Back to Home

Back to Table of Contents

 

INVENTORY, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH NEEDS

 

 “Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds:  The Plan for Count-based Monitoring”

 

        Prepared by:  Tony Leukering, Michael. F. Carter, Arvind Panjabi, Douglas Faulkner, and Rich Levad; Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 14500 Lark Bunting Lane, Brighton, CO 80601; phone:  303-659-4348; e-mail:  monitoring@rmbo.org; in cooperation with Wyoming Partners In Flight; 24 January 2001.

 

Introduction

 

        Population monitoring is the foundation of avian conservation.  Without reliable monitoring data, conservation efforts may be misguided and inefficient.  Monitoring is required under federal and state legislative and agency mandates, as well as a host of long-range plans, forest plans, ecoregional plans, preserve management plans, etc. (Sauer 1993, Manley et al. 1993, Colorado Division of Wildlife 1994).  From a global biodiversity perspective, Wyoming hosts many bird species at or near their greatest regional abundances (Table 14) and therefore has a high, long-term responsibility to conserve these species (sensu Rosenberg and Wells 2000).

 

        The effective conservation and management of Wyoming’s birds depend on adequate monitoring information, which, to a large extent, does not exist.  To date, resource managers have relied on data derived from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), currently the best and most extensive bird-monitoring program, to monitor bird populations (Robbins et al. 1989, Sauer 1993).  The BBS uses volunteers to conduct roadside surveys of birds across North America and produces indices of population abundance at the continental scale for many common bird species (see Robbins et al. 1986).  However, many species and habitats are inadequately sampled by the BBS (Robbins et al. 1993, Sauer 1993) and BBS data do not reliably predict population trends at small geographic scales (Sauer 2000).  Additionally, the design and implementation of the BBS is such that results generated from these efforts are often inconclusive due to the difficulty associated with interpreting index counts (Sauer 2000) and numerous confounding variables (Robbins et al. 1986, Bohning-Gaese et al. 1993, Sauer et al. 1994, James et al. 1996, Thomas 1996, Rosenstock et al. in prep.).  For these reasons, BBS data are generally insufficient to guide local or regional management decisions.

 

        Several authors have suggested implementing regional habitat-based bird monitoring programs to complement data generated by the BBS (Butcher 1992, Butcher et al. 1993, Sauer 2000, Sauer and Cooper 2000).  In cooperation with the agencies charged with protecting and managing Colorado’s birds, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) proposed and successfully implemented a bird monitoring program for the state, entitled “Monitoring Colorado’s Birds” (MCB), in which every agency/organization has the opportunity to contribute and benefit by assuming responsibility for the dominant habitats on the lands they manage (Table 15).  This nationally-recognized program, often referred to as “The Colorado Model”, is currently being considered for adoption by several states.  In Colorado, it is supported by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service.  Now, in cooperation with Wyoming Partners In Flight (WY-PIF), we propose a similar plan, based on the Colorado model, to monitor the birds of Wyoming.  This plan is “Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds:  The Plan for Count-based Monitoring” (MWB).

 

        MWB is designed to provide population trend or status data on all regularly-occurring breeding species in the state.  A total of 246 species of birds has bred in Wyoming.  The first phase of MWB is to ensure that count-based data are obtained for all species that can be monitored effectively through a habitat-based approach, and that species-specific tracking or census programs are employed for those species requiring more specialized techniques.  The second phase should include demographic studies to determine the possible reasons for known declines and to develop management information.  Herein we develop a plan for Phase I, the count-based monitoring of all of Wyoming’s regularly breeding bird species.  This plan was developed using information drawn from BBS data, WY-PIF, and Partners In Flight (PIF) priority scores (Table 14).

 

        MWB has been drafted as a state-based plan, seeking funding only from agencies within Wyoming and focusing solely on habitats within the state.  However, an ecoregional approach would provide more meaningful and complete monitoring data on bird populations and would be more cost-effective for states.  Therefore, we would like to expand this program to the Bird Conservation Region (BCR) level.  BCRs are more ecologically-appropriate management units for birds because they encompass distinct ecoregions in North America that host similar bird communities (NABCI Committee 2000).  Partners In Flight has adopted the BCR as the focus unit for ranking conservation priorities among bird species, and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) has stressed the need for regionally-based approaches to bird conservation involving cooperative partnerships within BCRs (NABCI Committee 2000).

 

        Wyoming is comprised of four BCRs:  the Northern Rockies (BCR 10), Badlands and Prairies (BCR 17), Shortgrass Prairie (BCR 18), and Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau (BCR 16), each of which extends into neighboring states.  A BCR level plan would require that all states occupying significant portions of the BCR contribute proportionately to fund monitoring efforts in the BCR.  Such a plan would be more cost-effective because it would eliminate duplicate efforts by states to obtain independent data sets from habitats they share with other states, while still providing meaningful data on bird populations that could be used at the state level.

 

Background

 

        Although analyses of BBS data have indicated population declines in some bird species (Robbins et al. 1986), we do not believe that there are wholesale declines in birds as reported by some media, individuals, initiatives, or environmental groups.  However, population trend data for many western bird species are lacking (see Table 14).

 

        Using WY-PIF priority scores and criteria established by Carter et al. (2000), we have determined that over 68% of Wyoming’s regularly-breeding species are not adequately monitored by the BBS (Table 16).  Of the species that are well monitored by the BBS, some species have populations that are declining, some increasing, and some stable (Table 16).  If proportions of increasing, decreasing, and stable species are roughly the same in the list of unmonitored species as they are in the list of monitored species, then it is likely that a considerable number of population declines are currently undetected.  Furthermore, because declines are more difficult to detect than increases (variance increases as populations decline), the proportion of declining species in the unmonitored list is probably even higher.  For these reasons, a comprehensive monitoring program for Wyoming is clearly needed.

