iwjv 2013 implementation plan chapter 7: landbirds

Chapter Seven Landbirds Principal Author: Danie l Casey

Photo by Dan ie l Casey

7.2 Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org

La

nd

bir

ds

Inside this Chapter

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 7.3

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

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.

Figure 1 Bird 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.

9

16

10

35

33

34

15

5

18

17

17

34

5

5

32

15

0

INTRODUCTION


Figure 2 BCR-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.

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 “rolling up” 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.

DEFINITION OF BIOLOGICAL PLANNING UNITS

Photo by USFWS


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 PlanThe 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

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 PlansState PIF working groups completed their first state-by-state 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.

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 PlansEach 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 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 SWAP # WATCH LIST PRIMARY HABITAT JUSTIFICATION

Baird’s Sparrow 2 High Grassland Limited distribution, sensitive to range condition

Band-tailed Pigeon X 4 Forest Mast crop dependent

Bell’s Vireo X 4 Riparian

Bendire's Thrasher WI X 4 Desert Significant declines

Black-chinned Sparrow X 1 Mixed

Black Rosy-Finch WP 6 Tundra Limited range, and sensitive to climate change

Black Swift WM X 7 Decl Riparian Habitat specialist, sensitive to climate change

Bobolink X 5 Grassland Preference for wet meadows/hay

Brewer’s Sparrow WM X 6 Decl Sagebrush Sage obligate

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch WP 2 Tundra Limited range, and sensitive to climate change

Burrowing Owl X 10 Grassland Prairie dog community, near-obligate

California Condor WI Mixed

Calliope Hummingbird WP Decl Mixed Declining species

Cassin’s Finch SM 2 Forest




Chestnut-collared Longspur 1 Decl Grassland Significant declines; dependent on native grassland

Clark’s Nutcracker SP Forest

Crissal Thrasher X 3 Desert

Dusky Flycatcher SP 1 Mixed

Dusky Grouse 2 Forest

Ferruginous Hawk X 8 Grassland Widely recognized as priority by partners (e.g., SWAP)

Flammulated Owl WP X 5 Rare Forest Snag nester in dry forests where fire ecology is disrupted.

Grace’s Warbler WM Forest Dependent on ponderosa pine in the southwest

Grasshopper Sparrow X 6 Grassland Requires taller grasses

Gray Flycatcher SP Juniper/Sage Also in ponderosa pine in parts of its range

Gray Vireo WP X 5 Rare Juniper Limited range, affected by tree removal in sage

Green-tailed Towhee SP 1 Sagebrush

Greater Sage-Grouse WI 8 Decl Sagebrush Declining range wide; habitat losses, conflicts with energy

Gunnison Sage-Grouse WI 2 High Sagebrush Candidate Species

Hammond’s Flycatcher Forest

Le Conte's Thrasher X 1 Desert

Lewis’s Woodpecker WM X 7 High Riparian Population declines, snag dependent

Loggerhead Shrike X 6 Sagebrush Unique ecology (carnivore), depends on high shrubs

Long-billed Curlew X 7 Decl Grassland Highly imperiled, area sensitive

MacGillivray's Warbler Mixed

McCown's Longspur WP 1 Grassland Shortgrass; peripheral to IWJV

Mountain Bluebird SP Mixed

Mountain Plover 4 High Grassland High level of habitat specificity

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.




Mountain Quail 3 Mixed

Northern Goshawk X 9 Forest Mature forest required for nesting

Olive-sided Flycatcher WM X 6 Decl Forest Requires particular seral habitats

Pinyon Jay WM X 4 Rare Juniper Rare, declining, dependent on mature pinyon/juniper.

Plumbeous Vireo Forest

Red-naped Sapsucker SP X 1 Forest Aspen habitat declining

Rufous Hummingbird WM X 2 Riparian Riparian willow communities

Sage Sparrow SP X 7 Decl Sagebrush Requires robust sage with good understory condition

Sage Thrasher SP 4 Sagebrush Requires robust sage with good understory condition

Short-eared Owl X 6 Decl Grassland Dense grasses needed (e.g. CRP associate); declining

Spotted Owl WI X 5 Forest Listed Species, peripheral to IWJV

Swainson’s Hawk WM X 5 Rare Grassland Past declines, raptor guild.

Virginia’s Warbler WP X 4 Mixed Mountain shrub communities: development risks

White-headed Woodpecker WP X 4 Rare Forest Requires open, mature ponderosa pine

White-throated Swift WM 3 Cliff/Canyon

Williamson’s Sapsucker SP X 3 Decl Forest Declining and snag dependent

Willow Flycatcher WM X 7 Decl Riparian Needs high quality riparian shrub layer; declining

Yellow-billed Cuckoo X 4 Riparian Riparian obligate sensitive to habitat condition; declines

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;

• 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,

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.



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 Species 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 BMC # SWAP HABITAT

Band-tailed Pigeon X 4 Pine-Oak

Bendire's Thrasher W X 4 Desert Scrub

Brewer's Sparrow W X 6 Sagebrush (near obligate)

Ferruginous Hawk X 8 Grassland (large blocks)

Flammulated Owl W X 5 Mature Dry Forest (heterogeneous, snags)

Grace's Warbler W Southern Ponderosa Pine Forest

Grasshopper Sparrow X 6 Grassland/Agricultural (tall bunchgrass)

Gray Flycatcher S Ponderosa/Pinyon Juniper/Sage

Gray Vireo W X 5 Pinyon Juniper

Lewis's Woodpecker W X 7 Wooded Riparian/Dry Forest/Burns (snags)

Long-billed Curlew X 7 Grassland; “Highly imperiled”

Olive-sided Flycatcher W X 6 Spruce-Fir Forest/Recent Burns (seral)

Pinyon Jay W X 4 Pinyon/Juniper (Mature)

Red-naped Sapsucker S X 1 Aspen (multi-aged stands)

Rufous Hummingbird W X 2 Riparian Shrubland

Sage Sparrow S X 7 Sagebrush (mature)

Sage Thrasher S 4 Sagebrush (robust, with diverse understory)

Swainson's Hawk W X 5 Grassland/Riparian

Virginia's Warbler W X 4 Montane Shrubland

White-headed Woodpecker W 4 Mature Dry Forest (open, large snags)

Willow Flycatcher W X 7 Riparian Shrubland (in good condition)



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 grassland-dependent focal species.

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

HABITAT IWJV

PRIORITYIWJV STATES (N=11)

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

Sagebrush Steppe A All except AZ

Aquatic/Wetland A All 11 States

Riparian A All except NV

Aspen A All except NM

Dry (Ponderosa Pine) Forest

A CO,ID,MT,OR,WA,WY

Agricultural A 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 peer-reviewed 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.

HABITAT PRIORITIZATION & CHARACTERIZATION


Habitat Classification Scheme: Crosswalk of Vegetative AssociationsIn 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 Generalized habitat 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).

AgricultureGrasslandMountain ShrublandOther ShrublandGreasewood/SaltbushSagebrush SteppeOther ForestDry Ponderosa/Fir ForestPine-Oak WoodlandsJuniper/Pine WoodlandsMid-Elevation Mixed ConiferSpruce-FirAspenOpen WaterWet Meadow/MarshOther WetlandRiparian WoodlandRiparian HerbaceousRiparian ShrublandOther/Unvegetated



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 DatabaseThe IWJV HABPOPS database is a Microsoft Access database based on the successful Heirarchical All-Bird 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 “bottom-up” 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).

• 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.



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 bottom-up calculations is an important aspect of the feedback loop of strategic conservation planning at the JV, BCR, and continental scales.

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, step-down 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.



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.

