Appendix G -- Fluvial Geomorphology and Riparian Issues

CMARP – Fluvial Geomorphology & Riparian Issues Work Group

Preliminary outline for bird monitoring, assessment and research

Nadav Nur, Point Reyes Bird Observatory

Objectives: The proposed monitoring program assumes that CMARP seeks to attain two different types of objectives, differing in scale. The first and foremost is to devise a monitoring program on a regional scale. At this scale, information would be collected that would be used to:

i)Evaluate status of species, populations, communities.

ii)Identify conservation and management needs on a regional scale.

iii)Identify problems prospectively and not just retrospectively; thus, determination of population trends is only one of the objectives, not the main objective.

iv)Identify mechanisms and suggest management actions that can promote CALFED’s ultimate objectives.

The second objective is to develop the means to compare effectiveness of individual CALFED projects. This would not supplant the Category III monitoring. Each Category III monitoring project will have its own goals and would develop and implement monitoring to see if it met its objectives. But CALFED needs a means to compare across individual projects. In this way, CMARP-recommended monitoring can be used to address a question such as, which type of restoration project is most effective in meeting relevant CALFED objectives.

What to monitor:

For birds, we suggest monitoring the following:

1. species richness & species diversity

2. distribution (i.e., presence/absence on a local and regional scale)

3. abundance of a suite of riparian-associated species

4. reproductive success of selected species, with a main focus on nesting success and clutch size, secondary emphasis on nesting attempts per breeding female.

Regarding 1) and 2), all species would be covered that normally occur in riparian habitat.

For 3) we suggest a suite of at least 6 species, though as many as 10 species could be identified. The top 6 species to monitor we suggest are: Song Sparrow, Yellow Warbler, Yellow-breasted Chat, Common Yellowthroat, Wilson’s Warbler and Warbling Vireo. Other species to consider (for the suite of 6 species), are Swainson’s Thrush, Black-headed Grosbeak, and Blue Grosbeak. Additional species could be added depending on the specific CALFED project. For example, Bank Swallow or Swainson’s Hawk could be monitored if relevant to a CALFED project. (Under component 2 [above], the presence/absence and current distribution of Bank Swallow, Swainson’s Hawk, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and other species not part of the suite of 6 species, would be monitored in any case.) In addition, we recommend that a specific CALFED project monitor any locally-abundant riparian bird species, even if not one of the 12 listed above (those 12 being Song Sparrow, Yellow Warbler, Yellow-breasted Chat, Common Yellowthroat, Wilson’s Warbler, Warbling Vireo, Bank Swallow, Swainson’s Hawk, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Black-headed Grosbeak, and Blue Grosbeak).

Note that all 12 species listed above have been designated by the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV) and California Partners in Flight (CPIF) as species of conservation importance to be monitored by CPIF and its partner organizations. That is, these species have already been identified as important species to monitor, either because they are species of concern or because they are considered by RHJV and CPIF to be informative of the ecological condition of the riparian bird community (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture 1998). As a consequence, a database is already in place for those 12 species and will be added to in the next few years.

In addition to the suite of six or so species, two other species should be included, for surveys of abundance. The first is the American Dipper, a riparian obligate not included on the RHJV/CPIF list. The second species is the Brown-headed Cowbird. This species has had a demonstrably deleterious impact on riparian species, through brood parasitism and by inducing nest failure.

Temporal considerations:

Monitoring should focus on the breeding season; monitoring of stopover sites during fall migration should also be considered, as a secondary priority. For 1) –3) information would come from point count surveys, replicated three times per season. Methods for conducting point counts and setting up point count stations would follow that in Ralph et al. (1993) and Ralph et al. (1995). The methodology recommended here has been used by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory and several participating organizations and agencies in the RHJV. An example of such a monitoring program can be found in Nur et al. (in press).

Reproductive success needs to be monitored throughout the breeding season. Here, results will be compiled with and compared to results obtained from projects conducted throughout California and Western U.S. These include projects of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory in California, and on a national scale, the BBIRD program, a USGS-BRD sponsored project; Martin et al. 1997). An example of this type of monitoring program can be found in Robinson et al. (1995).

Additionally, it is very important to conduct monitoring on an annual basis. There is too much year-to-year variation in flooding, etc., for biennial or triennial monitoring to make a strong basis to a long-term monitoring program. Annual monitoring does not imply that all monitoring methods need to be employed at all sites in every year, but a core of monitoring methods should be implemented at a reasonably large number of sites in every year. In the absence of annual monitoring, responses of birds to flooding events, by way of changes in vegetation, will obscure longer-term changes, including response to restoration efforts. An example of year to year fluctuations in bird responses on the Sacramento River as a result of year to year changes in vegetation caused by the flood of 1995 is found in Nur et al. (1996).