 

Statistical Targets and Assumptions

 

        Monitoring should be efficient, low-level, and permanent, and we have designed this program with these points in mind.  To monitor correctly, one needs a target -- a threshold of population change over time that balances statistical rigor with cost-effectiveness.  It is desirable to detect a fairly small population change (particularly, a negative one) in a fairly short amount of time.  However, the sample sizes required would probably be prohibitively costly.  Therefore, as our target, we selected a minimum rate of population change of -3.0% per year and a maximum time period of 30 years in which to detect population changes (see Butcher 1992 and Robbins et al. 1993 for similar trend detection targets).  We used the formula:

cumulative change = ([(annual change/100)+1]n-1 -1)(100)

to calculate total population loss over a 30-year period with an annual decline of 3.0%.  This equates to a 58.7% loss of a population in 30 years, which is probably not large enough to trigger listing under the Endangered Species Act.  It is, however, advance warning enough to trigger action.

 

        Along with this target one must determine what levels of statistical rigor (i.e. power and significance) are appropriate.  We selected a statistical probability of p=0.10 (Askins et al. 1990, Butcher 1992) to indicate a significant population change.  A statistical probability of p=0.10 gives moderate protection against Type I error (finding trends that are false).  For MWB, we provided only moderate protection because it is often more useful and practical for wildlife managers to determine the direction and magnitude of a trend than establish its significance at a very high level (i.e., traditionally, p=0.05).  Similarly, we set power at 0.8 (Butcher 1992, Downes et al. 2000), which gives moderate protection against Type II error (failing to find trends that are real).

 

        Considering cost and the need to have a sufficient number of well-dispersed sampling units, we initially designed this program with 30 samples (i.e. transects) per habitat.  Then, using pilot data from 1998, we tested this number of samples and confirmed that 30 would be sufficient to meet our target for detecting population changes.

 

        With these assumptions, we used the computer program MONITOR (Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 2000) to model the efficiency of 30 pilot transects run in each of three habitats in 1998 (Leukering and Carter 1999).  Specifically, we used MONITOR to determine the threshold for the coefficient of variation (CV; Standard Deviation/Mean) associated with point-transect data that will generate useful monitoring information.  A CV reflects the overall variability of data scaled against the mean; that is, species with large abundances but high variability have CVs similar to those of species with low abundance and low variability.  CVs are a function of factors inherent to a species (its abundance and variability in nature) and statistical considerations such as sample size and method of sampling.  MONITOR indicates that for species with associated CVs of less than 1.00, we will be able to detect 3.0% per year declines within 30 years of monitoring, with a statistical significance of p=0.1 and power of 0.8.  For species with CVs of less than 0.50, MONITOR indicates that we will be able to detect declines of 3.0% per year within 12 years.

 

        It is the nature of trend data that increases can be detected more quickly than can decreases of equal magnitude.  Therefore, with these thresholds we should be able to detect positive trends more quickly than negative trends.  Additionally, for species with either large rates of population change or very low CVs, we will be able to detect trends in as few as six years.

 

Methods

 

        MWB will employ a variety of survey techniques (e.g. point transects, line transects, and colony counts) to obtain trend and status data on Wyoming’s birds.  Each technique is detailed in Leukering and Levad (2000) and summarized in Table 17.  An underlying tenet of MWB is to allocate more effort to those species for which Wyoming is an important breeding area and little effort to species that are peripheral to the area.  While most species can be monitored through use of a single technique, the ecologies of some species are such that they are not adequately surveyed through randomized sampling efforts.  Therefore, not all species will be monitored by the same technique, nor will every species be monitored.  Game species and federally-listed Threatened or Endangered (T&E) species will not receive specific attention under MWB, as monitoring programs already exist for these species under other mandates.  We believe monitoring efforts under MWB should focus on those species currently not monitored under any program.  However, data generated by MWB on these species will be available and could be used to supplement other management information for these species.

 

        Although we use the term “monitoring” loosely throughout most of this plan, in the strictest sense, “monitoring” is possible only for those species for which we can obtain a sufficient number of samples (i.e. those species with CVs of <1.00) to meet high levels of statistical rigor when testing for population change.  For some species that occur in low relative abundance across the landscape, “monitoring” will not be possible without greatly increasing the amount of funds and effort devoted toward those species.  Instead, we intend to “track” populations of low-abundance or localized species, with the implication being that any trends detected for these species will have low statistical power (CVs of >1.00).  For data obtained through species-specific techniques, “monitoring” will be possible for those species for which we are able to locate and survey all known breeding locations in a given year (e.g. Eared Grebe, Great Blue Heron, and Franklin’s Gull).  For rare or local species whose breeding locations are not known with complete certainty, we will “track” populations using counts at known breeding locations (e.g. Purple Martin and Scott’s Oriole).

 

        MWB relies primarily on transect-based techniques, through which we expect to monitor approximately 35% of Wyoming’s breeding bird species and track an additional 35% (Table 18).  Through the use of species-specific techniques, we expect to monitor 6% and track an additional 10% of Wyoming’s breeding birds (Table 18).  The remaining 14% of species are designated T&E or game species not covered under MWB.

 

        Standard distance-sampling techniques (Buckland et al. 1993) are used during all transect surveys, and density estimates of bird species are derived using program DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 1998).  We have become painfully aware of the many problems associated with sampling bird populations and believe that distance-sampling techniques may be useful in sorting out problems of detectability that could result from myriad factors, including changes to the habitat over the term of this program.  We do not intend to use these techniques to develop densities as an end product, but rather as a tool to derive an index that is not confounded by detectability issues.  In the event that distance sampling techniques do not prove to be useful, we will analyze our data using more traditional techniques (e.g. via fixed radii).

 

        All diurnal transects are located at randomly-selected sites without bias toward or against roads; starting points and transect bearings are determined randomly.  All technicians are highly-skilled field ornithologists and are trained at the beginning of the season to ensure that they fully understand the field protocol and that their distance-estimation skills meet our requirements (within 10% of true value).