SPECIES

BCR/STATE POLYGONS WITH IWJV ESTIMATES

POPULATION X OBJECTIVE ∆

Band-tailed Pigeon 27 335,731 2.0 671,462 105%

Bendire’s Thrasher 15 115,275 2.0 230,550 48%

Brewer’s Sparrow 35 15,291,448 2.0 30,582,896 1%

Ferruginous Hawk 31 10,266 1.0 10,266 28%

Flammulated Owl 30 199,907 2.0 399,815 588%

Grace’s Warbler 15 1,292,187 1.5 1,938,281 88%

Grasshopper Sparrow 32 431,961 1.0 431,961 3%

Gray Flycatcher 32 1,152,382 1.0 1,152,382 3%

Gray Vireo 15 461,327 1.0 461,327 50%

Lewis’s Woodpecker 38 117,005 1.1 128,717 11%

Long-billed Curlew 25 160,000 1.3 208,000 -

Olive-sided Flycatcher 37 157,365 2.0 314,730 4%

Pinyon Jay 32 4,058,707 2.0 8,117,415 5%

Red-naped Sapsucker 35 738,535 1.0 738,535 8%

Rufous Hummingbird 14 588,362 2.0 1,176,725 28%

Sage Sparrow 31 3,705,928 1.0 3,705,928 2%

Sage Thrasher 36 8,442,260 1.0 8,442,260 5%

Swainson’s Hawk 38 99,985 1.1 109,884 7%

Virginia’s Warbler 22 544,939 1.1 599,433 67%

White-headed Woodpecker 15 98,266 1.0 98,266 204%

Willow Flycatcher 38 856,474 1.5 1,284,711 18%



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.

SagebrushIn sagebrush habitats, for example (Table 5), the Brewer’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 BCR-state 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 Population trends (annual % change) for three focal landbird species reliant on sagebrush habitat 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: BREWER’S SPARROW SAGE SPARROW SAGE THRASHER

Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N

N. Am. -2.1 <0.01 517 -0.1 0.92 250 -0.6 0.25 345

BCR 9 -2.2 0.01 143 0 1.00 96 -1.3 <0.01 148

BCR 10 0 0.98 106 0.5 0.81 41 1.1 0.47 81

BCR 16 -2.4 <0.01 120 -0.1 0.96 55 -0.2 0.88 83



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), 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:

PT-R SCORE % CHANGE OVER 30 YRS EQUIVALENT %

ANNUAL CHANGE QUALITATIVE DEFINITIONS

1 ≥ 50% increase ≥ 1.36% Large population increase

2 15-49% increase, OR < 15% change 0.47 to 1.36%, OR -0.54 to 0.47%

Possible or moderate population increase OR

Population stable

3 Highly variable, OR Unknown N/A Uncertain population trend

4 15-49% decrease < -0.54 to -2.28% Possible or moderate population decrease

5 ≥ 50% decrease ≤ -2.28% Large population decrease

Figure 4 Prioritization 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.

Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Brewer’s Sparrow

BBS Scores12345678910

Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Sage Thrasher


Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Sage Sparrow




GrasslandBCR 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 Population 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 P N Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N

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 52 2.0 0.16 92 1.5 0.28 91 -2.3 0.21 50

BCR 10 +0.1 0.99 31 -0.6 0.81 48 0.9 0.62 39 -10.6 <0.01 30

BCR 16 5.2 0.51 11 2.7 0.45 36 -1.5 0.86 6 -20.5 0.17 4

Pinyon JuniperPopulation 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 Population 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


N. Am. 4.6 0.01 145 1.5 0.43 46 -4.4 <0.01 199

BCR 9 4.6 0.09 71 - - - -4.5 0.14 42

BCR 10 8.5 0.06 10 - - - -0.5 0.84 17

BCR 16 1.8 0.24 50 -0.8 0.72 31 -4.7 <0.01 101



Coniferous ForestsOlive-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 Lewis’s Woodpecker in BCR 10 deserves more scrutiny. Flammulated Owls are not surveyed by the BBS.

Table 8 Population 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 LEWIS’S WOODPECKERWHITE-HEADED

WOODPECKERBAND-TAILED PIGEON

OLIVE-SIDED

FLYCATCHER

Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N

N. Am. -1.2 0.6 91 2.1 <0.01 78 -1.4 0.05 232 -3.3 <0.01 826

BCR 9 -2.6 0.38 28 0.7 0.76 19 -4.9 0.39 11 -2.2 0.02 68

BCR 10 -9 0.02 15 15.9 0.02 7 - - - -3.7 <0.01 128

BCR 16 -2.1 0.53 26 - - - -4.8 0.17 20 -0.2 0.87 78

Photo by R io de la V is ta



Figure 5 Prioritization 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.

Ferruginous Hawk


Grasshopper Sparrow


Swainson’s Hawk


Long-billed Curlew





Pinyon Jay


Gray Flycatcher

BBS Scores

12345678910

Gray Vireo

BBS Scores

12345678910




Band-tailed PigeonOlive-sided Flycatcher

BBS Scores

BBS Scores

12345678910

12345678910

Lewis’s Woodpecker


White-headed Woodpecker





Rufous Hummingbird


Red-naped Sapsucker


Willow Flycatcher

BBS Scores

12345678910



RiparianBoth 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 Population 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


N. Am. 0.9 0.38 280 -2.4 <0.01 233 -0.9 0.06 1271

BCR 9 0.4 0.76 53 -1.7 0.02 50 -2 <0.01 85

BCR 10 2.7 0.09 124 0.7 0.62 74 -1 0.68 134

BCR 16 4.3 <0.01 85 - - - -0.6 0.81 35

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 Population 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


N. Am. -5.7 0.01 46 -1.4 0.1 102 -1.9 0.05 43

BCR 9 - - - - - - - - -

BCR 10 - - - - - - - - -

BCR 16 -4.8 0.21 19 -3.2 0.45 23 -1.4 0.34 23



Figure 9 Prioritization 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

Bendire’s Thrasher


Virginia’s Warbler


Grace’s Warbler



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 trend-based 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 trend-based 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 ObjectivesA 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

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)



Table 11 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

Brewer’s Sparrow 9 CA 500,000 500,000 963,300

Brewer’s Sparrow 9 ID 1,000,000 1,000,000 8,381,500

Brewer’s Sparrow 9 NV 7,000,000 7,000,000 20,248,800

Brewer’s Sparrow 9 OR 1,500,000 1,500,000 7,678,800

Brewer’s Sparrow 9 UT 600,000 600,000 3,810,000

Brewer’s Sparrow 9 WA 140,000 140,000 2,465,700

Brewer’s Sparrow BCR 9 in IWJV 10,741,100 10,741,100 43,549,000

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 CO 200,000 200,000 626,200

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 ID 200,000 200,000 2,430,000

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 MT 500,000 500,000 2,898,800

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 OR 150,000 150,000 2,866,300

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 UT 40,000 40,000 342,000

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 WA 0 118,458 75,500

Brewer’s Sparrow 10 WY 1,600,000 1,600,000 12,583,600


Brewer’s Sparrow 16 AZ 130,000 125,093 1,365,600

Brewer’s Sparrow 16 CO 600,000 600,000 1,979,000

Brewer’s Sparrow 16 ID 5,000 5,000 25,100

Brewer’s Sparrow 16 NM 200,000 200,000 844,100

Brewer’s Sparrow 16 NV 400 400 0

Brewer’s Sparrow 16 UT 800,000 800,000 3,513,100

Brewer’s Sparrow 16 WY 11,000 9,152 186,300


Sage Sparrow 9 CA 60,000 60,000 330,300

Sage Sparrow 9 ID 60,000 60,000 1,358,900

Sage Sparrow 9 NV 1,800,000 1,800,000 8,238,700

Sage Sparrow 9 OR 300,000 300,000 1,549,200

Sage Sparrow 9 UT 190,000 190,000 1,502,500

Sage Sparrow 9 WA 14,000 14,000 4,600

Sage Sparrow 9 WY 70 70 0

Sage Sparrow BCR 9 in IWJV 2,424,070 2,424,070 12,841,900



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.


