**[Coordinated Bird Monitoring]{.smallcaps}**

**[in Utah]{.smallcaps}**

28 February 2005

Version 2.1

*Prepared for the Utah Cooperators by:*

Amy Seglund -- Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Jackee Alston - Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Adam Kozlowski -- Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Frank P. Howe -- Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

and

Elisabeth Ammon -- Great Basin Bird Observatory

John Bart- USGS, Snake River Field Station

Corresponding authors: Amy Seglund and Frank P. Howe

**[Table of]{.smallcaps}** Contents

[**Executive Summary** 5](#executive-summary)

[**Introduction** 7](#__RefHeading___Toc95538734)

[**Bird Conservation and Management Regions**
9](#__RefHeading___Toc95538735)

[**Why is CBM Needed?** 10](#__RefHeading___Toc95538736)

[**Summary of Existing Bird Monitoring and Assessment Projects in Utah**
11](#summary-of-existing-bird-monitoring-and-assessment-projects-in-utah)

[**Integrating Ongoing Surveys into a CBM Program**
17](#__RefHeading___Toc95538738)

[**Products of CBM** 18](#__RefHeading___Toc95538739)

[**Key Variables and Focal Species in Short-term CBM Projects**
20](#__RefHeading___Toc95538740)

[**Regional Models** 20](#__RefHeading___Toc95538741)

[**Site-based Models** 21](#__RefHeading___Toc95538742)

[**Project Evaluation** 21](#__RefHeading___Toc95538743)

[**Management Issues to Be Addressed in Utah**
23](#management-issues-to-be-addressed-in-utah)

[1. Changes Occurring in Riparian Habitats and Wet Meadows
23](#changes-occurring-in-riparian-habitats-and-wet-meadows)

[2. Changes occurring in shrubsteppe ecosystems.
28](#changes-occurring-in-shrubsteppe-ecosystems.)

[3. Identification of Species at Risk and Cause of Declines.
31](#identification-of-species-at-risk-and-cause-of-declines.)

[4. The loss of emergent and ephemeral wetlands.
34](#the-loss-of-emergent-and-ephemeral-wetlands.)

[5. The effects of changes on the Great Salt Lake ecosystem.
37](#the-effects-of-changes-on-the-great-salt-lake-ecosystem.)

[6. Changes occurring in pinyon-juniper forests.
41](#changes-occurring-in-pinyon-juniper-forests.)

[7. Changes occurring in aspen forests.
44](#changes-occurring-in-aspen-forests.)

[**Summary of Recommendations** 46](#summary-of-recommendations)

[**Proposed Action Plan** 46](#proposed-action-plan)

[**Literature Cited** 50](#literature-cited)

[**Appendix A. Bird Species that Warrant Monitoring in Utah**
51](#appendix-a.-bird-species-that-warrant-monitoring-in-utah)

[[Species Ranking System]{.smallcaps} 52](#__RefHeading___Toc95538756)

[**Appendix B. Sample size estimation procedure for products of CBM in
Utah.**
64](#appendix-b.-sample-size-estimation-procedure-for-products-of-cbm-in-utah.)

[**Appendix C. Aquatic Sites Relevant to Bird Monitoring in Utah**
67](#appendix-c.-aquatic-sites-relevant-to-bird-monitoring-in-utah)

[**Overview of Utah's Coordinated Bird Monitoring Sites**
69](#fig.-c1.-overview-of-utahs-coordinated-bird-monitoring-sites)

[[Introduction]{.smallcaps} ..... 69](#__RefHeading___Toc95538761)

[**Concentration Sites for Aquatic Birds in Great Basin BCR - BMR 95,
Utah**
72](#concentration-sites-for-aquatic-birds-in-great-basin-bcr---bmr-95-utah)

[**Site Descriptions** 73](#__RefHeading___Toc95538763)

[Northern Utah 73](#__RefHeading___Toc95538764)

[Cutler Marsh 73](#__RefHeading___Toc95538765)

[Neponset Reservoir 75](#__RefHeading___Toc95538766)

[Great Salt Lake - North 77](#__RefHeading___Toc95538767)

[Locomotive Springs WMA 77](#__RefHeading___Toc95538768)

[Salt Wells Flat 79](#__RefHeading___Toc95538769)

[Great Salt Lake -- Northeast 81](#__RefHeading___Toc95538770)

[Salt Creek 83](#__RefHeading___Toc95538771)

[Bear River NWR 81](#__RefHeading___Toc95538772)

[Public Shooting Grounds WMA 83](#public-shooting-grounds-wma)

[Bear River Bay 87](#__RefHeading___Toc95538774)

[Ogden Bay 89](#__RefHeading___Toc95538775)

[Ogden Bay North 91](#__RefHeading___Toc95538776)

[Howard Slough WMA 93](#__RefHeading___Toc95538777)

[Harold Crane WMA 95](#__RefHeading___Toc95538778)

[Great Salt Lake -- Farmington Bay 97](#__RefHeading___Toc95538779)

[Antelope Island West 97](#__RefHeading___Toc95275144)

[The Antelope Island Causeway 99](#__RefHeading___Toc95538781)

[Antelope Island Northeast 101](#antelope-island-northeast)

[Crystal Lakeside 103](#__RefHeading___Toc95538783)

[West Kaysville 105](#__RefHeading___Toc95538784)

[Farmington Bay WMA 107](#__RefHeading___Toc95538785)

[Saltair 109](#saltair)

[Kennecott 111](#kennecott)

[Associated Duck Clubs 113](#__RefHeading___Toc95538788)

[Great Salt Lake - Southwest 115](#__RefHeading___Toc95538789)

[West Central 115](#__RefHeading___Toc95538790)

[Stansbury Bay 117](#__RefHeading___Toc95538791)

[Stansbury South 119](#__RefHeading___Toc95538793)

[Stansbury North 121](#__RefHeading___Toc95538794)

[Interstate 80 North 123](#__RefHeading___Toc95538795)

[Southwest Utah 125](#__RefHeading___Toc95538796)

[Blue Lake 125](#__RefHeading___Toc95538797)

[Central Utah Lake 127](#__RefHeading___Toc95538798)

[Utah Lake Wetlands Preserve and Goshen Warm Springs WMA
129](#__RefHeading___Toc95538799)

[North Shore Utah Lake 131](#__RefHeading___Toc95538800)

[Fish Springs NWR 133](#__RefHeading___Toc95538801)

[Quichapa Lake 135](#__RefHeading___Toc95538802)

[Clear Lake WMA 137](#__RefHeading___Toc95538803)

[**Concentration Sites for Aquatic Birds in Colorado Plateau BCR Utah --
BMR 96** ...... 139](#__RefHeading___Toc95538804)

[Desert Lake WMA 140](#__RefHeading___Toc95538805)

[Ouray NWR 142](#__RefHeading___Toc95538806)

**Endorsements**

The undersigned endorse the Utah Coordinated Bird Monitoring Plan and
agree to participate in it. Specifically:

1\. A representative from each agency or organization listed below will
attend the annual meeting to review past work and plan future Utah
Coordinated Bird Monitoring projects.

2\. The organizations will take reasonable and prudent steps to insure
that the program is implemented and remains viable in the long-term and
that bird surveys conducted by the partners are coordinated working
through the Utah Coordinated Bird Monitoring Committee.

3\. The undersigned will function as a steering committee that oversees
the general direction and goals of the Utah Coordinated Bird Monitoring
program in the long-term.

\-\-\-- *endorsements after final revision here* \-\-\--

# [Executive Summary]{.smallcaps}

Conservation and management of Utah's birds depends on adequate
monitoring information as well as basic information on distribution and
abundance bird species. Monitoring information is required by
legislative and land/wildlife management agency mandates as well as a
host of ecoregional plans, management plans, and the Utah Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). It is important to monitor bird
populations not only for conservation, but also because birds are useful
indicators of environmental health. Birds are one of the best tools for
monitoring the effects of current land-use practices because they are
the easily detected and identified, simple survey methods can cover many
species, and accounting for and maintaining many species with different
requirements promotes conservation strategies at the landscape scale.

Conservation and management of Utah's birds depends on adequate
monitoring information and to meet these monitoring needs, the
Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) for Utah is being developed to track
population trends ofbird species that regularly occur in Utah; to
identify potential causes of population declines; and to help managers
plan and evaluate land use practices, conservation actions, and
restoration efforts. The Utah CBM describes how two general types of
monitoring, population monitoring and assessment (project) monitoring,
can be used to address management issues in the state.

Population monitoring is a general technique designed to monitor
individual species or species groups in order to detect prevailing
trends. This type of monitoring allows the UDWR to determine if
populations are increasing, decreasing (possibly at risk), or stable.
Population monitoring also allows for appropriate management actions to
be developed and/or applied in order to preclude the necessity of
federally listing species as a Threatened or Endangered Species.

Assessment monitoring, or project monitoring, comprises the monitoring
of species within a habitat project area. This type of monitoring allows
the UDWR to assess impacts of management actions and modify actions to
maximize the desired effect to species and populations dependent upon
the habitat undergoing restoration/modification. Ideally, pre- and
post-treatment monitoring is conducted in areas undergoing alteration.
Habitat specific management issues can best be addressed by describing
spatial patterns in abundance and identifying habitat relationships,
followed by studying productivity to determine quality of available
habitats in relation to reference sites or other suitable standards.

The Utah CBM discusses 7 major bird conservation and monitoring issues
as identified by the biologists and managers from across the state.
These are:

1.  Changes occurring in riparian habitats and wet meadows.

2.  Changes occurring in shrubsteppe ecosystems.

3.  Identification of bird species of concern and the cause of their
    decline.

4.  The loss of emergent and ephemeral wetlands.

5.  The effects of changes on the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem.

6.  Changes occurring in pinyon-juniper forests.

7.  Changes occurring in aspen forests.

This plan provides quantitative objectives for addressing each of the
management issues, identifies the best methods for collecting the needed
information, provides estimated sample size requirements, identifies
responsibilities for implementation, and makes recommendations on
project management and the next steps toward implementation.

Finally, the CBM is designed to be fully integrated with the Utah
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (UDWR *in prep*).
Focal species and habitat issues are, for the most part, the same for
both plans. The CBM provides more detail on avian monitoring issues and
thus the CWCS will refer to CBM to address such issues.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538734 .anchor}**Introduction**

Managing and monitoring birds requires a coordinated effort from a large
integrated network of partners. This plan to monitor assists wildlife
and land-management agencies in contributing and benefiting from a
coordinated bird monitoring program designed to be part of a new
national level program ([hhtp://www.amap.wr.usgs.gov]{.underline}). CBM
is a joint effort by managers and avain specialists to standardize bird
monitoring programs and make the information available to all partners.
Its approach focuses on: 1) providing information on specific land
management issues using reliable monitoring data; 2) describing focal
species and quantitative survey objectives for each management issue; 3)
choosing survey methods and estimating needed sample sizes; 4) storing
all data in permanent, widely available data repositories; 5) analyzing
data using methods endorsed by the appropriate professional societies;
and 6) using effective methods for communicating results to
decision-makers. This all-bird coordinated effort is modeled after a
long-standing program, implemented by the Flyway Councils, of
continent-wide tracking of waterfowl to set management and harvest
strategies for game species (e.g.,
[www.pacificflyway.gov](http://www.pacificflyway.gov/)). As with the
waterfowl model, coordinated all-bird monitoring is intended as a
feedback system that can provide a scientific basis for management and
conservation planning for birds of management concern.

CBM Plans are being developed at the State, regional, and continental
scales. Each plan describes existing monitoring programs and then
identifies needed improvements and new programs using the following
approach (Fig. 1): (1) identify large-scale management issues that the
program helps address (goals), (2) identify information that is needed
(objectives), (3) select the methods that will be used (strategies), and
(4) identify the parties that have primary responsibility for
implementing each program component (implementation plan).

Several projects are already in progress at the continental level that
will help implement monitoring recommendations at the State, Province,
or regional level. For example, a system for conducting peer reviews of
survey protocols is currently being developed, data repositories are
being constructed, and rapid habitat survey methods are being designed.
The Utah Plan is designed to use these resources and to support the
continental programs, where appropriate.

**Fig 1. Steps in developing coordinated bird monitoring plans.**

Goals

Objectives

Strategies

Implementation

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538735 .anchor}**[Bird Conservation and
Management Regions]{.smallcaps}**

In 1998, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) was
formed as an international forum for coordination of conservation
efforts of existing major bird initiatives (i.e., landbirds, waterfowl,
waterbirds, shorebirds). One goal of NABCI is to increase the
effectiveness of, and coordination between, existing and new bird
conservation programs. As a recommended framework for coordinated bird
management, NABCI adopted and mapped ecological units called Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs; Fig. 2). BCRs are ecologically distinct
regions with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management
issues. Technically speaking, Utah is covered by two BCRs, the Great
Basin and the Colorado Plateau. Although BCRs provide an ecologically
meaningful framework for studying bird populations, designing surveys at
such a large scale has limitations. For example, in contrast to surveys
in upland habitats, which can be designed at large spatial scales,
surveys of wetland habitats require detailed local-level information to
ensure sufficient assessment of aquatic species. Therefore, CBM
collaborators formed smaller Bird Monitoring Regions (BMRs), by
intersecting the BCR map with a Province and State map, deleting small
polygons, and smoothing the borders (Fig. 3). The resulting BMRs allow
for individual states to more feasibly develop detailed assessments of
bird populations within their designated regions. Utah consists of two
BMRs, BMR-95 and BMR-96.

**Fig 2. Bird Conservation Regions in Utah**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.872916666666667in"
height="4.304861111111111in"}

**Fig. 3 Bird Monitoring Regions in Utah.**

![](media/image2.png){width="4.863194444444445in"
height="4.7347222222222225in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538736 .anchor}**[Why is CBM
Needed?]{.smallcaps}**

Conservation and management of Utah's birds depends on adequate
monitoring information as well as basic information on distribution and
abundance of bird species. Monitoring information is required by
legislative and land/wildlife management agency mandates as well as a
host of ecoregional plans, management plans, and the CWCS. It is
important to monitor bird populations not only for conservation, but
also because birds are useful indicators of environmental health. Birds
are one of the best tools for monitoring the effects of current land-use
practices because they are the easily detected and identified, simple
survey methods can cover many species, and accounting for and
maintaining many species with different requirements promotes
conservation strategies at the landscape scale.

Because activities outside the jurisdiction of a given agency may cause
declines in the organisms that reside therein, even if local activities
may not be affecting organisms negatively, long-term trend monitoring is
essential. Populations also may be declining due to interactions among
multiple management effects, which could not be predicted based on
single-effect studies. The only way to expose such problems is through
long-term monitoring of actual population trends. Long-term monitoring
of population trends is useful for discovering if populations are in
decline, but by itself is not very useful for discovering the reason
behind such declines. Nor is it useful for finding out if specific
management practices are affecting populations or causing declines. More
targeted population monitoring, designed to address specific management
issues, is therefore a very significant component of a CBM program.

Throughout the state, some bird monitoring programs are already in
place, such as the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). While the BBS provides
useful bird monitoring data, there are several reasons why the BBS alone
is not sufficient to attain all of Utah's monitoring goals: (1) land
managers need monitoring data that are more regional than national in
scope, and the resolution of the BBS is too coarse for regional
decision-making; (2) BBS routes are roadside counts that have many
inherent biases; (3) the BBS does not collect habitat information with
sample locations, nor does it use a point-count protocol that is
conducive to studying habitat relationships; and (4) BBS, inherently,
does not provide information on migrating and wintering bird
populations. Thus, better coordinated monitoring techniques are needed
to adequately evaluate avian populations within the state.

# [Summary of Existing Bird Monitoring and Assessment Projects in Utah]{.smallcaps}

***Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)***

Initiated in 1966, the BBS is an international program designed to
monitor the status and trends of North American bird populations.
Jointly coordinated by the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and
the Canadian Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Research Center, BBS
are largely conducted by volunteers skilled in identifying birds by
sight and sound. There are currently 111 BBS routes being conducted in
Utah by a variety of federal, state, and non-government organization
personnel. Routes are established on roads and are 24.5 miles in length.
Three minute point count surveys are conducted at 0.5 mile intervals
along the route. All birds seen or heard within a 0.25 mile radius of
the observer are recorded. BBS are conducted in June to coincide with
the peak of Utah's avian breeding season. Surveys begin one-half hour
before local sunrise and take about 5 hours to complete. Over 42,000
individual birds representing 204 species were counted during Utah's
2003 survey effort. More information on the BBS program can be found at
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/index.html.

***Christmas Bird Counts (CBC)***

There are currently 35 CBC circles established within the state of Utah.
Each year, for one 24 hour period between December 14^th^ and January
5^th^, teams of volunteers count and record every bird seen inside each
15 mi (24 km) diameter circle. The occurrence data collected during the
CBC is used by Audubon to monitor the status and distribution of bird
populations across the Western Hemisphere. The first CBC began on
Christmas Day in 1900, and since then has coordinated the efforts of
citizen scientists for over 100 years. For more information, and to
access data collected by the Christmas Bird Count program, visit
http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc.

***Great Salt Lake Waterbird Surveys***

The Great Salt Lake (GSL) Waterbird Survey (WBS) examines the
relationship of migratory waterbirds within the GSL ecosystem through
the spring, summer, and fall seasons. The WBS, which began as an
ambitious five-year pilot study (1997-2001), currently operates as an
agency/community based project utilizing cooperators from natural
resource agencies, other government entities, non-government
organizations, and the general public. The primary objective of the
project is to determine individual migratory waterbird species'
populations during the migration, their periods of use, location, and
habitat characteristics. Results, when plotted against the GSL's
elevation, help document dramatic changes in the availability and
quality of habitat resulting from dynamic water levels. Counts of
waterbirds at the GSL are completed every ten days from April-May and
July-September. Over 55 species of waterbirds are counted including the
following families: *Gaviidae, Podicipedivae, Pelecaivae,
Phalacrocoracivae, Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, Anatidae, Rallidae,
Gruidae, Charadriidae, Recurvirostridae, Scolopacidae, and Laridae*.
Contact the UDWR, Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Project for more
information, (801) 538-4700.

***Riparian Bird Monitoring (RBM)***

Although riparian habitats comprise less than 0.4 percent of our state's
area, over 75 percent of all Utah bird species breed or forage in
riparian habitat and are considered 'riparian dependent'. In the early
1990's, BBS data suggested long-term declines in bird populations over
large portions of North America. Not well suited for monitoring the rare
and often isolated riparian habitats of western states, BBS data from
our region was largely ambiguous. In response, the RBM program was
started by the UDWR in 1992 to more accurately quantify riparian bird
densities and habitat specific population trends. Currently, distance
sampling methods (point transects) are employed on 32-50 randomly
established, riparian sites statewide. Each site consists of 10 sampling
points and is visited twice a year (May -- June); all birds seen or
heard during 3, 5, and 8 minute blocks are identified and assessed a
distance. In Utah, the RBM program has resulted in an increased ability
to manage and assess riparian bird species conservation needs. Contact
the UDWR, Nongame Avian Program for more information, (801) 538-4764.

***Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)***

Beginning in 1994, a subset of the Riparian Bird Monitoring (RBM) sites
was selected to establish 9-15 MAPS banding stations. The MAPS Program,
created by The Institute for Bird Populations in 1989, utilizes constant
mist net effort to assess and monitor the population dynamics. In
addition to the survivorship and site fidelity data provided by leg band
returns, information gathered on the captured birds' species, age (based
on molt), sex, and breeding condition improve our knowledge of breeding
chronology. In Utah, MAPS stations are coordinated by the UDWR and
operated at standard intervals by professional biologists and volunteers
from May through the end of August. Each station consists of 10 standard
sized nets and is run for 6 hours in the early morning. Collaboration of
the RBM and MAPS programs have resulted in the augmentation of species
occurrence data for sites experiencing program overlap. Contact the
UDWR, Non-game Avian Program for more information, (801) 538-4700. For
more information about the MAPS Program, including data from many MAPS
sites, visit http://www.birdpop.org/maps.htm.

***Utah Breeding Bird Atlas***

A Breeding Bird Atlas is being designed to map the presence or absence
and current breeding status of bird populations. To complete this
effort, Utah has been divided into uniform squares, roughly 3 miles on a
side (about 1/6^th^ of a 7.5 minute map). Of the greater than 9,000
squares resulting from this method, 1 out of every 12 (8.3% of the land
area) has been selected for survey. Volunteers visit their survey square
4-6 times during the breeding season to determine what birds nest there.
Data reported by the volunteers at each survey square is used to write
and publish an atlas for the state. Due to Utah's large area and
comparatively low number of birders, squares are being surveyed at the
rate they are being adopted. Funding is being pursued to augment current
efforts. More information on Utah's Breeding Bird Atlas initiative,
including the location of survey squares, can be obtained from
http://www.utahbba.com/index.php.

***Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Shorebirds***

Utah's GSL and associated freshwater wetlands provide breeding and
migratory habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds on a global
scale. This area's importance is particularly apparent during spring and
fall migration when millions of birds use the GSL as a staging area on
their migration to or from their breeding grounds. Utah is also home to
many isolated wetlands not associated with the GSL. Scattered throughout
what otherwise would be a largely arid region of the Pacific Flyway,
these wetlands play an important role in the movement and reproduction
of the birds dependent upon their habitat. Waterfowl management in Utah
relies on the cooperative survey efforts of state operated Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs) and federal National Wildlife Refuges (NWR).
Aerial and ground surveys are conducted year-round to account for
seasonal shifts in species use.

*[Ground Surveys]{.underline}* A Waterfowl Census is conducted year
round along standardized survey routes within WMAs. Routes are run
monthly from January--September and semi-monthly October-January. Survey
routes, although conducted by various agency personnel, are coordinated
by the UDWR. In January, Mid-winter Waterfowl Surveys are conducted to
determine winter abundance and distribution of ducks, geese, swans,
coots, and cranes. More intensive than the Waterfowl Census, the
Mid-winter Waterfowl Surveys represent area counts and record wetland
condition, food availability, and percent of wetland frozen. During the
breeding season, breeding pair counts (monthly, March-April) and
production counts (June 5th) are conducted for geese to determine
reproduction. Data is collected on the number of adults associated with
goslings, total number of goslings including brood sizes, and total
number of adults not associated with goslings. Breeding pair counts are
also conducted for ducks (twice monthly, May-June), but production
counts were suspended in 2002. Breeding pair counts are conducted along
Waterfowl Census routes, production counts are conducted as area counts
within each state managed WMA. Waterfowl Census routes are also used to
conduct the Non-game Bird Census. Conducted quarterly, the censuses are
scheduled to coincide with spring migration (April), summer population
(July), fall migration (September), and winter residents (January). All
waterbirds and shorebirds observed along the Non-game Census route are
recorded. During the swan migration, production counts are made to
assess the family group structure (adult/young). In addition to
conducting the above surveys, the USFWS also conducts colonial breeding
bird and waterfowl nest searches. Nests are revisited multiple times to
determine success rates. Both the USFWS and UDWR use census and
reproduction data to monitor the effectiveness of management actions
such as draw-downs, mechanical treatment or burning of vegetation, and
invasive weed control.

*[Aerial Surveys]{.underline}* Due to the expanse of wetlands associated
with the Great Salt Lake, a good proportion of the habitat available to
the birds is not easily accessed by vehicle or boat. The UDWR uses
fixed-wing aircraft to facilitate several of the surveys mentioned
above, as well as collect data on bird species not easily surveyed from
the ground. Photographs taken during survey flights of large flocks or
colonies greatly improve the accuracy of the counts. For a 2-3 day
period in mid-October eared grebes are counted on the Great Salt Lake to
obtain an overall population estimate. Data is combined with a similar
survey effort on Mono Lake, California to calculate the eared grebe's
current population status for the continent. Aerial surveys over
Gunnison Island in May and June help establish breeding colony counts
for American White Pelicans, while a flight in July provides an estimate
of their breeding success. Tundra swan populations are also censused on
a weekly basis using fixed-wing aircraft providing overall and peak
number of birds using the GSL and associated wetlands. Finally, several
of the more inaccessible Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey Routes are
also conducted by airplane.

*[Banding and Hunter Harvest]{.underline}* Bag checks conducted
throughout the fall waterfowl harvest are conducted by the UDWR. The
checks are used mainly to calculate hunter success as well as the number
and species of waterfowl harvested. Some leg and neck banding of
waterfowl is also conducted in Utah. Band returns provide the state with
movement data, as well as sex and age information of the harvest.
Banding efforts occur mainly during the late summer molt.

