Proposal for Monitoring Songbirds Along the Restored Portions of the Provo River. Watson & Associates

Transcription

1 Proposal for Monitoring Songbirds Along the Restored Portions of the Provo River Watson & Associates Kara Jorgensen, Cade Mitchell, Jonathan Olsen, Anjanette Watson FRWS 3700 December 5,

2 BACKGROUND The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is implementing the Provo River Restoration Project (PRRP) to restore the natural pattern and ecological function to the middle Provo River between Jordanelle dam and Deer Creek reservoir (Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 2002). The PRRP is trying to restore diversity and productivity of wildlife and fish habitats along a 10-mile stretch of the Provo River in an attempt to compensate for fish and wildlife losses caused by projects such as the Central Utah Project (CUP). The CUP has developed six different units for water irrigation, public use, industrial use, and power production. Each of the six systems contain a network of canals, pipelines, aqueducts, reservoirs, and pumping plants to help in providing conveniences to the above uses (Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 2003). The Provo River Restoration Project began in 1999 and is expected to last until This project has involved the removal or setting back of most existing flood control dikes along the 10-mile corridor, and reestablishing a floodplain. This project also wants to understand the habitat needs of both plants and animals within the area. We have been asked to create a proposal for monitoring songbirds along the PRRP. Our goal is to determine if songbird populations are doubling as a result of the Provo River Restoration Project. We have chosen four objectives to focus our monitoring study on. The first one is to estimate populations of indicator species, which are American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), Common Yellowthroat (Geothylis trichas), and Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Second, to determine the optimal habitat for songbirds. Third, estimate songbird population growth over the life of the monitoring 2

3 program, an estimated six years, to determine if populations are increasing. Our final objective is to monitor nests of Willow Flycatchers and Common Yellowthroats for Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism. INDICATOR SPECIES Before choosing our indicator species we created some questions that would help to guide our decisions. First, is the species sensitivity related to habitat attributes? Second, does the species exhibit a demonstrated relationship to habitat attributes of interest? Our third question is, are the species responses to the environmental factors of interest predictable. Fourth, are there any non-migratory songbirds that would work; having a non-migratory species would help in eliminating migration variables? Fifth, are there any species that utilize numerous habitat types? Finally what were the population sizes along the Provo River before the restoration project began? These questions have lead us to select three species to perform a quantitative analysis on they are the American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), Common Yellowthroat (Geothylis trichas), and Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). For our quantitative study we chose and the Yellowbreasted Chat (Icteria virens), and Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) for qualitative. We chose the American Dipper (Figure 1) because it is a year-round resident along the Provo River. This eliminates migration variable so that any population changes will be due to the affects of the PRRP. Another reason in choosing the American Dipper is it is a good indicator of water quality because it is sensitive to pollution in the water. It is an indicator of water quality because water will affect the aquatic invertebrates, vegetation and other wildlife species in the area. The American Dipper requires a variety 3

4 of streambed types, water depths, and water flow, which incorporate habitat requirements of other species (Kingery, 1996). Some examples of habitat requirements are sandy streambeds, boulders in and along the stream, and bank, and lastly fast flowing water (Figure 2). The next indicator species is the Common Yellowthroat (Figure 3); it is a habitat quality indicator. This species utilizes a variety of dense low growing vegetation, including shrubs, willows (Salix spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.) (Guzy and Ritchison, 1999). The variety of vegetation this species uses makes it a helpful indicator of floodplain and low crown habitat (Figure 5). The Brown-headed Cowbird has been known to parasitize the nests of this species; therefore we are planning to monitor their nests. The Willow Flycatcher (Figure 4) is our third indicator species. It is another indicator of habitat quality. In Utah this species is considered a specialist that requires riparian areas with shrubby vegetation, preferably with willows. The Willow Flycatcher is especially sensitive to grazing because large numbers of livestock lead to a loss of moisture in nearby meadows due to trampling. Livestock also decreases the density of willow thickets for nesting (Sedgwick, 2000). The PRRP has created a buffer zone between the Provo River and agricultural land, because of the removal of livestock we expect that the numbers of Willow Flycatchers will increase due to better habitat (Figure 5). The Brown-headed Cowbird also parasitizes this species nests and so we also plan on monitoring these nests. The Yellow-breasted Chat and the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Figure 6) have been noted along the Provo River, but only in very small numbers, so we have chosen to look 4