Sage Sparrow 10 CO 50,000 50,000 440,300

Sage Sparrow 10 ID 400 400 68,200

Sage Sparrow 10 MT 0 0 0

Sage Sparrow 10 OR 4,000 4,000 312,600

Sage Sparrow 10 UT 0 4,165 96,700

Sage Sparrow 10 WA 0 0 0

Sage Sparrow 10 WY 500,000 500,000 3,906,300

Sage Sparrow BCR 10 in IWJV 554,400 558,165 4,824,100

Sage Sparrow 16 AZ 120,000 115,470 343,000

Sage Sparrow 16 CO 20,000 20,000 583,900

Sage Sparrow 16 ID 1,900 1,900 2,400

Sage Sparrow 16 NM 170,000 170,000 215,000

Sage Sparrow 16 NV 300 300 0

Sage Sparrow 16 UT 300,000 300,000 2,026,100

Sage Sparrow 16 WY 400 333 10,600

Sage Sparrow BCR 16 in IWJV 612,600 608,046 3,181,000

Sage Thrasher 9 CA 200,000 200,000 217,000

Sage Thrasher 9 ID 500,000 500,000 936,800

Sage Thrasher 9 NV 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,470,100

Sage Thrasher 9 OR 1,000,000 1,000,000 783,200

Sage Thrasher 9 UT 300,000 300,000 472,900

Sage Thrasher 9 WA 60,000 60,000 268,900

Sage Thrasher 9 WY 500 500 30

Sage Thrasher BCR 9 in IWJV 6,060,500 6,060,500 5,148,930

Sage Thrasher 10 CO 200,000 200,000 144,100

Sage Thrasher 10 ID 40,000 40,000 94,900

Sage Thrasher 10 MT 70,000 56,147 135,800

Sage Thrasher 10 OR 50,000 50,000 205,700

Sage Thrasher 10 UT 8,000 8,000 33,500

Sage Thrasher 10 WA 0 72,371 6,600

Sage Thrasher 10 WY 1,100,000 1,085,214 494,900

Sage Thrasher BCR 10 in IWJV 1,468,000 1,511,732 1,115,500



Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org

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.


Sage Thrasher 16 AZ 40,000 38,490 123,800

Sage Thrasher 16 CO 300,000 300,000 10,000

Sage Thrasher 16 ID 1,100 1,100 2,400

Sage Thrasher 16 NM 40,000 40,000 69,900

Sage Thrasher 16 NV 100 100 60

Sage Thrasher 16 UT 160,000 160,000 232,100

Sage Thrasher 16 WY 1,300 1,082 22,400

Sage Thrasher BCR 16 in IWJV 542,500 540,772 460,660

Photo by USFWS

7.28 Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org7.28 Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org


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 0 -16

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Brewer’s Sparrow 247 -12 54 42

Interm. Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Brewer’s Sparrow 247 42 144 186

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Sage Sparrow 247 4 -4 0

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Sage Sparrow 247 0 2 2

Interm. Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Sage Sparrow 247 6 4 10

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Sage Thrasher 247 34 10 44

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Sage Thrasher 247 0 2 2

Interm. Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Sage Thrasher 247 2 -6 -4

Species Models - MapsBrewer’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

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).



Figure 10 Brewer’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.



Figure 11 Brewer’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.



Figure 12 Sage 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.



Figure 13 Sage 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.



Figure 14 Sage 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.



Figure 15 Sage 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.



Grassland ObjectivesGrasshopper 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 Comparison 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.


Grasshopper Sparrow 9 ID 30,000 30,000 44,600

Grasshopper Sparrow 9 NV 4,000 4,000 300

Grasshopper Sparrow 9 OR 9,000 9,000 16,400

Grasshopper Sparrow 9 UT 40,000 40,000 6,000

Grasshopper Sparrow 9 WA 140,000 140,000 184,000

Grasshopper Sparrow 9 WY 40 40 0

Grasshopper Sparrow BCR 9 in IWJV 223,040 223,040 251,300

Grasshopper Sparrow 10 ID 30,000 30,000 900

Grasshopper Sparrow 10 MT 60,000 48,126 21,100

Grasshopper Sparrow 10 OR 900 900 200

Grasshopper Sparrow 10 UT 0 1,205 700

Grasshopper Sparrow 10 WA 1,400 1,400 4,400

Grasshopper Sparrow 10 WY 15,000 14,798 13,700


Grasshopper Sparrow 16 CO 900 900 0

Grasshopper Sparrow 16 ID 200 200 40

Grasshopper Sparrow 16 NM 4,000 4,000 0

Grasshopper Sparrow 16 UT 30,000 30,000 900

Grasshopper Sparrow 16 WY 300 250 4,300




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 ScenariosBecause 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

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.



We assessed the effects of the following scenarios, alone and in combination, for both Grasshopper Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew:

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

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 SparrowWe 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

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.

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.

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.



Table 14 Total 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)

POPULATIONESTIMATE

REVISEDPOP. EST.

ACRESTREATED

POP. INCR.(SEGMENT

POP. INCR.(IWJV)

A. Convert 10% of Agric. to Grassland 11,392,911 61,400 73,600 1,137,066 20% 4%

B. Convert 10% of tilled to Pasture* 11,392,911 61,400 61,400 0 0% 0%

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%

E. Manage Shrub-Steppe for GRSP 516,440 700 2,800 77,467 300% 1%

Combination Scenario (A + D + E) 23,633,628 279,400 462,100 4,521,339 - 65%

Photo by A l i Duva l l



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.



Long-billed CurlewLong-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

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 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. 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.



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.


PRIORITY ACTIONS

Recommended Approaches for Conservation, by BCR/StatePrevious 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.

For each of the focal species tables in the following sections, we include BCR-state polygon specific trend-based 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 – 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. Poor Condition: 1,874,278 ac (very low residual cover,

few natives, <10% appropriate grasses)

2. Fair Condition: 5,622,834 ac (moderate cover, moderately diverse native grass, 10-30%)

3. Good Condition: 1,874,228 ac (good residual cover, native grass >30%, few to no invasives)


PRIORITY ACTIONS

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

SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED

ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE

% OF BCR IWJV

POPULATION

TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE

POPULATION OBJECTIVE

LBCU 9 CA 545,644 11,900 6% 1.3x 15,500

LBCU 9 ID 2,421,780 57,000 31% 1.3x 74,100

LBCU 9 NV 1,366,867 27,600 15% 1.3x 35,900

LBCU 9 OR 3,088,244 53,700 29% 1.3x 69,800

LBCU 9 UT 665,714 14,600 8% 1.3x 19,000

LBCU 9 WA 1,030,963 20,400 11% 1.3x 26,500

LBCU 9 WY 623 10 <1% 1.3x 10

BCR Totals in IWJV: 9,119,835 185,210 100% (1.3x) 240,810

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


GRSP 9 ID 1,667,110 44,600 30% 9 1.5x 66,900

GRSP 9 NV 11,625 300 <1% 5 1x 300

GRSP 9 OR 397,307 16,400 8% 8 1.5x 24,600

GRSP 9 UT 223,734 6,000 4% 7 1.1x 6,600

GRSP 9 WA 2,405,384 184,000 57% 9 2.0x 368,000


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).

