Upload
my-digital-nature
View
223
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Similar to the other three “bird” chapters, Chapter 7, Landbirds, identifies priority species and steps population and habitat objectives down from continental goals and objectives defined in the National Landbird Conservation Plan. A total 21 focal landbirds were chosen to set regional habitat-based population objectives.
Citation preview
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
7.3 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
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
7.4 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
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
7.5 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
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
SPECIES PRIORITIZATION
7.6 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
SPECIES PIF BMC SWAP # WATCH LIST PRIMARY HABITAT JUSTIFICATION
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.
SPECIES PRIORITIZATION
7.7 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
SPECIES PIF BMC SWAP # WATCH LIST PRIMARY HABITAT JUSTIFICATION
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.
SPECIES PRIORITIZATION
7.8 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
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)
SPECIES PRIORITIZATION
7.9 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
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
7.10 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
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
HABITAT PRIORITIZATION & CHARACTERIZATION
7.11 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
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.
HABITAT PRIORITIZATION & CHARACTERIZATION
7.12 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
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.
7.13 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
Table 4 Summed adjusted PIF population estimates, trend-based objective multipliers, and preliminary population objectives for focal landbird species in the IWJV, compiled from step-down estimates from the PIF Continental Plan. The Long-billed Curlew figures are from the N. American Shorebird Plan and the Long-billed Curlew Conservation Plan (Fellows and Jones 2009). The delta column is the (%) difference between our adjusted estimates and the original summed PIF estimates for BCR-state polygons in the IWJV; X is the trend-based multiplier.
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%
7.14 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
These BCR trend-based objectives offer a starting point for the development of regional habitat-based conservation approaches. Continental objectives might be inappropriate at smaller scales, however, if differences in population trends are occurring at those scales or if regional habitat trends differ substantially from continental trends. For example, a species might be stable at the continental level, but performing poorly enough in one habitat or physiographic area that declines are evident. Building objectives to stem local declines may be necessary to maintain stable populations at the larger scale over the long term. One way to approach setting regional objectives is to use locally-derived trend data to develop local population (and hence habitat) objectives. We compared continental trends to trends within the three primary BCRs comprising the IWJV (BCRs 9, 10, and 16) for a variety of focal species. In addition, we compiled state trends for our focal species (Appendix E). Clearly, if a species has shown significant declines at both the BCR and state level, then a priority for that BCR-State polygon should be to maximize conservation efforts (habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration) toward an objective of stopping and reversing those declines. Furthermore, if declines are shown by several species using similar habitats we know that we will need to use our decision support tools (e.g., the HABPOPS model) to assess the
amount and type of habitat treatment that might be needed to reach trend objectives, or indeed whether it appears that they can be reached. Use of HABPOPS will also allow us to optimize strategies to meet the needs of species with compatible or conflicting habitats or conditions. The following groupings (Tables 5-11) represent suites of species or habitats where we have used the comparison of regional and continental BBS trends for focal species to set a logical starting point for BCR-state population and habitat objectives.
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
7.15 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
We have combined the BCR and state trend data into an index to develop maps of conservation opportunity to highlight specific geographies for conservation (which also help define trend-based objectives at the BCR/State polygon level). Fig. 4 includes three such maps, for our sagebrush-dependent focal species. The scores used to develop these maps come directly from the PIF Species Assessment Database population trend scores
(PT-r), 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
BBS Scores12345678910
Combined State and BCR BBS trends: Sage Sparrow
BBS Scores12345678910
7.16 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
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
Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N
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
7.17 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
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
7.18 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
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
BBS Scores12345678910
Grasshopper Sparrow
BBS Scores12345678910
Swainson’s Hawk
BBS Scores12345678910
Long-billed Curlew
BBS Scores12345678910
7.19 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
Figure 6 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.
Pinyon Jay
BBS Scores12345678910
Gray Flycatcher
BBS Scores
12345678910
Gray Vireo
BBS Scores
12345678910
7.20 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
Figure 7 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.
Band-tailed PigeonOlive-sided Flycatcher
BBS Scores
BBS Scores
12345678910
12345678910
Lewis’s Woodpecker
BBS Scores12345678910
White-headed Woodpecker
BBS Scores12345678910
7.21 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
Figure 8 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.