For more information contact UDWR, Waterfowl Program Coordinator or
Great Salt Lake Ecosystem Project at (801) 538-4700.

***Upland Gamebirds***

Upland gamebirds present in Utah include Wild Turkey, Blue Grouse,
Ruffed Grouse, Greater Sage-grouse, Gunnison's Sage-grouse, Sharp-tailed
Grouse, White-tailed Ptarmigan, Hungarian Partridge, Chukar Partridge,
Ring-necked Pheasant, California Quail, Gambel's Quail, Band-tailed
Pigeon, and Mourning Dove. Of these, the Blue Grouse, Ruffed Grouse,
Greater Sage-grouse, Gunnison's Sage-grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse,
Gambel's Quail, Band-tailed Pigeon, and Mourning Dove are considered
native to all or most of their current range in Utah, while others have
been introduced for hunting through much or all of their range.
Currently Wild Turkey, Ring-necked Pheasant, and Chukar populations are
actively supported with either releases or augmented water resources
(guzzlers). The expansion of exotic Eurasian Collared Doves and
historically nonnative White-winged Doves into Utah has recently been
observed. Beginning in 2004, dove hunters were allowed to legally
harvest White-winged doves as well as Mourning doves in Utah.

In response to both local and range-wide declines of Greater
Sage-grouse, Gunnison's Sage-grouse, and Sharp-tailed Grouse
populations, Utah has devoted a significant amount of attention to their
management and conservation. Cooperative efforts by UDWR, Utah State
University Cooperative Extension Services, and graduate students
continue to contribute to our knowledge of these species. Leks of all
three grouse species are inventoried annually by a combination of UDWR
personnel, volunteers, and graduate students. Aerial and ground surveys
are used to search for new lek locations. Ground crews are used to
conduct lek counts at known lek locations. Counts are repeated at each
lek for three mornings and the highest number of male grouse observed is
recorded. This information is used to convert the number of males
counted into population estimates. Additional information on the age
structure of grouse populations in Utah have historically been obtained
from wings collected from hunter harvest. The UDWR recently suspended
the collection of upland gamebird's wings.

In recognition that grouse population decline was as much a
socio-economic issue as it was a biological one, Utah State University
Extension in cooperation with the UDWR began to develop local Working
Groups in the late 1990's. Working groups were organized at the county
level to assist local communities restore and maintain rangeland
vegetation diversity while preserving and, in some cases, even enhance
rural economies. Currently, working groups provide a major nexus for
communication between private landowners, local, county, state, federal
and university researchers working to focus grouse conservation efforts
and funds. Greater Sage-grouse populations in particular have responded
in promising ways to vegetation manipulations, modified grazing
practices, and the promotion of native seed mixes promoted by the
Working Group framework. For more information contact UDWR, Upland Game
Program Coordinator at (801) 538-4700.

The UDWR has recently initiated a program to monitor shrubsteppe birds
including sage-grouse. This program is described in more detail under
"Other Program Research Projects" as well as graduate student projects
on sage-grouse are described.

***Raptor Surveys***

Multiple monitoring efforts for breeding, migrating, and wintering
raptors currently exist in Utah. Since successful Peregrine Falcon
reintroduction efforts on the GSL in the late 1970s, numbers of breeding
falcons have been monitored statewide by various agencies. Currently,
UDWR biologists and cooperators annually survey a subset of their
region's active territories as part of a standardized assessment
protocol developed and funded by the USFWS. The USFS, after conducting
more than a decade of intensive surveys for Northern Goshawks, has
recently restructured its effort to document presence and absence of the
bird over a grid composed of 688 hectare cells. The grid cells selected
for survey use data collected from the earlier, more intensive surveys
to maximize search efficiency. Both state and federal agencies also
exchange limited banding and nest success data collected for Golden
Eagles, Bald Eagles, and Osprey. As an example, in west central Utah, a
volunteer currently monitors and maintains information on over 200
golden eagles breeding territories. Although only 5 pairs of Bald Eagles
currently nest in the state, Utah regularly winters between 600-800
eagles. Wintering populations of Bald Eagles are monitored as part of a
national survey effort that includes over 13 survey routes in Utah begun
in 1986, coordinated by the USGS.

Due to the large number of ac available for resource extraction in Utah,
additional monitoring efforts are often funded in response to potential
impacts. Exploration and extraction of natural gas, oil, and coal have
prompted Spotted Owl surveys using protocols standardized by the USFWS,
aerial and ground surveys for Ferruginous Hawk nests by UDWR, BLM, and
Utah State University, and cliff nesting raptor surveys targeting
peregrine falcons and golden eagles conducted by the UDWR.

In addition to the work being done by state and federal agencies (USFS,
BLM, USFWS, UDWR), the nonprofit organization HawkWatch International
(HWI; headquartered in Salt Lake City) also maintains significant
monitoring programs. During the breeding season HWI conducts the
Northern Utah Nesting Survey (NUNS) to systematically search for and
record the presence of breeding raptors. Results and photographs of the
nest sites are placed annually in a database to help detect changes in
nest success, fecundity, site fidelity, and estimates of breeding
populations. HWI also uses volunteers to collect similar information in
west central Utah. Furthermore, HWI monitors avian electrocutions and
identifies lethal power pole configurations using carcass searches under
powerlines and poles. Funding for NUNS and the avian electrocution
program comes largely from the UDWR, BLM, foundations and HWI
contributors. Annual raptor migration counts and banding on the
Wellsville and Goshute Mountain Ranges are also administered and staffed
by HWI.

General information regarding raptor surveys in Utah can be obtained by
contacting the UDWR, Non-game Avian Program, (801) 538-4764. More
information regarding HWIs monitoring efforts can be obtained at
www.hawkwatch.org.

***Other Programs and Research Projects***

Other bird monitoring and surveying projects that have been completed,
are in progress, or are proposed include:

-   UDWR and Utah State University are currently collaborating to
    conduct research on the effects of large scale sagebrush-steppe
    vegetation manipulation projects on sagebrush obligate birds. A
    major component of the research includes the development of a
    portable monitoring protocol that can provide avian response
    information at multiple scales.

-   Numerous Gunnison Sage-grouse, Greater Sage-grouse, and Sharp-tailed
    Grouse graduate research projects have been completed or are
    currently investigating these species' relationships with their
    habitat. For all three species, early research focused primarily on
    providing basic population information ranging from identification
    of nesting, brood, and winter habitat requirements to sources of
    mortality. Recent studies are more likely to address the response of
    grouse to vegetation manipulation projects.

-   Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Mexican
    Spotted Owl surveys are conducted in the southern portion of the
    state using play-back call methods standardized by the USFWS.
    Surveys are designed to detect breeding and migrant use of suitable
    habitat using three consecutive surveys per site. Surveys are
    conducted by UDWR staff with funding often provided by the BLM.
    Additional surveys are conducted by private contractors. All
    information is compiled by the USFWS.

-   In 2001, the UDWR established Sensitive Species Programs in each of
    its 5 regions to directly address the issues related to Utah's
    sensitive species. The program, designed to proactively address
    species with the potential for future conservation concern, is
    funded with Endangered Species Mitigation Fund and State Wildlife
    Grant awards. Regional Sensitive Species Biologists have
    participated in many of the surveys mentioned in the section above
    and have also initiated surveys on Bobolink, Black Swift,
    Grasshopper Sparrow, Lewis's Woodpecker and Long-billed curlew.

-   Soon after the detection of West Nile Virus (WNV) in North America
    in 1999 and its lethal effects on humans and birds became apparent,
    the UDWR became involved in testing wild bird species. Monitoring
    the disease's presence and spread using birds was accomplished using
    oral swabs. Both dead birds and birds captured as part of mist
    netting efforts (ex. MAPS) are currently tested throughout the
    state.

These studies may provide an important head-start on some of the
management issues to be addressed in the short-term objectives of the
CBM Program (see sections below).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538738 .anchor}**[Integrating Ongoing Surveys
into a CBM Program]{.smallcaps}**

Integrating existing monitoring efforts is one of the main motivating
factors for CBM at the state, regional, and continental scales. The
purposes of integrating ongoing work into widely accessible databases
are:

(1) Management agencies in need of specific bird conservation data can
    assess whether or not similar work has already been done

(2) Resources can be more explicitly allocated to obtain information
    that is still lacking

(3) Information from local efforts can be utilized beyond the scope of
    single projects

Existing monitoring programs can contribute to the coordination effort
by depositing data sets directly into a data repository, where they can
be accessed either by a defined set of users or by the general public,
depending on the nature of the data or restrictions set by the provider.
Examples of such repositories, and the wealth of information they
produce, are the BBS database of USGS' Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
and the CBC program of the National Audubon Society. Repositories that
can accommodate all types of bird monitoring data at a continental scale
are currently being constructed, and the Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center is already at a stage where most monitoring data collected in
Utah could potentially be stored. The UDWR has the potential, through
the Utah Natural Heritage Program, to compile, store and manage bird
data. To contribute data from ongoing efforts, partners will be asked to
provide the following information about their monitoring effort:

-   Bird groups targeted

-   Location data (coordinates and projection information)

-   Type of monitoring data collected (presence/absence, abundance,
    density, demographics, etc.)

-   Methods used (point count protocol, specifications for area
    searches, spot-mapping, nest monitoring, etc.)

-   Type of habitat data collected (e.g., vegetation maps, vegetation
    structure data, floristics, etc.)

-   Year(s) and season(s) of data collection

-   Any restrictions on data (e.g., protection of location data on
    threatened and endangered species, expected publication dates at
    which data can be released to general use, etc.)

-   Contact information for project lead

In cases where major restrictions on data exist, a contributor may make
arrangements to only provide these metadata to the general public and to
handle requests for raw data through the project's contact person.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538739 .anchor}**[Products of CBM]{.smallcaps}**

Conceptually, CBM can be divided into long-term and short-term
objectives. Long-term programs implemented at the state level can be
part of the continental program to obtain population trend estimates.
Examples include the national Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) program, the
national Breeding Pair survey for waterfowl, and national bird banding
programs (e.g., MAPS).

Cooperators in state programs also agree to coordinate in carrying out
short-term surveys designed for such goals as clarifying habitat
relationships, estimating abundance, and evaluating projects. Thus,
future revisions of the Utah plan involve re-evaluating short-term
objectives and developing new ones. Short-term surveys are intended to
address specific management issues that need to be resolved at a fairly
large geographic scale, often involve multiple species, and thus exceed
the data collection capacity of a typical graduate research project.
Management issues, survey objectives, methods, roles and
responsibilities, and recommendations for implementation are developed
during plan revisions (Table 1).

**Table 1. Recommended steps for developing new short-term CBM
projects.**

Description of the Management Issue

Survey Objectives

Information needed

Study areas

Focal species

Quantitative objectives

Methods

Bird survey methods

Sample size requirements

Habitat variables

Sampling plans

Roles and Responsibilities

Existing and additional surveys needed

Project management

Recommendations for Implementation

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538740 .anchor}**[Key Variables and Focal
Species in Short-term CBM Projects]{.smallcaps}**

Short-term surveys generally have one or more of three applications:
regional models, site-based models, and project evaluation (Table 2).
All three applications involve a set of one or more independent
(predictor) variables and a dependent (response) variable. Sample size
estimation procedures for the three applications are described in
Appendix B. In most applications, predictor variables will be habitat
descriptors, such as basic habitat type (e.g., derived from GAP or other
habitat maps) for regional models, and more specific habitat descriptors
(e.g., stand density, understory condition, forb cover) for site-based
analyses. In project evaluation, the independent variable may be as
simple as the presence/absence of a habitat implementation project, but
can also include habitat characteristics that are a result of the
project (e.g., tree densities after re-vegetation).

The response variable is typically a descriptor of bird density or
abundance during any period of the year, variables describing
demography, or a fitness indicator such as productivity or nutritional
status. For most short-term products, we recommend using abundance of
focal species identified for that habitat type as the standard response
variable for most analyses. Focal species include all species that are
of greatest concern to the management issue. The focal species lists are
based primarily on the CWCS Species tiers. Tier I species are federally
listed threatened, endangered and candidate species; Tier II species are
those listed as state Species of Concern; Tier III species include Utah
Partners in Flight priority species UDWR "Internal Watch List" species
(those with potential problems but insufficient information to include
on Tier II). Where appropriate, additional focal species may include
highly imperiled, high concern, and moderate concern (categories 1 -- 3)
species of the Intermountain West Shorebird and Waterbird Conservation
Plans. Habitat obligate and dependent breeders (see Parrish et al. 2002)
in each management-issue habitat may be the most sensitive to habitat
changes and thus function well as focal species. Other bird population
or community descriptors can also be used in data analyses, focusing for
example on only the abundance or fitness of a single species of
interest, or on the proportion of habitat obligates present. However,
for the first phase of CBM in Utah, we propose to emphasize fairly
general analyses before moving into species-specific applications, for
which additional statistical considerations will be necessary.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538741 .anchor}**[Regional Models]{.smallcaps}**

Regional models express the parameter of interest, i.e., here the
abundance of a set of focal species, as a function of independent
(usually habitat) variables whose values are known throughout a region.
The model is applied to the entire region or, more typically, to all of
a regional habitat type (e.g., aspen or Mojave lowland riparian). The
model may predict the abundance of a group of focal species, or it may
be species-specific. The results of these analyses provide an estimate
of regionwide species abundance, help managers understand large-scale
patterns in abundance, and identify high- and low-quality habitats
throughout the region. The models are constructed by obtaining field
data from a substantial sample of randomly selected sites (usually using
stratified sampling). Broadly defined habitat variables are then
identified that are thought to be

**Table 2. Summary of typical products of short-term CBM projects**.

1.  **Regional model**

*Description*

> A model that expresses the parameter of interest^1^ as a function of
> independent variables (e.g., habitat type) whose values are known
> throughout a region

*Methods*

Maps showing distribution of the focal habitat are obtained

> Regionwide bird surveys in the habitat, perhaps using stratification
> to insure samples are obtained from a variety of conditions
>
> Independent variables, suspected to be correlated with bird abundance
> (or other dependent variables), are obtained (usually from GIS layers)
> throughout the region
>
> Models are developed using standard regression methods

*Uses*

Understand large-scale patterns in abundance

Estimate statewide population

Identify low- and high-quality areas throughout the region

2.  **Site-based model**

*Description*

> Similar to the regional model but includes independent variables known
> only for the surveyed areas (e.g., understory type, tree density, burn
> history, etc.).

*Methods*

Same methods as for the regional model

> In addition, stand-specific variables are collected by fieldwork,
> examination of aerial photos, or other sources

*Uses*

> Better understand determinants of habitat quality by including
> specific habitat variables not measurable statewide
>
> Estimate effects of proposed projects (e.g., habitat conversion,
> protection, and restoration)

3.  **Project evaluation**

*Description*

> Estimated value of the parameter^1^, within a habitat implementation
> project area, measured before, during, and after the project.

*Methods*

Surveys on the project and control areas before, during and after the
project

*Uses*

Help evaluate habitat implementation projects and revise project plans

Document effects of the project on birds

^1^ The parameter of interest may be bird density or abundance during
any period of the year or a fitness indicator such as productivity or
nutritional status.

correlated with bird populations and which are available in regionwide
GIS layers. Accuracy will be evaluated from field verification of
predicted outcomes at appropriate scales.

Utah GAP discriminates vegetation classes from satellite imagery or
aerial photographs; the mapped classes are then linked with existing
wildlife/habitat-relation databases. Each vegetation class includes all
seral stages within that class (i.e., vegetation classes do not
distinguish different seral stages) and classes developed in Utah are
complementary, though not exactly the same, as those of neighboring
states. Vegetation mapping in Utah was based primarily on digital
analysis of satellite data. Ancillary data used to model vegetation in
Utah included digital elevation data, hydrology, an existing vegetation
map, and training points collected from a variety of outside
collaborators. Based on preliminary data, map accuracy for Utah was
estimated at 76 percent. This information and additional information on
GAP can be found at Dr. Tom Edwards Utah State University web site
(http://ella.nr.usu.edu/\~utcoop/tce/) and the University of Utah web
site (http://www.gap.uidaho.edu). This information will be very useful
in incorporating into the regional model. The soon-to-be-released
Southwest ReGAP project will be incorporated into the regional model in
the same fashion as GAP.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538742 .anchor}**[Site-based
Models]{.smallcaps}**

Site-specific models also express the bird population parameters as a
function of independent (usually habitat) variables. But in addition to
variables whose values are known throughout the region, site-based
models also include variables that were measured for each surveyed site
and that are not available region-wide. These variables are usually
habitat measurements that are obtained in the field or from detailed
vegetation maps, aerial photos, or other supporting data. Results from
these models usually make better predictions of bird population
parameters for specific sites, and may reveal more about which habitat
variables are correlated with bird population data than the regionwide
model can reveal. Site-models cannot be extrapolated statistically to
the entire region because, by definition, they include variables whose
values are not known regionwide. However, basic habitat management
guidelines derived from site-based models can be applied throughout the
region as hypotheses to be evaluated. As a hypothetical example, if a
site-based model for aspen were to predict a higher abundance of
aspen-associated focal species with increased shrub coverage, then this
insight can be applied to and monitored in aspen habitats throughout the
region. Accuracy of site-based models is measured in field verification
of predicted outcomes.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538743 .anchor}**[Project
Evaluation]{.smallcaps}**

Project evaluations involve surveys on a habitat implementation project
site before, during, and after the project. These surveys help evaluate
and perhaps revise the management practice, and they document effects of
the project on birds.

# [Management Issues to Be Addressed in Utah]{.smallcaps}

A questionnaire was distributed to habitat managers and wildlife
biologists throughout Utah to identify major bird conservation and
management issues that should be addressed. Seven issues were identified
as the most pressing statewide concerns at this time:

1.  Changes occurring in riparian habitats and wet meadows.

2.  Changes occurring in shrubsteppe ecosystems.

3.  Identification of bird species of concern and the cause of their
    decline.

4.  The loss of emergent and ephemeral wetlands.

5.  The effects of changes on the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem.

6.  Changes occurring in pinyon-juniper forests.

7.  Changes occurring in aspen forests.

Each of these issues is discussed in more detail below. We describe the
management issue and how information collected on bird surveys can help
address it. We also suggest survey goals, assess how well existing
programs are providing information, and make recommendations for
obtaining additional information. Appendix A provides a complete state
species list, as well as information concerning each species' season of
occurrence, PIF score (Parrish et al. 2002), CWCS tiers (UDWR *in
prep.*), and applicable management issue(s).

## 1. Changes Occurring in Riparian Habitats and Wet Meadows

***Description of the Management Issue***

Riparian habitats are defined here to include rivers, lowland springs
and streams, and mountain streams. Major rivers include the Green,
Colorado, San Juan, Virgin, Bear, Escalante, Santa Clara, Jordan, Price,
Strawberry, Logan, Dirty Devil, Freemont, San Rafael, White, Weber, and
Sevier.

Lowland riparian habitat occurs generally lower than 1,670 m (5,500 ft)
in elevation and consists primarily of Fremont cottonwood dominant
landscapes with varying densities of shrubby understory vegetation.
Approximately 511 km2 (317 mi2) of lowland riparian habitat exists
within Utah, comprising 0.23% of the total area of the state. Of this
total area, approximately 43,823 ha (108,207 ac) occur within the Basin
and Range (23,770 ha/58,736 ac) and Colorado Plateau (20,053 ha/49,551
ac) physiographic regions. Nine percent (4,457 ha/11,013 ac) of lowland
riparian habitat occurs within the Utah Mountains physiographic region.
Lowland riparian is unquestionably the habitat used most by Utah's
avifauna. At least 42% of Utah's avian species use lowland riparian as
either breeding habitat (n=98 species) or in winter (n=11 species).

Mountain riparian habitat makes approximately 95,892 ac or 0.18% of the
total landscape in Utah. It generally occurs above 1,670 m (5,500 ft) in
elevation and consists primarily of narrowleaf cottonwood and thinleaf
alder dominant landscapes with varying densities of shrubby understory
vegetation. At least 20% of Utah's avian species use mountain riparian
as either breeding habitat (n=44 species) or in winter (n=2 species).

Wet meadows are frequently associated with riparian habitats and consist
of water saturated meadows containing mostly grasses and sedges at
elevations ranging from 1,000 - 3,000 m (3,300 - 9,800 ft).
Approximately 14,283 ac of wet meadow habitat exists within Utah
occurring mostly (77%) within the Utah Mountains physiographic region
(10,956 ac). Wet meadow habitat makes up 0.03% of the total landscape of
Utah and is used by approximately 5% of the state's avian species as
breeding habitat (n=13). Wet meadow habitat is not selected for by birds
wintering in Utah.

Riparian areas are a critical issue in Utah wildlife management due to
the limited amount of land these habitats cover and highest species
richness of any ecosystem they maintain. In the West, riparian habitat
covers less than 1% of the land, yet the role of riparian habitat in the
landscape is substantial. Within Utah, 66-75% of all bird species use
riparian habitats during some portion of their life history. Typically,
diversity and abundance of birds dramatically increases in western
riparian habitat compared with other habitat types, and numerous avian
species are considered riparian obligates.

Few low-mid elevation streams in Utah can be classified as
fully-functional waterways. Most are restricted in their natural
migration across former floodplains by transportation corridors
involving roads and railways. Shortened streams lack the ability to
absorb the energy of high flows, and suffer from downcutting and
excessive bank erosion. Early attempts at \"flood control\" used heavy
equipment to sever the connection between stream channels and
floodplains, eliminating the opportunity for natural maintenance of
riparian zones with periodic flood events. Some streams are impacted by
watersheds that fail to trap, store and slowly release water as
groundwater, but release it as runoff that causes erosion in upland
areas, causing additional sediment transport in streams and excessive
stream bank erosion. Some of these watersheds have been placed on the
State\'s Section 303(d) (Clean Water Act) list of impaired watersheds,
making them eligible for federal funding. All of the water in streams
has been fully appropriated by the State for a variety of beneficial
uses, and diversions regularly dewater some streams, and significantly
reduce flows in others. Unless properly managed, livestock concentrate
in riparian areas resulting in overgrazed vegetation and impacted water
quality. Wetlands and wet meadows associated with riparian areas are
impacted by permitted fill or drainage projects, and water quality in
rural areas can be affected by agricultural practices such as grazing
and chemical treatments (herbicide and fertilizer applications).

Changes occurring in riparian habitats include (1) the invasion of
noxious or invasive weeds, (2) the diversion of water and removal of
ground water for urban, industrial and agricultural use, (3) urban
encroachment including development of roads and trails, (4)
channelization of stream and river beds, (5) improper grazing practices
and agricultural encroachment, (6) poorly managed recreation and (7) Dam
and reservoir construction. These changes lead to loss of native, shrub
and tree species (i.e. native wetland vegetation), fragmentation of
contiguous riparian areas and isolation of riparian areas from adjacent
uplands. Riparian areas are limited in a dry state such as Utah and
therefore are of crucial conservational concern. Because of this
concern, restoration efforts are underway to improve riparian systems in
multiple areas of the state. With the restoration efforts, the need
arises to determine the observed changes and effects of such projects on
bird populations and species composition. Managers working in riparian
areas primarily need two kinds of information: predicted effects of
proposed habitat implementation projects on birds, and actual effects of
implemented projects. A site-based model is needed to provide the first
kind of information; project evaluations are needed to produce the
second kind of information. See "Products from CBM" section (above) and
Appendix B for more information about site-based models.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information Needed]{.underline}:* Understanding the large scale
patterns of riparian use by focal species in Utah should be determined
by a regional model that can predicted presence of species as a function
of habitat type. By predicting presence of a focal species, habitats can
be identified in low and high quality areas that can focus management,
restoration and survey efforts. Project evaluation can be determined
from productivity of breeding focal species as well as density and
abundance of focal species within the project area during the breeding
and migration season.

A site-based model should predict focal species abundance in relation to
habitat conditions influenced by anthropogenic disturbances, restoration
efforts, and environmental conditions.

*[Study Areas:]{.underline}* This management issue can be addressed at a
number of riparian sites throughout the state. There has been a wide
array of disturbances and degree of disturbance levels that have altered
riparian habitat function, and thus monitoring opportunities will be
varied in space and time. Sites where riparian bird monitoring has been
ongoing in the past should continue and this information can provide
baseline data. Areas with documented information on loss and
degradation, with implemented conservation efforts should be a priority
as well as areas that are known to contain focal species.