• 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


PRIORITY ACTIONS

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


ACRES

POPULATION

ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV

POPULATION

COMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-

BASED

OBJECTIVE

POPULATION

OBJECTIVE

BRSP 9 CA 3,481,111 963,300 2% 10 2x 1,926,600

BRSP 9 ID 12,576,366 8,381,500 19% 9 2x 16,763,000

BRSP 9 NV 40,901,606 20,248,800 46% 9 2x 40,497,600

BRSP 9 OR 14,052,651 7,678,800 18% 10 2x 15,357,600

BRSP 9 UT 7,911,916 3,810,000 9% 9 2x 7,620,000

BRSP 9 WA 4,426,720 2,465,700 6% 8 1.5x 3,698,600

BRSP 9 WY 1,357 900 <1% 9 2x 1,800

BCR Totals in IWJV: 83,351,727 43,549,000 100% (2x) 85,865,200

SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%)


ACRES

POPULATION

ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV

POPULATION

COMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-

BASED

OBJECTIVE

POPULATION

OBJECTIVE

SAGS 9 CA 1,032,321 330,300 3% 7 1.5x 495,500

SAGS 9 ID 6,117,916 1,358,900 11% 7 1.5x 2,038,400

SAGS 9 NV 46,702,349 8,238,700 64% 5 1.1x 9,062,600

SAGS 9 OR 9,142,307 1,549,200 12% 7 1.5x 2,323,800

SAGS 9 UT 9,279,082 1,502,500 12% 6 1.1x 1,652,800

SAGS 9 WA 34,170 4,600 <1% 5 1.1x 5,100

BCR Totals in IWJV: 72,308,145 12,841,900 100% (1.2x) 15,578,200

BCR 9 Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe (65,385,827 acres)

Estimated Extent by Condition Class: 1. Poor Condition: 13,077,165 ac (<10% sage, very low

diversity of native plants, high invasives)

2. Fair Condition: 39,231,496 ac (10-20% sage, moderate native plant cover, some invasives)

3. Good 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 large-scale 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.


PRIORITY ACTIONS

SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)

SPECIES BCR STATE OCCUPIED ACRES

POPULATION ESTIMATE

% BCR IWJV POPULATION

COMBINED BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE


SATH 9 CA 2,519,273 217,000 4% 7 1.5x 325,500

SATH 9 ID 10,908,769 936,800 18% 8 1.5x 1,405,200

SATH 9 NV 41,180,310 2,470,100 48% 8 1.5x 3,705,200

SATH 9 OR 12,654,776 783,200 15% 8 1.5x 1,174,800

SATH 9 UT 10,084,321 472,900 9% 8 1.5x 709,400

SATH 9 WA 3,882,427 268,900 5% 6 1.1x 295,800

SATH 9 WY 711 30 <1% 6 1.1x 30


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 Sage-Grouse leks (designated core areas especially) with opportunities outside 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

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

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)


PRIORITY ACTIONS

Figure 18 IWJV Brewer’s Sparrow model for BCRs 9 and 10, overlain by the polygons which define 100 of the known Greater Sage-Grouse leks.


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%)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% OF BCR IWJV

POPULATIONTREND-BASED

OBJECTIVEPOPULATION

OBJECTIVE

LBCU 10 CO 89,182 800 2% 1.3x 1,000

LBCU 10 ID 253,775 4,500 10% 1.3x 5,900

LBCU 10 MT 966,636 7,400 16% 1.3x 9,700

LBCU 10 OR 726,315 12,000 25% 1.3x 15,600

LBCU 10 UT 73,342 600 1% 1.3x 800

LBCU 10 WA 60,922 600 1% 1.3x 800

LBCU 10 WY 1,732,017 21,400 45% 1.3x 27,800


GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


GRSP 10 ID 31,734 900 2% 9 2x 1,800

GRSP 10 MT 744,397 21,100 52% 9 2x 42,200

GRSP 10 OR 8,906 200 <1% 8 1.5x 300

GRSP 10 UT 23,619 700 2% 7 1.5x 1,100

GRSP 10 WA 159,230 4,400 11% 9 2x 8,800

GRSP 10 WY 327,572 13,700 34% 9 2x 27,400

BCR Totals in IWJV: 1,295,458 41,000 100% (2x) 81,600

FERRUGINOUS HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)

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

• Tilling: conversion of grassland to cropland


• Invasive exotics, particularly cheatgrass

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks within

Long-billed Curlew model (see Fig. 7)

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


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%)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


BRSP 10 CO 1,542,505 626,200 3% 9 2.0x 1,252,400

BRSP 10 ID 3,627,279 2,430,000 11% 8 1.5x 3,645,000

BRSP 10 MT 4,316,150 2,898,800 13% 8 1.5x 4,348,200

BRSP 10 OR 5,196,008 2,866,300 13% 9 2.0x 5,732,600

BRSP 10 UT 513,357 342,000 2% 8 1.5x 513,000

BRSP 10 WA 108,371 75,500 0% 7 1.5x 113,300

BRSP 10 WY 18,952,601 12,583,600 58% 8 1.5x 18,875,400


SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


SAGS 10 CO 1,476,615 440,300 9% 5 1.1x 484,300

SAGS 10 ID 407,929 68,200 1% 7 1.5x 102,300

SAGS 10 OR 2,571,747 312,600 6% 7 1.5x 468,900

SAGS 10 UT 513,573 96,700 2% 6 1.1x 106,400

SAGS 10 WY 16,233,732 3,906,300 81% 5 1.1x 4,296,900



PRIORITY ACTIONS



ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


SATH 10 CO 1,605,821 144,100 13% 6 1.1x 158,500

SATH 10 ID 1,393,142 94,900 9% 7 1.5x 142,500

SATH 10 MT 2,125,169 135,800 12% 7 1.5x 203,700

SATH 10 OR 4,585,660 205,700 18% 7 1.5x 308,600

SATH 10 UT 523,643 33,500 3% 7 1.5x 50,300

SATH 10 WA 69,655 6,600 1% 5 1.1x 7,300

SATH 10 WY 7,349,742 494,900 44% 5 1.1x 544,400





development





designated as grouse core areas or not); prioritize using sagebrush species model outputs (see Fig. 4).

• Balance protection of areas with concentration ofSage-Grouse leks (designated core areas especially) with areas outside of the range of the grouse.





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)


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%)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE

% OF BCR IWJV

POPULATION

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE



LBCU 16 CO 5,857 100 1% 1.3x 130 158,500

LBCU 16 ID 1,489 30 <1% 1.3x 40 142,500

LBCU 16 NM 327,227 5,300 79% 1.3x 6,900 203,700

LBCU 16 UT 25,543 300 4% 1.3x 400 308,600

LBCU 16 WY 39,284 1,000 15% 1.3x 1,300 50,300

BCR Totals in IWJV: 399,398 6,730 100% (1.3x) 8,770 1,415,200

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


GRSP 16 ID 1,329 40 1% 7 1.5x 60

GRSP 16 UT 34,810 900 17% 5 1.1x 1,000

GRSP 16 WY 69,211 4,300 82% 7 1.5x 6,500

BCR Totals in IWJV: 105,350 5,240 100% (1.4x) 7,560

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

• Tilling: conversion of grassland to row crops


• 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


PRIORITY ACTIONS

BCR 16 Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe (12,450,363 acres)

Highest Priority Species: GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE)


BREWER’S SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


BRSP 16 AZ 7,321,127 1,365,600 17% 9 2.0x 2,731,200

BRSP 16 CO 6,095,469 1,979,000 25% 10 2.0x 3,958,000

BRSP 16 ID 39,731 25,100 0% 9 2.0x 50,200

BRSP 16 NM 4,326,063 844,100 11% 8 1.5x 1,266,200

BRSP 16 UT 9,739,062 3,513,100 44% 9 2.0x 7,026,200

BRSP 16 WY 492,081 186,300 2% 9 2.0x 372,600


SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)


ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


SAGS 16 AZ 4,062,460 343,000 11% 5 1.1x 377,300

SAGS 16 CO 6,088,990 583,900 18% 5 1.1x 642,300

SAGS 16 ID 35,188 2,400 <1% 7 1.5x 3,600

SAGS 16 NM 2,454,612 215,000 7% 7 1.5x 322,500

SAGS 16 UT 13,849,871 2,026,100 64% 6 1.1x 2,228,700

SAGS 16 WY 123,850 10,600 <1% 5 1.1x 11,700




ACRESPOPULATION

ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV

POPULATIONCOMBINED

BBS SCORE

TREND-BASED

OBJECTIVE


SATH 16 AZ 7,293,778 123,800 27% 6 1.1x 136,200

SATH 16 CO 323,201 10,000 2% 6 1.1x 11,000

SATH 16 ID 39,053 2,400 1% 7 1.5x 3,600

SATH 16 NM 4,932,820 69,900 15% 8 1.5x 104,900

SATH 16 NV 1,119 60 <1% 7 1.5x 90

SATH 16 UT 2,977,001 232,100 50% 7 1.5x 348,200

SATH 16 WY 440,348 22,400 5% 5 1.1x 24,600



PRIORITY ACTIONS




development





designated as grouse core areas or not)

• Protect areas with concentration of Sage-Grouse leks (designated core areas especially)





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)


Research/Monitoring NeedsVarious 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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-action-plansplans )

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

LITERATURE CITED


7.55 Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.orgIntermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org

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.

