Mono Lake, CA (International); and Springfield Bottoms/ American Falls Reservoir, ID (Regional). Eight additional sites meet or exceed qualification for designation as WHSRN Sites of Regional Importance, including: Harney Basin, Lake Abert, Summer Lake, Warner Basin, Klamath Basin in OR; Goose Lake in OR/CA; Honey Lake in CA; and San Luis Valley in CO.

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

SHOREBIRDS OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST

Photo by Phil Douglass

The Intermountain West supports approximately one million breeding shorebirds and several million passage birds of 34 species (Oring et.al. 2000). The majority of North America’s populations of Snowy Plover, American Avocet, Black-necked Stilt, and Long-billed Curlew breed in the area (Appendix II). Scientific names of shorebird species referenced in this strategy are found in Appendix III. The Intermountain West is most important to shorebirds during migration. Approximately 90% of the global population of Wilson’s Phalaropes, and very large numbers of Red-necked Phalaropes, Long-billed

5.6

Dowitchers, Western Sandpipers, and Marbled Godwits stage or stopover in the area (Oring et al. 2000). Due to its vast size, the Intermountain West supports thousands of wintering shorebirds as well. Table 1 provides an indication of seasonal importance of the BCRs in the Intermountain West by species. This information can help to guide conservation actions within the most important BCRs by the appropriate season. For instance, habitat conservation measures in BCRs 9 and 10 would help meet population and habitat objectives for breeding Wilson’s Phalaropes in the Intermountain West.

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

SHOREBIRDS OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Table 1 S easonal occurrence of shorebird species in the Intermountain West and each BCR within the IWJV. Table adapted from Oring et al. (2000). Codes: M = Migrant, W = Wintering, B = Breeding. B,M,W = high concentrations, region extremely important to the species relative to the majority of other regions. B,M,W = common or locally abundant; region important to the species relative to other regions. b,m,w = uncommon to rare; region within species range but occurs in low abundance relative to other regions. BIRD CONSERVATION REGION

SPECIES

ENTIRE IWJV

Black-bellied Plover

M,W

Snowy Plover

M,W,B

B,M

B,W

Semipalmated Plover

M,w

Killdeer

M,W,B

M,B

M,W,B

Mountain Plover

m,W,B

m,B

Black-necked Stilt

M,W,B

m,B

M,B

M,W,B

American Avocet

M,W,B

M,B

M,W,B

Greater Yellowlegs

M,W

m,w

Lesser Yellowlegs

M,w

m,w

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

M,W,B

M,B

M,W

Spotted Sandpiper

M,W,B

m,B

M,B

m,w

Upland Sandpiper

m,b

Whimbrel

Long-billed Curlew

M,W,B

M,B

M,b

M,W

Marbled Godwit

M,W,b

M,b

M,W

Red Knot

Sanderling

m,w

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

M,W

Least Sandpiper

M,W

Baird's Sandpiper

Pectoral Sandpiper

Dunlin

M,W

m,w

Stilt Sandpiper

m,W

Short-billed Dowitcher

Long-billed Dowitcher

M,W

Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Snipe

M,W,B

m,W,B

M,W,B

m,w

Wilson's Phalarope

M,B

M,b

Red-necked Phalarope

5.7

m,b

m m

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

SHOREBIRDS OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST The USSCP provides Area of Importance Scores for each BCR for populations of shorebirds in North America (Table 2). These scores signify the relative importance of each BCR to a species throughout their annual life cycle. They also reflect perceived importance of management

and protection activities relative to other regions. When combined with the information in Table 1 they can provide an excellent means to direct conservation actions at broad scales within the most important BCRs during the most appropriate seasons.

Table 2 R egional and Bird Conservation Region (BCR) Area of Importance Scores (AI) for shorebirds in the Intermountain West. Table shows only those species with critical to common occurrence within the IWJV and BCRs adapted from Bird Conservation Region Area Importance Socres at www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird.htm BIRD CONSERVATION REGION SPECIES

IWJV

Black-bellied Plover

Snowy Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Killdeer

Mountain Plover

Black-necked Stilt

American Avocet

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

Spotted Sandpiper

Upland Sandpiper

Whimbrel

Long-billed Curlew

Marbled Godwit

Red Knot

Sanderling

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

Least Sandpiper

Baird's Sandpiper

Pectoral Sandpiper

Dunlin

Stilt Sandpiper

Short-billed Dowitcher

Long-billed Dowitcher

Wilson's Snipe

Wilson's Phalarope

Red-necked Phalarope

5.8

C o d e s: 5 = T h e a r e a i s c r i t i c a l for suppor ting hemispheric p o p u l a t i o n s o f t h e s p e c i e s; 4 = T h e a r e a i s i m p o r t a n t to suppor ting hemispheric or r e g i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n s; 3 = T h e area is within the range of the species and the species occurs regularly within the region but in l ow a b u n d a n c e; 2 = T h e a r e a i s within the range, but in general, m a n a g e m e n t i s n o t wa r r a n te d f o r t h i s s p e c i e s; 1 = D o e s n o t o c c u r in the area

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

SHOREBIRD HABITAT TYPES Most shorebirds forage in water depths up to 7 inches, depending on bill length; however, as with all species groups, exceptions can be found. The Wilson’s Phalarope forages in open water taking its prey from the top of the water column. Vegetation density is also an important factor in habitat preferences as most shorebirds prefer short, sparse vegetation. The majority of species will select foraging habitats with less than 25% vegetative cover (Helmers 1992). Wilson’s Snipe is an exception to the rule in their preference for dense sedge stanch. The following habitat types follow those described in the IWRSCP.

Large Saline and Alkaline Lakes These are typically large terminal lakes that have a high salt concentration, at times greater than the concentration of seawater. Alkali lakes are also included in this category and differ from salt lakes due to a higher concentration of a basic ionic salt. Large saline lakes differ from playas in that they contain water year-round. Large saline lakes are considered lacustrine habitats according to the National Wetlands Inventory classification system. The most important shorebird sites in the Intermountain West are located adjacent to large saline lakes. In fact, one of the most important sites for shorebirds in North America, Great Salt Lake, has been identified by WHSRN as a site of Hemispheric Importance (supporting at least 500,000 shorebirds annually). During wet years, saline lakes and adjacent wetlands in the Lahontan Valley of Nevada, also reach Hemispheric Importance. Other large saline lakes in the region surpass the annual requirement of 100,000 and 20,000 shorebirds for status as a WHSRN site of International or Regional Importance, respectively. These include: Lake Abert and Summer Lake, Oregon; Mono Lake, California (International significance), Honey and Alkali Lakes, California; and Goose Lake, California/ Oregon (Regional significance). These sites have been identified as key sites for conservation action within this plan. Thirty percent (5,510 individuals) of the current estimated population of inland-breeding Snowy Plovers occur at Great Salt Lake (Thomas 2005, Morrison et al. 2006). Saline lakes are also important breeding sites for American Avocets; approximately half of the global population breeds in the Intermountain West, predominantly on saline lake habitat. Black-necked Stilts, Long-billed Curlews, Wilson’s Phalaropes, Spotted Sandpipers, Killdeers, Willets and Wilson’s Snipe also nest in saline lake habitat. Saline lakes are also important to passage American Avocets and Wilson’s and Rednecked Phalaropes. In fact, over 50% of the global 5.9

population of Wilson’s Phalaropes stage at three of the most prominent saline lakes in the Intermountain West: Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert, and Mono Lake (Colwell and Jehl 1994). Black-necked Stilts, Marbled Godwits, and Western Sandpipers also use saline lakes in high concentrations on migration.

Marshes and Lake/Marsh Complexes Marshes are typically shallow, low-lying areas (near the water table), with fluctuating water levels and salinities. They are also referred to as wet meadow, submerged aquatic beds, or emergent wetlands. They can be predominantly fresh, brackish, or saline. They support an abundance of grasses, rushes, reeds, and sedges and differ from grasslands in having soils that are wet in most years. This habitat type can be classified as palustrine open water, emergent, aquatic bed, unconsolidated bottom, or unconsolidated shore according to NWI. Large freshwater marshes of importance to a variety of shorebirds are associated with most of the major saline lakes and playas in the Intermountain West, such as the Bear River marsh complex adjacent to Great Salt Lake, Utah. Examples of freshwater marshes not associated with saline lakes/playas include the Warner Valley, Oregon, and Lower Klamath NWR, California. A high proportion of the world’s American Avocets and Black-necked Stilts breed in the wetlands of the Intermountain West, especially in the saline lake associated marshes of the Great Basin. Moderate numbers of Wilson’s Phalaropes and Willets and lesser numbers of other species also breed in these marshes. Large numbers of Long-billed Dowitchers, Calidris sandpipers, primarily Western and Least Sandpipers, and lesser numbers of many species, stop over at Great Basin marshes on migration (Oring et al. 2000).

Ephemeral Wetlands/Playas Small ephemeral wetlands, playas, and salt flats abound in the Intermountain West. They are typically shallow depressions lined with a salt or alkali crust limiting vegetation growth along the shore. These depressions fill with water seasonally, intermittently, or temporarily depending on the depth of the water table or amount of precipitation. Ephemeral wetlands or playas can be classified as palustrine, particularly in association with palustrine unconsolidated bottom, open water, or unconsolidated shore according to NWI. In wet years, ephemeral wetlands can support high numbers of shorebirds, especially breeding American Avocets and migrant Western Sandpipers (Neel and Henry 1997). However, in any given year and area, this habitat type may be dry and will not support shorebirds unless 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

SHOREBIRD HABITAT TYPES steady seep or spring is available. Examples of important playas in the Intermountain West include old salt lake beds such as Winnemucca Lake, Nevada, that rarely holds water in any but the wettest years.

high concentration of Long-billed Curlews during the breeding season. Although waste grain is rarely consumed by shorebirds, the invertebrates in or on the soil surface can be a primary food source.

Upland/Grasslands

Manmade Impoundments

Primary upland/grassland types include bunchgrasses, short and mixed grass prairie, and grassland shrub types in the southwest. Dry grasslands are important to nesting Long-billed Curlews, Mountain Plovers, Upland Sandpipers, and Willets. This habitat type is particularly important for a variety of grassland nesting shorebirds such as the Willet and Long-billed Curlew when adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas. Mountain Plovers nest in arid upland areas with low vegetation. An isolated population of Upland Sandpipers breeds in short to mid height grasslands and forages in shorter stature vegetation in eastern Oregon and possibly still in eastern Washington, northern Idaho, and western Montana (Paulson 1993).

This habitat type includes any man-made water storage basins such as reservoirs, salt evaporation ponds, or other types of water catchment basins. The levees that surround the water are often used during the nesting season by Snowy Plovers, American Avocets, and Black-necked Stilts, Long-billed Dowitchers and Western Sandpipers use this habitat type on migration. Suitable water levels (≤ 7 inches for long legged shorebirds) are necessary to support shorebirds in this habitat. The American Falls Reservoir in southeastern Idaho is an example of an important manmade impoundment in the Intermountain West. This site along with adjacent Springfield Bottoms wetlands has been designated as a WHSRN site of Regional Importance supporting up to 20,000 shorebirds annually.

Agricultural Fields Agriculture has become an important source of habitat for shorebirds particularly if near a stable source of fresh water for chick rearing. Hay and grain fields, pastures, and dairy farms are used by shorebird species at different times of the year. Many species, such as Longbilled Curlew and Killdeer flock in flooded or recently dewatered fields during migration. Killdeer, Wilson’s Phalarope, and Long-billed Curlew nest in these habitats, particularly near freshwater inflows. The hay fields and flooded pastures of the Ruby Valley, Nevada support a

Riparian Areas Sand bars and mud flats along rivers and streams support small numbers of shorebirds annually. They are equivalent to NWI riverine classification. These areas are particularly important to breeding Spotted Sandpipers. Small numbers of American Avocets, Black-necked Stilts, Least Sandpipers, and Wilson’s Phalaropes use riparian habitats during migration stopover.

P h o t o b y J o s h Ve s t

5.10

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

POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS National, regional, and state conservation status of common shorebirds in the Intermountain West is provided in Table 3. All shorebirds listed under the 2008 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2008), which updates the 2002 Birds of Management Concern List and NAWCA Priority Bird Species list (Online at http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/nawcaspp.pdf), are included in Table 3. Seventeen species of shorebirds have been identified by state fish and wildlife agencies as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in State Wildlife Action Plans (Table 3). Table 3 N ational, Regional, and State conservation status of shorebird species in the Intermountain West. STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED COMMON NAME

CC2

IA1

Black-bellied Plover

Snowy Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Killdeer

Mountain Plover

Black-necked Stilt

√

American Avocet

√

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

√

Spotted Sandpiper

√

Upland Sandpiper

Whimbrel

Long-billed Curlew

Marbled Godwit

Red Knot

Sanderling

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

√

Least Sandpiper

√

Baird's Sandpiper

Pectoral Sandpiper

Dunlin

Stilt Sandpiper

Short-billed Dowitcher

Long-billed Dowitcher

Wilson's Snipe

Wilson’s Phalarope

Red-necked Phalarope

5.11

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

√ √

√

Conservation Categories from US Shorebird Conservation Plan. 5 = Highly Imperiled, 4 = Species of High Concern, 3 = Species of Moderate Concern, 2 = Species of Low Concern, 1 = Species Not at Risk. 1

From Bird Conservation Region Area Importance Scores at www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/ RegionalShorebird.htm 2

√

√ √

Codes: 5 = The area is critical for supporting hemispheric populations of the species; 4 = The area is important to supporting hemispheric or regional populations; 3 = The area is within the range of the species and it occurs regularly within the region but in low abundance; 2 = The area is within the species range, but in general, management is not warranted for this species; 1 = Does not occur in the area.

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

POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS Morrison et al. (2006) provided summary of general population trends for species or sub-species of shorebirds in North America. These trends are provided in Table 4 to provide further context of shorebirds in the Intermountain West relative to continental trends. Table 4 N orth American population trend information by species or subspecies if available. Table adapted from Morrison et al. (2006). COMMON NAME

SUBSPECIES DESIGNATED

DECLINE1

COMMON NAME

Black-bellied Plover

P.s. squatarola

DEC

Wilson's Phalarope

DEC

Snowy Plover

C.a.nivosus

DEC

Red-necked Phalarope

DEC

Mountain Plover

DEC

Western Sandpiper

DEC/U

Lesser Yellowlegs

DEC

Semipalmated Plover

STA/U

Solitary Sandpiper

T.s. solitara and cinnamomea

Black-necked Stilt

DEC

Upland Sandpiper

DEC

Long-billed Curlew

DEC

Marbled Godwit

L.f. fedoa

DEC

Red Knot

C.c. roselarri

DEC

SUBSPECIES DESIGNATED

H.m. mexicanus

Greater Yellowlegs Willet

DECLINE1

STA/U STA/U

T.s. inornatus and semipalmatus

STA/U

Baird's Sandpiper

STA/U

Stilt Sandpiper

STA/U

Long-billed Dowitcher

STA/U

Sanderling

DEC

Semipalmated Sandpiper

DEC

Killdeer

STA

Least Sandpiper

DEC

American Avocet

STA

Pectoral Sandpiper

DEC

Spotted Sandpiper

STA

DEC

Whimbrel

Dunlin

C.a.pacifica

Wilson's Snipe

DEC

Short-billed Dowitcher

L.g. caurinus

N.p. rufiventris

STA

DEC = decline, STA = stable, U = unknown

The USSCP provides more detailed information on the status of each species through Regional Conservation Scores (Appendix II). These can be used as a tool for partners in prioritizing species and habitat conservation measures by species and season of use at a regional, national, and BCR scale.

5.12

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS Water Quantity and Quality

Habitat Loss or Degradation

Degradation of water quality or changes in water quantity are the most pervasive threats to shorebird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Water loss can occur in many ways and is almost always exacerbated by the other threats listed in this section. In fact, loss of water is typically the outcome of the threats listed below. It can affect shorebirds directly or indirectly and can occur at the source or thousands of miles away. Historic and contemporary policies pertaining to the protection and use of water in the arid West prioritize agriculture and municipal uses over environmental uses such as wetland management for migratory birds (Downard 2010). Wetland complexes critical to western shorebird populations such as Mono Lake, Great Salt Lake, Lahontan Valley, and Klamath Basin have all been subject to significant declines in water supply due to diversion and withdrawal of water from inflow streams and tributaries, primarily for agricultural purposes (Jehl 1994, Ivey 2001, Downard 2010). Increasing competition for water supplies stemming from population growth in the region is further taxing already limited water resources in the arid Intermountain West.

The USFWS report, Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998– 2004 (Dahl 2006), provides the best overall assessment of the status and trends in wetlands by assessing a subset of randomly selected established wetland plots throughout the U.S. This report identified a decline in freshwater emergent marshes by approximately 142,570 acres throughout the U.S. from 1998–2004. Urban and rural development accounted for an estimated 61% of freshwater wetland loss in the U.S. An additional 8% was lost to drainage or filling of wetlands for silviculture. The wetland loss during this period was offset by a net gain of wetlands that were restored on agricultural lands, primarily through federal conservation programs such as the USDA’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). WRP provides excellent shorebird habitat in some regions (e.g., the Central Valley of California) but its value to shorebirds is influenced by the level of vegetative disturbance conducted annually by private landowners. However, in the absence of vegetative disturbance, WRP wetlands generally trend toward late succession emergent marshes that are not favorable to most shorebirds. This vegetative disturbance usually only occurs in the Intermountain West when the Natural Resources Conservation Service issues Compatible Use Authorizations (CUA) to landowners for haying or grazing. The potential exists to improve WRP wetlands for shorebirds through CUAs, but this has not materialized at large scales to date. Thus, the restoration of wetlands through WRP and other similar programs likely has not offset losses of shorebird habitat in the Intermountain West.

Timing and availability of an adequate quantity of water in the Intermountain West is of primary concern. This issue is further exacerbated by periodic drought cycles. Diversion of water for irrigation or changes in irrigation practices for water conservation can lead to a significant impact on the availability of water during important stages of the shorebird life cycle. This is particularly important during chick rearing since the young must have fresh water for survival. Once that water is no longer available, chicks must move overland to the next water source, exposing them to further threats. Conversely, an increase in water levels also can be detrimental to most shorebirds. This can occur due to increased incidence of flooding events, changes in water delivery, or through conversion to deepwater wetlands or those with very steep slopes that render the habitat unsuitable for shorebirds. Shorebirds such as the Snowy Plover, American Avocet, and Blacknecked Stilt typically nest near the water’s edge, leaving nests susceptible to flooding. In addition, most shorebirds must have shallow water to forage. Water quality is just as important as quantity. Poor water quality is essentially symptomatic of other threats identified in this section. Examples include increased sedimentation from runoff due to loss of wetland buffer habitat, concentrations of contaminants such as selenium from agricultural runoff, and increased concentration of salt in water beyond the physiological limit of chicks to process.

5.13

Nationally, the creation of freshwater ponds has contributed substantially to the net gain of wetlands. However, the majority of these ponds are not an equivalent replacement for wetland loss for shorebirds. In fact, artificial ponds are seldom used by shorebirds as they are typically constructed with steep banks that limit access for foraging. Dahl (2006) noted an increase in deepwater lake and reservoir acreage; but did not provide an assessment of ephemeral wetlands, an important wetland habitat for shorebirds in the Intermountain West.

Agriculture One of the primary reasons for wetland and native grassland loss in the Intermountain West is due to conversion to croplands. In addition, many agricultural practices such as water diversion, changes in irrigation practices, herbicide applications, harvest during the nesting season, and maintenance of extensive monocultures can have negative impacts on shorebird habitat. For instance, grassland loss could cause site abandonment by adults and increased nest and chick

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS loss due to lack of cover. However, agricultural uses can provide protection from urbanization and thus more realistic opportunities for future habitat restoration. In addition, they can provide important feeding and staging areas for some species such as Wilson’s Phalarope. In the Harney Basin, Oregon, the private hay fields of the Silvies River Floodplain support thousands of breeding shorebirds (Paullin et al. 1977). Fledging shorebirds in this area were especially vulnerable to mortality from hay cutting. As an example, one mower operator estimated that he killed 400–600 birds between July 1 and 13. The most common bird killed was Wilson’s Phalarope; other mortalities included Long-billed Curlew, Sora, Common Snipe, and blackbirds. Unlike ducks, the shorebirds and especially the Wilson’s Phalarope, tend to remain in hay meadows to feed after hatching. Consequently, even the earlier nesting species are vulnerable to mowing. The rate of mortality declined throughout the haying season as more birds fledged, and most critical period for mowing mortality in 1976 was the first two weeks in July. Hay cutting begins as early as mid-June on the Silvies River River Floodplain and other native hay meadows in eastern Oregon, which likely causes even higher rates of shorebird mortality. A related problem affecting shorebird survival in hayfields is early de-watering. Water is drained from hayfields about three weeks before mowing commences. This action reduces food supplies and tends to concentrate young birds near remaining water, thus increasing their vulnerability to predators (Oring et al. 2000). Flood irrigated hay meadows provide benefits to many other wetland dependent birds such as migrating and breeding ducks and waterbirds. Given the diversity of annual cycle requirements, achieving multiple species habitat objectives on the same acres is predictably challenging, especially on private lands with other land management objectives. Thus, a landscape level approach to evaluate the habitat needs of priority species in reaction to the conservation estate and management practices is required.

Rural Urbanization The Intermountain West has experienced unprecedented human population growth over the past two decades. While high-density metropolitan areas (e.g., Salt Lake City, Utah) have experienced high population growth, traditionally rural intermountain valleys throughout the Intermountain West have witnessed substantial population growth as well. These intermountain valleys were historically populated by humans at low density and typically centered around agricultural production, namely ranching. The rapid increase in rural urbanization has drastically altered the landscape composition and has left many intermountain valleys highly fragmented from only two decades ago. Urban development typically results in 5.14

an irreversible loss of wetlands (Dahl 2006). The indirect effects of development on shorebirds can be just as harmful. With increased housing in rural or urban areas comes increased predation from pets and feral cats. Rural urbanization reduces surface and groundwater levels due to changes in water rights and uses and alters hydrologic conditions that may change the location or rate of runoff as well as compromised water quality.

Invasive Species Invasive species, particularly plant species, can have a drastic affect on habitat quality. With poor nesting cover, breeding birds are more susceptible to disturbance or predation. In some areas, invasive species such as phragmites (Phragmites australis) have colonized open areas historically used for nesting. Grasslands at lower elevations have been heavily impacted by invasive exotic species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Wetlands throughout the west are becoming choked by phragmites, tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and shoreline habitats traditionally used for foraging and nesting are therefore no longer available. Upland habitats are also at risk. Dikes and levees around impoundments or reservoirs that provide nesting habitat can become chocked with invasive weeds (e.g., knapweed [Centaurea spp.] or thistle [Cirsium arvenre) and they become unsuitable for nesting shorebirds. In some areas, over grazing and suppression of natural fire regimes followed by invasion by cheatgrass has led to the loss of grassland, particularly in southeastern Oregon and the Columbia Plateau. Poorly managed livestock grazing in wet meadows can result in trampled nests, compaction of the soil, and reduced water quality. Invasive, non-native mammals can directly and indirectly effect shorebirds and their habitat. Non-native herbivores can destroy habitat through forage pressure or become a year-round food source for predators. Predators, such as red foxes, raccoons, or rats, can prey on eggs, chicks, and adults. Raccoons and foxes were unknown in the Salt Lake Valley of Utah prior to the 1970s but occur at high densities now. Changes in predator communities have likely impacted demographic performance of shorebirds at this continentally significant area. Invasive species eradication involves a long-term commitment and can be expensive. Without a coordinated effort throughout the affected area, eradication on one property may not be effective over the long term if an adjacent property still hosts invasive species. To exacerbate the issue, little is known regarding how to control certain invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass) or the effects of removal on focal breeding species such as the Long-billed Curlew, which shows a preference for cheatgrass habitats in southeastern Washington (Pampush and Anthony 1993). Furthermore, control of invasive species

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS often supersedes other habitat or species conservation measures for management time or funding.

Contaminants and Disease Outbreaks Concentrations of contaminants in wetlands are of conservation concern in the Intermountain West. Prevalent contaminants include selenium, mercury, DDT, and DDE. DDT and its metabolite DDE have been proven in numerous studies to reduce hatching success of all birds due to egg shell thinning. Selenium is known to reduce hatching success and increase chick mortality. Similarly, mercury contamination reduces reproductive success in shorebirds. Salinities in large Great Basin hypersaline lakes such as the Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert, and Mono Lake and the saline sinks of Lahontan Valley are of increasing concern for shorebirds. Each of these areas face human-induced water level manipulations which alter salinity concentrations and can influence contaminant cycling (Naftz et al. 2008). Furthermore, altered hydrology can cause reduced or increased salinities beyond the tolerance of shorebird chicks and prey (e.g., brine flies and brine shrimp; Oring et al. 2000). Large-scale die-offs of aquatic birds due to disease outbreaks have been reported in wetland complexes, although shorebirds compose a small percentage of birds affected relative to other species. Causes of die-offs range from botulism to cholera.

Other Anthropogenic Factors Altered fire and flood regimes have also lead to the loss of grasslands by altering plant community dynamics and succession. By controlling or severely limiting the natural fire regime of grassland habitats, early seralstage grasslands have been replaced by woodlands and shrub-dominated habitats. These habitats have lower suitability for shorebirds and likely impact demographic performance. Transition back to functional grassland habitats often requires expensive and intensive restoration treatments. Additionally, altered hydrologic patterns from dams and other water control structures can significantly impact wetland plant and invertebrate communities through alteration of nutrient transport within a system.

Climate Change All of the above threats may be exacerbated by climate change. Many of the direct and indirect effects of climate change on shorebirds and their habitats are unknown however, which hinders proactive conservation measures. Scientists are predicting that species with low genetic

5.15

diversity, those that breed in the arctic and boreal forest zone, as well as birds that breed in arid environments will be more heavily affected by climate change (NABCI 2010, Climaterisk.net; Meltofte et al. 2007). Migrants are also at risk due to the limited number of secure water sources and the limited extent of wetlands in the Intermountain West. These predictions place shorebirds of the Intermountain West at greater risk than most species, because the majority of the species passing through the Intermountain West breed in the Arctic. In addition, Arctic breeding shorebirds are known for low genetic diversity (Meltofte et al. 2007). Climate change can have a profound influence on habitat suitability as well. Climate change may result in an overall increase or decrease in precipitation, changes in the intensity and frequency of precipitation events, or shifts in the seasonal patterns of precipitation that will affect the available supply of water. For instance, decreased snow pack results in less water runoff into intermountain basins during the drier summer months. Conversely, increased runoff or flooding events could increase erosion and/or decrease available habitat. The phenology of snow pack runoff has also been shifting in the Intermountain West. Changes in the timing or runoff will likely influence wetland plant and invertebrate community dynamics which shorebirds have evolved to exploit. Combined with other issues affecting shorebird habitat, climate change could prove devastating for shorebirds that rely most on the ephemeral habitats of the Intermountain West. If wetland quality, abundance, or distribution is compromised in the Intermountain West in such a way that migratory connectivity is significantly impaired then survival and recruitment rates for these populations will also be affected. Demand for water to meet agricultural or urban needs will also increase with increasing temperatures. With decreasing water supplies and increasing temperatures, the risk of harmful algal blooms, concentration of contaminants, and frequency of diseases increases. Decreased water quality will impact invertebrate food sources thereby forcing migrant shorebirds to either remain at each stopover site longer to meet physiological needs or continue migration under less than ideal physical condition. Breeding shorebirds may be forced to adapt to habitat changes or decreases in foraging resources by shifting their breeding range. This in turn can lead to a mismatch in timing of availability of food resources or changes in food resources. In addition, shifts in species range or changes in habitat may facilitate spread of invasive species that degrade shorebird habitats.

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

POPULATION ESTIMATES & OBJECTIVES Population Estimates Primarily due to a lack of information, the IWRSCP stopped short of developing population estimates for shorebirds in the Intermountain West. Therefore, the SST developed population estimates and objectives based on the best available data for breeding and passage shorebirds (Table 5). Estimates were developed from a top-down approach using the most current continental and flyway population estimates provided in Morrison et al. (2006). These estimates were then adjusted through a bottom-up process. For passage shorebirds, population estimates were derived from a summation of data from the Pacific Flyway Project (Shuford et al., 2002) for most sites, augmented by site-specific data (Table 5). These estimates reflect the sum of peak counts of passage shorebirds either from spring or fall migration at key sites. For breeding shorebirds, population estimates were derived from Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data and species-specific surveys. The top-down and bottom-up estimates were compared and adjustments were made for particular species. For instance, the passage Long-/Short-billed Dowitcher estimate was reduced because site specific data were collected during a very high period in the water cycle and abundance was at or near peak levels. Thus the estimate did not represent abundance levels during an average water year; therefore, the dowitcher population estimate was subsequently reduced.

Assumptions and Limitations of Data Several assumptions were made during the development of population estimates, primarily that the sums for peak counts of each species accurately reflect the passage shorebird population in the Intermountain West. These sums represent non-standardized data collected during different years or using different methods. Also, many of the estimates presented were derived based on data collected 20 years ago. In addition, this process does not adequately address dispersed species such as the Greater andLesser Yellowlegs or Spotted Sandpiper. Data collected for the BBS were used to calculate breeding shorebird population estimates across the Intermountain West. However, the BBS does not adequately cover wetland breeding habitats and many shorebird species are under sampled.

5.16

Due to the limitations of the data, population estimates should be interpreted as an indicator of the population. For this reason, one of the highest monitoring priorities is to collect standardized distribution and abundance data for passage shorebirds at all sites. Range-wide breeding shorebird surveys are needed to provide both Intermountain West-specific estimates and range-wide estimates from which to assess the importance of the Intermountain West to each species. Finally, a properly designed study is needed to sample dispersed migrants.

Regional Population Objectives The SST set 30-year population objectives for the Intermountain West from the top-down using numeric objectives set in the USSCP. Objectives were set based on the most current population estimates and data on status (Morrison et al. 2006). Options considered were: maintain current levels, increase by 25%, or increase by 50%, or use increases reported in USSCP. These options are generally consistent with the approach used by Partners in Flight for establishing trend-based objectives for landbirds. Limiting factors, the importance of the IWJV to the species, and ability to manage the species habitat were considered when assessing options for setting objectives. The team reviewed each species objective during the breeding and nonbreeding season and agreed on a numeric objective for each season. Maintaining current population levels will likely require more conservation action than was required during the formation of the IWJV given the loss of grasslands and wetlands in the region. In addition, assessing whether objectives have been met for secretive or cryptic species such as the Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Snipe will be difficult due to issues of detectability. The assumptions and limitations listed above apply equally to the objectives. Site and in some cases population monitoring is key to evaluate progress toward objectives for all species and habitats. For more information, see the Monitoring and Research section of this chapter.

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

POPULATION ESTIMATES & OBJECTIVES Table 5 P opulation estimates and objectives for passage shorebirds by BCR in the Intermountain West JV area. JV TOTAL (SUM OF SITE COUNTS)

IWJV ADJUSTED ESTIMATE

IWJV OBJECTIVE

BCR 9 ESTIMATE

BCR 9 OBJECTIVE

lack-bellied B Plover

13,567

15,000

27,270

13,556

27,250

emipalmated S Plover

2,300

3,000

2,178

2,840

110

Killdeer

14,490

50,000

13,749

47,440

220

606

2,090

250

lack-necked B Stilt

86,902

120,000

86,513

119,460

344

480

438,960

420,000

430,094

411,520

7,788

7,450

1,007

960

potted S Sandpiper

3,688

10,000

3,589

9,730

240

olitary S Sandpiper

144

3,000

127

2,650

270

reater G Yellowlegs

2,765

12,000

2,368

10,280

375

1,630

100

Willet

8,184

50,000

8,111

49,550

110

300

Lesser Yellowlegs

5,612

15,000

4,285

11,450

1,317

3,520

1,000

710

290

46,298

130,000

162,500

45,823

160,830

463

1,630

1,000

960

11,641

15,000

11,540

14,870

100

130

223

1,000

220

171

770

366,823

500,000

360,491

491,370

1,312

1,790

5,020

6,840

Least Sandpiper

88,028

100,000

85,310

96,910

222

250

2,496

2,840

aird's B Sandpiper

10,953

35,000

1,986

6,350

8,967

28,650

ectoral P Sandpiper

425

1,000

382

900

100

24,713

25,000

27,500

24,701

27,490

PASSAGE SHOREBIRDS

American Avocet

Whimbrel Marbled Godwit Red Knot Sanderling emipalmated S Sandpiper estern W Sandpiper

Dunlin Stilt Sandpiper

BCR 10 ESTIMATE

BCR 10 OBJECTIVE

BCR 16 ESTIMATE

BCR 16 OBJECTIVE

BCR 33 ESTIMATE

BCR 33 OBJECTIVE

5,000

2,180

2,820

Dowitcher

232,864

250,000

256,000

231,214

254,190

1,551

1,710

100

ilson's W Phalarope

621,666

750,000

850,000

589,434

805,930

1,200

1,640

30,787

42,090

245

330

ed-necked R Phalarope

339,639

350,000

339,301

349,650

207

210

131

130

Note: Due to lack of data, no estimates or objectives are provided for passage shorebirds in BCR 34 and 35 within the IWJV. In addition, portions of BCRs 34 and 35 in the IWJV provide very little habitat for passage shorebirds.

5.17

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

POPULATION ESTIMATES & OBJECTIVES Table 6 P opulation estimates and objectives for breeding shorebirds within BCRs 9, 10, 16, 33, 34, and 35 in the Intermountain West Joint Venture. JV ADJUSTED ESTIMATE

BREEDING SHOREBIRDS

Snowy Plover Killdeer

9,400

JV OBJECTIVE

9,400

150,000 300,000

BCR 9 ESTIMATE

8,800

BCR 9 OBJECTIVE

BCR 10 OBJECTIVE

BCR 16 ESTIMATE

BCR 16 OBJECTIVE

BCR 33 ESTIMATE

BCR 33 OBJECTIVE

BCR 34 ESTIMATE

BCR 34 OBJECTIVE

BCR 35 ESTIMATE

BCR 35 OBJECTIVE

8,800

150

450

62,550 125,100

30,000

60,000

15,450

30,900

16,650

33,300

6,300

12,600

15,750

31,500

3,819

5,700

2,900

4,300

2,400

2,760

12,720

5,520

7,500

5,500

18,250

8,500

7,950

2,280

Mountain 6,700 10,000 0 0 Plover Black-necked 120,000 120,000 96,120 96,120 Stilt American 250,000 250,000 206,000 206,000 Avocet Spotted 15,000 15,000 2,925 2,930 Sandpiper Willet

BCR 10 ESTIMATE

20,000

14,500

3,800

300

400

70,000

99,700

47,810

68,100

19,600

27,920

2,940

4,190

1,000

1,500

1,000

1,500

Wilson’s Snipe 20,000

30,000

5,760

8,640

8,400

12,600

3,240

4,860

195,000 292,500 104,910 157,370

35,100

52,650

36,660

54,990

Upland Sandpiper Long-billed Curlew Marbled Godwit

Wilson’s Phalarope

P h o t o b y J o s h Ve s t

5.18

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

KEY SITES FOR SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION Conservation strategies based on key sites are intended to provide a more detailed approach to implementing objectives of the IWJV Implementation Plan. Since the key-site strategies are developed by all interested conservation partners in the area, they provide a tie in with land managers and site-specific source of information for the development of project proposals for IWJV funds or partners programs. Due to the smaller scale of Key-Site Conservation Strategies, they can focus on site-specific conservation needs, challenges, and priorities. The SST identified both primary and secondary key sites for conservation action. The objective of this approach is for the JV partnership to ultimately develop a key-site strategy for all primary key sites, effectively capturing a

majority of the migratory shorebird habitat conservation needs throughout the IWJV and a significant portion of shorebird breeding habitats of the Intermountain West. Primary key sites represent important shorebird sites identified by the IWRSCP and WHSRN within the IWJV boundary as well as any sites that support greater than 5,000 shorebirds during peak migration count periods, or greater than 1% of a biogeographic population of a shorebird species in any one season. Each of these sites is part of a BHCA identified in the 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan. The 1% criterion is consistent with that of WHSRN and several other national and international bird conservation groups as a threshold to identify important sites for shorebirds worldwide.

Table 7 S tatus of Primary Key Sites according to Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network criteria. PRIMARY KEY SITE

PEAK MIGRATION COUNT

HEMISPHERIC1

INTERNATIONAL2

REGIONAL3

UT - Great Salt Lake (a)4

1,484,350

Peak Count 67% American Avocet 38% Black-necked Stilt 33% Wilson’s Phalarope

26% Marbled Godwit 24% Blackbellied Plover

1% Willet

UT - Fish Springs NWR (b,g)

9,588

UT - Ouray NWR (h)5

6,067

OR - Harney Basin (b,c)

84,659

Peak Count 4% Dow sp. 2% American Avocet & Spotted Sandpiper 1% Wilson’s Phalarope & Black-necked Stilt

OR - Summer Lake (b)

34,238

Peak Count

OR - Lake Abert (b)

83,031

Peak Count

OR - Warner Basin (b)5

11,703

CA/OR - Klamath Basin (b,d)

64,318

Peak Count

CA/OR - Goose Lake (b)

37,224

Peak Count

CA/NV - Honey Lake (b)

21,609

Peak Count

CA - Alkali Lakes (b)

19,294

Peak Count

CA - Owens Lake (b)5

9,280

CA - Mono Lake (b)

102,676

NV - Lahontan Valley (b,e)

214,306

NV - Humboldt WMA (b)

25,628

ID - Am. Falls Res. (b)5

7,299

ID - Lake Lowell (b)5

12,571

CO - San Luis Valley (f)

46,016

Peak Count 38% Long-billed Dowitcher

3% Wilson’s Phalarope 2% American Avocet

Peak Count Peak Count

Peak Count

Hemispheric - At least 500,000 shorebirds annually or >30% of a biogeographic population. International - At least 100,000 shorebirds annually or >10% of a biogeographic population. Regional - At least 20,000 shorebirds annually or >1% of a biogeographic population. 4 Sources: ( a) Paul and Manning 2002; (b) Shuford et.al. 2002; (c) Ivey et al. unpubl.; (d) Shuford et al. 2006; (e) Neel and Henry 1997; (f) BLM unpubl. data; (g) Fish Springs unpubl. data; (h) NWR unpubl. data - highest counts over 7 years of data. 5 Intermountain West Joint Venture Key Site criteria: > 5,000 individual shorebirds during peak migration. 1 2 3

5.19

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

KEY SITES FOR SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION

15 16

14 11 12 13 10 8 9

Due to concern that the focus on key sites does not adequately address dispersed migrants or dispersed breeding shorebirds, the SST also identified secondary sites for conservation action. They include sites that support less than 5,000 migrants during peak counts over one migration season (Shuford et.al. 2002). These sites represent a lower priority than the 18 key sites for shorebird conservation planning and habitat conservation delivery.

1 2 3

5 6

Table 8 S econdary sites for shorebird conservation within the Intermountain West identified by the Shorebird Science Team. STATE

SITE

Othello Sewage Ponds Walla Walla River Delta

Figure 2 P rimary Shorebird Key Sites in the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 1 = American Falls Reservoir, 2 = Great Salt Lake, 3 = Fish Springs NWR, 4 = Ouray NWR, 5 = San Luis Valley, 6 = Owens Lake, 7 = Mono Lake, 8 = Humboldt WMA, 9 = Lahontan Valley, 10 = Honey Lake, 11 = Klamath Basin, 12 = Goose Lake, 13 = Alkali Lakes, 14 = Warner Basin, 15 = Summer Lake, 16 = Lake Abert, 17 = Harney Basin, 18 = Lake Lowell.

Utah Lake

Butte Valley Modoc NWR Lyneta Ranch Bridgeport Reservoir Crowley Lake

Long Valley Continental Lake Sleeper Mine Pyramid Lake Ruby Valley Key Pitman WMA Henderson Sewage Ponds

Mortenson Lake NWR Hutton Lake NWR

Arapaho

P h o t o b y J o s h Ve s t

5.20

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

KEY SITES FOR SHOREBIRD CONSERVATION The Great Salt Lake Key Site Conservation Strategy The Great Salt Lake (GSL) was selected as a site for development of a key site conservation strategy (GSL Strategy) due to its importance to shorebirds (Table 7), the size and complexity of habitats, and the existence of an active bird conservation community. The intent of the document was to provide a strategic approach to shorebird conservation that was developed by the primary stake holders active in shorebird conservation on the GSL and linked to explicit continental and regional population objectives. One of the primary tools developed in this effort was an energetic model for use in linking population objectives with habitat objectives. As a result, much of the GSL Strategy addresses important components of the models. This bioenergetic approach is focused on the nonbreeding component of the annual life cycle. A primary assumption in this strategy is that food is a primary limiting factor during post-breeding and migration in meeting annual life cycle requirements for shorebirds. Components of the model are similar to those identified for the Blanca Wetlands key site conservation strategy (see below), however a higher degree of complexity has been incorporated into the GSL model inputs. The GSL Strategy goes beyond identifying habitat needs, it also identifies human growth trends and threats to shorebirds and their habitats; provides detailed conservation actions to abate and mitigate threats; and identifies potential conservation partnerships and programs that may facilitate these actions. The entire GSL system occupies roughly 3,011 square miles, consisting of the following regions: Bear River Bay, Farmington Bay, the Gilbert Bay (south arm) and Gunnison Bay (north arm), and adjacent wetland complexes. GSL water levels are extremely dynamic and change in response to long-term precipitation cycles, seasonal changes in evaporation and inflow, and daily influences from wind-driven seiches. As a result, the strategy incorporates the effects of seasonal or annual variation in habitat availability in the form of area estimates for low and average lake levels. This is particularly relevant when considering the amount of suitable habitat along the transient shoreline that can migrate seasonally back and forth for hundreds of yards. During dry cycles, there can be vast reaches of dry mud flat (less productive shorebird foraging habitats, but some plover nesting habitat) several miles between the shoreline where birds actively feed and the nearest other wetland type. Conversely, shallow wetland habitat may be severely limiting during periods of high precipitation as experienced in the mid-to-late 1980s. As a result a 5.21

shoreline buffering technique was employed to more accurately account for functional shoreline habitat and the macro-invertebrate population it supports. The GSL shorebird team recognized that not all acres within and between habitat types have equal foraging value to shorebirds. As a result, they adopted quality designations recently identified by Ducks Unlimited within the GSL ecosystem. These habitat-quality indicators provide condition classification habitat type, location and acreage. These acreages will be used to model GSL capacity for migratory shorebirds. In addition, macroinvertebrate populations can be influenced by changing salinities, which in turn are influenced by water volume. Invertebrate biomass densities were determined from three previous studies conducted in wetlands surrounding the GSL (Huener 1984, Cox and Kadlec 1995, Johnson 2007). These studies spanned an interval of 23 years and provide invertebrate information prior to and immediately after the 1980s GSL flooding event. Shorebird population objectives were stepped down from continental and regional objectives identified in this chapter. Population objectives were fitted to annual migration phenology based on data derived from the GSL Waterbird Survey conducted from 1997â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2001. Over 54.5 million total shorebird use-days were calculated during fall migration and 16.6 million use-days during spring based on these population objectives. These use-day estimates were applied to species specific energetic demands to identify foraging habitat objectives for shorebirds. Bioenergetic assessments of fall migrating shorebirds in the Great Salt Lake indicate at least 277,000 acres of suitable shorebird-foraging wetlands (i.e., shallow water and sparse vegetation) are required in the GSL to meet population energy demands during fall migration and approximately 87,000 acres during spring migration. Current understanding of wetland productivity and availability to shorebirds limits the ability to assess whether the current conservation estate is able to meet these population demands within the GSL system. Improved understanding of wetland productivity and relationships to hydrologic dynamics will greatly improve the ability to inform and develop explicit conservation targets and strategies for shorebirds and other wetland dependent birds in the GSL system. The true â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;conservationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; component of the Strategy provides information on conservation partners and landowner priorities, trends in population growth and subsequent development, as well as site-specific threats. Site partners conducted a detailed assessment of the conservation estate considering land ownership, management status, and vulnerability (e.g., to mineral

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

BREEDING SHOREBIRD FOCAL SPECIES extraction or change in ownership status). The Great Salt Lake Key-Site Strategy provides a comprehensive assessment of shorebird habitat in the Great Salt Lake and a conservation strategy designed with site- and species-specific data collected at GSL and management recommendations identified by active conservation partners in the ecosystem.

habitats. Because direct information was lacking on shorebird diets at Blanca WHA, the most plausible values reported in the literature from saline ponds in the Playa Lakes region were used. Because of the uncertainty involved with these surrogate values, habitat requirements of passage shorebirds under four forage density values were estimated.

Blanca Wetlands Shorebird Habitat Strategy

Analysis of shorebird counts suggests that Blanca WHA supports more passage shorebirds than previously recognized, particularly during post-breeding migration. The most abundant passage shorebird species included Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Phalarope, American Avocet, and Bairdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sandpiper. Our results indicate that playas on Blanca WHA did not meet the bioenergetic needs of the observed population of passage shorebirds (47,108) and would not have meet the needs of a site-specific population objective of 49,226 shorebirds. Our results indicate that under all but the highest forage density, deficits in meeting the energetic requirements occurred during peak post-breeding migration in early to mid-August.

The Blanca Wildlife Habitat Area is a complex of wetlands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the San Luis Valley of south-central Colorado. The San Luis Valley has been identified as a primary Key Site for shorebird conservation in the Intermountain West (Table 7.) The IWJVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SST elected to use a bioenergetic approach to develop shorebird habitat objectives that are explicitly linked to national and regional shorebird population objectives. Blanca WHA is an important stopover site to passage shorebirds in the eastern IWJV. Blanca WHA was selected for testing the viability of bioenergetics modeling as an assumption-based decision support tool for local land managers, while contributing to the knowledge base of shorebird habitat use and supply in the IWJV. This effort was collaborative and included members of the SST, local BLM wetland managers, Colorado Division of Wildlife biologists, and BLM biologists. Shorebird survey and habitat data collected by the BLM from 2002 to 2007 were used to generate inputs to a bioenergetic model: population objectives, daily food requirement, habitat availability, and energy supplied by playas. Basic carrying capacity equations were used to evaluate bioenergetic demand and supply. Dietary differences during pre- and post-breeding periods were assessed and a range of food items were incorporated in the estimates of energy available in playa foraging

5.22

Shorebird habitat management actions on Blanca WHA should focus on increasing the quantity or quality, relative to the density of shorebird prey items, of playas in late July through August. Further monitoring is also needed to test assumptions of the energetics model and to address data limitations. We provide monitoring and research recommendations that would reduce current uncertainties, particularly around the forage density value. Management recommendations are also provided to reduce the predicted deficits in energy supplies. A next step in the shorebird bioenergetics approach would be to consider all wetland types within the Blanca WHA boundary and possibly within the entire San Luis Valley.

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

BREEDING SHOREBIRD FOCAL SPECIES Habitat objectives for breeding shorebirds in the Intermountain West have not been developed for this implementation plan update. However, the Intermountain West contains critical breeding habitat for many shorebird species. The IWJV partnership should therefore strive to develop habitat objectives for important shorebird species as identified through the biological framework discussed in chapter 3 of the implementation plan update. However, the SST has identified a suite of priority breeding shorebird species from which focal species can be selected to focus more detailed biological planning and develop appropriate conservation strategies. Development of meaningful conservation strategies around focal breeding shorebirds will be dependent on the availability of information related to both population demographics and relationships to landscape or habitat metrics. Priority species were selected because relatively little is known about breeding shorebird distribution, abundance, or limiting demographic parameters within the Intermountain West. Priority species also represent shorebirds of the highest conservation priority by partners (state, NAWCA, and BCC/BMC) in the Intermountain West. However, the list of priority species identified here may not represent true umbrella or indicator species (Lindenmayer et al. 2002). Priority species were selected based on a variety of factors including: • high conservation scores listed in the IWRSCP (Highly Imperiled or Species of High Concern) • high Area of Importance scores (the area is critical or important to support hemispheric or regional populations) which signifies a high stewardship value, or • high degree to fidelity to important habitat types in the IWRSCP Data used to identify priority breeding shorebirds represent peak counts by species during one migration season. As a result, data provided in the table above represent a minimum abundance (one season). A more accurate representation of the magnitude of use at any site should be presented by counts collected throughout an annual cycle. Further, many of the data presented above were collected in the early 1990’s and should be updated.