 

Partners

 

        The magnitude of this plan requires that numerous agencies and organizations participate to fully implement all aspects of the program.  For this plan, partners (real or potential) include the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Audubon Wyoming, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Wyoming Partners In Flight, and Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

 

Products

 

        Annual summaries of results and periodic trend analyses will be provided to all participating agencies via paper reports, publications, and the World Wide Web.  Raw data will be made available to the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) by the end of the calendar year in which it was collected, whereby WYNDD will add them to previous data and distribute to all contributing participants.

 

Funding/Cost

 

        For MWB, we estimate that count-based data for each habitat will cost about $10,500 per year (Table 19).  This figure includes only the costs to obtain transect-based data from each habitat and does not include funds for species-specific monitoring.  However, when multiple habitats are included in the budget, the synergistic effects of per-habitat funding (i.e. overlap in data management, analysis, report writing, etc.) should provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of most species-specific monitoring techniques.  In Colorado, the program has been funded to address 16 habitats, which provides sufficient funds to address most species with the appropriate technique.

 

References and Literature Cited

 

Askins, R. A., J. F. Lynch, and R. Greenburg.  1990.  Population declines in migratory birds in eastern North America.  Current Ornithology 7:1-57.

 

Bohning-Gaese, K., M. L. Taper, and J. H. Brown.  1993.  Are declines in insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range?  Conservation Biology 7:76-86.

 

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, and J. L. Laake.  1993.  Distance Sampling:  Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations.  Chapman and Hall, London, reprinted 1999 by RUWPA, University of St. Andrews, Scotland.  446pp.

 

Butcher, G. S., editor.  1992.  Needs Assessment:  Monitoring Neotropical Migratory Birds.  Partners In Flight, Ithaca, NY.  58pp.

 

Butcher, G. S., B. Peterjohn, and C. J. Ralph.  1993.  Overview of national bird population monitoring programs and databases.  In D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel, editors.  Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds; 21-25 September 1992; Estes Park, CO.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.  General Technical Report RM-229.  422pp.

 

Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, and K. V. Rosenberg.  2000.  Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States:  The Partners In Flight approach.  Auk 117:541-548.

 

Colorado Division of Wildlife.  1994.  Long Range Plan (Revised Draft).  Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Denver.  33pp.

 

Downes, C. M., E. H. Dunn, and C. M. Francis.  2000.  Canadian Landbird Monitoring Strategy:  Monitoring Needs and Priorities into the New Millennium.  Partners In Flight-Canada, Ottawa.  64pp.

 

James, F. C., C. E. McCullough, and D. A. Weidenfeld.  1996.  New approaches to the analysis of population trends in landbirds.  Ecology 77:13-27.

 

Leukering, T., and M. F. Carter.  1999.  Colorado Birds Monitored by 2001:  results of point-transects in three Colorado habitats with an appendix of results of special species monitoring.  Colorado Bird Observatory.  Unpublished report.  34pp.

 

Leukering, T., and R. Levad.  2000.  Monitoring Colorado’s Birds:  Protocols.  Colorado Bird Observatory.  Unpublished report.  16pp.

 

Manley, P. N., W. M. Block, F. R. Thompson, G. S. Butcher, C. Paige, L. H. Suring, D. S. Winn, D. Roth, C. J. Ralph, E. Morris, C. H. Flather, and K. Byford.  1993.  Guidelines for Monitoring Populations of Neotropical Migratory Birds on National Forest System Lands.  USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.  5pp.

 

NABCI Committee.  2000.  North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States:  a vision of American bird conservation.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of North American Waterfowl and Wetlands, Arlington, VA.                                                                                                                                              

 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.  2000.  Program MONITOR.  Version 11.2000.  Online www.mp1-pwrc.usgs.gov/powcase/Manual.htm.

 

Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P. H. Geissler.  1986.  The Breeding Bird Survey:  its first fifteen years, 1965-1979.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 157.  196pp.

 

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenburg, and S. Droege.  1989.  Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics.  Proceedings, National Academy of Science, USA.  86:7658-7662.

 

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, and B. G. Peterjohn.  1993.  Population trends and management opportunities for Neotropical migrants.  In D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel, editors.  Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds; 21-25 September 1992; Estes Park, CO.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.  General Technical Report RM-229.  422pp.

 

Rosenberg, K. V., and J. V. Wells.  2000.  Global perspectives on Neotropical migratory bird conservation in the Northeast:  long-term responsibility versus immediate concern.  In R. Bonney et al., editors.  Strategies for Bird Conservation:  The Partners In Flight Planning Process.  Proceedings of the 3rd Partners In Flight Workshop; 1-5 October 1995; Cape May, NJ.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.  281pp.

 

Rosenstock, S. S., D. R. Anderson, K. M. Geisen, T. Leukering, and M. F. Carter.  In prep.  Estimating landbird abundance:  current practices and an alternative.

 

Sauer, J. R.  1993.  Monitoring Goals and Programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  In D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel, editors.  Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds; 21-25 September 1992; Estes Park, CO.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.  General Technical Report RM-229.  422pp.

 

Sauer, J. R., B. G. Peterjohn, and W. A. Link.  1994.  Observer differences in the North American Breeding Bird Survey.  Auk 111:50-62.

Sauer, J. R.  2000.  Combining information from monitoring programs:  complications associated with indices and geographic scale.  In R. Bonney et al., editors.  Strategies for Bird Conservation:  The Partners In Flight Planning Process.  Proceedings of the 3rd Partners In Flight Workshop; 1-5 October 1995; Cape May, NJ.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.  281pp.

 

Sauer, J. R., and R. Cooper.  2000.  Population and habitat assessment:  monitoring bird populations over large areas.  In R. Bonney et al., editors.  Strategies for Bird Conservation:  The Partners In Flight Planning Process.  Proceedings of the 3rd Partners In Flight Workshop; 1-5 October 1995; Cape May, NJ.  USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.  281pp.

 

Stahlecker, D. W.  1997.  Using tape playback of the staccato song to document Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) reproduction.  In J. R. Duncan, D. H. Johnson, and T. H. Nicholls, editors.  Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere:  2nd International Symposium; 5-9 February 1997; Winnipeg, MB.  USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN.  General Technical Report NC-190.  635pp.