(BCRs 9, 10, 16). Species in bold are Watch List, non-bold are Stewardship species (after Rich et al. 2004)

SPECIES % BREEDING POP. %WINTER POP. PRIMARY HABITAT CONTINENTAL POP. OBJECTIVE

MONITORING NEED*

IMMEDIATE ACTION:

Gunnison Sage-Grouse 100% 100% Sage Increase 100% **

Greater Sage-Grouse 80% 80% Sage Increase 100% Mo2

Bendire’s Thrasher 45% 6% Shrub Increase 100% Mo2

California Condor 41% 41% Cliffs Recovery Plan **

Spotted Owl 20% 20% Conifer Recovery Plan **

MANAGEMENT:

Brewer’s Sparrow 94% 1% Sage Increase 100% **

Pinyon Jay 92% 92% Woodland Increase 100% **

Lewis’s Woodpecker 87% 52% Riparian Maintain/Increase Mo2

Cassin’s Finch 86% 61% Conifer Maintain **

Willow Flycatcher 46% 0% Riparian Increase 50% **

White-throated Swift 38% <1% Canyon Increase 100% Mo2

Rufous Hummingbird 36% 0% Shrub Increase 100% **

Black Swift 29% 0% Waterfall Increase 50% Mo2

Olive-sided Flycatcher 21% 0% Conifer Increase 100% Mo3

Swainson’s Hawk 15% 0% Grassland Maintain/Increase **

Grace’s Warbler 14% 0% Mixed Increase 50% **

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% 0% Woodland Maintain Mo2

Calliope Hummingbird 95% 0% Shrub Maintain/Increase Mo2

Red-naped Sapsucker 95% 9% Mixed Maintain **

Williamson’s Sapsucker 94% 15% Conifer Maintain Mo2

Green-tailed Towhee 92% 2% Shrub Maintain **

Clark’s Nutcracker 89% 89% Conifer Maintain **

Dusky Flycatcher 86% 0% Shrub Maintain **

Sage Sparrow 83% 35% Sage Maintain **

Mountain Bluebird 76% 35% Shrub Maintain **

Gray Vireo 68% 0% Woodland Maintain Mo2

Virginia’s Warbler 62% 0% Woodland Maintain/Increase Mo2

Flammulated Owl 40% 0% Conifer Maintain/Increase Mo1

White-headed Woodpecker 27% 27% Conifer Maintain Mo2

McCown’s Longspur 21% <1% Grassland Maintain/Increase **

*Monitor ing Need ( long-term, cont inental scale) : Mo1 = no trend data; Mo2=imprecise trends; Mo3= inadequate coverage in northern port ion of range; ** = general ly adequate trend monitor ing, but some issues (e.g. bias) may not have been adequately accounted for.

APPENDIX B. LANDBIRD SPECIES OF CONTINENTAL IMPORTANCE IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST AVIFAUNAL BIOME


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

GRASSLAND 2,377,966 2,999 609,000 28,276 98,716 203,465

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND 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 92 - 82,724

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE 1,309,117 9,775 70,021 3 44,135 3,566,527

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST 702,694 4,764 2,796,102 - 39,898 788,257

PINE-OAK WOODLAND 1,813 - 163,797 442 15,012 258,947

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND 6,533,385 216,807 2,572,236 8,367 50,046 950,480

OTHER FOREST - - 496 - 435,152 326,683

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER 116,471 33 238,723 - 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 1 16,040 264,105

WET MEADOW/MARSH 122 104 3 - 16,082 63,321

OTHER WETLAND 2,379 11,682 1,277 - - 91,566

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 48,551 3,494 6,931 366 3,074 122,923

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS - - - - - -

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND 7 - - - - 54

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 2,092,347 123,181 188,235 107 44,138 705,723

SUBTOTALS 21,650,619 1,240,083 7,601,045 155,496 1,569,715 9,937,409

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

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND 284,806 82,956 - 35,238 2,854,111 314,605

OTHER SHRUB 5,908 2 3,939,252 - 172,248 48,689

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH - - 111,076 111,976 1,864,853 489,432

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE 414,919 20 215,372 1,545,047 3,967,301 12,582,661

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST 48,349 19,123 - 51 2,543,851 436,010

PINE-OAK WOODLAND 7,754 70,623 - - 1 1

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND 52,137 - 206,721 147,953 5,050,388 573,691

OTHER FOREST 537,404 90,507 7,532 4,670 1,800,544 218,129

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER 2,351,132 16,267 227 141 1,668,423 371,083

SPRUCE-FIR - - 199 4,531,111 216,043

ASPEN WOODLAND 10,556 - 166 6,097 3,298,573 669,752

WATER 395,366 29,514 4,675 4,590 142,849

WET MEADOW/MARSH 46,690 2,221 124 39 483,136 89,180

OTHER WETLAND 2 - 269 5,600 11,266 13,901

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 12,783 5,305 1,878 9,361 204,391 400,109

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS - - - - 426 -

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND - - - 30 695,606 29,062

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 374,273 43,958 373,190 122,119 2,628,157 2,264,824

SUBTOTALS 4,714,272 488,673 4,862,354 2,304,143 36,271,461 27,275,425



COVER TYPE ID-10 ID-16 MT-10 MT-17 NM-16 NM-34

SPRUCE-FIR 32,456 - 52,307 - - 11,520

AGRICULTURAL 359,548 1,573 1,439,221 4,725 254,209 2,759

GRASSLAND 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

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH 448 25 71 4 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

PINE-OAK WOODLAND - - - - 3,602 194,968

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND 35,800 3,369 51,402 83 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 14 378,115 18,800

ASPEN WOODLAND 499,654 83,715 308,171 159 305,473 97,515

WATER 281,686 68 376,204 123 82,068 522

WET MEADOW/MARSH 828,638 679 1,012,187 1,260 35,527 1,421

OTHER WETLAND 19,038 1 18,478 34 10,511 411

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 447,233 2,679 661,244 4,747 298,144 18,242

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS 77 - 75 - - -

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND 90,189 2,743 196,069 161 21,531 3,479

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 1,236,789 1,383 2,174,934 3,331 1,650,158 119,744

SUBTOTALS 25,981,036 223,927 30,115,971 59,611 32,698,155 6,860,774



COVER TYPE NM-35 NV-9 NV-15 NV-16 NV-33 OR-5

AGRICULTURAL 311,874 507,743 15,389 - 10,259 408

GRASSLAND 8,167,031 1,826,679 5,216 - 4,584 23,139

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND 170,463 634,892 13,147 2,248 19,888 -

OTHER SHRUB 8,759,971 1,632,004 - 36,622 5,690,249 11,989

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH 413,430 14,649,557 877 955 1,874,238 -

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE 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 11 - - - 309

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND 1,583,862 8,491,827 34,800 27,048 305,284 -

OTHER FOREST 24,228 133,306 37,181 23,480 537,035

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER 8,524 65,886 534 35 35,696 486,816

SPRUCE-FIR 3,229 90,173 - - - 18,738

ASPEN WOODLAND 7,556 348,207 51 - - -

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 0 165,443 203

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 124,879 277,952 8,751 - 26,872 32,381