*[Focal species:]{.underline}*

**[Table 3: List of focal species for riparian habitat
management.]{.underline}**

Bald Eagle

Osprey

Peregrine Falcon

American White Pelican

American Avocet

Gambel's Quail

Short-eared Owl

Black Swift

Lewis's Woodpecker

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Black-billed Cuckoo

Bobolink

Bell's Vireo

Lucy's Warbler

Crissal Thrasher

Abert's Towhee

Riparian dependent species (Parrish et al. 2002) appropriate to the
study area

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: The desired accuracy of models
to predict abundance, should a proposed project be implemented, must be
established independently of specific projects. More experience is
needed in developing these models for riparian habitats in Utah, but we
believe that a reasonable initial target is that the CV of the predicted
abundance for a single project area should be ≤ 0.25.

Projects affecting riparian habitat often cause major changes in habitat
and thus bird abundance (e.g.dam and reservoir construction); in such
cases surveys can be designed to detect large, rather than small,
changes. As an approximate guideline, it seems reasonable that power to
detect a 2-3 - fold change should be at least 80%. The lower precision
goal (detecting a 3-fold change) might be appropriate for smaller
projects. The higher precision goal might be appropriate for larger
projects or those in which changes are more difficult to detect (e.g.
changes in grazing pressure).

***Methods***

*[Bird survey methods]{.underline}*: Empirical modeling techniques that
directly estimate bird density should be used. Examples of techniques
that could be used include distance sampling (Buckland et al. 1993),
variable-distance transects (Emlen 1971, 1977) and variable
circular--plots (Reynolds et al. 1980). Point centered techniques may be
preferable in forested riparian areas and line transects may be more
efficient in more open habitats. Demographic data collected using
constant-effort mist-netting stations or nest monitoring programs are
also encouraged when possible.

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}:* To be determined following a
more thorough assessment of accuracy targets.

*[Habitat survey methods]{.underline}*: Habitat data already exist for
several projects and may be supplemented with data from additional sites
to increase our knowledge of habitat associations. This information is
essential in developing the predictive model since the predictions are
based on habitat variables (defined broadly). Habitat variables may
include predictors such as width of riparian woodland corridor, total
woodland cover, cover by exotic shrubs and trees, measures of foliage
height diversity, cover by native understory species, cover by
floodplain wetlands, and emergent vegetation cover.

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: Detailed work will depend on developing
objectives to be addressed as well as defining the population of
interest within specific area and time period. This will be the target
population which will be used in a statistical sense and may not
correspond to the biological population. Finally, a sampling frame must
be defined, which is a complete listing of sampling units (e.g. plots,
quadrats, and/or transects). Project evaluation should be delineated to
insure that a wide range of habitat types is included.

***Roles and Responsibilities***

*[Existing and needed information]{.underline}:* The Utah Habitat
Conservation Initiative will bring together state and federal financial
resources, along with technical assistance from the UDWR partnering
agencies and conservation organizations, and participating landowners to
implement a habitat conservation program that benefits threatened,
endangered, and at-risk species on private lands. Agreements will be
developed to protect and restore 2.75 miles of low-mid elevation
riparian corridors (50 ac total, average width of 100 feet) that provide
habitat for native cutthroat trout or breeding habitat for Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-billed Cuckoo or other neotropical migratory
bird species on the Utah State Sensitive Species List by April 30, 2005,
and implement habitat restoration projects associated with these
agreements by November 30, 2005. For these projects both pre and
post-treatment surveys in project areas will be completed to evaluate
impacts to sensitive species.

Along the Jordan River 274 ac of riparian habitat on the Jordan River is
being restored using damage settlement funds obtained from two superfund
sites located on the Jordan River. The USFWS has entered into
cooperative agreements with three separate parties to restore riparian
habitats by removing invasive exotic plants, re-establishing native
plants, and contouring the banks of the Jordan River to restore the
floodplain.

The UDWR and USFWS plan to conduct stream restoration and fish and
wildlife habitat enhancement activities on 3,565 feet of the East Fork
Sevier River, 5.5 miles below [Otter Creek
Reservoir](http://www.aagunsales.com/More/Otter Creek Reservoir) and 8.5
miles above [Piute
Reservoir](http://www.aagunsales.com/More/Piute Reservoir).  For Phase 1
of the project, the UDWR proposes to recreate meanders in a 1,365-foot
channelized section of stream, increasing stream length to 1,730 feet. 
The UDWR also would restore
[floodplains](http://www.aagunsales.com/More/floodplains), install
in-stream structures to protect stream banks and [create fish
habitat](http://www.aagunsales.com/More/create fish habitat), and
restore riparian vegetation by seeding and planting to stabilize banks
and create [wildlife
habitat](http://www.aagunsales.com/More/wildlife habitat).  The UDWR
would also install a pipe to restore year-round water flow to abandoned
channel wetlands and excavate a backwater area filled with sediment to
recreate wetland habitat for [breeding
waterfowl,](http://www.aagunsales.com/More/breeding waterfowl,) and
songbirds.  For Phase 2, UDWR would stabilize severely eroding banks for
2,200 feet downstream, as well as install in-stream structures, build
floodplains, and restore riparian vegetation.

In 1999, the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
began the Provo River Restoration Project (PRRP) between Jordanelle Dam
and Deer Creek Reservoir to restore the middle Provo River's pattern and
ecological function. Its design is based on the latest scientific
information available. An interdisciplinary team of Scientists are
contributing their expertise to PRRP by designing and implementing
several studies. These biological and physical studies provide three
essential components for restoration: 1) they thoroughly describe the
existing physical condition of biological communities (i.e., baseline
condition); 2) they provide a basis for restoration design; and 3) they
initiate monitoring that enables planners to detect measurable change
due to restoration activities and to make informed management decisions.

The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is an
Executive branch agency of the federal government. The Commission was
authorized under the [Central Utah Project Completion Act of
1992](http://www.mitigationcommission.gov/aboutus/pdf/cupca.pdf). The
Act set terms and conditions for completing the [Central Utah
Project](http://www.mitigationcommission.gov/aboutus/aboutus_cup.html),
which diverts stores and delivers large quantities of water from
numerous Utah rivers to meet the needs of central Utah\'s citizens.

In addition to meeting Utah's growing demand for water, a major impetus
for passage of CUPCA was awareness that prior efforts to mitigate or
offset loss of natural resource values lagged far behind construction of
CUP water development features or were inadequate when measured against
modern environmental standards. The Mitigation Commission is therefore
responsible for designing, funding and implementing projects to offset
the impacts to fish, wildlife and related recreation resources caused by
CUP and other federal reclamation projects in Utah.

Of greatest need are data that document responses of bird communities to
the major disturbances that continue to threaten Utah's riparian
habitats. Information should be on species composition, estimates of
abundance and population health and viability whenever possible. Using
key indicator species to assess the quality of riparian habitat is an
area in need of further investigation. Moreover, understanding the
relationship between abundance, density, and productivity would be
helpful in knowing whether or not habitat quality could be reliably
inferred from simple bird survey data. In general, however, long-term
population monitoring in both degraded and improved (actively restored)
riparian habitats will greatly increase our ability to help land
managers make informed decisions about how to maintain, create, and
preserve important riparian habitats for birds.

*[Project Management]{.underline}**: ***UDWR conducts the statewide
Riparian Bird Monitoring Project with the support of the partners
involved in Utah Partners in Flight. UDWR also helps coordinate many
restoration projects (e.g., Central Utah Project, BLM, USFS, TNC) and is
currently developing a project tracking system which may also function
to track the monitoring component of restoration projects.

***Recommendations for Implementation:***

-   Continue project monitoring that is ongoing until scientific
    evaluation is possible

-   Fill gaps in survey coverage sufficiently to develop riparian
    site-based models

-   Evaluate restoration and other habitat modification projects that
    are not sufficiently monitored at present

-   Provide an information network among managers and scientists that
    identifies upcoming projects for pre- and post-project bird
    monitoring.

## 2. Changes occurring in shrubsteppe ecosystems.

***Description of the Management Issue***

Shrubsteppe habitat in Utah consists primarily of sagebrush communities
with a variety of associated shrubs and grass species. Approximately
7,271,362 ac of Shrubsteppe habitat exists within Utah making
Shrubsteppe the third most common habitat type in the state. Of this
total area, approximately 3,688,447 ac (51%) occur within the Basin and
Range, and an additional 2,680,595 ac (37%) within the Colorado Plateau
physiographic Region. The remaining ac of Shrubsteppe habitat is almost
equally distributed within the Utah Mountains (6.3%) and Wyoming Basin
(61%) physiographic regions. While Shrubsteppe is the third most common
type, it is the most widely distributed habitat that occurs in Utah with
Shrubsteppe habitat ranging from approximately 750 - 3,500 m (2,500 -
11,500 ft) in elevation. Shrubsteppe occurring within approximately
1,220 - 2,600 m (4,000 - 8,500 ft) elevation likely encompasses the
highest distribution of birds within this habitat type.

Shrubsteppe is widely recognized as one of the most imperiled ecosystems
in the United States and because of this declines in Greater
Sage-grouse, Gunnison Sage-grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse, and
sagebrush-dependant, neotropical migrant birds have been documented.
These declines are attributed to habitat including: (1) the long-term
effects of consecutive years of drought, (2) human alteration of natural
fire regimes, (3) the long-term effects of the overgrazing by livestock,
and (4) the invasion of non-native plants such as cheatgrass (*Bromus
tectorum*). Currently cooperative efforts by resource agencies are
underway to assist with the recovery of this biome. Changes (both
positive and negative) are occurring in these ecosystems at an alarming
rate. Habitat manipulation practices are being preformed year-round by
natural resource agencies without comprehensive documentation on the
species composition of birds and their densities in these areas. Such
data are necessary if the purpose of the practices is to restore
beneficial wildlife habitat.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information needed]{.underline}:* Estimates are needed of abundance
and productivity of sagebrush birds in (a) restoration and untreated
areas, (b) a variety of untreated sites thought to vary in habitat
quality, (c) areas with different grazing regimes and (d) disturbed and
undisturbed areas; disturbed areas include those altered by fire,
mechanical treatments, chemical treatments, drought, etc. A more
biologically relevant definition (e.g., density of territorial males and
their mates) may be used in future studies. This information can best be
obtained by developing a site-based, sagebrush model. See "Products from
CBM Projects" and Appendix B for more information about site-based
models.

*[Study Areas]{.underline}:* Specific sites will depend on study
objectives and always should be coordinated with existing monitoring
efforts. Before selecting study areas, contact should be made with local
and regional resource managers and area biologists to determine the
nature and location of any ongoing projects with shrubsteppe birds.

*[Focal species]{.underline}*: Although very widespread throughout Utah
(13.4% of the total land area), Shrubsteppe habitat is only sparsely
used by Utah's birds. Only 6 avian species use Shrubsteppe habitat for
breeding and an additional 2 species select Shrubsteppe habitat in
winter. Those species that do use Shrubsteppe are highly adapted and
tend to be dependent on Shrubsteppe or similar shrubland habitats such
as High Desert Scrub and Low Desert Scrub habitats.

**[Table 4: List of focal species for shrubsteppe habitat
management.]{.underline}**

Gunnison's Sage-grouse

Greater Sage-grouse

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Ferruginous Hawk

Sage Thrasher

Brewer's Sparrow

Sage Sparrow

Black-throated Sparrow

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: Changes in sagebrush bird
density resulting from seeding or other treatments may often be modest
and therefore, the objective in project evaluations should be 80% power
to detect a 2-fold change. Species-specific models should be constructed
for single species (the most abundant ones) and for multiple species
that include all focal species. The single-species models will be useful
at a large spatial scale where total abundance will be large. The
multi-species model will be more useful in predicting effects of
treatments on small areas where only a few individuals of many species
of interest may be present. More work is needed on reasonable accuracy
targets for these models. Interim targets are CV\<0.5 for the
species-specific models and CV\<0.25 for the multi-species models.

***Methods***

*[Bird survey methods]{.underline}*: Empirical modeling techniques that
directly estimate bird density. Examples of techniques that could be
used include distance sampling (Buckland et al. 1993), variable-distance
transects (Emlen 1971, 1977), variable circular--plots (Reynolds et al.
1980) and spot mapping (Bibby et al. 2000). Line transect techniques may
be more efficient in shrubsteppe though points may be a better choice in
some areas (especially in areas with rugged topography). Demographic
work to assess the health and viability of breeding birds should include
nest searches and nest monitoring.

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}:* To be determined following a
more thorough assessment of accuracy targets.

*[Habitat survey methods]{.underline}*: The habitat variables for the
site-based models should include a description of the dominant plant
taxa, stand density, and height of (a) the grass-forb layer, (b) the
shrub layer, and (c) the sapling and tree layer if one is present (which
will be rare). Also, landscape level data should be collected, including
presence of cliffs within a set distance, surrounding habitat types
within a set distance, and patch size where applicable. Other,
project-specific variables may also be needed (e.g., burn history,
presence of reseeding efforts).

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: Sampling will be based on a Generalized
Random Tessellation Stratified Design similar to the USFS-FIA and
EPA-EMAP programs
(http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/designpages/design_tech_info.htm). This
sampling system will be piloted in the Rich County Shrubsteppe
Monitoring Project and if successful will be used across the state.

***Roles and Responsibilities***

*[Existing and Needed Information:]{.underline}* Much work regarding
shrubsteppe birds has occurred in recent years as a result of increased
concerns over habitat loss and degradation throughout the Great Basin
BCR. In response to both local and range-wide declines of Greater
Sage-grouse, Gunnison's Sage-grouse, and Sharp-tailed Grouse
populations, Utah has devoted a significant amount of attention to their
management and conservation. In recognition that grouse population
decline was as much a socio-economic issue as it was a biological one,
Utah State University Extension in cooperation with the UDWR began to
develop local Working Groups in the late 1990's. Working groups were
organized at the county level to assist local communities restore and
maintain rangeland vegetation diversity while preserving and, in some
cases, even enhance rural economies. Currently, working groups provide a
major nexus for communication between private landowners, local, county,
state, federal and university researchers working to focus grouse
conservation efforts and funds. Greater Sage-grouse populations in
particular have responded in promising ways to vegetation manipulations,
modified grazing practices, and the promotion of native seed mixes
promoted by the Working Group framework.

UDWR, Utah State University and the Utah Cooperative Wildlife and Fish
Research Unit are collaborating to conduct research on the effects of
large scale sagebrush-steppe vegetation manipulation projects on
sagebrush obligate passerines. A major component of the research
includes the development of a portable monitoring protocol that can
provide avian response information at multiple scales.

Immediate needs are to address the short-term management issue of
whether sage-grouse function effectively as umbrella species.
Development of long-term population trend monitoring of shrubsteppe
birds is needed as well as documenting habitat relationships of
shrubsteppe-obligate birds (sage-grouse, sage thrasher, sage sparrow,
and brewers sparrow). This information would provide a better
understanding of how changes in bird populations are linked to
management practices (i.e., documentation of mechanistic, or cause and
effect, relationships).

*[Project Management]{.underline}*: UDWR and Utah State University (USU)
are closely coordinating a community-level monitoring project in Rich
County, Utah. UDWR and USU are responding to monitoring needs by the
Rich County Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) group made up of local
landowners and government representatives as well as state and federal
agencies. UDWR also helps coordinate many restoration projects (e.g.,
BLM, USFS, Local Sage-grouse Working Groups) and is currently developing
a project tracking system which may also function to track the
monitoring component of restoration projects.

***Recommendations and Implementation***

-   Decide on final list of habitat variables and how they will be
    measured for both models.

-   Obtain habitat variables for existing survey transects

-   Summarize existing data from sagebrush communities

## 3. Identification of Species at Risk and Cause of Declines.

***Background and Description of the Management Issue***

Many bird species are declining, or suspected to be declining, in Utah
and throughout the Intermountain West (Sauer et al. 1997). Unless
declines are halted, some species will eventually warrant protection
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a measure that is generally
considered a last resort in species

protection. Nearly all natural resource managers therefore recognize the
need for a monitoring program designed to serve as an "early-warning"
system that identifies declining species and causes of declines.

Identifying species at risk requires statewide collection of information
on species regularly found within Utah. For most nongame species,
estimating trends solely for Utah with sufficient precision is not
feasible (Bart et al. 2003). Instead, information from Utah must be
combined with information from surrounding states. Therefore,
collaboration with other states is essential. Increasing sample sizes on
the survey-level within Utah is inefficient and provides relatively
little increase in precision of the region-wide trend estimate for many
species. An example from the Pacific Northwest for this phenomenon is
provided by Bart et al. (2003). Although information on abundance and
productivity in different habitats also will be needed, it is much more
expensive to obtain. Therefore, such efforts should focus on species and
areas where potential threats or, conversely, opportunities to recover
populations are most imminent.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information Needed]{.underline}*: Permanent, annual surveys for all
birds in all seasons conducted in a coordinated, standardized manner on
a statewide basis; this is one of the primary goals of the CBM.

*[Study Areas]{.underline}*: All sites identified in this plan (Appendix
C), as well as at additional sites where appropriate opportunities
occur.

*[Focal Species]{.underline}*: All species identified in this plan as
those that warrant monitoring.

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: We used an accuracy target for
trends proposed by Bart et al. (2003), building on earlier work by
Butcher et al. (1993): 80% power to detect a 50% decline, occurring
during no more than 20 years, using a significance level of 0.10, a
two-tailed test, and incorporating effects of potential bias. Achieving
the target for every species is probably not realistic. Bart et al.
(2003) suggested achieving the target for 80% of the species that occur
regularly in North America as a reasonable goal. It is not expected that
the target can be achieved within a single state. Bart et al. (2003)
recommended that the target be achieved for each species' entire range
or an area one-third the size of the temperate portion of North America,
whichever was smaller. The objective for this management issue is 80%
power to detect a 20-year decline of 50%, occurring in an area no larger
than one-third of the temperate regions of Canada and the US, among 80%
of the species that warrant monitoring.

***Methods***

*[Bird Survey Methods]{.underline}*: A panel of experts at the
continental level has evaluated which survey methods would best estimate
long-term trends in population size, describe spatial patterns in
abundance, and monitor fitness for all species regularly occurring in
Canada and the U.S. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Number of species and dependent variables that would be
monitored by each major survey method.

  ------------------------------ ---------------- ------------ --------------- -------------
  **Survey program**             **Season**       **Trends**   **Abundance**   **Fitness**

  **1. Point transects and       **Breeding**     217          217             41
  related programs**                                                           

  **2. Area-searches for         **Year-round**   37           193             6
  landbirds**                                                                  

  **3. Area searches for aquatic **Year round**   51           71              43
  birds**                                                                      

  **4. Migration monitoring      **Migration**    51           5               49
  programs**                                                                   

  **5. Nest success programs**   **Breeding**     1            4               140

  **6. Colony counts**           **Breeding**     22           10              9

  **7. Aerial surveys**          **Year round**   23           11              0

  **8. Nocturnal surveys**       **Breeding**     9            10              0

  **9. Upland gamebird surveys** **Breeding**     11           11              11

  **10. Other surveys**          **Year round**   38           40              41
  ------------------------------ ---------------- ------------ --------------- -------------

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}*: To be determined following a
more thorough assessment of accuracy targets.

*[Habitat Variables]{.underline}*: Will vary considerably among sites,
habitats, species, and management issues. Essentially requires the
collection of habitat information necessary to determine reasons for
documented population changes, if and where they occur.

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: Sampling should occur on an annual basis
at as many monitoring sites (Appendix C) as time and funding levels
allow. If necessary, monitoring at sites could occur biannually to
accommodate larger numbers of samples distributed across an array of
habitats. However, it is important that monitoring programs be
established as long-term, permanent surveys conducted on a regular basis
using consistent and standardized survey methods.

**Roles and Responsibilities**

*[Existing and Needed Information]{.underline}*: Information exists
about the distribution and status of birds in Utah with numerous
unpublished reports and other gray literature. Unfortunately, other than
a few long-term monitoring programs (e.g., BBS, CBC), little information
exists about population trends of Utah's birds. Even for these
monitoring programs, sample sizes are insufficient

for trends to be reliably determined. Moreover, most monitoring projects
are conducted independently of other efforts and data are not pooled to
examine larger-scale trends. The CBM intends to supplement these efforts
by providing a framework for coordinated statewide monitoring of all
birds where data from an increased numbers of sites will be submitted to
a central repository for large-scale analyses.

Raptors are monitored in Utah through nest monitoring, migration
monitoring, and some winter surveys, but statewide coverage is
incomplete as of yet. This is also true for colony counts, migration
monitoring of landbirds, productivity monitoring of landbirds, and
surveys for nocturnal species. Because many of many monitoring efforts
require specialized protocols, they are currently done based on local
funding opportunities rather than with the intent to achieve
comprehensive coverage. The long-term goal of CBM includes sufficient
coverage for these survey types to accommodate regional trend estimates
on the parameters measured. Permanent funding on an annual basis is both
required and expected.

Surveys that cannot be conducted using multi-species protocols will be
constructed around existing survey efforts. For instance, surveys
currently exist for the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Mexican spotted owl, black swift and southwestern willow
flycatcher. Single-species surveys are needed, and will be incorporated
into the CBM.

*[Project Management]{.underline}*: USGS will coordinate this project on
the national level with state coordination handled by UDWR. Interstate
coordination would rely on USGS, the International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, Regional BCR Coordinators and state wildlife
agencies.

***Recommendations for Implementation***

-   Increase coverage of Utah's BBS routes

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coordinate with UDWR to explore the option of using aerial waterfowl
    surveys to conduct shorebird counts

-   Coordinate with UDWR to determine which, if any, other upland
    gamebird surveys are needed/desirable

-   Increase coverage of raptor surveys, colony counts, and nocturnal
    species surveys

-   Develop a centralized database for existing and new monitoring
    programs

-   Coordinate with other states of the intermountain west to increase
    effort toward productivity and migrant monitoring in the region

## 4. The loss of emergent and ephemeral wetlands.

***Description of the Management Issue***

Wetlands here are defined as including mudflats, playas, and marshes.
Approximately 132,885 ac of wetland habitat exists within Utah of which
82% occurs within the Basin and Range physiographic region. Wetland
habitat makes up only 0.24% of the total landscape of Utah, but at least
14% of Utah's avian species use wetlands as breeding habitat (n=33
species). Wetland habitat is not selected for in winter, likely due to
snow cover being common statewide during the winter season. Wetlands do
provide important stop-over sites during migration for a number of
birds.

Conservational concerns facing the loss of wetlands are (1) the
consecutive effects of the current drought conditions, (2) the invasion
of noxious or competitive weeds, (3) the diversion of water from these
areas for urban, industrial and agricultural use, (4) urban and
agricultural encroachment including roads, (5) re-channelization of
water, (6) removal of ground water for municipal and agricultural use,
(7) the lack of government protection, and (8) the loss of native, shrub
and tree species (i.e. native wetland vegetation).

Each year, managers make decisions about how to allocate water among
competing uses. In making these decisions, they need better information
about how birds will be affected by alternate strategies. The needed
information is gathered by surveying birds and recording water levels
and their effects on habitat availability for different foraging needs.
This data collection process, at least for the waterbird and shorebird
component, is not organized throughout the state at present. Therefore,
one of the main recommendations will be to assess existing habitat
information for aquatic birds in Utah, and to coordinate collection of
additional data as needed. Wildlife biologists whom we consulted in
preparing this plan emphasized that models showing habitat relationships
of wetland birds will be useful for optimizing water delivery for these
groups with limited water available for these purposes. The primary need
is thus for site-specific models that predict bird use at the times of
year that are most important to the populations, as a function of water
level. The development of site-specific models will also greatly
facilitate coordinated regional wetland management called for in both
the Intermountain West Shorebird Plan and the Intermountain West Water
Bird Plan.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information Needed]{.underline}*: Abundance data for all species
groups throughout the year is needed. Waterfowl abundance data may
already be sufficient with the existing survey effort, while additional
data on waterbirds and shorebirds are likely needed. Surveys during
migration are particularly important at many sites. Fitness indicators
such as productivity and foraging success are desirable.

[*Study Areas*:]{.underline} This management issue can be addressed at
any site included in this plan (Appendix C) and at other wetlands that
have been degraded. Areas with documented loss and degradation should be
a priority, as well as those sites that are actively being restored.