 

Thomas, L.  1996.  Monitoring long-term population change:  why are there so many analysis methods?  Ecology 77:49-58.

 

Thomas, L., J. L. Laake, J. F. Derry, S. T. Buckland, D. L. Borchers, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, S. Strindberg, S. L. Hedley, M. L. Burt, F. F. C. Marques, J. H. Pollard, and R. M. Fewster.  1998.  Distance 3.5.  Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, UK.

 

 

Table 14.  Species list with PIF priority scores, habitat, and suggested methods for monitoring each of Wyoming’s breeding bird species.  Only local scores are included here; global scores are not.  Scores provided are:  AI = area importance, PT = population trend, PTU = population trend uncertainty (not included in total).  Total score is not a sum of scores provided.

 

 

 

Common Name

 

 

AI

 

PT

 

PTU

 

PIF Score

 

Habitat

 

Technique

 

Result

Common Loon

3

3

8

18

Wetlands

Expert survey

Tracked

Pied-billed Grebe

3

3

6

14

Wetlands

Colony count

Tracked

Horned Grebe

3

3

8

16

Wetlands

Colony count

Tracked

Red-necked Grebe

3

3

8

17

Wetlands

Expert survey

Tracked

Eared Grebe

2

3

6

13

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Western Grebe

3

3

6

20

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Clark’s Grebe

3

3

8

20

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

American White Pelican

3

3

6

21

Wetlands

Expert survey

Monitored

Double-crested Cormorant

2

3

6

13

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

American Bittern

2

3

7

17

Wetlands

Line transect

Tracked

Great Blue Heron

3

3

5

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Colony count

Monitored

Snowy Egret

3

3

8

15

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Cattle Egret

3

3

8

13

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Black-crowned Night-Heron

3

3

8

15

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

White-faced Ibis

3

3

8

17

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Turkey Vulture

2

2

3

11

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

Canada Goose

5

3

5

15

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Trumpeter Swan

3

3

8

26

Wetlands

Expert survey

Monitored

Wood Duck

3

3

8

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

N/A 

Tracked

Gadwall

3

3

5

15

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

American Wigeon

4

3

5

17

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Mallard

3

3

5

13

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Blue-winged Teal

2

2

2

13

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Cinnamon Teal

3

4

4

19

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Northern Shoveler

2

3

6

14

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Northern Pintail

2

3

5

13

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Green-winged Teal

4

3

5

15

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Canvasback

3

3

8

19

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Redhead

2

3

7

19

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Ring-necked Duck

4

3

7

20

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Lesser Scaup

3

3

6

16

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Harlequin Duck

3

3

8

20

Montane Riparian

Expert survey

Tracked

Bufflehead

3

3

8

18

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Common Goldeneye

3

3

8

15

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Barrow’s Goldeneye

3

3

6

22

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Hooded Merganser

2

3

8

20

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Red-breasted Merganser

2

3

8

15

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Common Merganser

5

3

5

17

Montane Riparian

N/A

Tracked

Ruddy Duck

2

3

7

17

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Osprey

3

3

6

16

Wetlands

State-wide survey

Tracked

Bald Eagle

3

3

8

18

Montane Riparian

N/A

Tracked

Northern Harrier

4

3

5

19

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Sharp-shinned Hawk

3

3

8

16

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Cooper’s Hawk

3

3

8

16

Aspen

Point transect

Tracked

Northern Goshawk

4

3

7

19

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Swainson’s Hawk

3

3

5

21

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Red-tailed Hawk

4

1

1

12

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Ferruginous Hawk

4

3

5

23

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Tracked

Golden Eagle

5

3

5

19

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

American Kestrel

5

2

1

14

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Tracked

Merlin

3

3

8

15

Low Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Prairie Falcon

5

3

5

23

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

Peregrine Falcon

3

3

8

19

Specialized Habitats

Expert survey

Tracked

Gray Partridge

3

3

8

11

Mountain-foothills Shrub

N/A

Tracked

Chukar

3

3

8

11

Mountain-foothills Shrub

N/A

Tracked

Ring-necked Pheasant

3

5

2

13

Urban/Agricultural

N/A

Tracked

Ruffed Grouse

4

3

7

19

Aspen

N/A

Tracked

Sage Grouse

5

3

5

26

Shrub-steppe

N/A

Tracked

Blue Grouse

3

3

8

21

Montane Riparian

N/A

Tracked

White-tailed Ptarmigan

3

3

8

20

Alpine Tundra

Statewide survey

Tracked

Sharp-tailed Grouse

3

3

8

19

Mountain-foothills Shrub

N/A

Tracked

Wild Turkey

3

3

6

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

N/A

Tracked

Northern Bobwhite

3

3

8

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

N/A

Tracked

Virginia Rail

3

3

8

16

Wetlands

Line transect

Tracked

Sora

2

3

6

13

Wetlands

Line transect

Tracked

American Coot

3

3

5

12

Wetlands

N/A

Tracked

Sandhill Crane

4

1

2

20

Wetlands

Statewide survey

Tracked

Snowy Plover

3

3

8

20

Wetlands

Statewide survey

Tracked

Killdeer

4

2

4

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Monitored

Mountain Plover

4

3

6

28

Shortgrass Prairie

Statewide survey

Tracked

Black-necked Stilt

3

3

8

16

Wetlands

Statewide survey

Tracked

American Avocet

2

4

3

21

Wetlands

Line transect

Tracked

Willet

3

2

3

18

Wetlands

Statewide survey

Tracked

Spotted Sandpiper

5

2

2

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Monitored

Upland Sandpiper

2

2

4

18

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Tracked

Long-billed Curlew

2

3

6

21

Shortgrass Prairie

Statewide survey

Tracked

Common Snipe

4

3

5

15

Wetlands

Point transect

Tracked

Wilson’s Phalarope

3

5

2

22

Wetlands

Line transect

Tracked

Franklin’s Gull

3

3

8

22

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Ring-billed Gull

2

3

6

13

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

California Gull

3

3

5

18

Wetlands

Colony count

Monitored

Caspian Tern

3

3

8

15

Wetlands

Expert survey

Tracked

Forster’s Tern

2

3

7

19

Wetlands

Expert survey

Monitored

Black Tern

3

3

8

18

Wetlands

Expert survey

Monitored

Rock Dove

3

3

5

11

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Tracked

Mourning Dove

3

2

1

10

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Black-billed Cuckoo

2

3

7

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

Expert survey

Tracked

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

3

3

8

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Tracked

Barn Owl

3

3

8

17

Urban/Agricultural

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Eastern Screech-Owl

3

3

8

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Western Screech-Owl

3

3

8

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Northern Pygmy-Owl

3

3

8

17

Mid Elevation Conifer

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Great Horned Owl

3

4

4

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Burrowing Owl

2

4

3

19

Shortgrass Prairie

Colony count

Tracked

Great Gray Owl

3

3

8

18

Mid Elevation Conifer

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Long-eared Owl

3

3

8