Rufous Hummingbird
BBS Scores12345678910
Red-naped Sapsucker
BBS Scores12345678910
Willow Flycatcher
BBS Scores
12345678910
7.22 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
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
Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N
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
Trend P N Trend P N Trend P N
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
7.23 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
BIRD POPULATION (STEP-DOWN) OBJECTIVES
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
BBS Scores12345678910
Virginia’s Warbler
BBS Scores12345678910
Grace’s Warbler
BBS Scores12345678910
7.24 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
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)
7.25 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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 BCR 10 in IWJV 2,690,000 2,808,458 21,822,400
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
Brewer’s Sparrow BCR 16 in IWJV 1,746,400 1,739,645 7,913,200
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
7.26 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
Table 11 Continued. Comparison of stepped-down Partners in Flight population estimates, IWJV corrected step-down estimates, and NWReGAP habitat-based bottom-up population estimates for three sagebrush-obligate priority landbird species in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 within the IWJV.
SPECIES BCR STATE PIF ESTIMATE IWJV CORRECTED HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE
Sage Sparrow 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
7.27 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
SPECIES BCR STATE PIF ESTIMATE IWJV CORRECTED HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE
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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
Table 12 gives us an idea of the order of magnitude of habitat improvement to increase populations of target species. In the case of the Brewer’s Sparrow, it would take treating a minimum of 15 million acres to achieve a doubling of the population in Oregon and Washington alone over the next 30 years, given our assumptions regarding habitat condition. It is at this point we must decide whether doubling the populations of species that
have undergone serious declines is feasible, and if not, at what level we should set our objectives. Multiple iterations of scenario testing with HABPOPS, with review by key partners with knowledge of the realistic possibilities to manage large acreages, will be necessary to refine habitat objectives (and hence bottom-up, habitat-based, rather than trend-based population objectives).
Table 12 Examples of estimated population response of three sagebrush-obligate species to habitat enhancement in selected sagebrush habitats in eastern Oregon and Washington. All values are the number of additional individual birds expected by moving 100 ha (247 ac) of habitat from one condition class to another (e.g. poor condition to fair condition).
SPECIES ACRES POOR TO FAIR FAIR TO GOOD POOR TO GOOD
Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Brewer’s Sparrow 247 -16 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).
7.29 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.30 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.31 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.32 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.33 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.34 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.35 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
SPECIES BCR STATE PIF ESTIMATE IWJV CORRECTED HABITAT-BASED ESTIMATE
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 BCR 10 in IWJV 107,300 96,429 41,000
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
Grasshopper Sparrow BCR 16 in IWJV 35,400 35,350 5,240
7.36 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
The Long-billed Curlew was not addressed in the PIF Continental Plan because it is a shorebird species. However, it is reasonably monitored by BBS in terms of sample size, and if a population objective was to be applied based on the PIF process, Long-billed Curlew would have a trend-based objective to increase the population by 50% based on its declining trend of -1.3% per year (P =0.14).
The U.S. Shorebird Plan (Brown et al. 2001) originally proposed an objective to increase the population of Long-billed Curlew by 30% from 20,000 to 28,500. A subsequent plan (Fellows and Jones 2009) revised the population estimate to approximately 160,000, but did not specifically retain the objective to increase the population by 30%. Our analysis nevertheless was aimed at testing whether a 30% increase is reasonable or achievable, and at finding ways to highlight those landscapes with the most potential for conservation success. Our bottom-up estimate of Long-billed Curlew populations in BCRs 9, 10 and 16 (239,200; see Priority Actions section) exceeded the continental estimate (161,181; range 120,882 – 549,351) of Fellows and Jones (2009).
Habitat 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.
7.37 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
We assessed the effects of the following scenarios, alone and in combination, for both Grasshopper Sparrow and Long-billed Curlew:
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.
7.38 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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
7.39 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
Figure 16 Grasshopper Sparrow habitat model, BCRs 9, 10 and 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to an index of the current estimated carrying capacity (estimated % occupancy) x (density) for the mapped vegetative associations.
7.40 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
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.