5 for at presence/absence of these species. These two species require larger more mature trees than our other indicator species, and we anticipate that their populations could increase as the new vegetation matures. The Yellow-breasted Chat uses a number of habitat zones such as the low tree, inner crown, canopy, and top of crown. This makes it a useful habitat diversity indicator (Eckerle, 2001). The Yellow-billed Cuckoo would be used as an indicator of mature healthy riparian forest (Hughes, 1999). If numbers increase dramatically as the project proceeds we will begin a quantitative analysis of these species. STUDY SITE The study site is located on the Provo River between Jordanelle dam and Deer Creek reservoir, west of Heber City, Utah. This stretch of the river, except for a few acres of private land, is undergoing major channel re-routing and vegetation improvements to restore the river to a more natural meandering system. Prior to river restoration adjacent land predominantly was used for agricultural purposes, which likely was the reason the river was originally channelized. Roughly ten miles of the river are being restored in stages over an eight-year period. Some areas have significantly been changed resulting in most of the vegetation being lost. These areas are being re-vegetated with native species of trees, shrubs, and grasses. Other areas where restoration work has not been so significant still contain previously existing vegetation. The river area, before restoration efforts, was home to a wide variety of songbirds; many of these were only found in very small numbers. A monitoring program from May to June 1995 through 1999 was conducted to determine current bird species diversity and abundance. This effort showed that there are a total of 5

6 123 bird species found in this section of the Provo River. It was discovered that 94 of these 123 species had populations less than 100 individuals, and 81 of the same 123 species had populations less than 50 individuals (Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 2003). JUSTIFICATION Based on published researching methods for sampling bird populations we have chosen to use the methods of fixed-point counts and nest searches of selected indicator species, with yearly vegetation cover estimates. This decision is based on four factors. First, to estimate populations of the three selected indicator species in 2004, to determine optimal habitat for songbirds, and to estimate songbird population growth over the life of the monitoring program to determine if populations are doubling. Second, the selected indicator species have specific habitat requirements, and the methods we have chosen to use coincide with habitat requirements. Third, because of limited funding only three bird species can be monitored efficiently. Our final factor is repeatability. For any long term monitoring program to have reliable data the methods used must be repeatable. As reported by Douglas H Johnson this helps ensure that an index is accurate. According to USDA technical report, PSW-GTR-144-Web, point counts are the most commonly used in surveying birds and tracking changes in population. This method also allows for tracking species composition between habitats (Ralph, 2003). Fixedpoint counts will allow us to efficiently monitor changes in songbird populations along the Provo River. By being able to see if selected songbird populations are increasing we are able to estimate changes in overall songbird populations along this section of the river. Additionally, by surveying vegetation within the same plots we will know if the 6

7 restoration of the river is helping aid in increasing populations. Nest searches will allow for determination of parasitism on nests by cowbirds or predation by other animals. If parasitism is high, we will then know actions are needed to reduce or control cowbirds and other predator populations (Ralph, 2003). SAMPLING DESIGN Specific field methods are as follows: randomly place 60 fixed plots, roughly 30 plots on each side of the river, each plot having a maximum radius of 125 m. Plots will be systematically placed throughout the project area (Figure 7). Habitat requirements necessitate the placement of plots along the river and in areas that are moist and shrubby near standing or running water. Furthermore, each bridge along the river will have a permanent plot established; these areas are often sites for dipper nesting. Placement in these areas is to cover the dominant habitat type for the three selected indicator species to be monitored. Where appropriate, placement of these plots should be on or near trails. This will help reduce disturbances to songbirds and damage to vegetation. Each plot will be spaced at least 250 m apart in all directions (Ralph, 2003). Additionally, each plot will be marked on a map and GPS coordinates recorded. Finally, each site will also be marked using t-posts with metal tags. Nest searches will also be conducted to estimate fledgling success rates. When out collecting monitoring data nest sites will be identified in each plot. Nest monitoring will be limited to the three indicator species. These nest sites will be marked on a map along with the date found (Ralph, 2003). Monitoring of vegetation will be conducted when establishing plots and once a year thereafter, for the next six years. In the first year, plots with nests should be sampled 7