5.23

Focal Species Profiles Snowy Plover: This species was selected as a focal breeding species because the Intermountain West is considered ‘critical to supporting hemispheric populations’ of Snowy Plover (AI = 5, USSCP). This Photo by Utah Division species also was selected because relatively of Wildlife Resources current breeding densities per site are available from the results of a comprehensive, range-wide survey of breeding plovers conducted in 2007. Large saline lakes, ephemeral wetlands/playas, and man-made impoundments with a relatively consistent source of water and little to no vegetative cover are important habitat components. Changes in water management practices, drought or flooding, and vegetative encroachment may limit habitat availability. Wilson’s Phalarope: Wilson’s Phalarope was also selected as a focal breeding shorebird species because the Intermountain West is ‘critical to supporting Hemispheric populations’ (AI = Photo by Utah Division 5, USSCP). This is a species of marshes of Wildlife Resources and lake/marsh complexes and irrigated agricultural fields. They favor tall, dense vegetation within 100 meters of wetlands. Limiting factors include loss of habitat and lack of sufficient water in breeding and foraging habitats (Colwell and Jehl 1994). Wilson’s Phalaropes can also be affected by changes in irrigation practices which limit water runoff and eliminate standing water in flooded fields (Lesterhuis and Clay 2009). Long-billed Curlew: Long-billed Curlew also receives the highest conservation ranking within the IWJV (i.e. highly imperiled and critical to supporting hemispheric populations). Long-billed Photo by Utah Division Curlews prefer open grasslands (short to of Wildlife Resources mixed grass and open or recently grazed pastures) with maximum heights less than 30 cm (Fellows and Jones 2009) Researchers speculate that proximity to wetland habitats within one mile of nest sites is preferred, however this has not been definitively proven. Long-billed Curlew was selected by the Partners in Flight Western Working Group as a species to develop habitat objectives for through the HABPOPs model in upland habitats (refer to Landbird Chapter). Thus, habitat and population assessments for Long-billed Curlew are addressed in the Landbird Chapter.

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

BREEDING SHOREBIRD FOCAL SPECIES Mountain Plover: Mountain Plovers have a limited distribution within the IWJV in portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah; the Intermountain West is considered critical to supporting Photo by USFWS hemispheric populations by supporting several important breeding areas for this species. The highest density of breeding Mountain Plovers occurs in South Park, Colorado (Wunder et al. 2003). The Mountain Plover is associated with short-grass and shrub-steppe landscapes throughout its breeding range, prefering sites with very sparse, short vegetative cover (e.g., prairie dog colonies, heavily grazed pasture, or recently burned or tilled fields). Habitat loss and degradation appear to limit population growth on the breeding grounds (Knopf 1996, USFWS 2003). The primary activities that influence degradation or loss include conversion of native grasslands for agriculture, and negative farming and range management practices (Knopf 1996, USFWS 2003). Upland Sandpiper: While the Upland Sandpiper is not considered of conservation concern throughout the Intermountain West, there is a small isolated population in eastern WA and OR that may be genetically Photo by USFWS distinct. Research is needed to determine the status of this small, isolated population. For this reason, this species has been designated as a focal breeding species. Upland Sandpipers are considered grassland obligate species and are restricted to large (>100ha), open tracts of short grassland habitat. Preferred habitats include short-grass prairies, dry meadows, pastures, and hayfields with a variety of vegetation heights and densities (Vickery et al. 2010). Limiting factors include loss of grassland habitats for row crop agriculture.

5.24

American Avocet: The American Avocet was selected because it is relatively common throughout the Intermountain West with approximately half of the global population breeding in the region. They Photo by USFWS commonly nest on dikes, islands, or high spots near large saline lakes, man-made impoundments, ephemeral wetlands and playas, or marshes and lake/marsh complexes. Threats include loss or degradation of breeding habitats and water quality and selenium poisoning. This species responds well to nesting habitat management, especially construction of nesting islands within areas of shallow water. Black-necked Stilt: This species was also selected because Black-necked Stilts are relatively common throughout the Intermountain West. They can be found in similar habitats as American Avocets, Photo by USFWS although stilts prefer more emergent vegetation than avocets. Black-necked Stilts are considered an important indicator species of contaminants in irrigation drain water due to their sensitivity to selenium (Robinson et al. 1999). Other threats include loss of habitat and degradation of water quality. This species responds well to nesting habitat management especially construction of nesting islands within areas of shallow water.

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 Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington & R. Gill, eds. 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Second edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. Colwell,, M.A. and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1994. Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) In The Birds of North America, No. 83 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp. Downard, R. 2010. Keeping wetlands wet: The hydrology of wetlands in the Bear River Basin. 2010. All Graduate Thesis and Dissertations. Paper 829. Utah State University. Graduate Studies, School of DigitalCommons@USU. Online: http://digitalcommons. usu.etd/829 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 the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/BTP – R6012-2009, Washington, D.C. Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird Management Manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet, MA. 58 pp. Intermountain West Joint Venture. 2005. Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan, Ver. 1.1. Online: <http://iwjv.org>. Ivey, G. L. 2001. Joint Venture Implementation Plans for Habitat Conservation Areas in Eastern Oregon: Klamath Basin. Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture, Portland, Oregon. Online: www.ohjv.org/pdfs/klamath_basin %20.pdf. Jehl, J. R., Jr. 1994. Changes in saline and alkaline lake avifaunas in western North America in the past 150 years. Studies in Avian Biology 15:258–272. Knopf, F. L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 211. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia. Lesterhuis, A. J., and R.P. Clay. 2009. Conservation Plan for Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). Version 1.0. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts.

5.25

Lindenmayer, D.B., A.D. Manning, P.L. Smith, H.P. Possingham, J. Fischer, I. Oliver, and M.A. McCarthy. 2002. The Focal-Species Approach and Landscape Restoration: a Critique. Conservation Biology 16: 338-345. Meltofte, Hans, T. Piersma, H. Boyd, B. McCaffery, B. Ganter, V.V. Golovnyuk, K. Graham, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, R.I.G. Morrison, E. Nol, H.-U. Rösner, D. Schamel, H. Schekkerman, M.Y. Soloviev, P.S. Tomkovich, D.M. Tracy, I. Tulp, and L. Wennerberg. 2007. Effects of climate variation on the breeding ecology of Arctic shorebirds. – Meddelelser om Grønland Bioscience 59. Copenhagen, Danish Polar Center 2007. 48 pp. Morrison, R.I.G, McCaffery, B.J., Gill, R.E., Skagen, S.K., Jones, S.L., Page, G.W., Gratto-Trevor, C.L. & Andres, B.A. 2006. Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2006. Wader Study Group Bull. 111:67–85. Neel, L. A. and W. G. Henry. 1997. Shorebirds in the Lahontan Valley, Nevada, USA: a case history of western Great Basin shorebirds. International Wader Studies 9: 15-19. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee, 2010. The State of the Birds 2010 Report on Climate Change, United States of America. U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC. Oring, L.W., L. Neel, K. E. Oring. 2000. Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, version 1.0. Regional report of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences., P.O. Box 1770, Manomet, MA 02345 (www.manomet.org) Pampush, G.J. and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Nest success, habitat utilization and nest-site selection of Long-billed Curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. Condor 95: 957967. Paul, D.S., and A.E. Manning. 2002. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey Five-Year Report (1997–2001). Publication Number 08-38. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. Paullin, D. G., C. D. Littlefield, and R. E. Vorderstrasse. 1977. Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin Study, Oregon, Report 1. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unpubl. Report. Portland, OR. 47 pp Paulson, D. 1993. Shorebirds of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

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 Robinson, J.A., J.M. Reed, J.P. Skorupa, and L.W. Oring. 1999. Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 449. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia. America.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the Mountain Plover as threatened. Federal Register 68:53083.

Shuford, W.D, G.W. Page, and L. E. Stenzel. 2002. Patterns of Distribution and abundance of migratory shorebirds in the Intermountain West of the United States. Western Birds 33:134 – 174.

USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

Shuford, W.D., D.L. Thomson, D.M. Mauser, and J. Beckstrand. 2006. Abundance and distribution of nongame waterbirds in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California from comprehensive surveys in 2003 and 2004. PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 Shoreline Highway 1, Stinson Beach, CA.

Vickery, P. D., D. E. Blanco, and B. López-Lanús. 2010. Conservation Plan for the Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Version 1.1. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts.

Thomas, S. 2005. Recent Intermountain West conservation Projects that Benefit Shorebirds: July 2005. U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Regional Reports. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Online: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/ RegionalShorebird/RegionalReports.htm

5.26

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

APPENDIX A. SHOREBIRD SCIENCE TEAM MEMBERS • Brad Andres, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Daniel Casey, American Bird Conservancy • Wendell Gilgert, Natural Resources Conservation Service • Suzanne Fellows, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Gary Ivey, International Crane Foundation • Dave Mauser, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Colleen Moulton, Idaho Department of Fish and Game • Larry Neel, Nevada Department of Wildlife • Don Paul, AvianWest, Inc. • Mark Petrie, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. • Bridget Olson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Dave Shuford, PRBO Conservation Science • Kelli Stone, Two Birds One Stone LLC • Sue Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5.27

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

APPENDIX B. STATUS OF SHOREBIRD SPECIES Status of shorebird species identified through regional conservation scores in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

nonbreeding season. Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Phalarope are found in high concentrations at a small number of large saline lakes in the JV on migration, thus their Nonbreeding Distribution = 5. Conservation of foraging resources (e.g. brine flies and brine shrimp) at those sites would be very beneficial for this species. The specific scores for shorebirds in the Intermountain West are provided below.

These scores can provide a means for partners to assess conservation activities for the highest return on conservation dollars. For instance, a common passage shorebird in the JV with a high TN score coupled with a high score for ND would be an excellent species for conservation measures during the passage or

SPECIES

Black -bellied Plover

Snowy Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Killdeer

Mountain Plover

Black-necked Stilt

American Avocet

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

Spotted Sandpiper

Upland Sandpiper

Whimbrel

Long-billed Curlew

Marbled Godwit

Red Knot

Sanderling

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

Least Sandpiper

Baird's Sandpiper

Pectoral Sandpiper

Dunlin

Stilt Sandpiper

Short-billed Dowitcher

Long-billed Dowitcher

Wilson's Snipe

Wilson's Phalarope

Red-necked Phalarope

From Bird Conservation Region Area Importance Scores at www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird.htm

5.28

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

APPENDIX B. STATUS OF SHOREBIRD SPECIES Population Trend (PT) – Represents an assessment of available information on population trends and to estimate broad categories of population decline. They range from 5 = species with documented population decline to 1 = Significant population increase.

Breeding Distribution (BD) - This variable ranks the size of the breeding range for species that breed in North America, and only applies during the actual breeding season (5 = <2.5% of North America to 1 = >20% of North America).

Relative Abundance (RA) – An assessment of population size (5 = <25,000 to 1 = >1,000,000)

Non-breeding Distribution (ND) - This variable refers to distribution during the non-breeding season and rates the relative risks associated with having a smaller absolute range size during the non-breeding season (5 = Highly restricted or very restricted coastal areas, or interior range to 1 = Very widespread).

Threats During the Breeding Season (TB) - Ranks known threats. Also indicates limited knowledge available for determining threats to most shorebirds (5 = Known threats occurring and documented to 1 = Demonstrably secure). Threats During Non-breeding Season (TN) - This score applies the criteria listed above for TB scores to the migration and over-wintering period and also considers concentration risks (5 = Concentration results in actual risk to 1 = Demonstrably secure).

5.29

Conservation Score (CS) – This score takes into consideration all scores presented above. (5 = all species liste as threatened or endangered nationally to 1= no apparent risk of population decline).

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. COMMON & SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SHOREBIRD SPECIES LISTED IN THIS DOCUMENT COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Black-bellied Plover

Pluvialis squatarola squatarola

Snowy Plover

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (Interior)

Semipalmated Plover

Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer

Charadrius vociferous vociferous

Mountain Plover

Charadrius montanus

Black-necked Stilt

Himantopus mexicanus mexicanus

American Avocet

Recurvirostra americana

Greater Yellowlegs

Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs

Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper

Tringa solitara solitaria/cinnamomea

Spotted Sandpiper

Actitis macularia

Willet

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus

Upland Sandpiper

Batramia longicauda

Long-billed Curlew

Numenius americanus

Whimbrel

Numenius phaeopus rufiventris

Marbled Godwit

Limosa fedoa fedoa (Plains)

Red Knot

Calidris canutus roselarri

Sanderling

Calidris alba

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Calidris pusilla

Western Sandpiper

Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper

Calidris minutilla

Baird's Sandpiper

Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper

Calidris melanotos

Dunlin

Calidris alpina pacifica

Stilt Sandpiper

Calidris himantopus

Short-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus griseus caurinus

Long-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus scolopaceus

Wilson's Snipe

Gallinago delicata

Wilson's Phalarope

Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope

Phalaropus lobatus

5.30

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

Cha pte r Six

Wa t e r b i r d s

Pr incipa l Autho r s: Ta r a Zimme r ma n, G a r y Ivey, a nd Jo sh Ve st

Photo by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Inside this Chapter Introduction........................................................................................................................... 6.3

Wa t e r b i r d s

Eared Grebe................................................................................................................... 6.12

•

Double-Crested Cormorant............................................................................................. 6.12

•

White-faced Ibis............................................................................................................. 6.13

•

Sandhill Cranes.............................................................................................................. 6.13

•

Caspian Tern.................................................................................................................. 6.15

Threats & Limiting Factors.................................................................................................. 6.16 •

Loss and Degradation of Wetland Habitat........................................................................ 6.16

•

Water Supply and Security.............................................................................................. 6.16

•

Water Quality.. ................................................................................................................ 6.18

•

Loss of Foraging Habitat................................................................................................. 6.18

•

Climate Change.............................................................................................................. 6.18

Focal Species Approach................................................................................................. 6.21

•

Focal Species and Conservation Planning....................................................................... 6.24

•

Focal Species Profiles.. ................................................................................................... 6.25

Population Inventory & Monitoring...................................................................................... 6.28 •

Western Colonial Waterbird Survey, 2009–2011............................................................... 6.28

•

North American Marsh Bird Monitoring............................................................................ 6.28

•

Continental Marsh Bird Monitoring Pilot Study.. ............................................................... 6.29

•

Periodic or Annual Waterbird Surveys.. ............................................................................ 6.29

•

Species-Specific Surveys.. .............................................................................................. 6.30

6.2

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

Photo by Rio de la Vista

The goal of the Waterbird chapter is to build upon the IWJV 2005 Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan (2005 Implementation Plan) by identifying priority waterbird species within the Intermountain West region and a suite of waterbird focal species from which to develop a regional science-based framework for waterbird conservation. Regional waterbird abundance and distribution data were updated with the most recent and available data which will inform the future derivation of population objectives to support conservation planning. For the purposes of this chapter, waterbirds are defined as wetland dependent colonial, semi-colonial, and solitary nesting species such as loons, grebes, bitterns, herons, egrets, cranes, rails, gulls and terns. The framework for this chapter is established in continental and regional waterbird conservation plans. Recognizing that conservation is most effective when planned and implemented at the regional and local scales, The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP; Kushlan et. al. 2002) delineated 16 regional waterbird conservation planning areas within North America. The NAWCP also provides conservation assessments, population estimates, and identifies colonialnesting waterbird species of conservation concern at continental and hemispheric scales. A 2006 supplement to the NAWCP: the Conservation Status Assessment and Categories of Concern for Solitary-Nesting Waterbirds (www.waterbirdconservation.org/assessment.html) assesses and prioritizes the conservation status of 43 species of solitary-nesting waterbirds. The NAWCP and

6.3

species assessments provide a common framework to facilitate coordinated waterbird conservation across North America. The Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (IWWCP; Ivey and Herziger 2006; http://www. waterbirdconservation.org/intermountain_west.html ) serves as the biological foundation for IWJV waterbird conservation. Thirty-eight species of waterbirds representing nine families regularly utilize the IWJV area as year-round or seasonal habitat (Table 1). The IWWCP plan provides a foundation for biological planning for these waterbirds. It prioritizes breeding and migrant waterbird species at the regional scale; provides data on waterbird distribution and abundance; sets preliminary waterbird population objectives by Bird Conservation Region (BCR) and state; identifies important waterbird habitats in the region; and provides site-specific information on nine key waterbird sites with critical conservation needs. The IWJV encompasses nearly all of the Intermountain West Regional Waterbird Planning Area. The IWJVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2013 Implementation Plan represents an important, incremental step toward strategic conservation planning for waterbirds as it provides the foundation for biological planning. However, actions recommended to conserve important key sites and Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCA) identified in the 2005 Implementation Plan and IWWCP (Ivey and Herziger 2006) will continue to benefit migratory bird populations in the Intermountain West.

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

Nesting Strategy

Chihuahuan Desert BCR 35

Sierra Madre Occidental BCR 34

Sonoran Mohave Deserts BCR 33

SPECIES

So. Rockies -Colorado Plateau BCR 16

Great Basin BCR 9

No. Rockies BCR 10

Table 1 W aterbird Seasonal occurrence, relative abundance1 and nesting strategy2 in the Intermountain West Joint Venture listed by Bird Conservation Region (BCR).

Pacific Loon

m, w

m,w

m, w

Common Loon

b, m, w

b, m

m,w

m, w

m,w

Pied-billed Grebe

b, m, w

Horned Grebe

b, m

m, w

Red-necked Grebe

b, m

Eared Grebe

b, M

b, m

b, m, w

m, w

b, m, w

m, w

Western Grebe

B, m, w

b, m, w

b, m

m, w

b, m

b, m, w

Clark’s Grebe

B, m, w

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

American White Pelican

B, M

b, m

m, w

Neotropic Cormorant

b, m, w

Double-crested Cormorant

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

m, w

American Bittern

b, m, w

b, m

m, w

Least Bittern

b, m

Great Blue Heron

b, m, w

Great Egret

b, m, w

Snowy Egret

b, m

Cattle Egret

b, m

Green Heron

b ,m

b, m

b, m, w

Black-crowned Night Heron

B, m

b, m, w

White-faced Ibis

B, m

b, m

B, m

Yuma Clapper Rail3

Yellow Rail

B, m, w

Black Rail4

Virginia Rail

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

Sora

b, m w

b, m

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

Common Moorhen

b, m

b, m, w

American Coot

b, m, w

b, m

b, m, w

Greater Sandhill Crane – LCRVP5

B, M

Greater Sandhill Crane – CVP5

B, M

Greater Sandhill Crane – RMP5

b, M

Lesser Sandhill Crane – PFP6

M, w

Lesser Sandhill Crane - MCP6

m, w

M, W

m, w

M, W

Franklin’s Gull

b, m

Bonaparte’s Gull

m, w

Ring-billed Gull

b, m, w

m, w

California Gull

B, m, w

b, m, w

Herring Gull

m, w

Glaucous-winged Gull

b, w

Caspian Tern

b, m

Common Tern

b, m

Forster’s Tern

B, m

b, m

Black Tern

b, m

6.4

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 1. Relative Abundance Indicators: B, M, W – high concentrations, region is extremely important to the species relative to most other regions (Regional BCR AI = 5 or 4 – 25% - 50% of N. American population); B, M, W – common or locally abundant, region is important to the species (Regional BCR AI = 3; with 10% - 24% of N. American population) ; b, m, w – common to fairly uncommon, region is within the species range but species occurs in low abundance relative to other regions (Regional AI = 2 or 1 (<1 – 9% of NA population); b, m, w – status as breeder, migrant, or wintering bird is known but abundance relative to other regions is unknown. 2. Nesting Strategy - Most typical nesting strategy: C= colonial; S= solitary; SC= semi-colonial

6.5

3. Yuma Clapper Rail – Occurs in Muddy and Virgin River valleys, NV. Breeding confirmed in Big Marsh, Clark, County NV in 2001 (Floyd 2007). 4. Black Rail – Reported to occur along the Virgin River, Clark County NV in July 2003 but breeding not confirmed (Floyd 2007). 5. Greater Sandhill Crane Population Designations: CVP – Central Valley Population; LCRVP – Lower Colorado River Valley Population; RMP – Rocky Mountain Population; PFP – Pacific Flyway population; MCP – Mid Continent Population. 6. Lesser Sandhill Crane Population Designations: PFP – Pacific Flyway Population; MCP – Mid- continent Population.

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

WATERBIRDS & THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST REGION The IWJV is vast, stretching from Canada to Mexico, and ranging in elevation from 282 feet below sea level to 14,775 feet above sea level. The region is bounded by the Sierra Nevada and Cascades mountains on the west and the Rocky Mountains on the east. With more than 13.4 million acres of aquatic and wetland habitat types, this unique area is characterized by a diverse assemblage of saline ecosystems, freshwater marshes, deep water lakes and reservoirs, agricultural lands, and riparian habitats. Waterbirds occupy the full spectrum of these habitats to meet their requirements for breeding, migrating, and wintering. The IWWCP identifies the following important waterbird habitat types, key sites, and their significance to waterbirds:

in implementation plans developed by other Joint Ventures (i.e., Pacific Coast, Central Valley and Playa Lakes JVs).

Saline Lakes The large, terminal, hyper-saline lakes in the IWJV are renowned for their unique biographic features and significance to wetland-dependant avifauna. Important sites include Mono Lake, California; Great Salt Lake, Utah, and Lake Abert, Harney Lake, and Summer Lake in eastern Oregon (Jehl 1994, Ivey and Herziger 2006). These sites provide an abundance of brine shrimp (Artemia spp.) and brine flies (Ephydra spp.), both critical food resources to various waterbird species during breeding, migration, staging, and molting life-cycle stages. Although the overall number of hyper-saline lakes is small, they support enormous concentrations of waterbirds during key stages of their life cycle. Mono Lake and Great Salt Lake host the largest California Gull rookeries in the world with more than 130,000 breeding adults (Cooper 2004). These two sites alone support millions of Eared Grebes that stage and molt in the fall (Boyd and Jehl 1998; Neill et al. 2009).

Freshwater Wetlands

Figure 1 M ap of the Intermountain West Joint Venture Area, Bird Conservation Region and State Boundaries.

The IWJV encompasses all or portions of 11 western states, the entire U.S. portions of BCR 9 (Great Basin) and 10 (Northern Rockies), and nearly all of BCR 16 (Southern Rockies; NABCI; Fig. 1). Portions of the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts, Sierra Madre Occidental, Chihuahuan Desert, Pacific Rainforest, Sierra Nevada, and Shortgrass Prairie BCRs are also encompassed by the IWJV. For planning purposes, the latter three BCRs were not addressed because they comprise relatively small portions of the IWJV or because these areas are addressed 6.6

In contrast to the comparatively few but critical saline lakes, lies an extended network of discrete freshwater marsh habitats dispersed throughout the IWJV landscape. These sites support waterbirds year-round including American White Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant, Greater Sandhill Crane, Sora, American Bittern, Virginia Rail, and numerous species of grebes, herons, egrets, gulls, and terns. Many of these species exhibit sitefidelity, occupying the same locations in multiple years. Yet waterbird colony locations and occupancy can change in response to site-specific and regional habitat conditions that fluctuate with short and long-term flood and drought cycles. Species such as White-faced Ibis have adapted to this variability by developing a nomadic breeding strategy at the landscape scale responding to dramatic shifts in both seasonal and annual wetland habitat conditions (Jehl 1994, Earnst et al. 1998, Haig et al. 1998). Other waterbirds, such as Franklinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gulls exhibit a similar strategy, and their colonies are often associated with those of White-faced Ibis. The extended network of semi-permanent wetlands dispersed across the arid west is critical to the reproductive success and long-term population viability of waterbirds throughout the west. Seasonal wetlands and wet meadows in the region serve as primary breeding and migration habitat for several subspecies and populations of waterbirds of particular management concern. Approximately 90% of

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

WATERBIRDS & THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST REGION the three western Greater Sandhill Crane populations (Lower Colorado River Valley Population [LCRVP]; Rocky Mountain Population [RMP]; and Central Valley Population [CVP]) breed within the wet meadows and seasonal wetlands in the Great Basin and Northern Rockies BCRs. The montane meadows of south central Oregon have recently been found to support nearly the entire population of Yellow Rails in the western United States. Yellow Rails in Oregon were considered extirpated by the mid-1900’s (AOU 1983) but were rediscovered in the 1980’s (Stern et al.. 1993). Currently thought to number between 400 and 1,000 birds, the western population is largely confined to the Klamath Basin and Great Basin wetlands of Oregon in the summer, and is thought to winter in marshes of coastal northern California (Lundsten and Popper 2002, Bookhout 1995, Popper and Stern 2000).

Deep Water Lakes and Reservoirs Construction of dams and other water projects in the IWJV has created open water habitats beneficial to breeding, migrating, wintering and roosting waterbirds. Pelicans, cormorants, loons, and grebes depend on deep water lakes and reservoirs to meet their year-round habitat requirements. Reservoirs with nesting islands and an abundance of fish support important breeding colonies of pelicans, terns and, gulls (e.g. Blackfoot Reservoir, Idaho and Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), California). Other natural lakes and reservoirs important to waterbirds identified in the IWJV include Eagle Lake; Goose Lake and Lake Almanor in California; Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon; and Lake Cascade and Lake Lowell (Deer Flat NWR) in Idaho.

Flood-Irrigated Agricultural Fields Flood-irrigated agricultural fields and flooded pastures, often occurring adjacent to wetlands, provide important foraging habitat for many waterbirds including ibises, herons, egrets, cranes, rails, and gulls during the breeding, migration, and winter seasons. In Nevada, ibises fed in irrigated alfalfa fields 86% of the time throughout the early summer, and by late summer they fed exclusively in these irrigated fields (Bray and Klebanow 1988). Virginia Rails and Soras use this habitat for post-breeding and brood-rearing life stages (Johnson and Dinsmore 1986). The entire management populations of Greater and Lesser Sandhill Cranes that migrate through the Pacific Flyway,

6.7

largely within the IWJV, rely on croplands, pasturelands, hayfields, and seasonal wetlands in the IWJV during both fall and spring migrations (Tacha et al. 1992; Pacific Flyway Committee 1983; Pacific and Central Flyway Committees 2007).

Riparian Riparian habitats in the IWJV range from broad deciduous tree and shrub flood-plain vegetation to narrow stringers of tamarisk in lowland desert habitats. Tree and shrublined rivers, streams, springs and ponds are primary habitat for nesting herons, cormorants, and egrets. Gallery riparian forests are particularly important to herons and cormorants. Vegetated islands in river mouths and braided river channels offer protected nesting habitat for tree and shrub nesters, and islands barren of vegetation provide the requisite predator-free breeding habitat for ground-nesting waterbirds such as terns and gulls. When riparian borders occur in combination with freshwater wetland habitat types, these ecosystems can support a higher number and diversity of waterbird species.

Key Sites Ivey and Herziger (2006) identified 44 individual wetland sites as very important to waterbirds within the Intermountain West (Fig. 2; IWWCP). Many of these function as discrete oases for some species while also functioning as part of a linked network of wetlands critical to waterbird populations at the larger landscape scale. All of these sites and other areas important to waterbirds are identified in the IWJV’s 2005 Implementation Plan and IWJV State Plans as BHCAs (note: these plans were developed by the IWJV’s 11 State Steering Committee, now referred to as State Conservation Partnerships). They include: Harney Basin and Lake Abert in Oregon; Klamath Basin and Goose Lake in Oregon and California; Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake in Nevada; Blackfoot Reservoir, Bear Lake NWR, and Grays Lake NWR in Idaho; Great Salt Lake in Utah; Centennial Valley in Montana; San Luis Valley in Colorado; Middle Rio Grande (including Bosque del Apache NWR) in New Mexico, and the White Mountain wetlands in Arizona. The protection and enhancement of BCHAs for migratory birds will continue to play an important role in conservation efforts for waterbirds addressed in this strategy and for all bird conservation.

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

WATERBIRDS & THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST REGION

Figure 2 Key Wetland sites identified in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (Ivey and Herziger 2006).

6.8

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

OVERVIEW OF PLANNING APPROACH A Waterbird Science Team (WST) comprised of biologists with expertise in waterbird conservation in the Intermountain West convened to develop and guide this Strategy (Appendix A). The WST reviewed priority species, population estimates, population objectives, conservation assessments, and key site conservation strategies identified in the IWWCP and other available sources. When possible, waterbird population estimates and objectives were updated to reflect the current state of information available to support planning. A suite of waterbirds representing IWJV wetland habitat types, nest site attributes, and foraging guilds were identified as Focal Species for future conservation planning purposes. A subset of geographic areas of known significance to focal species, or those with significant concentrations of waterbirds (see Ivey and Herziger 2006) were identified as Focal Areas appropriate for future IWJV waterbird conservation planning at a sub-BCR scale.

Photo by Gar y Ivey

6.9

State-of-the-art conservation planning incorporates the use of population-habitat models and geospatial data to link population and habitat goals. Ideally, this level of planning would utilize knowledge of the population status and trends, habitat affiliations, limiting factors, and spatial and temporal characteristics of the species and landscape of interest (Will et al. 2005, USFWS 2006). The use of population-habitat modeling and a focal species approach to conservation also requires many assumptions (Caro and Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Doherty 1998, Fleishman et al. 2000, Chase and Guepel 2005). This is particularly true for waterbirds in the Intermountain West because information and data necessary to support biological planning is severely lacking or limited; consequently, our capacity to conduct science-based conservation planning for western waterbirds is similarly challenged. Nonetheless, to initiate the conservation planning process, we identify a subset of focal species and landscapes (Focal Areas) deemed most appropriate for initial IWJV conservation planning for waterbirds. Improvements and advances in population monitoring, wetland inventory, and a better understanding of habitat affiliations, threats, limiting factors, and the spatial and temporal scales of western waterbird populations in the Intermountain West will provide the means to achieve strategic conservation for focal waterbirds in future plan updates. In consideration of data limitation and the limitations inherent to the use of an umbrella or focal-species approach to landscape scale restoration and protection (see Fleishman et al. 2001, Chase and Guepel 2005, Lindenmayer et al. 2006) the information in this plan is intended to supplement, not replace, the conservation goals and strategies identified in the IWWCP and 2005 IWJV Implementation Plan. The achievement of BHCA goals and wetland habitat acreage objectives at those sites currently documented to support significant waterbird communities (i.e., key sites) will continue to facilitate important habitat enhancement and restoration for waterbirds in the Intermountain West. In this manner, the IWJV will implement a range of approaches to waterbird habitat conservation, while continuing to improve the base of information necessary to advance conservation strategies for waterbirds in future plan updates. As such, this strategy serves as an intermediate step in the development of explicit conservation targets for waterbirds in the Intermountain West.

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

WATERBIRD POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS

Photo by Gar y Ivey

Expert opinion and data from local, state, regional and national population monitoring programs were considered and compiled in the species conservation assessment process documented in the regional IWWCP (Ivey and Herziger 2006). For breeding waterbirds, IWWCP species priorities were identified using a modified conservation assessment process based on the Partners in Flight Species Assessment (Panjabi et al. 2005). Migrant waterbirds were identified as high conservation concern in the IWWCP if a site within a BCR supported 10% or more of the North American population during migration or if specific threats were identified at primary staging sites. Of the 33 waterbird species that regularly breed in the IWJV, the regional IWWCP identified six colonialnesting and four solitary-nesting waterbirds as species of high concern: Western Grebe, Clark’s Grebe, American White Pelican, Snowy Egret, Franklin’s Gull, and Black Tern; and Common Loon, American Bittern, Yellow Rail, and Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP). Migrant or wintering populations of Eared Grebe, Lesser Sandhill Crane, and LCRVP, RMP and CVP migrant Greater Sandhill Crane are also identified as species of high conservation concern at the regional scale.

6.10

For most waterbirds, data on population sizes over time is unavailable or insufficient for the purpose of estimating population trends. The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) long-term trend results (1966 – 2007) indicate significant increasing population trends (P< .05) for four waterbird species in the Western Region: Common Loon, Eared Grebe, Snowy Egret, and Green Heron (Table 2; Sauer et al. 2008). Because the BBS uses a roadside point-count survey technique, certain habitats and species such as wetlands and colonial waterbirds are under-sampled (Bystrack 1981, Robbins et al. 1986). BBS trend estimates for waterbirds are particularly subject to known BBS data deficiencies including small sample sizes, low relative abundance on survey routes, and imprecise trends (Sauer et al. 2008). Even species with reported significant trends may have data deficiencies that affect the credibility of regional estimates of trend. For example, Western Region BBS data collected during the breeding season indicate that the population of Eared Grebes significantly increased 1966-2007 and 1980-2007 (Table 2); however, standardized species-specific annual monitoring efforts conducted at two saline lakes in the Intermountain West that support 99% of this population during the fall indicate declining population trends for this waterbird (see next page).

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

WATERBIRD POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS Table 2 N orth American Breeding Bird Survey Trend Results for Waterbirds the Western Region, 1966-2007 and 1980-2007. 1966â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2007 trends

SPECIES

TREND1

1980â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2007 trends

(95% CI)4

R.A.5

TREND

Common Loon

1.6

0.01

131

0.4

2.8

0.46

0.9

0.15

123

Pied-billed Grebe

0.7

0.54

231

-1.6

3.1

0.24

0.9

0.57

206

-2.8

0.06

-5.7

0.38

-4.2

0.04

Red-necked Grebe

0.3

0.69

-1.3

1.9

0.42

-0.3

0.75

Eared Grebe

3.7

0.03

0.5

6.8

1.05

4.1

0.05

American White Pelican

1.7

0.31

106

-1.6

5.1

2.13

2.8

0.05

101

Double-crested Cormorant

2.9

0.1

147

-0.5

6.3

0.54

1.9

0.55

141

American Bittern

-4.4

122

-6.4

-2.3

0.33

-2.3

0.26

105

Least Bittern

22.1

0.14

12.7

31.5

0.03

22.8

0.14

Great Blue Heron

-0.5

0.47

464

-1.9

0.9

0.53

-0.8

0.21

422

Great Egret

3.3

0.09

-0.5

7.2

0.68

0.26

Snowy Egret

2.9

0.01

0.8

4.9

0.45

4.2

0.11

Cattle Egret

3.2

0.35

-3.3

9.6

2.08

0.1

0.98

Green Heron

2.3

0.02

0.4

4.2

0.11

-0.3

0.73

Black-crowned. Night Heron

1.7

0.22

101

-1

4.4

0.18

-1.7

0.33

11.6

5.3

20.06

8.5

Virginia Rail

3.3

0.04

0.4

6.2

0.03

5.8

0.01

Sora

0.1

0.92

298

-1.2

1.3

0.91

-0.6

0.28

283

Common Moorhen

4.9

0.1

-0.4

10.2

0.13

4.2

0.15

American Coot

-0.7

0.24

383

-1.9

0.5

2.47

-1.2

0.04

345

Sandhill Crane

1.7

0.3

181

-1.5

4.9

0.98

0.9

0.42

178

Franklin's Gull

7.7

0.26

133

-5.7

21.2

10.2

0.16

120

Ring-billed Gull

0.7

0.54

260

-1.6

3.1

4.62

0.3

0.82

233

California Gull

-1.7

0.25

189

-4.7

1.2

3.91

0.5

0.84

174

Herring Gull

-1.6

0.07

-3.1

-0.1

0.91

-1.9

0.06

Western Gull

-1.3

0.57

-5.8

3.2

-0.5

0.86

Caspian Tern

0.8

0.61

-2.2

3.8

0.23

1.3

0.51

Common Tern

-5

0.15

33 -

11.5

1.6

0.51

-8

0.04

Forster's Tern

-1.1

0.48

-4.3

0.27

-1.2

0.51

Black Tern

-2.5

0.13

160

-5.7

0.7

2.15

-2.1

0.06

138

Horned Grebe

White-faced Ibis

1. Trend - Estimated trend, summarized as a % change/year. 2. P - Value indicates the statistical significance of the trend. P greater than 0.05 indicates that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the trend is different from 3. N - Number of survey routes in the analysis. 4. (95% CI ) - 95% confidence interval for the trend estimate. Estimated as a constant rate of change in counts over time, with co-variables to adjust for differences in observer quality. Regional trends are estimated as a weighted average of the route trends

So u rc e - Sa u e r, J . R. , J . E . H i n e s , a n d J . F a l l o n . 2 0 0 8 . T h e N o r t h A m e r i c a n Bre e di n g Bi rd Su r v e y, Re s u l t s an d An al y s i s 1 9 6 6 - 2 0 0 7 . Ve r s i o n 5 . 1 5 . 2 0 0 8 . U SG S Pa t u x e n t Wi l dl i fe Re s e a rc h C e n t e r, L a u re l , M D ( U p d a t e d 1 5 M a y 2 0 0 1 ; h t t p : / / www. m b r-pwrc . u s g s . g o v / c g i -bi n / a t l a s a 9 9 .pl ? WE % 2 0 &2 &0 7

5. R. A - Relative abundance for the species, in birds/ route. An approximate measure of how many birds are seen on a route in the region.

6.11

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

WATERBIRD POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS With few exceptions, trend estimates for waterbirds in the NAWCP and IWWCP necessarily relied on expert opinion and both published and unpublished literature. The majority of IWWCP population trend (PT) scores for waterbirds listed by BCRs and states were assigned as “unknown” or “historically declined and apparently recovered” (PT = 3). Population size and trend estimates are most notably lacking for bitterns, rails and other secretive marsh birds but even the more common and widespread colonial waterbirds such as Great Blue Heron and Black-crowned Night Heron lack reliable trend estimates for the western U.S., the IWJV region, and most states. Population trends are known for a few waterbird species of particular management concern. Standardized annual monitoring programs, periodic rangewide surveys, and comprehensive status reviews provide insight into population trends of RMP and LCRV Sandhill Cranes, Eared Grebes, Caspian Terns and Double-crested Cormorants:

Eared Grebe Over 99% of the Eared Grebes in North America stage at Mono Lake, California and Great Salt Lake, Utah during the fall (Jehl 1988, 1994). Surveys using an aerial-photo technique with a correction factor applied to account for birds that are present but submerged have been implemented at both of these sites for most years since 1997 (Boyd and Jehl 1998; Neill et al. 2010). Total abundance on Mono Lake has varied between 0.6 and 1.8 million birds annually with an average annual estimate of 1.14 million grebes for the 9 survey years between 1997 and 2010 (www.monobasinresearch.org/research/boyd. htm; Fig. 3). Estimates at Great Salt Lake averaged about 1.2 million birds for 13 survey years during this same period. A high count of 2.7 million birds at Great Salt Lake was recorded in 2006 but no survey was conducted at Mono Lake that year. Similar to observations on Mono Lake, Neill et al. (2009) noted the wide variation in estimates at Great Salt Lake with numbers swinging as much as one million in either direction of the average count. Steep population declines occur in association with El Nino events but population numbers rebound in subsequent years (Jehl 2002). Additionally, Eared Grebes populations may be sensitive to brine shrimp productivity at key staging sites (Belovsky et al. 2011). The total estimated number of fall-staging Eared Grebes in the IWJV ranged from a high of 3.3 million in 2001 to a low of about 1.0 million in 2004 corresponding with post-El Nino conditions. Overall, numbers appear to be declining over time at both staging sites. It is unknown if 6.12

this decline represents a range-wide population decline, a change in the peak timing of the fall migration, or changing environmental conditions such as water levels or abundance of prey resources at staging areas.

Figure 3 N umbers of Eared Grebes staging at Mono Lake, California and Great Salt Lake, Utah 1977–2010. Derived from: www.monobasinresearch.org/ research/boyd.htm; S. Boyd, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific Science Research Center and the CDFG; Neill et. al. 2009, GSL Ecosystem Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; http:// ggweather.com/enso/years.htm

Double-Crested Cormorant Adkins and Roby (2010) defined the Western Population of Double-crested Cormorants as birds breeding in southern British Columbia and all U.S. states west of the Continental Divide. In 2009, they estimated this breeding population at 29,240 breeding pairs with about 18% located in breeding colonies within the IWJV. Until 2009, Double-crested Cormorants in the Intermountain West were monitored sporadically and incompletely. Data is available for some sites in 1998, 1999 and 2003–2009 (Appendix B), and this information provides some insight into cormorant distribution and abundance. In recent years, southeastern Idaho, the Columbia River Plateau in Washington, and southern Oregon northeastern California (SONEC) supported the majority of nesting cormorants in the Intermountain West. The number and location of colonies in these areas fluctuated annually and colony sizes ranged from 48 to just over 1,600 nesting pairs. The number of breeding pairs in Idaho may have increased 2005–2009 with up to 11 colony sites and a high count of 1,163 pairs in 2009. However, these increasing numbers could also be attributed to improvements and expansion of waterbird

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

WATERBIRD POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS monitoring in Idaho implemented 2005–2009 (see Moulton 2005–2009). During this same period, numbers of breeding cormorants in the Columbia Plateau of Washington remained relatively stable, fluctuating from a high of 1,554 in 2006 at five colony sites to a low of 1,196 in 2009 at four colony sites (Roby and Adkins 2010). In the SONEC area, the Upper Klamath Marsh, Lower Klamath NWR, Tule Lake NWR and Clear Lake NWR support most of the cormorants that breed in this region. Recent drought conditions in the Klamath Basin eliminated nesting islands and reduced foraging habitat at many known colony sites; thus, population levels in 2009 were lower than in most years (Shuford and Henderson 2010). The peak Double-Crested Cormorant count in the Klamath Basin occurred in 2003 when 1,603 breeding pairs were estimated (Shuford and Henderson 2010). In Nevada numbers of cormorants have declined from 1,677 pairs at 4 colony sites in 1999 to 660 breeding pairs at 6 colony sites in 2009 (Adkins and Roby 2010). In total, about 60 sites scattered across the IWJV have been colonized by cormorants but many are occupied infrequently. Double-crested Cormorants in the Intermountain West are subject to the effects of drought, recurrent flooding and stranding of colonies, and loss of foraging habitat due to agricultural withdrawals and runoff for irrigation purposes. These conditions likely limit the population growth of Double-crested Cormorants in the IWJV area.

White-faced Ibis Between the 1960s and 1970s the numbers of Whitefaced Ibises breeding in the Great Basin Region declined significantly (King et al. 1980; Steele 1980), presumably, from exposure to DDT on their wintering grounds in the interior of Mexico (Capen 1977, Henny 1997). Between 1985–1997, the Great Basin population rebounded and the number of breeding ibises nearly tripled from an estimated 7,500 pairs among 19 colonies in the mid-1980s to about 30,000 pairs at 40 sites in the late 1990s (Earnst et. al. 1998). Breeding distribution shifted radically over time in response to seasonal environmental conditions such as flood and drought (Earnst et al. 1998). In 1979-1980, the majority of ibises in the Intermountain West were breeding at Great Salt Lake; however, when marshes of the Great Salt Lake were flooded 1983–1989 ibis colony sites were submerged and ibis numbers there decreased approximatley 80%; (Jehl 1994). Concomitantly, numbers of breeding ibises increased at Malheur and Summer Lakes, Oregon as did colony sizes at the Stillwater and Carson Lakes areas of Nevada (Ivey et al. 1988, Jehl 1994). When drought conditions dried these areas 1987– 6.13

1992, nesting colonies failed but successful ibis colonies were re-established at Great Salt Lake (Ivey et al. 1988, Jehl 1994, Earnst 1998). Surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 again documented significant population growth and redistribution of breeding White-faced Ibises in the IWJV compared to previous decades (Appendix C). All states in the IWJV region surveyed ibises as part of the Western Colonial Waterbird Survey (WCWS) in 2010 (USFWS 2011) with the exception of Utah where ibis colonies were surveyed in 2009. Preliminary results from these surveys documented about 67,000 pairs of ibises in 2010 and 23,600 pairs in Utah in 2009 for a combined total of about 90,600 pairs at 47 colony sites for the 2 year survey period (Appendix C). This is triple the number of breeding White-faced Ibises documented in the late 1990s. The core of the population now breeds in southeastern Idaho, followed by smaller numbers in SONEC (Lower Klamath NWR, California; Malheur NWR, and Goose Lake, Oregon) and the Great Salt Lake. The six active colonies in Idaho supported 44,250 nesting pairs representing nearly half of the total Intermountain West population of breeding ibises for the combined 2009-2010 survey period. When numbers of breeding ibises in southeastern Idaho are combined with those breeding at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah and Cokeville Meadows, Wyoming (in the Bear River Basin) and Great Salt Lake, Utah, this tri-state region currently supports 65.3% of the total number of breeding ibises in the Intermountain West. Reasons for this recent redistribution are unclear but are likely related to drought conditions and forage availability at traditional colony sites. A landscape-scale analysis of ibis breeding and foraging habitat in current and historic key locations for this species (i.e. Southeast Idaho, SONEC, and Great Salt Lake and Lahontan Valley) will aid in informing conservation for this species.

Sandhill Cranes The Pacific Flyway Council established management plans for the RMP, CVP and LCRV populations of Greater Sandhill Cranes (1995, 1997 and 2007) and also for the Pacific Flyway Population (PFP) of Lesser Sandhill Cranes (Pacific Flyway Council 1983). These plans established population objectives and multistate cooperative monitoring programs that have been implemented annually since 1992 for RMP and 1998 for LCRV. Standardized monitoring programs have not been implemented for the CVP or PFP. The highest nesting concentrations of RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes occur in western Montana and Wyoming, eastern Idaho, northern Utah, and northwestern Colorado

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

WATERBIRD POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS (Kruse 2011). The major spring and fall migration staging area for the RMP is the San Luis Valley Colorado, where virtually the entire population spends 3–4 months annually (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Kauffeld 1982). Several important overnight stopovers are used by RMP cranes during spring and fall migration including Harts Basin and the Grand Valley, Colorado, and the Green River near Jensen to Ouray National Wildlife Refuge in Utah (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Peterson and Drewien 1997) and Cochiti and Jemez reservoirs, New Mexico (Stahlecker 1992). Other important fall staging sites include the Teton Basin, Grays Lake, in Idaho, Eden Valley in Wyoming, and the Bear River Valley in Idaho, Utah and Wyoming (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, R. Drewien, pers. comm.). The 2010 standardized fall pre-migration count documented 21,064 RMP cranes with a 3-year average of 20,847 (Fig. 4). This is within the population objective established by the flyways of 17,000–21,000 for the RMP (Kruse 2011). Their principal wintering area is the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Smaller numbers winter in northeastern and southwestern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona, and the northern highlands of Mexico (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Perkins and Brown 1981, Drewien et al. 1996). On winter areas, RMP cranes mix with the Mid-continent Population (MCP), and cannot be managed separately from them.

Figure 4 F all pre-migration abundance indices for the Rocky Mountain population of Sandhill Cranes. Derived from Kruse et al. (2011).

The LCRVP of Greater Sandhill Cranes is comprised of cranes that breed primarily in northeastern Nevada, with smaller numbers in adjacent parts of Idaho and Utah (and presumably, Oregon) and winters in the Colorado River Valley of Arizona and Imperial Valley of California (Kruse et al. 2011). During spring and fall migration,

6.14

the LCRVP stages in Ruby Valley, near Lund, and at Pahranagat NWR in Nevada. Since 1998, a standardized aerial cruise survey has been conducted to cover 4 primary LCRV winter concentration areas which are believed to support over 90% of the LCRV crane population: Cibola NWR, and adjacent Colorado River Indian Tribal areas in southwestern AZ; and smaller concentrations at Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR and the Gila River, AZ (Kruse et al. 2011). The recent LCRVP survey results indicate a slight increase from 2,264 birds in 2010 to 2,415 birds in 2011. The 3-year average is 2,360 LCRVP cranes which is below the population objective of 2,500 (Fig. 5).