*[Focal Species]{.underline}*:

Table 5: List of focal species (in bold) and additional species that use
wetland habitats.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Common Loon                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Pied Billed Grebe                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Clark\'s Grebe                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Western Grebe                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Eared Grebe                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| California Gull                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Ring-billed Gull                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Franklin's Gull                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Bonaparte's Gull                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Sabine's Gull                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| **Caspian Tern**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Forester's Tern                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Black Tern                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **American White Pelican**                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Double-crested cormorant                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Great Blue Heron                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| American Bittern                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Snowy Egret                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Great Egret                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Cattle Egret                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Black-crowned Night-heron                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| White-faced Ibis                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tundra Swan                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Trumpeter Swan                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Common Merganser                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Red-breasted Merganser                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mallard                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gadwall                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Green-winged Teal                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| American Wigeon                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Northern Pintail                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Northern Shoveler                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Blue-winged Teal                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Cinnamon Teal                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Canvasback                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Redhead                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ring-necked Duck                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Greater Scaup                                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lesser Scaup                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Common Goldeneye                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Barrow's Goldeneye                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Bufflehead                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ruddy Duck                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Northern Harrier                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bald Eagle                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Peregrine Falcon                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Virginia Rail                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Sora                                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sandhill Crane                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Black-bellied Plover                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| American Golden Plover **Snowy Plover**                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Semipalmated Plover                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **American Avocet**                                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Black-necked Stilt**                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Common Snipe                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Willet                                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Long-billed Curlew**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Marbled Godwit                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Western Sandpiper                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Least Sandpiper                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Stilt Sandpiper                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Pectoral sandpiper                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Baird's Sandpiper                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Dunlin                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Semipalmated Sandpiper                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Western Sandpiper                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Sanderling                                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Greater Yellowlegs                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lesser Yellowlegs                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Solitary Sandpiper                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Spotted Sandpiper                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Whimbrel                                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ruddy Turnstone                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Killdeer                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| White-throated Swift                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Northern Rough-winged Swallow                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Tree Swallow                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Marsh Wren                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Common Yellowthroat                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Yellow-headed Blackbird                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Red-winged Blackbird                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: Most aquatic sites can be
covered thoroughly by surveys so obtaining species-specific estimates of
number present is probably feasible. More experience is needed in
developing these models, but we believe that a reasonable initial target
is that the CV of the predicted abundance for a single site should be ≤
0.25.

***Methods***

*[Bird survey methods]{.underline}*: Abundance of aquatic birds is
usually determined using area searches by foot, boat or airplane across
all of the site or in a series of randomly selected plots. Careful
attention must be paid to estimating detection rates where birds are
obscured by vegetation because the vegetation may change between years
leading to substantial changes in numbers recorded even if the number of
birds present does not change. Because of this potential bias, surveys
may require more rigorous sampling of bird abundance using distance
sampling. The Site descriptions, including survey protocols, are being
drafted for all major aquatic sites Utah (Appendix C).

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}:* Sample size requirements are
difficult to estimate at present because we do not know how many
different models will be required and because existing data have not yet
been analyzed. We believe a reasonable approach, given this uncertainty,
is to suggest that monthly surveys be made on as many aquatic sites,
where birds are influenced by water level manipulations, as possible.
During 2005, an analysis of existing data should be conducted to
determine how large a sample is needed to construct models that will
achieve the accuracy target above.

*[Habitat survey methods]{.underline}*: An initial list of habitat
variables that should be included in a model include; (1) water level
data from staff gauges (or water delivery data in managed wetlands)
obtained for each bird survey period; (2) topographic data that allow
relating water level to water depth; and (3) vegetation maps that reveal
wetland vegetation types

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: Surveys usually cover all of a given
site (i.e., there is no sampling in space). When this is not true,
stratification is often useful, followed by systematic or simple random
selection of plots. Survey times should be selected without regard to
number of birds present (i.e., surveyors must avoid the tendency to do a
survey *because* large numbers of birds are present).

***Roles and Responsibilities***

*[Existing and Needed Information]{.underline}* The distribution and
abundance of shorebirds in the GSL area is well known as a result of an
extensive WBS carried out during 1997-2001. Surveys were conducted on
more than 50 plots once every 10 days from early April to late
September. The GSL WBS provided an excellent basis for deciding which
area should be covered in the permanent shorebird survey. Means numbers
recorded per survey during July and August were calculated for all of
the survey areas together and for each of the survey areas. Maps
depicting the area-specific means were then prepared for all shorebirds
for which the mean number recorded per sample survey exceeded 50 and the
maps were scrutinized to identify concentration areas.

Information on aquatic species within the much of the state is still
lacking and trend information and specific effects of habitat loss are
unknown. Filling in these gaps therefore is a priority and ongoing
efforts should be coordinated in a statewide networking program that
includes biologists, refuges, management areas, and other managers at
significant aquatic sites. Already existing information at sites should
be compiled and analyzed to provide information on available data,
problem areas, and gaps in our knowledge. This coordinated effort will
allow agencies to focus efforts more appropriately and to set-up surveys
to gather baseline information lacking at sites.

*[Project Management]{.underline}:* UDWR will coordinate with USFWS
refuges and Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) and partner with
various wetland managers and stakeholders around Great Salt and Utah
Lake as well as outlying areas identified in this plan.

***Recommendations***

-   Complete the Utah aquatic site assessment that has been drafted for
    the purpose of identifying wetland bird monitoring needs (Appendix
    C)

-   Coordinate with UDWR, USFWS , and UT IBA to determine which
    additional information on habitat use of aquatic birds would be most
    useful, given ongoing efforts

-   Assess existing bird survey data, and implement new surveys, at
    focal sites for the modeling effort.

-   Assess existing supporting data (aerial photos, topographic maps,
    staff gauge data, etc.) that can be used in an analyses of
    geo-referenced count data

-   Prepare prototype models from the most important sites, estimate the
    accuracy of predictions they make, and develop guidelines describing
    additional data needed.

-   Recruit volunteers to conduct surveys at all other Utah wetlands as
    frequently as possible; use the results to improve the predictive
    power of the models, both at the focal sites (listed in Appendix C)
    and at other sites.

## 5. The effects of changes on the Great Salt Lake ecosystem.

***Description of the Management Issue***

Of all the habitats found in Utah, none are more unique than the Great
Salt Lake (GSL) Ecosystem. The GSL is the most important shorebird area
in the state, and one of the most important in the western United
States. The GSL is one of the few ecosystems in western North America
that is recognized as a site of hemispheric importance within the
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. It is prominently featured
in the National and Intermountain Regional Shorebird Plans and in the
current planning for an Intermountain Region and Continental Waterbird
Plan. The GSL and associated wetlands have also been recognized by the
North American Waterfowl Plan as key to the habitat integrity of the
Pacific Flyway.

The GSL ecosystem is an extensive complex of salt water, wetlands,
uplands and drainage stems occupying roughly 7,800 km^2^ making it the
fourth largest terminal lake in the world. The GSL offers a unique
habitat relationship between fresh and salt water habitats making it
particularly attractive to birds. This ecosystem provides important
habitat for breeding, migration and wintering habitat. In mid-summer an
abundant food source of brine flies and brine shrimp attracts the
continent's largest staging concentrations of Wilson's phalaropes and
significant numbers of red-necked phalaropes. The largest breeding and
migratory populations of snowy plovers are typically found on mudflats
in the summer months. American avocets and black-necked stilts also
stage in large numbers and a portion of them breed at the GSL. The
delta-formed wetlands attract tens of thousands of long-billed
dowitchers, marbled godwits, and western and least sandpipers during
migration in spring and late summer. Raptors also occur within the GSL
area because of the large numbers of waterbirds available as a food
source. Several species of swallows and other passerines exploit the
robust populations of brine flies and midges at the lake attracted to
the same invertebrate food as waterbirds.

Many of the current physical features of the lake that pose major
influences upon lake biology are a result of anthropogenic activities
and structures on and around the lake. The north, east and south sides
of the lake are the most modified and receive the most avian use. Human
population density is also greatest along these edges. Other threats to
this ecosystem are (1) the dumping of chemical inputs, (2) the loss of
water availability from urbanization, drought, and other factors, (3)
the eutrification of emergent water, (4) the invasion of non-native
plants, particularly Common Reedgrass (*Phragmites* spp.), (5) other
draw-down effects common in a free-standing lake and (6) Mineral
extraction which is a major industry.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information Needed]{.underline}*: Abundance data is needed during the
nesting and migration period to evaluate long-term population trends.
Nest success and productivity would also be desirable for select focal
species.

*[Focal Species]{.underline}:*

**[Table 6. List of species that use the GSL ecosystem.]{.underline}**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Clark\'s grebe

  Eared grebe

  Pied-billed grebe

  Western grebe

  American white pelican

  Double-crested cormorant

  Black-crowned night heron

  Cattle egret

  Great egret

  Great blue heron

  Snowy egret

  White-faced ibis

  Green-winged teal

  American wigeon

  Barrow\'s goldeneye

  Bufflehead

  Blue-winged teal

  Canada goose

  Canvasback

  Cinnamon teal

  Common goldeneye

  Common merganser

  Gadwall

  Greater scaup

  Lesser scaup

  Mallard

  Northern pintail

  Northern shoveler

  Red-breasted merganser

  Redhead

  Ring-necked duck

  Ruddy duck

  Snow goose

  Tundra swan

  Wood duck

  American coot

  Sandhill crane

  Sora

  Virginia rail

  American avocet

  Baird\'s sandpiper

  Black-bellied plover
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Black-necked stilt

  Common snipe

  Greater yellowlegs

  Killdeer

  Long-billed curlew

  Long-billed dowitcher

  Least sandpiper

  Lesser yellowlegs

  Marbled godwit

  Red knot

  Red-necked phalarope alt.

  Red-necked phalarope

  Sanderling

  Semipalmated plover

  Semipalmated sandpiper

  Snowy plover

  Spotted sandpiper

  Stilt sandpiper

  Western sandpiper

  Whimbrel

  Willet

  Wilson\'s phalarope

  Black tern

  Bonaparte\'s gull

  California gull

  Caspian tern

  Forster\'s tern

  Franklin\'s gull
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ring-billed gull

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: Most aquatic sites can be
covered thoroughly by surveys so obtaining species-specific estimates of
number present is probably feasible. More experience is needed in
developing these models, but we believe that a reasonable initial target
is that the CV of the predicted abundance for a single site should be ≤
0.25.

***Methods***

*[Bird survey methods]{.underline}*: (1) ground-based counts for all
species, (2) aerial surveys for avocets and black-necked stilt, (3)
aerial nest colony surveys, (4) surveys for phalaropes in the open
water, and (5) nest searches for select focal species.

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}:* To be determined following a
more thorough assessment of accuracy targets.

*[Habitat variables]{.underline}*: Habitat variables to include in the
model include degree of human disturbance on sites as well as type of
disturbance, cover availability of native vegetation, water levels, and
availability of food resources such as brine shrimp and flies. This
information will aid in the development of predictive models since the
predictions are based on habitat variable and their effect on bird
densities.

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: A plan for monitoring shorebirds has
been developed within the Shorebird Conservation Region Utah --BCR9. For
this plan, delineated areas were defined by starting with shorebird
concentration areas. When these areas were distinct and isolated from
other areas (e.g., a Wildlife Management Area), they became "domains"
(groups of strata). The borders between domains were chosen to follow a
readily recognizable feature such as a road or river. Domains were
defined for larger, continuous areas, such as the shore of the GSL, by
identifying portions of the area that would probably be surveyed using
similar methods or that were in a single ownership. Sizes of domains
were made small enough so that all the strata within each one could be
displayed clearly on one-page maps.

Domains were then sub-divided into strata in such a way that a single
sampling plan would be appropriate for all Type 1 habitat in each area.
The sampling plan might be simple, such as "cover the entire area" or
"cover a systematic sample of plots", or it might be more complex
involving, for example, a two-stage process of rapid surveys of a large
sample of plots and intensive surveys on a sub-set of these plots. The
guiding principle, however, was that a single sampling plan be
applicable to all Type 1 habitat. For example, if part of an area needed
to be covered by aerial surveys and photography, and the rest could be
covered by ground surveys, then the two areas would be placed in
different strata since the sample selection and estimation methods would
be quite different.

***Roles and Responsibilities***

*[Existing and Needed Surveys]{.underline}*: The distribution and
abundance of shorebirds in the GSL area is well known as a result of an
extensive waterbird survey carried out during 1997-2001. Surveys were
conducted on more than 50 plots once every 10 days from early April to
late September. The GSL WBS provided an excellent basis for deciding
which area should be covered in the permanent shorebird survey. Means
numbers recorded per survey during July and August were calculated for
all of the survey areas together and for each of the survey areas. Maps
depicting the area-specific means were then prepared for all shorebirds
for which the mean number recorded per sample survey exceeded 50 and the
maps were scrutinized to identify concentration areas to further
coordinate survey efforts.

A monitoring plan is needed and is being developed to provide accurate
estimates of the number of shorebirds present during the non-breeding
season on the GSL. These estimates will be used to analyze trends in
populations of individual species of shorebirds. In addition information
on productivity and nesting success of species on the GSL is needed. The
relationship between these parameters and measured habitat variables
will help provide useful information on the health of the ecosystem and
adequacy of management. Abundance and density of birds alone during the
non-breeding season may not be as useful indicator to the health of the
aquatic system as is evaluating nesting success and productivity.
Because birds are migratory, densities may be affected by problems along
migration routes or in their wintering habitat. Nest productivity
provides an indication of suitability of nesting habitat and thus can be
used for a site-based model.

*Project Management*: UDWR will coordinate with USFWS refuge and
Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) and partner with various wetland
managers and stakeholders around Great Salt Lake.

***Recommendations***

-   Develop surveys that can estimate densities of shorebirds and not
    just index abundance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Develop survey protocol to census phalaropes on the lake.

-   Develop survey protocols to evaluate nest success and productivity
    of focal nesting shorebirds on the lake.

-   Measure habitat variables at important aquatic sites on the lake to
    evaluate response of shorebirds to these variables.

## 6. Changes occurring in pinyon-juniper forests.

***Description of the Management Issue***

Pinyon-Juniper represents the most common habitat within Utah covering
approximately 19.4% of the state. Pinyon-Juniper occurs in all
physiographic regions of Utah between approximately 2,700 - 11,000 ft
elevation. However, community composition varies considerably with
elevation within this broad statewide band.

Two species of pinyon occur in Utah between 2,700 - 9,000 ft elevation,
singleleaf pinyon (*Pinus monophylla*) and two-needle pinyon (*P.
edulis*). Singleleaf pinyon occurs only in Beaver, Box Elder, Cache,
Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch, and Washington
counties. Two needle pinyon is more widespread in Utah, occurring in
Beaver, Cache, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Kane, Iron,
Juab, Millard, Paiute, Rich, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Uinta, Utah, and
Washington counties. Four species of juniper occur in Utah between
2,800 - 11,000 ft elevation, common juniper (*Juniperus communis*),
One-seed Juniper (*J. monosperma*), Utah juniper (*J.* *osteosperma*),
and Rocky Mountain juniper (*J. scopulorum*). Juniper occurs in all
counties in Utah with the exception of common juniper which is not known
to occur in Davis and Rich counties. Thus, the extent of Pinyon-Juniper
habitat in Utah varies both according to species and elevation, and
uniform stands of pinyon as well as uniform stands of juniper can and do
occur within the state in suitable areas.

During the past 150 years, western juniper has expanded its range into
adjacent grasslands and shrublands (Burkhardt and Tisdale 1976), as well
as aspen and riparian areas (Hann et al. 1997). All of these other types
are priority habitats for birds; they have all decreased in quantity and
quality from historic times (Hann et al. 1997), and expansion of
junipers into these types is an important issue. The post-settlement
increase of juniper came about at least partly due to a reduction in
fine fuels as a result of heavy livestock grazing near the turn of the
century. Lack of wildfire has allowed young junipers to fill in the
interspaces within old-growth stands, resulting in a closer canopy than
probably occurred pre-European settlement. This likely has reduced the
quality of oldgrowth habitat for old-growth dependent species. West et
al. (1998) state, "We are currently dealing with a vastly greater amount
of juniper and pinyon dominated lands than any humans have encountered
over the last 5,000 years."

Managers have requested guidance on how bird conservation strategies
might be included in pinyon-juniper management, especially for the use
of prescribed fire and other methods of tree removal used for preserving
sagebrush habitats and for managing stand susceptibility to wildfires.
Information is also needed to help identify high-quality stands (e.g.,
that agencies would try to protect during a wildfire) and to evaluate
bird responses to management programs such as thinning or partial
removal of a stand. Effects of landscape mosaics will be particularly
valuable, since it is assumed that pinyon-juniper associated birds
respond at a landscape scale to fires. For example, managers intending
to remove part of a large stand need to know whether the remainder of
the stand, and other stands nearby, will continue to provide adequate
habitat for birds.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information Needed]{.underline}*: Models are needed to predict
abundance and productivity of birds in pinyon-juniper during the
breeding season and of abundance and fitness of birds in pinyon-juniper
during migration.

*[Study Areas]{.underline}*: Initial work should focus on the most
intact, old-growth pinyon-juniper habitats to develop a baseline data
base. As that data becomes available, surveys should be set-up to cover
the spectrum of disturbance levels within the pinyon-juniper habitat
found in the state.

*[Focal Species]{.underline}*: At least 21 avian species select
Pinyon-Juniper as breeding habitat.

**[Table 7 : List of focal species for pinyon-juniper habitat
management.]{.underline}**

Ferruginous Hawk

Gray Flycatcher

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Virginia's Warbler

Pinyon-juniper dependent species (Parrish et al. 2002) appropriate to
study area

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: Both statewide (regional) and
site-based models are needed. The statewide model will permit a regional
evaluation of the importance of pinyon-juniper habitats to birds and
identification of large-scale patterns in pinyon-juniper use. The
site-based model will help reveal which traits of pinyon-juniper stands
(including landscape variables) are most highly correlated with bird
abundance. See "Products from CBM Projects" and Appendix B for more
information about statewide and site-based models. We suggest that
species-specific and multi-species versions of each model be
constructed. More work is needed on reasonable accuracy targets for
these models. Interim targets are CV \< 0.5 for the species-specific
models and CV \< 0.25 for the multi-species models.

***Methods***

*[Bird survey methods]{.underline}*: Empirical modeling techniques that
directly estimate bird density should be used. Examples of techniques
that could be used include distance sampling (Buckland et al. 1993)
variable-distance transects (Emlen 1971, 1977) and variable-circular
plots (Reynolds et al. 1980). Point centered techniques may be more
logistically operational in wooded Pinyon-Juniper habitats. Demographic
work to assess the health and viability of breeding birds should include
nest searches and nest monitoring.

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}:* To be determined following a
more thorough assessment of accuracy targets.

*[Habitat variables]{.underline}*: The habitat variables we propose to
include for the regional model are stand size and elevation, as well as
other measures such as soil type, slope, and aspect. The habitat
variables for the site-based model will include dominant plant taxa,
canopy coverage, and height of (a) grass-forbs, (b) shrubs and saplings,
(c) understory trees, and (d) overstory trees. Average dbh of overstory
trees should also be recorded. Also, landscape variables may be
generated from available supporting data, for example recent aerial
photography or vegetation maps that provide data on surrounding habitat
types. The burn history, pre-scribed fire treatments, or other fire
prevention treatments, need to be included as well. These will likely be
available from the BLM and Forest Service as geo-referenced maps.

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: Surveys probably should employ one-stage
systematic sampling, perhaps preceded by stratification, when project
areas are small enough for this to be feasible, and should use
multi-stage sampling when the strata are too large for this approach.
Precision will generally be higher, for a fixed number of stations, with
the first approach. The same general approach will probably work to
gather data for development of the site-based predictive model, although
in most cases strata will be large enough that clusters of point-count
stations will be used. Strata should be delineated to insure a wide
range of habitat conditions are sampled. Analysis should acknowledge the
stratification and multi-stage nature of the sampling plan.

***Roles and Responsibilities***

Little work has been done examining bird communities in Pinyon-Juniper
habitats. Because of this it will be important to develop baseline data
from the most intact Pinyon-Juniper communities. This will include
information on bird species composition, densities, and nest
productivity as well as data on floristic structure and composition of
the site. Next, agencies will need to identify threat to Pinyon-juniper
habitats, types of habitat projects occurring in these habitats and
response of birds to these different conditions using demographic and
density data. This information will help document population viability
in a range of habitat conditions. In addition, long-term monitoring
programs should be instituted within this habitat type.

*[Project Management]{.underline}:* UDWR will coordinate with BLM and
USFS. UDWR also helps coordinate many restoration projects (e.g., BLM,
USFS, Local Sage-grouse Working Groups) and is currently developing a
project tracking system which may also function to track the monitoring
component of restoration projects.

***Recommendations***

-   Coordinate with other investigators who have assessed pinyon-juniper
    birds and their habitats to determine which additional information
    is still needed.

-   Decide on a final list of habitat variables and how they will be
    measured for both models.

-   Identify priority areas, focal species, survey techniques and
    management issues

## 7. Changes occurring in aspen forests.

***Description of the Management Issue***

Aspen occurs in all Utah counties within elevations ranging from 5,600 -
10,500 ft within the Utah Mountains physiographic region. In-most Utah
counties, Aspen communities associate with Mixed Conifer species at
appropriate elevations, and in the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah
Aspen associates with Lodgepole Pine. Approximately 1,863,846 ac (3.4%
of the total land area) of Aspen habitat exists within Utah. Of this
total area, most occurs within the Utah Mountains physiographic region
(84%). The Colorado Plateau physiographic region contains approximately
(10.6%) of Aspen habitat, Wyoming Basin contains an additional 3.6%, and
Basin and Range approximately 1.9%. Of the total ac of Aspen habitat,
approximately 33,650 ac (1.8%) occur as Aspen/conifer mix occurring
mostly within the Utah Mountains physiographic region. An additional
14,500 ac (0.8%) of Aspen/lodgepole mix occurs within the Uinta
Mountains of northeastern Utah also within the Utah Mountains
physiographic region.

A gradual loss of aspen appears to be occurring in Utah and elsewhere in
the Intermountain West (Wall et al. 2001). The causes of change in aspen
forests appear to be (1) natural successional change and the decrease in
stand regeneration, (2) the human alteration of fire regimes, (3)
long-term effects of overgrazing, (4) long-term drought effects, and (5)
improper recreational activities in stands. Managers need better
information on the importance of aspen stands to birds in Utah. Specific
topics of interest include identifying bird species that depend on aspen
to reach their highest abundance and/or fitness, and describing the
characteristics of aspen stands (e.g., patch size, understory
development, tree size) that determine habitat quality for aspen birds.
This information will help managers determine the importance of research
on aspen, which habitat elements matter most to birds, and will help
identify stands which should be protected.

***Survey Objectives***

*[Information Needed]{.underline}*: Models are needed to predict
abundance, density, and productivity of birds in aspen during the
breeding season and of abundance and fitness of birds in aspen during
migration.

*[Study areas]{.underline}*: Wherever Aspen occurs in Utah, as both
seral and climax stages. Both public and private lands should be
considered when designing projects to allow for the range of management
activities occurring within these habitats to be examined.

*[Focal Species]{.underline}*: At least 19 avian species select Aspen
habitat for breeding, but none select Aspen as winter habitat.

**[Table 8 : List of focal species for aspen habitat
management]{.underline}**

Northern Goshawk

Lewis's Woodpecker

Williamson's Sapsucker

Aspen dependent species (Parrish et al. 2002) appropriate to study area

*[Quantitative Objectives]{.underline}*: Statewide (regional) and
site-based models are needed; project evaluations will likely also be
needed, although no specific projects have been identified at the time
of this draft. The regional model will permit a statewide evaluation of
the importance of aspen to birds and identification of large-scale
patterns in aspen use. The site-based model will help reveal which
traits of aspen stands (including landscape variables) are most highly
correlated with bird abundance in aspen. See "Products from Coordinated
Monitoring Projects" and Appendix B for more information about regional
and site-based models. We suggest that species-specific and
multi-species versions of each model be constructed. More work is needed
on reasonable accuracy targets for these models. Interim targets are CV
\< 0.5 for the species-specific models and CV \< 0.25 for the
multi-species models.

***Methods***

*[Bird survey methods]{.underline}*: Empirical modeling techniques that
directly estimate bird density should be used. Examples of techniques
that could be used include distance sampling (Buckland et al. 1993),
variable-distance transects (Emlen 1971, 1977)and variable
circular--plots (Reynolds et al. 1980). Demographic work to assess the
health and viability of breeding bird communities should include nest
searches and nest monitoring.