RIPARIAN SHUBLAND 194 754 557 - - -

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 869,461 2,704,212 7,386 577,223 34,664

SUBTOTALS 21,504,486 60,937,273 236,924 71,405 9,500,582 1,199,992



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 -

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND 101,531 326,086 293,860 5,990 1,681,893 -

OTHER SHRUB 54,978 14,612 10,193 - 2,787,461 107,165

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH 595,045 14,586 5,385,170 9,594 2,915,812 2,383

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE 13,425,926 3,615,581 3,856,752 541,096 5,331,320 75

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST 2,202,132 1,276,978 608 63 500,301 -

PINE-OAK WOODLAND 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 89 116,093 14

OTHER WETLAND 612,075 15,426 2,779,649 3,181 1,288 87

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 223,208 242,907 95,419 58,860 297,989 58


RIPARIAN SHUBLAND 15,162 18,142 671 - 72,798 -

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 1,714,284 682,418 1,693,878 31,549 5,429,967 4,543

SUBTOTALS 28,464,040 13,292,230 21,087,290 753,542 32,415,246 114,826



COVER TYPE WA-5 WA-9 WA-10 WY-9 WY-10 WY-16

AGRICULTURAL 81 7,515,645 125,161 3,491 1,106,479 52,786

GRASSLAND 1,051 1,741,954 837,005 244 1,442,870 264,617

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND 280 38,327 168,005 103 224,211 53,319

OTHER SHRUB 16,403 229,304 27,101 146 330,681 107,556

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH - 24,317 97 4,612,398 3,317

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE 8 4,745,575 130,197 1,362 18,984,506 691,579

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST 49 678,919 420,655 9,635 420,530 148,545

PINE-OAK WOODLAND - 155,004 - - - -

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND 24,944 5,501 3 850,482 162,442

OTHER FOREST 34,924 371,737 370,595 638 2,321,830 516,695

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER 102,744 2,262,040 2,821,266 86 85,851 47,745

SPRUCE-FIR 166,488 1,332,591 81,411 5,061 2,319,330 110,819

ASPEN WOODLAND - 24,608 3,127 3,017 372,334 71,106

WATER 1,603 340,836 81,103 3 329,038 4,135

WET MEADOW/MARSH 1,135 29,026 66,470 1,810 625,654 550

OTHER WETLAND 84 15,910 1,195 71 633,249 51,120

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 1,863 148,915 47,765 455 520,544 25,178


RIPARIAN SHUBLAND - 10,574 159 89 44,981 -

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 12,098 1,282,581 514,065 1,496 4,320,388 9,981

SUBTOTALS 338,812 20,972,808 5,700,879 27,710 39,545,356 2,321,490



Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org


COVER TYPE WY-17 WY-18

AGRICULTURAL 180,409 653,568

GRASSLAND 934,905 1,892,076

MOUNTAIN SHRUBLAND 7,258 34,720

OTHER SHRUB 5 183

GREASEWOOD/SALTBUSH 157,363 36,039

SAGEBRUSH STEPPE 880,622 208,376

DRY PONDEROSA/FIR FOREST 2,078 2,380

PINE-OAK WOODLAND - -

JUNIPER/PINE WOODLAND 84,915 21,399

OTHER FOREST - 16

MID-ELEVATION MIXED CONIFER 5 418

SPRUCE-FIR 18 -

ASPEN WOODLAND 6 V

WATER 17,685 7,126

WET MEADOW/MARSH 4

OTHER WETLAND 26,501 11,182

RIPARIAN WOODLAND 41,229 30,754

RIPARIAN HERBACEOUS - -

RIPARIAN SHUBLAND - 10

OTHER/UNVEGETATED 212,397 130,213

SUBTOTALS 2,545,396 3,028,462

7.63 Intermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.orgIntermountain West Joint Venture | C o n s e r v i n g H a b i t a t T h ro u g h P a r t n e r s h i p s | www.iwjv.org7.63

VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES

2 CRP Agriculture

11 Pasture/Hay Agriculture

12 Cultivated Cropland Agriculture

13 High Structure Agriculture Agriculture

441 Agriculture 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

84 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 Aspen

52 California Montane Jeffrey Pine Woodland Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

71 Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

72 Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

77 Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

208 Northwestern Great Plains - Black Hills Ponderosa Pine Woodland and

Savanna

Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

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

APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY 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

43 Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and Savanna Juniper/Pine Woodland

68 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




473 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Juniper/Pine Woodland

525 Juniper Juniper/Pine Woodland

538 Pinyon-Juniper Juniper/Pine Woodland

44 East Cascades Mesic Montane Mixed-Conifer Forest and Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

46 Klamath-Siskiyou Lower Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

47 Klamath-Siskiyou Upper Montane Serpentine Mixed Conifer Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

49 Mediterranean California Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

53 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

56 North Pacific Dry Douglas-fir-(Madrone) Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

58 North Pacific Maritime Dry-Mesic Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

63 Mediterranean California Mixed Evergreen Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

65 Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

67 Northern Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

70 Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and

Woodland

Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

80 Sierran-Intermontane Desert Western White Pine-White Fir Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

82 North Pacific Dry-Mesic Silver Fir-Western Hemlock-Douglas-fir Forest Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

89 North Pacific Lowland Mixed Hardwood-Conifer Forest and Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

207 Southern Rocky Mountain Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and

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

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




531 Montane Chaparral Mountain Shrubland

556 Marine Open Water

39 Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna Other Forest

59 North Pacific Maritime Mesic Subalpine Parkland Other Forest

60 North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest Other Forest

61 North Pacific Mountain Hemlock Forest Other Forest

62 North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Other Forest

64 Northern California Mesic Subalpine Woodland Other Forest

78 Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Other Forest

88 North Pacific Wooded Volcanic Flowage Other Forest

144 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Treed Other Forest

151 Recently burned forest Other Forest

155 Harvested forest-tree regeneration Other Forest

200 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Other Forest

209 California Coastal Closed-Cone Conifer Forest and Woodland Other Forest

210 California Coastal Redwood Forest Other Forest

214 Mediterranean California Mesic Serpentine Woodland and Chaparral Other Forest

220 North Pacific Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Other Forest

221 North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock

Forest

Other Forest

312 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Other Forest

314 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Other Forest

337 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland Other Forest

410 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland Other Forest

411 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Other Forest

412 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine Woodland Other Forest