Figure 5 A bundance indices for the wintering Lower Colorado River Valley Population of Sandhill Cranes in Arizona and California. Derived from Kruse et al. (2011).

The CVP breeds primarily in central and eastern Oregon and northeastern California. Malheur NWR supports the highest number of breeding pairs in these two states (Ivey and Herziger 2000), where major concentrations of breeding cranes occur in Harney and Lake Counties, Oregon, and Modoc County, California. A few pairs nest in central Washington, on and near Conboy Lake NWR in south-central Washington and several hundred pairs also breed in the interior of British Columbia (Pacific Flyway Council 1997). Important migrational staging areas include Malheur NWR, the Silvies Floodplain, Warner Basin, Summer Lake Wildlife Area and Langell Valley in Oregon; Lower Klamath and Modoc NWRs, and Honey Lake, Butte Valley, Shasta, and Ash Creek Wildlife Areas in California, and the Othello area, on Columbia NWR in Washington. Additionally, a few Greater Sandhill Cranes stage in southwest Idaho, near the communities of Letha and Parma; the latter site includes Idaho’s Fort Boise Wildlife Area. It is uncertain whether those birds are

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

WATERBIRD POPULATION STATUS & TRENDS from the CVP or the LCRVP. They share these sites with migrating PFP Lesser Sandhill Cranes. The PFP of Lesser Sandhill Cranes numbers more than 30,000 birds that breed in south-central and south-west Alaska and migrates through the IWJV via California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington during spring and fall. The most important staging site is located on Columbia NWR at Othello, Washington, where more than 90% of the population stops during spring migration. Important Oregon sites include the Silvies Floodplain in Harney County, Summer Lake Wildlife Area, and the Chewaucan, Goose Lake and Warner Basins. Major staging sites in California include Modoc NWR vicinity, Surprise Valley, and Lower Klamath NWR. PFP cranes winter outside of the IWJV, in the Central Valley of California, primarily in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the San Joaquin Valley near the cities of Modesto, Merced, and Pixley.

Caspian Tern Many colonies of breeding Caspian Terns in the Intermountain West area have been monitored annually by agency biologists and researchers since 1997. Surveys were incomplete, however, in most years and therefore

unsuitable for estimating population trends over time. Nevertheless, this information serves to identify and characterize tern distribution and relative abundance. Core breeding range for Caspian Terns in the Intermountain West includes colonies in the Mid-Columbia River and Columbia Basin Plateau, Washington; SONEC, and southeastern Idaho. Surveys in these areas were most complete in 2001, 2003, 2008 and 2009 (Appendix B). Numbers of breeding pairs in these 4 years ranged from a low of 1,161 pairs in 2003 to a high of 1,846 pairs in 2009, when the most comprehensive and complete survey of breeding pairs was implemented. The population in the IWJV is characterized by fluctuations in both colony locations and size as terns respond to annual variations in habitat conditions. Areas of highest concentration of breeding pairs shifted from northeastern California where numerous colonies were documented in the late 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to dispersed colonies in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington and Idaho in more recent years. Colonies in the Intermountain West have not experienced the rapid growth observed at the large colony on East Sand Island located in the Columbia River Estuary.

Photo by Colleen Moulton

6.15

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS

Primary Threats to Waterbirds in the Intermountain West Region •

Wetland Habitat Loss

•

Loss of water or modified flow regimes

•

Water Quality and Contaminants

•

Exotic Plant and Fish Species

•

Human Disturbance

•

C onflicts with other species ( I v e y a n d H e r z ige r, 2 0 0 6 )

Ivey and Herziger (2006) identified and reviewed primary threats and limiting factors for waterbird populations in the Intermountain West. Of greatest conservation concern are issues associated with wetland loss, declining water supply/delivery to wetland habitats, and poor water quality. In recent years, the effects of climate change on migratory birds have been a topic of increasing concern. Quantifying the effects of various anthropogenic and natural threats on waterbird populations is difficult; but, these threats cumulatively or individually can negatively impact waterbird abundance, distribution, and reproductive success at the site specific, regional, or range wide scale. Threats may also vary by individual species and these have been described and characterized for several waterbirds in the West including Double-crested Cormorants (Adkins and Roby 2010), Caspian Terns (Shuford and Craig 2002), and Black Terns (Shuford 1999). Below we summarize broad-scale threats to waterbirds: wetland loss; wetland water supply and security; water quality; and climate change. Regionspecific summaries of threats for five waterbird Focal Areas are presented in Appendix D.

Loss and Degradation of Wetland Habitat The IWWCP identifies one of the most important issues facing waterbird conservation in the Intermountain West as wetland loss. Between the time of initial European settlement and the mid-1980s, more than 50% of freshwater wetlands were lost in the states of Idaho, Nevada, and Colorado and 91% in California, though mostly in the Central Valley (Dahl 1990). Although the rate of wetland loss has slowed over time, the loss of freshwater emergent marsh habitat has continued (Dahl 2006).

6.16

Ratti and Kadlec (1992) estimated that approximately 57% of wetlands in the Intermountain West had been lost to drainage associated with agriculture and development. Wetlands now cover only about 1% of the regions land area compared to 5% nationwide (Dahl 2006). The remaining wetlands are critical to waterbird populations at local, regional, and continental scales. Wetlands of the Great Basin support 38% of North America’s waterbird diversity (waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl; Haig et al. 1998) and nearly the entire North American populations of breeding White-face Ibises, California Gulls, and migrant Eared Grebes (Jehl 2004; Engilis and Reid 1996). The Klamath, Harney, Lahontan, and Great Salt Lake Basins are of continental or regional significance to waterbirds such as pelicans, ibises, grebes and gulls (Shuford 2006; Shuford and Henderson 2010; G. Ivey, unpublished data). Wetlands in southeastern Idaho are emerging as an increasingly significant component of the network of Intermountain West sites that support breeding White-faced Ibises and Franklin’s Gulls (Moulton 2006, 2007). Unfortunately, information to assess the amount, distribution and quality of wetland habitats in most of the Intermountain West is inadequate or unavailable at this time (refer to Chapter 2 of the IWJV 2013 Implementation Plan). Updated USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data is a critical need throughout the western United States. The lack of this baseline habitat data and paucity of standardized population monitoring for waterbirds continues to impede progress and effectiveness of waterbird conservation efforts in the West.

Water Supply and Security Historic and contemporary policies pertaining to the protection and use of water in the arid West prioritize agriculture and municipal uses over environmental uses such as wetland management for migratory birds (Downard 2010). In 1990, about 80% of the water diverted from streams in the western United States was used for agricultural purposes (Solly 1997). In 2005, the states of California, Idaho, Colorado and Montana combined accounted for 64% of all surface water withdrawals for irrigation nationwide (Kenny et al. 2009). These diversions and withdrawals, primarily from snow-melt dependant streams, can leave natural and managed wetlands dry mid-summer through fall when waterbirds require wetlands for breeding, fledging, post-breeding, and foraging, particularly in years experiencing drought conditions. Wetland complexes critical to western waterbird populations such as Mono Lake, California, Great Salt Lake, Utah, Lahontan Valley, Nevada and Klamath Basin, Oregon have all been subject to

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS significant declines in water supply due to diversions and withdrawals from inflow streams and tributaries, primarily for agricultural purposes (Jehl 1994, Ivey 2001, Downard 2010, Mono Lake Committee 2011).

Carson River system, Nevada until sufficiently wet conditions in 2005 recharged wetlands (Hill et al. 2007). Drought conditions in the West 2001–2002 and 2007–2009 were considered severe to extreme (Fig. 6).

Increasing competition for water supplies stemming from population growth in the Intermountain West is further taxing already limited water resources in the arid region. Between 2000 and 2010 the human population increased 21% in Idaho, 23% in Utah and 35% in Nevada (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). With population growth the demands for water for urban, municipal, and industrial uses escalate. Although surface runoff can account for up to 80% of lake and wetland recharge among the terminal lakes and wetlands in the Great Basin (Hoffman 1994), many wetland complexes in the Intermountain West are equally impacted by groundwater recharge (Engilis and Reid 1996). Ground water withdrawals to support growing urban and suburban communities in the west can also pose threats to wetlands, as recently documented at Great Salt Lake (Bishop et al. 2009, Yidana et al. 2010).

Whether the result of surface or ground water withdrawals for human uses, increasingly frequent and severe drought conditions, or combinations thereof, the lack of water to maintain and recharge wetland and associated foraging habitats (flooded agricultural fields and pastures) results in the loss of waterbird nesting and foraging habitat, nest abandonment, predation, and poor reproductive success. All of these conditions may vary among the many ecoregions encompassed by the IWJV. Maintaining an extensive network of varied wetland types (e.g., emergent wetlands, deep water lakes, saline systems) is critical to waterbirds in the Intermountain West that use this these habitats at the local and larger landscape scale.

Wetland protection provided by federal legislation such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, public ownership of wetlands (e.g. NWRs and WMAs), and restoration programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program may protect or restore wetland habitat, but these mechanisms do not always protect water supplies or ensure water security to wetlands managed for migratory birds. Downard (2010) defined water security “the availability of a quantity of water, during most years, sufficient to support enough flooded or periodically flooded wetlands to meet habitat needs established by each refuge”. The lack of water security combined with the scarcity and annual variability of water in Intermountain West represent a substantial and ongoing threat to waterbirds in the region. Increasing demands for water from population growth, urban expansion, and power generation will further exacerbate future competition for water in the arid West. Availability of both surface and ground water has been further stressed by frequent and persistent droughts. Drought conditions in the West occurred during most years 2000–2011 (Fig. 6) with 2005-2006 and 2010- 2011 being the exceptions. At Great Salt Lake, drought conditions 1999–2004 reduced the amount of recharge to groundwater aquifers and the lake elevation declined to a near historic low in 2005 and 2008 (Yidana 2010). Drought conditions in 2001–2004 dried wetlands and eliminated nesting and feeding habitat for waterbirds in the Lower

6.17

Figure 6 P almer Drought Severity Index (PDSI1), Western Region October 1999–2011. 1PDSI Values: 0.49 PDSI = near normal; PDSI = -3.00 or below indicates severe to extreme drought; PDSI= +2.00 or above indicates moderately wet to extremely wet conditions. PDSI is displayed for the standard USGS Water Year: 1 October – 31 September. So urce: http://www7.ncdc.no aa.g o v/C DO / C DODi vi si o nal Sel ect.j sp; Accessed Octob er 2011.

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS Water Quality

Climate Change

Many of the major wetlands in the Intermountain West are located at the terminus of irrigated lands and are dependent upon agricultural return flows as a source of water (e.g. wetlands in Lahontan Valley, Nevada and Harney and Klamath Basins, Oregon). Typically, these return flows are higher in salt concentrations and nutrients, both of which can reduce productivity and diversity of wetlands. Reduced agricultural return flows due to increasing withdrawals for municipal or industrial use and conversion of flood irrigation to sprinkler systems can result in return flows insufficient for wetland habitat goals. Reduced return flows can also exacerbate contaminant problems, thereby threatening wildlife values of important areas (Ivey and Herziger 2006; Downard 2010). Drought conditions appeared to exacerbate the negative effects of mercury on productivity of Snowy Egrets at Lahontan Reservoir (Hoffman et al. 2009). Water quality and contaminants continues to be a concern at many Intermountain West wetlands most renowned for supporting large numbers of waterbirds including the Great Salt Lake, the Lower Carson River system including Lahontan Reservoir, Nevada and wetland complexes in the Klamath Basin, Oregon.

Profound changes in temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and spring melt dates have already occurred in the IWJV region and more change is predicted for the future. Projections of future climate change vary depending upon the type and scale of models employed to assess the consequences of increased greenhouse gases. Because the IWJV encompasses such a wide variety of ecoregions, the range and scope of predicted climate change also varies greatly across the region.

Loss of Foraging Habitat Loss of flood-irrigated agricultural lands is a potential threat to waterbirds that forage on these habitats. In the Lahonton Valley/Carson Sink region of Nevada, ibis colonies are associated with foraging sites in floodirrigated alfalfa (Bray and Klebenow 1988). Ibises nesting in the Klamath NWR foraged on surrounding private lands, mostly in flooded-irrigated pastures (Follansbee 1994). During the last 20 years, there has been a steady loss of these farmland habitats to housing and urbanization as well as the conversion of flood-irrigated agriculture to sprinkler irrigation. In the West, acres irrigated by surface irrigation methods declined by 16% whereas acres irrigated by sprinkler methods increased by 9% between 2000 and 2005 (Kenny et al. 2009). In the four southeastern Idaho counties within the Bear River Basin (Bannock, Bear Lake, Caribou, and Franklin Counties) about 1,300 acres of flooded agricultural lands per year have been converted to sprinkler irrigation, rendering these sites unsuitable as potential waterbird foraging habitat. Continued loss of flooded pasture and irrigated croplands is likely to continue as demands for land and water resources increase with population growth and shifts to more efficient sprinkler irrigation systems continue.

6.18

• Temperature: The Great Basin has experienced regionwide increases in average temperatures of 0.5–1.1° F (Baldwin et al. 2003; Chambers 2008). Although the degree of temperature change has varied across the region, climatologists predict continuing temperature increases in Western North America ranging from about 4–11°F over the next century (IPCC 2007 Working Group I Report). Predictions of rising temperature are further supported by various downscale and regional circulation models for the Great Basin/Rocky Mountain Region, northeastern California, and the Sierra Nevada in eastern California (Baldwin 2003, Bell 2004; Reichler 2009; and PRBO 2011) • Precipitation: Increases in average annual precipitation ranging from 6–16% throughout most of the Great Basin have been documented with more frequent extreme high-precipitation years (Baldwin 2003; Chambers 2008). Conversely, the southern portions of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Southeastern California and all portions of Arizona and Mexico within the Intermountain West are experiencing drying climatic conditions (Seager 2007). Recent investigations underscore the high uncertainty about the effects of climate change on annual precipitation across the Intermountain West. In some regions, models predict little change or drier conditions (Chambers 2008, PRBO 2011) while other regional models predict continued increases in precipitation (Baldwin 2003) or wetter winters and drier summers (Reichler 2009). However, portions of the arid southwest are predicted with growing certainty to be increasingly dry (Seager et al. 2007). • Snowpack and Snowmelt: Significant declines in snowpack and earlier spring snowmelts are well documented in the intermountain west (Mote 2005, Bedford and Douglas 2008). Consistency among climate models strongly suggest continued reductions in snowpack throughout most of the IWJV area, with the potential for extreme reductions of up to 70% in eastern and northeastern California (Mote 2005, PRBO 2011).

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

THREATS & LIMITING FACTORS The documented effects of climate change on bird populations include: earlier nest initiation dates; changes in population size and distribution (predominantly northerly range extensions); shifts in the timing of migration; changes in availability of prey resources; and changes in distribution and abundance of predators (Butler and Vannesland 2000, Crick 2004, National Audubon Society 2009, NABCI 2010). The effects of climate change may severely impact wetland habitats in the arid Intermountain West. Increases in temperature without commensurate increases in precipitation will result in loss of wetland habitat, particularly seasonal and shallow wetlands used by many waterbirds as breeding, foraging, and migration stop-over sites. Wetlands that depend on snowmelt for spring recharge are particularly at risk (NABCI 2010). This is of particular concern for most wetlands in the Intermountain West which are predominantly reliant on snowmelt for source water. Significant changes in the amount of precipitation, whether increasing or decreasing, may alter salinity levels at critical sites such as Mono Lake, Great Salt Lake, and other saline water bodies in the Intermountain West. Such changes have the potential to greatly alter food resources at these sites, known to support hundreds of thousands

of waterbirds during critical life stages. Even if annual levels of precipitation remain relatively unchanged from the present, reductions in snow-pack and earlier snowmelt runoff dates can dramatically influence the timing of water availability to wetlands. The shift to earlier snowmelt dates will undoubtedly alter the wetland plant communities on which waterbirds depend. For example, earlier snow melt with reduced annual precipitation would likely diminish wetland quantity and quality in the late summer and fall, potentially leading to premature drying of important breeding and fall migration habitat. Alternatively, earlier snow melt with equivalent (or increased) annual precipitation may result in different plant communities from which waterbird migration and breeding phenologies have evolved. The indirect effects of climate change such as changes in vegetation; the spread of invasive species, increased frequency and magnitude of flood and drought events; increases in fire events; and the increased water demands from the rapidly growing human population all have the potential to negatively impact wetland and associated upland foraging habitat for waterbirds. The consequences of the effects of climate change have the potential to significantly alter the distribution, abundance, reproductive success and survival of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West.

P h o t o b y L a r r y K r u c ke n b e r g

6.19

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

POPULATION ESTIMATES & OBJECTIVES

Photo by USF WS

Waterbird population estimates in the IWWCP were generated by compiling available inventory and monitoring data from regional, statewide, and local surveys. Expert opinion and data from various sources, years, and survey techniques were collated and used to generate population estimates for 17 of the 39 waterbird species (including the CVP, LCRVP, and RMP breeding populations of Sandhill Cranes) that occur in the IWJV. The IWWCP then established spopulation objectives for these High or Moderate Concern priority waterbird species for each state and BCR. For priority migrant species, population objectives were set for individual sites that support high numbers and were derived from estimates of peak numbers of staging birds using each site. IWWCP population estimates and objectives are lacking for many waterbirds, particularly secretive marsh birds and including some priority species such as Sora and American Bittern.

waterbirds in 11 western states, including all states encompassed in the IWJV. Nearly all known and potential waterbird breeding sites within the Intermountain West were surveyed during the initial two year survey effort. Estimates generated from this inventory will represent minimum population sizes and will improve prior estimates because surveys were conducted in a more coordinated, comprehensive, and synchronized manner. Issues stemming from over-counting or undercounting due to temporal and spatial shifts in colony locations among and between years, and incomplete survey coverage should be minimal in comparison to estimates previously generated from discrete survey efforts conducted independently by many entities across many years. These results will provide the IWJV with more current and accurate information on waterbird abundance and distribution which will greatly improve our capacity for waterbird conservation planning.

In 2009â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2011 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated with state and NGO partners to plan and implement a comprehensive inventory of colonial 6.20

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

FOCAL SPECIES

Photo by USF WS

Focal Species Approach

This list includes waterbirds that are:

Practical conservation and management considerations, along with limited data and knowledge of most waterbird populations necessitate, that only a subset of species can be used for future landscape-scale conservation planning at this time. To select focal waterbirds for this Strategy, the WST implemented a process similar to that used by California Partners in Flight for landbird conservation planning (Chase and Guepel 2005). This entailed identifying species associated with important habitat elements or microhabitat attributes, identifying species with special conservation needs, and then selecting a suite of species that together represent the full range of critical ecosystem/habitat elements within the planning area.

1. Ranked as highly imperiled or of high concern in the NAWCP;

To select focal species for IWJV habitat conservation efforts, the WST initially compiled a list of priority species from waterbird conservation plans and federal and state lists of bird conservation priorities.

6.21

2. Ranked as high or moderate concern in the regional IWWCP; 3. Included on USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) BCR lists (USFWS 2009); and 4. Identified as priority species in State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). In total, 31 waterbird species and subspecies representing a broad array of taxonomic groups, geographic ranges, abundance, and conservation status were identified as priority species (Table 3). Most of these occur as resident or breeding birds, but migrant Common Loons, Eared Grebes, Lesser Sandhill Cranes, Franklinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gulls; and several management populations of Greater Sandhill Cranes that stage at various key locations within the IWJV are also included.

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

FOCAL SPECIES Table 3 Conservation Concern Rankings for Priority Waterbirds in the Intermountain West. STATE WILDIFE ACTION PLANS Species of Greatest Conservation Concern

COMMON NAME

NAWCP 1

Common Loon Pied-billed Grebe

IWWCP 2

BCC3

High (b/m) High Concern - WH

ID X

Eared Grebe

High (m)

Western Grebe

BCR 9

High

Clark’s Grebe

High

American White Pelican

High (b/m)

Double-crested Cormorant

X X

American Bittern

High Concern - NA

High

BCR 16

Least Bittern

High Concern - WH

Moderate

BCR 33

Great Blue Heron

Snowy Egret

Cattle Egret

Black-crowned Night Heron

Moderate

White-faced Ibis

Virginia Rail

High

X BCR 9

X X

Moderate Highest Concern - WH

Yuma Clapper Rail 6

High Concern 4

Sora

High Concern - WH

X BCR 33

X X

Moderate

SANDHILL CRANE

Greater Sandhill Crane

Central Valley Population

High (b/m)

Lower Colorado River Population

High (m); Moderate (b)

Rocky Mountain Population

High (m); Moderate (b)

Lesser Sandhill Crane

Moderate High Concern - NA

X Moderate

High

Green Heron

Moderate

Great Egret

Neotropic Cormorant

Black Rail

Moderate

Red-necked Grebe

Yellow Rail 4

High (m)

Franklin’s Gull

High (b/m)

California Gull

Moderate

Caspian Tern

X X

X Moderate

Black Tern

High

Least Tern (interior) Forster’s Tern

X X X

WH = Western Hemisphere; NA = North America; (m) = migrant; (b/m) = breeding and migrant 1. NAWCP - Colonial Waterbird Rankings are from the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Kushlan et al. 2002; Rankings for solitary- nesting waterbirds are from the NAWCP Update: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nacwcp/pdfs/ status_assessment/FinalTableWorksheet.pdf

3. BCC - Birds of Conservation Concern, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds , 2008; Bird Conservation Region (BCR) level rankings.

2. IWWCP - Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan, Ivey and Herziger 2006; all rankings are for breeding waterbirds unless otherwise noted by (m) to indicate ranking is for the migrating population or (b/m) to indicate rankings were

4. Yellow Rail - Also listed as a USFWS BCC at the FWS Regional Scale in the Pacific Region (R1), Southwest Region(R2), Mountain Prairie Region (R6), CA/NV Region (R8) and nationally.

6.22

provided for both breeding and migrant populations of a the particular species or management population.

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

FOCAL SPECIES 5. Black Rail - species occurrence in AZ, CA, and CO are outside the IWJV boundary; Occurrences in NV are from observations in 2003 in the Virgin River and Henderson, NV areas (BCR 33; Floyd et al. 2007); Also listed as a USFWS BCC at the FWS Regional Scale in the Southwest Region(R2), Mountain Prairie Region (R6), CA/NV Region (R8) and nationally. 6. Yuma Clapper Rail - NWACP ranking is for the Yuma subspecies; confirmed breeding in Big Marsh, Clark Co , NV 2001 (Floyd et al. 2007); Also listed as a USFWS BCC at the Regional Scale in the Southwest Region (R2), Mountain Prairie Region (R6), and CA/NV Region (R8)

To facilitate selection of focal species from the list of priority waterbirds, breeding waterbirds were assigned to one or more of four wetland habitat types that are characteristic of the Intermountain West. Within each habitat type, species were then grouped into one of five nesting guilds representative of basic nest-type attributes: emergent vegetation nesters, meadows nesters, overwater floating platform nesters, tree /shrub nesters, or open ground nesters (Table 4). Migrating or wintering waterbirds were assigned to wetland habitat types and one of three foraging guilds (Table 5).

Table 4 P rimary Wetland Habitat Association and Nesting Guilds for IWJV Priority Breeding Waterbirds

WETLAND HABITAT TYPE EMERGENT WETLANDS, SEASONAL WETLANDS, AND WET MEADOWS Emergent Vegetation Nesters

SEMI-PERMANENT WETLANDS AND HEMI-MARSH WETLANDS Emergent Vegetation Nesters

OPEN WATER LAKES1, RESERVOIRS, AND DEEP WATER WETLANDS

RIPARIAN: LAKES, PONDS, RIVERS, STREAMS AND DELTAS

Floating Platform Nester 2

Tree/shrub nesters

• Eared Grebe

• Pied-billed Grebe

• Common Loon

• Double-crested Cormorant

• American Bittern

• Western Grebe

• Red-necked Grebe

• Neotropic Cormorant

• Least Bittern

• Clark’s Grebe

• Western Grebe

• Great Blue Heron

• Yellow Rail

• American Bittern

• Clark’s Grebe

• Great Egret

• Virginia Rail

• Least Bittern

• Sora

• Great Egret

Meadow Nesters • Yellow Rail • Greater Sandhill Crane CVP • Greater Sandhill Crane RMP • Greater Sandhill Crane -LCRVP • Black Tern

• Snowy Egret • Black-crowned Night Heron • White-faced Ibis • Black Rail • Virginia Rail • Sora • Franklin’s Gull

Open ground / Island Nesters 3 • American White Pelican • California Gull • Caspian Tern • Least Tern

• Snowy Egret • Cattle Egret • Green Heron • Black-Crowned Night Heron Open ground /Island nesters 3 • California Gull • Caspian Tern • Least Tern

• Forster’s Tern • Black Tern Floating Platform Nesters 1 • Common Loon • Red-necked Grebe • Western Grebe • Clark’s Grebe

Italics – Nesting Substrate Guild; Bold – Focal Species 1. Includes freshwater and saline lakes 2. Floating Platform Nesters – nests constructed with emergent vegetation over water. 3. Open Ground nesters – breed on islands in open water, deltas or braided river channels with minimal or no vegetation.

6.23

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

FOCAL SPECIES Table 5 Primary Habitat and Foraging Guild for Priority Migrant Waterbirds in the IWJV Planning Area

FORAGING HABITAT TYPE IRRIGATED PASTURES AND CROPLANDS

FRESHWATER LAKES

SALINE LAKES

• Omnivorous

• Picsivorous

• Brine Shrimp/Brine Flies

• Greater Sandhill Crane - CVP

• Common Loon

• Eared Grebe

• Greater Sandhill Crane - RMP

• American White Pelican

• Franklin’s Gull

• Greater Sandhill Crane - LCRVP

• California Gull

• Lesser Sandhill Crane - PFP Italics – Foraging Guild; Bold – Focal Species

We used expert opinion to select focal species from each habitat and nesting guild with the following considerations: 1) species present in numbers suitable for management and monitoring, 2) representation of colonial and solitarynesting species; 3) geographic representation across the Intermountain West; and 4) available or attainable data on population size, distribution, and habitat affiliations with the potential to support biological planning. Ten breeding waterbirds were selected as focal waterbirds: Western Grebe, Clarks Grebe, American White Pelican, American Bittern, Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, White-faced Ibis, Sora, Greater Sandhill Crane and California Gull. Two of these waterbirds, the American White Pelican and Greater Sandhill Crane were also selected as representative focal species for non-breeding foraging guilds, along with migrant Eared Grebes and Lesser Sandhill Cranes. Management populations of breeding and wintering Greater and Lesser Sandhill Cranes occur in discrete geographic areas of the Intermountain West with differing management needs, and thus are individually identified on the list of focal species.

Focal Species and Conservation Planning From the suite of ten breeding and four migrant waterbird focal species identified in this chapter, the WST recommended the White-faced Ibis, American Bittern, Sora, and the RMP population of Greater Sandhill Cranes as potential focal species for further conservation planning during the life of this plan. Ibises, bitterns and Soras utilize differing types, sizes and characteristics of emergent wetland habitats in the IWJV. This habitat type has incurred substantial loss and degradation throughout the west and is subject to continuing anthropogenic and natural threats. In contrast to many other waterbird

6.24

populations in the Intermountain West, the population size and locations of White-faced Ibis breeding colonies are comparatively well documented. Though nearly all ibis colonies are located on protected lands, there is concern regarding water security for wetlands and the continued availability of foraging habitat, particularly flood irrigated agricultural lands surrounding NWRs and WMAs that serve as a network of habitat for breeding ibises and many other waterbirds. A landscape analysis approach to the protection of foraging habitat and actions taken to protect, reserve, or improve water supplies at sites that traditionally support breeding colonies is proposed as a potential conservation strategy for this species. Emerging information on the distribution, abundance, and wetland habitat affiliations of Soras and American Bitterns from surveys using the standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols (NAMBMP; Conway 2009) in the Intermountain West will likely serve as an important basis for developing spatially explicit conservation objectives for secretive marsh birds. American Bitterns and Soras are target species for marsh bird monitoring programs and appear to be well sampled with the marsh bird protocols. Their affiliations with various features and sizes of emergent wetland habitats may serve to identify key wetland habitat types and locations for protection, enhancement, and conservation. The applicability of NAMBMP data to eco-regional conservation planning efforts should be further explored. This would be a new application of NAMBMP data that holds promise for the development of population/habitat models for secretive marsh birds as we better our understanding of their populations, habitat relationships, and use of the landscape at large and smaller site-specific 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

FOCAL SPECIES Similarly, completion of the WCWS will provide valuable current data regarding the abundance and distribution of focal waterbirds at a geographic scale appropriate for IWJV conservation planning. These data will be important for increasing our understanding of the temporal dynamics for waterbirds in the Intermountain West that will be required for the development of meaningful conservation strategies. The acquisition and assessment of habitat information appropriate for waterbird conservation planning purposes will be a priority for the IWJV in the upcoming years. Ultimately, conservation planning for focal waterbirds should be initiated in landscapes recognized as key sites for waterbirds. Great Salt Lake in Utah; Southeast Idaho (including the Bear River Basin encompassing wetlands in southeastern Idaho, northeastern Utah and western in Wyoming); Southern Oregon and Northeast California (SONEC); Lahontan Valley and Pyramid Lake Nevada; and the San Luis Valley, Colorado and Upper/Middle Rio Grande Corridor in New Mexico are regions with key wetland complexes of known significance to high priority waterbird species in the Intermountain West (Jehl 1994, Haig 1998, Jehl 1998, Shuford et al. 2006; Ivey and Herziger 2006; Shuford 2010, and others). In most cases, wetland habitat complexes within these regions have a base of waterbird population monitoring data that merits further assessment to determine its suitability for conservation planning purposes, particularly when combined with new information gained from the WCWS. The development of population-driven habitat objectives for focal waterbirds is proposed for future updates as information on western waterbird populations and wetland inventory and habitat trends improve. In the interim, commensurate planning efforts for landbird conservation may benefit priority waterbirds such as Great Blue Heron and Snowy Egret that typically nest in tree and shrub riparian habitats. Landscape characterizations and objectives based on energetic models developed for shorebirds at the Great Salt Lake and waterfowl at Great Salt Lake and SONEC will also likely benefit waterbirds breeding and migrating in these landscapes, including Western and Clarkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grebe, California and Franklinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gulls, Sandhill Crane, and Eared Grebe. Future efforts to build conservation strategies around focal waterbird species will require identification of the appropriate eco-regional scales on which to base planning, and the identification of habitat-related population limiting factors at those same scales. Developing habitat objectives to address limiting factors will require development of spatially explicit conceptual or empirical models dependent upon the availability and utility of population 6.25

and habitat data. Development of habitat-suitability models at broad geographic scales may be an informative first step to identify regional extents to focus conservation planning for focal species and establish linkages to regional population objectives. Ultimately, future planning efforts should identify spatially explicit habitat objectives that can be linked to programmatic objectives, conservation treatments, and biological outcomes that address identified limiting factors. Ideally, habitat inventory and population monitoring programs at these same eco-regional scales should be developed to inform whether conservation is successful and consistent with expected biological outcomes.

Focal Species Profiles White-faced Ibis: The White-faced Ibis is a colonial waterbird that breeds in freshwater hemi-marsh habitat where emergent vegetation is interspersed with open water. In the Great Basin region, ibises most Photo by Dave Menke commonly nest in stands of hardstem bulrush or cattails (Ryder and Manry1994). These semipermanent wetlands are susceptible to highly variable drought and flood conditions, a defining characteristic of the Great Basin ecoregion. In response to these cyclic conditions and within-year variation in local habitat conditions, ibis colony locations shift both spatially and temporally (Ivey et al. 1988, Taylor et al. 1989, Jehl 1994, Earnst et al. 1998). When conditions at traditional nesting sites are poor, ibis move among other colony sites or rapidly colonize new sites with suitable nesting habitat White-faced Ibis are opportunistic foragers that feed in receding wetlands and newly flooded habitats where moist-soil invertebrate prey is concentrated. Seasonal wetlands, shallow lake shores, mudflats, shallowly flooded pond margins, reservoirs, and marshes are typical foraging habitats (Taylor et al.. 1989, Ryder and Manry 1994). Irrigated agricultural lands are important feeding sites, particularly native hay meadows, pastures, and alfalfa and barley fields within 4 miles of breeding areas (Capen 1977, Bray and Klebenow 1988). Ibis also forage in flooded, grazed pastures even in areas where various agricultural crops are also available (Follansbee 1994). Flooded pastures, and irrigated agricultural lands are a source of earthworms, a particularly important prey item (Bray and Klebenow 1988). The selection of White-faced Ibis as a one of the focal species for conservation planning addresses several key considerations for wetland habitat conservation in the Intermountain West area. Their nomadic breeding strategy exemplifies the ecological connectivity among wetlands

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

FOCAL SPECIES in the Great Basin and indicates that wetland management decisions should be made in a regional context (Earnst et al. 1998, Jehl 1998, Taylor et al. 1989). Conservation of nesting and foraging habitat for this waterbird will require a network of emergent wetlands and surrounding irrigated agricultural and wet pasture habitat at the landscape scale. These habitats are known to support a wide variety of nesting, migrating, and wintering waterbirds but have been subject to significant levels of historic and contemporary habitat loss and degradation. The conservation of habitat in support of White-faced Ibis breeding colonies and associated irrigated agricultural and pasture lands is thus intended to benefit a suite of waterbirds affiliated with these same habitats, including breeding Western and Clark’s grebes, Black-crowned Night-Heron, Franklin’s Gull and Forster’s Tern and foraging Sandhill Crane, Great Blue Heron, and Cattle Egret. In this manner, ibis may function as an “umbrella species” in that the protection of habitat for ibis provides for the needs of a larger suite of co-occurring species (Caro and O’Doherty 1999, Fleishman et al. 2001, Chase and Guepel 2005). Sora: This species is a solitary-nesting migratory rail that breeds throughout the Intermountain West area in freshwater wetland marshes with dense stands of cattail, bulrush, and sedge. Breeding Soras Photo by Dan Casey are typically found near edges between vegetation types among patches of open water and in the shallow, shoreward portions of wetlands where water level instability produces diverse mosaics of fine and robust emergent vegetation (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). Their nests are constructed over water with emergent vegetation and include a characteristic ramp and an overhead canopy built from surrounding vegetation. Wetland edges and upland fields, including row crops, adjacent to wetlands are sometimes used for brood-rearing or post-breeding dispersal (Kantrud and Stewart 1984; Johnson and Dinsmore 1986). Soras feed in stands of robust emergent vegetation interspersed with shorter, seed-producing emergents. They are primarily seed-eaters, consuming seeds of smartweeds, sedges, bulrushes and grasses, but also consume some aquatic invertebrates found near the water surface, often in areas with floating and submergent vegetation and debris (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). In contrast to White-faced Ibis that typically colonize breeding habitat within relatively large wetland complexes (e.g. Lahonton Wetlands, Nevada; Malheur NWR, Oregon, Blackfoot Reservoir, Idaho) Soras are relatively areaindependent and wider ranging in their selection of wetlands and have been found breeding in wetlands < 0.05 ha in size (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). 6.26

Until recent years, information on the distribution and abundance of Soras was primarily limited to BBS data and state bird atlases. These methods and datasets are insufficient for estimating population size or trends, and thus the IWWCP did not provide population estimates or objectives for Soras. In 2004, secretive marsh-bird surveys using the North American Marsh Bird Survey (NAMBS) protocols were initiated at some sites in the Intermountain West. Soras are a target species for these tape-playback surveys. By 2009, these standardized surveys were underway at many locations sites within the Intermountain West. An analysis of survey results may aid in establishing population estimates, population objectives, and nesting densities for various wetland habitat types used by Soras in the southeastern Idaho, SONEC, and GSL focal areas; and potentially the Intermountain West in its entirety. Consequently, further exploration into the utility of NAMBS data for landscape-scale conservation planning is warranted. American Bittern: This is a northerly breeding heron that inhabits tall emergent vegetation in freshwater wetlands. The American Bittern is a solitary-nesting, crepuscular waterbird with cryptic plumage. Photo by USFWS Little information is available about the species habitat preferences in the western U.S., but studies in the northeastern and midwestern states found that American Bitterns most frequently occupy palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and aquatic bed wetlands (Gibbs et al. 1992). These wetland types are similar to those used by Sora but the two species differ substantially in nest structure, diet, and foraging habits. American Bitterns feed at vegetation fringes and shorelines of wetlands dominated by tall emergent vegetation, avoiding older, dense, or dry vegetation (Gibbs et al. 1992). Dense stands of decadent emergents do not appear to be beneficial to this species. In contrast to the primarily seed-eating Sora, American Bitterns consume insects, fish, crustaceans, snakes and small mammals, relying on stealth more than pursuit to capture prey (Gibbs et al. 1992). The platform nest is typically placed in dense emergent vegetation over water of 2–8 inches in depth; upland habitats modified by agricultural practices are not used for breeding. This waterbird is likely area-dependant and the preservation of large (>25 acres), shallow wetlands with dense growth of robust emergents has been identified as the most urgent need for the conservation of this species (Gibbs 1991).

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

FOCAL SPECIES Greater Sandhill Crane: The Greater Sandhill Crane is one of six subspecies in North America (Tacha et al. 1992). Historically, they bred in suitable wetland sites throughout the Intermountain West. Photo by Utah Division However, populations declined and the of Wildlife Resources breeding distribution contracted and fragmented due to the pressures of human settlement (Walkinshaw 1949). Because of these historic declines, the Greater Sandhill Crane was listed as endangered in Washington in 1981, threatened in California in 1983, sensitive in Oregon in 1989, and as a British Columbia Blue List species in 1998 (Ivey and Dugger 2008). The breeding biology of cranes is characterized by delayed maturity, long-term monogamy, annual breeding, small clutch size, and extensive pre- and post-fledging parental care (Tacha et al. 1989; Drewien et al. 1995). These demographic factors result in naturally low recruitment that limits the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ability to recover from declines (Tacha et al.1992). Recruitment rates of the three populations of Greater Sandhill Cranes that breed in the Intermountain West (CVP, LCRVP and RMP) are among the lowest for North American cranes and are believed to be the major factor limiting population growth (Drewien et al. 1995). Cranes are territorial and solitary breeders that show high fidelity to their nesting territories throughout their lifetime. Greater Sandhill Cranes nest in isolated, well watered river valleys, marshes, and meadows at elevations above 1,200 m in the northern Great Basin, Cascades, and Rocky Mountains (Littlefield and Ryder 1968, Drewien 1973, Drewien and Bizeau 1974). Their primary breeding season habitat is wet meadows, and most nest in wet meadow-shallow marsh zones along

6.27

the marsh edge. Nesting habitat includes open meadows with scattered stands of hardstem bulrush, cattails, and burreed (Littlefield 2001). They will also utilize small lakes and reservoirs as breeding sites, if suitable meadow or grassland foraging habitat is nearby. Littlefield and Ryder (1968) outlined three essential ingredients for a crane nesting territory; a feeding meadow, nesting cover, and water. Territories average 43 acres at Malheur NWR and contain irrigated meadow for feeding and flooded marsh nesting cover (Littlefield and Ryder 1967). An ideal territory contains a shallow marsh with residual emergents in close proximity to foraging meadows. Most nests are constructed from wetland vegetation as floating platforms in shallow water. They are omnivores and forage for small vertebrate and invertebrate prey in seasonal wetlands and wet meadows; therefore, their needs overlap with many other waterbirds, such as American Bittern, Sora and White-faced Ibis. The majority of crane pairs in the Intermountain West nest on private lands; primarily on ranches that utilize flood-irrigation to manage wet meadow habitats for livestock haying and grazing (Littlefield et al.. 1994, Ivey and Herziger 2000, 2001). Therefore, preservation of flood-irrigation practices on these private haylands is important. Wintering and staging cranes primarily depend on cereal grain crops, but they also feed in pastures (particularly on dairy farms), alfalfa fields, seasonal wetlands, and grasslands located in proximity to shallow lakes, marshes, and river bottoms, that are used as roosting sites. Therefore, maintaining and conserving traditional roost sites and the agricultural landscape surrounding them is important. An energetic approach to planning for maintenance of their foraging landscape is appropriate.

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

POPULATION INVENTORY & MONITORING Western Colonial Waterbird Survey, 2009–2011

Survey Objectives: •

•

Document species composition, size, and location of colonial waterbird breeding colonies from 2009 – 2011 in 11 western states. Estimate the minimum population size of waterbird species within the project area.

•

Produce an atlas of western colonial waterbird breeding colonies, 2011-2013.

•

Establish a benchmark for the development of a long-term monitoring program for colonial waterbirds in the west.

The Western Colonial Waterbird Survey (WCWS) was initiated in 2009 to inventory the location and abundance of 17 species of waterbirds in 11 western states. The survey was coordinated by the USFWS and implemented by state wildlife agencies and nongovernmental partners in 2009– 2011 (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/ western_colonial/index.html). Raw data from some states and for some species has been provided for use in this Strategy by the USFWS and WCWS partners (i.e. USFWS Regions 1 and 6, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Klamath Bird Observatory, Great Basin Bird Observatory, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and Point Reyes Bird Observatory). Publication of final results and an associated Waterbird Colony Atlas are scheduled for 2013. Most WCWS field surveys in the Intermountain West were completed in 2009 and 2010. The WCWS is the first comprehensive survey for waterbirds conducted within a specific time period in a coordinated manner throughout the western states. Survey results will serve to refine waterbird population estimates in the IWWCP, many of which were generated by combining population data from many sources and across multiple years. Population estimates derived from WCWS inventory data will represent minimum population sizes and will improve upon estimates derived from individual site surveys conducted independently across many years.

6.28

North American Marsh Bird Monitoring

Monitoring Objectives: •

Document the presence or distribution of marsh birds within a defined area.

•

Estimate or compare density of secretive marsh birds among management units, wetlands, or regions.

•

Estimate population trend for marsh birds at local or regional scale.

•

Evaluate effects of management actions (often actions that target other species) on secretive marsh birds

Efforts have been underway for the past decade to develop and field test continental survey protocols for marsh birds in North America (Conway and Timmermans 2005). Marsh birds are difficult to survey due to their inconspicuous behavior and cryptic characteristics. Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols (NAMBMPs) have been developed, field tested, and implemented on many NWRs, state Wildlife Management Areas, and other locations (Conway 2009). Waterbirds included as focal species in these surveys include Clapper Rail, Sora, Virginia Rail, Least Bittern, and American Bittern. The NAMBMPs were first implemented on sites within the IWJV area in 2004 by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Additional surveys have since been added throughout the region by state, federal, and nongovernmental cooperators. Surveys have been implemented in all of the states within the IWJV with implementation ranging from one to eight years at individual survey sites. Although results from these marsh bird surveys were produced in years when survey protocols and the continental marsh bird monitoring program were still in the development and assessment stage, this information may offer the best opportunity to better estimate population sizes, nesting densities, and habitat associations of these secretive marsh bird species.

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

POPULATION INVENTORY & MONITORING The number and duration of NAMBMPs vary across the region including surveys in three areas of particular significance to waterbirds: • In 2004 Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted 10 pilot marsh bird surveys at two sites. In 2005, 65 marsh bird surveys were conducted at 12 sites throughout the state (Moulton and Sallabanks, 2006). Additional annual survey routes have been added over time and surveys were conducted at 29 wetland sites in 2008. • At Great Salt Lake, eight survey routes began in 2007. Focal species include American Bittern, Virginia Rail, and Sora. Secondary species include Pied-billed Grebe and American Coot. • In eastern Oregon, Klamath Bird Observatory established and implemented marsh bird surveys on 10 areas in 2008 including six sites in the Klamath Basin (Bruce et al. 2008). Surveys at some sites were conducted in 2010. Marsh bird surveys at Ladd Marsh, eastern Oregon were implemented 2006–2008 (K. Novak, ODFW pers com)

Continental Marsh Bird Monitoring Pilot Study In 2008, the USFWS Division of Migratory Management, in cooperation with multiple partners, initiated a pilot study to examine the feasibility of a nationwide survey for secretive marsh birds. Survey objectives are to estimate species-specific: (1) temporal trends in abundance; (2) changes in abundance from year to year; and (3) habitat associations at multiple spatial scales (Seamans 2009). The North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols (Conway 2009) are proposed for use in this developing large-scale monitoring program, and survey routes will be chosen as part of a continental sampling design. The survey will be designed to allow for inference to population status at regional flyway, and continental scales. The design is flexible and allows for more intensive surveys within pre-determined strata such as states, wildlife management areas, or bird conservation regions (Seamans 2009). Four states and the District of Columbia have participated in the pilot study. Idaho Department of Fish and Game has participated in the pilot effort since 2009, and Idaho is the only western state represented in the study.

6.29

Periodic or Annual Waterbird Surveys Inland Breeding Colonial Waterbird Surveys (California) From 1997–1999 PRBO Conservation Science (PRBO) and collaborators conducted a study to document the distribution and abundance of seven species of inlandbreeding waterbirds in California (Shuford 2010). This survey established the first statewide baseline inventory of seven waterbird species during the breeding season: American White Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant, Ringbilled Gull, California Gull, Caspian Tern, Black Tern, and Forester’s Tern. Surveys for these species were repeated in the Klamath Basin, including sites in southeastern Oregon, and particularly at Clear Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs, during 2003 and 2004 (Shuford et al. 2006). This suite of seven colonial nesting waterbirds was again surveyed throughout northeastern California in 2009 and 2010 during the WCWS (Shuford and Henderson 2010). Mono Lake Waterbird Surveys – PRBO has monitored California Gull breeding colonies on Mono Lake annually since 1983 (Shuford 2010). Surveys are conducted to measure annual variation in population size and reproductive success as they relate to changing lake levels and other environmental conditions (Nelson and Greiner 2010).

Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) In 2004 the Idaho Department of Fish and Game initiated this statewide coordinated all-bird monitoring program that addresses monitoring priorities identified in the Idaho Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Idaho Partners in Flight 2000) and in the bird monitoring components of Idaho’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Phase I of IBIS has focused on aquatic birds, a group for which updated monitoring information was the most lacking in Idaho. Preliminary work began in spring of 2004 and was greatly expanded in 2005 through 2007. A three year inventory of 29 wetland sites was completed in 2007, and new sites were added in 2008 through 2010. Thus far, aquatic bird monitoring under the IBIS framework includes three survey types: general aquatic bird surveys, secretive marsh bird surveys, and colonial waterbird counts. At this time, Idaho Department Fish and Game plans to continue implementation of the IBIS for these waterbirds on an annual basis

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

POPULATION INVENTORY & MONITORING Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey (Utah) The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources initiated the Great Salt Lake (GSL) Waterbird Survey (WBS) in 1997. This was a five-year effort to catalog migratory waterbirds over a variety of the most productive habitats in the Great Salt Lake ecosystem (http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/gsl/ waterbirdsurvey); (Paul and Manning 2002). The WBS included surveys of loons, grebes, pelicans, ibis, cranes, rails, herons, gulls, and terns. Waterbird surveys were conducted by state, federal, and private cooperators every 10 days from April through September at 50 different survey areas. Following this five-year survey, the lake level began to drop, and a second survey from 2004 to 2006 was initiated to document waterbird numbers during a period of relatively low lake levels. This three-year survey focused on 22 focal survey areas with surveys conducted during peak spring (April 15–May 14) and fall (July 8–September 5) migration. Following the three-year WBS there was shift to a Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) Bart et al.) approach in order to sustain waterbird monitoring at GSL. There are now 13 permanent annual and 11 rotational (once every three years) waterbird surveys. Survey periods lengthened to 15 days but lessened in number, with surveys conducted during spring and fall migration.