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Short-eared Owl

3

3

6

20

Shortgrass Prairie

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Boreal Owl

3

3

8

18

High Elevation Conifer

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Northern Saw-whet Owl

3

3

8

15

Aspen

Nocturnal transect

Tracked

Common Nighthawk

4

4

4

17

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Tracked

Common Poorwill

3

3

6

19

Mountain-foothills Shrub

Nocturnal transect

Monitored

Chimney Swift

3

3

8

18

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Tracked

White-throated Swift

3

3

6

17

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

Black-chinned Hummingbird

2

3

8

20

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Calliope Hummingbird

5

3

7

23

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

2

2

3

18

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Rufous Hummingbird

2

3

7

20

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Belted Kingfisher

2

3

6

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Monitored

Lewis’ Woodpecker

3

3

8

23

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Red-headed Woodpecker

2

3

6

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Red-naped Sapsucker

3

2

2

20

Aspen

Point transect

Tracked

Williamson’s Sapsucker

3

3

7

21

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Downy Woodpecker

2

3

6

13

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Hairy Woodpecker

3

3

5

15

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Three-toed Woodpecker

4

3

7

20

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Black-backed Woodpecker

3

3

8

21

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Northern Flicker

5

4

4

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Olive-sided Flycatcher

2

3

6

17

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Western Wood-Pewee

3

2

1

15

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Willow Flycatcher

3

4

4

20

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Least Flycatcher

2

3

6

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Hammond’s Flycatcher

2

3

7

20

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Dusky Flycatcher

3

2

3

19

Low Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Gray Flycatcher

3

3

8

21

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Cordilleran Flycatcher

3

3

6

20

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Eastern Phoebe

3

3

8

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Expert survey

Tracked

Say’s Phoebe

4

3

5

18

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Tracked

Ash-throated Flycatcher

2

3

7

16

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Cassin’s Kingbird

3

3

8

22

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Western Kingbird

3

1

1

15

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Eastern Kingbird

3

2

1

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Loggerhead Shrike

3

3

5

18

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Tracked

Plumbeous Vireo

3

3

6

20

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Warbling Vireo

4

2

2

17

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Red-eyed Vireo

2

3

7

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Gray Jay

3

5

2

17

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Steller’s Jay

2

3

6

15

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Blue Jay

2

3

7

12

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Western Scrub-Jay

3

3

8

18

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Pinyon Jay

2

3

6

17

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Clark’s Nutcracker

4

3

5

18

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Black-billed Magpie

4

5

1

19

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

American Crow

2

2

1

9

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Tracked

Common Raven

3

2

4

11

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Monitored

Horned Lark

5

4

4

15

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Monitored

Purple Martin

3

3

8

16

Aspen

Statewide survey

Tracked

Tree Swallow

3

2

4

14

Aspen

Point transect

Tracked

Violet-green Swallow

3

2

4

16

Aspen

Point transect

Tracked

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

4

4

4

18

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Bank Swallow

2

3

5

13

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Cliff Swallow

4

2

4

12

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

Barn Swallow

3

2

4

11

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Tracked

Black-capped Chickadee

2

5

2

15

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Mountain Chickadee

3

5

2

18

High-elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Juniper Titmouse

3

3

8

21

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Monitored

Bushtit

3

3

8

16

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Red-breasted Nuthatch

2

2

2

12

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

White-breasted Nuthatch

2

3

6

14

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Pygmy Nuthatch

3

3

8

20

Low Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Brown Creeper

3

3

8

16

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Rock Wren

3

5

1

18

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

Canyon Wren

3

4

3

18

Specialized Habitats

Point transect

Tracked

Bewick’s Wren

3

3

8

18

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Monitored

House Wren

3

2

4

11

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Marsh Wren

3

4

3

20

Wetlands

Line transect

Monitored

American Dipper

3

3

7

20

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Golden-crowned Kinglet

3

3

6

17

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

3

2

4

14

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

3

3

8

15

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Monitored

Eastern Bluebird

3

3

8

15

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Western Bluebird

3

3

8

19

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Tracked

Mountain Bluebird

4

2

1

17

Mountain-foothills Shrub

Point transect

Tracked

Townsend’s Solitaire

3

2

3

17

Aspen

Point transect

Tracked

Veery

2

4

3

18

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Swainson’s Thrush

2

2

2

14

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Hermit Thrush

3

2

2

15

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

American Robin

3

2

1

10

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Gray Catbird

2

4

4

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Northern Mockingbird

2

3

7

10

Plains/Basin Riparian

Expert survey

Tracked

Sage Thrasher

5

2

1

19

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Monitored

Brown Thrasher

2

3

6

17

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

American Pipit

3

3

8

14

Alpine Tundra

Point transect

Monitored

Cedar Waxwing

2

3

7

13

Mountain-foothills Shrub

Point transect

Tracked

European Starling

3

3

5

11

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Monitored

Orange-crowned Warbler

2

3

6

13

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Virginia’s Warbler

3

3

8

24

Mountain-foothills Shrub

Point transect

Monitored

Yellow Warbler

4

2

1

13

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Yellow-rumped Warbler

4

3

5

14

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Black-throated Gray Warbler

3

3

8

22

Juniper Woodland

Point transect

Monitored

Townsend’s Warbler

3

3

8

20

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

American Redstart

2

4

3

15

Plains/Basin Riparian

Expert survey

Tracked

Ovenbird

2

3

7

17

Plains/Basin Riparian

Statewide survey

Tracked

MacGillivray’s Warbler

3

1

2

17

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Common Yellowthroat

2

5

2

15

Wetlands

Point transect

Monitored

Wilson’s Warbler

2

3

6

15

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Yellow-breasted Chat