435 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland Other Forest


510 Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress Other Forest

528 Lodgepole Pine Other Forest

532 Montane Hardwood Other Forest

533 Montane Hardwood-Conifer Other Forest

540 Red Fir Other Forest

545 Subalpine Conifer Other Forest

558 Redwood Other Forest

561 Unknown Conifer Type Other Forest

86 North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland Other Shrub


531 Montane Chaparral Mountain Shrubland

556 Marine Open Water

39 Northern Rocky Mountain Western Larch Savanna Other Forest

59 North Pacific Maritime Mesic Subalpine Parkland Other Forest

60 North Pacific Maritime Mesic-Wet Douglas-fir-Western Hemlock Forest Other Forest

61 North Pacific Mountain Hemlock Forest Other Forest

62 North Pacific Mesic Western Hemlock-Silver Fir Forest Other Forest

64 Northern California Mesic Subalpine Woodland Other Forest

78 Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Other Forest

88 North Pacific Wooded Volcanic Flowage Other Forest

144 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Treed Other Forest

151 Recently burned forest Other Forest

155 Harvested forest-tree regeneration Other Forest

200 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Other Forest

209 California Coastal Closed-Cone Conifer Forest and Woodland Other Forest

210 California Coastal Redwood Forest Other Forest

214 Mediterranean California Mesic Serpentine Woodland and Chaparral Other Forest

220 North Pacific Hypermaritime Sitka Spruce Forest Other Forest

221 North Pacific Hypermaritime Western Red-cedar-Western Hemlock

Forest

Other Forest

312 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Other Forest

314 Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Other Forest

337 Sierra Nevada Subalpine Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodland Other Forest

410 Rocky Mountain Bigtooth Maple Ravine Woodland Other Forest

411 Inter-Mountain Basins Subalpine Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland Other Forest


435 Mediterranean California Red Fir Forest and Woodland Other Forest


510 Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress Other Forest

528 Lodgepole Pine Other Forest

532 Montane Hardwood Other Forest

533 Montane Hardwood-Conifer Other Forest

540 Red Fir Other Forest

545 Subalpine Conifer Other Forest

558 Redwood Other Forest

561 Unknown Conifer Type Other Forest

86 North Pacific Broadleaf Landslide Forest and Shrubland Other Shrub




93 North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland, Fell-field and

Meadow

Other Shrub

99 North Pacific Avalanche Chute Shrubland Other Shrub

100 North Pacific Montane Shrubland Other Shrub

103 California Montane Woodland and Chaparral Other Shrub

104 California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral Other Shrub

106 Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral Other Shrub

108 Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland Other Shrub

109 Northern Rocky Mountain Avalanche Chute Shrubland Other Shrub

132 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field Other Shrub

142 Ruderal Upland - Old Field Other Shrub

145 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Shrub Other Shrub

153 Recently burned shrubland Other Shrub

156 Harvested forest-shrub regeneration Other Shrub

203 Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra/Fell-field/Dwarf-shrub Map Unit Other Shrub

219 North Pacific Hypermaritime Shrub and Herbaceous Headland Other Shrub

225 Northern California Coastal Scrub Other Shrub

407 North American Warm Desert Wash Other Shrub

424 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub Other Shrub

425 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub Other Shrub

451 Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub Other Shrub

455 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub Other Shrub

456 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub Other Shrub

458 Coahuilan Chaparral Other Shrub

459 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland Other Shrub

469 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub Other Shrub

470 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub Other Shrub

471 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland Other Shrub

475 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Other Shrub

477 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland Other Shrub

479 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub Other Shrub

501 Alkali Desert Scrub Other Shrub

514 Desert Scrub Other Shrub

524 Joshua Tree Other Shrub

551 Chamise-Redshank Chaparral Other Shrub

552 Coastal Scrub Other Shrub

553 Desert Succulent Shrub Other Shrub


93 North Pacific Dry and Mesic Alpine Dwarf-Shrubland, Fell-field and

Meadow

Other Shrub

99 North Pacific Avalanche Chute Shrubland Other Shrub

100 North Pacific Montane Shrubland Other Shrub

103 California Montane Woodland and Chaparral Other Shrub

104 California Xeric Serpentine Chaparral Other Shrub

106 Northern and Central California Dry-Mesic Chaparral Other Shrub

108 Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Deciduous Shrubland Other Shrub

109 Northern Rocky Mountain Avalanche Chute Shrubland Other Shrub

132 Rocky Mountain Alpine Fell-Field Other Shrub

142 Ruderal Upland - Old Field Other Shrub

145 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Shrub Other Shrub

153 Recently burned shrubland Other Shrub

156 Harvested forest-shrub regeneration Other Shrub

203 Rocky Mountain Alpine Tundra/Fell-field/Dwarf-shrub Map Unit Other Shrub

219 North Pacific Hypermaritime Shrub and Herbaceous Headland Other Shrub

225 Northern California Coastal Scrub Other Shrub

407 North American Warm Desert Wash Other Shrub

424 Mojave Mid-Elevation Mixed Desert Scrub Other Shrub

425 Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage Desert Scrub Other Shrub

451 Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub Other Shrub

455 Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub Other Shrub

456 Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub Other Shrub

458 Coahuilan Chaparral Other Shrub

459 Colorado Plateau Blackbrush-Mormon-tea Shrubland Other Shrub

469 Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub Other Shrub

470 Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Desert Scrub Other Shrub

471 Southern Colorado Plateau Sand Shrubland Other Shrub

475 Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland Other Shrub

477 Western Great Plains Sandhill Shrubland Other Shrub

479 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub Other Shrub

501 Alkali Desert Scrub Other Shrub

514 Desert Scrub Other Shrub

524 Joshua Tree Other Shrub

551 Chamise-Redshank Chaparral Other Shrub

552 Coastal Scrub Other Shrub

553 Desert Succulent Shrub Other Shrub




560 Unknown Shrub Type Other Shrub

15 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

3 Developed, Open Space Other Habitats

4 Developed, Low Intensity Other Habitats

5 Developed, Medium Intensity Other Habitats

6 Developed, High Intensity Other Habitats

8 Quarries, Mines and Gravel Pits Other Habitats

9 Unconsolidated Shore Other Habitats

14 Western Great Plains Badland Other Habitats

16 North Pacific Alpine and Subalpine Bedrock and Scree Other Habitats

18 Rocky Mountain Cliff, Canyon and Massive Bedrock Other Habitats

19 North American Alpine Ice Field Other Habitats




22 North Pacific Volcanic Rock and Cinder Land Other Habitats

23 Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop Other Habitats

25 North Pacific Montane Massive Bedrock, Cliff and Talus Other Habitats

27 North Pacific Serpentine Barren Other Habitats

31 Klamath-Siskiyou Cliff and Outcrop Other Habitats

35 Columbia Plateau Ash and Tuff Badland Other Habitats

41 Western Great Plains Dry Bur Oak Forest and Woodland Other Habitats

92 Mediterranean California Alpine Fell-Field Other Habitats

94 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 – 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




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

38 North Pacific Oak Woodland Pine-Oak Woodlands

50 Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland Pine-Oak Woodlands

51 Mediterranean California Lower Montane Black Oak-Conifer Forest and

Woodland

Pine-Oak Woodlands

83 East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and Woodland Pine-Oak Woodlands

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 Recently Burned Agriculture

613 Recently Burned Aspen Recently Burned Aspen

602 Recently Burned Grassland Recently Burned Grassland

605 Recently Burned Greasewood/Saltbush Recently Burned Greasewood/Saltbush

610 Recently Burned Juniper/Pine Woodlands Recently Burned Juniper/Pine Woodlands

611 Recently Burned Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer Recently Burned Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer

603 Recently Burned Mountain Shrubland Recently Burned Mountain Shrubland




607 Recently Burned Other Forest Recently Burned Other Forest

604 Recently Burned Other Shrub Recently Burned Other Shrub

616 Recently Burned Other Wetland Recently Burned Other Wetland

620 Recently Burned Other/Unvegetated Recently Burned Other/Unvegetated

612 Recently Burned Spruce-Fir Recently Burned Spruce-Fir

615 Recently Burned Wet Meadow/Marsh Recently Burned Wet Meadow/Marsh

608 Recently Burned Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest Recently Burned Dry Ponderosa/Fir Forest

609 Recently Burned Pine Oak Woodlands Recently Burned Pine Oak Woodlands

618 Recently Burned Riparian Herbaceous Recently Burned Riparian Herbaceous

617 Recently Burned Riparian Woodland Recently Burned Riparian Woodland

606 Recently Burned Sagebrush Steppe Recently Burned Sagebrush Steppe

474 Western Great Plains Floodplain Herbaceous Wetland Riparian Herbaceous

329 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland Riparian Shrubland

87 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

Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

170 Columbia Basin Foothill Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Riparian Woodland

195 Mediterranean California Serpentine Foothill and Lower Montane

Riparian Woodland and Seep

Riparian Woodland

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

Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

430 North American Warm Desert Lower Montane Riparian Woodland and

Shrubland

Riparian Woodland

431 North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Riparian Woodland

620 Recently Burned Other/Unvegetated 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 Roads




90 Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Sagebrush Steppe

95 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

95 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

54 Mediterranean California Subalpine Woodland Spruce-fir

66 Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine Woodland and Parkland Spruce-fir