*[Sample Size Requirements]{.underline}:* To be determined following a
more thorough assessment of accuracy targets.

*[Habitat variables]{.underline}*: The habitat variables for the
regional model will include stand size and elevation, and may also
include measures such as soil type, slope, and aspect that are available
from geo-referenced data sources. The habitat variables for the
site-based model will include measures of dominant plant taxa, stand
density, and height of (a) grass-forbs, (b) shrubs and saplings, (c)
understory trees, and (d) overstory trees. Average
diameter-at-breast-height of overstory trees should also be used.

*[Sampling Plans]{.underline}*: Surveys probably should employ one-stage
systematic sampling, perhaps preceded by stratification, when project
areas are small enough for this to be feasible, and should use
multi-stage sampling when the strata are too large for this approach.
Precision will generally be higher, for a fixed number of stations, with
the first approach. The same general approach will probably work to
gather data for development of the site-based predictive model, although
in most cases strata will be large enough that clusters of point-count
stations will be used. Stratification should be considered to insure
that high-quality stands are included in the sampling; habitat
assessment may need to precede bird surveys to determine which sites are
high quality. Analysis should acknowledge the stratification and
multi-stage nature of the sampling plan.

***Roles and Responsibilities***

*[Existing and Needed Surveys]{.underline}*: Few data exist within the
state of Utah on the relationship between the condition of Aspen stands
and bird communities. Basic descriptions of aspen bird community
composition, relative abundance of species, and stand condition are
needed. Also, monitoring of demographic patterns across an array of
stand conditions is desirable. To address the management issues that
relate to aspen, surveys in both degraded and protected (restored)
stands are necessary. Initial surveys should focus on establishing
baseline (reference) conditions, locating areas for long-term population
trend monitoring, and identifying potential target species and study
sites for more intensive assessments of highest priority management
issues.

*[Project Management]{.underline}*: UDWR will coordinate with USFS and
BLM. UDWR also helps coordinate many restoration projects and is
currently developing a project tracking system which may also function
to track the monitoring component of restoration projects.

***Recommendations***

-   Obtain available information from existing aspen stand

-   Decide on final list of additional habitat variables and how they
    will be measured for both models

-   Obtain additional habitat variables for existing surveys, as needed

-   Carry out preliminary analyses for the statewide model

# [Summary of Recommendations]{.smallcaps} 

The purpose of CBM is to network existing surveys with each other, to
identify important gaps, and to cover these gaps using scientifically
sound methods. One desired result of CBM is that projects that are part
of the network will have already undergone significant scientific
scrutiny through a peer-review process by the time they may be
challenged. Another desired outcome is that access by resource managers
to relevant bird data will be improved, thus allowing them to use
limited funds for inventory and monitoring most efficiently. Such access
to data (or metadata) will be provided through data repositories within
Utah and at national data banks (i.e. Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center). In addition, dissemination of monitoring data analyses can
occur quickly to Utah partners through the UDWR Nongame Bird Program.

The CBM is designed to be fully integrated with the Utah CWCS
(completion scheduled for October 2005). Focal species and habitat
issues are, for the most part, the same for both plans. The CBM provides
more detail on avian monitoring issues and thus the CWCS will refer to
CBM to address such issues.

As the first step of implementing CBM, we recommend completing the
assessment of ongoing monitoring efforts that may be included in a
statewide network. Specifically, we ask our partners to review the list
of existing surveys (see "Summary of Existing ...." section above) to
determine if all surveys that should be listed, are in fact listed. For
this, we emphasize efforts that are either already designed for
longer-term monitoring (\> 4 years) or that should be made part of a
longer-term effort, and efforts that are relevant to a short-term
objective of this document. Most special research projects will likely
fall outside the purview of CBM; we recommend including only those that
address a short-term objective named in this draft document (e.g., site
inventories that use standardized methods, habitat-quality studies for
single species, etc.).

Secondly, preliminary bird and habitat data already exist for all
management issues discussed in this document. We thus recommend to
complete preliminary analyses on these data sets to (1) determine how
much more sampling needs to be done to answer the questions, and (2) to
provide preliminary results from regional and site-based models on those
management questions where fairly comprehensive data are already
available (e.g. lowland riparian and montane riparian birds of the Great
Basin).

Finally, we recommend implementing the short set of actions listed under
each of the management issues (see above) to move forward on each of the
short-term goals of the program.

# [Proposed Action Plan]{.smallcaps}

To implement Utah's CBM, we propose a UDWR-in-labor approach that shares
the burden of implementation among the program partners. To facilitate
further discussion of the implementation process, we provide here a
preliminary list of both long-term (Table ) and short-term (Table)
program elements, the lead agency/organization for each element,
potential funding mechanisms, and current status of element
implementation. Note: Utah partners are asked to fill in and modify
these tables during their review of the draft monitoring plan, v1.0.

Coordination between the plan elements will need to be centralized, and
we recommend that this is done through UDWR. The role of UDWR will be to
coordinate data collection, compile data and disseminate appropriate
information (sensitive information will be protected by the state
version of Freedom of Information Act). UDWR already has an interagency
agreement pertaining to data exchange with federal agencies in the
state. A similar agreement could be developed for key non-government
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, HWI, and the Audubon
Society.

**Table 9: Summary of CBM plan elements (divided into long-term and
short-term goals), agency/organization taking the lead in
implementation, funding mechanism, and current status of projects**.

+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| **Plan      | **Responsible | **Funding     | **Current status of    |
| Element**   | Agency/**     | mechanisms**  | implementation**       |
|             |               |               |                        |
|             | **o           |               |                        |
|             | rganization** |               |                        |
+=============+===============+===============+========================+
| Waterbird   | UDWR, USFWS,  | IWJV, USFWS,  | Plan is being          |
| Monitoring  | TNC, Duck     | SWG, NAWCA    | developed for          |
|             | Clubs         |               | monitoring waterbirds  |
| (**l        |               |               | on the GSL; GSL WBS    |
| ong-term**) |               |               | have been conducted    |
|             |               |               | since 1997 to evaluate |
|             |               |               | migratory bird use;    |
|             |               |               | Quarterly surveys      |
|             |               |               | conducted at WMAs and  |
|             |               |               | aerial surveys.        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Shorebird   | UDWR,         | IWJV, USFWS,  | Plan is being          |
| Monitoring  | USFWS,TNC,    | SWG, NAWCA    | developed for          |
|             | Duck Clubs    |               | monitoring shorebirds  |
| (**l        |               |               | on the GSL; GSL WBS    |
| ong-term**) |               |               | have been conducted    |
|             |               |               | since 1997 to evaluate |
|             |               |               | migratory bird use;    |
|             |               |               | Quarterly surveys at   |
|             |               |               | WMAs                   |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Waterfowl   | UDWR,         | IWJV, NWCA    | Waterfowl surveys      |
| Monitoring  | USFWS,TNC,    |               | conducted year-round   |
|             | Duck Clubs    |               | along standardized     |
| (**l        |               |               | routes, aerial         |
| ong-term**) |               |               | surveys, banding and   |
|             |               |               | hunter harvest; GSL    |
|             |               |               | WBS conducted since    |
|             |               |               | 1997 to evaluate       |
|             |               |               | migratory bird use     |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Upland Game | UDWR          | State and     | Leks inventoried       |
| Monitoring  |               | Federal       | annually; aerial and   |
|             |               | Funds,        | ground surveys to      |
| (**l        |               | Hunting       | locate new leks;       |
| ong-term**) |               | licenses      | development of local   |
|             |               |               | working groups since   |
|             |               |               | 1990; cooperative      |
|             |               |               | research projects to   |
|             |               |               | investigate species    |
|             |               |               | relationship to        |
|             |               |               | habitat and            |
|             |               |               | demographic            |
|             |               |               | information            |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Landbird    | UDWR, USFS,   | State funds,  | BBS, CBC, RBM          |
| Monitoring  | USGS, BLM     | CUP, USFWS,   |                        |
|             |               | BLM, BOR,     |                        |
| (**l        |               | NPS, SWG,     |                        |
| ong-term**) |               | ESMF          |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Breeding    | UDWR, TNC     | UDWR          | MAPS, Utah Breeding    |
| Bird        |               |               | Bird Atlas             |
| Monitoring  |               |               |                        |
|             |               |               |                        |
| (**l        |               |               |                        |
| ong-term**) |               |               |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Breeding    | UDWR, NPS,    | USFWS, BLM,   | Mostly species         |
| Raptor      | BLM, USFS     | UDWR, HWI     | specific -- PEFA,      |
| Monitoring  |               |               | BAEA, GOEA, FEHA, NOGO |
|             |               |               |                        |
| (**l        |               |               | General Raptor surveys |
| ong-term**) |               |               | in some areas -- e.g.  |
|             |               |               | West Desert            |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+

+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Winter      | UDWR          | UDWR          | Wintering populations  |
| Raptor      |               |               | of BAEA have been      |
| Monitoring  |               |               | monitored since 1986   |
|             |               |               | as part of national    |
| (**l        |               |               | survey effort          |
| ong-term**) |               |               |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Migrating   | HWI, BLM,     | HWI, BLM,     | Annual raptor          |
| Raptor      | UDWR          | UDWR          | migration counts       |
| Monitoring  |               |               |                        |
|             |               |               |                        |
| (**l        |               |               |                        |
| ong-term**) |               |               |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Nocturnal   | UDWR, USFS,   | ESMF, SWG,    | Annual MSO surveys,    |
| Bird        | BLM, NPS      | BLM, UDWR     | USFS surveys           |
| Monitoring  |               |               | (Flammulated owls and  |
|             |               |               | Boreal owls),          |
| (**l        |               |               | Development of GIS MSO |
| ong-term**) |               |               | habitat model          |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Changes     | UDWR, BLM     | Cost-share    | probably enough count  |
| Occurring   |               | grants from   | data for Great Basin   |
| in Riparian |               | agency        | regional model, may    |
| Habitats    |               | partners and  | need additional data   |
|             |               | other funding | for site-based model;  |
| (**sh       |               | sources -     | some project           |
| ort-term**) |               |               | evaluation ongoing,    |
|             |               | UDWR, BLM,    | but gaps exist; Mojave |
|             |               | USFS, ESMF,   | regional and           |
|             |               | SWG, BOR, NPS | site-based model will  |
|             |               |               | be completed in late   |
|             |               |               | 2005 or early 2006     |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Changes     | UDWR, USU,    | ESMF, SWG,    | Major study effort in  |
| Occurring   | Local SAGR    | BLM, UDWR     | Rich County, other     |
| Shrubsteppe | working       |               | monitoring efforts     |
| Ecosystems  | group, CRM,   |               | across the state in    |
|             | Rich County   |               | association with       |
| (**sh       |               |               | restoration efforts    |
| ort-term**) |               |               |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Wetland     | UDWR, TNC,    | IWJV, USFWS,  | GSL WBS; WMA survey    |
| Loss and    | USFS, Duck    | SWG, NAWCA,   | routes; Gaps exist,    |
| Degradation | Clubs, UFWS   | USFS          | need coordinated       |
|             |               |               | monitoring at the      |
| (**sh       |               |               | state level            |
| ort-term**) |               |               |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Effects of  | UDWR, TNC,    | IWJV, USFWS,  | Plan is being          |
| Changes on  | USFS, Duck    | SWG, NAWCA,   | developed for          |
| the GSL     | Clubs, UFWS   | USFS          | monitoring shorebirds  |
| Ecosystem   |               |               | on the GSL; GSL WBS    |
|             |               |               | have been conducted    |
| (**sh       |               |               | since 1997 to evaluate |
| ort-term**) |               |               | migratory bird use;    |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Changes     | UDWR, USFS,   | UDWR, BLM,    | Few data exist on      |
| Occurring   | BLM           | USFS          | pinyon-juniper bird    |
| in          |               |               | communities. The Utah  |
| Pin         |               |               | CBM will outline       |
| yon-Juniper |               |               | protocols to support   |
| Forests     |               |               | these surveys          |
|             |               |               |                        |
| (**sh       |               |               |                        |
| ort-term**) |               |               |                        |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+
| Changes     | UDWR, USFS    | Cost-share    | Probably enough Utah   |
| Occurring   |               | grants from   | Bird Count coverage    |
| in Aspen    |               | agency        | for regional model,    |
| Forests     |               | partners and  | USFS has habitat data  |
|             |               | other funding | for site-based model;  |
| (**sh       |               | sources --    | might need additional  |
| ort-term**) |               | UDWR, USFS    | coverage; Need data on |
|             |               |               | descriptions of aspen  |
|             |               |               |                        |
|             |               |               | bird community         |
|             |               |               | composition,           |
|             |               |               |                        |
|             |               |               | relative abundance of  |
|             |               |               | species, and stand     |
|             |               |               | condition.             |
+-------------+---------------+---------------+------------------------+

# 

# [Literature Cited]{.smallcaps}

Bart, J., K.P. Burnham, E.A. Dunn, C. Frances and C.J. Ralph. 2003.
Goals and strategies for estimating trends in landbird abundance.
*Submitted* to Journal of Wildlife Management.

Bart, J., J. Buchanan, and R. Altman. 2003. Optimal Allocation of New
BBS Routes for Estimating Trends. *In* Ralph, C.J. and T. R. Rich
(eds.). Proceedings of the 3d annual Partners in Flight International
Symposium.

Bibby, C. J., N.D. Burgess, D.A. Hill, and S.H. Mustoe. 2000. Bird
census techniques. 2nd ed. Academic Press, London and San Diego, Calif.
302 p

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, and J. L. Laake. 1993.
Distance Sampling: Esti-mating Abundance of Biological
Populations.Chapman and Hall, New York. 1981.

Burkhardt, J. W., and E. W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in
southwestern Idaho. Ecology 57:472--484.

Emlen, J. T. 1971. Population densities of birds de-rived from transect
counts. Auk

88:332-342.

Emlen, J. T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from
transect counts. Auk 94:455-468.

Hann, W. J., J. L. Lyons, M. G. Karl, P. F. Hessburg, R. E. Keane, D. G.
Long, J. P. Menakis, C. H. McNicoll, S. G. Leonard, R. A. Gravenmier,
and B. G. Smith. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. Pages 339--1055
in An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia River
Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume II. (T. M.
Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds.). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific
Northwest Research Station.

Parrish, J., F. Howe, and R. Norvell. 2002.Utah Partners in Flight Avian
Conservation Strategy. UDWR Publication No. 02-27.

Reynolds, R. T., J. M. Scott,and R. A. Nussbaum.1980. A variable
circular-plot method for estimating bird numbers. Condor 82:309-313

UDWR. *In prep*. The Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.

Wall, T. G., R. F. Miller, and T. J. Svejcar. 2001. Juniper encroachment
into aspen in the Northwest Great Basin. Journal of Range Management
54:691-698.

West, N. E., R. J. Tausch, and P. T. Tueller. 1998. A management
oriented classification of pinyon-juniper woodlands of the Great Basin.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-12. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station.

# 

# Appendix A. Bird Species that Warrant Monitoring in Utah

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538756 .anchor}**[Species Ranking
System]{.smallcaps}**

The Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (UDWR *in
prep*.)includes three tiers, or groupings, of species of conservation
concern.

TIER I- The first tier of conservation concern includes those species
which are federally Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species as well
as those species for which conservation agreements with partner agencies
are already in place.

TIER II- The species in the second tier comprise those species included
in the UDWR's Species of Concern List. The Species of Concern List was
developed by teams of UDWR employees with expertise in Utah species and
habitats, aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, population genetics,
conservation biology, and native species management. Generation of the
List included the formulation of scientifically sound criteria to be
used in the evaluation of species for inclusion in the List. These
criteria were numerous but fell into four major categories: biology/life
history, population, distribution, and threats.

The Species of Concern List was developed using the best information
available. As a first step, the standardized data compiled by UDWR's
Utah Natural Heritage Program was used to determine those wildlife
species with possible threats to continued viability. Natural Heritage
Program methodology is used in much of the Western Hemisphere by
government agencies and other organizations to objectively determine the
relative viability of species. After the wildlife species vulnerable to
extinction or extirpation were identified, the teams assembled
additional data and literature in order to fully evaluate these species
for possible inclusion in the list. Each species was evaluated
individually using the collective knowledge of the experts on the teams,
as well as the data and literature at their disposal.

TIER III- The evaluation of species for Tier III followed the process
and criteria developed by the UDWR teams for evaluation of species for
the Species of Concern List. As in the evaluation of species for
inclusion in the Species of Concern List, species considered for Tier
III were evaluated based on available information relating to
biology/life history, population, distribution, and threats. Each
species was evaluated individually to determine the relative viability
of the species in Utah. In many cases, species designated as Tier III
failed to meet all of the criteria for listing on the Species of Concern
List or there was insufficient data to warrant inclusion on the list.
Many Tier III species require further research or monitoring to
determine their status in the state. Tier III species include all Utah
Partners in Flight priority species that were not included as state
Species of Concern (Tier II).

The UPIF Rankings Committee employed 8 criteria in prioritizing Utah
bird species: relative abundance, breeding distribution, winter
distribution, threats to breeding range, threats to non-breeding,
importance of area, population trend, and population trend uncertainty.
The criteria are based upon national PIF Planning Process criteria first
developed in 1993 with modifications made to provide a more specific
approach overall for Utah. Criteria include four 'global' measures
(i.e., they do not change from region to region ), three 'local'
measures (i.e., measures specific to Utah and physiographic strata), and
one measure assessing the uncertainty associated with the 'local'
measures. Each species is given a score of 1-5 in each category, with 1
indicating the least amount of vulnerability with regard to that
parameter and 5 the greatest amount of vulnerability.

In a divergence from the national process, the UPIF Rankings Committee
considered the three 'local' measures more important than the others and
subsequently weighted these by doubling their scores. Scores for each
species were then summed (Utah PIF SUM) to produce a possible composite
score ranging from 10 -50. Two-hundred and thirty-one landbird species
in Utah have been ranked. Those species not ranked are designated as
such (NR)(Parrish et al. 2002).

**Table 10. List of avian species that occur in Utah (B=Breeding season,
M = Migration, W= Winter, O= Occasional, A = Accidental).**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 25%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Common Name</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Season(s) of Occurrence</strong></th>
<th></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>UPIF Score</strong></th>
<th colspan="6"><strong>Management Issue</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><strong>CWCS Tier</strong></th>
<th><strong>Rip-arian</strong></th>
<th><p><strong>Shrub-</strong></p>
<p><strong>steppe</strong></p></th>
<th><strong>Wet-land</strong></th>
<th><strong>GSL</strong></th>
<th><strong>PJ</strong></th>
<th><strong>Aspen</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Common Loon</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Eared Grebe</td>
<td>BMW</td>
<td></td>
<td>18</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Pied-billed Grebe</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Clark's Grebe</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Western Grebe</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American White Pelican</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>36</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Double-crested Cormorant</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Bittern</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Black-crowned Night-Heron</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Green Heron</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Cattle Egret</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>16</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Snowy Egret</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>19</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Great Egret</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Great Blue Heron</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>White-faced Ibis</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Tundra Swan</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Canada Goose</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wood Duck</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Mallard</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gadwall</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Green-winged Teal</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Wigeon</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Northern Pintail</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Northern Shoveler</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Blue-winged Teal</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cinnamon Teal</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Canvasback</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Redhead</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ring-necked Duck</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Greater Scaup</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lesser Scaup</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Long-tailed Duck</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Common Goldeneye</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Barrow’s Goldeneye</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Bufflehead</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Common Merganser</td>
<td>BMW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Red-breasted Merganser</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Hooded Merganser</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ruddy Duck</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Turkey Vulture</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>18</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Osprey</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>23</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Northern Harrier</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Golden Eagle</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bald Eagle</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td>I</td>
<td>27</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sharp-shinned Hawk</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cooper's Hawk</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Northern Goshawk</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>I</td>
<td>30</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red-tailed Hawk</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Swainson's Hawk</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Rough-legged Hawk</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ferruginous Hawk</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>33</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black Hawk</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>32</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>American Kestrel</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Merlin</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Prairie Falcon</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Peregrine Falcon</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>29</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Chukar</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gray Partridge</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ring-necked Pheasant</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wild Turkey</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sharp-tailed Grouse</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>II</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Ruffed Grouse</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Blue Grouse</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Greater Sage-Grouse</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>36</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Gunnison’s Sage-Grouse</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>I</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gambel's Quail</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>California Quail</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Scaled Quail</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>White-tailed Ptarmigan</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Virginia Rail</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sora</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Coot</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>19</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Common Moorhen</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Sandhill Crane</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Black-bellied Plover</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Golden Plover</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Snowy Plover</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Semipalmated Plover</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Mountain Plover</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>36</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Killdeer</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>17</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>American Avocet</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>37</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-necked Stilt</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>34</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Willet</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Greater Yellowlegs</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lesser Yellowlegs</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Solitary Sandpiper</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Spotted Sandpiper</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Whimbrel</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Long-billed Curlew</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>34</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Marbled Godwit</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ruddy Turnstone</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red Knot</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sanderling</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Dunlin</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Pectoral Sandpiper</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Baird’s Sandpiper</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Western Sandpiper</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Semipalmated Sandpiper</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Least Sandpiper</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Stilt Sandpiper</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Long-billed Dowitcher</td>
<td>MW</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Common Snipe</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wilson's Phalarope</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red Phalarope</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Red-necked Phalarope</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Franklin's Gull</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Bonaparte's Gull</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Ring-billed Gull</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>California Gull</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Sabine’s Gull</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Caspian Tern</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Forster's Tern</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Black Tern</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Band-tailed Pigeon</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>25</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Rock Dove</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>17</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Mourning Dove</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>14</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>White-winged Dove</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Inca Dove</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Yellow-billed Cuckoo</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>I</td>
<td>32</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-billed Cuckoo</td>
<td>A</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>NR</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Greater Roadrunner</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Barn Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Short-eared Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>29</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Long-eared Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Great Horned Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>19</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Mexican Spotted Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>I</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Western Screech-Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Flammulated Owl</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Northern Pygmy-Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Northern Saw-whet Owl</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Boreal Owl</td>
<td>O</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Burrowing Owl</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>28</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lesser Nighthawk</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Common Nighthawk</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Common Poorwill</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black Swift</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>White-throated Swift</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-chinned Hummingbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Costa's Hummingbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Broad-tailed Hummingbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>33</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Calliope Hummingbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Rufous Hummingbird</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Belted Kingfisher</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Lewis's Woodpecker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>40</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ladder-backed Woodpecker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Northern Flicker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>19</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Williamson's Sapsucker</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>31</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red-naped Sapsucker</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Acorn Woodpecker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Downy Woodpecker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Hairy Woodpecker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Three-toed Woodpecker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>32</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Vermilion Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Olive-sided Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Brown-crested Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>33</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Western Wood-Pewee</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Willow Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Southwestern Willow Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>I</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Hammond's Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gray Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>32</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Dusky Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cordilleran Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>32</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Least Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black Phoebe</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>x </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Say's Phoebe</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Ash-throated Flycatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Western Kingbird</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cassin's Kingbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Eastern Kingbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Loggerhead Shrike</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Northern Shrike</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bell's Vireo</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>35</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Gray Vireo</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>36</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Plumbeous Vireo</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Warbling Vireo</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Steller's Jay</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Clark's Nutcracker</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Western Scrub-Jay</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Gray Jay</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pinyon Jay</td>
<td>P</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Blue Jay</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-billed Magpie</td>
<td>P</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>American Crow</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>16</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Common Raven</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>17</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Horned Lark</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>14</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Tree Swallow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Violet-green Swallow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> X</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bank Swallow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Cliff Swallow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Northern Rough-winged Swallow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Barn Swallow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>18</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Purple Martin</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Juniper Titmouse</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-capped Chickadee</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Mountain Chickadee</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Verdin</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Bushtit</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Brown Creeper</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>White-breasted Nuthatch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red-breasted Nuthatch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>17</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Pygmy Nuthatch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>House Wren</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Bewick's Wren</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td>x </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Rock Wren</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Canyon Wren</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Marsh Wren</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Cactus Wren</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Winter Wren</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>American Dipper</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Golden-crowned Kinglet</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Ruby-crowned Kinglet</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Blue-gray Gnatcatcher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Black-tailed Gnatcatcher</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>33</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Western Bluebird</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Mountain Bluebird</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>28</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Townsend's Solitaire</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Swainson's Thrush</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Hermit Thrush</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Veery Thrush</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Robin</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>16</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Varied Thrush</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gray Catbird</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>32</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Northern Mockingbird</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>19</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Sage Thrasher</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Bendire's Thrasher</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>33</td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Crissal Thrasher</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>33</td>
<td>x </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Le Conte's Thrasher</td>
<td>O</td>
<td></td>
<td>37</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Brown Thrasher</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>European Starling</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>16</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Pipit</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Cedar Waxwing</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bohemian Waxwing</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Phainopepla</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Orange-crowned Warbler</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Virginia's Warbler</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>36</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Lucy's Warbler</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>36</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Yellow-rumped Warbler</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-throated Gray Warbler</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>32</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Grace's Warbler</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Yellow Warbler</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>MacGillivray's Warbler</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wilson's Warbler</td>
<td>BM</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Common Yellowthroat</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>21`</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Yellow-breasted Chat</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>American Redstart</td>
<td>M</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Summer Tanager</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Western Tanager</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Green-tailed Towhee</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Abert's Towhee</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Spotted Towhee</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>American Tree Sparrow</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NB</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Chipping Sparrow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Brewer's Sparrow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>34</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Lark Sparrow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Black-chinned Sparrow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>31</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-throated Sparrow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sage Sparrow</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>32</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Grasshopper Sparrow</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>32</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Fox Sparrow</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Savannah Sparrow</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lincoln's Sparrow</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Song Sparrow</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Vesper Sparrow</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>19</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>White-crowned Sparrow</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>20</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>White-throated Sparrow</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Harris’ Sparrow</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Dark-eyed Junco</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>18</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Lapland Longspur</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Snow Bunting</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Black-headed Grosbeak</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Blue Grosbeak</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>30</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Indigo Bunting</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lazuli Bunting</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bobolink</td>
<td>B</td>
<td>II</td>
<td>36</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lark Bunting</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Western Meadowlark</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Yellow-headed Blackbird</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red-winged Blackbird</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>18</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Great-tailed Grackle</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Common Grackle</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>22</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Brewer's Blackbird</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Brown-headed Cowbird</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>15</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Hooded Oriole</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>26</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bullock's Oriole</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Scott's Oriole</td>
<td>B</td>
<td></td>
<td>29</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NB</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Black Rosy-Finch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>III</td>
<td>NB</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Cassin's Finch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>27</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>x</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>House Finch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>14</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Red Crossbill</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Common Redpoll</td>
<td>W</td>
<td></td>
<td>NR</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pine Grosbeak</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>25</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Pine Siskin</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>18</td>
<td>x </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>American Goldfinch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>21</td>
<td>x </td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Lesser Goldfinch</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>24</td>
<td> x</td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Evening Grosbeak</td>
<td>BW</td>
<td></td>
<td>23</td>
<td> x</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>House Sparrow</td>
<td>R</td>
<td></td>
<td>14</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# Appendix B. Sample size estimation procedure for products of CBM in Utah.