Columbia Plateau Piscivorous Waterbird Colony Surveys (Washington) In 2004–2009 Roby et al. (2011) monitored the size and population trends of piscivorous waterbird colonies in the Columbia Plateau region of Washington. The species monitored included Caspian Terns, Double-crested Cormorants, American White Pelicans, California Gulls, and Ring-billed Gulls. Eighteen sites were monitored, including 4 islands in the mid Columbia River; 3 islands near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers; Potholes Reservoir; the mouth of the Okanogan River; Goose and Twining islands in Banks Lake; Harper Island in Sprague Lake; and the Lyons Ferry Railroad trestle on the Snake River. Colonies at these sites have a history of, or are suspected of, preying on juvenile salmonids of conservation concern. In addition to colony size, nesting success and potential limiting factors for colonies of piscivorous waterbirds in the study area were investigated. At the time of this writing, implementation of annual monitoring efforts described in this region are ongoing.

6.30

Oregon Coordinated Aquatic Bird Monitoring Program This program, led by the Klamath Bird Observatory, works to facilitate coordinated monitoring efforts to address priority information gaps and inform aquatic bird and wetland conservation. This program contributes to regional, national, and international efforts such as the USFWS Western Colonial Waterbird Survey and the Marsh Birds Population Assessment and Monitoring Project. Through this program Klamath Bird Observatory has created Important Aquatic Bird Site Descriptions for Oregon and northwestern California. Site descriptions are available online at www.klamathbird.org/science/ aquaticbirds.html and include information such as seasonal bird presence, water levels, conservation issues, information gaps, existing monitoring programs, land ownership, contact information, and maps. With continued input from partners, the site descriptions will provide current information to land managers, scientists, and bird enthusiasts. This information is intended to inform resource management decisions about restoration, water management, and other activities that effect wetland ecosystem function.

Species-Specific Surveys Of the 38 waterbird species that occur in the Intermountain West only 5 are routinely monitored at the population or IWJV scale: including Eared Grebes, hunted populations of Greater Sandhill Cranes (RMP and LCRVP), Double-crested Cormorants, American White Pelican, and Caspian Tern. Eared Grebe: Starting in 1996 at Mono Lake and 1997 at Great Salt Lake, a systematic aerial photo technique developed by Boyd and Jehl (1998) was utilized to survey enormous concentrations of Eared Grebes during the fall molt/staging period (Neill et al. 2009; Mono Lake Research Community 2011). This survey is completed in October and has been implemented in most years since first initiated. Sandhill Cranes: Monitoring occurs annually for the RMP and LCRVP Sandhill Cranes. These populations have regulated hunting seasons and monitoring is specifically designed to determine population trends. For the RMP, a cooperative 5-state (Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana) September pre-migration staging-area survey has been in place since 1995 (Kruse et al. 2011). No other crane population co-mingles with the RMP cranes

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

POPULATION INVENTORY & MONITORING during that time. The trend for the LCRVP is determined from a winter aerial cruise survey which covers the four main winter concentration areas in southwest Arizona and southeast California, and has been conducted since 1998 (Kruse 2011). With the exception of recent partial LCRVP breeding population surveys conducted in Nevada by Nevada Department of Wildlife and University of Nevada, Reno in 2009-10, and annual monitoring of Central Valley Population (CVP) cranes in the State of Washington, near Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, no recent breeding population surveys have been conducted. Surveys of CVP breeding populations in California and Oregon were last conducted in 2000 (Ivey and Herziger 2000, 2001). Double-Crested Cormorant: In 2009, Adkins et al. (2010) conducted aerial and ground surveys and collaborated with other agencies and individuals to locate and document all active breeding colonies of Double-crested Cormorants (>25 breeding pairs) in the Western Population. Nearly all of the Intermountain West was included, including colonies in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, Idaho, northeastern California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and the portions of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico lying west of the Continental Divide. Surveys for this species in 2009 and 2010 were also conducted throughout the IWJV as part of the WCWS. Numbers of pairs at Double-crested Cormorant breeding colonies in the Intermountain West were frequently monitored by local biologists and land managers prior to these most recent surveys, but comprehensive and complete annual surveys of colonies in the IWJV area were lacking.

6.31

American White Pelican: Nearly all breeding colonies of this waterbird in the Intermountain West are routinely surveyed annually by state or Federal agency personnel. Idaho colonies have been monitored annually since 1989 at Mindoka NWR and since 202 at Blackfoot Reservoir (Sallabanks 2009). The colony on Gunnison Island, Great Salt Lake was monitored using ground-based surveys from 1963–1975. Aerial surveys were initiated in 1976 and are conducted in most years as part of the Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey. The single pelican colony on Badger Island in the Mid Columbia River was monitored 2004–2010 (Roby et al. 2011). Colonies in northeastern California at Clear Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs in the Klamath Basin have been monitored annually since 1952, with prior years monitored sporadically (Shuford 2010; Mauser pers com). Caspian Tern: In response to concerns regarding the population growth, distribution, and potential impact of tern predation on endangered and threatened salmonids in the Columbia River, the USFWS and PRBO coordinated and collated annual surveys of Caspian Tern colonies and numbers of breeding pairs in the Pacific Region in 2000–2008. The Pacific Region population includes terns breeding in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming (Wires et al. 2000). Counts of breeding terns on colonies were conducted by representatives of various Federal, state, and nongovernmental agencies and organizations. In Washington, Caspian Terns in the Mid Columbia River and Columbia Plateau are monitored annually (Roby et al. 2011). Surveys for this species in 2009 and 2010 were conducted throughout the Intermountain West as part of the WCWS.

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

NEXT STEPS

P h o t o b y L a r r y K r u c ke n b e r g

This chapter addresses the initial stages of biological planning for waterbirds including designation of priority species and identification of focal species for conservation planning purposes. We also identify Focal Areas comprised of multiple wetland complexes of particular significance to waterbirds to serve as landscapes for initial waterbird conservation planning efforts. Limiting factors have been reviewed in the context of both widespread threats and more specific threats associated with each Focal Area. Data limitations and information gaps regarding western waterbird populations and habitats in the Intermountain West are significant challenges to development of population-driven habitat objectives for focal waterbirds. However, population information suitable for continued conservation planning is available or pending for a small suite of colonial waterbirds and the results of standardized secretive marsh bird surveys may offer opportunities to better identify and address conservation needs for these solitary waterbirds. Landscape analysis of habitat in selected Focal Areas

6.32

may provide a foundation on which to expand our understanding of limiting factors and conservation needs of waterbirds in the Intermountain West. The IWJV will review WCWS survey results when available and update waterbird population estimates and objectives as appropriate. The IWJV will work through a Technical Committee to evaluate potential strategies for landscape scale conservation planning relative to priority waterbirds identified in this Strategy. Development of regional and/or taxa based working groups may serve to facilitate sub-BCR scale conservation planning efforts. Specifically, an objective of the IWJV will be to identify, facilitate, and initiate relevant conservation planning strategies for priority waterbirds at appropriate scales over the next planning horizon. In the interim, conservation and management objectives in the IWWCP (Ivey and Herziger 2006) will serve as the guiding documents for implementing waterbird conservation.

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 Adkins, J. Y. and D. D. Roby. 2010. A status assessment of the Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacorcorax auritus) in western North America. USGS – Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 104 Nash Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3803 American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds, 6th Edition. Baldwin, C.K., F.H. Wagner, and U. Lall. 2003. Water resources. Pp. 79-112 in F.H. Wagner (ed). Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Regional Climate-Change Assessment. Report for the U. S. Global Change Research Program. Utah State University, Logan, Utah: IV + 240 pp. Bedford, D. and A. Douglass. 2008. Changing Properties of Snowpack in the Great Salt Lake Basin, Western United States, from a 26-Year SNOTEL Record. The Professional Geographer, 60:3, 374 — 386. : http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00330120802013646 Bell, J. L., L.C. Sloan, and M.A. Snyder. 2004. Regional Changes in Extreme Climatic Events: A Future Climate Scenario. American Meteorological Society (17): 81-87 Belovsky, G. E., D. Stephens, C. Perschon, P. Birdsey, D. Paul, D. Naftz, R. Baskin, C. Larson, C. Mellison, J. Luft, R. Mosley, H. Mahon, J. Van Leeuwen, and D. V. Allen. 2011. The Great Salt Lake ecosystem (Utah, USA): long term data and a structural equation approach. Ecosphere 2:1–40. Bishop, C.E., M. Lowe, J. Wallace, R.L. Emerson and J.S. Horn. 2009. Wetlands in the Farmington Bay Area, Davis County: An evaluation of threats posed by ground-water development and drought. Report of Investigation 264. Utah Geological Survey RI 264 (CD). Bookhout, T.A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). In The Birds of North America, No. 139 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington DC. Boyd, S. 2007. Mono Lake Newsletter. www.monolake.org. Boyd, S. and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1998. Estimating the abundance of Eared Grebes on Mono Lake, California, by aerial photography. Colonial Waterbirds 21:236-241. Bray, M. P. and D. A. Klebanow. 1988. Feeding Ecology of White-faced Ibis in a Great Basin Valley, USA. Colonial Waterbirds 11-1: 24-31. Bruce, J., J. L. Stephens, J. D. Alexander, and N. David. 2009. Oregon Coordinated Aquatic Bird Monitoring: 2008 6.33

Secretive Marsh Bird Effort Report, Unpublished Report, 9 pp. Klamath Bird Observatory, Ashland, Oregon. Butler, R. W. and R.G. Vennesland. 2000. Integrating climate change and predation risk with wading bird conservation research in North America. Waterbirds 23 (3): 535-540 Bystrak, D. 1981. The North American Breeding Bird Survey. Pages 34-41 in C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott, eds. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology No. 6. Capen, D. E. 1977. The impact of pesticides on the Whitefaced Ibis. Ph.D. dissertation. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Caro T.M., and G. O’Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13(4): 805-814 Chambers, J.C. 2008. Climate Change and the Great Basin. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report. Rocky Mountain Research Station. GTR-204. Chase, M. K. and G. R. Guepel. 2005. The use of Avian Focal Species for Conservation Planning in California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSWGTR-191. Conway, C. J. 2009. Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols, version 2009-2. Wildlife Research Report #2009-02. U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Tucson, Arizona. Conway, C. J. and S.T.A. Timmermans. 2005. Progress toward developing field protocols for a North American marsh bird monitoring program. Pages 997-1005 in Ralph and T.D. Rich, editors. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference, 20-24 March 2002, Asilomar, California. Volume 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, Albany, California. Cooper, D. S. 2004. Important Bird Areas of California. Audubon California, Los Angeles, California. Crick, H.Q. 2004. The impact of climate change on birds. Ibis, 146(Suppl.1), 48-56. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.

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 Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004.U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp. Downard, R. 2010. Keeping wetlands wet: The hydrology of wetlands in the Bear River Basin. 2010. All Graduate Thesis and Dissertations. Paper 829. Utah State University. Graduate Studies, School of DigitalCommons@USU. http://digitalcommons.usu. etd/829 Drewien, R. C. 1973. Ecology of Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes. Dissertation, University of Idaho, Moscow. Drewien, R. C., and E. G. Bizeau. 1974. Status and distribution of greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:720-742. Drewien, R. C., W. M. Brown and W. L. Kendall. 1995. Recruitment in Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes and comparisons with other crane populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 59: 339-356. Earnst, S.L., L. Neel, G.L. Ivey, and T. Zimmerman. 1998. Status of the White-faced Ibis: Breeding Colony Dynamics of the Great Basin Population, 1985 – 1997. Colonial Waterbirds: 20-3: 301-476. Engilis A., Jr, and F. A Reid. 1996. Challenges in wetland restoration of the western Great Basin. International Wader Studies 9:71-79. Fleishman, E., D.D. Murphy, and P.F. Brussard. 2000. A new method for selection of umbrella species for conservation planning. Ecological Applications 10 (2):569-579. Fleishman, E., R.B. Blair, and D.D. Murphy. 2001. Empirical validation of a method for umbrella species selection. Ecological Applications, 11(5): 1489-1501. Floyd, T., C .S. Elphick, G. Chisholm, K. Mack, R.G. Elston, E.M. Ammon, and J.D. Boone. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada. University of Nevada Press. Reno, Nevada. Follansbee, D. M. and D. M. Mauser. 1994. Ecology of breeding White-faced Ibis on Lower Klamath NWR, CA. Unpublished progress report.

Gibbs, J. P., S. Melvin, and F.A. Reid. 1992. American Bittern. In the Birds of North America, No. 18 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. Haig, S.M., D.W. Mehlman, and L.W. Oring. 1998. Avian movement and wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, No. 4: 749758. Henny, C. J. 1997. DDE still high in White-faced ibis eggs from Carson Lake, Nevada. Colonial Waterbirds 20: 478 – 484. Hill, E.F., C.J. Henny, and R.A. Grove 2008. Mercury and drought along the lower Carson River, Nevada: II.Snowy egret and black-crowned night-heron reproduction on Lahontan Reservoir, 1997–2006. Ecotoxicology (2008) 17:117–131. Hoffman, D.J., C.J. Henny, E.F. Hill, R. A. Grove, J.L. Kaiser, and K.R. Stebbins. 2009. Mercury and drought along the Lower Carson River, Nevada: III. Effects on blood and organ biochemistry and histopathology of Snowy Egrets and Black-crowned Night Herons on Lahonton Reservoir, 2002-2006. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 72: 1223–1241. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_ the_physical_science_basis.htm Ivey, G.L. 2001. Klamath Basin Joint Venture Implementation Plan. Unpublished Report prepared in partnership with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture, Lake Oswego, Oregon. 38pp. http://www.ohjv.org/pdfs/ klamath_basin.pdf Ivey, G. L., and B. E. Dugger. 2008. Factors Influencing Nest Success of Greater Sandhill Cranes at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Waterbirds 31:52-61. Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2000. Distribution of greater sandhill crane pairs in Oregon, 1999/2000. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Technical Report #03-01-00. Portland, Oregon.

6.34

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

LITERATURE CITED Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2001. Distribution of greater sandhill crane pairs in California, 2000. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Ivey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1.2. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. Ivey, G. L., M. A. Stern and C. G. Carey. 1988. An increasing White-faced Ibis population in Oregon. Western Birds 19: 105-108. Jehl, J.R., Jr. 1988. Biology of the Eared Grebe and Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Phalarope in the nonbreeding season: a study of adaptations to saline lakes. Studies in Avian Biology (12). Jehl, J.R. Jr. 1994. Changes in saline and alkaline lake avifaunas in Western North America in the past 150 years. Studies in Avian Biology No. 15:258-272. Jehl, J. R., Jr, W.S. Boyd, D.S. Paul, and D.W. Anderson. 2002. Massive collapse and rapid rebound: Population dynamics of Eared Grebes (Podiceps nigricollis) during an ENSO event. Auk 119(4): 1162-1166. Johnson, R. R. and J.J. Dinsmore. 1986 Habitat use by breeding Virginia rails and soras. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(3):387-392. Kantrud, H.A. and R.E. Stewart. 1984. Ecological distribution and crude density of breeding birds on Prairie Wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 426-437. Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p. Kruse, K.L., J.A. Dubovsky, and T.R. Cooper. 2011. Status and harvests of sandhill cranes: Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations. Administrative Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 12pp. Kushlan, J. A., M. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, M. A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1.Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, DC, USA., 78 pp.

6.35

Lindenmayer, D. B., A.D. Manning, P.L. Smith, H.P. Possingham, J. Fischer, I. Oliver, and M. A. McCarthy. 2002. The focal-species approach and landscape scale restoration: a critique. Conservation Biology 16-2: 338345. Littlefield, C. D. 2001. Sandhill Crane nest and egg characteristics at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop 8:40-44. Littlefield, C. D. and R. A. Ryder. 1968. Breeding biology of the Greater Sandhill Crane on Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 33: 444-454. Littlefield, C. D., M. A. Stern, and R. W. Schlorff. 1994. Summer distribution, status, and trends of greater sandhill crane populations in Oregon and California. Northwestern Naturalist 75:1-10. Lundsten, S, and K.J. Popper. 2002. Breeding ecology of Yellow Rails at Fourmile Creek, Wood River Wetland, Mares Egg Spring, and additional areas in southern Oregon, 2002. Unpublished Report submitted to the Bureau of Land Management, Deschutes National Forest, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Melvin, S. M., and J. P. Gibbs. 1996. Sora. Account No. 250 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union, Washington, D.C., US Mono Lake Committee. 2011. Impacts of Water Diversions on the Mono Basin. www.monolake.org. Accessed July 2011. Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier.2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49. Moulton, C. E. 2007. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2006 Annual Report. 39 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/ wildlife/nongame/birds/IBIS_2007report.pdf

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 Moulton, C. E. 2008. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2007 Annual Report. 42 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/ wildlife/nongame/birds/IBIS_2007report.pdf Moulton, C. E. 2009. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2008 Annual Report. 37 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/ wildlife/nongame/birds/IBIS_2008report.pdf Moulton, C. E. and R. Sallabanks. 2006. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2005 Annual Report. 40 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho 83707 National Audubon Society (NAS). 2009. Birds and Climate Change: Ecological Disruption in Motion. A Briefing for Policymakers and Concerned Citizens on Audubonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Analyses of North American Bird Movements in the Face of Global Warming. http://web4.audubon.org/ news/pressroom/bacc/pdfs/Birds%20and%20Climate%20 Report.pdf Neill, J., M. Dalton, and J. Luft. 2009. 2009 Great Salt Lake Eared Grebe Aerial Photo Survey. Unpublished Report. Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Hooper, Utah 84315. Nelson, K.N. and A. Greiner. 2010. Population size and reproductive success of California Gulls at Mono Lake, California in 2010. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, California 94954. 19pps. http://www. monobasinresearch.org/images/gulls/2010.pdf North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee, 2010. The State of the Birds 2010 Report on Climate Change, United States of America. U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC. http://www. stateofthebirds.org/2010/ Pacific Flyway Council. 1983. Pacific Flyway Management Plan: Pacific Flyway Population of Lesser Sandhill Cranes. Pacific Flyway Study Committee [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, Oregon. 22 pp. Pacific Flyway Council. 1995. Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Greater Sandhill Crane Population Wintering along the Lower Colorado River Valley. Pacific Flyway Study Committee; [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, Oregon. 39 pp.

6.36

Pacific Flyway Council. 1997. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Central Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. Pacific Flyway Study Committee [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, Oregon. 97pp. 46 pp. Pacific Flyway Council. 2007. Management plan of the Pacific and Central Flyways for the Rocky Mountain population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. [Joint] Subcommittees, Rocky Mountain Population Greater Sandhill Cranes, Pacific Flyway Study Committee, Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical Committee [c/o USFWS, MBMO], Portland, Oregon. 97pp. Panjabi, A. O., E. H. Dunn, P. J. Blancher, W. C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, G. S. Butcher, S. K. Davis, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez de de Silva Garza, E. E. IĂąigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf Paul, D.S., A.E. Ellison, and E.M Annand. 2000a. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Nesting Colonies 1998 and 1999. Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Program, Unpublished Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 13 pgs. Paul, D.S., A. E. Manning, and L.H. Dewey. 2000b. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Nesting Colonies, 2000. Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Program, Unpublished Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, 13pgs. Paul, D.S., A.E. Manning, and J.C. Neill. 2001. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Nesting Colonies 2001, Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Program, Unpublished Report, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah . 5pgs. Paul, D.S. and A.E. Manning. 2002. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey Five-Year Report (1997-2001). Publication Number 08-38. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. Popper, K.J, and M.A. Stern. 2000. Nesting ecology of Yellow Rails in south central Oregon. J. Field Ornithology, 71(3): 460-466. PRBO Conservation Science. 2011. Projected Effects of Climate Change in California: Ecoregional Summaries Emphasizing Consequences for Wildlife. Version 1.0. http://data.prbo.org/apps/bssc/climatechange (Accessed June 15, 2011).

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 Ratti, J.T. and J.A. Kadlec. 1992. Intermountain West wetland concept plan for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management. Portland, Oregon. Robbins, C.S., D.A. Bystrak, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years, 1965-1979. USDOI, Fish and Wildlife Service resource publication 157. Washington, D.C. Reichler, T. 2009: Fine-scale climate projections for Utah from statistical downscaling of global climate models, Climate Change and the Intermountain West: 5th Spring Runoff Conference/14th Intermountain Meteorology Workshop, PowerPoint Presentation. Utah State University Logan, Utah, April 2-3. http://www.inscc.utah. edu/~reichler/talks/papers/Reichler_Logan_0904.pdf Roby, D.D.; K. Collis, J. Adkins, L. Adrean, D. Battaglia, B. Cramer, P. Loschl, T. Marcella, K. Nelson, D. Lyons, F. Mayer, Y. Suzuki, A. Evans, M. Hawbecker, and J. Sheggeby. 2009. Caspian Tern Nesting Ecology and Diet in San Franscisco Bay and Interior Oregon; Final 2008 Annual Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. www.birdresearchnw.org/CEDocuments/ Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=403427&fd=0 Roby, D.D., K. Collis, D.E. Lyons, A. Evans, J.Y. Adkins, N. Hostetter, B. Cramer, P. Loschl, Y. Suzuki, T. Marcella, L. Kerr, B.P. Sandford, R.D. Ledgerwood, D.R. Kuligowski, and S. Sebring. 2011. Impacts of avian predation on salmonid smolts from the Columbia and Snake rivers: 2004-2009 draft synthesis report. Prepared for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, Washington. 240 pp. Ryder, R. A. and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No.130 (A.P. Poole and F. Gill, Eds). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences: Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithological Union. Sallabanks, R. 2009. Management of American White Pelicans in Idaho: A five-year plan (2009-2013) to balance American white pelican and native cutthroat trout conservation needs and manage impacts to recreational fisheries in southeast Idaho. Unpublished Report; Idaho Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 72pp. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD (Updated 15 May 2008) http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/cred.html

6.37

Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H. Huang, N. Harnick, A. Leetmaa, N.-C. Lau, C. Li, J.Velez, N. Naik. 2007. Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America. Science, Vol 316: 1181-1184. DOI: 10.1126/ science.1139601. Seamans, M. (2009). Unpublished report to Flyway Technical Committees, Spring 2009. www. waterbirdconservation.org/pdfs/marshbirdmonitoring/ Report to Flyways Spring 2009.pdf Shuford, W. D. 1999. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Black Tern in North America. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Serv., Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado. Shuford, W. D. 2010. Inland-breeding pelicans, cormorants, terns and gulls in California: A catalogue, digital atlas, and conservation tool. Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2010-01. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. www.dfg. ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/waterbirdcatalogue/ Shuford, W. D., and D. P. Craig. 2002. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Caspian Tern (Sterna Caspia) in North America. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Shuford W. D. and R.P. Henderson. 2010. Surveys of Colonial Waterbirds in Northeastern and East-central California in 2009. Report to U. S. Fish and wildlife Service, Region 8. 18 pgs. http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/birds/western_colonial/ColonialWaterbirds-Final-Report-2009.pdf Shuford, W.D., D.L. Thomson, D.M. Mauser, and J. Beckstrand. 2006. Abundance and distribution of nongame waterbirds in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California from Comprehensive Surveys in 2003 and 2004. Unpublished Final Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin NWR Complex, Tulelake, CA. 87pgs. Silva Garza, E. E. I単igo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/ downloads/Handbook2005.pdf

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 Solley, W. B. 1997. Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. http://bee.oregonstate.edu/Faculty/selker/ Oregon%20Water%20Policy%20and%20Law%20Website/ Report%20of%20the%20WWPRAC/WATERUSE.PDF Stern, M.A, , J.F .Morawski, and G.A. Rosenberg. 1993. Rediscovery and status of a disjunct population of breeding Yellow Rails in southern Oregon. The Condor 95: 1024-1027. Tacha, T. C., D. E. Haley and P. A. Vohs. 1989. Age of sexual maturity of Sandhill Cranes from mid-continental North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 43-46. Tacha, T. C., S.A. Nesbitt, and P. A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill Crane. In The Birds of North America, No.31 (A.Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.) Philidelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union. Taylor, D.M., C.H. Trost, and B. Jamison. 1989. The Biology of the White-faced Ibis in Idaho. Western Birds 20: 125-133. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and U.S Geological Survey. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation, Final Report of the National Ecological Assessment Team Washington DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/ science/SHC/index.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Western Colonial Waterbird Survey, Update on Survey, 2011. http://www. fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/western_colonial/ index.html U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2007â&#x20AC;&#x201C;5050. Version 1.1, April 2010 http://pubs.usgs.gov/ sir/2007/5050/section2.html Walkinshaw, L. H. 1949. The Sandhill Crane. Cranbrook Institute of Science. Bulletin 29. Bloomfield Hills, MI. Will, T.C., J.M. Ruth, K.V. Rosenberg, D. Krueper, D. Hahn, J. Fitzgerald, R. Dettmers, C.J. Beardmore. 2005. The five elements process: designing optimal landscapes to meet bird conservation objectives. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 1. Wires, L. R., and F. J. Cuthbert. 2000. Trends in Caspian Tern numbers and distribution in North America: A review. Waterbirds 23:388-404. Yidana, S.M., M. Lowe and R.L. Emerson. 2010 Wetlands In Northern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah: An Evaluation of Threats Posed by Ground-Water Development and Drought. Utah Geological Survey, Utah Department of Natural Resources. Report of Investigation 268. 37pgs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/ migratorybirds/>]

6.38

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. WATERBIRD SCIENCE TEAM MEMBERS • John Alexander, Klamath Bird Observatory • Suzanne Fellows, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Jenny Hoskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Dave Mauser, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Colleen Moulton, Idaho Department of Fish and Game • John Neill, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources • Andrea Orabona, Wyoming Game & Fish Department • Don Paul, AvianWest, Inc. • Dave Shuford, PRBO Conservation Science • Jennifer Wheeler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

6.39

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

APPENDIX B. DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT BREEDING PAIRS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Table B

stimated Numbers of Double-crested Cormorant Breeding Pairs in the Intermountain West Area, 1998-1999 and E 2003-2009.a

LOCATION

1998

1999

Eastern Oregon

242

913

Northeastern California

280 d

Eastern Washington

574 d

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

250

300

1,218

1,554

1,367

1,428

1,196

883

1,043

521 e

1,008

1,180

1,418

911

1,677

269

720

1,613 32

872

165

Utah j

660 177

Colorado k Arizona

1,041 e,f 259e

388

Montana

604 e

Idaho g

Nevada

41 325

TOTAL

1433

3,164

1,654

1,947

1,816

3,317

3,438

3,088

5,344

Bla nk c e l l - i n d i c a t e s n o da ta a va ila ble for th e pa r tic u la r lo cati o n o r year B ol d - i n d i c a t e s i n c o mp le te or missin g da ta du e to 1 ) la c k o f esti mates o f a l arg e number o f si tes, 2) no esti mate fo r a si te l i k el y to rep res ent a large p o r t i o n o f b re e d in g pa ir s for th e a re a , or 3 ) on ly a vi sual appro x i mati o n o f breedi ng pai rs was avai l abl e fo r a g i ven si te( s ) , rather than a p re c ise c o u n t .

a. Summarized data from Adkins and Roby (2010) with source references footnoted.

g. C. Moulton, (2005-2008)

b. Oregon State University; Realtime Research and Bird Research Northwest

i. D. Withers, J. Jeffers, and P. Bradley, pers. comm. in Adkins and Roby (2010)

c. USFWS, unpubl. data, M. Naughton d. Shuford (2006)

j. S. Jones, J. Neill, and J. Cavitt, pers. comm. in Adkins and Roby (2010)

e. Shuford and Henderson (2010)

k. J. Beason, pers. comm. in Adkins and Roby (2010)

f. P. Milburn pers. Comm. in Adkins and Roby (2010)

l. T. Corman, pers. comm. in Adkins and Roby (2010)

6.40

h. C. Wightman, pers. comm. in Adkins and Roby (2010)

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. CASPIAN TERN BREEDING PAIRS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Table C

E stimated Numbers of Caspian Tern Breeding Pairs in the IWJV Planning Area 1979 and 1997-2009. STATE/SITE

1979 a

1997 b

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009g

WASHINGTON Mid Columbia River c Miller Rocks, Klickitat river

Threemile Canyon Island

210

110

104

Anvil Island (Blalock Is.)

530

476

448

355

388

349

Columbia Basin/Plateau

357

260

614

238

210

Rock Island (Blalock Is. )

Crescent Island

354

552

571

720

150

250

578

509

Banks Lake, Twining and Goose Islands Potholes Reservoir

100

259

21 250

205

191

Goose Island

323

Solstice Island Sprague Lake, Harper Island

~50

325

273

282

293

487

OREGON Malheur Lake

Crump Lake, Warner Valley

192

155

Summer Lake

428

697

CALIFORNIA Meiss lake Butte Valley WA

Lower Klamath NWR

Clear Lake NWR

200

180

Goose Lake

200

Big Sage Reservoir

118

242

201

143

310

240

133

282

Honey Lake

152

Mono Lake

104 a

IDAHO Morman Reservoir Magic Reservoir, Island 2 Blackfoot Reservoir, Gull Island Minidoka NWR, Tern Island Bear Lake NWR

Island Park Reservoir, South Island

(Continued on next page)

6.41

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. CASPIAN TERN BREEDING PAIRS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Table C (Continued)

Estimated Numbers of Caspian Tern Breeding Pairs in the IWJV Planning Area 1979 and 1997-2009.

STATE/SITE

1979 a

1997 b

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

685

2007

2008

2009g

NEVADA Carson Sink, Churchill Co

Anaho Island NWR, Pyramid Lake

Stillwater NWR, Stillwater Point

UTAH GSL, Farmington Bay WMA

Mona Reservoir

Stansbury Park, Sewage Lagoons

Utah Lake, Provo Bay

Neponset Reservoir Scipio Lake, Unit 1 MONTANA Canyon lake Ferry Reservoir

Molly Island, Yellowstone Lake NP

Soda Lake, Natrona Co

WYOMING

Bla nk c e l l - i n d i c a t e s n o da ta a va ila ble for th e pa r tic u la r lo cati o n o r year B - bird s p re s e n t , n u mb e r s a n d bre e din g sta tu s u n kn own

a. Estimates for 1979, and 1997 - 2001 from Shuford, and Craig. (2002) b. Unless otherwise noted, estimates for 2002 -2007 from USFWS and PRBO summary table of Pacific Region Caspian Tern colonies (unpublished; various contributors), courtesy of D. Shuford and J. Hoskins c. Estimates for 2004-2009 for Mid Columbia River & Columbia Basin Plateau from Roby et al. (2011)

e. Estimates for 2009 California from Shuford and Henderson (2010) f. Estimates for 2005-2008 Idaho from Moulton, C. E. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) Annual Reports (2006-2009) g. Estimates for all other areas 2009-2010 from USFWS, Western Colonial Waterbird Survey draft survey results; ID- C. Moulton IDFG; OR- K. Hussey, Klamath Bird Observatory; WY - A. Orbana, WFG; UT - Great Salt Lake (J. Neil) and Interior - Weber State University; NV - Jennifer Ballard, Great Basin Bird Observatory;

d. Estimates for 2008 Eastern Oregon from Roby et al. 2009; www.birdresearchnw.org;

6.42

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

APPENDIX D. WHITE-FACED IBIS BREEDING PAIRS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Table D

E stimated Numbers of White-faced Ibis Breeding Pairs in the Intermountain West Joint Venture, 1998-2010.a STATE/SITE

1998B

1999B

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009C

2010 C

Goose Lake South

250

Leavitt Lake (mulitple colonies)

2,349

Lower Klamath NWR d (Units 6a,7a,8b, 12c, 13a , 13b)

674

1,444

3,741

4,555

2,427

2862

1122

1,549

167

2,760

3,500

2,348

Lower Klamath NWR, Unit 6A

3,000

3,500

2,348

Lower Klamath NWR, Unit 7A

Lower Klamath NWR, Unit 8b

999

1,878

1,555

695

Lower Klamath NWR, Unit 12c

2,760

Lower Klamath NWR, Unit 13a

2,812

1,063

167

Lower Klamath NWR, Unit 13b

445

1,863

1,732

1,549

Sierra Valley

1,427

1,893

1039

1,588

110

7,620

852

Whitehorse Flat Reservoir

Willow Creek Wildlife Area

302

Bear Lake NWR

1,800

12,729

9,576

Camas NWR

225

250

Duck Valley

5,300

7,631

Grays Lake NWR

600

703

6,037

Market Lake WMA

10,089

8,499

12,250

Mud Lake WMA

5,844

4,015

Oxford Slough WPA

500

800

4,608

4,741

195

Ash Meadows, NWR

Carson Lake

2,955

3,636

1,422

1,070

800

980

715

1,550

600

1,700

Franklin Lake

135

244

750

500

350

CALIFORNIA

Tule Lake NWR, Sump 1b

IDAHO

MONTANA Red Rock Lakes NWR NEVADA

Humboldt River (Humboldt Sink; multiple subcolonies) Humboldt WMA

Secret Soldier

418

Lockes Pond, Railroad Valley

Piermont Slough, Spring Valley

Quinn Lakes

2,070

Quinn River - Hog John Slough and Orovada

2,160

420

Ruby Lake NWR g

130

115

Squaw Valley, Rock Creek

Stillwater NWR

325

376

430

717

600

800

235

600

1,100

850

Canvasback Club Withington Slough, Franklin River

103

200

(Continued on next page) 6.43

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. WHITE-FACED IBIS BREEDING PAIRS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Table D (Continued) Estimated Numbers of White-faced Ibis Breeding Pairs in the Intermountain West Joint Venture, 1998-2010.a STATE/SITE

1998B

1999B

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009C

2010 C

20 Mile Slough

1,128

Blitzen Valley

2000

Diamond Swamp, Malheur NWR

1,729

Ibis Pond

150

5,419

Retherford Lake

1500

Wright’s Pond

Chewaucan Marshes

200

250

Crump Lake

Goose Lake, Garrett Marsh

3,004

Greaser Reservoir

Knox Pond

500

Malheur Lake

Mouth of Blitzen River

100

234

Mouth of Silvies River East

8500

Malheur NWR , S. Meadow Field

171

North Jones, Frenchglen

217

Paulina Marsh

Silver Lake, Lake Co.

350

100

160

OREGON

Smokey Lake, Sprague River Valley

Sycan Marsh

200

Warbler Pond, Derrick Lake

1,605

Cutler Reservoir

Fish Springs NWR - Mallard pond

257

UTAH Interior

Utah Lake - Goshen Bay Great Salt Lake

Bear River Club

973

Bear River MBR

Unit 1C

6,783

2,360

Unit 2D

915

Unit 4C

290

Unit 7

1,819

7,210

1,148

7,282

Unit 9

Farmington Bay WMA South Crystal Unit

400

5,982

Turpin Unit

1,300

West Kaysville Marsh (Layton Wetlands)

6,194

2,427

2,250

474

Ogden Bay WMA

Pintail Flats

762

2,996

Unit 1

1,729

Willard Spur

1,775

160

200

WYOMING Cokeville Meadows NWR

6.44

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. WHITE-FACED IBIS BREEDING PAIRS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST Bla nk c e l l – n o d a t a a v a ila ble (b) - c o l o n y p re s e n t , n u m be r s of bre e din g pa ir s u n kn own .

a. Colonies with estimates of 25 or more breeding pairs in d. Data for 1998 and 1999 from Lower Klamath NWR files, any year 1998–2010 are reported. Survey methodologies courtesy of J. Beckstrand in Ivey et al. (2004); 2003 and included dawn fly-out counts, nest counts from aerial 2004 Lower Klamath NWR data from Shuford et al (2006). All surveys, and line transects. Each adult observed during other years from Klamath NWR Annual Narrative Reports. dawn fly-out counts and single adults observed on-colony e. 1998 and 1999 data for Bear Lake NWR from R. Sjostrom, and/or attending a nest are considered representative of pers comm and Camas NWR from NWR narrative reports in one breeding pair. Correction factors for non-breeders and Ivey et al. (2004); Idaho colony data 2005–2009 from IDFG asynchronous nesting are unavailable. Estimates of breeding Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey Annual Reports, Moulton pairs for individual sites may represent the sum of multiple and Sallabanks (2006); Moulton (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). sub-colonies at that location within a given year. f. Data for Nevada 1998–2008 provided by J. Jeffers, NDOW b. Data for 1998 and 1999 collated in Ivey et al. (2004) unless and collated electronically courtesy of J. Hoskins, USFWS. otherwise noted. Primary data sources: L. Neil, NDOW, P. Bradley NDOW c. Western Colonial Waterbird Survey (WCWS) preliminary g. Data for 1998 and 1999 from J. Mackey, Ruby Lake NWR in results: 2009–2010 courtesy of S. Jones, USFWS Region 6 Ivey et al. (2004). and J. Hoskins, USFWS Region 1. Primary data sources: h. 1998 and 1999 data from Malheur NWR files, in Ivey et al. Shuford W.D. and R.P. Henderson (2010); PRBO (CA); C. (2004). Moulton, IDFG (ID); K. Hussey, Klamath Bird Observatory i. 1998 and 1999 data for Lake County, OR sites from ODFW (OR); J. Ballard, Great Basin Bird Observatory, P. Bradley, data files, in Ivey et al. (2004). NDOW, J. Jeffers, NDOW and (NV); A. Orbana, WFG (WY); C. Wightman, MFWP (MT); J. Neill, (UT - Great Salt Lake j. Great Salt Lake 1998–2001 colony data from Paul et al Ecosystem Project ); E. Parker, Weber State University, (UT (2000a,b), Paul et al (2001). interior sites). Data for 2000–2008 were compiled by WCWS k. Data from Gary Ivey and Chris Carey, Oregon Department of contributors and presented herein unless otherwise noted. Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data..

6.45

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

APPENDIX E. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS 1. Southern Oregon And Northeastern California (SONEC) Waterbird Focal Area

Figure 1 S outhern Oregon-Northeast California (SONEC) sub-regions (Fleskes and Gregory 2010) and ecoregional extent of intermountain basins.

Description: The SONEC region encompasses wetlands in southern Oregon, northeastern California, and extreme northwestern Nevada including major wetland complexes in the Upper Klamath, Summer Lake, Harney Basin, Warner Valley, Catlow Valley, Goose Lake, and Pueblo Valley regions of Oregon; and the Lower Klamath, Modoc Plateau, Surprise Valley, Honey Lake, and Shasta Valley regions in northeastern and California and northwestern Nevada (Fig. 1; Fleskes and Gregory 2010). The lakes, marshes, and reservoirs and associated upland habitat in SONEC provide habitat for large numbers of waterbirds including Eared, Red-necked, and Western Grebes; Whitefaced Ibis, Sandhill Crane, Yellow Rail, Sora, American Bittern , and other waterbirds. Fleskes and Gregory (2010) characterized the dynamics and distribution of waterbird habitat types in the SONEC region in the spring and early summer, 2002–2003. They documented 13,727 km2 of potential waterbird habitat comprised of grasslands

6.46

(37.1%), pasture/hay (24.6%), marsh (15.9%), open wetland (2.3%), and cropland (2.1%). On average, 15.4% of these habitats were flooded April – May when many waterbirds are present and breeding. The composition and amount of flooded habitats varied greatly among the various SONEC sub regions but overall the most abundant flooded habitat during all months was open wetland, comprising 58–78% of the total flooded area followed by marsh (8–18%), pasture/hay (4–11%), grassland (4–17%), and cropland at 3–8% (Fleskes and Gregory 2010). Information about the persistence, amount, distribution and quality of wetland habitat throughout summer and early fall, when wetlands serve as important broodrearing, post-fledging and migration habitat for both colonial and solitary-nesting waterbirds is lacking. This information would greatly facilitate effective conservation planning for waterbirds. Wetlands in the Klamath and Harney Basins are recognized as one of the most important to wildlife in western North America (Ivey 2000, Shuford et al 2006). These two basins are of regional or continental importance to breeding and migrant populations of waterbirds including Eared, Western, and Clark’s grebe, American White Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant, Great Egret, White-faced Ibis, Sandhill Crane, Ring-billed Gull; and Caspian, Forster’s, and Black terns (Ivey 2001, Shuford et al 2006). Based on population estimates identified in Ivey and Herziger (2006) or Shuford et al. (2006) the SONEC region hosts the following proportions of continental populations (Kushlan 2002): 50% of the Central Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Crane, >21% of White-faced Ibis, 12–24% of Clark’s Grebe, >10% of Forster’s Tern (70% of BCR 9 estimate), and 15% of California Gull. The entire western population of Yellow Rail likely breed in SONEC (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Additionally, 90% of the Central Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Crane and the Pacific Flyway Population of Lesser Sandhill Crane migrate through the region annually. In 2009, Shuford and Henderson (2010) documented 3,245 pairs of American White Pelicans at 3 colony sites in the Klamath Basin; 1,109 pairs of Doublecrested Cormorants at 6 sites, and hundreds of breeding pairs of Eared Grebes, Great Blue Herons, and Blackcrowned Night Herons at various sites within the Basin. The breeding season in 2009 followed a three-year period of drought and consequently, low water levels may have suppressed breeding waterbird numbers (Shuford and Henderson 2010). Historic waterbird counts at Malheur NWR documented thousands of breeding White-faced Ibises, Franklin’s Gulls and Eared Grebes. A survey

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS in 2009 found 2,500 pairs of ibises and 300 pairs of Franklinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gulls (G. Ivey, unpublished data). Malheur also supports high numbers of breeding Sandhill Cranes, with 245 pairs recorded in 1999 (Ivey and Herziger 2000). Threats: Threats to waterbirds in the SONEC region include wetland loss, conversion of upland habitats to uses unsuitable for waterbirds, changes in irrigation practices, degraded water quality, contamination, and negative effects of common carp on waterbird food resources, particularly in the Harney Basin (Ivey et al. 1998, Ivey 2000). These threats are well documented, and perhaps are most extreme in the Klamath Basin. The Klamath River Basin encompasses over 9.8 million acres. Akins (1970) estimated there were originally 142,000 ha of wetlands in the upper basin alone. In 1905, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) initiated the draining and the reclamation of lakebeds for agricultural, water storage, and flood control purposes. Lower Klamath Lake, Upper Klamath Lake, Tule Lake and the Klamath River were all manipulated for BOR water use purposes. Today, less than 25% of historic wetlands remain (NRCS 2006), and only a portion of those areas hold water into the fall (Ivey 2001). Of this remaining wetland acreage, about 17,400 acres of naturally occurring historic wetlands are protected by state and Federal agencies and an additional 18,200 wetland acres have been restored or are currently under restoration (NRCS 2006). Wetlands managed for migratory birds are maintained largely via drain water deemed surplus to agricultural needs. Today, lack of secure water rights for wetlands and streams is the most critical threat to waterbirds in the Klamath Basin (Ivey 2001). Although all of the remaining wetlands are individually and collectively important to waterbirds, Clear Lake, Klamath Marsh, Lower Klamath, and Tule Lake NWRs; Sycan Marsh and Upper Klamath Lake are particularly significant to waterbirds (Shuford 2006). Many of these areas are dependent on the BOR Klamath Project for water. The Project does not have a fish or wildlife purpose, thus placing NWRs last in priority for water. Recent ESA listings of Lost

6.47

River (Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) suckers in Upper Klamath Lake and Coho salmon in the Klamath River, coupled with existing demand for agricultural irrigation water, have led to significant shortages of water available to refuges. Recent drought conditions have exacerbated pre-existing water shortages. Ongoing and predicted declines in snowpack resulting from climate change may further impact habitat management opportunities for waterbirds, particularly in the late summer and fall. The proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement is intended to settle many of the aquatic resource issues in the Klamath Basin, including providing adequate water for refuges. As of this writing, this agreement has not been implemented and remains uncertain (Shuford 2010). Additionally, the FWS has filed water rights claims for Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWRs in the Oregon water rights adjudication process. Resolution of the Klamath Basin adjudication is likely several decades in the future. Flood-irrigated agricultural lands in the SONEC region provide important foraging habitat for many waterbirds. Not including refuge lands, there were about 499,990 acres of agricultural land under irrigation in the upper Klamath Basin in 2007 with roughly 190,000 acres of this total included in the BOR Klamath Project (Gannet et al 2007). The proportion of waterbirds that use agricultural fields versus wetlands is unknown, but irrigated fields clearly add to the diversity of habitats available to waterbirds and likely boost the carrying capacity of the area for some species (Shuford 2006). Flood irrigation is increasingly being challenged because of the relatively large quantities of water required. Many ranchers and farmers are attempting to increase the efficiency of water use through conversions to sprinklers and land leveling. Although this reduces water consumption, it also reduces the area and diversity of surface water available to waterbirds (D. Mauser pers comm). The trend toward increasing use of sprinkler irrigation and reduction in flood irrigation practices (Kenny et. al., 2009) will result in the loss of foraging habitat for a wide range of waterbirds.

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS 2. Great Salt Lake Waterbird Focal Area

Figure 2 Great Salt Lake Focal Area.