7.41 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
HABITAT-BASED (BOTTOM-UP) OBJECTIVE SETTING & TARGETING LANDSCAPES
Figure 17 Long-billed Curlew habitat model, BCRs 9,10 and 16 in the IWJV. Colors correspond to an index of the current estimated carrying capacity (estimated % occupancy) x (density) for the mapped vegetative associations in our HABPOPS model.
7.42 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
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)
7.43 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
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)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 4,705,160 251,300 100% (1.9x) 466,400
FERRUGINOUS HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SWAINSON’S HAWK (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
Major Threats/Issues:
• Fragmentation, especially from energy exploration and development
• Tilling: Conversion to cropland (and retirement of CRP enrollments)
• Residential development in intermountain valleys
• Invasive exotics, notably cheatgrass, and the role of grazing in decreasing native cover
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect the largest remaining blocks within
Long-billed Curlew model (see Fig. 17)
• Utilize Farm Bill opportunities: native CRP, Grassland Reserves, incentives within Grasshopper Sparrow model (see Fig. 16).
• 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
7.44 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
PRIORITY ACTIONS
Highest Priority Species:BREWER’S SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
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%)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
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.
7.45 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
PRIORITY ACTIONS
SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SPECIES BCR STATE OCCUPIED ACRES
POPULATION ESTIMATE
% BCR IWJV POPULATION
COMBINED BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED OBJECTIVE
POPULATION OBJECTIVE
SATH 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 81,230,586 5,148,930 100% (1.1x) 7,615,900
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)
7.46 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
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.
7.47 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
PRIORITY ACTIONS
BCR 10 – Northern Rockies
BCR 10 Habitat: Grassland (7,697,665 acres)Estimated Extent by Condition Class:
1. Poor Condition: 1,542,212 ac
2. Fair Condition: 4,616,590 ac
3. Good Condition: 1,538,863 ac
Highest Priority Species: LONG-BILLED CURLEW (CONTINENTAL OBEJECTIVE: INCREASE 30%)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 3,902,189 47,300 100% (1.3x) 61,600
GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
• Residential development in intermountain valleys
• 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).
7.48 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
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%)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 34,256,271 21,822,400 100% (1.6x) 34,479,900
SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 21,203,596 4,824,100 100% (1.1x) 5,458,800
7.49 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
PRIORITY ACTIONS
SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 17,652,830 1,115,500 100% (1.3x) 1,415,200
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); 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.
• 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):• 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)
7.50 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
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%)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE
% OF BCR IWJV
POPULATION
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
• Residential development in intermountain valleys
• Invasive exotics, particularly cheatgrass
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks
• Utilize Farm Bill in a targeted manner: identify opportunities for native CRP, incentives
• Identify and maintain secure nesting sites for grassland raptors
• Strive for no net loss of grassland
7.51 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
PRIORITY ACTIONS
BCR 16 Habitat: Sagebrush Steppe (12,450,363 acres)
Highest Priority Species: GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE)
GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN/INCREASE)
BREWER’S SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE 100%)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 28,013,532 7,913,200 100% (1.9x) 15,404,400
SAGE SPARROW (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 26,614,971 3,181,000 100% (1.1x) 3,586,100
SAGE THRASHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
SPECIES BCR STATEOCCUPIED
ACRESPOPULATION
ESTIMATE% BCR IWJV
POPULATIONCOMBINED
BBS SCORE
TREND-BASED
OBJECTIVE
POPULATION 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
BCR Totals in IWJV: 16,007,319 460,660 100% (1.4x) 628,590
7.52 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
PRIORITY ACTIONS
Photo by Dan ie l Casey
GRAY FLYCATCHER (CONTINENTAL OBJECTIVE: MAINTAIN)
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)
• Protect areas with concentration of Sage-Grouse leks (designated core areas especially)
• Manage fire, eliminate exotics (enhancement/restoration)
• Restore structure through grazing management
• Maintain 50% of stands in >30-yr old condition wherever feasible
• Incorporate the needs of sage-obligate passerines in management plan and Best Management Practices revisions
Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):• Gunnison Sage-Grouse Conservation (Core) areas as
defined by partners
• Greater Sage-Grouse Coservation (Core) areas as defined by partners
• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)
• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model
Research/Monitoring 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
7.53 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
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
7.54 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
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
7.56 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 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
7.57 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
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
7.58 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
APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR
COVER TYPE ID-10 ID-16 MT-10 MT-17 NM-16 NM-34
SPRUCE-FIR 32,456 - 52,307 - - 11,520
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
7.59 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
APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR
COVER TYPE NM-35 NV-9 NV-15 NV-16 NV-33 OR-5
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 HERBACEOUS - - - - - -
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
7.60 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
APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR
COVER TYPE OR-9 OR-10 UT-9 UT-10 UT-16 UT-33
AGRICULTURAL 2,841,754 412,217 1,284,455 1,276 819,795 276
GRASSLAND 2,226,958 612,423 917,709 1,688 473,052 -
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 HERBACEOUS - - - - - -
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
7.61 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
APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR
COVER TYPE WA-5 WA-9 WA-10 WY-9 WY-10 WY-16
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 HERBACEOUS - - - - - -
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
7.62 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
APPENDIX C. TOTAL ACREAGE BY IWJV HABITAT TYPE BY STATE AND BCR
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
Photo by Dan ie l Casey
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
7.64 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
147 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Annual Grassland Grassland
148 Introduced Upland Vegetation - Perennial Grassland Grassland
152 Recently burned grassland Grassland
211 California Northern Coastal Grassland Grassland
227 Central Mixedgrass Prairie Grassland
327 Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland Grassland
328 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Grassland Grassland
338 North Pacific Montane Grassland Grassland
339 Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland Grassland
452 Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe Grassland
454 Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland Grassland
457 Chihuahuan-Sonoran Desert Bottomland and Swale Grassland Grassland
476 Western Great Plains Sandhill Prairie Grassland
478 Western Great Plains Tallgrass Prairie Grassland
480 Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe Grassland
503 Annual Grassland Grassland
537 Perennial Grassland Grassland
119 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub-Steppe Greasewood/Saltbush
309 Inter-Mountain Basins Wash Greasewood/Saltbush
317 Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland Greasewood/Saltbush
323 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Greasewood/Saltbush
332 Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat Greasewood/Saltbush
426 Sonora-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Greasewood/Saltbush
427 Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe Greasewood/Saltbush
453 Chihuahuan Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Greasewood/Saltbush
515 Desert Wash Greasewood/Saltbush
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
7.65 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
473 Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Juniper/Pine Woodland
525 Juniper Juniper/Pine Woodland
538 Pinyon-Juniper Juniper/Pine Woodland
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
Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
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
Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
415 Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
516 Douglas-Fir Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
518 Eastside Pine Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
523 Jeffrey Pine Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
526 Klamath Mixed Conifer Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
550 White Fir Mid-Elevation Mixed Conifer
107 Northern Rocky Mountain Montane-Foothill Deciduous Shrubland Mountain Shrubland
318 Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland Mountain Shrubland
319 Inter-Mountain Basins Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland Mountain Shrubland
320 Great Basin Semi-Desert Chaparral Mountain Shrubland
420 Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland Mountain Shrubland
423 Mogollon Chaparral Mountain Shrubland
434 Sonora-Mojave-Baja Semi-Desert Chaparral Mountain Shrubland
509 Chamise-Redshank Chaparral Mountain Shrubland
530 Mixed Chaparral Mountain Shrubland
7.66 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
467 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine 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
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
467 Northern Pacific Mesic Subalpine 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
7.67 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
7.68 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
7.69 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
7.70 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
429 Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic Meadow Other Habitats
438 Developed, Open Space - Low Intensity Other Habitats
439 Developed, Medium - High Intensity Other Habitats
440 Barren Lands, Non-specific Other Habitats
442 Disturbed, Non-specific Other Habitats
443 Recently Burned Other Habitats
444 Recently Mined or Quarried Other Habitats
446 Invasive Perennial Grassland Other Habitats
448 Invasive Annual and Biennial Forbland Other Habitats
460 Disturbed, Oil well Other Habitats
461 Invasive Perennial Forbland Other Habitats
468 Recently Logged Areas Other Habitats
502 Alpine-Dwarf Shrub Other Habitats
505 Barren Other Habitats
546 Urban Other Habitats
555 Eucalyptus Other Habitats
557 Palm Oasis Other Habitats
466 Madrean Upper Montane Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland Pine-Oak Woodland
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
7.71 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
7.72 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
APPENDIX D. CROSSWALK OF VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BY IWJV COVER TYPES
VEGETATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IWJV COVER TYPES
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
7.73 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
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
7.74 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
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
7.75 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
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
7.76 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
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
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks
• Work with land trusts to target key habitat areas for protection
• Provide outreach and incentives for snag management (BMPs)
• Clarify the unique habitat features of mature pine and snags in light of extensive mortality in lodgepole pine
• 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
• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model
BCR 9 Habitat: Aspen (1,183,363 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain)
• Flammulated Owl (maintain)
Major Threats/Issues: • Encroachment by conifers
• Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock
• 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
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
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.