This Appendix presents sample size formulas for regional models,
site-based models, and project evaluations.

*Regional and Site-based Models*

Standard regession (or other) methods are used to construct the models.
Mixed effects models (e.g., Agresti 2002) are often needed to
acknowledge the stratification, multi-stage sampling (e.g., surveying
clusters of points) or both. The three most common predictions, and
their measures of accuracy, are (a) the estimated regionwide total or
mean, (b) the estimated parameter value for a single site that has not
been surveyed, typically because the habitat of interest is part of a
proposed project and does not yet exist on the ground, (c) the estimated
change in parameter value with each unit increase in one of the
independent variables. CVs provide useful measures of accuracy for all
three estimates. As an example of the third estimate, suppose that a
model predicted abundance/ha, *y*, as *y* = *b~o~* + 0.5(stand size in
ha) + (other terms). The

equation predicts that the average number of birds per ha increases by
0.5 for each 1-ha increase in stand size (if other variables do not
change). If the CV for the coefficient (0.5) was 0.25, it would mean
that the 95% CI for the increase was ±50% of the coefficient or (0.25,
0.75).

Pilot study data are needed for reliable estimation of the sample sizes
needed to construct regression models but the following approach may be
of some use for planning. In estimating a regional mean we hope that the
regression model will improve precision compared to the simple mean. But
performance of the regression model cannot be worse than the simple
mean, so we might estimate sample sizes for the simple mean as a
conservative initial estimate. With simple random sampling, the sample
size for any desired CV(![](media/image3.wmf)) may be expressed as

![](media/image4.wmf)

where *y~i~* is the mean from the *i^th^* primary unit (e.g., transect
or point). Table B1 gives some typical values. For example, if the
desired *CV*(![](media/image3.wmf)) is 0.20 (95% CI ≈ mean ±40% of the
mean) and *CV*(*y~i~*) =2, then the needed sample size is 100.

> Table B1. Sample size for estimating a mean expressed

  --------------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Desired                     CV(y~i~)                           
  CV(![](media/image3.wmf))                                      

                              1          1.5         2           2.5

  0.15                        44         100         178         278

  0.20                        25         56          100         156

  0.25                        16         36          64          100

  0.30                        11         25          44          69
  --------------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -----------

An advance estimate of the sample size needed to achieve a specified
*CV* for the regression coefficient can also obtained if we can estimate
the correlation coefficient between the independent and dependent
variables, or perhaps more reasonably, if we assume that variables are
only interesting if they have a fairly high correlation with the
dependent variable. Table B2 gives some values. For example, suppose (a)
we trying to predict abundance, (b) the desired *CV* of the regression
coefficient, b~k~, is 0.15 and (c) we are mainly interested in
independent variables whose correlation with abundance is at least 0.6
(on the basis that variables with lower correlations have little
capacity for helping us predict abundance or understand what determines
it). In this case, from Table B2, the needed sample size is 81. These
analyses suggest that a sample size of 100 points seems reasonable for
initial efforts to develop regression models that can be used to
estimate regional means or help elucidate factors correlated with the
parameter (e.g., abundance, a fitness indicator).

> Table B2. Sample size for estimating regression coefficients, b~k~.

  ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------
  Desired       Correlation                                        
  CV(b~k~)      coefficient                                        
                of x~k~ and                                        
                y~k~                                               

                0.4           0.5          0.6          0.8        0.9

  0.10          527           302          180          58         25

  0.15          235           135          81           27         12

  0.20          133           77           46           16         8

  0.25          86            50           30           11         6
  ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------

*Project Evaluations*

Sample sizes required in project evaluations to detect a given change,
*R*, may be estimated if an estimate of the *CV* of the measurements is
available from a pilot study or from surveys in other areas. The
procedure should be based on results per "primary sampling units". If
clusters of points are surveyed, then the cluster is the primary
sampling unit. If points are evenly (or randomly) distributed across a
study area, then the individual point is the primary unit. The sample
size also depends on the level of significance, the change expected or
that we wish to detect, and the probability (power) we wish to have of
detecting the change (i.e., of obtaining a significant result in a
statistical test). The change, *R*, is defined as (larger
value)/(smaller value) and is thus always \>1. A two-step procedure is
given here. First, choose the level of significance and power and read
the corresponding value of "*G*" in Table B3. Then read the sample size
from Table B4. For example, suppose the level of significance will be
0.05 and the desired power is 80% power. *G*, from Table B3, is 16.
Suppose further that points are going to be evenly distributed across a
study area, the *CV* (*SD*(*y~i~*)/![](media/image5.wmf)) of numbers
recorded per point (or mean numbers if \>1 survey is made) is 1.5, and
the change of interest is a three-fold increase (*R*=3). The needed
sample size, in each period is approximately 76. Conducting the surveys
in \>1 year is often worthwhile. If surveys were made in three years
before the project and in three years after it, then about 25 points
should be surveyed per year (in new locations each year).

> Table B3. Values of *G*, used in Table B4 to obtain sample sizes.

  ------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  Level of significance     Power                           

                            0.6             0.8             0.9

  0.05                      10              16              21

  0.10                      7               12              17

  0.15                      6               10              15
  ------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

> Table B4. Sample sizes as a function of the *G* (from Table B3), the
> estimated *CV*(*y~i~*), and the change of interest, *R*.

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  *G*            *CV*           *R*                           

                                1.5            2              3

  5              0.5            11             5              3

  5              1.0            45             20             11

  5              1.5            101            45             25

  5              2.0            180            80             45

  10             0.5            23             10             6

  10             1.0            90             40             23

  10             1.5            203            90             51

  10             2.0            360            160            90

  15             0.5            34             15             8

  15             1.0            135            60             34

  15             1.5            304            135            76

  15             2.0            540            240            135

  20             0.5            45             20             11

  20             1.0            180            80             45

  20             1.5            405            180            101

  20             2.0            720            320            180
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

# 

# 

# 

# Appendix C. Aquatic Sites Relevant to Bird Monitoring in Utah

[Appendix C. Aquatic Sites Relevant to Bird Monitoring in Utah
69](#concentration-sites-for-aquatic-birds-in-great-basin-bcr---bmr-95-utah)

[[Introduction]{.smallcaps} 69](#__RefHeading___Toc95275125)

[[Concentration Sites for Aquatic Birds in Great Basin BCR - BMR 95,
Utah]{.smallcaps}
72](#concentration-sites-for-aquatic-birds-in-great-basin-bcr---bmr-95-utah)

[Site Descriptions 73](#__RefHeading___Toc95275127)

[Northern Utah 73](#__RefHeading___Toc95275128)

[Cutler Marsh 73](#refheading___toc95275129)

[Neponset Reservoir 75](#__RefHeading___Toc95275130)

[Great Salt Lake - North 77](#__RefHeading___Toc95275131)

[Locomotive Springs WMA 77](#__RefHeading___Toc95538768)

[Salt Wells Flat 79](#salt-wells-flat)

[Great Salt Lake -- Northeast 81](#__RefHeading___Toc95538770)

[Salt Creek 83](#salt-creek)

[Bear River NWR 81](#bear-river-nwr)

[Public Shooting Grounds WMA 83](#public-shooting-grounds-wma)

[Bear River Bay 87](#__RefHeading___Toc95275138)

[Ogden Bay 89](#__RefHeading___Toc95538775)

[Ogden Bay North 91](#ogden-bay-north)

[Howard Slough WMA 93](#howard-slough-wma)

[Harold Crane WMA 95](#harold-crane-wma)

[Great Salt Lake -- Farmington Bay 97](#great-salt-lake-farmington-bay)

[Antelope Island West 97](#__RefHeading___Toc95275144)

[The Antelope Island Causeway 99](#the-antelope-island-causeway)

[Antelope Island Northeast 101](#antelope-island-northeast)

[Crystal Lakeside 103](#crystal-lakeside)

[West Kaysville 105](#__RefHeading___Toc95275148)

[Farmington Bay WMA 107](#__RefHeading___Toc95275149)

[Saltair 109](#saltair)

[Kennecott 111](#kennecott)

[Associated Duck Clubs 113](#associated-duck-clubs)

[Great Salt Lake - Southwest 115](#__RefHeading___Toc95275153)

[West Central 115](#__RefHeading___Toc95275154)

[Stansbury Bay 117](#__RefHeading___Toc95275155)

[Stansbury South 119](#stansbury-south)

[Stansbury North 121](#stansbury-north)

[Interstate 80 North 123](#interstate-80-north)

[Southwest Utah 125](#southwest-utah)

[Blue Lake 125](#blue-lake)

[Central Utah Lake 127](#__RefHeading___Toc95275161)

[Utah Lake Wetlands Preserve and Goshen Warm Sprsaings WMA
129](#utah-lake-wetlands-preserve-and-goshen-warm-springs-wma)

[North Shore Utah Lake 131](#__RefHeading___Toc95275163)

[Fish Springs NWR 133](#fish-springs-nwr)

[Quichapa Lake. 135](#quichapa-lake)

[Clear Lake WMA 137](#clear-lake-wma)

[[Concentration Sites for Aquatic Birds in Colorado Plateau BCR Utah --
BMR 96]{.smallcaps} 139](#__RefHeading___Toc95275167)

[Desert Lake WMA 140](#__RefHeading___Toc95275168)

[Ouray NWR 142](#__RefHeading___Toc95275169)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275125 .anchor} **[Introduction]{.smallcaps}**

The bird conservation initiatives -- waterbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds,
and landbirds -- are cooperating to design a "Coordinated Bird
Monitoring" (CBM) program for Canada and the United States (Bart et al.
2003). One element in the approach is detailed descriptions of sites at
which aquatic birds congregate at some time during the year. Bird
Monitoring Regions (BMR) (Fig. 1) have been delineated to help organize
descriptions. The regions were defined by intersecting a Bird
Conservation Region (BCR) map with a Province and State map, smoothing
the borders, and eliminating small polygons. Survey results and sampling
plans based on these regions can be stepped up either to the Province
and State level or to a BCR level.

**Fig. 1 Bird Monitoring Regions in Utah.**

![](media/image2.png){width="4.863194444444445in"
height="5.084722222222222in"}

This report describes aquatic bird sites in bird monitoring region 95
and 96. Habitat of little to no aquatic bird use (Type 3 habitat) will
not be surveyed, unless casual observation suggests shorebirds are using
these areas in moderate numbers. Areas with moderate use are classified
as Type 2 habitat. Periodic, flexible surveys are recommended for these
areas, primarily to verify that only a small proportion of the
population uses these areas. More detailed and comprehensive surveys are
recommended for habitat with substantial aquatic bird use (Type 1
habitat). Brief suggestions are presented for sampling bird species in
these aquatic sites, but detailed work will depend on developing
objectives to be addressed as well as defining the population of
interest within specific area and time period. This will be the target
population which will be used in a statistical sense and may not
correspond to the biological population. A sampling frame must also be
defined, which is a complete listing of sampling units (e.g. plots,
quadrats, and/or transects).

Descriptions of each site are needed to specify how the birds should be
surveyed. A start has been made on developing these descriptions by
collecting readily available information and presenting it in a
standardized format. For many sites, more detailed work will be needed
to develop final survey protocols. The sites were described using the
following headings:

1\. **Boundaries and ownership** - Boundaries of selected aquatic sites
have been depicted on site maps

2\. **Focal species** - Focal species using the site are briefly
described and up to three types of habitats are described for each focal
species or group of focal species at each site

3\. **Type 1, 2 and 3 habitat** - Type 1 habitats include the
regularly-used areas that should be sampled intensively using a
well-defined sampling plan. Type 2 habitats include areas used sparingly
by the focal species. Type 2 habitat will probably not be surveyed as
often or with rigorously defined methods, but might be surveyed less
formally every few years to document continued low use by the focal
species. Type 3 habitats receive virtually no use by the focal species
during the study period and probably would not be surveyed as part of
the monitoring program.

4\. **Access and visibility of the birds**

5\. **Past and current surveys**

6\. **Potential survey method**

*Description* - Identifies the best ways to estimate the number of
individuals present describing both field and statistical methods (e.g.,
complete count using area search methods; density estimation using
distance methods).

*Selection bias* - Type 1 habitat being excluded from the sampled
population, usually because of access or visibility problems. Exclusion
of some Type 1 habitat does not necessarily cause selection bias,
because trends in sampled areas might be the same as trends in
non-sampled areas.

*Measurement error and bias* - Means not detecting all birds present in
the surveyed area at the time of the survey. Measurement bias is
long-term trend in the proportion of birds present at the time of the
survey that are detected on the survey. Measurement error does not
necessarily cause measurement bias, because the proportion of birds
detected might not change through time.

7\. **Needed pilot studies**

8\. **Contact information**

# Fig. C1. Overview of Utah's Coordinated Bird Monitoring Sites

# ![](media/image6.wmf){width="4.546456692913385in" height="5.745669291338583in"}![](media/image7.wmf){width="3.744488188976378in" height="3.5783464566929135in"}

# 

# 

+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| **ID** | **Strata**                                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1      | Cutler Marsh                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2      | Neponset Reservoir                                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3      | Locomotive Springs WMA                                      |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4      | Salt Wells Flat                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5      | Salt Creek                                                  |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6      | Bear River NWR                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7      | Public Shooting Grounds WMA                                 |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8      | Bear River Bay                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 9      | Ogden Bay                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 10     | Ogden Bay North                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 11     | Howard Slough WMA                                           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 12     | Harold Crane WMA                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 13     | Antelope Island West                                        |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 14     | Antelope Island Causeway                                    |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 15     | Antelope Island Northeast                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 16     | Crystal Lakeside                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 17     | West Kaysville                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 18     | Farmington Bay WMA                                          |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 19     | Saltair                                                     |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 20     | Kennecott                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 21     | Associated Duck Clubs                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 22     | West Central                                                |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 23     | Stansbury South                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 24     | Stansbury North                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 25     | Interstate 80 North                                         |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 26     | Blue Lake                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 27     | Central Utah Lake                                           |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 28     | Utah Lake Wetlands Preserve                                 |
|        |                                                             |
|        | and Goshen Warm Springs WMA                                 |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 29     | North Shore Utah Lake                                       |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 30     | Fish Springs NWR                                            |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 31     | Quichapa Lake                                               |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 32     | Clear Lake WMA                                              |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 33     | Desert Lake WMA                                             |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| 34     | Ouray NWR                                                   |
+--------+-------------------------------------------------------------+

#  Concentration Sites for Aquatic Birds in Great Basin BCR - BMR 95, Utah 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275127 .anchor}**Site Descriptions**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275128 .anchor}**[Northern Utah]{.underline}**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538765 .anchor}***Cutler Marsh***

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

[]{#refheading___toc95275129 .anchor}**Boundaries and ownership:** This
area is bordered by Idaho to the north and I-15 to the west. To the east
and south, it is bordered by State highway 91 to Brigham City and
highway 83 to I-15. It is primarily mountain and river valley habitat
and can be viewed as a higher elevation extension of the. This area is
managed by Utah Power, UDWR, Bridgerland Audubon Society and Utah State
Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (for sovereign lands).

**Focal species:** White-faced ibis, black-necked stilts, American
avocets, white pelicans, great blue herons, Franklin's gulls, and a
variety of species of waterfowl

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The Bear River Portions of Cache Valley,
including Cutler Marsh and Bear River Oxbow, are Type 2 habitat. The
rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Can be difficult due to the
amount of private land in the marsh. Shorelines can be accessed by a
canoe.

**Past and current surveys:** No surveys have been conducted.

**Potential survey methods:**

*Description:*

-   Line transects using distance sampling to determine abundance and
    species of birds that inhabit the marsh. Transects will be conducted
    from a canoe.

-   Surveys for secretive marsh birds using playback surveys

-   Aerial surveys for black-necked stilts and avocets

-   Survey of waterfowl on the open water by using a boat

-   Census for gulls and terns during waterfowl surveys

*Selection bias:* Problems with trespassing on private lands. Can survey
shorelines, but visibility past the shore would be difficult.

*Measurement error and bias***:** In some areas vegetation growth will
impede visibility.

**Needed pilot studies:** Finding ways to access all habitats to locate
and survey focal bird species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275130 .anchor}***Neponset Reservoir***

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The northern border of this area is
highway 16 to Woodruff. At Woodruff, the border turns south to Saleratus
Creek, which it follows to the Wasatch Range. From the Wasatch Range the
border runs SE to the town of Wasatch. The southeastern border is I-80
and the eastern border is Wyoming. Neponset Reservoir is surrounded
primarily by uplands. This area consists of public (United States Forest
Service) and private lands.

**Focal species:** More than 2,000 waterfowl, more than 7,000 Canada
Geese, 20 breeding pair of Long-billed Curlew, 50 breeding pair of
Franklin's Gulls.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Neponset Reservoir is Type 2 habitat. The
rest of area is Type 3.

[]{.mark}

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Roads are available for surveys
and the reservoir is accessible.

[]{.mark}

**Past and current surveys:** None.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Area searches for shorebirds

-   Survey for waterfowl from a boat

*Selection bias:* None

*Measurement error and bias:* Minimal

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Rick Danvir

Affiliation: Wildlife Manager, Deseret Land and Livestock ranch

Phone: 435-793-4161

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275131 .anchor}**[Great Salt Lake -
North]{.underline}**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538768 .anchor}***Locomotive Springs WMA***

![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** Located in Box Elder County, this area is
primarily emergent marshland fed by six underground freshwater springs
in shallow, slow moving sloughs. The boundaries include Locomotive
Springs WMA and surrounding land from Monument Point on the east; mouth
of Deep Creek on the west; and from deep, open water on the south, to
upland areas (unsuitable for shorebirds) on the north. All established
management units and outflow areas are part of the WMA and constitute
approximately 17,318 ac. The UDWR administers the WMA.

**Focal species:** Locomotive Springs was surveyed on the GSL WBS (area
35). The mean numbers/survey (\>10) recorded in July and August, for the
more common species, were WIPH-50, WESA -- 49, SNPL -- 41, BNST -- 21,
KILL -- 20, AMAV -- 16, LBDO -- 14, WILL -- 10, and SAND -- 8. Breeding
SNPL have been documented in Locomotive Springs. Waterfowl found on this
area include: mallards, pintails, green-winged teals, American wigeons,
common goldeneyes, cinnamon teals, redheads, buffleheads, canvasback,
redhead, scaup, ruddy, gadwall, and northern shoveler.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Locomotive Springs is Type 1 habitat when
water is available. The rest of the area is Type 3. Classified habitat
types in the area include open water (1,150 ac), marsh (5,500 ac),
upland (2,800), and mud flat (7,500 ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Interior roads are available for
surveys and waterfowl hunting in season, otherwise the WMA is available
by foot travel only.

**Past and current surveys:** Covered on the GSL WBS (GSL WBS) (area
35). Of the 17,318 ac WMA, 17% is good waterbird habitat with 25% of
this covered in the GSL WBS. Waterfowl Census counts are conducted year
round along standardized survey routes in the WMA. Routes are run
monthly from January--September and semi-monthly October-January.
Waterfowl Census routes are also used to conduct the Non-game Bird
surveys. Conducted quarterly, these surveys are scheduled to coincide
with spring migration (April), summer residents (July), fall migration
(September), and winter residents (January). All waterbirds and
shorebirds observed along the Non-game survey route are recorded.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Nest searches for waterbirds and snowy plovers nesting in emergent
    vegetation and in colonies

-   Area searches for shorebirds from observation points overlooking
    Type 1 habitat

-   Continued surveys for waterfowl

-   Sampling for secretive marsh birds using call back surveys

-   Survey for gulls and terns during waterfowl surveys

*Selection bias:* None

*Measurement error and bias:* Minimal

**Needed pilot studies:** Better methods for sampling the entire area
are needed.

**Contact:**

Name: Randy Berger

Affliliation: UDWR

Phone: 435-854-3610

Email: randyberger@utah.gov

### *Salt Wells Flat*

![](media/image11.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** Salt Wells Flat is located north of Spring
Bay and covers all the mud flats north and northeast of this bay. This
area is a large complex of impounded water with islands of emergent
vegetation. Salt Wells Flat is managed by the BLM.

**Focal species:** Salt Wells Flat was surveyed on the GSL WBS (areas
36, 36A, and 36B) with all type 1 habitat surveyed (40% of total area).
The mean numbers recorded in July and August, for the more common
species, were SNPL -- 369, BASA -- 257, AMAV -- 58, BNST -- 27, WESA --
24, WIPH -- 23, WILL -- 20, KILL -- 15, and LBDO -- 13. Waterfowl (100s)
also use this area.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The Salt Wells mud flats are Type 1, the
drainages Type 2 habitat, and the rest of the area is Type 3 habitat.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Mud flats can be covered
completely in surveys, with 100% visibility however, the GSL WBS report
cautions that the mud could be soft and hard to walk on. Tall emergent
vegetation around some ponds reduces visibility. The GSL WBS estimates
that 65% of the pond area is visible.

**Past and current surveys:** Salt Wells Flat is surveyed in the GSL WBS
(areas 36, 36A, and 36B). Comprehensive counts in the mud flats are
conducted using ATVs, plus occasional foot surveys of ponds and
drainages. All Type 1 habitat is surveyed (40% of total area).

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Complete counts of mudflats using ATVs

-   Ground surveys of ponds and drainages

*Selection bias*: None

*Measurement error and bias:* Presumably minimal bias occurs, if birds
are visible through the vegetation.

**Needed pilot studies:** Better methods are needed to survey the pond
areas and mudflats when the mud is too soft for ground surveys.