2

3

5

16

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Western Tanager

3

2

4

17

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Green-tailed Towhee

4

2

1

19

Mountain-foothills Shrub

Point transect

Monitored

Spotted Towhee

2

3

5

16

Mountain-foothills Shrub

Point transect

Monitored

Chipping Sparrow

3

5

1

16

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Clay-colored Sparrow

2

3

6

18

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Tracked

Brewer’s Sparrow

5

5

1

23

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Monitored

Field Sparrow

2

3

7

17

Shortgrass Prairie

Statewide survey

Tracked

Vesper Sparrow

5

4

4

18

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Monitored

Lark Sparrow

3

4

4

18

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Monitored

Black-throated Sparrow

3

3

8

17

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Tracked

Sage Sparrow

5

2

2

22

Shrub-steppe

Point transect

Monitored

Lark Bunting

4

4

4

22

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Monitored

Savannah Sparrow

3

3

5

13

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Monitored

Baird’s Sparrow

3

3

8

26

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Tracked

Grasshopper Sparrow

3

5

1

19

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Monitored

Fox Sparrow

2

3

7

14

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Song Sparrow

2

2

1

10

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Lincoln’s Sparrow

2

2

4

13

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

White-crowned Sparrow

3

2

4

12

Montane Riparian

Point transect

Monitored

Dark-eyed Junco

3

3

7

14

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

McCown’s Longspur

3

2

4

26

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Monitored

Chestnut-collared Longspur

2

3

6

21

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Monitored

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

2

3

8

17

Plains/Basin Riparian

Expert survey

Tracked

Black-headed Grosbeak

3

1

2

18

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Blue Grosbeak

2

3

7

15

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Lazuli Bunting

3

3

5

19

Montane Riparian

Line transect

Monitored

Indigo Bunting

3

3

8

14

Plains/Basin Riparian

Statewide survey

Tracked

Dickcissel

3

3

8

21

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Tracked

Bobolink

2

3

7

19

Shortgrass Prairie

Statewide survey

Tracked

Red-winged Blackbird

3

2

1

11

Wetlands

Line transect

Monitored

Western Meadowlark

4

2

1

16

Shortgrass Prairie

Point transect

Monitored

Yellow-headed Blackbird

2

3

5

17

Wetlands

Line transect

Monitored

Brewer’s Blackbird

4

3

5

14

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Monitored

Common Grackle

2

2

4

10

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Tracked

Brown-headed Cowbird

2

2

4

9

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Tracked

Orchard Oriole

2

3

7

17

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Tracked

Bullock’s Oriole

3

2

2

17

Plains/Basin Riparian

Line transect

Monitored

Scott’s Oriole

3

3

8

21

Juniper Woodland

Statewide survey

Tracked

Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch

2

3

8

16

Alpine Tundra

Point transect

Tracked

Black Rosy-Finch

3

3

8

22

Alpine Tundra

Point transect

Monitored

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

3

3

8

23

Alpine Tundra

Point transect

Monitored

Pine Grosbeak

2

3

7

15

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

Cassin’s Finch

3

2

4

17

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

House Finch

2

5

2

12

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Monitored

Red Crossbill

4

3

6

17

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

White-winged Crossbill

3

3

8

16

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

Pine Siskin

3

3

5

12

High Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Tracked

American Goldfinch

2

3

5

12

Plains/Basin Riparian

Point transect

Tracked

Evening Grosbeak

3

3

8

14

Mid Elevation Conifer

Point transect

Monitored

House Sparrow

2

3

5

10

Urban/Agricultural

Point transect

Monitored

Table 15.  Designations by habitat of potential partners with numbers of species expected to be monitored or tracked in each habitat. a

 

 

 

Habitat                                                               Agency b                                                        Expected Number of Species

                                                                                                                                                            Monitored or Tracked c

 

 

Uniform-block Habitats d

Alpine Tundra                                                 National Park Service                                                          19

Juniper Woodland                                          Bureau of Land Management                                            28

Mountain-foothills Shrub                            Bureau of Land Management                                            31

Shortgrass Prairie                                           Bureau of Land Management                                            33

Shrub-steppe                                                    Bureau of Land Management                                            28

Aspen                                                                 U.S. Forest Service                                                                 39

High Elevation Conifer                                 U.S. Forest Service                                                                 39

Low Elevation Conifer                                  U.S. Forest Service                                                                 37

Mid Elevation Conifer                                   U.S. Forest Service                                                                 37

 

Non-uniform-block Habitats e

Plains/Basin Riparian                                 WY Department of Agriculture                                         31

Montane Riparian                                          WY Game and Fish Department                                      39

Wetlands                                                           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                                           21

 

Dispersed, Non-uniform, and/or Anthropogenic Habitats f

Specialized Habitats                                      WY Game and Fish Department                                        

Urban/Agricultural                                       WY Department of Agriculture                                          

 

 


a     Many species occur in several habitats.  Therefore, we expect to obtain monitoring data on these species

    in each of the habitats in which they occur in reasonable abundance.  These numbers are based on

    results from “Monitoring Colorado’s Birds” 2000 data.

b     Agencies which manage a majority (based on total acreage) of a particular habitat are listed next to that

    habitat.  However, all participating agencies will benefit from “Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds” due to

    the availability of monitoring data to all.

c     See Methods for distinction between “monitored” vs. “tracked”.

d    Uniform-block habitats are those that we believe will be well sampled with random allocation of point

    transects.

e     Non-uniform-block habitats are those that will require extra effort or somewhat different counting

    techniques due to the widespread, but localized or narrow aspects of those habitats.

f     These habitats are not vegetation-based, are found across large elevational gradients, and host species

    specific to the habitat, but not necessarily the associated vegetation type.  We do not anticipate

    allocating transects to these habitats; funding for these will be dispersed among other habitats, devoted

    to species-specific techniques, and/or used to interpret BBS data.