Description: The Great Salt Lake (GSL) is a distinctive physiographic and ecological feature within the Intermountain West, one of several terminal lake systems in the Great Basin and the fourth largest terminal lake in the world. The GSL ecosystem encompasses approximately 3,000 mi 2 consisting of a mixture of saline and freshwater lakes, uplands, wetlands, and drainage stems which are all used by waterbirds. The GSL is recognized regionally, nationally, and hemispherically for its extensive wetland resources and profound significance to migratory bird populations. These values result from a high diversity of aquatic environments, extensive wetland complexes, dynamic water levels, and the geographic setting and large scale of the system. The GSL lies within a predominantly xeric environment receiving an average of 15 inches of moisture near the Wasatch Front but <10 inches on the west side of the lake. Consequently, the GSL system provides an important “oasis” effect for waterbirds in the Intermountain West (Aldrich and Paul 2002). The GSL is a terminal lake and it, along with its associated wetlands, rely predominantly on water inflows 6.48

from snowpack-driven river systems to sustain ecological functions. Surface water flows supply roughly 65% of total freshwater to the GSL, with direct precipitation (28%) and groundwater discharge (8%) comprising the remainder. Of the surface water flows, the Bear River supplies the majority of freshwater (55%) followed by the Weber (23%) and Jordan Rivers (14%) (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Significant anthropogenic alterations to the hydrology of the GSL have occurred over the last century. These alterations have influenced the stratification of the GSL into four water regions with differing ecologies driven primarily by salinity gradients: 1) Bear River Bay, 2) Farmington Bay, 3) Gilbert Bay (South Arm), and 4) Gunnison Bay (North Arm). Bear River Bay receives the largest volume of riverine inflow and is the freshest region of the GSL. Submerged (e.g., sago pondweed, widgeon grass) and emergent (e.g., alkali bulrush) hydrophytes are supported here and, depending on lake elevations, an important fishery for piscivorous birds persists. Within Bear River Bay, the Willard Spur is an area that affords a magnificent display of bird diversity and abundance, providing an exceptional contribution to the lake’s avian population. Farmington Bay is the next freshest region but does not provide a submergent vegetation community or fishery due to the elevated salinity levels. It does support an invertebrate community tolerant of brackish conditions which can be important to waterbirds such as Eared Grebe. Gilbert Bay (South Arm) is the largest expanse of water on the lake and salinities often exceed 100 ppt (or 10%). Halophile macroinvertebrates flourish in this region of the lake and produce millions of pounds of potential food for birds such as Eared Grebe, adept at exploiting this food resource. Islands in Gilbert Bay provide critically important nesting areas to waterbirds such as California Gulls. Gunnison Bay (North Arm) is segregated from the South Arm of the lake by the Southern Pacific Railroad causeway, which has essentially eliminated hydrologic exchange between the other lake regions. Consequently, salinity levels in the North Arm can exceed 240 ppt, or >7 times that of sea water. Although these dramatic hypersaline conditions limit use of this region by waterbirds, Gunnison Island provides critical and secure nesting habitat for American white-pelicans, which fly > 60 miles round trip to feeding sites (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Wetlands of the GSL have long been recognized for their importance to migratory birds. The majority of wetlands in the GSL system are primarily associated with the historic deltas of the Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers along the eastern portion of the lake. Diversity, extent, and

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS abundance are driven primarily by availability of fresh water and surface elevation of the GSL. Surface elevations of GSL are extremely dynamic in response to long-term precipitation cycles as well as seasonal variability in evapotranspiration and inflow rates. Both of these factors play important roles in the ecology and productivity of wetlands. For example, dramatic increases in GSL lake levels occurred in the mid-1980s due to significant increases in multi-year regional precipitation rates. This resulted in the GSL inundating approximately 80% of wetlands in the system and killing essentially all wetland vegetation through increased salinity. Although the GSL began to recede in the late 1980s it has taken nearly two decades for the wetland resources to approach the extent and diversity observed prior to the 1980s (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Conversely, sustained drought conditions in the early 2000s resulted in the some of the lowest lake elevations on record and dramatic reductions in available wetland habitat, up to 75% in some management complexes (Olson 2009, Downard 2010). Seasonally, GSL levels change in response to evapotranspiration and inflow rates which produce san annual high during May– July and a low during October–November. Consequently, winter and spring increases in lake levels can inundate tens of thousands of acres in most years and hundreds of thousands of acres in exceptionally wet years (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Although this variability creates challenges for natural resource managers and planners, it is an important driver in the long-term productivity of these wetland resources. The significant presence of private, state, and federally managed wetland complexes is testament to the profound wetland and avian resources at GSL. Sportsman’s groups began forming hunting clubs in the 1890s to protect waterfowl habitat, and up to 50,000 acres are incorporated into hunting clubs around the GSL today. During the 1920s and 1930s the state developed several waterfowl management areas around the GSL including Public Shootings Grounds, Ogden Bay, Farmington Bay, and Locomotive Springs. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources currently manages eight Waterfowl Management Areas consisting of approximately 80,000 acres around the margins of GSL. Included in these are Gunnison and Hat Islands within the GSL, acquired by UDWR to protect nesting waterbird colonies (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge was established in 1929 on the historic delta of the Bear River in response to substantial losses in wetlands from irrigation diversions and to dramatic losses of waterfowl to botulism observed in that decade. Today BRMBR encompasses approximately 75,000 acres. Other 6.49

significant areas are managed by NGOs (>3,000 acres) including The Nature Conservancy and National Audubon Society or entities such as Kennecott Utah Copper’s Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve (3,800 acres). The dynamic mosaic of lake, managed and unmanaged wetland habitats, and associated uplands results in the GSL supporting one of the most diverse and abundant waterbird populations in the Intermountain West. Publicly and privately managed wetland complexes are paramount to meeting the biological needs of a diverse group of waterbirds here. The GSL system is host to 16 species of colonial nesting waterbirds, some representing the largest single populations known to occur in the world and others a significant proportion of the Pacific Flyway. Some notable examples include Eared Grebe, California gull, American White-Pelican, and White-faced Ibis. Eared Grebes occur at the GSL during all seasons except midwinter, bur the primary significance of the GSL for this species occurs during migration. Approximately half of the known continental population of eared grebes stages at the GSL during fall migration. Where they undergo a critical molt event and are rendered flightless for 35–40 days. During this time they forage extensively on an abundant supply of halophile invertebrates, primarily brine shrimp. Consequently, the GSL and its halophile invertebrate population is of continental significance to the conservation of this species (Belovsky et al. 2011). Although several species of gulls (Franklin’s, Ringbilled, and California) breed in the GSL system, the California Gull population at GSL is the largest in the world, comprising approximately 34% of the continental population. Post-breeding estimates of Franklin’s Gull at GSL may comprise as much as 27% of the continental population. California Gull populations at GSL have more than tripled since the early 1980s. This population growth is attributed primarily to a combination of highly available natural and human food resources within close proximity to anthropogenically enhanced nest sites such as dikes and levees at wildlife management areas, solar evaporation ponds, and sewage lagoons. The GSL also supports a significant portion of the continental population of American White Pelicans. During the GSL Waterbird Survey coordinated by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, over 85,000 individuals were counted during one 10-day survey period in September of 1997 (Paul and Manning 2002). Gunnison Island serves as one of the largest breeding colonies in North America with its highest recorded breeding population exceeding 20,000. This peak represents about 16% of the continent-wide total. Currently, Gunnison

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Island is the only continental colony to show an increasing population over the past three decades (Neill et al. 2009). Size and viability of this colony is largely a reflection of the greater GSL ecosystem, especially shallow-water, carp-dominated fisheries. Before carp and other nonnative fishes such as gizzard shad were inmtroduced, small native chubs and shiners were found in the system and supported historic populations of pelicans but likely not to the extent the large freshwater impoundments on management areas support today (Aldrich and Paul 2002). The GSL hosts more than 30,000 nesting White-faced Ibis, on average, and until recently harbored the largest breeding population in North America. Hence, the GSL supports at least 25% of the continental population, with peak estimates approaching 40% (Paul and Manning 2008). These birds typically select emergent marshes, often keying in on hardstem bulrush or robust alkali bulrush as nesting sites. They nest in colonies that can vary dramatically in size and are frequently associated with other colonial nesting waterbirds such as Franklin’s Gull, Black-crowned Night Heron, Forster’s Tern, and Snowy Egret. White-faced Ibis exhibit a nomadic and opportunistic nesting behavior within the GSL system and between other Great Basin wetland sites due to the variability in the amount and distribution of their preferred nesting habitat. For example, when the GSL flooded the adjacent marsh complexes in the mid-1980s White-faced Ibis populations were substantially reduced in the GSL but other sites such as Cache Valley in the Bear River Watershed and other sites throughout the Great Basin such as the Carson/Lahontan complex in NV, Malheur Lake in Oregon, and wetland complexes in the Upper Snake River of Idaho experienced increases in available nesting habitat and breeding ibis (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Threats: The single greatest threat to the aquatic and wetland habitats that waterbirds rely upon in the GSL system is, and will continue to be, the availability of freshwater supplies. This threat emanates from two primary sources: 1) anthropogenic changes in water use and distribution, and 2) long-term shifts in climatic patterns. The GSL lies immediately adjacent to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the Intermountain West. More than 70% of Utah’s population (2.5 million) lives along the Wasatch Front and within the GSL watershed; this population has more than tripled since the 1950s. Current growth estimates project this population will nearly double by 2050, exceeding national and global human population growth rate projections. Some studies suggest current population levels in Utah have already

6.50

exceeded many renewable natural resource supplies (Utah Population and Environment Coalition 2007). Increased demands and pressures on freshwater resources are inevitable to accommodate future human growth. For example, although many water users on the Bear River believe the system is fully allocated, the UDWR has been directed to develop an additional 275,000 acre feet of water from the Bear River to support this rapid population growth (Downard 2010). This development equates to >60% of the current annual water allocation to Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Over the past decade BRMBR has consistently experienced a deficit in water allocation between July and September (Downard 2010). Further water developments in the Bear River may compromise the refuges ability to meet wetland management objectives. The myriad of saline lake systems around the world whose ecological integrity has been significantly compromised, or has collapsed, due to redistribution of water resources provides poignant examples of the challenges GSL natural resource managers face (Williams 2002). Shifts in climatic patterns will undoubtedly impact human water use patterns and wetland resources in the GSL system. Current stresses on the GSL ecosystem may be exacerbated by the influences of climate change: models for the Intermountain West predict a warmer climate and a shift in precipitation patterns to wetter winters and drier summers (Reichler 2009). Reductions in water equivalent snowpack, an earlier peak snowpack, and an earlier snowmelt in the GSL watershed have already been documented (Bedford and Douglas 2008). Earlier spring runoff, reduced spring flows, and a greater human demand for water in the summer will likely influence the amount, location, and value of habitats for waterbirds and all wetland dependent wildlife that rely on the GSL system. Although the availability of water is of primary concern by natural resource managers, the quality of water resources is also of significant concern. Because the GSL and associated wetlands lie at the terminus of the watershed with no outlets and is closely associated with major industrial and metropolitan areas, the accumulation of a multitude of environmental contaminants is of concern. High concentrations of several contaminants (e.g., mercury, selenium, PCBs) have been identified in aquatic resources and wildlife within the GSL system (Wingert 2008, Naftz et al. 2008; Vest et al. 2009; Conover and Vest 2009a,b). Investigations are currently underway to more fully understand the potential impacts to waterbirds.

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Invasive and exotic species also pose significant threats to the wetland values and functions relative to waterbirds in the GSL system. Of particular concern is the dramatic spread of common reed (Phragmites australis) over the past two decades. This invasive plant has proliferated throughout the GSL system, forming dense monotypic stands that significantly limit availability and value of many wetland units for a host of wetland-dependent birds. Management of this invasive is a high priority for many private and public managed wetland units and will require coordinated and sustained efforts by partners in GSL. Prior to the 1970s, several efficient nest predators such as red fox and raccoons were absent from the GSL system but exist in very high densities today. These nest predators can have substantial impacts to breeding waterfowl at the GSL and could similarly impact breeding waterbirds (Frey and Conover 2006). Further reductions in available nesting sites could exacerbate predation impacts to waterbird survival and recruitment in this system. Exotic fish species in the GSL provide a mixed-bag of resource management issues. Exotic fish such as carp can have devastating impacts to wetland plant and invertebrate communities which several waterbird species rely upon (e.g., White-faced Ibis, secretive marsh birds). However, these fecund fish populations also currently provide a substantial forage base for piscivorous waterbirds (Aldrich and Paul 2002). Consequently, exotic fisheries will likely continue to be a complex resource management issue at GSL.

targets for habitats and water resources that are expressly linked to the population demands of waterbirds and other wetland dependent wildlife will be important for informing policy and management decisions within the GSL system.

The continued urban development and changes in land/ water-use in the GSL system may directly impact several waterbird species. Upland open-space buffers have been converted from pastures and agriculture use to subdivisions at an alarming rate. At GSL and other areas, flood-irrigated pastures and alfalfa fields provide an important and unique foraging habitat for White-faced Ibis and other waterbirds such as Franklinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gull. This flood irrigation provides an abundance of earthworms and other invertebrates that rise to the soil surface and thus become available to foraging birds (Aldrich and Paul 2002). However, economic pressures to convert to pressurized sprinkler irrigation or conversion to urban use will degrade this valuable resource for waterbirds.

Figure 3 Bear River Basin. M ap co urtesy o f U SF WS

In summary, a diversity of short- and long-term threats to the GSL system which will impact waterbird populations at a regional and continental scale. Therefore it will be imperative that private and public wetland managers have the capacity, infrastructure, and resources necessary to optimize the mitigation of these threats through management, restoration, and enhancement of wetland and aquatic habitats. Additionally, identifying conservation 6.51

3. Bear River Basin Waterbird Focal Area

Reg i o n 6: Bear R i v er B as i n

C o nservati o n Area

Description: Located in southeastern Idaho, western Wyoming, and northeastern Utah the Bear River Basin (Basin) encompasses a network of wetlands of particular significance to waterbirds including: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah; Bear Lake NWR and Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area in southeastern Idaho; and Cokeville Meadows NWR in western Wyoming (Fig. 3). The Bear River originates in the Uinta Mountains of Utah at an elevation of approximately 11,000 ft. It courses northward through the western edge of Wyoming and southeastern Idaho then loops southward crossing back into Utah, where it empties into the Great Salt Lake about 90 miles northwest of its origin. The 500-mile long river drains the Bear River Basin, comprising 7,500 mi 2 of mountain and valley lands that are entirely enclosed by mountains, with no external drainage outlet (Utah Water Research Laboratory [UWRL] 2010).

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Annual precipitation in the Basin ranges from about 9–60 inches reflecting highly variable conditions among arable valleys and surrounding mountain ranges. Mean annual precipitation is 8 inches with most of this received as winter snowfall in the high elevation forests (UWRL 2010, Downard 2010). The landscape is predominantly dry with about 60% of the area in arid-land shrub, grass, and herbaceous cover types. Open water and emergent wetlands comprise about 4.5% of the Basin; rangeland and agriculture account for the majority (78.3%) of land use (UWRL 2010). The lower reaches of the river are used extensively for irrigation in the farming valleys of southeastern Idaho and northern Utah. The Bear River is the largest tributary to the Great Salt Lake and the lower 10 miles near its delta are protected as part of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge.

Bear River. Multiple threats to Refuge water supply and security include water loss from upstream withdrawals for agricultural, municipal and industrial users and events related to climate change including low snowpack levels, and annual drought and flood conditions (Downard 2010). The refuge intensively manages a large and complex system of dikes and canals to impound freshwater and exclude salt water to benefit waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds. But even with aggressive management, up to 75% of wetland units dry up due to low summer flows. The population of Box Elder County, Utah where BRMBR is located increased by 17% between 2000 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). This growth represents increasing competition for land and water resources in a region already experiencing water shortfalls from drought and escalating water use.

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR): BRMBR lies within the Great Salt Lake (GSL) basin and is considered part of the GSL focal area. However, because of BRMBRs reliance on the Bear River and association with the Bear River Basin Conservation Area a description of its value to the avian resources of the Bear River Basin is warranted here. Established in 1928 and encompassing approximately 74,000 acres, the BRMBR is the oldest refuge located along the Bear River. It encompasses more than 41,000 acres of freshwater marsh and open water habitats that are managed in a series of 25 impoundments for the benefit of migratory birds (Olson et al 2004). BRMBR marshes are the largest freshwater component of the Great Salt Lake ecosystem. The unique location, juxtaposition of wetlands within an arid landscape, and abundance of aquatic food resources on this refuge provide critical nesting, feeding and migratory stop-over habitat for waterbirds in both the Pacific and Central Flyways. Breeding White-faced Ibis, Franklin’s Gull and Black Tern; and foraging American White Pelican are priority species for management on BRMBR lands (Olson et al 2004).

During the irrigation season (May 1-September 30), the water in the Bear River flowing into the Refuge consists mainly of irrigation return flows, and pollution from agricultural pesticides and toxins is an ongoing concern. Following historic floods of the 1980’s, a nonnative invasive subspecies of common reed (Phragmites australis) spread rapidly into the BRMBR. This continuing threat was addressed with a specific management plan for invasive species control but it will be many years before this threat is abated (Olson 2007).

From 1956 to 2002 Olson et al (2004) estimated an average of 5,286 pairs of White-faced Ibis on the BRMBR. In 2009 J. Neill (pers com) estimated about 10,775 pairs of ibis, 7,000 pairs of Franklin’s Gull, 1,900 pairs of Eared Grebe, and lesser numbers of Black-crowned Night Heron, and Cattle Egrets nesting on refuge lands in Bear River Bay. The BRMBR also serves as an important feeding area for American White Pelicans that breed at Great Salt Lake. Threats: Water availability and security are significant threats to waterbird habitat at the BRMBR, in part due to the location of the refuge at the downstream end of the 6.52

Bear Lake NWR: Bear Lake is a 1,090 mi 2 natural freshwater lake that straddles the border of Idaho and Utah at an elevation of nearly 6,000 ft. The Refuge lies at the northern tip of Bear Lake and encompasses the Mud Lake wetland complex. Spring runoff water from the Bear River is diverted into Mud Lake which serves as a filter before the water is released into Bear Lake and stored for future agricultural use (Downard 2010). The refuge is managed as system of dikes and marsh management units comprising 18,000 acres of hardstem bulrush, cattail, and open water habitat with nesting islands and surrounding wet meadows (National Audubon Society 2011, UWRL 2011). The Refuge also cultivates nearby fields to provide food crops of barley and alfalfa for Sandhill Cranes and other waterbirds. Bear Lake NWR has become increasingly important to breeding White-faced Ibis in recent years supporting 12,729 pairs in 2008 and 9576 in 2010, likely the largest colony in the west (Moulton 2009; M. Moulton, pers com). These numbers far exceed those documented by Bear Lake NWR staff 1985-1999 when ibis colonies averaged 1,645 nesting pairs (Earnst et al 1998). In 2008 and 2010 an estimated 29,326 and 11,750 pairs of Franklin’s Gulls nested on Bear Lake NWR (Moulton 2009, Moulton pers

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS com) again far surpassing numbers documented in the early 1990’s (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Other breeding waterbirds include Sandhill Crane, Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret; Caspian and Black terns; and Western, Clarks’ and Eared Grebes. This wetland complex also may contain the densest breeding population of American Bitterns in Idaho (NAS 2011). Bear Lake NWR is an important fall staging area for Greater Sandhill Cranes, generally supporting 300–500 individuals. Threats: Water for wetland management at the BRNWR is relatively secure because flows from the Bear River are diverted through the NWR before entering Bear Lake for later agricultural uses and the Bear River Compact requires no net loss of water into Bear Lake from any future upstream developments (Downard 2010). Threats to water supplies at this site stem from climate change and the possibility of significant reductions in snowpack which could severely diminish water supply to wetlands in the Bear River Basin. Concerns for water quality focus largely on levels of phosphorous, pesticides, and sediments (NAS 2011). Muddy water from carp feeding and silt from the Bear River have reduced water quality, resulting in a decline in wildlife use (Downard 2010, NAS 2011). Management of introduced carp and noxious weeds is ongoing, and diking and strategic timing of water intake are measures implemented to reduce the influx of nutrients and sediments into refuge wetlands (NAS 2011). Between 2006 and 2010, approximately 5,100 acres of agricultural lands were converted from flood to sprinkler irrigation in the four counties in Idaho encompassed partially or entirely within the Bear River Basin (Bear Lake, Franklin, Bannock, and Caribou Counties). Flood irrigated agricultural lands surrounding colonial waterbird nesting sites serve as important foraging areas (Trost and Gerstell 1984; Ivey and Herziger 2006; Bray and Klebenow 1988). Conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation in the surrounding landscape may reduce the forage base for breeding and migrating waterbirds in southeastern Idaho. Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area (WPA): This 18,800 acre site is a deep, hardstem bulrush marsh, interspersed with open water and surrounded by areas of playa, saltgrass flats, native wet meadow, and some cropland (IDFG 2005). The WPA provides valuable

6.53

foraging habitat for Sandhill Cranes, Franklin’s Gulls, and White-faced Ibis (IDFG 2005; NAS 2011). Meadows are hayed to provide short grass for waterbird feeding areas along with managed alfalfa and grain fields. The marsh is allowed to fluctuate naturally and may dry out in drought years. Moulton (pers com) documented about 4,740 pairs of White-faced Ibis and 6,860 pairs of Franklins Gulls in breeding colonies at Oxford Slough WPA in 2010. These numbers far exceed those documented in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s when ibis colonies were documented at about 500 to 1,050 pairs (Earnst et al 1998). About 300400 Sandhill Cranes use this area to feed and rest during fall migration. Threats: Other than some concern for introduced noxious weeds, few apparent threats to waterbirds or waterbird habitat occur at Oxford Slough. However, changes in agricultural and land-use practices in adjacent habitats may threaten foraging values for waterbirds or compromise hydrology. Cokeville Meadows NWR: Located in western Wyoming this relatively new refuge has an approved boundary that encompasses 26,200 acres along a 20 mile stretch of the Bear River. To date, 9,260 acres have been purchased or protected with conservation easements (USFWS 2011). The refuge includes large contiguous tracts of high elevation (6,200 ft) wet meadow habitat interspersed with marshes and sloughs. Adjacent agricultural fields provide a supplemental food supply of small grains and alfalfa used by migrating Sandhill Crane, Franklin’s Gull and other waterbirds (NAS 2011, USFWS 2011). Breeding waterbirds include Sandhill Crane, White-faced Ibis, American Bittern and Black Tern. This portion of the Bear River Basin in Wyoming was identified as the highest ranked priority wetland landscape by the Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee’s Wyoming Wetlands Conservation Strategy (Copeland 2010). Threats: Threats include invasive species (grasses), rural residential development, and some grazing practices (Copeland et al. 2010). Restoration and improvements in the irrigation infrastructure are needed to improve management capacity (Downard 2010, NAS 2011). Both grazing and haying practices require management to ensure the extent and timing of these activities do not negatively impact breeding waterbirds. This refuge holds secure surface and ground water rights sufficient for wetland management (Downard 2010).

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS 4. Southeastern Idaho Focal Area

to waterbirds at the landscape scale. Although it is not possible to estimate or compare population sizes or trends, waterbird surveys have documented large numbers of Sora, American Bittern and other secretive marsh birds at wetland complexes in southeast Idaho (Moulton and Sallabanks 2006; Moulton 2007, 2008, and 2009). Wetlands of particular significance to waterbirds include: Mud Lake WMA, Market Lake WMA, Camas NWR, American Falls Reservoir, Minidoka NWR and Blackfoot Reservoir located in the Snake River Basalt and Northwestern Basin and Range Ecosections of Idaho; and Grays Lake NWR a montane wetland system in Idaho’s Overthrust Mountains Ecological Section. For the purpose of describing IWJV Focal Areas and threats, these wetlands are grouped and described below by ecosection as defined by the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ICWCS; IDFG 2005) to place them in ecological context with their surroundings. Snake River Basalts and Northwestern Basin and Range Ecosection Wetlands: Mud Lake WMA, Market Lake WMA, American Falls Reservoir, Camas NWR, Minidoka NWR and Blackfoot Reservoir

Figure 4 Southeast Idaho Focal Area

In addition to the Bear River Basin, wetlands throughout southeastern Idaho are recognized as important breeding habitat for colonial waterbirds (Peterson 1977; Trost and Gerstell 1994; Austin and Pyle 2004, Ivey and Herziger 2006). In recent years, this region has become increasingly important to breeding White-faced Ibis and Franklin’s Gulls. Wetland complexes in southeastern Idaho supported 40% of all breeding White-faced Ibis in the Intermountain West. When combined with wetland complexes at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and Great Salt Lake in Utah, this bi-state region collectively supports about 65% of all ibis breeding in the Intermountain West in 2009–2010. Reservoirs in southeast Idaho support nesting colonies of American White Pelican and Double-crested Cormorant. These areas also provide a substantial amount of foraging habitat for pelicans from nesting colonies at the Great Salt Lake and migrating pelicans from Utah, Montana, and Wyoming (IDFG 2009). Ongoing investigations have also revealed post-breeding movements of banded White-faced Ibis and American White Pelicans from natal colonies in Idaho to foraging sites on the Great Salt Lake (C. Moulton pers com) underscoring the connectivity of these sites

6.54

Waterbird habitat in the Snake River Basalts and Northwestern Basin and Range Ecosections lie in an arid landscape dominated by shrub-steppe habitat and agricultural lands (~77%) with only about 1% of the area in open water or wetland habitat (IDFG 2005). About half of this ecological region is managed rangeland and 25% is dryland or sprinkler-irrigated agriculture (IDFG 2005). Within the Northwest Basin and Range section, 3% is flood-irrigated land whereas 16% is under flood irrigation in the Snake River Basalts Ecosection. Flooded agricultural fields provide important foraging habitat for many breeding and migrating waterbirds and are an important habitat component used by large numbers of waterbirds during the breeding season and migration. Trost and Gerstell (1994) identified flood-irrigation in the Snake River Plains as the single most important factor leading to the increase in numbers of breeding Whitefaced Ibis in the early 1990’s. Market Lake and Mud Lake WMAs: These wetland complexes are located in Jefferson County. Market Lake consists of 17,000 acres of bulrush/cattail marshes and wetland meadows surrounded by sagebrush/grassland desert, with approximately 200 acres of agricultural fields and 0.75 miles of Snake River riparian area. All of the source water to the wetlands comes from springs, seeps, and artesian wells. Mud Lake WMA is an open water lake surround by bulrush wetlands, willow wetlands, salt-grass filled sloughs, and grass/sagebrush uplands. About 60%

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS of the 8,850 acre area is open water, 15% is emergent wetlands, and the remainder is a mix of upland habitats. Mud Lake is used as a water storage reservoir for the local canal company, and has seasonally fluctuating water levels. However, water levels are always sufficient for supporting large numbers of waterbirds throughout the summer (NAS 2011). Moulton (2009) documented 12,250 pairs of White-faced Ibis and 14,426 pairs of Franklin’s Gull nesting in mixed, scattered colonies throughout impoundment areas at Market Lake WMA. Mud Lake WMA also hosts mixed colonies of White-faced Ibis (4,016 pairs) and Franklin’s Gull (13,074 pairs;C. Moulton pers com). In the fall, the Market Lake is a staging area for approximately 50 American White Pelicans, and pelicans forage and rest at Mud Lake WMA spring through fall (NAS 2011). Other nesting waterbirds at these sites include Black-crowned Night-heron, Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret and Cattle Egrets; Eared, Western, and Clark’s Grebes; Forester’s Tern and Ring-billed gull. Threats: At Market Lake, the water output of springs is only 25% that of the output in the 1970’s (IDFG 2005). Idaho Department of Fish and Game is investigating the potential to purchase water in the reservoir system for use in the marshes. Noxious weed species (e.g. Canada thistle, Musk thistle, Russian knapweed, field bindweed, and white top) are present at both WMAs and abatement measures underway include biological, mechanical, and chemical methods (IDFG 2005). Increasing public use at Mud WMA and demands for additional and different recreational activities could increase disturbance to waterbirds in the future. Between 2000–2010 the human population in Jefferson County, Idaho grew 36.5%. With population growth comes increasing demand for land and water resources for housing and other municipal, agricultural, and recreational uses. To what extent waterbirds use the surrounding agricultural lands is unknown, but many of the species found at these WMAs utilize agricultural croplands for feeding. Conversions of agricultural lands to housing and other uses could affect the sustainability of large colonies of ibis and gulls at these sites in the future. Further, continued conversion of flood-irrigated agricultural lands in the Henry’s Fork corridor to sprinkler irrigation could ultimately eliminate the foraging habitat that sustains white-faced ibis populations nesting on Market Lake WMA.

6.55

Camas NWR: About 50% of this Refuge consists of lakes, ponds, and marshlands; the remainder is grass, sagebrush uplands, meadows, and farm fields (USFWS 2011). Primary habitats are cattail and hardstem bulrush marsh, and sagebrush steppe and bunchgrass uplands (IDFG 2005). Dense willow and cottonwood stands line stream sides. An extensive system of canals, dikes, wells, ponds, and water control structures allows water manipulatation for the benefit of wildlife. Colonial breeders include Eared Grebe, Western and Clark’s Grebe, Great Blue Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Snowy Egret, Great Egret, Cattle Egret, and Franklin’s Gull. Solitary breeders on site include Pied-billed Grebe, Horned Grebe, American Bittern, and Sora. Sandhill Cranes use this area as a fall staging site (USFWS 2011, NAS 2011). Threats: The water supply at Camas has decreased over the years due to natural drought and agricultural development, which have lowered the water table. Camas Creek and Beaver Creek do not flow long enough to provide as much water as they once did and cannot sustain the refuge’s wetlands at certain times of the year, through wells and ditches have been constructed to provide additional water. Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) is present. Upstream channelization has increased sediment flow onto the refuge; increased groundwater pumping in agricultural lands upslope from the refuge have lowered the water table, drying up some of the marsh units. Further reductions of water supply will have significant consequences for waterbird habitat. (IDFG 2005; USFWS 2011). Minidoka NWR: The Minidoka Dam and power plant on the Snake River was constructed in the early 1900s to provide water for irrigation and hydroelectric power. The refuge includes about 80 miles of shoreline around Lake Walcott, from Minidoka Dam upstream about 25 miles. Open water, marshes and mudflats provide habitat for an assortment of waterbirds. Large, shallow beds of submergent vegetation support warm water fish. These aquatic resources provide food for colonial nesting waterbirds including one of two American White Pelican colonies in Idaho, and colonies of Double-Crested Cormorant, Western and Clark’s Grebe, Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and Black-crowned Night-heron. Following a period of absence (1950–1979) apparently due to disturbance from recreational boating, pelican numbers on the refuge increased from 1980–2010. IDFG (2009) reported pelicans numbered about 400 breeding birds in 2002 and increased to about 4,000 breeding birds in 2008. Moulton (pers comm) reported 700 breeding pairs of pelicans in 2010. Portions of the refuge are closed to

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS public access during the nesting season to protect the colonies from disturbance. Threats: Lake Walcott is currently zoned to prevent boating disturbance to waterbird colony areas. There is a potential for disturbance to nesting and molting birds if the boating area is expanded. The population in surrounding Minidoka County has remained relatively unchanged 2000–2010 (U.S. Census 2011) thus threats associated with increasing demands on lands and water resources do not appear to be of concern at this time. Blackfoot Reservoir: This open water reservoir includes several islands vegetated with sagebrush, willow riparian habitat, and surrounding sagebrush uplands. Gull Island (6 acres) supports the largest nesting colony of American White Pelicans in Idaho (1,400 nests in 2005) and large nesting colonies of Double-crested Cormorant (~300 pairs) and California Gull (~6,000 pairs;NAS 2011). Other waterbirds present include nesting colonies Great Blue Heron, Black-crowned Night-heron, and Snowy Egret. Fish species present include stocked rainbow trout and native Yellowstone cutthroat trout (YCT; Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri). Threats: Reservoir levels can be drastically lowered for irrigation needs which exposes waterbirds to predation and increased disturbance, conditions that are exacerbated during drought or low water years. Fisheries managers are concerned about pelican and cormorant impacts on stocked rainbow trout, and on the native YCT, a species of special concern in the state. Pelican predation on YCT that migrate out of Blackfoot Reservoir into the Blackfoot River is a significant concern to IDFG and low flows in the Blackfoot River increases the loss of YCT to pelican predation (IDFG 2009). Fisheries managers have adjusted the timing of fish stocking and have implemented various methods of bird deterrence (hazing with zon guns, cracker shells, airboat, and flagged lines across the river) to exclude pelicans during the sensitive YCT migration period (IDFG 2009). Limited lethal take of pelicans (13 individuals in 2006 and 10 in 2008) was implemented in conjunction with non-lethal hazing program in an effort to increase the effectiveness of the hazing and to reduce impacts to the fishery. IDFG has established a population five-year average population objective of 700 pelicans at Blackfoot Reservoir. Consultation with the USFWS to determine the feasibility, scope and duration of continued lethal control as one means to help minimize pelican predation on YCT is ongoing.

6.56

American Falls Reservoir: The reservoir is about 22 miles long, 6 miles wide at its widest point, and covers approximately 58,000 acres at full capacity. This is an irrigation reservoir with some associated wetland habitat. The surrounding area is predominantly sagebrush and agricultural lands. The reservoir provides shallow water feeding areas and mudflats for foraging shorebirds and waterbirds. Taylor et al. (1989) described thousands of post-breeding ibis feeding on chironomid fly larvae and a small oligochaete in the Springfield Bottoms, an extensive mudflat where the Snake River enters the reservoir. This shoreline constantly changed as water levels in the reservoir dropped during the summer and fall, offering a continual supply of soft substrate for feeding waterbirds. Gull Island on American Falls Reservoir is the breeding site of the largest California and Ring-billed Gull colony in the state (NAS 2011). There were 7,455 California Gull nests in 2005 and 8,361 in 2006 and almost 800 pairs of Double-crested Cormorants (Moulton and Sallabanks 2006, Moulton 2007). Other breeding waterbirds found here include: Eared Grebe, Western and Clark’s Grebe, Great Blue Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Snowy Egret, Great Egret, Cattle Egret, Forster’s Tern, and Black Tern. Threats: Pesticide and nutrient runoff from surrounding agricultural lands is of concern. Additionally, populations in the surrounding counties increased 2000-2010 with Bannock and Bingham County populations growing nearly 10% (U.S Census Bureau 2011). Increasing recreational use may result in increased disturbance to waterbirds. Overthrust Mountains Ecological Section Wetland: Grays Lake NWR Mountain ranges and valleys with scattered lakes and montane wet meadows characterize this region. Timber harvest, livestock grazing, and recreation are the primary land uses. The majority of precipitation falls as snow in the winter. Grays Lake NWR: At 22,000 acres, Grays Lake is one of the largest hardstem bulrush marshes in North America. It is located in the Caribou Range of the Rocky Mountains on the western edge of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The high elevation marshland (6,400 ft) is surrounded by wet meadows and grasslands. Water sources are from snowmelt and numerous springs. Grays Lake NWR encompasses most of this habitat (19,500 acres) but water levels cannot be manipulated due to water rights and agreements with the Fort Hall Irrigation District and local landowners (USFWS 2011). Water discharge has been controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for use in

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Fort Hall Irrigation Project since the early 1920s. Clark’s Cut, a man-made channel completed in 1924, drains into the Blackfoot Reservoir via Meadow Creek. The refuge is considered prime habitat for Sandhill Cranes. During fall staging and migration, Greater Sandhill Cranes congregate in numbers up to 1,200 individuals and this site supports one of the largest breeding populations of Greater Sandhill Cranes in the world (~250 pairs). Franklin’s gulls nest in large colonies in bulrush habitat, along with lesser numbers of White-faced Ibis and grebes, bitterns and rails. There were 6,037 pairs of breeding ibises in 2010, 16,000 pairs of Franklin’s gulls, and 5,775 pairs of Ring-billed gulls in 2009.

5. Upper and Middle Rio Grande Valleys, Colorado and New Mexico

Threats: Drought conditions and climate change may pose threats to the water supply at this site since water sources are from snowmelt and springs and water security for wildlife purposes is lacking. The Fort Hall Irrigation District has priority for water use. The Shoshone-Bannock tribes receive the majority of the water controlled by the district followed by privately owned lands. The timing and amount of water drained from this site is determined by the District with irrigation use being the priority rather than water management for waterbirds or other wildlife. The population in Bonneville County, Idaho increased 26.3% from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011) which may increase demands for surface and ground water resources to meet domestic and industrial uses. Figure 5 U pper (San Luis Valley) and Middle Rio Grande Corridor

Colorado.—The Upper Rio Grande Basin is located in south-central Colorado and encompasses about 7,700 mi 2 (San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee 2000). Headwaters of the Rio Grande, Colorado’s Closed Basin and the San Luis Valley comprise the Basin. The area is bounded on the north and west by the Continental Divide, on the east by the Sangre de Cristo range, and the south by the New Mexico state line. The San Luis Valley lies at the headwaters of the Rio Grande River in the Basin and Range Province. Although they are widely scattered in this dry area, wetlands support dense waterbird populations. Many of Colorado’s largest and richest ponds, lakes, and marshes lie in the San Luis Valley. This region has an economy based on irrigation agriculture, tourism, livestock production, and mining. Cropland comprises about 9% of the basin, while an additional 4.3% of the basin exists as irrigated hay meadow. The human

6.57

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 E. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS population reflects the general decline occurring in rural areas; declining from a high of 49,000 in l940 to 42,000 at the turn of the century (San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee 2000). Virtually the entire Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of Greater Sandhill Cranes stage in the Valley in October and March each year. Numerous other nongame waterbirds occur in the Valley at various times of the year. These species will be managed by providing the specific wetland habitat types required. The four types of habitat are emergent marsh, wet meadow, playa (mud flat) and open water. Alamosa NWR: This 11,200 acre refuge consists of nearly 8,000 acres of wetlands, including open water with extensive cattail stands and Baltic rush/wet meadow communities, river oxbows, and riparian corridors, primarily within the flood plain of the Rio Grande. The refuge lies at just over 7,500 ft elevation and is relatively flat. Habitat management practices include high intensityshort duration grazing, prescribed burning, moist-soil plant management, farming, and water management. Water from the Rio Grande is supplemented by artesian wells and pumped water from the Closed Basin Project. The refuge has supported substantial nesting colonies of White-faced Ibises, Black-Crowned Night Herons, and Snowy and Cattle Egrets (San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee 2000). Blanca Wetlands Area: This is a wetlands development and restoration area administered by BLM. Lying just above 7,500 ft in elevation, the area is relatively flat with no significant topographic features. Sparsely vegetated sand dunes with intermingled depressions and historical playa basins characterize the landscape. The site provides 207 wetland sites (2,500 acres) consisting of fresh water ponds, marshes, and meadows; alkali ponds, marshes, and meadows; and playa lakes. Portions of this area have inadequate water supplies to meet their potential. The primary objective of the area is to serve as a waterbird production site (San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee 2000). See Chapter 5b of the 2013 IWJV Implementation Plan for a more detailed characterization of the Blanca Wetlands Area. Monte Vista NWR: This 14,200 acre refuge consists primarily of flat terrain at an elevation above 7,500 ft. It contains nearly 3,240 acres of wetlands. Water is intensively managed using numerous dikes and other water control structures to create wetland habitats ranging from shallow wet meadows to open water. Approximately 26,500 acre feet of water is applied annually to these areas to manage for seasonal waterbird needs, such as spring 6.58

breeding pair habitat and summer brood habitat. Water is provided through numerous artesian wells and pumps, and canal water diverted from the Rio Grande River. Other habitat management practices include high intensity-short duration grazing, prescribed burning, farming, and moistsoil plant management. The refuge is a major stopover for migrating RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes moving between their wintering area around Bosque del Apache NWR in New Mexico and northern breedin grounds. Up to 20,000 cranes pass through in the spring and again in the fall. The refuge also supports colonies of White-faced Ibis, Snowy and Cattle Egrets, and Black-Crowned Night Herons (San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee 2000). Threats: Development of resources including water, real estate, and agriculture are the primary threats to fish and wildlife resources in the San Luis Valley. Lack of secure water supplies and diminishing ground-water resources are the major threat to region wetlands. New Mexico.—The Middle Rio Grande Valley of central New Mexico spans both the Chihuahuan desert scrub and semidesert grassland biotic communities and is bounded by mountain ranges rising 6,560 ft to the west and 5,250 ft to the east. This region lies along the Rio Grande and spans between Cochiti Dam to Elephant Butte Reservoir. Valley floor elevations average 4,820 ft. Wetlands within this valley are critical for supporting migrating and wintering waterfowl, cranes, and a wide variety of other waterbirds. The valley hosts 5 federal and state wildlife refuges, which cooperatively provide habitat for these species (Taylor 1999). Limited wetland availability within this arid landscape requires intensive management programs focused on maximum food production to support high numbers of cranes and waterfowl. This region is the principal winter range for RMP Greater Sandhill Cranes that utilize west-central New Mexico, mainly from the Albuquerque-Los Lunas region in Bernalillo and Valencia counties south to the Bosque del Apache NWR (Drewien and Bizeau 1974, Drewien et al. 2000), as well as a growing number of Mid-Continent Population Sandhill Cranes. Most greaters winter at or near the Bosque del Apache NWR or areas 40-mi north near Bernardo Waterfowl Managemant Area and La Joya Wildlife Area. Smaller groups are scattered throughout the valley north to Tome and Los Lunas areas in Valencia County (Drewien and Bizeau 1974). Flock counts and observations of marked cranes show that Bosque del Apache NWR is the RMP’s single most important wintering location with over 50% of the entire population wintering here (Drewien and Bizeau 1974).

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Bosque del Apache NWR: The Refuge is 57,300 acres located near Socorro, New Mexico, lying at the northern edge of the Chihuahuan desert and straddling approximately 10 miles of the Rio Grande. The heart of the Refuge is about 12,900 acres of moist bottomlands; 3,800 acres are active floodplain of the Rio Grande and 9,100 acres are areas where water is diverted to create extensive wetlands, farmlands, and riparian forests. Artificially created marshes replace natural wetlands lost with the development of reservoirs and channelization of the Rio Grande. The rest of Bosque del Apache NWR is made up of arid foothills and mesas that rise to the Chupadera Mountains on the west and the San Pascual Mountains on the east. Most of these desert lands are preserved as wilderness areas. About 7,400 acres are extensively managed for crop production and moist-soil plant production for waterfowl and waterbird use. Threats: The Middle Rio Grande Valley has experienced increasing impacts from human influences that are compromising the long-term capability of these areas to provide adequate forage and roosting habitats to sustain cranes at objective levels (Case and Sanders 2009). Changing practices on private lands (e.g., shifts from farming small grains to alfalfa and vegetables or conversion of farmland to residential tracts) has limited availability of suitable winter Sandhill Crane food resources to fields occurring on three state-owned waterfowl management areas (Bernardo, La Joya, Belen) and on Bosque del Apache NWR. Agriculture crops, including wheat and barley, are capable of meeting cranesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; energetic needs, but increasing use of fall tillage makes these resources less available. Increased numbers of people in rural landscapes are increasing human/crane conflicts and disturbance to cranes (Mitchusson 2003). Changes in agricultural markets have greatly reduced the total acreage being planted in barley, which historically has been important to cranes. Uncertainty in the future of water availability (physical and legal), increasing urban expansion, and loss of farming traditions will further reduce the future value of the Middle Rio Grande Valley to cranes. Reduced water flows in the Rio Grande have resulted in limited suitable roost sites, requiring cranes to expend greater amounts of energy in search of available food resources (Case and Sanders 2009). Water quality and quantity issues are common in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Bosque del Apache NWR has a senior water right in the Valley, but is geographically located at the end of the irrigation system. Consequently, lack of surface water to support natural processes on the active floodplain and irrigation on managed areas threatens during drought years. Efforts to reduce water loss, such as concrete6.59

lined ditches and different irrigation techniques, will become higher priority projects in the future. Another major threat to riparian ecosystems is the rapid spread of exotic saltcedar. This species dominates wide areas throughout the Middle Rio Grande Valley as well as the refuge floodplain. Periodic catastrophic fires have reduced fire-intolerant native species, creating new voids which saltcedar rapidly fills. The negative aspects of saltcedar include not only its aggressive nature, but also its propensity to use large quantities of water resulting in altered wetland hydrology, function, and quality for waterbirds 6. West-Central Nevada Focal Area

Figure 6 W est Central Nevada Focal Area including Carson Sink and Lahontan Valley wetland complexes.