8 as well as those that do not in order to compare important aspects of habitat that affect songbirds choice of nesting (Ralph, 2003). Monitoring should be conducted in all major habitats types of the Provo River Restoration Project within the 60 fixed plots (Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 2002) except the river channel, domestic areas, and open water. Areas of special importance to indicator birds (e.g., breeding colonies, unusual habitats) should be monitored, even if their geographic extent is small (Johnson, 1995). In subsequent sampling years, monitoring of the habitats in the 60 fixed plots will be the primary focus of habitat monitoring; this will be conducted once at the beginning of the year s surveys. An example of an endangered plant species we will monitor is the Ute ladies tresses. Monitoring of Ute ladies tresses and other endangered species should be included when monitoring habitat to determine how the Provo River Restoration Project will affect endangered species population numbers through time. This can be done using presence/absence observations of these species (Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, 1997). FIELD METHODS Once plots are established and monitoring begins, procedures are as follows: monitoring will be conducted between mid May through June, from sunrise or approximately 6:00 am and end at 10:00 am (NOAA, 2003). Each plot will be visited a minimum of five times during this time period. Monitoring is to be avoided during rain, wind, or cold temperatures. One individual will visit each plot. Standing at plot center the observer will record all of the indicator bird species seen and heard in a 10-minute 8

9 period within a 125 m radius of the center point. Birds seen will be recorded in the order they are observed. Distances to observed birds will be measured with a laser range finder and be recorded as being less than or equal to 50 m or greater than 50 m (Figure 8). Birds from the indicator species list that are seen flying overhead are to be included if they are within the 125 m radius of plot center, these will be recorded separately if they do not land within the plot (Ralph, 1995). When the 10-minutes are up the observer will then check each identified nest, recording the number of eggs to the number of successful fledglings, and any observed parasitism or predation. In order to minimize impacting nests the following procedures should be followed. The following rules will be followed when monitoring nests; never approach a nest when predators are in the area, survey nests from as far away as possible, never use the same path to a nest, use paths that will minimize impacts on vegetation, never leave a dead end trail. If predators are common search other areas near the nest in addition to the nest, only one observer should visit a nest, and they will not touch the nest (Ralph, 1995). Once nests are identified they will be checked every 3 days to observe their status (Ralph, 1995). After completing the above steps the observer will then move to the next plot and repeat the procedure, continuing in this manner each day until 10:00 am. Total time for each plot should be about minutes; this includes nest searches and travel to the next plot. Daily productivity should be approximately nine plots surveyed each day by each surveyor. After 9:00 am, the surveyors will travel back to quarters and record the data collected that morning into a database program. 9

10 When surveying vegetation on the once a year schedule, the following measurements of the plants containing nests will be recorded (Ralph, 1995): Plant species common name and genus Plant height Nest height Plant DBH (diameter at breast height (4.5 feet or 1.37 meters above the ground)) Distance from edge of plant, inward to the nest The canopy cover at chest height can be estimated visually The number of branches supporting the nest Average diameter of stems supporting the nest Direction from the nest to the main stem of the substrate ANALYTICAL METHODS Analysis of collected data will be done using regression, standard deviation, standard error, confidence intervals, and test statistics such as a two sided t-test, and null hypothesis tests, we will be using computer software, such as SAS, to obtain these results. Regression will enable us to see if improvements in habitat quality and quantity result in increased populations of migratory songbirds. Calculations of the standard deviation and standard error with confidence intervals of 95% will enable us to see if our data is reliable and accurate. Test statistics will allow us to determine if our observed data differs enough from hypothesized data to support our conclusions. 10