 

 

Table 16.  Partners In Flight Breeding Bird Survey population trend scores for Wyoming’s breeding birds by habitat.  Scores of 4 and 5 indicate declines, 1 and 2 indicate increases or stable populations, and a score of 3 denotes unknown status.

 

 

 

 

Population Trend Score

 

Number of

Habitat

1

2

3

4

5

Species

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wetlands

1

3

46

3

2

55

Plains/Basin Riparian

2

12

31

5

2

52

High Elevation Conifer

1

2

14

0

2

19

Mid Elevation Conifer

1

3

13

0

1

18

Shortgrass Prairie

0

3

10

3

1

17

Montane Riparian

1

3

10

2

0

16

Juniper Woodland

0

0

12

0

0

12

Urban/Agricultural

0

4

6

0

2

12

Shrub-steppe

0

2

5

3

1

11

Specialized Habitats

0

3

4

1

1

9

Mountain-foothills Shrub

0

2

7

0

0

9

Aspen

0

4

4

0

0

8

Alpine Tundra

0

0

5

0

0

5

Low Elevation Conifer

0

1

2

0

0

3

Totals

6

42

169

17

12

246

 

 

 

 

Table 17.  Glossary of survey techniques.

 

 

 

Term                                     Definition

 

 

                                                              Transect-based Efforts

 

Line transect (Plains/Basin Riparian) -- Thirty “float” transects [1 mile (1.6 km) in length] using line-transect methodology (Buckland et al. 1993)..  Starting points are randomly located on navigable rivers (<5,500 feet in elevation)  selected at random from available sites.  Density estimates for bird species are derived using program DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 1998)..

 

Line transect (Wetlands) -- Thirty line transects [985 feet (300 m) in length] using line-transect methodology (Buckland et al. 1993)..  Starting points are randomly located in wetland stands randomly selected from available sites.  Density estimates for bird species are derived using program DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 1998)..

 

Nocturnal transect -- Forty-five road-based transects [19 miles (30 km) in length; 1 mile (1.6 km)          between stops] in montane areas (i.e. BCR 16) using point-transect methodology (Buckland et al. 1993)..  Starting points were determined systematically by overlaying grid intersections and selecting the closest point on a road to each intersection, utilizing only secondary and tertiary roads that are accessible during the requisite seasons.  Density estimates for bird species are derived using program DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 1998).  Each transect was allocated to early, mid, and/or late season (March/April, June, and September, respectively) in order to survey for different species.  The fall transects were conducted solely to obtain data on Boreal and Northern Saw-whet Owls at a season in which roads are accessible in their high elevation habitats (Stahlecker 1997)..  We attempted to do these transects in BCR 18, but the resultant data were too few for analysis.

 

Point transect -- Thirty 15-point transects [820 feet (250 m) between points] in each of 12 habitats, following point-transect methodology (Buckland et al. 1993)..  Habitat stands were selected at random from available stands within a habitat type.  Start points and transect bearings were determined randomly.  Count duration at points is five minutes.  Individual transects are the sampling units.  Density estimates for bird species are derived using program DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 1998).

 

                                                              Species-specific Efforts

 

Colony count -- A count of all nesting individuals at colony sites.  For colonially-breeding herons, this can take the form of one of two methods:  1) actual counts of occupied nests, or 2) counts of adults observed at the colony site, depending on the species and colony site access.  Counts are seasonally timed to maximize the number of breeding adults and minimize the number of transient individuals.

 

Expert survey -- We receive information from birders across the state as to locations and numbers of accidental and peripheral breeders.  Little or no effort is expended by RMBO in obtaining this information.  This includes information gathered from government agencies on species for which surveys are already conducted.

 

Statewide survey -- A statewide estimate of all individuals of a target species, based on          counts during prime breeding period at all known breeding localities.

 

                                                              Unmonitored Species

 

N/A -- This designation implies that these species are either game species or are federally Threatened & Endangered species for which specific      legislatively mandated monitoring programs already exist.  MWB does        not specifically target efforts at these species, which enables us to avoid duplication of effort and focus on currently unmonitored species.

 

 

 

 

Table 18.  Number and percent of regularly-breeding bird species that MWB will monitor and track per survey method.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                             Percent

                                                                  No. Species     No. Species                                of Total

Method                                                  Monitored (%)  Tracked (%)          Total             (n=246)

 

 

                                                                 Transect-based Techniques

Point transect                                                  76                    69                  145                   58.9

Line transect                                                     8                      8                    16                     6.5

Nocturnal transect                                           1                    10                    11                     4.5

Total, transect-based techniques       85 (34.5)          87 (35.4)                  172                   69.9

 

                                                                 Species-specific Techniques

Statewide survey                                             1                    14                    15                     6.1

Colony count                                                  15                      4                    19                     7.7

Expert survey                                                   0                      6                      6                     2.4

Total, special techniques                      16 (6.5)            24 (9.8)                    40                   16.3

 

                                                                 Not Monitored Under MWB

Threatened & Endangered                             0                      1                      1                     0.4

Game species                                                    0                    33                    33                   13.4

Total, political designations                          0          34 (13.8)                    34                   13.8

 

Total                                                               101                  145                  246                 100.0

 

 

 

Table 19.  Proposed budget to perform monitoring in one habitat under MWB based on “Monitoring Colorado’s Birds” 2000 figures.