**Contact:**

Name: Randy Swilling

Affiliation: BLM

Phone: 801-977-4373

Email: randy_swilling@blm.gov

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538770 .anchor}**[Great Salt Lake --
Northeast]{.underline}**

### *Bear River NWR*

![](media/image12.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** Bear River NWR is a large, important area
for shorebirds. However, the habitat changes dramatically due to
management regimes and flood events that remove vegetation. The NWR is
administered by the USFWS.

**Focal species:** This area was surveyed on the GSL WBS (areas 27, 29a,
and 29b). Area 29b was along the refuge road and had low numbers (\<10)
of focal species. Means/survey (\>10) for focal species for areas 27 and
29a were WIPH -- 3684, WESA -- 4619, LBDO -- 3510, MAGO -- 4938, GRYE --
11, and LEYE -- 12. Tens of thousands of AMAV and thousands of BNST were
also counted.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** All wetland areas within the Refuge.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Much of the refuge is Type 1
habitat, although there may be areas of Type 2 and 3 habitats. More work
is needed to identify all Type 1 habitats.

**Past and current surveys:** This area is surveyed on the GSL WBS
(areas 27, 29a, and 29b).

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Unknown -- pilot study needed.

*Selection bias:* Access to all areas of the refuge is questionable.

*Measurement error and bias:* Visibility is often low.

**Needed pilot studies:** A pilot study is needed to classify all areas
by habitat type and to assess whether there are areas of inaccessible
Type 1 habitat. If all Type 1 habitat cannot be surveyed, then a
sampling plan will be needed where a small, random sample of the
inaccessible Type 1 habitat is surveyed each year.

**Contact:**

Name: Bridget Olson

Affiliation: USFWS

Phone: 435-723-5887

Email: bridget_olson@fws.gov

### *Salt Creek*

![](media/image13.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area includes the Salt Creek WMA,
Bear River Duck Club, Chesapeake Duck Club, Sulphur Creek, and the
Reeder Overflow. Total acreage for the Salt Creek WMA is 5,254 ac,
consisting of emergent marshes and open water. The WMA is managed by the
UDWR. Individual duck clubs and private groups own the remainder of the
area.

**Focal species:** Waterfowl and shorebirds utilize this area.
Means/survey (\>10) for focal species were WIPH -- 18, LBDO -- 14, KILL
-- 10, and GRYE -- 12. There were also hundreds of AMAV and BNST.
Waterfowl found on this area include: mallards, pintails, green-winged
teals, American wigeons, common goldeneyes, cinnamon teals, redheads,
buffleheads, canvasback, redhead, scaup, ruddy, gadwall, and northern
shoveler.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The WMA, Duck Clubs, and associated
wetlands and flood irrigated pastures are Type 2 habitat. The rest of
the area is Type 3. Classified habitat types in the WMA include: open
water (295 ac), marsh (1,843 ac), upland (2,341 ac), and mudflats (110
ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access is only during the
waterfowl hunting season and all users must secure permission for use.

**Past and current surveys:** Fifty-five percent of the Salt Creek WMA
is good waterbird habitat, but only 35% of the WMA is surveyed in the
GSL survey (area 33). Chesapeake, Sulphur and Reeder have not been
included in previous survey efforts. Waterfowl Census counts are
conducted year round along standardized survey routes. Routes are run
monthly from January--September and semi-monthly October-January.
Waterfowl Census routes are also used to conduct the Non-game Bird
Census. Conducted quarterly, the censuses are scheduled to coincide with
spring migration (April), summer population (July), fall migration
(September), and winter residents (January). All waterbirds and
shorebirds observed along the Non-game Census route are recorded.

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Aerial surveys for waterfowl

-   Area searches for shorebirds

-   Call back surveys for secretive marsh birds

*Selection bias:* None

*Measurement error and bias:* Slight bias due to vegetation creating a
visual obstruction for detecting smaller birds. Detection rate for the
larger shorebirds is estimated at 99%; however, tall vegetation reduces
detection of smaller shorebirds. An observation tower might increase
detection in these areas.

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Randy Berger

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 435-854-3610

Email: randyberger@utah.gov

### 

### *Public Shooting Grounds WMA*

![](media/image14.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is adjacent to the Bear River
Migratory Bird Refuge and covers 11,800 ac of open ponds, mud flats, and
marshes. This property is cooperatively managed by UDWR and BLM.

**Focal species:** Waterfowl and some shorebirds utilize this area.
During the GSL WBS means/survey (\>10) for focal species were; WIPH --
17 and GRYE -- 17. There are also hundreds of AMAV and BNST. Waterfowl
that use the area include mallards, pintails, green-winged teals,
Northern shovelers, American wigeons, gadwall, cinnamon teal, redhead,
canvasback, ruddy, scaup, goldeneye, ring-necked, bufflehead, and
merganser.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The entire WMA is Type 2 habitat.
Classified habitat types in the area are open water (2,250 ac), marsh
(1,748 ac), upland (3,794), and mud flats (4,489 ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access is only during the
waterfowl hunting season and all users must secure permission for use.

**Past and current surveys:** Seventy percent of the area contains good
waterbird habitat, but only 20% is covered in the GSL WBS survey (area
32).

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Aerial surveys for waterfowl

-   Area searches for shorebirds

-   Call back surveys for secretive marsh birds

*Selection bias:* There is a large expanse of potholes that is not
visible from the dike roads, but would be visible from a plane.

*Measurement error and bias:* Slight bias due to vegetation creating a
visual obstruction for detecting smaller birds. Detection rate for the
larger shorebirds is estimated at 99%; however, tall vegetation reduces
detection of smaller shorebirds. An observation tower might increase
detection in these areas.

[]{.mark}

**Needed pilot studies:** There is a large expanse of potholes that is
not visible from the dike roads, but would be visible from a plane.
These areas could potentially be included in surveys, but viewed
aerially only.

**Contact:**

Name: Randy Berger

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 435-854-3610

Email: <randyberger@utah.gov>

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275138 .anchor}***Bear River Bay***

![](media/image15.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership**: This system is bounded on the north and
east by state, federal, and private wetlands; on the south by industry;
and to the west by the Promontory Mountains. Bear River Bay receives the
largest volume of riverine inflow and its near-surface salinity is
similar to that of the Bear River. Because of this, the bay is fresh
enough to support a community of submergent hydrophytes. This area can
be dry or wetlands, depending on the water level. Landowners are UDWR,
Utah State Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (for sovereign
lands), USFWS, Bear River Club, and Marsh Holders Inc.

**Focal Species**: Means/survey (\>10) for the Bear River Bay were WIPH
-- 8215, LBDO -- 212, MAGO -- 22, PEEP -- 1428, and PHAL -- 63.
Means/survey (\>10) for Willard Spur were WIPH -- 965, LBDO -- 2373,
MAGO -- 1398, and PEEP -- 231. There were also thousands of AMAV and
BNST on both surveys.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats*:*** The Willard Spur area north and east of
the evaporation ponds is Type 1 habitat. West of the evaporation ponds
is Type 2 habitat

**Access visibility of the birds*: ***All type 1 habitat is accessible.

**Past and current surveys:** Bear River Bay (area 37) and Willard Spur
(area 28) were surveyed on the GSL Waterbird Survey. These areas were
surveyed by transects from the air. The count data were extrapolated to
cover the whole area; therefore, the entire area was not covered
completely. Detection rates were relatively low because of fast travel
speeds of the aircraft and some shorebirds hiding in the vegetation.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Surveys of the Willard Spur by airboat will provide complete
    coverage. Occasional aerial surveys for the rest of the area are
    adequate to confirm the absence of substantial numbers of focal
    species.

*Selection Bias*: None

*Measurement Error and Bias*: Minimal. All Type 1 habitat sampled.

**Pilot Studies Needed**: None

**Contact**:

Name: Randy Berger

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 435-854-3610

Email: randyberger@utah.gov

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95538775 .anchor}***Ogden Bay***

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is a large complex of open water
and emergent vegetation comprised within 18,760 ac. The area includes
all of the impoundments and drivable interior dikes of the Ogden Bay
WMA. The land is divided into state, military, and private ownership.
The state leases some of their land.

**Focal species:** Many focal aquatic species use this area. Yearly
means of bird species collected for greater than 10 surveys for focal
species are on the GSL WBS are: WIPH -- 857 and WILL -- 17. There are
also hundreds of AMAV and BNST. Waterfowl found on this area include:
mallards, pintails, green-winged teals, wigeons, common goldeneyes,
cinnamon teals, redheads, buffleheads, canvasback, redhead, scaup,
ruddy, gadwall, ring-necked and northern shoveler.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Sixty percent of the WMA is Type 1 habitat
for shorebirds. Three km^2^ of the WMA is Type 2 habitat. The rest of
the area is Type 3. Classified habitat types in the area are open water
(7,058 ac), marsh (3,704 ac), upland (4,998 ac), and mud flat (3,000
ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access to the WMA is good,
however not all of Type 1 habitat is visible due to tall vegetation and
deep water. Near Unit 1 there is viewing difficulty near the grass
island. A spotting scope or boat might provide better viewing in this
area.

**Past and current surveys:** Surveys are included in the GSL WBS via
airboat (area 22). The survey area covers the entire shoreline from the
north fork of the Weber River to the railroad tracks. Waterfowl Census
counts are conducted year round along standardized survey routes. Routes
are run monthly from January--September and semi-monthly
October-January. Waterfowl Census routes are also used to conduct the
Non-game Bird surveys. Conducted quarterly, these surveys are scheduled
to coincide with spring migration (April), summer population (July),
fall migration (September), and winter residents (January). All
waterbirds and shorebirds observed along the Non-game survey route are
recorded.

**Survey methods**

*Description***:**

-   Survey of waterfowl --aerial or with boats

-   Area searches for shorebirds using ATVs

-   Aerial surveys for black-necked stilts and avocets.

*Selection bias***:** Eighty percent of the WMA is considered to be good
waterbird habitat, but only 60% is visible. In good areas detection
rates are 90+%.

*Measurement error and bias***:** Since 1997 all vegetation in Unit 3
resulting in good visibility because of the low alkali vegetation.
Stands of alkali bulrush are growing on the outside of Unit 1. The
entire interior of the WMA is overgrown with phragmites and makes
observations difficult.

**Needed pilot studies:** A pilot study is needed to determine percent
visibility of Type 1 habitat, evaluate additional forms of access into
hidden areas, and to verify shorebird use in areas not visible in GSL
WBS.

**Contact:**

Name: Val Bachman

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801-985-1398

Email: valbachman@utah.gov

### *Ogden Bay North*

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is a shoreline piece from the
north fork of the Weber River to the railroad tracks. The state,
military, and private landowners own the land in this area. The state
leases some of their land.

**Focal species using the site:** Moderate Waterfowl numbers. Surveys
from the GSL WBS showed means/survey (\>10) for focal species of WIPH --
857 and WILL -- 17. There were also hundreds of AMAV and BNST.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 2 habitat and the
rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** Area 22 in the GSL WBS with surveys
conducted by airboat. Counts do not include gulls and other birds
directly associated with Landing Rocks. Waterfowl are censused by aerial
surveys.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Survey of waterfowl --aerial or with boats

-   Area searches for shorebirds using ATVs

-   Aerial surveys for black-necked stilts and avocets

*Selection bias:* Minimal.

*Measurement error and bias:* None.

**Needed pilot studies:** None.

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

### *Howard Slough WMA*

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The shoreline section extends between the
Antelope Island north causeway and the WMA dike. The WMA includes the
lakeside of the dikes from the north end of the shoreline section to the
south fork of the Weber River on Ogden Bay, as well as the drivable
impoundments in Howard Slough WMA. This area has a shoreline portion and
large complexes of impounded water and emergent vegetation. The WMA
covers 3,430 ac, of which 95% is considered good waterbird habitat. The
WMA is managed by the UDWR.

**Focal species:** Waterfowl and gulls utilize this area, with small
numbers of terns also present. This area was surveyed on the GSL WBS
(areas 19a, 19b, 19c). The only focal species that had means/survey \>10
were LBDO -- 22 and WIPH -- 17. Thousands of AMAV and hundreds of BNST
were also counted. Waterfowl found on this area include: mallards,
pintails, green-winged teals, wigeons, common goldeneyes, cinnamon
teals, redheads, buffleheads, redhead, scaup, ruddy, gadwall,
ring-necked and northern shoveler.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats**: When ponds are drawn down they are Type 1
habitat; otherwise the water is too deep and secondary ponds are Type 3.
Each year one of the pounds is drawn down on a rotating basis. There are
other areas of Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats in the WMA and these have been
subdivided on a map. The rest of the area is Type 3 habitat. Classified
habitat types in the area are open water (2,000 ac), marsh (810 ac),
upland (389 ac), and mud flat (231 ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** There are some visibility
problems with the south impoundment because of long distances. If the
dikes are repaired, the whole pond would be easily viewed except areas
with tall vegetation.

**Past and current surveys:** Surveys are performed during the GSL WBS
(areas 19a, 19b, 19c) of which 85% of the area is surveyed. Ground
surveys of a draw down pond are performed, and aerial surveys of the
rest of the area occur occasionally. Waterfowl Census counts are
conducted year round along standardized survey routes. Routes are run
monthly from January--September and semi-monthly October-January.
Waterfowl Census routes are also used to conduct the Non-game Bird
surveys. Conducted quarterly, these surveys are scheduled to coincide
with spring migration (April), summer population (July), fall migration
(September), and winter residents (January). All waterbirds and
shorebirds observed along the Non-game survey route are recorded.

**Survey methods**

*Description*:

-   Ground surveys on draw down ponds and aerial surveys for the rest of
    the habitat

-   Area searches for shorebirds from observation points near Type 1
    habitat

-   Survey for gulls and terns during other surveys

*Selection bias:* Minimal because all Type 1 habitat can be surveyed.

*Measurement error and bias:* The outer dikes were washed out in 1997
resulting in salt water infiltrating the marsh vegetation. The high
salinity of the water killed plants, improving visibility for surveys.
Visibility of PEEPs in this area may be difficult because of the long
distances on the south impoundment.

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Val Bachman

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801-985-1398

Email: valbachman@utah.gov

### *Harold Crane WMA*

![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area includes the Harold Crane WMA,
South Harold Crane property and the Rainbow areas. It is a large complex
of impounded water and emergent vegetation and covers 11,430 ac. Fifty
percent of the area is considered good waterbird habitat however, some
of this habitat is on private land. The entire area is managed by the
UDWR.

**Focal species:** The Harold Crane WMA includes areas 23, 24, and 25 of
the GSL WBS. Means/survey (\>10) of focal species were WIPH -- 104, LBDO
-- 297, MAGO -- 111, and LEYE -- 14. Thousands of AMAV and hundreds of
BNST were also counted. Some good PEEP areas were missed by the WBS
survey. Waterfowl found on this area include: mallards, pintails,
green-winged teals, wigeons, common goldeneyes, cinnamon teals,
redheads, buffleheads, redhead, scaup, ruddy, canvasback, gadwall, and
northern shoveler.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Approximately 50% of the area is Type 1
habitat and approximately 10% is Type 2. The rest of the area is Type 3
habitat. Classified habitat types in the area are open water (2,460 ac),
marsh (3,550), upland (2,150 ac), and mudflat (3,143 ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** All areas accessible with
permissions.

**Past and current surveys:** Surveys are included on the GSL WBS (areas
23, 24, 25). The three areas comprising the WMA are adjacent to one
another and have been surveyed as one route. The Rainbow site includes
the George East Duck club and Rainbow pond and is a total count survey
from existing roads. The South Harold Crane survey is a total count
within the gravel road through the UDWR gate on the east, the GSL
Mineral canal on the north and west, and the railroad tracks on the
south. Areas not covered in the GSL WBS are accessible by foot. The
southwest corner is privately owned and may have good PEEP use.
Waterfowl Census counts are conducted year round along standardized
survey routes. Routes are run monthly from January--September and
semi-monthly October-January. Waterfowl Census routes are also used to
conduct the Non-game Bird surveys. Conducted quarterly, these surveys
are scheduled to coincide with spring migration (April), summer
population (July), fall migration (September), and winter residents
(January). All waterbirds and shorebirds observed along the Non-game
survey route are recorded.

**Survey methods**

*Description*:

-   Uncertain-pilot study is needed

*Selection bias:* Approximately one-third of the strata (4,000 ac) has
good visibility.

*Measurement error and bias***:** Unknown.

**Needed pilot studies:** A study is needed to assess whether all Type 1
habitat can be completely surveyed.

**Contact:**

Name: Val Bachman

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801-985-1398

Email: valbachman@utah.gov

## [Great Salt Lake -- Farmington Bay]{.underline}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275144 .anchor}

***Antelope Island West***

![](media/image19.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area covers the west side of Antelope
Island from its northern tip to its southern tip and open water of the
GSL. Antelope Island State Park owns and manages this property.

**Focal species:** A small portion of this area (near the road from the
Antelope Island State Park) was surveyed as part of the GSL WBS. The
only means \>10 for the focal shorebirds were for SAND (16) suggesting
that this area has negligible numbers. Larger shorebirds, such as
avocets or stilts, have not been observed on the west side.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 2 habitat and the
rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** A small portion of this area (near the
road from the Antelope Island State Park) has been surveyed as part of
the GSL WBS. However, this area was discontinued in 2004. No other data
were gathered, but the majority of the west side is rocky with little
beach and is unsuitable for shorebirds.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Occasional ground surveys of the shoreline

*Selection bias:* Minimal.

*Measurement error and bias:* None.

**Needed pilot studies:** None.

**Contact:**

Name: Jolene Hatch (Antelope Island Parks personnel)

Affiliation: Utah Parks and Rec.

Phone: (801) 550-6165

Email: jolenehatch@utah.gov

### *The Antelope Island Causeway*

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area lies along the Causeway
extending well out into open water (farther than the focal shorebirds
would occur). This area is managed by Antelope Island State Park. The
access road belongs to Davis County.

**Focal species:** The area was surveyed in the GSL WBS (area 16) but
none of the focal birds were recorded in appreciable numbers. It is
possible that appreciable numbers of birds were missed because the
observer usually drove the causeway without stopping to cover portions
of the shore not visible due to rocks.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Suitable shorebird habitat includes the
shoreline and a small area of wetland. This area is Type 2 habitat.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** The area was surveyed in the GSL WBS (area
16).

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Driving the causeway and stopping anytime the shore is not visible
    will provide complete coverage.

*Selection bias:* The Miller ponds were not included in the GSL WBS but
could be accessed and viewed easily. Visibility on the GSL WBS was good
except that soft mud in the south prevented complete counts in some
cases. Detection rate for the shoreline was approximately 95%. There is
an estimated 85% detection for the wetlands if observers walk to the
ponds for viewing.

*Measurement error and bias:* None.

**Needed pilot studies:** None.

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft (GSLEP)

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

### *Antelope Island Northeast* 

![](media/image21.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area includes the northeast shore of
Antelope Island from the northern tip to the tip of Sea Gull Point. This
property is owned by the Antelope Island State Park.

**Focal species:** During ther GSL WBS means/survey for the focal
shorebirds were all \<10.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 2 habitat and the
rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** This area was surveyed in the GSL WBS
(area 14) from the road.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Occasional aerial surveys to document focal shorebirds along the
    shoreline, although the area could be covered more thoroughly on the
    ground if deemed necessary.

*Selection bias:* Minimal.

*Measurement error and bias:* Distances were often too great to detect
small shorebird.

**Needed pilot studies:** None.

**Contact:**

Name: Jolene Hatch

Affiliation: State Parks

Phone: (801) 550-6165

Email: jolenehatch@utah.gov

### *Crystal Lakeside*

![](media/image22.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** Shoreline from the southernmost major
drainage on the Crystal Unit of Farmington Bay WMA, to the southwest
elbow of the Turpin dike creates the boundary for this area. The UDWR
manages the WMA. There are also privately owned duck clubs and
agricultural areas in this area.

**Focal species:** Most shorebirds, gulls, and other water birds use
this area. This area was surveyed as area 10 in the GSL WBS and was
conducted from an airboat. Means/survey \>10 for focal shorebirds were
WESA 465, PEEP 121, GRYE 23, and BBPL 24. Waterfowl found on this area
include: mallards, pintails, green-winged teals, wigeons, common
goldeneyes, cinnamon teals, redheads, buffleheads, redhead, scaup,
ruddy, canvasback, gadwall, and northern shoveler.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 1 habitat and the
rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** With the exception of small
areas with emergent vegetation, complete access is available with
adequate visibility.

**Past and current surveys:** This area is covered in the GSL WBS (area
10). Airboats are used for surveys, although established methods are
uncertain. Areas surveyed include the shoreline from the southernmost
major drainage on the Crystal Unit of Farmington Bay WMA to the
southwest elbow of the Turpin dike. Waterfowl Census routes are also
used to conduct the Non-game Bird surveys. Conducted quarterly, these
surveys are scheduled to coincide with spring migration (April), summer
population (July), fall migration (September), and winter residents
(January). All waterbirds and shorebirds observed along the Non-game
survey route are recorded.

**Potential Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Uncertain-pilot study needed.

*Selection bias:* None

*Measurement error and bias:* Emergent vegetation may obscure visibility
in some areas.

**Needed pilot studies:** Measures are needed to address the visibility
in emergent vegetation. The airboat works fairly well, though some
concerns are expressed about the completeness of counts. More work is
needed to evaluate the efficacy of airboat surveys.

**Contact:**

Name: Justin Dolling

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801-451-7386

Email: justindolling@utah.gov

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275148 .anchor}***West Kaysville***

![](media/image23.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area extends from the drainage ditch
due west of the north end of the Davis County Sewer Plant to the
peregrine hack tower on The Nature Conservancy property. It includes the
wetlands between the shoreline and I-15. This area is primarily owned by
Davis County, The Nature Conservancy and the State of Utah.

**Focal species:** This area was covered as areas 17a (interior
wetlands) and 17b (shoreline) in the GSL WBS. Means/survey in July and
August for interior wetlands were: WESA 22, PEEP 130, LESA 14, WILL 22;
and for the shoreline were: WESA 474, LESA 224, WILL 23.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline and associated wetlands are
Type 1. The uplands are Type 2 habitat.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access permitted in most areas.
Vegetation prevents coverage of some areas.

**Past and current surveys:** Surveys are covered in the GSL WBS (area
17a and 17b). Walking surveys of the shoreline are conducted to survey
wetland areas. Survey areas extend from the drainage ditch due west of
the north end of the Davis County Sewer Plant to the peregrine hack
tower on The Nature Conservancy property. It includes the wetlands
between the shoreline and I-15. It is covered as areas 17a (interior
wetlands) and 17b (shoreline).

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Walking survey for the shoreline to be determined for the wetlands.
    Depending on the lake elevation, the shoreline/mud toe may be better
    accessed by airboat.

*Selection bias:* Visibility is good along the shoreline but not on the
wetlands due to vegetation and lack of access.

*Measurement error and bias:* Negligible for the shoreline and uncertain
for the wetlands.

**Needed pilot studies:** Survey methods need to be developed for the
wetland areas.

**Contact:**

Name: Justin Dolling

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 451-7386

Email: justindolling@utah.gov

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275149 .anchor}***Farmington Bay WMA***

![](media/image22.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership**: This area includes the Farmington Bay WMA
and surrounding areas. The WMA is administered by the Utah Department of
Wildlife Resources (UDWR).

**Focal species**: Means/survey for focal species \>10 were: LBDO 1516,
WESA 975, UNYE 197, PEEP 25, LESA 25.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats**: The wetlands are Type 1 habitat and the
rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of birds**: Visibility is often poor due to long
distances and tall vegetation.

**Past and current surveys**: This area was surveyed in the GSL WBS
(area 12). Surveys were made from the dikes. Substantial areas in the
eastern part of the WMA were not surveyed.

**Potential Survey Methods**

*Description*

-   A better "interior wetlands" survey method needs to be developed.

*Measurement Error and Measurement Bias:* Uncertain

*Selection Bias:* Uncertain

**Needed pilot studies*:*** Develop an interior wetlands survey for this
area.

**Contact**:

Name: Justin Dolling

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 451-7386

Email: justindolling@utah.gov

### *Saltair* 

![](media/image24.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The shoreline in the area extends from
Black Rock to the old Saltair railroad grade. This area is primarily
public (sovereign lands) with some private lands. Both require
administrative access at times.

**Focal species:** A few WESA and SNEG have been recorded during the GSL
WBS recorded. Means/survey for focal shorebirds \>10 were: PEEP 41, WESA
23, KILL 17.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 1 habitat. The rest
of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** Area 6 in the GSL WBS. Waterfowl census is
covered by aerial surveys.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Survey from road with occasional walking needed for complete
    coverage

*Selection bias:* Negligible.