Rivers and wetlands in this focal area are remnants of the once vast Pleistocene-era Lake Lahontan which is estimated to have covered about 8,500 mi 2. Present day conditions include four major river systems that empty into deep-water desert lakes and terminal basins of the ancient lakebed: the Truckee, Walker, Carson and Humboldt Rivers. Source water for these rivers originates in the high-elevation, steep-gradient Sierra Nevada Mountains. The terminus of these closed-basin systems provide important habitat for waterbirds in the Intermountain West including Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, and the expansive low elevation, flat-alkali playas in the Lahontan Valley and Humboldt Sink. Basins and valleys in West-central Nevada are encompassed in the arid Great

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Basin Region with precipitation in ranging from about 5–8 in/year (Maurer et. al., 2009; USFWS 2002) and annual evaporation that can exceed 60 in/year. (USFWS 2002). Uplands in the region are dry, desert shrublands and land use is predominantly agriculture, grazing and ranching. About 82% of wetland acreage in the terminal valleys of the Truckee, Carson, and Humboldt River basins were lost through conversion or development since the 1850’s (Thompson and Merritt 1988). These rivers, and the Walker River, have been highly modified by complex networks of dams, reservoirs, ditches and canals that serve to store, divert, transport and withdraw water to support extensive agricultural and ranching practices in surrounding valleys, especially in Douglas, Lyon, Mineral, and Churchill Counties, Nevada. Despite the severe alterations to the natural hydrologic conditions in these basins, they continue to support regionally and nationally significant populations of waterbirds, shorebirds and waterfowl. From the mid-1980s through the late 1990s, a significant proportion of White-faced Ibises in the Intermountain West were located in colonies in the Lahontan Valley/Humboldt Sink wetlands (Neel 1997, Earnst et al 1998). The area also serves as an important foraging area for American White Pelicans from breeding colonies Anaho Island NWR, and as breeding and foraging habitat for hundreds of Snowy Egrets, Great Egrets, Black-crowned Night-Herons and Double-Crested Cormorants (Neel 1997, GBBO 2010). Pyramid and Walker Lakes support waterbirds able to exploit resources found in deep saline waters and surrounding alkali and fresh-water wetlands including American White Pelicans, California Gulls, Double-crested Cormorants, Common Loons, and Clark’s and Western Grebes. In 1990, Congress passed The Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act, Public Law 101-618 (PL101-118) which authorizes the transfer of the 22,700 acre Carson Lake and Pasture area to the State of Nevada to be managed by NDOW as a WMA. Additionally, PL 101-618 mandates the Department of the Interior to acquire, in conjunction with the State of Nevada, enough water to sustain a long-term average of 24,700 acres of primary wetland habitat in four designated areas in the Lahontan Valley: Stillwater NWR, Stillwater WMA, Carson Lake WMA and the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Reservation. Lahontan Valley/Humboldt Sink Wetlands: The Lahontan Valley/Humboldt Sink wetlands are low elevation terminal basins characterized by desert shrublands and vast, flat- alkali playas and mudflats. The Carson River Basin includes an estimated 12,600 6.60

acres of open water, 91,000 acres of vegetated wetlands and 155,000 acres of alkali playa (Nevada Natural Heritage Program [NNHP] 2006). Desert shrublands and playas characterize the lower basins whereas wetlands, farmlands, the City of Fallon and associated suburbs comprise a small component (7%) of the Lahontan Valley (USFWS 2002). In 2005 there were about 39,000 acres of irrigated native pasture and alfalfa in the Carson Valley below Lahontan Reservoir, and an additional 3,100 acres and 1,200 acres were flood irrigated in the Dayton and Churchill Valleys above the reservoir. In recent years, the Carson River basin has experienced increases in residential, commercial and municipal growth (Maurer et al 2009). Grazing, rangelands, and agriculture represent the predominant land use (USFWS 2002). North of the Carson River system, the Humboldt River terminates in the Humboldt Sink an expansive alkali pan wetland complex with water ranging from centimeters to 13 feet deep depending upon annual flow levels (Nevada Partners in Flight [NPIF] 1999). The Humboldt River and its tributaries drain a 17,200 mi2 basin which includes nearly 12,100 acres of playa, 510 mi2 of vegetated wetland habitat, and 16,100 acres of open water (NNHP 2006). The Carson Sink is hydrologically connected to the Humboldt River Basin via the Humboldt River and the Humboldt Slough. However, water entering the Carson Sink from the Humboldt River Basin via this connection occurs only during extremely wet years. In 1915 the Newlands Irrigation Project was completed to provide irrigation water for agriculture in the lower Carson River Basin. This included construction the Lahontan Dam and Reservoir on the Carson River and the Truckee Canal which diverts Truckee River flows into the Lahontan Reservoir. Water from the Lahontan Reservoir irrigates about 56,000 acres in the Lahontan Valley (Maurer et. al., 2009). Flows not used for irrigation provide water for Lahontan Valley wetlands, including the Carson Sink at the basins terminus. The Humboldt River is similarly altered with four reservoirs including Rye Patch. Constructed in 1935, the Rye Patch Reservoir effectively cut-off the wetlands of the Humboldt Sink from Humboldt River source water (NPIV 1999). Humboldt Sink wetlands are now supplied with agricultural return flows when they are available The Stillwater NWR Complex and Carson Lake WMA (AKA Carson Lake and Pasture) comprise the majority of the Lahontan Valley wetland complex. The Stillwater NWR Complex includes the Stillwater NWR, the adjacent Stillwater WMA, and Fallon NWR for a combined total of 163,000 acres of land managed by the USFWS. The

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Carson Lake WMA (22,000 acres) is federally owned land managed by the NDOW pending transfer to the state per PL 101-618. Additional wetlands are located on the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Reservation, and along the Carson River and the Carson Sink terminus. NDOW manages the 27,900 acre Humboldt Sink WMA. Habitats for waterbirds on these lands include freshwater and brackish marshes, shallow flooded alkali playas and associated mudflats, and cottonwood and willow riparian areas. Surrounding uplands are salt desert shrub lands, sand dunes, and extensive irrigated crop and pasturelands. The extent and quality of wetland habitats in the Lahontan Valley/Humboldt Sink vary tremendously both seasonally and annually, depending on snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada and on withdrawals for irrigation, municipal, and residential uses. Within the span of one season, these wetlands can transform from shallow lakes with clear, fresh water, to shallow, brackish marshes with high salt concentrations (USFWS 2002). Numbers of waterbirds recorded at these sites fluctuate in accord with water levels and widely ranging salinity levels. However, the region is renowned for supporting thousands of waterbirds and high concentrations of shorebirds and waterfowl. Between 1992–1997, Neel (1997) estimated about 4,083 breeding pairs of White-faced Ibis annually inhabiting wetlands in northwestern Nevada. Carson Lake WMA traditionally hosted the largest ibis colonies among the Lahontan Valley/Humboldt Sink wetland sites. During this same 5-year period, about 300 nesting pairs of Snowy Egrets, and 160 pairs of Great Egrets, 180 Black-crowned Night Herons and lesser number of Cattle Egret and Double-crested Cormorants were documented nesting in these wetlands. Numbers of nesting ibises declined dramatically 2000–2004 corresponding with severe drought conditions. Although water conditions at wetlands improved in 2005–2006 and in some later years, ibises have yet to rebound to the high counts of the late 1990s. However, these wetlands continue to serve as part of the network of sites necessary to support Intermountain West waterbird populations over the long term. The Lahontan Valley wetlands also serve a vital function as shallowwater feeding areas for American White Pelicans from the breeding colony on Anaho Island in Pyramid Lake (up to 13,000 birds). Pelicans from Anaho Island frequently travel about 70 miles one-way to feed in shallow water bodies in the Lahontan Valley. Common Loons and Sandhill Cranes were also once common to these wetlands but loss of deep water and wet meadow habitat has greatly reduced the number of these waterbirds from historic times (USFWS 2002)

6.61

Threats: Water supply, security, and quality are significant threats to waterbird habitat in the Lahontan Valley wetlands. Flows from the Carson and Truckee Rivers are fully allocated, almost entirely to off-stream uses including agriculture, urban, and industrial use. Water that ultimately flows into the terminal lakes and sinks is a mixture of re-used surface and groundwater (NNHP 2006). In addition to historic loss of wetland acreage, recent suburban and municipal growth is permanently converting habitat in these basins. From 1970 to 2005, about 2,200 acres of land below Lahontan Reservoir were converted from irrigated agricultural land to residential and commercial use (Maurer et. al., 2009). In the past decade (2000–2010) counties in west-central Nevada experienced relatively high rates of population growth with increases of 51% in Lyon County, 14% in Douglas County, 29% in Washoe County and nearly 4% in Churchill County (U.S Census Bureau 2011). Municipal, commercial, and subdivision developments have further impacted water and wetland resources. From the late 1980s to 2005, about 6,300 acres of land have been converted from flood irrigation to sprinkler systems (Maurer 2009), thereby degrading their value to foraging waterbirds. Ongoing and predicted increases in temperature associated with climate change could potentially increase already severe evaporation rates in the Lahontan Valley/Humboldt Sink. Predicted declines in Sierra Nevada snowpack and earlier spring snowmelt dates could drastically modify water regimes in the mid- to late-summer seasons when waterbirds are nesting and fledging young. The effects of climate change will exacerbate water shortages and poor water quality in these drainages that are already stressed by limited water and contaminants. Contaminant concerns in the Lower Lahontan and Humboldt River Basins result primarily from hydrologic modifications, discharge of agricultural drainage to wetlands, and the historic release of mercury into the Carson River (Henny et al. 1985, Henny and Herron 1989, Henny et al 2002, Oring et al 2000). During the mid to late 1800s, mining activities for precious metals resulted in the release of liquid mercury into the Carson River. Mercury concentrations in the floodplain of the Lower Carson River Basin are some of the highest ever reported, and Lahontan Reservoir has served as a sink for most of the sediment-bound mercury washed downstream (Hill et. al., 2008). The Lower Carson River Basin, including Lahontan Reservoir is now on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List (Superfund) for research and cleanup. Mercury contamination has resulted in cellular damage in the nervous, immune, hepatic, and renal systems of young Snowy Egrets, Black-crowned

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Night Herons, and Double-crested Cormorant fledgling from colonies in the Lahontan Reservoir (Henny et al 2002). During the drought years of 2000–2004, Hill et al. (2008) found snowy egret eggs with high concentrations of total mercury and methylmercury (> .80ug TH) all failed to hatch. Yet during wet years, substantial numbers of young were produced from nests with eggs thus exceeding these thresholds. Drought conditions exacerbate the negative physiological reproductive effects of mercury contamination in snowy egret nestlings (Hoffman et. al., 2009). These studies revealed complex associations among contaminant levels and drought/flood conditions in the Lahontan Valley that merit further research and emphasize the critical need to improve water supply and quality to wetlands in the Lahontan Valley and Humboldt Sink. Pyramid Lake /Anaho Island NWR: Pyramid Lake is a 125,000 acre natural saline lake and is one of the largest and deepest (338 ft) remnants of ancient Lake Lahontan. The lake supports amphipods, fish including the endangered Cui-ui, and other aquatic species that provide a forage base for waterbirds. The island constitutes the entire extent of the Anaho Island NWR, which is managed by the USFWS under an agreement with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. Derby Dam and Truckee Canal were constructed in 1913 to divert Truckee River water to the Lower Carson River Basin for irrigation. This reduced the flow of water into Pyramid Lake and consequently, the island fluctuates in size from 220 to 740 acres depending on water supply. Anaho Island is characterized by gentle slopes near the shoreline and steep, rocky topography toward its peak. Island habitat includes desert shrub communities, nonnative annual grasses, native bunchgrasses and forbs, and open areas with scant vegetation near the shorelines. Anaho Island supports some of the largest concentrations of colonial waterbirds in Nevada, including a longpersistent breeding colony of American White Pelicans. The number of American White Pelicans at Anaho Island over the past 50 years has varied from 2,670 to 21,500 birds, with an annual average of 8,600 and a typical tenyear peak of 13,500 birds (Stillwater NWR Complex data). In 2009 and 2010, refuge waterbird surveys documented an average of 3,760 breeding pairs of pelicans, 3,565 pairs of California Gulls, and about 400 pairs of Doublecrested Cormorants breeding on the island within 18 subcolonies (GBBO 2010). In 2011, about 4,000 pairs of pelicans produced roughly 2,000 young (Stillwater NWR Complex data). This relatively high reproductive success was attributed to high water levels from reserve snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Range resulting in above average flows in the Truckee River, the main inflow to Pyramid 6.62

Lake. Great blue herons, Black-crowned night herons and occasionally Caspian Terns also nest on the island (USFWS 2002). Pyramid Lake provides migration stopover opportunities for significant numbers of waterbirds. Large numbers of Clark’s and Western Grebes, Eared Grebes, and American White Pelicans pass through in migration (NAS 2011). Threats: Pyramid Lake has experienced deficit inflows from the Truckee River since the early 1900s when diversions began from the lower Truckee River at Derby Dam. Although legislative action has somewhat stabilized Truckee River water allocations, continued withdrawals and drought cycles represent the primary threats to the quantity and quality of water in Pyramid Lake. In turn, these factors threaten the sustainability of Cui-ui and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout populations, the primary food source for pelicans and other waterbirds that congregate to nest on Anaho Island. Declining snow pack and earlier snowmelt dates predicted in various climate change models would reduce magnitude and duration of snowmelt dependent flows in the Truckee and Carson Rivers. In turn, this could potentially result in increased salinity at Pyramid Lake and insufficient water to wetlands in the Lahontan Valley. Walker Lake: The Walker River drains the 4050 mi 2 Walker River Basin and empties into Walker Lake, located about 160 miles from the rivers headwaters in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This 12 mile long, 5 mile wide desertterminal lake covers about 25,900 acres. The shoreline is predominantly barren with some scattered low-desert shrub vegetation, with the exception of the river delta area where limited riparian/wetland community types occur. Over the past 100 years, the lake has decreased from about 10 million to less than 2 million acre feet (Horton 1996). Virtually all surface water flows within the Walker River Basin are appropriated for agricultural use (Horton 1996), and are diverted onto tens of thousands of acres of alfalfa, onion, and garlic fields and to support cattle grazing. Extensive ground water pumping also occurs to meet the water needs of the surrounding agricultural communities in Douglas, Mineral, and particularly Lyon counties, Nevada (Horton 1996, Sharpe et al 2007). As a result of surface and groundwater withdrawals, water supply to the lake has declined significantly and, consequently, concentration of salt and total dissolved solids has dramatically increased. Lake water is of relatively poor quality, with high concentrations of total dissolved solids, (mostly salts), relatively high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen, and hydrogen sulfide (Horton 1996, Sharpe et al 2007).

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. FOCAL AREA PROFILES – DESCRIPTIONS & THREATS Despite these Walker Lake is one of only three desert terminus lakes in the U.S. that support a fishery. A population of the native Lahontan tui chub (Gila bicolor) and a stocked strain of the threatened Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) inhabit the headwaters of the Walker River and Walker Lake. Common loons stage at Walker Lake for about 30 days during southward fall migration and during the spring migration as they head north to breeding grounds in Saskatchewan, Canada. NDOW bi-annual surveys at Walker Lake have documented a high count of 1,433 loons during the spring of 1997 to a low of 150 during the spring of 2009. The lake also hosts between 2,000 and 9,000 migrating Clark’s Grebes each fall, as well as Eared Grebes, Double-Crested Cormorants, White-faced Ibises, and American White Pelicans. Threats: Surface water withdrawals for agricultural and ranching purposes, the increasing frequency and duration of drought cycles, and reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains resulting from climate change are significant threats to waterbirds and waterbird habitat at Walker Lake. These ongoing water shortages and droughts have necessitated increasing ground water withdrawals from the Walker River Basin to support agriculture in the surrounding landscape, further stressing hydrologic conditions in the lake. Due to surface and ground water diversions and withdrawals over the past century, the lake’s level has declined by 47 m and its volume has shrunk by more than 80% (Bureau of Reclamation 2010). During the ten-year period of 1987–1996, an eight-year drought period, Walker Lake received inflows from the

6.63

Walker River in essentially only three years: 1987, 1995, and 1996 (Horton 1996, Bureau of Reclamation 2010). Walker Lake’s TDS concentrations are well above levels existing in Pyramid Lake and are approaching levels that exceed conditions where fish can reproduce (Horton 1996, Sharpe et. al., 2007). The lake also experiences large blooms of blue-green algae, which, when combined with high TDS concentrations and low dissolved oxygen, creates a relatively inhospitable environment to fish species. Collapse of the fisheries would result in the complete loss of this site as an important waterbird migration and staging area. Additionally, mercury contamination from historical upstream mining has also occurred and looms at Walker Lake are heavily contaminated with mercury (NAS 2011). All of these conditions result in significant threats to waterbirds at the local and regional scale. Since 2002, Congress has passed eight pieces of Desert Terminal Lakes Legislation related to the Walker River Basin. The overall direction and goal of programs stemming from these laws is to increase the long-term average annual inflow to Walker Lake by up to 50,000 acre feet per annually through purchases of water from willing sellers in Nevada. As directed by legislation and subsequent agreements among responsible and participating parties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation will determine how the Acquisition Program is to be developed and implemented (see Revised DEIS for the Walker River Basin Acquisition Program, Department, Bureau of Reclamation, 2010)

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. LITERATURE CITED IN APPENDICES Akins, G. J. 1970. The effects of land use and land management on the wetlands of the Upper Klamath Basin. M.S. Thesis. Western Washington College, Bellingham, Washington. Aldrich, T. W., and D. S. Paul. 2002. Avian ecology of Great Salt Lake. Pages 343–374 in J. W. Gwynn, editor. Great Salt Lake: an overview of change. Utah Department of Natural Resources and Utah Geological Survey Special Publication, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Austin, J. E. and W. H. Pyle. 2004. Nesting Ecology of Waterbirds at Grays Lake, Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 64: 277–292. Bedford, D., and A. Douglass. 2008. Changing properties of snowpack in the Great Salt Lake Basin, Western United States, from a 26-year SNOTEL record. Professional Geographer 60:374–386. Belovsky, G. E., D. Stephens, C. Perschon, P. Birdsey, D. Paul, D. Naftz, R. Gaskin, C. Larson, C. Mellison, J. Luft, R. Mosley, H. Mahon, J. V. Leeuwn, and D. V. Allen. 2011. The Great Salt Lake ecosystem (Utah, USA): long term data and a structural equation approach. Ecosphere 2:1–40. Bray, M.P. and D. A. Klebenow, 1988. Feeding ecology of White-faced Ibis in a Great Basin Valley, USA. Colonial Waterbirds 11:24-31. Bureau of Reclamation [BOR]. 2010. Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Walker River Basin Acquisition Program. Online: http://www.usbr.gov/ mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=2810 Case, D. J. and S. J. Sanders. 2009. Priority Information needs for Sandhill Cranes: A funding strategy. Developed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Support Task Force. Online: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ NewReportsPublications/Research/WMGBMR/Priority_ Information_Needs_for_Sandhill_Cranes_10-09-09_ FINAL.pdf Conover, M. R. and J. L. Vest. 2009a. Selenium and mercury concentrations in California Gulls breeding on the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 28:324–329. Conover, M. R. and J. L. Vest. 2009b. Concentrations of selenium and mercury in Eared Grebes from Utah’s Great Salt Lake, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28:1319–1323.

6.64

Copeland, H., S. Tessmann, M. Hogan, S. Jester, A. Orabona, S. Patla, K. Sambor, and J. Kiesecker. 2010. Wyoming Wetlands: Conservation Priorities and Strategies. Lander, Wyoming: The Nature Conservancy. 9pp. Downard, R. 2010. Keeping wetlands wet: The hydrology of wetlands in the Bear River Basin. 2010. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 829. Utah State University. Graduate Studies, School of DigitalCommons@USU. Online: http://digitalcommons. usu.etd/829 Drewien, R. C., and E. G. Bizeau. 1974. Status and distribution of greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:720-742. Drewien, R. C., W. M. Brown, D. C. Lockman, W. L. Kendall, K. R. Clegg, V. K. Graham, S. S. Manes. 2000. Band recoveries, mortality factors, and survival of Rocky Mountain greater sandhill cranes. Unpublished report, Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Bozeman, MT. Earnst, S.L., L. Neel, G.L. Ivey, and T. Zimmerman. 1998. Status of the White-faced Ibis: Breeding Colony Dynamics of the Great Basin Population, 1985 – 1997. Colonial Waterbirds: 20: 301-476. Fleskes, J. P., and C. J. Gregory. 2010. Distribution and dynamics of waterbird habitat during spring in southern Oregon–Northeastern California. Western North American Naturalist 70:26–38. Frey, S. N., and M. R. Conover. 2006. Habitat use by meso-predators in a corridor environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1111-1118. Gannett, M.W., K. E. Lite, Jr., J.L. La Marche, B.J. Fisher, and D.J. Polette, 2007. Ground-water hydrology of the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 20075050. 84 pp. Great Basin Bird Observatory. 2010. Surveys of Colonial Waterbirds within Nevada, 2010. Final Annual Report. Unpublished Report to American Bird Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Nevada. 19 pp. Henny, C.J., L.J. Blus, and C.S. Hulse. 1985. Trends and effects of organochlorine residues on Oregon and Nevada wading birds. Colonial Waterbirds 8:117-128 Henny, C.J. and G.B. Herron. 1989. DDE, selenium, mercury and White-faced Ibis reproduction at Carson Lake, Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:10321045.

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. LITERATURE CITED IN APPENDICES Henny, C.J., E.F. Hill, D.J. Hoffman, M. G. Spalding, and R.A. Brove. 2002. Nineteenth century mercury: Hazard to wading birds and cormorants of the Carson River, Nevada. Ecotoxicology 11:213-231.

Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2000. Distribution of greater sandhill crane pairs in Oregon, 1999/00. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Technical Report #03-01-00. Salem, Oregon.

Hill, E.F., C. J. Henny, and R.A. Grove. 2008. Mercury and drought along the Lower Carson River, Nevada: II. Snowy Egret and Black-crowned Night-heron reproduction on Lahontan Reservoir, 1997-2006. Ecotoxicology 17:117131.

Ivey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1.2. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon.

Hoffman, D. J., C.J. Henny, E.F Hill, R.A. Grove, J.L. Kaiser, and K.R. Stebbins, 2009. Mercury and drought along the Lower Carson River, Nevada: III. Effects on blood and organ biochemistry and histopathology of Snowy Egrets and Black-crowned Night-Herons on Lahontan Reservoir, 2002–2006. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 72: 1223–1241.

Ivey, G. L., S. L. Earnst, E. P. Kelchlin, L. Neel, and D. S. Paul. 2004. White-faced Ibis staus update and guidelines: Great Basin Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Horton, G. 1996. Walker River Chronology: A chronological history of the Walker River and related water issues. Nevada Division of Water Planning, Carson City, NV. 80pp. Online: http://water.nv.gov/mapping/ chronologies/walker/part1.cfm Idaho Department of Fish and Game [IDFG], 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ICWCS). Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Online: http://fishandgame. idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm Idaho Department of Fish and Game [IDFG], 2009. Management of American White Pelicans In Idaho: A fiveyear plan (2009–2013) to balance American white pelican and native cutthroat trout conservation needs and manage impacts to recreational fisheries in southeast Idaho. 72pp. Ivey, G. L. 2000. Joint Venture Implementation Plans for Habitat Conservation Areas in Eastern Oregon: Oregon Closed Basin. Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture, Portland, Oregon. Online: www.ohjv.org/pdfs/closed_basin_plan. pdf. Ivey, G. L. 2001. Joint Venture Implementation Plans for Habitat Conservation Areas in Eastern Oregon: Klamath Basin. Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture, Portland, Oregon. Online: www.ohjv.org/pdfs/klamath_basin %20.pdf. Ivey, G. L., J. E. Cornely, and B. D. Ehlers. 1998. Carp impacts on waterfowl at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 63:66 74.

6.65

Kenny, J.F., N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K. Lovelace, and M.A. Maupin. 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 pp. Maurer, D.K., A.P. Paul, D.L. Berger, and C.J. Mayers, 2009. Analysis of streamflow trends, ground-water and surface-water interactions, and water quality in the upper Carson River Basin, Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5238, 192 pp. Naftz, D., C. Angeroth, T. Kenney, B. Waddell, N. Darnell, S. Silva, C. Perschon, and J. Whitehead. 2008. Anthropogenic influences on the input and biogeochemical cycling of nutrients and mercury in Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Applied Geochemistry 23:1731–1734. Neill, J., J. O. Hall, and J. Luft. 2009. 2009 American white pelican census, Gunnison Island, Utah. Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Program and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources unpublished report. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Olson, B. 2009. Annual habitat management plan: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Brigham City, Utah, USA [online] URL: http:// www.fws.gov/bearriver/management_plans/2009-annualhmp.pdf Nevada and California: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5238, 192 pp. Online: http:// pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5238/sir20085238.pdf Mitchusson, T. E., 2003. Long-range plan for the management of Sandhill Cranes in New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico 46pp.

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. LITERATURE CITED IN APPENDICES Moulton, C. E. 2007. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2006 Annual Report. 39 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho. Online: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/IBIS_2007report.pdf Moulton, C. E. 2008. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2007 Annual Report. 42 p. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho. Online: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/IBIS_2007report.pdf Moulton, C. E. 2009. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2008 Annual Report. 37 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho. Online: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/IBIS_2008report.pdf Moulton, C. E. and R. Sallabanks. 2006. Idaho Bird Inventory and Survey (IBIS) 2005 Annual Report. 40 pgs. Unpublished Report. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program P.O. Box 25, 600 S. Walnut St. Boise, Idaho 83707 National Audubon Society (NAS) 2011. Important Bird Areas in the U.S. Accessed July - November 2011. Online: http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Conservation Resource Brief: Klamath River Basin. No. 0607. 10 pp. Neel, L. Survey of Colony-Nesting Birds in Northwestern Nevada, 1997. Great Basin Birds, Vol. 1: 30-31. Nevada Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Nevada Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan Technical Review Draft. E. Skudlarek, ed. Carson City, Nevada. 226 pp. Nevada Partners in Flight, 1999. L. Neel, Ed. Bird Conservation Plan. 260 pp. Online: http://www.blm.gov/ wildlife/plan/pl-nv-10.pdf Olson, B. E. Lindsay, K. and Hirschboeck, V. 2004. Habitat management plan: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Brigham City Utah. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge: Brigham City, Utah. 213pp. Online: http://www. fws.gov/bearriver/management_plans/BR_HMP.pdf Oring, L.W., L. Neel, and K. E. Oring. 2000 Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, Version 1.0. 48pp. Online: http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/RegionalShorebird/ downloads/IMWEST4.pdf

6.66

Olson, B.E. 2007. Phragmites Control Plan. USFWS, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Brigham City, Utah. Online: http://www.fws.gov/bearriver/Phragmites_Control_Plan.pdf Paul, D. and A. E. Manning. 2008. Great Salt Lake waterbird survey five-year report (1997â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2001). Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Program and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [online] URL: http://wildlife.utah.gov/gsl/waterbirdsurvey/ Reichler, 2009. Fine-scale climate projections for Utah from statistical downscaling of global climate models, Climate Change and the Intermountain West: 5th Spring Runoff Conference/14th Intermountain Meteorology Workshop, Utah State University Logan, Utah, [online] URL: http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/talks/tjr_talks. shtml San Luis Valley Wetlands Focus Area Committee. 2000. The San Luis Valley Community Wetlands Strategy. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Fort Collins, CO. Online: http://wildlife.state. co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/ WetlandsProgram/stratplan-SLV9-00.pdf. Sharpe, S.E., M.E. Cablk, and J.M. Thomas. 2007. The Walker Basin, Nevada and California: Physical Environment, Hydrology, and Biology. Desert Research Institute, Publication No. 41231. 70 pp. Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. [online] URL: http://www.dfg. ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/birds.html Shuford W. D. and R.P. Henderson. 2010. Surveys of Colonial Waterbirds in Northeastern and East-central California in 2009. Report to U. S. Fish and wildlife Service, Region 8. 18 pp. Online: http://www.fws.gov/ mountain-prairie/species/birds/western_colonial/ColonialWaterbirds-Final-Report-2009.pdf Shuford, W.D., D.L. Thomson, D.M. Mauser, and J. Beckstrand. 2006. Abundance and distribution of nongame waterbirds in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California from Comprehensive Surveys in 2003 and 2004. Unpublished Final Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin NWR Complex, Tulelake, CA. 87pp.

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. LITERATURE CITED IN APPENDICES Taylor D. M., C.H. Trost, and B. Jamison. 1989. The Biology of the White-Faced Ibis in Idaho. Western Birds 20: 125-133. Taylor, J. P. 1999. A plan for the management of waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and other migratory birds in the middle Rio Grande valley of New Mexico. USFWS, New Mexico, USA. 51 pp. Taylor, J. P., and L. M. Smith. 2003. Chufa Management in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 156-162. Thompson, S.P. and K. L. Merritt. 1988. Western Nevada wetlands history and current status. In Nevada Public Affairs Review, No. 1 (R. Bless and P. Goin, eds.) University of Nevada, Reno. Trost, C.H. and A. Gerstell 1994. Status and Distribution of colonial nesting waterbirds in Southern Idaho, 1993. Idaho Bureau of Land Management Technical bulletin No. 94-6. July 1994. BLM-ID-PT-94-020-4070. Boise, Idaho. 108 pp. U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Non-employer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report Last Revised: Friday, 03-Jun-2011 15:26:30 EDT. Online: http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16000.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2002. Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision, Churchill and Washoe Counties, Nevada, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Utah Population and Environment Coalition. 2007. Living Beyond Our (Ecological) Means: A Fact Sheet from Utah Vital Signs. [online] URL:http://www.utahpop.org/ vitalsigns Utah Water Research Laboratory, 2010. Bear River Watershed Information System: Watershed Description. Accessed July 2011. Online: http://www.bearriverinfo.org/ description/ Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004. Bear River Basin, Planning for the Future. Utah State Water Plan. Salt Lake City, Utah. 105 pp. Online: http://www.water.utah. gov/Planning/SWP/bear/bearRiver-1A.pdf Vest, J. L., M. R. Conover, C. Perschon, J. Luft, and J. O. Hall. 2009. Trace element concentrations in wintering waterfowl from the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 56:302â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 316. Williams, W. D. 2002. Environmental threats to salt lakes and the likely status of inland saline ecosystems in 2025. Environmental Conservation 29:154â&#x20AC;&#x201C;167. Wingert, S. 2008. Final Report: PCBs in Utah Lake sediment study. Utah Division of Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. National Wildlife Refuge Profiles. Accessed August 2011. Online: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles

6.67

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

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

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

Le Conte's Thrasher

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-billed Curlew

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 B rewerâ&#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

OCCUPIED ACRES

% OF BCR IWJV POPULATION

TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

800

1.3x

1,000

4,500

10%

1.3x

5,900

7,400

16%

1.3x

9,700

726,315

12,000

25%

1.3x

15,600

73,342

600

1.3x

800

60,922

600

1.3x

800

1,732,017

21,400

45%

1.3x

27,800

3,902,189

47,300

100%

(1.3x)

61,600

BCR

STATE

LBCU

89,182

LBCU

253,775

LBCU

966,636

LBCU

LBCU LBCU

BCR Totals in IWJV:

POPULATION ESTIMATE

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

Cha pte r Eight

H a b i t a t Co n s e r va t i o n S t r a t e g y

Pr incipa l Autho r s: A li D uva ll, Dave S mith, Josh Ve st

Photo by Hannah Ryan

Inside this Chapter Introduction........................................................................................................................... 8.2

H a b i t a t Co n s e r va t i o n S t r a t e g y

Priority Wetland Dependent Bird Species.. ......................................................................... 8.6

•

Key Threats to Wetlands................................................................................................... 8.6

•

Wetland Conservation at the JV Scale............................................................................... 8.8

•

Southern Oregon and Northeastern California (SONEC)................................................... 8.10

•

Great Salt Lake (GSL)..................................................................................................... 8.13

•

Status of Conservation Planning and Science for Wetland Focal Areas............................. 8.16

•

Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................... 8.16

•

Resources...................................................................................................................... 8.16

Sagebrush Habitat Conservation.. ....................................................................................... 8.17 •

Priority Sagebrush Bird Species...................................................................................... 8.18

•

Key Threats to Sagebrush Habitat................................................................................... 8.18

•

Sagebrush Conservation at the JV Scale......................................................................... 8.20

•

Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................... 8.24

•

Resources...................................................................................................................... 8.24

Grassland Habitat Conservation.. ........................................................................................ 8.25 •

Priority Grassland Bird Species....................................................................................... 8.25

•

Key Threats to Grasslands.............................................................................................. 8.25

•

Grassland Conservation at the JV Scale.......................................................................... 8.26

•

Funding Opportunities.................................................................................................... 8.27

•

Resources...................................................................................................................... 8.27

Literature Cited................................................................................................................... 8.28

The Implementation Plans of the 18 U.S. Habitat Joint Ventures are intended to provide Joint Venture (JV) partnerships with a roadmap for the protection, restoration, enhancement, and management of habitat needed to support populations of birds at desired levels. In simple terms, the plans describe the most important areas for birds within the JV and define what needs to be done in a coordinated fashion to conserve habitat as needed to support bird populations at continental goal levels. The hallmark of a JV Implementation Plan is that it helps coordinate habitat conservation through partnerships.

8.2

The Waterfowl, Shorebird, Waterbird, and Landbird Chapters of the IWJV 2013 Implementation Plan represent an important biological assessment of birds and habitats in the Intermountain West—defining population objectives, focal species, threats, priority habitats, and in some cases habitat objectives for certain groups of birds. The intent of this chapter is to define the IWJV conservation strategy and current habitat priorities for coordinated implementation by partners. Each habitat section explains the JV perspective on the importance of the habitat, priority bird species, key threats, goals, actions, and approach to conservation.

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

TARGETING CONSERVATION

Photo by Ali Duvall

Joint Ventures are recognized for their investment in a strong biological foundation to inform conservation efforts and respected for their investment in partnerships to achieve meaningful conservation. The IWJV uses a strategic habitat conservation framework as a business model to facilitate these partnerships. The IWJV is one of the largest and most ecologically diverse JVs in North America, encompassing all or significant portions of 11 western states and 10 Bird Conservation Regions. By continuing to improve the science regarding the habitat requirements of birds, the IWJV intends to inform and encourage more partnerships across the Intermountain West. Towards this end, a series of three technical planning documents produced by the IWJV (Donnelly and Vest 2012a) describe the overarching philosophy and conceptual components that can facilitate the conservation of priority bird habitats through partnerships in an informed, targeted, and adaptive manner. These documents collectively describe the process used by the IWJV to identify priority habitats, focal areas, and surrogate species for investment of JV science resources over a 5-year planning period. The targeting of habitat conservation delivery is presently informed by: 1) state-based bird conservation planning, 2) recent IWJV modeling efforts for specific groups of birds in certain landscapes, and 3) the science and planning of conservation partners. Priorities for bird habitat conservation exist at the state and landscape scales through an array of partner-based conservation planning endeavors. These priorities are described in documents including State Wildlife Action Plans, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program focal area plans, and the strategic plans of numerous state and federal agencies and non-governmental conservation organizations (NGOs). The information presented in many of those conservation 8.3

plans was used to identify priority landscapes for wetland conservation. This habitat conservation strategy will be refined and enhanced as new information becomes available.

The IWJV works to foster and facilitate landscapescale, partnership-based habitat conservation in the Intermountain West to support populations of birds at desired levels. The IWJV habitat conservation strategy is defined as follows: Foster and facilitate landscape-scale, partnershipbased habitat conservation in the Intermountain West to support populations of birds at desired levels. Wetlands, sagebrush-steppe, and grasslands are the three habitats that have been identified as conservation priorities. Within these three habitats, the IWJV will compile, and distribute the best available science to help guide habitat conservation action by partners. Specific habitat conservation goals and objectives are identified where information currently exists. In areas with less information, general prescriptions are provided. Wetland, sagebrush-steppe, and grassland conservation is the present focus due to IWJV partner emphasis on conservation planning for specific bird groups and species, strategic habitat evaluation, and the potential to

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION

Photo by Rio de la Vista

maximize conservation investments. Conservation goals and objectives for other important habitats, such as aspen and dry forest, can be referenced in the state-based 2005 Coordinated Implementation Plans for Bird Conservation. The conservation of wetland habitat continues to be a priority for the IWJV, dating back to the JVâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inception. Wetlands are characterized by high biological diversity and productivity that make them among the most important wildlife habitats in the Intermountain West. Wetlands also have other significant ecological, economic, and social values (IWJV 1995, McKinstry 2004, Donnelly and Vest 2012a). Much of the Intermountain West is characterized as North American Desert Biome (58%) resulting in water-limited systems where limited precipitation combined with high evaporation rates further constricts the distribution of water resources (Donnelly and Vest 2012a). Wetlands in the Intermountain West are therefore highly dynamic systems but are also widely dispersed (Fig. 1), comprising roughly 18.4 million acres according to the National Wetlands Inventory (<2% of the total surface area of the IWJV).

8.4

Figure 1 W etland density and distribution assessed using available digital National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data and 16 KmÂ˛ sampling grid. Results were interpolated using an inverse weighted distance technique. NWI data was obtained from the NWI program at http:www.fws.wetlands/Data// Download.html.

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION More than 80% of wildlife species common to the region depend on wetlands to meet some portion of their life cycle needs. Despite their limited abundance, wetland systems in the Intermountain West are keystone habitats because they help drive ecosystem form and function. In the IWJV, wetlands structure biotic communities far beyond their areal extent (McKinstry 2004). The Intermountain West is an important region for wetland dependent birds throughout the annual cycle by providing breeding, migration, and wintering habitat. As many as 12â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 million ducks, 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2 million geese, and 60,000 swans utilize wetlands within this region for roosting and feeding

habitat during fall and spring migration (IWJV 1995). The Intermountain West hosts 66% of the shorebird species that commonly occur in North America with more than 2.5 million individuals occurring during migration (Oring et al. 2000, Brown et al. 2001). Additionally, approximately 40 species of waterbirds breed or migrate through portions of the Intermountain West (Ivey and Herziger 2006). Wetland complexes in the Intermountain West support substantial proportions of continental populations of many species (Table 1).

Table 1 P ercent of continental populations for wetland dependent birds of note occurring in the Intermountain West by annual cycle. Adapted from Donnelly and Vest (2012a). ANNUAL CYCLE

GUILD

SPECIES Cinnamon Teal

BREEDING

30% 80%

Tundra Swan (Western) Trumpeter Swan (Rocky Mountain)

10%

Greater White-fronted Geese (Pacific Flyway, Tule)

Shorebirds

56%

Black-necked Stilt

69%

Snowy Plover (Interior)

75%

Long-billed Curlew

57% 75%

Wilson's Phalarope

50%

Long/Short-billed Dowitchers

53%

White-faced Ibis

73%

California Gull

75% 90% 32%

Greater Sandhill Crane Central Valley

42%

>90%

Lower Colorado River Valley

100%

>90%

Rocky Mountain

100%

Lesser Sandhill Crane (Pacific Flyway)

8.5

93%

Marbled Godwit

Eared Grebe

Waterbirds

>80% >50%

American Avocet

American White Pelican

WINTER

>60%

Northern Pintail Waterfowl

MIGRATION

>90%

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

90%

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION Wetlands provide an array of ecological services including fish and wildlife habitat, temporary storage of surface water, aquifer recharge, stream flow maintenance, sediment retention, shoreline stabilization, carbon storage, and transformation of nutrients and pollutants (Dugan 1990, McKinstry et al. 2004, Copeland et al. 2010). Wetlands are important from an agricultural production standpoint as well. Forage provided by wetlands are the most productive portions of many working ranchlands playing an important role in sustaining grass-based agricultural systems (e.g., flood-irrigated habitat) that also provide critical habitat for migratory birds. For more information on the value of wetlands from a biological and social perspective, continental bird populations supported by wetland complexes in the Intermountain West, or background on why wetlands are a habitat priority for the IWJV, see Identifying Science Priorities 2013-2018: Wetland Focal Strategies. Table 2 P ercent of total wetland loss, by state, between the 1870s and mid-1980s from Dahl (1990). STATE

LOSS 1870S-1980S

Arizona

-36%

California*

-91%

Colorado

-50%

Idaho

-56%

Montana*

-27%

Nevada

-52%

New Mexico

-33%

Oregon

-38%

Utah

-30%

Washington

-31%

Wyoming

-38%

*Majority of wetland loss occurred in areas of the state outside the IWJV.

Priority Wetland Dependent Bird Species Waterfowl: American Widgeon, Cinnamon Teal, Northern Pintail, Mallard, Lesser Scaup, Redhead, Tundra Swan, and Trumpeter Swan Shorebirds: American Avocet, Black-necked Stilt, Snowy Plover, Long-billed Curlew, Marbled Godwit, Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Phalarope, Long/Short-billed Dowitchers, Willet Waterbirds: White-faced Ibis, American Bittern, Sora, and Greater Sandhill Crane (Rocky Mountain Population) Wetland Associated Landbirds: Lewisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Woodpecker, Rufous Hummingbird, Willow Flycatcher 8.6

Key Threats to Wetlands Although 70% of the Intermountain West surface ownership falls within federal, state, or tribal trust, approximately 70% of emergent wetlands occur on private lands (Donnelly and Vest 2012). These statistics highlight the relationships between water resources, productive land for agricultural use and rural development, and the vulnerability of existing wetland complexes. The potential impact to wetlands is high when considering issues of water supply and demand across the West. The continued expansion of human development (i.e., urbanization, mining, and energy extraction) places significant strains on water supplies that in many areas are already overallocated (Downard 2010) contributing to continued loss of some wetland types. Long-term wetland loss in this region means that remaining wetland habitats are critically important because they must provide most of the resources required to sustain bird and other wildlife populations. Because water is so important to both people and birds, remaining wetland resources are at considerable risk of loss and degradation.

Wetland Habitat Loss and Degradation Early human settlement patterns in the Intermountain West were closely associated with water and wetland resources. Wide-scale and systematic development of water resources for agricultural, energy, industrial, and domestic uses has had tremendous impacts on wetland systems. These and other anthropogenic modifications reduced abundance of wetlands in western states 30â&#x20AC;&#x201C;91% between the 1780s and mid-1980s, with an estimated loss of 57% of historic wetlands in the Intermountain West (Dahl 1990, Ratti and Kadlec 1992; Table 2). Although the rate of wetland loss nationally has slowed over time, the loss of freshwater emergent marsh habitat has continued (Dahl 2006, Copeland et al. 2010). For example, traditional flood irrigation often provides important spring and early summer wetland habitat during spring and early summer in the Intermountain West. Steady loss of these agricultural practices to housing, urbanization, and conversion of flood-irrigated agriculture to sprinkler irrigation has occurred over the past 20 years (Kenny et al. 2009). Wetlands and their associated uplands are changing rapidly due to large scale changes in land-use patterns throughout the Intermountain West. Specifically, expanding ex-urban development increases habitat fragmentation rates , alters hydrologic patterns, diminishes water table recharge rates, and reduces habitat suitability for many plant and animal communities, especially wetland dependent birds (Maestas 2003).

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION Water Supply and Security

Climate Change

The availability of water supplies presents one of the greatest challenges to conserving wetland habitats for birds in the Intermountain West (IWJV 1995, McKinstry 2004). Historic and contemporary policies pertaining to the protection and use of water in the arid West prioritize agriculture and municipal uses over environmental uses such as wetland management for migratory birds (Downard 2010).

Changes in average temperature, precipitation patterns, snowpack levels, and spring melt dates in the Intermountain West are changing dramatically, and negatively affecting bird habitats throughout this vast area (Mote 2005, Stewart et al. 2005, Seager et al. 2007). In general, average temperatures are expected to continue to rise throughout much of the Intermountain West. Precipitation patterns are more uncertain (except in the arid Southwest where there is greater certainty that conditions will be increasingly dry) (Seager et al. 2007). Significant declines in snowpack and earlier spring snowmelts are well documented and those trends are expected to continue (Mote 2005, Bedford and Douglas 2008). There is strong consistency among climate models regarding continued reductions in snowpack with the potential for reductions of up to 70% in eastern and northeastern California (Mote 2005, PRBO 2011). Wetlands in the Intermountain West are at particular risk because many rely on snowmelt for spring recharge (NABCI 2010).

Rapid human population growth is one of the most significant threats to wetland water supplies in the Intermountain West. Human population growth rates in the West have increased dramatically since the 1990s, with many states exceeding national growth rates. This population growth has placed increased demands and competition on water for urban, municipal, industrial, and agricultural irrigation uses. Urbanization can alter wetland hydrology directly but it also results in indirect impacts such as the depletion of water tables and diminishing of aquifer recharge rates required to sustain functional wetland environments. Further competition among water users for increasingly limited water resources prolongs the effects of periodic droughts on wetland systems and makes those droughts worse. Conservation measures that secure water resources for important wetland complexes are needed to insuring the integrity and wetland functions that can sustain avian populations into the future.

Water Quality Many of the major wetland complexes in the Intermountain West are located at the terminus of snowpack driven systems and irrigated landscapes, which makes agricultural return flows an important source of water. Typically, these return flows are relatively high in concentrations of salts or nutrient, and can contain elevated concentrations of toxic or potentially toxic trace elements (e.g., arsenic, selenium) and other contaminants that accumulate in terminal basins. Many wetland and riverine systems in the Intermountain West remain polluted by historic mining activities and associated trace element accumulations. Poor water quality and reductions in available water supply to wetlands can further concentrate both contaminants and reduce bird populations.

8.7

Indirect effects of climate change such as changes in vegetation, spread of invasive species, increased frequency and magnitude of flood and drought events, increases in fire events, and greater water demands from the rapidly growing human population all have the potential to act in concert and negatively impact wetlands and their associated uplands. Climate change has the potential to significantly alter the phenology, distribution, abundance, reproductive success, and survival of wetland birds throughout the Intermountain West (NABCI 2010). Conservation measures that ensure water supplies and maintain functional values will increase the resiliency of wetland systems to changing environmental conditions and land-use patterns. The following is a description of what needs to be done regarding on-the-ground habitat delivery to conserve wetland habitat during the next five years as the IWJV strengthens its science foundation with additional biological and spatial planning information and sets of habitat objectives.

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION

Wetland Conservation at the JV Scale Conservation Goal Conserve wetland habitat by implementing practices to maintain, restore, and enhance wetland hydrology and productivity as needed to sustain bird populations at desired levels.

Partnership Goals

Conservation Actions

1. E ncourage State Conservation Partnerships and local stakeholders to coordinate and implement strategic wetland habitat conservation.

Conservation actions should be guided by science and informed decision-making. Targeted actions include:

2. F acilitate biological planning regarding priority wetland systems and birds to develop habitat objectives and spatially-explicit decision support tools.

• Protect wetlands through conservation

3. C atalyze strategic wetland habitat conservation in focal areas to benefit priority bird species by guiding existing and new funding programs to implement conservation strategies and actions.

• Restore wetland hydrology and enhance

4. M aintain a comprehensive list of wetland habitat conservation actions and tools deployed by the partnership. 5. P rovide capacity to deliver strategic wetland habitat conservation.

easements or fee-title acquisition from willing sellers. wetlands to mimic historic function and value.

• Secure adequate water supplies for

managed wetlands and terminal basins to conserve their ecological integrity and functional values.

• Aggressively control exotic and invasive species to maintain productivity and functional values of wetlands.

Approach to Conservation The IWJV was born out of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and initially existed as a waterfowl conservation partnership. As such, the first IWJV Implementation Plan created in 1995 emphasized a set of wetland focal areas for waterfowl. In 1999, the IWJV moved into the arena of “all-bird” conservation to support implementation of all major bird conservation initiatives, including NAWMP, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), Partners in Flight (PIF), and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA). To support this expanded focus, the IWJV developed a 2005 Implementation Plan using a “state-by-state, ground-up, all-bird” planning process to identify priority habitats and focal areas to guide conservation action. The plan identified 383 focal or bird habitat conservation areas, many that included complexes of wetlands. This approach informed partners of important wetland areas within each state but did not identify priorities among wetland complexes across the Intermountain West. As such, an additional step was needed to mesh these two planning approaches relative to wetlands. For this plan, a JV-wide analysis of wetlands was conducted by the IWJV as part of its science prioritization process (Donnelly and Vest 2012). Wetland abundance and distribution data were evaluated along with existing IWJV and partner planning documents to identify important wetland landscapes within the Intermountain West. From this exercise, 18 areas of high wetland abundance were identified for further evaluation relative to science and planning investments (Fig. 2; see Identifying Science Priorities 2013-2018: Wetland Focal Strategies). These 18 Wetland Focal Areas represent important landscapes for wetland-dependent birds, based on our current understanding of bird populations and wetland habitats, in the Intermountain West.

8.8

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION

Figure 2 Wetland Focal Areas in the Intermountain West (2012).

The status of wetland assessment, conservation planning, and step-down implementation varies by focal area. The IWJV website provides a detailed narrative of each Wetland Focal Area, including a characterization of the wetland habitat, bird values, threats, conservation opportunities, key resources, and links. The IWJV facilitated biological planning for wetlanddependent birds in three of these landscapes—southern Oregon and northeastern California (SONEC), Great Salt Lake, and the Columbia Basin (see Chapters 4 and 5). Specifically, the SONEC and Great Salt Lake landscapes have long been assumed to contain considerably higher wetland resource values for a wide diversity of bird 8.9

populations than any of the other Wetland Focal Areas. Recent IWJV assessments confirm that these two focal areas contain disproportionate wetland and migratory bird values, representing approximately 25% of the inventoried wetland abundance in the Intermountain West (Donnelly and Vest 2012). Thus, SONEC and the Great Salt Lake are the “major migrational hubs” of the Intermountain West for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The science-based efforts to understand bird use and habitat in SONEC and the Great Salt Lake reflect a JV-approach to developing wetland habitat goals, objectives, and implementation strategies explicitly linked to continental bird population objectives.

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION Southern Oregon and Northeastern California (SONEC) The SONEC region (Fig. 3) is of continental significance for waterfowl, shorebird, and waterbird populations in North America. Up to 80% of Pacific Flyway waterfowl move through the SONEC region annually. The SONEC region contains eight of the 18 IWJV Shorebird Key Sites. The region hosts continentally significant portions of several waterbird populations including Clark’s Grebes, Sandhill Cranes, and White-faced Ibis. The region is also critically important to waterfowl populations during fall and spring migration. At NAWMP goal levels, the region would support over 4.8 million dabbling ducks for an estimated average duration of 21 days spring migration, making it one of the most important spring staging areas in North America. This concentration occurs immediately prior to the breeding season, and hence has particular importance to the annual life cycle. Because of the region’s significance, habitat objectives for spring migrating waterfowl were developed as a first step in a long-term effort to develop a comprehensive wetlands conservation strategy for the SONEC Region.

P h o t o b y B r u c e Ta y l o r

Public Lands The network of protected and intensively managed wetlands on National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), state wildlife areas, and other protected lands (collectively referred to as “public wetlands” herein) play a major role in sustaining waterfowl populations during fall and spring migration. The public wetlands within the Lower Klamath sub-region, particularly Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs, are critically important due to their vast wetland acreage (up to 50,000 acres during spring migration). State wildlife areas including Honey Lake, Ash Creek, Butte Valley, Shasta Valley, Summer Lake. These wetlands and refuges, such as Modoc NWR and Malheur NWR, collectively provide critical migration and breeding habitat.

Private Lands

Figure 3 W etland planning units for SONEC, a critical area for migrating birds in the Intermountain West Joint Venture. 8.10

Most spring-flooded wetland habitat in the SONEC Region occurs on working ranches where flood irrigation of wet meadows is used for hay production and grazing. The timing of flooding and the annual vegetation management practices conducted on these privately managed ranchlands fits well with the needs of spring-migrating waterfowl. These wet meadows are typically flood irrigated from March through July, hayed in late summer, and grazed during the winter. This productive form of wetland habitat management capitalizes on the snowmeltdriven hydrology of the largely closed-basin SONEC landscape. Used in this way, the wet meadows provide spring migrating waterfowl with abundant food resources and desired shallow, open-water wetland conditions. The SONEC Region contains 79,300 acres of flood-irrigated wetland habitat available to spring migrating waterfowl (Fleskes and Gregory 2010).

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION The productivity of flood-irrigated wetlands during spring is a function of wetland management following the natural hydroperiod for seasonal wetlands in the SONEC landscape â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e., wet in the spring, dry in the fall. Further, the annual disturbance that flood-irrigated wetlands in SONEC receive from haying and winter grazing contributes to the maintenance of early successional wetland plant communities that are manipulated to a low structural height during the spring migration period â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an ideal scenario for spring staging waterfowl.

The Modeling Process The IWJV used a bioenergetic modeling process to determine the food energy needs of spring migrating waterfowl in SONEC given these bird distribution patterns and a population objective of 4.8 million dabbling ducks (see Chapter 4 for details on the modeling process). Estimates of waterfowl food densities in flood-irrigated habitats were used to calculate the amount of floodirrigated habitats required to meet population energy demands in each sub-region (Fleskes et al. 2013). Public lands are expected to meet all of the energetic demands of spring migrating dabbling ducks within the Lower Klamath sub-region and 25% of the food energy for dabbling ducks during spring migration outside the Lower Klamath sub-region of SONEC. Consequently, the remaining 75% of the food energy needs in spring must be met on private lands through flood-irrigation or wetland hydrology restoration and management that results in shallow, open-water habitats similar to those on floodirrigated ranchlands. This process calculated that 64,700 acres of flood-irrigated wetland habitat must be provided annually during spring migration to support waterfowl populations at NAWMP goal levels (Table 3).