11 BUDGET A. Salaries and Wages Bird expert Training of technicians & supplies Setup technician Four technicians for 5-6 weeks B. Supplies Work equipment Final report Data analyses C. Other Expenses Daily living expenses Miscellaneous expenses Individually $4,000 $5,000 $800 $10,000 $6,000 $5,000 $2,000 $10,000 $5,000 Total $19,800 $13,000 $15,000 D. Grand Total $47,800 $47,800 We will be bringing in an expert for two weeks/50 hours to train our technicians. They will be trained in identifying birds by sight and sound. Along with this we will have a setup technician come in and lay out the permanent plots. We will be paying this technician $800, this will include their living expenses for the duration of setup. We will also be including four other technicians that will be working six hours a day for five to six weeks. The cost of our annual report will include writing, revising, and printing. The daily living expenses will include housing, food, fuel, and etc. for five to six weeks. The miscellaneous expense account will include any unexpected costs. 11

12 PRODUCTS PRIVIDED A yearly report describing population estimates of indicator species and habitat quality improvements will be provided. Additionally, a breakdown of yearly expenses will be included. If desired an oral presentation will be provided. 12

13 Figure 1 American Dipper an indicator of water quality (South Dakota Division of Wildlife, 2003). 13

14 Figure 2 Conceptual model for American Dipper. The amount of adults that survive to reproduce Human interaction on the ecosystem Rate of juveniles to adults Cooper s Hawk, and Northern Harrier Large tree roots and fallen trees Juvenile success Rate of reproduction Initial American Dipper Population Results of Provo River Restoration/Habitat Aquatic invertebrates Stream bank/beds Water flow Rocks/boulders present Agriculture use in area Water Pollution 14

15 Figure 3 Common Yellowthroat an indicator of habitat quality ( Figure 4 Willow Flycatcher another habitat quality indicator ( 2003). 15

16 Figure 5 Conceptual model for Common Yellowthroat and Willow Flycatcher. Open canopy Loggerhead Shrikes and American Kestrels Moisture levels in meadows Grazing in surrounding areas Dense growth of low vegetation/shrubs Size of willow thickets Brown-headed Cowbird Parasitism Amount of adults that survive to reproduce Rate of juveniles to adults Juvenile success Rate of reproduction Initial Common Yellowthroat Population Initial Willow Flycatcher Population Rate of reproduction Snakes, mice, and chipmunks Juvenile success Brown-headed Cowbird Parasitism Insects available for forage Great Horned Owl and Cooper s hawk Rate of juveniles to adults Soil Types Flooding Amount of adults that survive to reproduce Flow of water Human impacts on ecosystem 16

17 Figure 6 Yellow-breasted Chat an indicator of habitat diversity and Yellow-billed Cuckoo an indicator of healthy riparian forest ( 17

18 American Dipper plots 250 m spaced plots Figure 7 Sampling design map of approximate spacing and positioning of plots for point count surveys of selected indicator bird species along the Provo River between Jordenelle dam and Deer Creek reservoir. 18

19 Plot Center 50 m 125 m Figure 8 Example of fixed plot with different distances shown. 19

20 LITRATURE CITED Eckerle, K.P Yellow-breasted Chat: Icteria virens. The Birds of North America. No Birds of North America Inc. Philadelphia, PA. Guzy, M.J., G. Ritchson Common Yellowthroat: Geothlypis trichas. The Birds of North America. No Birds of North America Inc. Philadelphia, PA. Hughes, J.M Common Yellowthroat: Coccyzus americanus. The Birds of North America. No Birds of North America Inc. Philadelphia, PA. Johnson, Douglas H Statistical considerations in monitoring birds over large areas. USGS Biological Research Division. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, ND. Kingery, H.E American Dipper: Cinclus mexicanus. The Birds of North America. No Birds of North America Inc. Philadelphia, PA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sunrise sunset calculator. Available online Ralph, J. C., et al Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. Pacific Southwest Research Station USDA Forest Service. Albany, CA. Sedgewick, J.A Willow Flycatcher: Empidonax traillii. The Birds of North America. No Birds of North America Inc. Philadelphia, PA. South Dakota Division of Wildlife American dipper photograph. Available online. Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission Central Utah Project-Bonneville Unit. Available online. Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission Provo River Restoration Project, Fish and Wildlife Studies. Salt Lake City, UT Available online. 20