*Measurement error and bias:* None

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801)537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

### *Kennecott* 

![](media/image25.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area includes the Kennecott Inland
Sea Shorebird Reserve (ISSR) and shoreline along the GSL. The ISSR
consists of all wetland habitat found on the Kennecott property. The
lakeside portion includes the area between the old Saltair railroad
grade and the Goggin Drain. This area consists of public (state) and
private lands.

**Focal species:** Aquatic species in moderate numbers. This area was
surveyed as areas 8A (shoreline) and 8C (interior wetlands) in the GSL
WBS. Means/survey \>10 for focal shorebirds for the shoreline were: WESA
99, PEEP 12 and for the interior wetlands were: WESA 530, PEEP 54, SNPL
83, WILL 12.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline and interior wetlands are
Type 1 habitat. The rest of the area is Type 2 habitat.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** All areas are accessible with
permission.

**Past and current surveys:** Both the ISSR and the lakeside areas are
surveyed during the GSL WBS (ISSR: area 8c, interior wetlands; area 8a,
shoreline). All surveys on the shoreline and wetlands are conducted by
foot. Areas surveyed included the shoreline between the old Saltaire
railroad grade and the Goggin Drain and all ponds and wetlands on the
ISSR.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Survey shoreline and wetlands by foot

*Selection bias:* None

*Measurement error and bias:* None

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Ann Neville

Affiliation: Kennecott

Phone: (801) 891-6842

Email: aneville@kennecott.com

### *Associated Duck Clubs*

![](media/image26.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area includes all of the Ambassador
Duck Club and Harrison Duck Club properties, as well as any other
property where access is obtained within the Associated Duck Club.
Approximately 90% of this area is appropriate waterbird habitat and
there is some ephemeral, upland playa habitat as well.

**Focal species:** Waterfowl and a few shorebirds (PEEP, WESA, KILL).
AMAV and BNST are well distributed throughout the surveyed portion of
this area. There is no known area with good habitat for PEEPs. When the
lake elevation was higher there were more SNPL. WESA are usually near
the large western pond. The Ambassador and Harrison Duck Clubs were
surveyed in the GSL WBS (area 7), which covered 15% of the area.
Means/survey for focal species (\>10) were: PEEP 41, WESA 23, KILL 17.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** There are some scattered Type 2 areas and
the rest of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** When the lake elevation is low
and water isn't coming into the ponds, then tall vegetation
(*Phragmites* spp.) takes over. Some of the clubs remove the plants and
manage for the shorter wetland vegetation. Permission from the various
duck clubs is necessary, and observers may need to use a boat to
navigate the North Point Duck Club.

[]{.mark}

**Past and current surveys:** The Ambassador and Harrison Duck Clubs are
surveyed in the GSL WBS (area 7), which covers 15% of the area.

[]{.mark}

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Survey periodically with ground and boat surveys for focal species

*Selection bias:* It is possible to cover the entire area and access is
good.

*Measurement error and bias:* Visibility was uninhibited for most of the
surveyed area, though in some cases (large ponds) viewing distances were
too great to have 100% detectability. It would be possible to walk
around ponds to get better views. In areas with tall vegetation one
could probably see into the ponds from an observation platform.

[]{.mark}

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Name: Pat Kelly

Phone: (801) 575-6730

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275153 .anchor}**[Great Salt Lake -
Southwest]{.underline}**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275154 .anchor}***West Central***

![](media/image27.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area covers the west central portion
of the GSL from the causeway south to the western-most point of
Carrington Bay. It includes the uplands in the Lakeside Mountains west
to the small road that forms the domain border. It also includes a
substantial portion of open lake where none of the shorebird species
covered in the ground surveys (i.e., excluding avocets and black-necked
stilts) occur. The U.S. Air Force manages most of this area. Access is
permitted only with military escort. Hat Island is owned by the State of
Utah.

**Focal species**: Among the focal species detected during survey, only
WESAs were recorded regularly (mean of 83 during July and August).
Hundreds to thousands of AMAV, BNST, and WIPH were also recorded.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats**: The area is all Type 3 habitat except for
the narrow shoreline zone, which is Type 2 habitat.

**Access and visibility of birds*:*** The shoreline is not visible along
the whole route so counts must be made from good viewing vantage points.

**Past and current surveys**: This area was covered in the GSL WBS (area
43).

This area was surveyed from the ground from 3 viewpoints. The surveyors
felt that they were able to see most of the birds.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Occasional ground surveys of shoreline to confirm low numbers of
    focal species

*Measurement Error and Measurement Bias*: Negligible if detection rates
are high.

*Selection Bias*: None

**Pilot Studies Needed**: None

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft (GSLEP)

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275155 .anchor}***Stansbury Bay***

![](media/image28.png){width="5.29375in" height="4.067361111111111in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area consists primarily of solar
evaporation ponds, with some shallow water near a dike road. Everything
to the south of the dike road is now primarily solar evaporation ponds
that are privately owned. The area north of the dike road is managed by
the State of Utah.

**Focal species**: Mean numbers recorded in July and August were WESA
357, PEEP 606, and LESA 146 as well as thousands of AMAV and WIPH.
Detection rates were high.

**Type 1,2, and 3 habitats**: This area is Type 3 habitat except for the
shallow water on either side of the dike road, which is Type1.

**Access and visibility of birds:** Ground surveys from the dike road
are adequate to census Type 1 habitat. The evaporation ponds are not
used by shorebirds.

**Past and current surveys**: The shallow water near the dike road was
covered in the GSL WBS (area 40) by an observer in vehicle who counted
birds on both sides of the road. An employee of the industry conducted
these surveys.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Ground surveys from the dike road

*Measurement Error and Measurement Bias*: Minimal. All Type 1 habitat
surveyed

*Selection Bias*: None

**Pilot studies needed**: None

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft (GSLEP)

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

### *Stansbury South*

![](media/image29.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The northern boundary of this area is an
east-west line extending through the pump station at the south edge of
the Stansbury Mountains. The western boundary runs along the Salt
Evaporation Ponds to I-80. I-80 forms the southern border, which extends
east to directly south of the southernmost point of the GSL (between
ponds to the south and north sides of I-80). The eastern border is a
north-south line extending north from the southeastern corner of the
area. The land in this area is managed by the BLM and the State of Utah.

**Focal Species:** The shoreline of this area was surveyed in the GSL
WBS (area 3). Significant numbers of the focal shorebirds were recorded
including (means for July and August) WESA 1767, PEEP 970, LESA 306,
SNPL 150, BASA 68, and LBDO 38.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 1 habitat and the
rest of the area is Type 2.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Visibility along the shoreline
is good, although at times soft mud prevents close approach to the shore
making identification of small shorebirds difficult.

**Past and current surveys:** The shoreline of this area is surveyed for
the GSL WBS (area 3). Surveys are performed by ground census of
shoreline habitat using ATV or airboat with occasional ground surveys of
Type 2 habitat. Ground surveys from the dike road are adequate to census
Type 1 habitat. Most or all suitable habitat for the focal shorebirds is
along the shoreline but birds sometimes roost well up on the beach so
these areas should be checked occasionally to confirm bird species
present. This area consists primarily of solar evaporation ponds, with
some shallow water near a dike road. This portion is surveyed during the
GSL WBS (area 40) by an observer in a vehicle counting birds along the
road. Evaporation ponds are not used by shorebirds.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Ground census of shoreline habitat using ATV or airboat with
    occasional ground surveys of Type 2 habitat

*Selection bias:* None.

*Measurement error and bias:* None.

**Needed pilot studies:** None.

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft (GSLEP)

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

### *Stansbury North*

![](media/image30.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership** This area covers the shoreline on the east
side of the Stansbury Mountains from the north tip of the island to the
pump station at their south end. Some of the shoreline in this area
belongs to the BLM however, access is through private land.

**Focal species** Section 2 had significant numbers of AMAV and CAGU,
with smaller numbers of EAGR. During aerial surveys a few hundred AMAVs
were recorded but virtually no other shorebirds were observed.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline is Type 2 habitat. The
remainder of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of birds:** Access to this area was refused
during the GSL WBS but it was covered by air.

**Survey Method:**

*Description:*

-   Aerial surveys for waterbirds

*Selection Bias:* Access to the area to conduct surveys

*Measurement Error and Bias*: Minimal

**Needed Pilot Studies :** None.

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft (GSLEP)

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

### *Interstate 80 North*

![](media/image31.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The southwest corner of this area is just
west of the small pond west of the Salt Evaporator. From that point, the
boundary follows I-80 east to Black Rock. The north boundary is well out
into the GSL. Access to this area is through the Union Pacific Railroad.
The area between the railroad and I-80 is privately owned.

**Focal species:** The area was surveyed on the GSL WBS with separate
counts being made for the shoreline (area 5a) and the area between the
railroad and I80 (area 5b). Neither area had many shorebirds (WESA 107,
KILL 22). Most of the WESAs were in the ponds; most of the KILL were
along the shore.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** The shoreline and ponds are Type 2
habitat. The remainder of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** The area was surveyed on the GSL WBS with
separate counts being made for the shoreline (area 5a) and the area
between the railroad and I-80 (area 5b).

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Periodic driving surveys along the railroad will cover most of the
    shoreline. If appropriate for Type 2 habitat sampling, a pilot study
    is needed to determine how to survey the shoreline areas with long
    viewing distances and how to survey the ponds.

*Selection bias:* Minimal.

*Measurement error and bias:* Visibility was reported as moderate or
poor for the ponds due to long viewing distances. On the north side, all
shoreline was visible. However, looking to the south, some areas of the
shoreline habitat are too far away to accurately identify shorebirds.

**Needed pilot studies:** None, unless Type 2 habitat sampling requires
complete coverage. A pilot study is needed to determine the best method
for surveying the southern shoreline and ponds.

**Contact:**

Name: John Luft (GSLEP)

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: (801) 537-3342

Email: johnluft@utah.gov

## [Southwest Utah]{.underline}

### *Blue Lake*

![](media/image32.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is bordered to the west by
Nevada, to the north by I-80 and the town of Wendover; the Great Salt
Desert is to the east and south. Much of the land is actively used
Military land, and the southwestern tip of the area is the Military
Boundary. The northeastern tip is the location of Arinosa. Blue Lake and
the surrounding ponds and marshes are the only areas suitable for
shorebirds in this area. Blue Lake is managed by the BLM and consists of
216 ac.

**Focal species:** The *Birding Utah* guide lists SEPL, MOUP, BNST,
AMAV, GRYE, LEYE, and WILL in this area.

[]{.mark}

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Blue Lake and surrounding marshes are Type
1 or 2 habitat. The rest of the area is type 3.

[]{.mark}

**Access and visibility of the birds:** There is a good observation
point of the marsh area from a 10' tall rock on the west side of Blue
Lake.

**Past and current surveys:** None

[]{.mark}

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   pilot study needed to determine survey method and habitat type

*Selection bias:* uncertain.

*Measurement error and bias:* uncertain.

**Needed pilot studies:** This area is small and a complete survey may
be feasible. A pilot study is necessary to assess the accuracy of a
shorebird census and confirm habitat type.

**Contact:**

Name: Curtis Warick or Nate Packer

Affiliation: BLM, Salt Lake Field Office

Phone: 801-977-4332 or 801-997-4351

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275161 .anchor}***Central Utah Lake***

![](media/image33.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is bordered to the west by state
Highway 68. At the Goshen Valley, the area border crosses the lake to
the West Mountains and turns south to Highways 141 and 6. The southern
border is Highway 6 to Santaquin and the eastern border is I-15. The
habitat consists of playa, marsh, shoreline, mountain and open water.
Much of the land in this area is private or managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Benjamin Slough area is being considered for preserve
status.

**Focal species**: Good numbers of shorebirds are found in Powell Slough
Waterfowl MA, Provo Bay and Benjamin Slough. The shoreline sees moderate
use by shorebirds when the lake level is lower, which is usually in the
late summer and fall.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats**: Casual observations suggest the wetlands
of Powell Slough Waterfowl MA, Provo Bay and Benjamin Slough are Type 1
habitat and the remaining shoreline is Type 2 habitat. The rest of the
area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of birds**: Visibility is better during fall
migration, as shorebirds congregate on the open mudflats. Early morning
surveys are recommended to decrease the glare from the sun, which can
decrease visibility. Access to viewing areas is good.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Pilot study needed

*Measurement Error and Measurement Bias*. Uncertain

*Selection Bias*. Uncertain

**Pilot studies needed**: Pilot study needed to confirm habitat
classifications and to assess whether all Type 1 habitat can be surveyed
accurately.

**Contact:**

Name***:*** David Lee or Russ Lawrence

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801- 538-4751 or 801-510-7062

### *Utah Lake Wetlands Preserve and Goshen Warm Springs WMA*

![](media/image34.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area consists of the Utah Lake
Wetlands Preserve (ULWP) and the surrounding Goshen Valley. It includes
the Warm Springs WMA. The southern border is Highway 6 to Goshen and the
Long Ridge Mountains. The habitat in the ULWP and Goshen areas are
primarily playa, marsh, shoreline and open water. The ULWP and Warm
Springs WMA are managed by the UDWR. The remainder of this area is owned
by the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, or is privately owned.

**Focal species:** The Warm Springs WMA is primarily tall emergent marsh
used by large waders and rails. Good numbers of shorebirds are found in
the wetlands near White Lake and the southern tip of Utah Lake. The
shoreline sees moderate use by shorebirds when the lake level is lower,
which is usually in the fall.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Casual observations suggest the wetlands
near White Lake and the southern tip of Utah Lake are Type 1 habitat.
The remaining shoreline and Warm Springs WMA is Type 2 habitat. The rest
of the area is Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access to Type 1 habitat is not
available to the public (i.e. the Warm Springs WMA has been closed since
2001). It is also not known if all Type 1 habitat is accessible both in
Goshen Valley and the ULWP lands.

**Past and current surveys:** No current surveys occur

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Uncertain-pilot study needed.

*Selection bias:* Unknown.

*Measurement error and bias***:** Visibility is better in the fall as
shorebirds congregate on the open mudflats. Early morning surveys are
recommended to decrease the glare from the sun, which can decrease
visibility.

**Needed pilot studies:** A pilot study is needed to confirm habitat
classifications and to assess whether all Type 1 habitat can be surveyed
accurately.

**Pilot Studies Needed**: Pilot studies are needed to identify Type 1
habitat and proper survey techniques necessary for the area.

**Contact:**

Name: David Lee

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801- 538-4751 or 801-510-7062

Email: <Davidlee@utah.gov>

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275163 .anchor}***North Shore Utah Lake***

![](media/image35.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is bordered to the west by state
Highway 68, to the north by Highway 73 and to the east by I-15. The
southern boundary runs south of the cooling ponds and across the lake to
Pelican Point. The habitat is primarily playa, marsh, shoreline and open
water. Much of the land in this area is private or managed by the Bureau
of Reclamation

**Focal species:** Good numbers of shorebirds are found in the wetlands
near the mouth of the Jordan River and Spring Creek. The shoreline sees
moderate use by shorebirds when the lake level is lower, which is
usually in the late summer and fall.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Casual observations suggest the wetlands
near the mouth of the Jordan River and Spring Creek are Type 1 habitat
and the remaining shoreline is Type 2 habitat. The rest of the area is
Type 3.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access to Type 1 habitat is
good, although it is not known if all of Type 1 habitat is accessible.

**Past and current surveys:** No current surveys occur.

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Uncertain -- pilot study needed.

*Selection bias:* Visibility is better during fall migration, as
shorebirds congregate on the open mudflats. Early morning surveys are
recommended to decrease the glare from the sun, which can decrease
visibility.

*Measurement error and bias:* None.

**Needed pilot studies:** A pilot study is needed to confirm habitat
classifications and to assess whether all Type 1 habitat can be surveyed
accurately.

**Contact:**

Name: David Lee

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 801- 538-4751 or 801-510-7062

Email: <davidlee@utah.gov>

### *Fish Springs NWR*

![](media/image36.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The NWR is marsh and small pond habitat
and is bordered by Dugway Proving Grounds to the north and Fish Springs
Mountain Range to the west. The NWR is managed by the USFWS. Refuge
habitats include salt grass uplands, desert shrub, mudflats and spring
fed saline marsh impoundments. The refuge provides 10,000 ac of critical
wetlands.

**Focal species:** Surveys indicate 10,000-14,000 shorebird visits each
year. *Birding Utah* guide reports use in the area by SNPL, LBCU, GRYE
(spring), WILL, SPSA, and WIPH. Peak spring migration is between March
15^th^ and April 30^th^. Fall migration peaks between late July and
early September.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** All marsh and pond habitat is Type 1
habitat.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access to Type 1 habitat is
primarily tour roads and foot trails.

**Past and current surveys:** Since 1993, refuge staff has conducted
bi-monthly surveys year round. Surveys are conducted from driving tour
roads throughout the refuge. The surveys cover most of the refuge.

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Driving surveys of the refuge

*Selection bias:* Unknown.

*Measurement error and bias:* Unknown.

**Pilot Studies Needed:** Pilot study or more information is needed to
assess detection rates of vehicle surveys**.**

**Contact:**

Name: Jay Banta

Affiliation: USFWS

Phone: 435-831-5353, ext. 2223

### *Quichapa Lake*

![](media/image37.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership**: This lake is located 8.1 miles west,
southwest of Cedar City and 7.3 miles west of I-15 on exist 57 on SR 56.
Ownership is approximately 75% BLM, but private lands border about half
of the shoreline.

**Focal species:** Shorebird use at Quichapa Lake is variable as the
lake often fills in spring, but is usually dry the remainder of the
year. When Quichapa Lake is wet, it has moderate shorebird use. Birder
Steve Summers of Cedar City reports the following means/record (\>10) in
April and May at Quichapa Lake: AMAV -- 378, BNST -- 600, LESA -- 33,
MAGO -- 26, RNPH -- 250, WESA -- 22, WILL -- 15, and WIPH -- 14. In
August and September, he reports means/record (\>10) of AMAV -- 31, BNST
-- 376, LESA -- 18, LBDO -- 11, RNPH -- 200, and WESA --20. These
numbers may be biased, as counts were not standardized and there are no
data regarding visits when no shorebirds were seen. These data, however,
suggest moderate use of Quichapa Lake by shorebirds. The remainder of
the area has little shorebird use.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** This area contains type 2 habitat but
habitat is seasonal as the lake is an ephemeral body of water.

[]{.mark}

**Access and visibility of the birds:** The lake can be accessed via
two-track roads through BLM and private lands. Some of the roads are
public while others are not. Access is best from the east.

**Past and current surveys:** No past surveys have been conducted**.**

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Surveys should be conducted from shore on foot or by vehicle. A
    complete survey of the lake could be completed each year with
    several observers.

*Selection bias:* None

*Measurement error and bias:* None

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: BLM

Phone: 435-586-2401

### *Clear Lake WMA*

![](media/image38.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The WMA is managed by the UDWR and is
accessible to the public. Total acreage for Clear Lake WMA is 6,150.

**Focal species:** Shorebird use is moderate. Approximate averages of
shorebird numbers on surveys are BNST -- 4000, AMAV -- 1000, and LEYE
\<20. Fall migration is a little later than the GSL area, averaging
between late August and late September. Waterfowl that use the area
include: mallards, pintails, green-winged teals, Northern Shovelers,
American wigeons, cinnamon teals, gadwalls, redheads, scaup, ruddy,
buffleheads, common goldeneyes, canvasbacks, and ring-necked.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** This area is Type 2 habitat. Classified
habitat types include open water (1,330 ac), marsh (1,140 ac), and
upland habitat (3,680 ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** There is no problem with access.

**Past and current surveys:** A Waterfowl Census counts are conducted
year round along standardized survey routes. Routes are run monthly from
January--September and semi-monthly October-January. Waterfowl Census
routes are also used to conduct the Non-game Bird Census. Conducted
quarterly, the censuses are scheduled to coincide with spring migration
(April), summer population (July), fall migration (September), and
winter residents (January). All waterbirds and shorebirds observed along
the Non-game Census route are recorded.

**Survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Continue existing ground surveys of entire Management Area.

*Selection bias*: None. Entire area surveyed.

*Measurement error and bias:* Minimal.

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Lynn Zubeck

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 435-864-3200

Email: lynnzubeck@utah.gov

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275167 .anchor}**[Aquatic Bird Concentration
Sites in Colorado Plateau BCR Utah -- BMR 96]{.smallcaps}**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275168 .anchor}***Desert Lake WMA***

![](media/image39.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** The Desert Lake Waterfowl Management Area
(WMA) covers 2,661 ac. To the north of the WMA is private agricultural
land and the wetlands are made up of runoff from this water and
agricultural use. This area is located east of Cleveland in Emery County
and is managed by the Utah UDWR of Wildlife Resources (UDWR).

**Focal species:** Waterfowl species present include: mallards, pintail,
green-winged teal, Northern shoveler, American wigeon, gadwall, redhead,
canvasback, and ring-necked ducks. Other waterbirds present in the WMA
include: great blue herons, cormorants, snowy egrets, black-crowned
night heron, eared, pied-billed and western grebes, California and
Franklin's gulls, white-faced ibis, American avocets, black-necked
stilts, sandhill cranes, willet, white pelican, and long-billed curlew.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Type 1 habitat is located in and around
Desert Lakes the rest of the area is Type 3. Classified habitat types in
the WMA are open water (59 ac), marsh (90 ac), and upland (2012 ac).

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Public access is restricted to
waterfowl season or by appointment and is walk-in only.

**Past and current surveys:** Waterfowl Census counts are conducted year
round along standardized survey routes. Routes are run monthly from
January--September and semi-monthly October-January. Waterfowl Census
routes are also used to conduct the Non-game Bird Census. Conducted
quarterly, the censuses are scheduled to coincide with spring migration
(April), summer population (July), fall migration (September), and
winter residents (January). All waterbirds and shorebirds observed along
the Non-game Census route are recorded.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Nest searches for waterbirds nesting in small colonies can be done
    mostly from the shoreline but also may require the aid of a canoe

-   Colony counts and productivity monitoring of black heron rookeries

-   Continue survey of waterfowl in the lakes

*Selection bias*: Some Type 1 habitat is difficult to access.

*Measurement error and bias*: Distances to view birds on type I habitat
may result in some birds not being counted or identified incorrectly.

**Needed pilot studies:** None

**Contact:**

Name: Bill Bates

Affiliation: UDWR

Phone: 435-636-0262

Email: <billbates@utah.gov>

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc95275169 .anchor}***Ouray NWR***

![](media/image40.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="4.249305555555556in"}

**Boundaries and ownership:** This area is a 12,500 ac NWR managed by
USFWS and is located in Uintah County. The refuge includes approximately
19 square miles of bottomlands and river surface in six naturally
occurring bottoms along the shallowly entrenched Green River. Low areas
are flooded naturally or by pumps in the spring, though some may be left
dry in a given year. The major habitat types on the refuge include
lowland riparian, wetlands, shrubsteppe, high desert scrub, water and
grassland.

**Focal species:** This refuge provides habitat for large populations of
ducks, geese, white-faced ibis and other waterbirds during the breeding
and migration seasons. Many different species of shorebirds utilize this
area.

**Type 1, 2 and 3 habitats:** Type 1 habitats are primarily composed of
marshy impoundments that are flooded naturally or by pumps during part
of the year.  These areas are located mainly in Leota Bottom, Shepherd
Bottom, Johnson Bottom, and Old Charlie Wash.  Type 2 habitats are
primarily located along the main channel of the Green River and in
Wyasket Bottom.  Wyasket Bottom is less frequently flooded and is often
a dry bottom.

**Access and visibility of the birds:** Access to both the Type 1 and
Type 2 habitats is generally good.  Refuge roads allow close observation
of the impoundments.  The birds are visible from the refuge roads.
 Birds located on the Green River are less visible.  The river is
visible from only a couple of vantage points along existing roads.

**Past and current surveys:** Monthly waterbird surveys, made by driving
the dikes and levees and covering most of the NWR, have been conducted
since the 1970's.

**Potential survey methods**

*Description:*

-   Area searches for shorebirds

-   Surveys of waterfowl using ATVs

*Selection bias:* Minimal

*Measurement error and bias***:** Minimal

**Needed pilot studies:** none.

**Contact:**

Name: Diane Pentilla

Affiliation: USFWS

Phone: 435-545-2522