These lands should be flooded to coincide with spring migration chronology (generally early February through mid-May) and be disturbed annually through summer haying and/or fall-winter grazing to maintain openwater conditions the following spring. This form of wetland habitat management is generally consistent with management practices used by ranchers to produce forage for livestock on wet meadows throughout SONEC. As such, achievement of this habitat objective largely involves securing and enhancing existing habitat as opposed to creating new habitat. Table 3 T he amount of flood-irrigated habitat required to meet 75% of dabbling duck needs (acres). Dabbling duck needs not met by this habitat are assumed to be met by public lands.

EXISTING HABITAT (ACRES)

HABITAT REQUIRED TO MEET 75% OF DABBLING DUCK NEEDS (ACRES)

Modoc Plateau

13,000

13,500

Malheur

15,300

5,300

NE California

13,500

9,800

Upper Klamath

18,800

17,300

Summer Lake

4,100

8,300

Warner Valley

7,500

10,500

7,100

Not Determined

SONEC SUB-REGION

Lower Klamath Total a

79,300

hi s esti mate ex cl udes that po rti o n o f the the SON E C R egi on d abT bl i ng duck po pul ati o n that rel i es o n the Lo w er Kl am ath s ub - regi on.

P h o t o b y L a r r y K r u c ke n b e r g

8.11

64,700

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION SONEC Habitat Goal, Objective, and Conservation Actions GOAL: Maintain high quality wetland habitat conditions in SONEC on private and public lands to benefit migrating waterfowl. HABITAT OBJECTIVE: Maintain 64,700 acres of shallow, open wetland habitat on private lands and 14,600 acres of additional required habitat on public lands to support the energy demands of spring migrating waterfowl at NAWMP goal levels. CONSERVATION ACTIONS: 1. Conserve flood-irrigated habitat on working ranchlands. The crucial base of flood-irrigated wetland habitat is mostly unprotected and susceptible to degradation of habitat values from changes in water management practices, agricultural patterns, or rural development. The conservation of flood-irrigated habitat will require working with private landowners to improve irrigation infrastructure (much of which is aging and in need of repair), communicating the values of these unique flood-irrigated habitats to other stakeholders, and, ultimately, acquiring working lands conservation easements that recognize the compatibility between wetland habitat values, flood irrigation, and sustainable ranching. Conservation easements in SONEC designed to secure the spring migration habitat base should be tailored to discourage the conversion of flood to sprinkler irrigation, and allow haying and grazing as reserved rights under a conservation plan. 2. Restore and enhance wetland habitat on NWRs, wildlife areas, and other protected lands. Public wetlands must play a major role in meeting spring migrating waterfowl habitat needs. In addition, these lands must supply essentially all the waterfowl habitat during fall migration (since flood-irrigated wetlands are dry during the fall) and a sizeable component of summer breeding habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds. In many instances, this requires active wetland management to maintain wetland productivity and specifically address the needs of wetland-dependent birds at different times of the year. These needs should be addressed through hydrology restoration, water conveyance improvements, reinstituting grazing and haying, de-leveling former wetlands that were leveled for crop production, disking or rotational cropping, carp removal, and management of invasive weeds, among other land management

8.12

practices. Most NWRs and state wildlife areas are unable to accomplish ideal land management because of inadequate financial resources and staffing shortages. Investments should be made in wetland enhancement projects on these complexes to support the wetland and food energy needs of waterfowl, shorebird, and waterbird populations, while also managing and/or minimizing long-term land management operations and maintenance costs. 3. Secure adequate water supplies for public wetlands. The Lower Klamath sub-region is extremely important to spring migrating waterfowl, with dabbling duck population objectives surpassing that of other SONEC sub-regions. However, recent water shortages at the Lower Klamath NWR are unprecedented and cause for concern regarding future capability of the refuge to meet the needs of spring migrating waterfowl. Failure to provide the expected food energy would necessitate re-crafting the spring migration habitat objective, increasing it from the currently planned 64,700 acres. Given the compounded challenges associated with achieving a larger habitat objective, provision of adequate water supplies to Lower Klamath NWR is critical to maintaining healthy populations of waterfowl during spring and should be a focus of the IWJV partnership. Securing adequate water supplies is also critical to the continued provision of wetland bird habitat (see Chapters 4-6). Water supplies for other public wetlands in SONEC are generally far more secure than at Lower Klamath NWR, but these issues exist with other refuges and wildlife areas and should be addressed through collaborative approaches. 4. Facilitate conservation science and planning. The significance of SONEC to wetland-dependent birds warrants development of a more comprehensive wetlands conservation strategy. This next step is articulated in Identifying Science Priorities 20132018: Wetland Focal Strategies. Additional biological information and planning is needed to more explicitly target wetlands conservation and to develop an integrated all-bird wetland conservation strategy for the SONEC region.

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION Great Salt Lake (GSL) The GSL is recognized regionally, nationally, and hemispherically for its extensive wetland resources and significant abundance of wetland birds. The GSLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high bird values result from the high abundance, diversity, and dynamics of aquatic and wetland habitats within a predominantly xeric environment. The GSL ecosystem encompasses approximately 3,000 mi2 consisting of a mixture of saline and freshwater lakes, uplands, wetlands, and drainage stems that are all used by wetland birds. The majority of wetland habitats in the GSL system are primarily associated with the historic deltas of the Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers along the eastern portion of the lake. Wetland diversity, extent, and abundance are driven primarily by the availability of fresh water and the surface elevation of the GSL. The dynamic mosaic of lake, managed and unmanaged wetland habitats, and associated uplands results in the GSL comprising the most diverse and abundant wetland bird populations in the Intermountain West. An array of publicly and privately managed wetland complexes around the margin of the GSL is critical to meeting the biological needs for a diverse group of birds. Approximately 220,000 acres of wetland and upland complexes are managed for the benefit of migratory birds by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), USFWS, private hunting clubs, NGOs (including The Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy), as well as for-profit entities such as Kennecott Copperâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve. Between these managed wetland complexes and the GSL lies a dynamic expanse of unmanaged wetland habitats relied upon by birds for foraging, roosting, and breeding habitat. The GSL provides an immense abundance of invertebrates, which serve as an important food source for several species of migrating waterbirds (e.g., Eared Grebe), shorebirds (e.g., Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Phalarope), and waterfowl (e.g., Northern Shoveler). Although the significance of GSL aquatic and wetland resources have long been recognized, the system faces severe threats to the sustainability of the quality and integrity of those resources. The greatest threat is declining availability of freshwater supplies. This threat is primarily due to increasing water use by a growing human population and long-term shifts in climatic patterns. The development of water resources for agriculture, energy, industrial, and domestic use over the past century has altered the amount and quality of freshwater reaching the GSL and its marshes today. The GSL lies immediately adjacent to one of the largest metropolitan areas in the 8.13

Photo by Hannah Ryan

Intermountain West. Increased demands and pressures on freshwater resources are inevitable to accommodate human population growth rates (currently among the highest in the nation) and will likely result in less water for upstream irrigation, GSL wetlands, and the GSL itself. Invasive and exotic species in the GSL system also pose significant threats to maintaining habitat functional values for migratory birds. Of particular concern is the dramatic spread of common reed (Phragmites australis) over the past two decades. This invasive grass has proliferated throughout the GSL system forming dense monotypic stands that significantly limit availability and value of many wetland units to birds. Other invasive plants including salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) also degrade habitat values for wetland birds. The GSL lies at the terminus of a watershed that contains large areas of agricultural and urban use. Thus, water quality is also of concern for natural resource managers. For example, increased nutrient loading may limit or alter productivity of wetland habitats such as submerged aquatic vegetation. These risks and stressors, coupled with changes in climatic conditions (e.g., reduced snow pack, changes in spring run-off phenology, and changing precipitation patterns), present significant wetland management and conservation challenges. Conservation targets directly related to the biological needs of wetland birds is needed to inform conservation and management decisions in an adaptive framework.

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION The Modeling Process Bioenergetic models were used to identify wetland conservation objectives based on the needs of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds in the GSL system. This biological planning effort identified a peak population objective of 2.8 million non-breeding waterfowl. Distributing these objectives through the non-breeding period resulted in 294 million total waterfowl use-days with most use occurring during fall migration (217 million) followed by spring migration (60 million) and winter (17.4 million). Based on the energetic demands of these populations and assumptions relative to wetland habitat abundance and productivity, approximately 45,000 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation and approximately

106,000 acres of seasonal emergent wetland habitats are needed to meet the needs of migrating waterfowl at NAWMP goals. Similarly, a peak non-breeding shorebird population objective of 1.04 million was identified. Distributing shorebird population objectives through the non-breeding period resulted in 56.6 million total usedays with most (44.5 million) occurring during autumn migration with the remainder (12 million) in spring migration. Based on the energetic demands of shorebirds and assumptions relative to wetland habitat abundance and productivity, approximately 186,000 acres of shallowwater wetlands conducive to shorebird foraging is required to meet the needs of migratory shorebirds during fall migration at U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan goals.

Photo by: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

8.14

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION GSL Habitat Goal, Objectives, and Conservation Actions GOAL: Maintain functional values and integrity of wetland habitats in the GSL on private and public lands to benefit migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and waterbirds. HABITAT OBJECTIVES: Waterfowl: Maintain, restore, or enhance 45,000 acres of submerged aquatic wetland habitat (i.e., pondweeds, wigeon grass) and 106,000 acres of seasonal emergent wetland habitat on public and private lands to meet the energetic needs of migrating waterfowl. CONSERVATION ACTIONS: 1. Restore and enhance wetland habitat on federal, state, and privately managed wetland complexes. Active management is essential to maintaining wetland productivity and meeting the biological needs of wetland birds in the GSL system throughout the annual cycle. Many of these managed complexes face challenges related to degrading wetland management infrastructure that could limit their ability to provide quality habitat. Maintenance and restoration of management infrastructure will be required to ensure that managers can efficiently provide quality habitats within system and environmental constraints that optimize resources among management objectives. Conservation and management practices including hydrologic restoration, water conveyance improvements, and management of invasive/noxious vegetation (e.g., grazing, herbicide application, mechanical manipulation) will be needed to provide and sustain quality wetland habitat for migratory birds. 2. Conserve flood-irrigated agricultural habitats. These habitats provide foraging resources for waterbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds within the GSL system and provide a buffer against urban/suburban development. Flood-irrigated habitats are particularly important foraging areas for White-faced Ibis and Franklin’s Gull. Urban development has dramatically increased over the past decade. These developments either directly remove avian habitat from the system or compromise the integrity/value of remaining avian habitats adjacent to them. Conversion from flood to sprinkler irrigation also removes much of the avian habitat benefits of these agricultural habitats. Conserving flood-irrigated agricultural habitats will provide foraging resources for wetland birds and buffer the GSL’s important wetland complexes from development.

8.15

3. Secure adequate water supplies for public wetlands and the GSL. The security of water supplies is highly variable among publicly managed wetland complexes. For example, Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge has faced considerable shortfall in water deliveries during the growing season over the past decade. Estimates from the early 1970s suggest 1.5 million acre-feet of water is needed annually for existing marsh complexes in the GSL system which represents over 80% of the surface inflow reaching GSL each year. Given current human demographic trends, surface inflows are declining and are unlikely to reach these levels. Water is also needed to supply unmanaged wetlands that exist below dikes and many small creeks and drains that intersect the GSL shoreline. Continued declines in freshwater reaching the GSL will invariably result in increasing salinity concentrations that could impair productivity of invertebrates and impact not only migratory birds that rely on them (e.g., Eared Grebes, Wilson’s Phalarope) but commercial interests (i.e., brine shrimp industry) as well. Consequently, further efforts to quantify wetland water needs relative to potential upstream depletions and avian requirements – and secure such water – will be needed to effectively conserve GSL wetlands resources in the future. 4. Facilitate conservation science and planning. The significance of GSL to wetland birds warrants further science and planning investments to develop a more comprehensive wetland conservation strategy. Biological planning assumptions identified in this initial planning exercise require vigorous testing. Improvement or development of estimates regarding wetland habitat productivity, functional values, temporal and spatial trends in wetland abundance/availability, system stressors, and avian habitat selection will be needed to further improve conservation strategies. For more information, see Identifying Science Priorities 2013-2018: Wetland Focal Strategies.

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

WETLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION Status of Conservation Planning and Science for Wetland Focal Areas Wetland Focal Area planning and science varies by state throughout the IWJV boundary. Wyoming and Colorado notably have dedicated significant resources to assessing and prioritizing wetlands. Partners in Wyoming conducted a landscape-scale geospatial assessment of wetlands in Wyoming by identifying and mapping wetland complexes and quantifying the relative importance of these complexes in terms of biodiversity, recreational potential, agricultural influence, current condition, and vulnerability to future environmental changes (Copeland et al. 2010). The Wyoming State Conservation Partnership identified 9 of the 221 wetland complexes as statewide priorities. Likewise, in 2011, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and partners established Version 2 of a Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program Strategic Plan that identifies statewide goals, strategies, and tasks for wetland and riparian conservation. Please visit the IWJV website for further information on bird habitat conservation areas by state (State Conservation Partnerships). The IWJV will seek opportunities to support state and partner efforts to develop and compile the best available science to guide habitat conservation actions in the Wetland Focal Areas.

Funding Opportunities The two primary federal funding sources for strategic wetland conservation are the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and Farm Bill Conservation Programs. Certain states including Colorado, California,

and Wyoming provide significant funding for wetlands conservation. See Finding Funding on the IWJV website for a description of some of the most important wetlands conservation programs.

Resources • Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2011. Statewide Strategies for Wetland and Riparian Conservation: Strategic Plan for Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program. Version 2.0. • Copeland et al. 2010. Wyoming Wetlands: Conservation Priorities and Strategies. The Nature Conservancy, Lander, Wyoming. • Donnelly, J.P. and J.L. Vest. 2012. Identifying Science Priorities 2013-2018: Wetland Focal Strategies. Intermountain West Joint Venture Technical Series 2012-2013. Intermountain West Joint Venture, Missoula, MT, USA. • NAWMP. 2012. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2012: People Conserving Waterfowl and Wetlands. • NAWMP. 2012. NAWMP Action Plan: A Companion Document to the 2012 North American Waterfowl Management Plan. • NAWMP website • Partners in Flight website • State of the Birds Reports website • U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan website • Waterbird Conservation for the Americas website

P h o t o b y : L a r r y K r u c ke n b e r g

8.16

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION

P h o t o b y B r u c e Ta y l o r

Sagebrush 1 habitat conservation is a high priority for the IWJV because the Intermountain West contains approximately 109 million acres of sagebrush habitat (or 90% of the sagebrush habitat in North America), and several species of sagebrush-dependent birds have declined due to habitat loss and degradation. The Greater Sage-grouse (hereafter sage grouse) is often referred to as an icon of the West because the species has become the symbol for conserving sagebrush habitat (Knick and Connelly 2011). Sage grouse are on a long-term decline and absent from almost half of their estimated distribution prior to Euro-American settlement (Schroeder et al. 2004). The underlying cause is loss of suitable sagebrush habitat. In fact, this important ecosystem is one of the most imperiled in the United

States (Noss et al. 1995). Despite its large geographical distribution, the sage grouse now occupies only about 56% of its historic range and populations are highly fragmented (Schroeder et al. 2004) 2. Declines in sagebrush habitat quantity and quality not only impact sage grouse, but also increase the risk of local extirpation or regional loss of sagebrush obligate species (Davies et al. 2011). Three other sagebrush obligate species are a priority for the IWJV – Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, and Sage Sparrow. The Intermountain West contains 94%, 99%, and 83% of the breeding populations of Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, and Sage Sparrow, respectively, and also supports roughly a third of the Sage Sparrow and Sage Thrasher populations during winter (Casey 2013).

a g e b r u s h h a b i t a t , a s de fin e d h e re in , is c ompr ise d of 1 3 sag ebrush steppe veg etati ve asso ci ati o ns – Wyo mi ng Basi ns Dwarf S ageb rus h S Shrubl a n d a n d S t e p p e , Colu mbia Pla te a u Ste ppe a n d G r assl and, C o l umbi a Pl ateau Lo w Sag ebrush Steppe, Inter-M o untai n Bas i ns B i g S agebrus h S h r u b l a n d , G re a t B a sin X e r ic Mixe d Sa ge br u sh Sh rubl and, Inter-M o untai n Basi ns M o ntane Sag ebrush Steppe, Inter-M ountai n B as i ns Big Sa g e b r u s h S t e p p e , Color a do Pla te a u Mixe d L ow Sa g ebrush Shrubl and, Wyo mi ng Basi ns Lo w Sag ebrush Shrubl and, Bi tt erb rus h, Low Sa g e , a n d S a g e b r u s h – de r ive d from re gion a l G AP ( R e G A P) l ayers that were the base l ayers fo r co nservati o n pl anni ng i n C ha p ter 7.

n e x h a u s t i v e a s s e s s m e n t of sa ge br u sh h a bita t is a va ila bl e Greater Sag e-Gro use: Eco l o g y and C o nservati o n o f a Landscape S p eci es and A It s Hab i t a t s ( K n i c k a n d Con n e lly 2 0 1 1 ) . I n a ddition , th e U.S. Geo l o g i cal Survey mai ntai ns Sag eM ap – A GIS Database fo r Sage- grous e and Shrubst e p p e M a n a g e m e n t in th e I n te r mou n ta in We st. Th i s data po rtal pro vi des ex tensi ve i nfo rmati o n o n sag ebrush habi tat. Li nks to WA FWA as s e s s m e n t , S a g e M a p , a n d oth e r ke y re sou rc e s a re a va il abl e at the end o f thi s secti o n.

8.17

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION Almost two-thirds of the sagebrush-dominated ecosystems in the United States remain in public ownership; half of the total distribution of sagebrush habitat is owned by the Bureau of Land Management (Knick and Connelly 2011). Roughly one-third of sagebrush habitat is privately owned, and these private lands are typically ranchlands in valley bottoms with deeper soils and greater availability for water. Like the wetlands of the Intermountain West, sagebrush habitat represents an important component of western agriculture and the economy. Presently, sagebrush habitat is the rallying center of an unprecedented number of partner efforts across 11 states, which seek to reduce threats to the sage grouse and avoid listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act.

Priority Sagebrush Bird Species Brewerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sparrow, Greater Sage-grouse, Sage Sparrow, Sage Thrasher

Key Threats to Sagebrush Habitat Globally, temperate grasslands, savannahs, and shrublands are the least protected ecosystems (Knick and Connelly 2011). Numerous partners are invested in sagebrush habitat conservation, offering the best available science and research on management and conservation. The IWJV is focused on addressing key threats to sagebrush habitat using a suite of conservation actions and programs that are proven and strategic in terms of resource allocation. Primary threats to habitat loss and degradation include the following:

Conifer Encroachment In the last 150 years, conifer woodlands have expanded a staggering 600%, degrading rangeland health across large and intact sage-steppe landscapes, with >12 million acres affected by conifers in the Great Basin alone (e.g., western and Utah juniper and pinyon pine). Approximately 90%

Photo by Duane Coombs

8.18

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION of this invaded area was once a productive and largely treeless sagebrush-steppe prior to the European settlement (Naugle et al. 2013). Specifically, tree establishment is prevalent in Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon, and varies from initial phases of encroachment to tree-dominated stands that have been closed for >50 years (Miller et al. 2011). Increasing tree canopy cover greatly reduces herbaceous understory, fragments sagebrush habitat for sagebrush obligate species, and potentially increases predation (Davies et al. 2011). Three successional phases of conifer encroachment into shrub steppe ecosystems best describe the invasion (Miller et al. 2005). Phase I encroachment has conifer present in low densities, but shrubs and herbaceous plants are the dominant vegetation that influence ecological processes on the site. In Phase II, conifer is co-dominant with shrubs and herbaceous plants in the community but the shrub component is declining. In Phase 3, conifer is dominant, shrubs are dead or dying, and herbaceous plant productivity is significantly reduced. Inventory efforts are underway to understand the spatial extent of conifer woodlands within the sagebrush range, across 6 million acres covering Oregon, California, Nevada, and Idaho.

Exotic Annual Grasses and Fire An array of invasive grasses has influenced the structure and function of sagebrush habitat. As many as 29 species of rangeland weedy grasses are known to be present (Sheley and Petroff 1999). Specifically, cheatgrass and medusahead are the most problematic of the exotic annual grasses within the sagebrush habitat range (Miller et al. 2011). Invasive grass species alter plant community diversity, abundance, and ecological function. For example, invasion of cheatgrass changes the structure of the understory, providing more complete and continuous ground cover in contrast to sparse, cover of native perennial grasses. This type of invasion provides extremely flammable fuels resulting in fires. Wildfire is also a key challenge for land managers working on sagebrush habitat conservation. A century of fire suppression has greatly altered historic fire regimes across the range of sagebrush. Sagebrush is intolerant of fire and recolonization after fire can take decades or more, creating serious barriers to maintaining stable populations of wildlife, like sage grouse and other obligate species (Murphy et al. 2013).

8.19

Energy Extraction and Development Energy development has emerged as a major issue for sagebrush habitat conservation because areas currently under development contain some of the highest densities of sage grouse and other sagebrush obligate species (e.g. mule deer and songbirds). Numerous efforts are underway to understand the biological response of sage grouse to energy development, identify mechanisms causing population impacts, evaluate the extent to which development affects populations, and outline a strategy for landscape conservation (Naugle et al. 2011). Additionally, since 1950, the western United States experienced rapid human population growth with regional rates exceeding the United States average and rural areas growing faster than urban areas in 60% of counties in the Rocky Mountain States (Odell et al. 2003). The extent of this development in the sagebrush ecosystem is being researched (Leu and Hanser 2011). The impacts of exurban development are most notable in the conversion of habitat to ranchettes and subdivisions, which continues to be a leading land use trend in the Intermountain West and sagebrush range.

Improper Management of Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing occurs across the entire sagebrush habitat range, and is the most widespread land use. Yet, grazing impacts vary by management intensity. Heavy grazing without rest or deferment typically impacts the sagebrush understory and facilitates the spread of exotic annual grasses. Conversely, managed grazing with periods of rest or deferment is an important management tool to reduce the risk of fire and invasive species, and maintain rangeland health (Davies et al. 2011). Management of livestock grazing and assessment is site-specific. Reliable numbers of livestock, combined with spatial and temporal information on grazing intensity and habitat characteristics, are not available to assess grazing effects for large-scale analysis (Society of Range Management 1995).

Conversion to Cropland Another key threat to sagebrush habitat is conversion to cropland. Large-scale conversion to cropland has resulted in the greatest loss of shrub steppe in eastern Washington, north-central Oregon, southern Idaho, and eastern Montana (Wisdom et al. 2000, Knick et al. 2003). Near-total conversion to croplands in these areas has dramatically reduced sage grouse populations (Schroeder and Vander Haegen 2011). Degradation of nesting and brood-rearing has also had negative impacts.

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION

Sagebrush Conservation at the JV Scale Conservation Goal Conserve sagebrush habitat for the future to meet the needs of sage grouse and sagebrush obligate migratory birds by addressing threats to sagebrush habitat quantity and quality.

Partnership Goals

Conservation Actions

1. Support existing public-private partnerships to implement sagebrush habitat conservation, at regional, state, and local scales.

Conservation actions should be guided by science and informed decision-making. Targeted actions include:

2. Strengthen the science foundation by supporting spatial prioritization tools (including the development of focal areas for sagebrush obligate birds) and outcomes-based monitoring focused on sage grouse and sagebrush obligate migratory birds.

• Prevent subdivision of high priority

3. Catalyze strategic sagebrush habitat conservation in core areas to benefit sage grouse, by guiding existing and new funding programs to implement conservation strategies and actions. 4. Maintain a comprehensive list of sagebrush habitat conservation actions and tools deployed by the partnership. 5. Provide capacity to deliver strategic sagebrush habitat conservation.

sagebrush habitat through acquisition of conservation easements from willing sellers.

• Prevent conversion of sagebrush habitat to cropland through habitat restoration programs.

• Employ grazing management systems in sagebrush habitat to improve quality to benefit sage grouse during all periods of their annual cycle and sagebrush obligate migratory birds during the breeding season.

• Remove encroaching conifers to

functionally restore sagebrush habitat.

Approach to Conservation The IWJV is heavily invested in sagebrush habitat conservation through a partnership with the Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI)—a 21st century model of targeted landscape-scale conservation developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Through voluntary, incentive-based conservation practices, public and private partners are working across 11 western states in an unprecedented fashion to reduce threats to sage grouse and sagebrush dominated ecosystems. Actions are spurred by the March 2010 finding issued by the USFWS that sage grouse warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act, but are precluded until 2015. The USFWS identified two overarching factors that resulted in the “warranted but precluded” determination—the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect habitats, and habitat loss and fragmentation (USFWS 2010).

• Employ integrated weed management to

control or replace exotic annual grass species with perennial grasses and forbs.

• Use conservation treatments determined

to be appropriate at the site scale – including mechanical manipulation, prescribed fire, and rangeland seeding – to improve sagebrush habitat quality.

• Suppress wildfire on high-priority sites susceptible to domination by exotic species.

• Mark or remove ‘high risk’ fence

near leks to reduce sage grouse fence collisions.

Listing has significant implications relative to energy development, ranching, and other industries. Thus, substantial national attention and funding turned to sagebrush habitat conservation due to the collective will of state and federal agencies, conservation groups, elected officials, industry, and local communities to conserve sage grouse populations. 8.20

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION

Photo by Conser vation Media

Actions include expedited revisions of land use management plans by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to incorporate conservation measures and regulatory safeguards for sage grouse, and implementation of a myriad of state- and local-based solutions, such as the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Executive Order that reduces the energy footprint in high-abundance sage grouse habitat (Murphy et al. 2013). NRCS entered as the newcomer to the scene, applying the power of the Farm Bill to target lands where habitats are intact and sage grouse numbers are highest.

The SGI conserves sage grouse and sagebrush habitat by capitalizing on the strong link between the conditions required to support sustainable ranching operations and habitat characteristics that support healthy sage grouse populations. The SGI strives to: • Remove threats (e.g. conifer encroachment, subdivision, unsustainable grazing management, invasion of exotic species, and conversion to cropland) to sage grouse and improve the sustainability of working ranches. • Implement enough of the right conservation practices in the right places to benefit populations. 3 • Use science to assess effectiveness, quantify benefits and adapt program delivery.

rim ar y c o n s e r v a t i o n p r a c tic e s in c lu de : 1 ) c on se r va tion easements to al l evi ate co nversi o n and subdi vi si o n threats, 2) g razi n g s y s tem s to P inc rea s e h i d i n g c o v e r for birds, 3 ) c on ife r re mova l to e lim i nate tal l structures fro m o therw i se sui tabl e habi tats, and 4) fence m arki ng and rem ov a l t o re d u c e c o l l i sion s n e a r le ks. Ne w a n d in de pe ndent sci ence reaffi rms that these practi ces co nti nue to be appl i ed and are hel p i ng m a int a i n t h e s a g e b r u s h h a bita t e c osyste m ( Da vie s e t a l. 2011).

8.21

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION

Figure 4 S age grouse range-wide breeding density thresholds. Breeding ground, or lek, data have been widely used by agencies to monitor sage grouse population trends and are considered a reasonable index for abundance (Walsh et al. 2004, Reese and Bowyer 2007).

The SGI targets resources to high sage grouse abundance centers or ‘core areas’ (Fig. 4; Doherty et al. 2010) to maintain large and intact habitats rather than provide palliative care to small and declining populations (Doherty et al. 2011). Once viewed as a defeatist approach, conservation triage (Bottrill et al. 2008, 2009) is now heralded as a proactive approach for allocating limited resources to maximize biological returns on conservation investments (Neudecker et al. 2011). The IWJV works to implement the SGI through facilitating the SGI Strategic Watershed Action Team (SWAT). The SGI SWAT was established to strengthen NRCS capacity to implement the SGI and is managed by the IWJV through an Interagency Agreement between NRCS and USFWS. The IWJV, in close collaboration with the

8.22

NRCS and partners at multiple levels, deliver sage grouse conservation through the SWAT by implementing the following tasks: • Increase field-level capacity by placing specialized human skill sets at critical geographic ‘pinch points’ to increase the SGI benefits. Create and support 24 field positions for the duration of five years. • Increase science capacity to better focus the SGI implementation, assess biological outcomes, and continually improve program delivery. Work closely with the SGI Science Advisor to fund and contract outcome-based research or decision support tools to advance the SGI.

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION • Improve and enhance outreach and communication strategies to increase partner buy-in and the SGI participation from landowners. Work with the SGI Communications Specialist to develop strategic communication strategies and tools, including a website, Facebook page, and other tactics as necessary. • Expand the SGI partnership to further leverage NRCS contributions, thereby improving participation and outcome. The IWJV is also fostering strategic habitat conservation to sustain sagebrush-obligate bird populations at desired levels. Initial investments are focused on evaluating sage grouse as an umbrella species with coarse scale co-occurrence models examining relationships with Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. Future conservation implementation will be focused on two tactics: 1) analyzing potential impacts of the SGI Core Area Strategy on sagebrush obligates to better understand how various species may benefit from conservation practices and, 2) development and utilization of spatiallyexplicit decision support tools to identify focal areas for sagebrush obligates and target conservation investments and resources. The Habitat and Population Strategy (HABPOPS) Database (see Chapter 7) is another important tool which was developed to put habitat conservation in the context of bird populations, and will be tested and utilized to achieve both tactics referenced above. It combines estimates of current habitat extent and condition with the best available data describing occupancy rates and density to derive population estimates at the Bird Conservation Region (BCR)/State polygon scale. The HABPOPS was used to develop bottom-up, habitat-based population objectives and to develop species models for each of the three sagebrush obligate species. Additionally, spatiallyexplicit decision support tools were produced through this modeling exercise to identify hotspots for these species and guide sagebrush conservation investments. 4

The HABPOPS can also be used to predict outcomes (e.g. sage grouse core areas support 36% of the breeding Brewer’s sparrows in BCR 9 and 54% in BCR 10), or document how the SGI practices are resulting in measurable increases in sagebrush obligate bird populations through reduced conifer encroachment, improved herbaceous understory as a result of restrotation grazing, and other practices. Emphasis for sagebrush migratory bird conservation will be placed on the following landscapes pending more detailed planning: • Nevada, particularly the northeastern portion, • Central Oregon, • Green River Basin of Wyoming, • Southwest Montana, • South-central Washington, and • Sage grouse breeding core areas in BCR 16. Chapter 7 provides additional details on the recommended conservation actions. The IWJV’s strategy for sagebrush obligates is part of a much larger collaborative effort to conserve sagebrush habitat for priority landbirds through development of decision-support tools and defensible habitat objectives. Numerous landbird monitoring and population-habitat modeling projects are underway, collectively contributing to a stronger science foundation for sagebrush obligate conservation in the Intermountain West. 4 The IWJV fully supports and embraces these efforts as a critical step in supporting increasingly targeted sagebrush habitat conservation delivery. To understand the status of state-based SGI conservation, partners are encouraged to visit the SGI website, state fish and wildlife agency websites, and the IWJV website for further information on bird habitat conservation areas by state (State Conservation Partnerships).

n im p o r t a n t e xa m p l e of th is c olla bor a tion : th e I n te gr a ted M o ni to ri ng i n Bi rd C o nservati o n Reg i o ns pro j ect i s a co o rdi nated b i rd m oni tori ng A effort a mo n g s t a t e a n d fe de r a l a ge n c ie s, NG O s, a n d oth ers that seek s to : 1) pro vi de a framew o rk to i nteg rate bi rd mo ni to ri ng eff orts acros s bird co n s e r v a t i o n re g i o n s, 2 ) provide robu st popu la tion d ensi ty and o ccupancy esti mates that acco unt fo r i nco mpl ete detect i on and are co m pa r a b l e a t d i ff e re n t ge ogr a ph ic e xte n ts, 3 ) u se a n n u al po pul ati o n esti mates to mo ni to r po pul ati o n trend and eval uate ca us es of p op ul at io n c h a n g e , 4 ) p ro v i d e ba sic h a bita t a ssoc ia tion da ta fo r mo st l andbi rd speci es to address habi tat manag ement i ssues, 5) m ai ntai n a hi ghqualit y d a t a b a s e t h a t i s a c c e ssible to a ll c olla bor a tor s a s w el l as to the publ i c o ver the i nter net, i n the fo rm o f raw and sum m ari zed d ata and , 6 ) g e n e r a t e d e c i s ion su ppor t tools th a t h e lp gu ide co nservati o n effo rts and pro vi de a quanti tati ve measure o f co nserva ti on s ucces s .

8.23

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

SAGEBRUSH HABITAT CONSERVATION Funding Opportunities

Resources

The primary funding sources for sagebrush habitat conservation include Farm Bill conservation programs (predominantly through the SGI), state habitat conservation programs (e.g., Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative), and private and corporate habitat programs. See Finding Funding on the IWJV website for a description of some of the most important sagebrush habitat conservation programs.

• The following links provide additional resource information for the conservation of sagebrush habitat: • Avian Knowledge Alliance website • Knick, S.T. and J.W. Connelly. 2011. Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. • Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions website • Partners in Flight Western Working Group website • Sage Grouse Initiative website • Sage Map-GIS Database for Sage-grouse and Shrubsteppe Management in the Intermountain West • State of the Birds Reports website

Photo by Rick McEwan

8.24

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

GRASSLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION

P h o t o b y Wa s h i n g t o n D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e

More than 46 million acres of grassland occurs within the Intermountain West. Several species of grassland birds are in a decline due to habitat loss and degradation, making this habitat a priority for coordinated partnership efforts across the Intermountain West. Grassland habitat, as defined herein, is comprised of 28 vegetative associations derived from the regional Gap Analysis Program (GAP). The vast majority of grassland habitat within the IWJV region is concentrated in New Mexico and Wyoming; New Mexico includes 42% of the grasslands in the Intermountain West, followed by Wyoming and Idaho with 10% each, and Montana and Arizona with 7% each. While the Northern Rockies, Great Basin, and Southern Rockies BCRs (BCR 9,10, and 16) comprise the vast majority of the Intermountain West, 13.8 million acres of the grasslands – 30% of the total – occurs in the 7 “fringe” BCRs (BCR 33, 34, 17, 18, 15, 32, and 5), primarily in New Mexico and southeastern Wyoming. These grasslands extensions of larger grassland systems shared with the Rio Grande, Playa Lakes, and Northern Great Plains Joint Ventures. The IWJV is currently prioritizing grassland habitat conservation that meets the needs of Long-billed Curlew, Grasshopper Sparrow, and Columbian Sharptailed Grouse. The Long-billed Curlew is a PIF Watch List species that has been listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 7 of the 11 State Wildlife Action 8.25

Plans (Chapter 7, Table 1). Grasshopper Sparrows are much more widespread but have experienced significant population declines in the Intermountain West. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse are an important species for state fish and wildlife agencies in several states, notably Idaho and Washington, and are highly dependent upon grassland habitat restored through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The IWJV conservation planning utilized the Long-billed Curlew and Grasshopper Sparrow as focal species (see Chapter 7).

Priority Grassland Bird Species Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse, Grasshopper Sparrow, Long-billed Curlew, Swainson’s Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk

Key Threats to Grasslands Grasslands of the Intermountain West are threatened by a variety of anthropogenic impacts including, but not limited to: 1) fragmentation from subdivision and energy development, 2) conversion to cropland, 3) shrub and conifer encroachment, 4) invasive and exotic species, and 5) over-grazing. Many of these threats are inter-related, particularly pertaining to grazing management and fire suppression. This plan does not provide a review of the threats facing grasslands because such assessments are readily available in other plans (e.g., Arizona PIF; see Resources).

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

GRASSLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION

Grassland Conservation at the JV Scale Conservation Goal Conserve grassland habitat for the future to meet the needs of priority birds by addressing threats to the quantity and quality of grassland habitat.

Partnership Goals

Conservation Actions

1. Support existing public-private partnerships to implement grassland habitat conservation, at regional, state, and local scales.

Conservation actions should be guided by science and informed decision-making. Targeted actions include:

2. Strengthen the science foundation by supporting spatial prioritization tools (including the development of focal areas for grassland birds) and outcome-based evaluation tools.

• Prevent subdivision of high priority

3. Catalyze strategic grassland habitat conservation in Bird Habitat Conservation Areas or other designated focal areas, by guiding existing and new funding programs to implement conservation strategies and actions. 4. Maintain a comprehensive list of grassland habitat conservation actions and tools deployed by the partnership. 5. Provide capacity to deliver strategic grassland habitat conservation.

Approach to Conservation Recent analysis by the IWJV has determined that 50% of the grasslands within the Intermountain West occur on public lands and the other 50% occur on private lands [Vest and Donnelly 2012(b)]. Conservation of adequate habitat for grassland birds requires investment in protection of grasslands from fragmentation and restoration of site conditions relative to functions and values (e.g., treatments to reduce shrub cover or control noxious weeds). From a conservation planning perspective, the IWJV will work with partners to develop focal areas at the regional scale for priority grassland bird species. The Long-billed Curlew and Grasshopper Sparrow models for BCRs 9, 10, and 16 (see Chapter 7) provide a starting point for spatial prioritization of targeted conservation activities.

grassland habitats through acquisition of conservation easements from willing sellers.

• Improve grazing systems on large and intact grasslands to improve breeding and wintering habitat for grassland birds.

• Maintain native grassland, and prevent

to cropland, through habitat restoration programs, such as CRP.

• Minimize shrub encroachment and

maintain large, unfragmented stands of relatively pure desert and great plains grasslands.

• Use conservation treatments determined to be appropriate at the site scale – including mechanical manipulation, herbicide treatment, and prescribed fire – to improve grasslands that have been degraded through shrub or conifer encroachment.

• Employ integrated weed management

and applicable restoration treatments to control or replace exotic annual grass species with perennial grasses and forbs.

Presently, the partnership is focused on advancing grasslands conservation on private and public lands where programs, funding, and capacity exists, such as Western Montana’s Long-billed Curlew Initiative. Land trusts and other NGOs are highly focused on grasslands as a priority, and have key relationships with private landowners and the ranching community. The IWJV will support partner efforts to build coalitions for grassland conservation to prevent the future degradation and loss of grassland bird habitat. Important partners in this effort include PIF, American Bird Conservancy, bird observatories, state fish and wildlife agencies. Please visit the IWJV website for further information on bird habitat conservation areas by state (State Conservation Partnerships). 8.26

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

GRASSLAND HABITAT CONSERVATION Funding Opportunities

Resources

The primary federal funding source for grassland habitat conservation includes Farm Bill conservation programs, specifically the CRP. The Bureau of Land Management, state fish and wildlife agencies, NGOs, conservation districts, and other partners are implementing grassland habitat conservation through collaborative funding mechanisms (e.g., the Restore New Mexico initiative). Land trusts are also effective at securing federal, state, and private funding for acquisition of conservation easements that protect native grasslands on large working ranches. The NAWCA program supports the conservation of associated uplands proximate to wetland systems. For more information on grassland habitat conservation programs, see Finding Funding on the IWJV website.

• CRP Statistics, Farm Services Agency webpage

8.27

• Partners in Flight Western Working Group website • Partners in Flight website • State of the Birds Reports website • State Wildlife Action Plans website

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 Bedford, D., and A. Douglass. 2008. Changing properties of snowpack in the Great Salt Lake Basin, Western United States, from a 26-year SNOTEL record. Professional Geographer 60:-374-386. Bottrill, M.C., L.N. Joseph, J. Carwardine, M. Bode, C. Cook, E.T. Game, H. Grantham, S. Kark, S. Linke, E. McDonald-Madden, R.L. Pressey, S. Walker, K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham. 2008. Is conservation triage just smart decision making? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23:649-654. Bottrill, M.C., L.N. Joseph, J. Carwardine, M. Bode, C. Cook, E.T. Game, H. Grantham, S. Kark, S. Linke, E. McDonald-Madden, R.L. Pressey, S. Walker, K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham. 2009. Finite conservation funds mean triage is unavoidable. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:183-184. Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington & R. Gill, eds. 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan. Second edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts. Casey, D. 2013. Landbirds. Intermountain West Joint Venture 2013 Implementation Plan. Intermountain West Joint Venture, Missoula, Montana. Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of Greater SageGrouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Copeland, H. E., S. A. Tessman, E. H. Girvetz, L. Roberts, C. Enquist, A. Orabona, S. Patla, and J. Kiesecker. 2010. A geospatial assessment on the distribution, condition, and vulnerability of Wyoming’s wetlands. Ecological Indicators 10:869–879. Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA. Dahl, T.E. 2006. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1998 to 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp. Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush communities. Publications from USDA-ARS/UNL Faculty. Paper 848. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usdaarsfacpub/848

8.28

Doherty , K.E., D.E. Naugle, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. Kiesecker. 2011. Energy development and conservation tradeoffs: Systematic planning for greater sage-grouse in their eastern range. Pages 505-516 in Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly, editors. Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Donnelly, J. P., and J. L. Vest. 2012a. Identifying Science Priorities 2013–2018: Wetland Focal Strategies. Intermountain West Joint Venture Technical Series 20123. Intermountain West Joint Venture, Missoula, Montana, USA. Donnelly, J. P., and J. L. Vest. 2012b. Identifying Science Priorities: Habitat Prioritization. Intermountain West Joint Venture Technical Series 2012-2. Intermountain West Joint Venture, Missoula, Montana, USA. Dugan, P. J. 1990. Wetland conservation: a review of current issues and required action. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Downard, R. 2010. Keeping wetlands wet: The hydrology of wetlands in the Bear River Basin. 2010. All Graduate Thesis and Dissertations. Paper 829. Utah State University. Graduate Studies, School of DigitalCommons@USU. Online: http://digitalcommons. usu.edu/etd/829/. Fleskes, J.P. and C.J. Gregory. 2010. Distribution and dynamics of waterb ird habitat during spring in southern Oregon–northeastern California. Western North American Naturalist 70:26–38. Fleskes, J. P., J. L. Yee, D. A. Skalos, J. D. Kohl, D. S. Battaglia, C. J. Gregory, and D. R. Thomas. 2013. Ecology of waterfowl and their habitats during spring migration in Southern Oregon-Northeastern California (SONEC): A major Pacific Flyway staging area. Ecology and Conservation of North American Waterfowl. 27-31 January 2013, Memphis, Tennessee. [IWJV] Intermountain West Joint Venture. 1995. Intermountain West Joint Venture Implementation Plan. Intermountain West Joint Venture, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1.2. A plan associate with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. Online: http://www.waterbirdconservation. org/pdfs/regional/maintextv12nocover.pdf.

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 Kenny, J.F., N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K. Lovelace, and M.A. Maupin. 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 pp. Knick, S.T., D.S. Dobkin, J.T. Rotenberry, M.A. Schroeder, W.M. Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper, III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush habitats. Condor 105:611-634. Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly. 2011a. Greater sagegrouse and sagebrush: an introduction to the landscape. Pages 1-2 in Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Knick, S.T. 2011. Historical development, principal federal legislation, and current management of sagebrush habitats. Pages 24-31 in Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Leu, M. and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns. Pages 253-271 in Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly, editors. Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Maestas, J. D., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2003. Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17:1425–1434. McKinstry, M. C. 2004. Conclusions and future directions. Pages 397–303 in M. C. McKinstry, W. A. Hubert, and S. H. Anderson, editors. Wetland and Riparian Areas of the Intermountain West: Ecology and Management. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Miller , R.F., S.T. Knick, D.A. Pyke, C.W. Meinke, S.E. Hanser, M.J. Wisdom, and A.L. Hild. 2011. Characteristics of sagebrush habitats and limitations to long-term conservation. Pages 145-184 in Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly, editors. Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Mote, P. W., A. F. Hamlet, M. P. Clark, and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society 86: 39–49.

8.29

Murphy, T., D.E. Naugle, R. Eardley, J.D. Maestas, T. Griffiths, M. Pellant, and S.J. Stiver. 2013. Trial by fire: improving our ability to reduce wildlife impacts to sagegrouse and sagebrush ecosystems through accelerated partner collaboration. Rangelands 35(3):2-10. [NABCI] North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Committee. 2010. The State of the Birds 2010 Report on Climate Change, United States of America. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Naugle, D.E., J.P. Donnelly, and M.J. Falkowski. 2013. Sage-grouse hate trees: A range-wide solution for increasing bird benefits through accelerated conifer removal. Proposal for Landscape Conservation Cooperative Funding. Naugle, D.E. 2011. 2011. Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. USDI National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. Odell, E.A., D.M. Theobald, and R.L. Knight. 2003. Incorporating ecology into land use planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 69:72-82. Oring, L.W., L. Neel, K. E. Oring. 2000. Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, version 1.0. Regional report of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences., Manomet, Massachusetts 02345 (www.manomet.org). PRBO Conservation Science. 2011. Projected effects of climate change in California: ecoregional summaries emphasizing consequences for wildlife. Version 1.0. http:// data.prbo.org/apps/bssc/climatechange. Ratti, J. T., and J. A. Kadlec. 1992. Concept plan for the preservation of wetland habitat of the Intermountain West: North American Waterfowl Management Plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, USA. Reese, K.P., and R.T. Bowyer. 2007. Monitoring populations of Sage-Grouse. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station Bulletin 88. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H. Huang, N. Harnik, A. Leetmaa, N. Lau, C. Li, J. Velez, and N. Naik. 2007. Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184.

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 Schroeder, M.A., C.L. Aldridge, A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, C.E. Braun, S.D. Bunnell, J.W. Connelly, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Garnder, M.A. Hilliand, G.D. Kobriger, S.M. McAdam, C.W. McCarthy, J.J. McCarthy, D.L. Mitchell, E.V. Rickerson, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in North America. Condor 106:363-376.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sagegrouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Schroeder, M.A. and W.M. Vander Haegen. 2011. Response to greater sage-grouse to the Conservation Reserve Program in Washington State. Pages 517-530 in Knick, S.T., and J.W. Connelly, editors. Greater SageGrouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. 12-month finding for petitions to list the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered; proposed rule. 75 Federal Register 13910.

Sheley, R.L., and J.K. Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Society of Range Management. 1995. New concepts for assessment of rangeland condition. Journal of Range Management 48:271-282. Stewart , I. T., D. R. Cayan, M. D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across Western North America. Journal of Climate 18:1136â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1155.

8.30

Walsh, D.P. G.C. White, T.E. Remington, and D.C. Bowden. 2004. Evaluation of lek-count index for Greater Sage-Grouse. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:56-68. Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.

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

Cha pte r Nine

S t r a t e g i c Com m u n i c a t i o n s Pl a n 2 011â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 015 Pr incipa l Autho r: A s hley A . Daye r

Photo by Lori Reed

Inside this Chapter

S t r a t e g i c Co m m u n i c a t i o n s Pl a n 2 011– 2 015

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9.2 Summary of the Communications Plan................................................................................. 9.3 Approach............................................................................................................................... 9.4 •

Background to Strategic Communications......................................................................... 9.4

•

Capacity Building & Engagement Approach....................................................................... 9.4

Communications Goals................................................................................................... 9.12

•

Communications Objectives and Messages .................................................................... 9.17

•

Tactics & Tools.. .............................................................................................................. 9.27

•

Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 9.35

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) furthers bird habitat conservation through diverse public and private partnerships. The IWJV area spans 11 states, including the entirety of three Bird Conservation Regions 1 and 495 million acres of habitat (map to the right). The IWJV links continental bird conservation objectives from all bird conservation initiatives to on-the-ground delivery. For more information: www.iwjv.org This Strategic Communications Plan is designed to promote, coordinate and deliver bird habitat conservation that is founded on Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) principles. The plan will guide IWJV efforts to implement innovative and targeted communications campaigns over the next five years, building on previous communications efforts by the JV. It will advance the IWJV’s efforts to build public and private partnerships for bird conservation by outlining the core components of effective communications campaigns and providing a path for implementation.

Furthermore, the plan will foster the Joint Venture’s achievement of technical expectations content outlined in the “Desired Characteristics for Habitat Joint Venture Partnerships” for Communications, Education, and Outreach (see Appendix).