Highest Priority Species: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)
• Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%)
• Rufous Hummingbird (increase 100%)
APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16
7.77 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
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.
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
BCR 9 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (14,497,692 acres)Retain large tracts of mature pinyon-juniper and work to ensure a supply of seed-producing pinyon.
Highest Priority Species: • Gray Flycatcher (maintain)
• Pinyon Jay (increase 100%)
Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation: energy exploration and development
• Imbalance in distribution of age classes and stucture: too dense, or canopy removed altogether
• Need to optimize management to balance with the needs of sagebrush birds
• Overgrazed understory, invasive exotics
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
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
BCR 9 Habitat: Pine-Oak Woodlands (551,490 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Band-tailed Pigeon (increase 100%)
• Flammulated Owl (maintain)
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
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
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
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
APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16
7.78 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
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
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
BCR 10 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (6,856,212 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)
• Flammulated Owl (maintain)
• White-headed Woodpecker (maintain)
Major Threats/Issues:• Out-of-balance age distribution and structure
• Residential development of lower elevation forests
• Disrupted fire regime, leading to stand replacement fires
• “Clean” forestry that removes dead and dying trees
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks
• Work with land trusts to target key habitat areas for protection
• Provide outreach and incentives for snag management (BMPs)
• Clarify the unique habitat features of mature pine and snags in light of extensive mortality in lodgepole pine
• 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)
• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model
• Bitterroot Valley, MT; Blue Mountains, OR and WA; northern Idaho
BCR 10 Habitat: Aspen (1,387,711 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain)
• Flammulated Owl (maintain)
Major Threats/Issues: • Encroachment by conifers
• Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock
• 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
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
APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16
7.79 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
BCR 10 Habitat: Riparian Woodlands (1,987,875 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)
• Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%)
• Rufous Hummingbird (increase 100%)
Major Threats/Issues: • Altered flow regimes
• Overgrazing and resultant lack of woody structure/understory
• Clearing/removal of overstory
• Exotics: particularly Russian olive
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Protect and enhance existing stands, with an objective of
no net loss
• Maintain and expand largest blocks of riparian woodland
• Restore dynamic nature of systems through modified flows (watershed groups, irrigators, dam operations)
• Work to maximize efficient and targeted delivery of WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and other Farm Bill programs.
Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning
process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)
• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS
BCR 10 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (2,687,612 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Pinyon Jay (increase 100%)
Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation: energy exploration and development
• Imbalance in distribution of age classes and stucture: too dense, or canopy removed altogether
• Need to optimize management to balance with the needs of sagebrush birds
• Overgrazed understory, invasive exotics
Primary Conservation Actions Needed:
• Maintain current distribution of pinyon and limber pine stands
• Manage for better distribution of age classes by protecting older stands, thinning, targeted burning
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
• Wyoming, eastern Oregon
BCR 10 Habitat: Spruce-Fir Forest (11,772,860 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Olive-sided Flycatcher (increase 100%)
• (Black Swift – maintain)
Major Threats/Issues: • Salvage logging in recently-burned forests
• Even-aged timber management
• Some managed areas might be population sinks
• Black Swifts: climate change/dewatering of high elevation sites
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain snags and emphasize shrub growth in managed
forest landscapes
• Participate in forest plan revision processes to incoporate species needs
• Primarily a public land issue
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
• Known Black Swift nesting colonies: monitor and protect as necessary
APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16
7.80 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
BCR 16 Habitat: Dry Ponderosa Pine/Fir Forest (6,870,642 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)
• Flammulated Owl (maintain)
• Grace’s Warbler (increase 50%)
• Band-tailed Pigeon (increase 100%)
Major Threats/Issues: • Out-of-balance age distribution and structure
• Residential development of lower elevation forests
• Disrupted fire regime, leading to stand replacement fires
• “Clean” forestry that removes dead and dying trees
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Identify and protect largest remaining blocks
• Work with land trusts to target key habitat areas for protection
• Provide outreach and incentives for snag management (BMPs)
• Clarify the unique habitat features of mature pine and snags in light of extensive mortality in lodgepole pine
• 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)
• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS model
BCR 16 Habitat: Aspen (5,584,289 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Red-naped Sapsucker (maintain)
• Flammulated Owl (maintain)
Major Threats/Issues: • Encroachment by conifers
• Clones dying due to grazing by wild ungulates and livestock
• 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
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
• Western Colorado, northeastern Utah
BCR 16 Habitat: Riparian Woodlands (871,243 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Lewis’s Woodpecker (increase 10%)
• Willow Flycatcher (increase 50%)
Major Threats/Issues: • Altered flow regimes
• Overgrazing and resultant lack of woody structure/understory
• Clearing/removal of overstory
• Exotics: particularly Russian olive
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Protect and enhance existing stands, with an objective of
no net loss
• Maintain and expand largest blocks of riparian woodland
• Restore dynamic nature of systems through modified flows (watershed groups, irrigators, dam operations)
• Work to maximize efficient and targeted delivery of WRP, EQIP, WHIP, and other Farm Bill programs.
APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16
7.81 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
Highest Priority Geographies (as refined by HABPOPS model runs):• Selected BHCAs from previous implementation planning
process (partner buy-in; subset by habitat)
• Sites as indicated by HABPOPS
BCR 16 Habitat: Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands (28,553,429 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Pinyon Jay (increase 100%)
• Gray Vireo (maintain)
• Gray Flycatcher (maintain)
Major Threats/Issues: • Fragmentation: energy exploration and development
• Imbalance in distribution of age classes and stucture: too dense, or canopy removed altogether
• Need to optimize management to balance with the needs of sagebrush birds
• Overgrazed understory, invasive exotics
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain current distribution of pinyon and limber pine
stands
• Manage for better distribution of age classes by protecting older stands, thinning, targeted burning
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
• 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
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
BCR 16 Habitat: Spruce-Fir Forest (6,147,771 acres)
Highest Priority Species: • Olive-sided Flycatcher (increase 100%)
• (Black Swift – maintain)
Major Threats/Issues:• Salvage logging in recently-burned forests
• Even-aged timber management
• Some managed areas might be population sinks
• Black Swifts: climate change/dewatering of high elevation sites
Primary Conservation Actions Needed: • Maintain snags and emphasize shrub growth in managed
forest landscapes
• Participate in forest plan revision processes to incoporate species needs
• Primarily a public land issue
• Protect known swift nesting colonies from excessive
• recreational pressure
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
• Known Black Swift nesting colonies: monitor and protect as necessary
APPENDIX G. PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL HABITATS AND FOCAL SPECIES IN BCRS 9, 10 AND 16
7.82 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
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
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
BREWER’S SPARROW
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
FERRUGINOUS HAWK
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
GRASSHOPPER SPARROW
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
GRAY FLYCATCHER
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
7.83 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
GRAY VIREO
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
GRACE’S WARBLER
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
LEWIS’S WOODPECKER
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
LONG-BILLED CURLEW
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
PINYON JAY
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
APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES
7.84 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
RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER
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
RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
SAGE SPARROW
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
SAGE THRASHER
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
SWAINSON’S HAWK
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
VIRGINIA’S WARBLER
Percent Change per Year
Less than -1.5
-1.5 to -0.25
> -0.25 to 0.25
> 0.25 to +1.5
Greater than +1.5
APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES
7.85 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
WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER
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
WILLOW/ALDER FLYCATCHER
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
APPENDIX H. BBS TREND MAPS FOR IWJV FOCAL LANDBIRD SPECIES
7.86 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