74 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


STATES BCR BTPI BETH BRSP FEHA FLOW GRWA GRSP GRFL GRVI LEWO LBCU OSFL PIJA

AZ 16 A A P P P A P A P P A

AZ 33 A A P A P P P P P P

AZ 34 A A P P P A P A A P A

AZ 35 A A P A A A P

CA 5 A P P P A

CA 9 P P P P P P P A P

CA 15 P A P P A P A P

CA 32 A P A A A

CA 33 P P P P P P P A A

CO 10 P A A P P P A P

CO 16 P P P P P P P P P P P P

ID 9 A P P P P P P A P

ID 10 A P P P P P A P

ID 16 A A P P P P A A

MT 10 A P P P * P P A P

MT 17 A P A A A A A

NM 16 P P P P P A P P P P A P

NM 34 A P P P A P P P P P P

NM 35 A P P P P P P P P P P

NV 9 P P P P P P P P P P P A P

NV 15 A A A A A A A

NV 16 A A A A A A A A

NV 33 P P P P P P P P P P P

OR 5 A P P P P P A

OR 9 P P P P P P P P A P

OR 10 P A P P P P P P A P

UT 9 P P A A P P P P P P A P

UT 10 A A P P A A A A P

UT 16 P P A P P P P P P P P A P

UT 33 A A A A A P P A A A

WA 5 A A P P P A A

WA 9 P A P P P P P P A

WA 10 A P P P P A P A

WY 9 A A A A A

WY 10 A P P P P P P P P

WY 16 A A P P P P P P P

WY 18 A A P P P P

A = Al l of polygon is within species’ breeding range; P = partAn aster isk indicates known range outside of the Nature Serve mapped rangeGreen = outside the mapped range, but PIF had a populat ion est imate.

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

AZ 16 A P P A P A 8 9 0 17

AZ 33 A P P A A 6 9 1 16

AZ 34 P P A P A 8 8 2 18

AZ 35 A A A 8 2 4 14

CA 5 P P A A A 5 5 3 13

CA 9 P P P P A P P A 3 14 0 17

CA 15 P P A A A 6 7 2 15

CA 32 P P A A A 7 3 2 12

CA 33 P P P A P P A 4 12 0 16

CO 10 A P A A P A 7 7 0 14

CO 16 A P P A P A 3 15 1 19

ID 9 P P P P A P P A 4 13 0 17

ID 10 P P P P A P A 4 11 0 15

ID 16 A A A A A 9 3 6 18

MT 10 A P * P A A 5 8 2 15

MT 17 A A A A 10 1 0 11

NM 16 P P P A P A 4 14 1 19

NM 34 P P A P A 4 12 0 16

NM 35 P A P A 3 12 1 16

NV 9 P P P P A P P A 3 18 0 21

NV 15 A P A P A A 11 2 2 15

NV 16 A P A A 11 1 3 15

NV 33 P P P A P A 2 15 0 17

OR 5 A A A P A 6 6 1 13

OR 9 P P P A A P A 4 13 0 17

OR 10 P A P P A P A 5 12 0 17

UT 9 A A A A P A 8 10 0 18

UT 10 A A A A P A 11 4 0 15

UT 16 A A A A P A 7 12 0 19

UT 33 A A A A P A 13 3 0 16

WA 5 A A A P A 8 4 0 12

WA 9 P A P P A P A 5 11 0 16

WA 10 A A P A P A 7 7 0 14

WY 9 A A A A 9 0 4 13

WY 10 P P P A A P A 4 12 0 16

WY 16 P P A A A 5 9 1 15

WY 17 P P A A 5 8 1 14

WY 18 P P A A 4 6 0 10

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


SPECIES AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM OR UT WA WY

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

(RNSA) 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 3.2 -0.5 2.9 0.8 -1.2

VIWA -2.1 - -2.5 - - - -0.3 - 1.6 - -

WHWO - 1.9 - - - - - 1.9 - 4.0 -

(WIFL) 14.9 30.9 0.9 -1.5 -0.6 - -5.0 -4.9 1.5 -1.1 0.2

Species Codes:BTPI: Band-tailed Pigeon

BETH: Bendire’s Thrasher

BRSP: Brewer’s Sparrow

FEHA: Ferruginous Hawk

FLOW: Flammulated Owl

GRWA: Grace’s Warbler

GRSP: Grasshopper Sparrow

GRFL: Gray Flycatcher

GRVI: Gray Vireo

LEWO: Lewis’s Woodpecker

LBCU: Long-billed Curlew

OSFL: Olive-sided Flycatcher

PIJA: Pinyon Jay

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

RUHU: Rufous Hummingbird

SAGS: Sage Sparrow

SATH: Sage Thrasher

SWHA: Swainson’s Hawk

VIWA: Virginia’s Warbler

WHWO: White-headed Woodpecker

WIFL: Willow(/Alder) Flycatcher

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.

IncreasesDecrease


BCR 9 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (4,120,962 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: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)

• 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


• 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

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

Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning

process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)

• Eastern Oregon, Washington; ne California, nw Nevada


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

Highest Priority Species: • Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain)


Major Threats/Issues: • Encroachment by conifers

• Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock

• 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




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


• Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%)

• Rufous Hummingbird (increase 100%)

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

• 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.




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%)


• 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

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain current distribution of pinyon anda limber pine

stands

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




BCR 9 Habitat: Pine-Oak Woodlands (551,490 acres)

Highest Priority Species: • Band-tailed Pigeon (increase 100%)


Major Threats/Issues: • Loss of oak habitat due to residential development

• Altered fire regimes combined with encroachment by conifers

Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • 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






BCR 9 Habitat: Mixed Coniferous Forest (4,797,373 acres)

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

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

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

• Even-aged timber management

• Some managed areas might be population sinks

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




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



• White-headed Woodpecker (maintain)

Major Threats/Issues:• Out-of-balance age distribution and structure












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

















BCR 10 Habitat: Riparian Woodlands (1,987,875 acres)



• Rufous Hummingbird (increase 100%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Altered flow regimes



• Exotics: particularly Russian olive


no net loss






• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS

BCR 10 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (2,687,612 acres)

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





Primary Conservation Actions Needed:

• Maintain current distribution of pinyon and limber pine stands





• Wyoming, eastern Oregon



• (Black Swift – maintain)

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



• Black Swifts: climate change/dewatering of high elevation sites


forest landscapes






• Known Black Swift nesting colonies: monitor and protect as necessary



BCR 16 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (6,870,642 acres)



• Grace’s Warbler (increase 50%)

• Band-tailed Pigeon (increase 100%)

Major Threats/Issues: • Out-of-balance age distribution and structure


























• Western Colorado, northeastern Utah

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



Major Threats/Issues: • Altered flow regimes



• Exotics: particularly Russian olive


no net loss








• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS

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

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

• Gray Vireo (maintain)

• Gray Flycatcher (maintain)





Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain current distribution of pinyon and limber pine

stands





• Primarily in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico

BCR 16 Habitat: Mountain Shrubland (5,003,882 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






• (Black Swift – maintain)

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



• Black Swifts: climate change/dewatering of high elevation sites


forest landscapes



• Protect known swift nesting colonies from excessive

• recreational pressure




• Known Black Swift nesting colonies: monitor and protect as necessary



APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES

BAND-TAILED PIGEON

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

BENDIRE’S THRASHER


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


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

FERRUGINOUS HAWK


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW


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


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


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

GRACE’S WARBLER


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


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

LONG-BILLED CURLEW


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER


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


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


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD


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


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

SAGE THRASHER


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

SWAINSON’S HAWK


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


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


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5

WILLOW/ALDER FLYCATCHER


Less than -1.5

-1.5 to -0.25

> -0.25 to 0.25

> 0.25 to +1.5

Greater than +1.5



iwjv 2013 implementation plan chapter 7: landbirds

Documents

iwjv habitat type

r t n e r s h i p s

species prioritization

t t h ro u g h p

sagebrush objectives

grassland objectives

habitat classification

pif state plans