B i rd C o n s e r va tion R e gion s ( B CR s) divide Nor th Ameri ca i nto areas that are eco l o g i cal l y di sti nct fro m each o ther b ut hav e s i m i l ar b i rd c o m mu nitie s, h a bita ts, a n d re sou rc e ma n ag ement i ssues. F o r mo re, see http://w ww.nabci -us.o rg /bcrs.htm

9.2

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

SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN Following a strategic communications planning approach, the IWJV has developed a Strategic Communications Plan for 2011-2015. This plan will guide the communications efforts of the IWJV staff. It also aims to guide activities by the IWJV State Conservation Partnerships, Technical Committee, Management Board, and other partners. Seven goals are highlighted for the IWJV that form the basis for communications campaigns.

Means Goals 1. Broaden and strengthen public-private partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 2. Increase funding for federal and state funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 3. Provide funding, foster leverage opportunities, and enhance partner access to federal, state and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 4. Develop a strong science foundation, linking continental, regional, and local population goals and habitat objectives, to inform and empower strategic habitat conservation in the Intermountain West.

Outcomes Goals 5. Conserve intact landscapes of high value to priority species through conservation easements and, where appropriate, fee title acquisition. 6. Restore and enhance priority habitats (wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe and grasslands) on private lands to support sustainable populations of birds. 7. Restore and enhance priority habitats (wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe and grasslands) on public and tribal lands to support sustainable populations of birds.

Communications objectives are provided by segments of the audience for each of the goals. In order to achieve behavioral objectives, which are the ultimate goal, knowledge, attitudes, and skills objectives must be achieved. These communications objectives are written simply and appropriate for messaging, as well as broad messages that are also provided. Tactics and tools are recommended for each of the goals; the audience and the communications objectives are to be considered as well in selecting the tactic and tools. Five primary tactics and tools are highlighted as those to be accomplished first, given they can address all of the goals and are expected by most audiences. These tactics and tools include: website, e-Newsletter, brochure, powerpoint, and elevator talk. Following the development of these tactics and tools, those for the priority goals in 2011 are suggested. Evaluation allows for determination of whether communications objectives have been met and offers feedback for adapting further communications to be more effective. The evaluation metrics and evaluation tools for the primary tactics and tools are outlined and should be developed in concert with the tactics and tools. Implementation of the plan should follow the timeline for the next five years, which prioritizes the amount of effort on each of the goals in a given year. The emphasis for year 2011 is goals 1 and 3, and the other goals will follow in subsequent years. Implementation will depend on staff conducting communications as part of their work, as supported by communications contractors. Additionally, the State Conservation Partners were trained in using the communications plan for their work, and similar trainings can build capacity for implementation by IWJV staff and partners. An example of how the communications plan can be used for designing a tactic and tool is presented, using the brochure.

Audiences are identified as those whose actions will influence achievement of a goal. These twenty-seven audiences are largely partner groups and require twoway communication efforts. Selection of audiences to focus on can be based upon the delineation of audiences as “strongly influential”, “influential”, and “moderately influential” for each goal.

9.3

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

APPROACH Background to Strategic Communications

Strategic communication integrates communication efforts with all of the work of the Joint Venture. In Strategic Communications, the planning process allows for prioritization of biological (or overall) objectives of the Joint Venture that should be addressed through communications efforts. Identification of the key audience(s) necessary to address the overall objective of the Joint Venture then allows for development of the communications goals and objectives. Developing appropriate communications objectives by audience often involves extensive audience assessment in order to fully understand the audience and the most effective means to communicate with them. These communications objectives lay the foundation for the messages of the communications campaign, as well as the tactics and tools, which together compose the communications design phase. The communications delivery involves the implementation of the tactics and tools, through the appropriate channel to the target audience. Evaluation is the monitoring phase for the communications campaign, providing information on results and how the effort might be improved, which adaptively feeds back into communications planning.

9.4

EVALUATION

Communications plays a key role in the Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) approach, which guides the work of Joint Ventures. This approach includes biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, and monitoring and research. Communications can be considered a part of the conservation delivery activities of SHC. Further, the strategic communications approach (Fig. 1) itself can be thought of as following a similar process to SHC with the phases of communications planning, communications design, communications delivery, and evaluation.

COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING

COMMUNICATIONS DESIGN

Communications is a process of idea exchange and imparting information. In effective communications, others understand you and you understand others in return. The audience is defined as the receiver of the message a source wishes to communicate. Yet, the audience also becomes a source of messages back to the original source. Adapting to the feedback from an audience greatly improves communications efforts.

COMMUNICATIONS DELIVERY

Figure 1 S trategic Communications, adapted from Bogart, Duberstein, & Slobe (2009).

Capacity Building & Engagement Approach The strategic communications approach employed for the IWJV plan development emphasized engagement and participation of all staff and key stakeholders. In line with the Joint Venture’s culture of partner collaboration, the Management Board, staff, state-based conservation partners—including public agencies and private interests—and Joint Venture neighbors and colleagues played a critical role in developing the plan. They attended workshops, participated in tele-conferences and web-conferences, took part in informational interviews for audience assessments, and reviewed drafts of the communications plan and its components. This “engagement” approach not only ensures a more relevant and useful communications plan, but also builds the communications and strategic planning capacity of the Joint Venture, and the technical communication skills of board, staff and partners.

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

HISTORY & PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF IWJV COMMUNICATIONS Since the Intermountain West Joint Venture’s founding in 1994, communications activities have been undertaken by the Joint Venture. In its first decade the activities were basic and generally-focused. They included a newsletter, web page, strong rapport between the JV Coordinator and the Management Board, the annual sponsoring of Figure 2 2009 a Western Association of Communications Fish and Wildlife Agencies Plan Director’s Luncheon, the placement of BCR Coordinators on the ground to communicate with partners, and a variety of efforts geared toward building engagement by industry (oil and gas, gold mining, hydroelectric, and agriculture) in Joint Venture activities and projects. Additionally, the IWJV’s most targeted communications included JV Management Board members communicating with Congress the need for increased JV funding for the U.S. Habitat Joint Ventures to deliver all-bird conservation. The IWJV Management Board provided leadership to the Association of Joint Venture Management Boards, which was instrumental in the growth of national JV funding allocations in the early portion of the last decade. The IWJV’s 2005 Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan (a.k.a. Implementation Plan) outlined four specific objectives for communications (with the audience and purpose delineated): a) Work with State Steering Committees to develop new, diverse contacts in each state annually to build the potential partnership base; b) Conduct at least two congressional tours annually

9.5

to acquaint Members and/or staffers with significant partner-based projects; c) Conduct at least two media tours annually to generate greater interest with potential project partners; and d) Prepare news releases related to project and partner accomplishment for every state on an annual basis. Yet, compared to other activities of the Joint Venture, the extent of communications remained relatively quite small. In 2008, the Intermountain West Joint Venture began a more concerted effort to undertake Strategic Communications. A part-time Communications Coordinator was hired. This Communications Coordinator designed the first Communications Plan for the Joint Venture in 2009. This Plan spelled out two audiences for the Joint Venture’s communications activities—the Planning Community and the Implementation Community of Resource Conservationists. Additionally, the Funding Community was referenced. Communication Campaigns included Capacity Grants Awareness, Increasing Farm Bill Education of Partners, Strengthening the Science Foundation, and NAWCA Awareness. Five broad-scale communications tactics were also outlined: website redesign, logo update, mission statement clarification for consistency, regular distribution of the newsletter, and internal staff communication enhancement. The communications efforts excelled in presenting a more professional image of the organization and “branding.” As the Joint Venture entered 2010, with a foundation built in communications, it was poised to undertake communications planning again for a 5-year plan for strategic communications. The IWJV aimed for a communications plan that would allow it to achieve the “comprehensive content” targets in the technical expectations of the “Desired Characteristics of JV Matrix for Communications, Education, and Outreach” (Appendix 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

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR DEFINING 5-YEAR GOALS To initiate communications planning, a full-day workshop was hosted in July 2010 in Missoula, Montana to define communication opportunities, goals and key audiences. Those participating in person (three Intermountain West Joint Venture [IWJV] staff, the neighboring Prairie Potholes Joint Venture Coordinator, an experienced State Steering Committee Chair) were joined via webconferencing by two JV Management Board members. The outcome of the workshop was a needs assessment to serve as a foundation to the development of the Strategic Communications Plan. Nominal Group. The workshop began with a nominal group process to define the opportunities for IWJV communications that are most important to take advantage of with the communication plan. A nominal group is decision-making technique for groups that takes everyone’s ideas into consideration and also allows for efficient decisions on priorities through a vote. The nominal process focused on the question of “What are

the opportunities for communications for the IWJV?” The participants brainstormed brief responses to this question on their own and then shared them with the group to develop a complete list. The group then discussed the list to ensure there were no duplicates and everyone understood each item’s meaning. In total 25 items were identified and discussed. They were then ranked by the seven participants individually. Each participant was allowed 15 points total for their ranking of their top 5 priorities (number of points being 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 to their top 5 priorities). Fourteen of the twenty-four items were ranked by at least 2 people, as shown in Fig. 3. The two most prioritized items were: “Partners: JV activities, opportunities, funding, and services” and “Congressional communications – Clean Water, Farm Bill, NAWCA, JVs”. Goals. Next, the overall Joint Venture goals to be addressed through communications were selected. For this portion of the workshop, the five in-person participants contributed. Prior to the workshop participants and

Figure 3 N umber of prioritization points given for opportunities for Joint Venture Communications efforts that were ranked by at least two participants. 9.6

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

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR DEFINING 5-YEAR GOALS the facilitator reviewed past IWJV communications documents and the most recent Annual Operational Plans to ensure that goals were discussed in this context. Again, participants were asked to brainstorm on their own the most important goals for the Joint Venture that could benefit from communications efforts. Twenty-nine distinct goals were identified. The participants reviewed these goals to ensure they reflected the opportunities delineated in the nominal group. Following discussion and combination and clarification of goals, consensus was reached on the top ten goals (as shown in Table 1). The participants then listed the audiences that would influence (or be able to take action to aid in) the accomplishment of these goals. These audiences were later analyzed in the Audience Assessments. At a subsequent Management Board Meeting in September 2010 in Reno, Nevada, the Joint Venture Management Board members took part in a goal-ranking session. They

provided feedback on the top ten goals identified during the previous workshop. After discussion, board members individually ranked the goals. They were to rank their top three goals with 3, 2, or 1 points. The total number of points given by the board members and the count of the number of board members who ranked a goal in the top three are provided in Table 1. The most prioritized goals were “Build a sense of community and partnership in the IWJV”, “Maintain federal and state funding for…”, “Restore, enhance, and manage wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and grasslands…”, and “Protect intact landscapes of high value…” (for full text see Table 1). The final verbiage for the goals was then provided by the IWJV Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator (see Communications Goals in Communications Campaigns section). A few goals were combined or re-articulated to address Management Board discussion and to make the description of communications priorities more efficient.

Table 1 T otal prioritization points and count of number of IWJV board members prioritizing in their top three each of the ten top goals to be addressed their communications. TOTAL POINTS

BOARD MEMBERS

Build a sense of community and partnership in the IWJV, and meaningful engagement by State Steering Committees, Science Teams, Technical Committee, and other potential partners (esp. Management Board represented agencies/organizations)

Maintain federal and state funding for: Joint Ventures, NAWCA, Farm Bill, Land and Water Conservation Funds, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, State Wildlife Grants, etc.

Restore, enhance, and manage wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and grasslands on private lands to support sustainable populations

Protect intact landscapes of high value to priority species through conservation easements and fee title acquisitions in focal areas

Maintain/enhance quality of publicly-managed wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and grasslands to support sustainable populations of birds

Make continental bird population objectives relevant to regional and local scales—to inform policy, encourage strategic on-the-ground habitat, and develop monitoring, and evaluation tools

Encourage bird habitat conservation at the local level (e.g. watershed or place-based) through providing regional context of priority species and the value of associated habitats

Ensure the Farm Bill reauthorization in 2012 includes bird conservation provisions important in the IWJV area

Capitalize on partnership capacity, expertise, resources, and tools to ensure better science, habitat delivery, and communications

Support the incorporation of bird conservation information into State Wildlife Action Plans/ Conservation Strategies

9.7

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

AUDIENCE ASSESSMENTS & SITUATIONAL ANALYSES Following the Needs Assessment workshop, Audience Assessments were conducted for the audiences identified as key to the accomplishment of the priority goals. The Audience Assessments were conducted as key informant interviews via teleconference with Ashley Dayer facilitating the interview. To determine which Audience Assessments could be informed by IWJV staff, the staff rated their knowledge of each audience on a scale of 1-10. For those audiences that the staff rated as less than a 6, informants outside of the IWJV who also had familiarity with the JV and would be willing to speak candidly were selected. Eleven audiences were assessed with such informant interviews. Those that the staff rated as 6 or higher were assessed internally.

1. Describe this audience (organization, part of an organization) and your relationship to them. 2. What is important to this organization? 3. What are their attitudes towards birds? Conservation? IWJV? 4. Where/how do our interests overlap? Diverge? 5. Why do they do X behavior (motivations)?

Each audience assessment followed a semi-structured interview approach, with a script of 12 questions (Fig. 4) and follow-up prompts as needed. The script was designed to better understand the audience and their awareness, attitudes, motivations, norms, and behaviors It also aimed to explore how the audience might be persuaded to undertake the conservation actions in line with the IWJV communications goals and how to best reach this audience with communications. As such, the script also addressed external factors to provide for a situational analysis (consideration of external [audience] environment affecting ability to reach goals).

6. Why donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t they do X behavior (barriers)?

Each audience assessment interview lasted 30-60 minutes. Dayer typed the responses to each question as the interview was being conducted. This raw data was provided to the IWJV staff to use in their communications efforts and has informed the Goals by Audience Matrix (Table 6), the segmentation of audiences into groups with similarities for each of the communications goals, and the design of communication objectives, messages, and tactics and tools.

12. Other relevant information?

7. What would convince them to change behavior or attitudes (persuasion)? 8. What is their culture (norms)? 9. Where do they get their information? How (sources)? Who do they trust? 10. Who do they influence? 11. Who influences them?

Figure 4 Audience Assessment interview questions.

Key themes. Common emergent themes from the interviews were also assessed. Most of the audiences focus on conservation and activities of habitat delivery, science, and/or policy, as does the IWJV. Yet, they emphasize different components of conservation at their core (birds or wildlife, more generally) (see Table 2 for primary themes of goals and approaches). The conservation goal that resonates most with an audience or their preferred approach to conservation will be useful for the IWJV to keep in mind when preparing communications for these audiences.

9.8

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

AUDIENCE ASSESSMENTS & SITUATIONAL ANALYSES Table 2 A udiences by the primary goal of conservation and primary approach that resonates. (Note: In some cases the audiences are quite diverse, so the emphases are only broad patterns and do not necessarily characterize all members of the audience. Additionally some audiences have goals or approaches beyond the five primary themes here; this is not an exhaustive list. They may also not have any of these common goals or approaches as theirs).

PRIMARY GOAL

AUDIENCE

PRIMARY APPROACH

WILDLIFE

BIRD

HABITAT

CONSERVATION

DELIVERY

SCIENCE

Avian Knowledge Alliance

Bird Conservation Alliance

Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIF-WWG, NAWMP NSST)

Bird observatories

Bureau of Land Management

x x

Flyway Councils Land trusts (local/regional)

POLICY

x x

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Legislators (Congressional)

Management Board

National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC)

National game species and habitat conservation NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF)

National land conservation NGOs (e.g., TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund)

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power) Private foundations (e.g., WCS, NFWF, Doris Duke)

Private landowners (with large landholdings)

State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

State fish and wildlife agencies

State Wildlife Management Areas

Tribes

Universities (including Co-op unit)

US Forest Service US Geological Survey

9.9

x x

US Fish & Wildlife Service Divâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt. US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges

x x

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

AUDIENCE ASSESSMENTS & SITUATIONAL ANALYSES

Photo by Lori Reed

For many audiences, the IWJV is an attractive partner due to its strategic approach in identification of priority habitats through sound science. Given that resources are so limited at this time, many organizations are aiming to have sound justification for the allocation of their time, funds, and efforts. Also appealing to many audiences is the IWJV’s assistance in pursuing funds, leveraging of funds through partners, and justification for funds to strategic habitat and science efforts in the Intermountain West. Key themes also emerged in terms of communicating with the audiences. The audiences tend to be most trusting of those within their organization or within similar organizations. In many cases there are internal conferences, journals, newsletters, or magazines, which could be the best means for reaching the group through a trusted source. For the audiences that are less familiar with the IWJV, they may require one-on-one contacts or IWJV attendance at their meetings until a strong relationship is cultivated. Then the IWJV may be able to communicate with them in a less intensive manner 9.10

through other more mass communications. Throughout the relationship-building and into subsequent communications for many audiences, two-way communication will be necessary so they feel that the Joint Venture values their role as not only an audience but as a “partner.” State Steering Committee Survey. In addition to the key informant interview audience assessments, an online survey of current State Steering Committee members was undertaken by the IWJV staff in August 2010. Given the timing coincided with the Communication Plan development, the survey was designed partially as an Audience Assessment of existing State Steering Committee members. The survey was distributed by eleven State Steering Committee Chairs to those on their email lists. One hundred and twenty-nine (129) people responded to the survey. They represented a variety of affiliations (many of which are key audiences themselves) as seen in Fig. 5.

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

AUDIENCE ASSESSMENTS & SITUATIONAL ANALYSES

2% 1%

USFS

2% 2%

USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife USFWS Refuges

10%

NRCS

11%

WHAT IS YOUR AFFILIATION WITH THE STATE STEERING COMMITTEE?

Dept. of Defense Bureau of Land Management

25%

State Agency

10%

Conservation District/Local Agency University/Research Center Bird Observatory

11%

5% 1%

Bird Conservation Initiative (e.g. PIF) Non-Profit Private

30%

Tribal Science Team/Consultant Watershed Group Wetlands Focus Area Committee

Figure 5 Affiliation of respondents to survey of existing State Steering Committee members.

The respondents selected potential motivations for their involvement with the IWJV. Nearly 100% of the respondents agreed that they are motivated by “The opportunity to increase on-the-ground habitat delivery projects.” Just over 80% agreed that they are motivated by “Funding for capacity and/or habitat delivery.” Over 70% agreed that they are motivated by “The opportunity to network with federal and state agencies on programs and decisions.” Nearly 60% agreed they are motivated by “Access to science-based bird conservation plans, tools, and resources.” And less than 50% agreed they are motivated by “Local projects are put into regional/ continental perspectives.” Audience Segmentation. A second workshop was conducted in November 2010 to focus on audience segmentation (i.e., splitting into groups that maximize within-group similarity and minimize between-group similarity) and communications objectives. This workshop was attended by three staff members in-person and one staff member, one Board member, and one State Steering Committee Chair by web-conference. In advance audiences were segmented by their level of influence over the achievement of each of the goals to provide content for workshop participant feedback. They defined whether

9.11

an audience was “strongly influential,” “influential,” or “moderately influential” in achieving specific the goals. Workshop participants reviewed these segmentations by influence, discussed them, and came to consensus on the appropriate segmentation scheme for each goal (as shown in Tables 4, 5). Next, workshop participants articulated the various means in which the audiences related to each goal. For example, for Goal 1: Strategically broaden and strengthen publicprivate partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West, the audiences can be segmented into “those currently in the IWJV fold,” “those to recruit for the State Conservation Partnerships [new name for State Steering Committees] and Technical Committee”, and “those existing networks that could serve as conduits.” Each of the audiences could be placed in one or more of these segments in terms of their relationship to the goal achievement. Finally, the workshop participants participated in an exercise to define communications objectives for each of the audience segments for each of the goals. The communications objectives focused on the behavioral targets for each of the audience segments.

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS

Photo by Lori Reed

Communications Goals Means 1. Broaden and strengthen public-private partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 2. Increase funding for federal and state funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 3. Provide funding, foster leverage opportunities, and enhance partner access to federal, state and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. 4. Develop a strong science foundation, linking continental, regional, and local population goals and habitat objectives, to inform and empower strategic habitat conservation in the Intermountain West.

Outcomes (Ends) 5. Conserve intact landscapes of high value to priority species through conservation easements and, where appropriate, fee title acquisition.

9.12

6. Restore and enhance priority habitats (wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe and grasslands) on private lands to support sustainable populations of birds. 7. Restore and enhance priority habitats (wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe and grasslands) on public and tribal lands to support sustainable populations of birds.

Audiences Audiences for IWJV communications are defined as those with influence over the seven primary goals for communications. As described in the Audience Assessment methods above, each of the twenty-seven audiences is described as “strongly influential,” “influential,” and “moderately influential” for each goal (Tables 3, 4). It should be noted that this is a rough, qualitative designation. Certain organizations within an audience group or certain individuals may vary greatly in influence. The purpose of the rough metric is to aid in prioritization of communications efforts.

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 3 T he seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts by the level of influence each audience (see Appendix B for full name of each audience) generally has over the accomplishment of that goal.

AUDIENCES BY PRIORITY GOALS

GOAL 1

GOAL 2

GOAL 3

GOAL 4

GOAL 5

GOAL 6

GOAL 7

Avian Knowledge Alliance Bird Conservation Alliance Bird Initiative Science Committees Bird observatories Bureau of Land Management Flyway Councils Land trusts (local/regional) Landscape Conservation Coops. Legislators (Congressional, state) Management Board National bird conservation NGOs National game species NGOs National land conservation NGOs NRCS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Private corporations Private foundations Private landowners State Conservation Partnerships State fish and wildlife agencies State Wildlife Management Areas Tribes Universities (including Co-op unit) USFWS Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt. USFWS NWRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s US Forest Service US Geological Survey

KEY: strongly influential

9.13

influential

moderately influential

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

non-influential

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 4 A udience segments by level of influence over each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts.

1. Broaden and strengthen public-private partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES • Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIFWWG, NAWMP NSST) • Management Board

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

• Avian Knowledge Alliance

• Land trusts (local/regional)

• Bird Conservation Alliance

• Legislators (Congressional, state)

• Bird observatories • National game species and habitat conservation • Bureau of Land Management NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF)

• Natural Resource Conservation Service

• Partners for Fish and Wildlife

• Flyway Councils

• Private foundations (e.g., WCS, NFWF, Doris Duke)

• State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

• State Wildlife Management Areas

• State fish and wildlife agencies

• National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC)

• US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

• National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund) • Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power) • Private landowners (with large landholdings) • Tribes • Universities (including Co-op unit) • US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges • US Forest Service • US Geological Survey

2. I ncrease funding for federal and state funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

• Bird Conservation Alliance

• Bird observatories

• Legislators (Congressional, state)

• Land trusts (local/regional)

• Management Board

• National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC)

• National game species and habitat conservation NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF) • Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power) • National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund) • State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs) • Private landowners (with large landholdings)

• Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power) • State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• State fish and wildlife agencies • US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat • Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

9.14

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 4 (Continued) Audience segments by level of influence over each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts.

3. P rovide funding, foster leverage opportunities, and enhance partner access to federal, state, and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

• Land trusts (local/regional)

• Bird observatories

• Avian Knowledge Alliance

• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

• Bureau of Land Management

• Bird Conservation Alliance

• Management Board

• National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC)

• Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIF-WWG, NAWMP NSST)

• National game species and habitat conservation NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF) • National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, • Natural Resource Conservation Service Conservation Fund)

• Flyway Councils • Private landowners (with large landholdings)

• Partners for Fish and Wildlife

• State Wildlife Management Areas

• Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power)

• Tribes

• US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

• Universities (including Co-op unit)

• US Fish & Wildlife Service

• Private foundations (e.g., WCS, NFWF, Doris Duke) • State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• US Forest Service • US Geological Survey

• State fish and wildlife agencies

4. D evelop a strong science foundation, linking continental, regional, and local population goals and habitat objectives to inform and empower strategic habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

• Avian Knowledge Alliance

• Bureau of Land Management

• Bird Conservation Alliance

• Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIFWWG, NAWMP NSST)

• National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC)

• Land trusts (local/regional)

• Bird observatories

• National game species and habitat conservation NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF)

• Flyway Councils • Landscape Conservation Cooperatives • Universities (including Co-op unit)

• National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund)

• US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

• Partners for Fish and Wildlife

• US Geological Survey

• State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• Management Board • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power) • Private foundations (e.g., WCS, NFWF, Doris Duke) • State Wildlife Management Areas • Tribes

• State fish and wildlife agencies • US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges • US Forest Service

9.15

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 4 (Continued) Audience segments by level of influence over each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts.

5. Conserve intact landscapes of high value to priority species through conservation easements and, where appropriate, fee title acquisition. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES • Land trusts (local/regional)

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES • Bureau of Land Management

• National game species and habitat conservation • National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF) Audubon, ABC)

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES • Avian Knowledge Alliance • Bird Conservation Alliance

• State Wildlife Management Areas

• Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIF-WWG, NAWMP NSST)

• Tribes

• Bird observatories

• Partners for Fish and Wildlife

• US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges

• Flyway Councils

• Private landowners (with large landholdings)

• US Forest Service

• National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund) • Natural Resource Conservation Service

• State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• Legislators (Congressional, state) • Management Board • Private foundations (e.g., WCS, NFWF, Doris Duke)

• State fish and wildlife agencies

• US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

6. Restore and enhance priority habitats (wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe, and grasslands) on private lands to support sustainable populations of birds. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

• National game species and habitat conservation • Bird observatories NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF) • Bureau of Land Management • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Land trusts (local/regional) • Partners for Fish and Wildlife • National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., • Private landowners (with large landholdings) Audubon, ABC)

• Avian Knowledge Alliance

• State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• Management Board

• State fish and wildlife agencies

• National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund) • US Forest Service

• Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIF-WWG, NAWMP NSST) • Flyway Councils • Legislators (Congressional, state)

• Private foundations (e.g., WCS, NFWF, Doris Duke) • State Wildlife Management Areas • US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt. • US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges

9.16

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 4 (Continued) Audience segments by level of influence over each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts.

7. Restore and enhance priority habitats (wetland, riparian, sagebrush-steppe and grasslands) on public and tribal lands to support sustainable populations of birds. STRONGLY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

MODERATELY INFLUENTIAL AUDIENCES

• Bureau of Land Management

• Avian Knowledge Alliance

• Bird Conservation Alliance

• State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

• Bird Initiative Science Committees (e.g., PIF-WWG, NAWMP NSST)

• Flyway Councils

• State fish and wildlife agencies

• Bird observatories

• State Wildlife Management Areas

• National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC)

• Tribes • US Fish & Wildlife Service National

• National game species and habitat conservation NGOs (e.g., DU, PF, NWTF, MDF)

• Wildlife Refuges • US Forest Service

• Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Communications Objectives and Messages A communications objective takes the broad IWJV goals selected for communications and relates them to a segment of audiences, making them SMART. SMART is an acronym for well-developed objectives that are Specific (address who, what, where), Measurable (address when, how many), Achievable (something the IWJV can do), Realistic (possible with the resources the IWJV has), and Timely (to be accomplished within the specified time). Ultimately, the main communications objectives are behaviorally related, given that an audience behaving in a certain way will allow for the accomplishment of the goal. However, it may not be possible to change audience behavior before first addressing knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Each of these could serve as barriers if not in line yet for the appropriate behavioral objective. Education and communications are often thought of as following a staircase of phases. First, awareness must be raised (knowledge change), then concern increased (attitude change), then appropriate abilities developed (skill change), for ultimately action (behavior change).

Knowledge Change

awareness

9.17

• National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund) • Natural ResourceConservation Service • US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

For goals 1 –3, the objectives for knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors are fully described (Table 5). For goal 4 the behavioral objectives have been identified. The full set of objectives (including knowledge, attitudes, and skills) should be developed in future years when these goals rise to top priorities for communications implementation. The behavioral objectives, reviewed at that time, serve as the basis for developing the other objectives as behavior is the final step to move an audience toward a goal. For goals 5-7 we do not have objectives associated with them. They were not fleshed out at the time the Communications Plan was written. Since then, the habitat conservation-related goals for the IWJV have been reframed. In the next planning, horizon, communications objectives for the newly framed goals will be written.

Behavior Change

Skill Change

Attitude Change

• Legislators (Congressional, state) Management Board

action

ability

concern

Figure 6 E ducation and communications – a stair-step process leading to behavior change.

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS

Photo by Lori Reed

Making objectives measurable. All of these objectives can be made measurable (currently most are listed generically as “increase the percentage of…”) by providing specific percentages to target for each of the knowledge, attitudes, skills, or behaviors. These objectives serve as the foundation for an evaluation following the implementation of the communications campaign to determine whether the objectives have been reached. To do so in a way that will be achievable and realistic, baseline measures are necessary. Audience assessments through surveys or interviews should be conducted with the audience to determine the current percentage of the audience group with the given knowledge, attitudes, skills, or behaviors. Then, the appropriate goal for a 9.18

percentage to influence with a communications campaign could be determined. Remember, it will be challenging to get all of the audience all the way up the “stairs” so be realistic. Likely the number of audience members with a given knowledge objective met will be highest followed by attitudes, skills, and then behavior. Note that in conducting an audience assessment, a random sample from the audience could be selected if it is a large audience (e.g., private landowners). It is advisable to retain the services of a social scientist to determine the appropriate sampling scheme and survey design and implementation methods to ensure that the results can be generalized to the full population.

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts. Objectives by Audience Segments for Goal 1: Strategically broaden and strengthen public-private partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Those currently in IWJV fold … Of the strongly influential… • Management Board • State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs) • US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives

Ensure that 90% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) knows that…

Ensure that 80% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) believe that…

Ensure that 70% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) is able to…

Ensure that 60% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations)…

- - the IWJV’s mission is to conserve priority bird habitats through partnership-driven, science-based projects and programs.

- - the IWJV is a partnership and community that benefits bird habitat conservation in your state (and 10 others).

- - recite JV elevator talk

- - are actively involved (attending meetings, working on JV projects, leading JV projects, making JV objectives/ activities part of their job description, offer resources or expertise).

- - JVs were created to serve as partnerships for habitat conservation. - - JV staff capacity and fiscal resources are designed to support the JV partnership in science-based habitat conservation. - - the SCPs are the primary conservation delivery drivers, facilitating local level habitat conservation projects that feed into or contribute to achievement of the highestpriority regional and continental bird objectives. - - the Technical Committee advises the IWJV science program relevant to priorities, activities, and needs.

9.19

- - participation in the IWJV links you to bird conservation and conservation professionals and resources. - - JV staff are available for you to turn to for resources for bird habitat conservation in the region. - - participation in the SCP or Technical Committee provides an important partnership opportunity for players.

- - speak to JV objectives and activities. - - identify places in their job where they could incorporate JV objectives. - - turn to JV staff and request tools that can aid in their JV hat wearing. - - direct interested and potential partners to become engaged with the IWJV.

- - champion the JV objectives internally and externally or offer access to/influence those who can get JV objectives met. - - build awareness of the JV at at meetings they attend (introduce themselves as part of JV, speak to the JV efforts) and serve as an “extension” of the staff by providing key information on science and habitat delivery programs (e.g., NAWCA Small Grants). - - communicate within their organizations (vertically and horizontally) about JV activities and meeting outcomes.

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 (Continued) Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts. Objectives by Audience Segments for Goal 1: Strategically broaden and strengthen public-private partnerships for bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Those to recruit for SCPs and Technical Committees…

Of the strongly influential… • National game species and habitat conservation NGOs • Partners for Fish and Wildlife • State fish and wildlife agencies

Of the influential… • Bird observatories

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives

Ensure that 90% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) knows that…

Ensure that 80% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) believe that…

Ensure that 70% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) is able to…

Ensure that 60% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations)…

- - the SCPs are the primary conservation delivery drivers, facilitating local level habitat conservation projects that contribute to achievement of the highestpriority regional and continental bird objectives.

- - participating in the SCP or Technical Committee is worthwhile.

- - gain support and resources to be an active participant at SCP or Technical Committee meetings.

- - become an active participant in the SCPs or the Technical Committee.

- - the Technical Committee advises the IWJV science program relevant to priorities, activities, and needs.

- - SCP or Technical Committee membership can enhance their own work or build partnerships that will add value to their job.

- - identify what technical skills, experience, and resources they can bring to the table to strengthen the SCP or Technical Committee. - - explain the role of the IWJV staff, management Board, and SCP/TC members to influential members of the communities and professional networks in which they work.

- - devotes meaningful amounts of time to IWJV objectives through the SCP or Technical Committee. - - becomes part of the IWJV fold and moves toward behaviors above.

• Bureau of Land Management • National bird conservation NGOs (e.g., Audubon, ABC) • National land conservation NGOs (TNC, Trust for Public Land, Conservation Fund) • Private corporations (e.g., Conoco Phillips, Rocky Mountain Power) • Private landowners (with large landholdings) • Tribes • Universities (including Co-op unit) • US Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges • US Forest Service • US Geological Survey

9.20

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

Those existing networks that could serve as conduits…

Of the strongly influential… • Bird Initiative Science Committees

Of the influential… • Avian Knowledge Alliance • Bird Conservation Alliance • Flyway Councils • Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

9.21

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives

Ensure that 90% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) knows that…

Ensure that 80% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) believe that…

Ensure that 70% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) is able to…

Ensure that 60% of audience (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations)…

- - the IWJV’s mission is to conserve priority bird habitats through partnership-driven, science-based projects and programs.

- - participating in the SCP or Technical Committee is worthwhile for strong potential players.

- - d- direct interested or potential partners to become engaged with the IWJV.

- - encourage potentially strong/active JV SCP and Technical Committee members to join those committees.

- - the IWJV does not compete with existing networks but strengthens them by adding value through bringing together objectives of various bird initiatives, advancing partnerships, leveraging funding, and/or empowering strategic habitat conservation

- - IWJV activities complement/ strengthen network’s activities. - - supporting IWJV activities and building it into objectives is worthwhile and good use of resources. - - IWJV participation or representation at the network improves the network.

- - find the JV objectives and goals to integrate into theirs or share resources for them. - - identify and contact appropriate JV staff to invite them.

- - build JV objectives into the objectives of the work the networks/ initiatives do. - - offer resources to/support the component of the network’s activities that the JV can bring. - - ask the JV to present/ be at the table.

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 (Continued) Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts Objectives by Audience Segment for Goal 2: Increase funding for federal and state funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who…

Those who vote for/ control reauthorization and/or appropriation of funds… Of the strongly influential… • Legislators • US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

- - JVs are one of the most efficient programs when it comes to results relative to funding. Over their 25 year history these publicprivate partnerships leveraged every dollar of Congressional funds 35:1, helping to conserve 18.5 million acres of habitat. - - by bringing together diverse partners, Joint Ventures accomplish together what would be difficult or impossible for any single group to achieve alone.

- - these conservation funding sources are an efficient use of funds for bird habitat conservation and the many other species that depend on these habitats. - - many members of the public enjoy hunting and watching wildlife and birds and appreciate programs that benefit them.

- - this conservation funding is a win-win for landowners, - - federal appropriations are working lands, and the primary funding source the wildlife of the for JV offices, although region. some JVs are actively building their funding portfolio with additional sources of revenue - - JVs are more important in a tough fiscal climate due to our focus on leveraging federal dollars with contributions from states, NGOs, and corporations. - - JVs add value by linking continental bird population objectives to habitats at ecoregional and local scales and bringing partners together to invest strategically in sciencebased conservation delivery (examples include the Sage Grouse Initiative Strategic Watershed Action Team, and Wetland Focal Area Planning)

- - contact the JV staff or partners to learn more about how conservation funding can benefit their states.

- - advise president’s request with funding at desired levels (Interior staff, agency staff, Agricultural staff).

- - justify support of these - - put together conservation policies appropriations bills and programs to their with funding at constituents. desired levels. - - vote for the interior appropriations bill with JV funding at desired levels, as well as NAWCA, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, Neotropical Migratory Bird Program, State Wildlife Grants, & LWCF(Congressional). - - vote for agricultural appropriations bill with NRCS, FSA funding at desired levels. - - craft a Farm Bill with conservation program funding and language supportive of working lands (Senate, House Agricultural Committees). - - vote for 2013 Farm Bill reauthorization with conservation program funding at desired levels.

- - JVs operate by helping partners access a wide array of federal funding sources including: NAWCA, NMBCA, LWCF, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, LCCs, Farm Bill conservation programs, NFWF, state habitat programs, etc. (see www.iwjv.org for funding sources)

9.22

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 (Continued) Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts. Objectives by Audience Segment for Goal 2: Increase funding for federal and state funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who…

Those who influence reauthorization of funds…

Of the strongly influential… • Bird Conservation Alliance • Management Board • National game species and habitat conservation NGOs • National land conservation NGOs • Private landowners • State fish and wildlife agencies

- - the JVs visit the Hill each March. Those visits are more effective if partners and landowners are the leads for the visits and JV staff provides technical support to them during the visits.

- - demonstrating benefits from the JV partnership and conservation program and policy funding is critical to Congressional support.

- - articulate the value of the sum of these programs to the partners in the JV.

- - influence crafting and voting of appropriations bills at desired levels.

- - explain what the JV is and describe its activities.

- - the participation of NGOs and landowners in Congressional visits demonstrates that JVs truly are public-private partnerships, leveraging a variety of resources to benefit the region.

- - a coordinated message from many partners can have much more impact that single messages coming from single organizations.

- - describe JV, Farm Bill conservation programs, and NAWCA grant program and how they benefit the region, wildlife, and people.

- - influence Farm Bill reauthorization with conservation program funding at desired levels.

- - having a relationship with Congressional members and staff can be valuable to the JV and JV partner organization.

- - collaborate with JV partners on crafting and delivering this message.

- - -developing a relationship with Congressional members and staff requires multiple contacts each year.

- - influence Farm Bill crafting with conservation program funding and language supporting bird conservation needs.

- - -hearing from their constituents is most important to Congressional members.

9.23

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 (Continued) Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts Objectives by Audience Segments for Goal 3: Provide funding, foster leverage opportunities, and enhance partner access to federal, state and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Those who manage grant sources… Of the strongly influential… • Landscape Conservation Cooperatives • Management Board • Private corporations • Private foundations • State Conservation Partnerships (SCPs)

Of the influential…

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who know that…

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who believe that…

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who are able to…

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who …

- - the IWJV prioritization of habitats and bird species follows a rigorous scientific process that has been supported by a strong partnership, offering one of the best tools for determining greatest bird conservation needs in the region.

- - bird habitat in the IWJV needs to be conserved, particularly priority habitats.

- - the IWJV aids its in obtaining funds for priority projects; these proposals are made more attractive when they have 2:1 or 3:1 non-federal match

- - use IWJV science products to rank proposals, determining if it will lead to conservation of bird - - landscapes have high habitat in the IWJV priority in the IWJV or meet priority have been strategically conservation needs. identified, and projects in those landscapes - - design funding will result in high programs that can conservation success. serve as match or support the IWJV - - designing programs objectives. that can serve as match or support IWJV objectives is worthwhile, resulting in a considerable leveraging of their dollars.

- - approve grant proposals that lead to conservation of bird habitat in the IWJV.

- - writing proposals that address priority bird conservation needs in the IWJV will be more successful in receiving funding.

- - identify sources and write strong proposals that address priority bird conservation needs in the IWJV.

- - apply with strong proposals that address high priority bird conservation needs in the IWJV.

- - identify and forge partnerships on grant proposals that can offer match.

- - bring partners to the table who can provide match and aid in quality proposals.

- - contact the IWJV to review proposals or collaborate on them.

- - collaborate with IWJV on the development of proposals.

- - allocate program funds to high priority projects in the IWJV. - - design grant program specifications so they can serve as match or be a program that supports IWJV objectives.

• US Forest Service Those who apply for funds… Of the strongly influential… • Land trusts (local/ region) • National game species & habitat cons. NGOs • State fish and wildlife agencies Of the influential… • Bird observatories • National bird conservation NGOs

- - funders, such as NAWCA, have recognized the IWJV strategically-identified high priority bird conservation habitats as those most important. - - proposals with nonfederal match are far more likely to receive funding. - - working with the IWJV on grant proposals increases the likelihood of funding of NAWCA and NMBCA proposals.

- - building partnerships is worthwhile for the grant proposals and long-term collaboration. - - the IWJV can provide valuable support on grant proposals, making them more competitive.

• National land conservation NGOs • State Wildlife Management Areas • Tribes • Universities • US Geological Survey

9.24

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 (Continued) Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts Objectives by Audience Segments for Goal 3: Provide funding, foster leverage opportunities, and enhance partner access to federal, state and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Those who manage non-grant funding programs… Of the strongly influential… • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Partners for Fish and Wildlife • State Fish and Wildlife Agencies Of the influential… • Bureau of Land Management

9.25

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who know that…

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who believe that…

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who are able to…

Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who …

- - bird habitat in the IWJV needs to be conserved, particularly priority habitats.

- - use IWJV science products to increasingly target conservation programs to maximize bird conservation outcomes.

- - develop strategic plans content, program targets, and ranking criteria in line with IWJV science products.

- - landscapes of high priority in the IWJV have been strategically identified, and projects in those landscapes will result in high conservation success. - - working with the IWJV increases the likelihood that programs will be delivered in a way that results in landscapescale bird habitat conservation

- - build relationships with others with success in program delivery, in order to leverage matching funds.

- - contact the IWJV staff for assistance in making programmatic policy decisions. - - work with the IWJV staff and SCPs to build partnerships that leverage their program funds

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 5 (Continued) Objectives by audience segments for each of the seven primary goals for IWJV communications efforts Objectives by Audience Segment for Goal 4: Develop a strong science foundation, linking continental, regional, and local population goals and habitat objectives, to inform and empower strategic habitat conservation in the Intermountain West. Audience Segments

Knowledge Objectives

Attitudes Objectives

Skills Objectives

Behavioral Objectives Increase the percentage of key staff in audience organizations (with an emphasis on strongly influential organizations) who …

Those who create bird science… Of the strongly influential… • Avian Knowledge Alliance • Bird Initiative Science Committees

(to be addressed in next strategic communications planning horizon)

• Bird observatories • Flyway Councils • Universities • US Geological Survey Those who create landscape/habitat science… Of the strongly influential… • Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

(to be addressed in next strategic communications planning horizon)

• Universities • US Geological Survey Those who support the JV creating science… Of the strongly influential… • US Fish & Wildlife Service Div’s of Bird Habitat Cons. & Migr. Bird Mgt.

- - in 2013 the IWJV released an Implementation Plan with important science advancements including, solid planning for waterfowl in the most important places, as well as shorebird key sites, waterbird focal areas and landbird science.

- - the IWJV’s IP is the best synthesis of biological information for bird groups in the region.

- - use the Implementation Plan.

- - maintain continued support for JV resources for science.

Goals 5-7 do not have objectives associated with them. They were not fleshed out at the time the Communications Plan was written. Since then, the habitat conservation-related goals for the IWJV have been reframed. In the next planning horizon, communications objectives for the newly framed goals will be written.

9.26

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Messaging. Each of the objectives has been written so that it can easily provide the basis for messaging. The primary message may be more simplistic than secondary messages that iterate the specifics in the objectives. For example, for goal 1, an appropriate over-arching message could be “You, the partners, are the Intermountain West Joint Venture.” And, for goal 3, an appropriate over-arching message could be “Funding comes to those who are part of the IWJV.” Knowledge and attitude objectives can generally be used as the message themselves. The IWJV may wish to supplement them with secondary messages that provide examples or simple facts or statistics. Additionally, persuasive elements can be employed to make messages play on humor or excitement or empathy or, when appropriate, fear. For skills and behaviors objectives, the message may also need to include tertiary information on how to build the skill or how to do the behavior. If working with a specific audience, think about how you can make the message even more impactful. Consider how the message relates to the audience and their goals. Play on their motivations. Address their barriers. Highlight your overlap in interests. Think about what will persuade them. (All of this content has been provided to the IWJV in a database of audience assessment interview notes). When considering which objectives you will focus on for your messages, consider where the audience member is on the stairsteps for communications (Fig. 6). Should you be emphasizing knowledge? Or are they already knowledgeable and aware? If so, should you be addressing attitudes? Or are they already concerned? If so, should you be addressing skills or actions? Think about their level of technical knowledge and how complex you can be with the message. Are the audience members primarily scientists, managers, or not members of the conservation community at all? Also, provide an example of others they trust (for example, an organization like them) that is proof of this action resulting in value for them. For example, for goal 3 (Foster leverage opportunities and partner access to federal, state and private funding programs essential to bird habitat conservation in the Intermountain West), when working with the audience of land trusts that have an interest in wildlife conservation, most of the audience members may be at the point of the bottom stair, needing messages to address knowledge objectives, keeping in mind that these objectives include: • Funding sources, such as North American WetlandsConservation Act (NAWCA), have recognized the IWJVstrategically-identified high priority bird conservationhabitats as those most important.

9.27

• Proposals with non-federal match are far more likely toreceive funding. • Working with the IWJV on grant proposals increases thelikelihood of funding of NAWCA and NeotropicalMigratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) proposals. An overarching message might be that “Land trusts can gain funds for easements through partnership with the IWJV.” A secondary message might mention the funding sources available as such. For example, “the North American Wetland Conservation Act can be used for funding conservation easements. These proposals require match from other organizations. The IWJV can help connect you with partners in these areas who can provide match for your conservation easements.” Additionally, messages may employ the case study of the Teton Regional Land Trust—a land trust that has worked with the IWJV on seeking funding. The message may include, “The Teton Regional Land Trust has partnered with the IWJV, using the IWJV priority habitats as justification for grant proposals and having the IWJV staff review their proposals to offer ideas on how to enhance them. Through this partnership, the Teton Regional Land Trust has received five North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grants of $5 million, with over $40 million raised in donated match, protecting 6,510 acres and restoring or enhancing 2,470 acres in the Teton Basin, Idaho.

Tactics & Tools A variety of tactics and tools exist to contribute to achieving the communications objectives. Tactics and tools may include those from these seven categories: • Educational: In-depth approaches of instruction to transmit knowledge, attitudes, and skills • Informational: Approach of straight-forward message delivery, emphasizing basic facts and figures • Promotional: Approach employing techniques common to marketing and advertisement • Social Media: Approach of dissemination by social interaction, using accessible techniques • Organizational: Approach strengthening the organization and partnership and its leadership role • Political: Approach garnering governmental support through political action • Scientific: Professional scientist approach of communicating results and findings

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS

Photo by Dave Smith

The tactics and tools that fall under each of these categories are listed in Table 6. While a tactic or tool may be appropriate for more than one category, we have selected the category we felt fit best. In considering the appropriate tactics and tools for this Strategic Communications Plan, the IWJV reviewed their current use of tactics and tools. Staff and Board members also reflected on whether tactics and tools might be employed by the IWJV in the future (Table 6). Some tactics and tools may work better for some goals and audiences than for others (Table 7). In selecting the tactic or tool for delivering messages for a given priority audience, the IWJV should consider:

9.28

• Is there already a tactic or tool available that we could adapt? • Will it reach the audience? And likely lead to achieving the goals and objectives? • Will it transmit the message(s) well? • Is it cost effective and affordable? • Will it take a reasonable amount of time? • Does IWJV have the experience or skill for this type of communications? Or does a partner?

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

COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGNS Table 6 IWJV current and future use of communications tactics and tools by type. JV CURRENTLY USES

LIKELY IN FUTURE

Classes or workshops

Webinars

Tours/Demos

Face to face

Videos/podcasts

Websites

(e)Newsletters

Brochures

Factsheets

News conferences

Personality appearances

Speakers bureau

Information booths/exhibits

Billboards or signs

Special events

“Elevator talks”

UNLIKELY IN FUTURE

EDUCATIONAL

INFORMATIONAL

PROMOTIONAL Public Service Announcements