Spatial considerations:

Some kind of sampling of the entire Sacramento River and San Joaquin River watersheds would be necessary, stratified by habitat. Point counts stations should be spaced at least 200 m (but preferably 250 m) apart. But one cannot put down a network of such stations across the entire Central Valley and watersheds, so sampling is needed. Point counts are often laid down in a transect of 10 to 12 point count stations (if not a transect, then a group of 10 to 12 stations).

The riparian/fluvial geomorphology group will need to identify the habitat types to be monitored. This would include at least two types of Valley riparian habitat: Valley-oak and willow-understory habitat. Furthermore, montane riparian is a distinct habitat type. Wet meadows and vernal pools might constitute additional habitat types. Additionally, , non-riparian habitat (orchards, other agricultural lands, grasslands) needs to be monitored. We propose that at least 8 distinct sites would be monitored (by point count, or for reproductive success) per drainage per habitat type. “Drainage” here might refer to the main stem of the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers or a major tributary (e.g., American River). At each distinct site 10 to 12 point count stations would be laid out and one nest-monitoring plot would be established. We would expect, and encourage, that vegetation and other wildlife monitoring would be conducted at these same sites. Thus we are recommending about 90 point count stations per habitat-type per drainage.

Why monitor distribution, abundance, species richness, and reproductive success of birds?

Though birds would not be the only non-fish vertebrates to be monitored, we believe they can provide the richest, most comprehensive source of information for a monitoring program for any vertebrate (fish included). The first 3 attributes listed above would be pretty straight forward. A large database is accumulating for riparian birds already and CALFED efforts could be incorporated with current efforts. Thus CALFED/CMARP could build on information being collected now.

The last component, reproductive success would require substantial effort but it is likely the most sensitive indicator (reproductive success or failure is sensitive to environmental conditions), and it can be perhaps the most informative. Reproductive success of birds is often very responsive to management actions. We consider it essential that CMARP be monitoring ecological processes. We won’t have much insight into ecological integrity if we don’t monitor ecological processes. Reproductive success is one such ecological process.

Adult survival is another process which is amenable to study in birds, and for which more and more information is accumulating. Perhaps there would be a less-ambitious program to monitor survival which could feed into CMARP. Examples where adult survival has been demonstrated to be a valuable component of a monitoring program include Peach et al. (1991) and Chase et al. (1997). The MAPS program (under leadership of the Institute of Bird Populations; see DeSante et al. 1993) is attempting to assess adult survival on an annual basis for the United States and parts of Southern Canada. Information from this program, as well as other projects, would allow development of survival indices to be used by CALFED.

Time scale: We propose, and expect, that this monitoring program will be carried out over the life of the CALFED program.

Anticipated cost: The avian monitoring program outlined above could be implemented at a cost of roughly 72 person-months per year, not including additional field assistants or interns; cost of field assistants would be about $4,000 per assistant per field season. Ten assistants would probably suffice. There would be additional direct costs for equipment, supplies, and travel. The above estimates would include time needed for data entering, data managing, data summarization, and preliminary analyses.

References

Chase, M., N. Nur, and G. R. Geupel. 1997. Survival, productivity, and abundance of a Wilson's Warbler population. Auk 114:354-366.

DeSante, D.F, K.M. Burton, and O.E. Williams. 1993. The monitoring avian productivity and survivorship (MAPS) program second annual report. Bird Populations 1:1 28.

Martin, T.E., C. Paine, C.J. Conway, W.M. Hochachka, P. Allen, and W. Jenkins. 1997. BBIRD Field Protocol. (Document available from Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; also, available from web site:

Nur, N., C.J. Ralph, S. Laymon, G.R. Geupel, and D. Evans. 1996. Songbird conservation in California’s riparian habitats: population assessments and management recommendations. PRBO Report to the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. Available from Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA 94970.

Nur, N., G.R. Geupel, and G. Ballard. In press. Impact of the Cantara spill on abundance, diversity, productivity and survival of riparian birds. Tentatively accepted by Fish & Game (published by Calif. Department of Fish & Game).

Peach, W.J., S.R. Baillie, and L. Underhill. 1991. Survival of British Sedge Warblers Acrocephalus schoenobaenus in relation to west African rainfall. Ibis 133:300-305.

Ralph, C.J., G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, and D.F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of Field Methods for Monitoring Landbirds. USDA Forest Service Publication, PSWGTR 144, Albany, CA.

Ralph, C.J. , S. Droege, and J.R. Sauer. 1995. Managing and monitoring birds using point counts: standards and applications. In C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer and S. Droege (Eds.), Monitoring Bird Populations by Point Counts. USDA Forest Service Publication, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-149, Albany, CA .

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 1998. Conservation Plan for Riparian Bird Species. Unpublished Report, Edited by K. G. Elliott. Available at the following website:

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987-1990.