 

 

 

Item

 

 

Cost

 

Personnel

 

 

   45 days a (2.25 months) of technician time ($1,700/month)

 

$3,825

   Organization/analysis/report

         (senior staff for 3 weeks @ $2,800/month)

 

 

$2,100

   Taxes and benefits (12.46%)

 

$738

Personnel subtotal

 

$6,663

Logistics

 

 

   Mileage (3,300 miles x 0.28/mile)

 

$924

   Lodging (18 nights @ $40/night)

 

$720

   Field food (45 days x $15/day)

 

$675

Logistics subtotal

 

$2,319

 

 

 

Indirect/overhead (15.10%)

 

$1,356

 

 

 

Total (per habitat)

 

$10,338

 

a   Field personnel conduct 1 transect per day in the morning, scout the next day’s transect in the afternoon and, whenever possible, conduct species-specific surveys in the afternoon.  Staff time includes pre-season training and post-season data entry.

Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds:  Year 2002 Final Report

 

          Excerpted from Faulkner, D., and G. Giroir.  2002.  Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds:  Year 2002 Final Report.  Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO.

 

Introduction

 

          Long-term population monitoring provides information critical to the effective management and conservation of bird populations.  Since 1999, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) and Wyoming Partners In Flight (WY-PIF) have been active partners in developing a plan for habitat-based, bird population monitoring for the state of Wyoming.  Adapting the “Colorado Model” (Leukering et al. 2000), RMBO modified its statewide monitoring program using priority habitats identified by WY-PIF’s Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan.  This new program, entitled Monitoring Wyoming’s Birds (MWB), is designed to provide statistically-robust, population trend data for a majority of breeding birds in Wyoming (Leukering et al. 2001).  This report describes Year 1 (2002) results of this program.

 

          As with most programs in their first year, some difficulties were encountered that either affected how we surveyed or prevented us from completing the full complement of transects.  Two habitats, Plains/Basin Riparian and Montane Riparian, presented unique situations.  Some of the general difficulties included: 1) problems with the transect selection process (i.e., hiking/horse trails were erroneously considered roads by the WY GAP program which meant some transects required a 3-mile+ hike to the start point, contradicting the protocol of not more than a 1-mile hike), 2) some transect stands were only accessible via private roads which we avoid since landowners may not grant us permission to use such roads in later field seasons, and 3) problems with the GAP in habitat evaluation such that the mapped habitat was not the actual habitat when ground-truthed.  These problems have mostly been resolved and we anticipate that we will be able to conduct the required transects for these habitats in the future.

 

          Year 1 results are limited in scope, providing only transect locations with species distribution and relative abundance.  Future reports will build on this information until population trend analysis is possible.  Raw data are available from RMBO and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.  Available data include bird detections at each point, habitat variables at each point, and UTMs for points.  Habitat information will be compiled in report form when all transects are established for each habitat.

 

          In conclusion, MWB yielded valuable data and was successful in building a foundation for future monitoring.  This base gives the program the ability to incorporate additional habitats pursuant to the WY-PIF Bird Conservation Plan.  We expect that it will take at least three years to firmly establish all habitat-based transects as currently outlined in this program.

 

Habitats

 

            Based on available funding and time constraints with establishing a large-scale program, WY-PIF selected only the top seven priority habitats (out of a possible 12), as outlined in the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, in which to establish and conduct bird monitoring in 2002.  These seven habitats were: Aspen, Shortgrass Prairie (Grassland), Juniper Woodland, Plains/Basin Riparian, Mid Elevation Conifer, Montane Riparian, and Shrub-steppe.

 

Results

 

          Results for the state program are presented here.  Data from the Plains/Basin Riparian surveys, conducted for the state program, are not presented here.  Raw data for all surveys can be obtained from RMBO or Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.

 

Point Transects

 

          We conducted a total of 1,871 point counts along 128 point transects in six habitats (Table 20, Figure 62).  We detected a total of 9,470 birds of 147 species.  The numbers of species varied among habitats, ranging from 50 in Shrub-steppe to 88 in Montane Riparian.  In most habitats, many of the species observed were peripheral to that habitat and not well represented in the samples.  Other species were observed in such low numbers that it was not possible to estimate density.  Because we did not establish 30 transects in each habitat this year (Table 20), we expect sample size to increase for several species in 2003.

 

Table 20.  Survey effort, cumulative species totals, and average number of species per count in habitats surveyed for MWB, 2002.

 


Habitat                                    # transects            # point counts        # species      Avg. species/count

                                                                                                                        observed     

Aspen                                              23                                331                         81                     4.4

Grassland                                       21                                315                         54                     2.6

Juniper Woodland                       18                                270                         55                     4.0

Mid Elevation Conifer                21                                307                         67                     3.9

Montane Riparian                       20                                290                         88                     4.2

Shrub-steppe                                 25                                358                         50                     2.4

Totals                                             128                            1,871                      147                       ----

 

 

 

Figure 62.  Mapped locations, color-coded by habitat, of 128 sites surveyed in Wyoming, 2002.
 

 


Aspen

 

          We established 23 transects and conducted 331 counts along those transects. We detected 81 species with an average of 4.4 species per count station and obtained density estimates for 22 species (Table 21).

 

Table 21. Estimated densities of breeding birds in Aspen forests in Wyoming, 2002.

 


Species                                                    D                       LCL                     UCL                    CV (%)                   n

 


Warbling Vireo                                  187.6                   132.2                   266.2                        18                      146

Dark-eyed Junco                                103.5                     72.9                   146.8                        18                      141

Yellow-rumped Warbler   72.2                     50.2                   103.9                        19                      188

Chipping Sparrow                              48.0                     32.0                     72.1                        21                        77

Dusky Flycatcher                                47.0                     33.5                     65.9                        17                      75

House Wren                                          36.5                     27.9                     47.8                        14                      103

American Robin                                  33.8                     27.1                     42.2                        11                      163

Pine Siskin                                            28.5                     17.5                     46.6                        25                        52

MacGillivray's Warbler                     24.5                     10.3                   58.2                          45                        26

Ruby-crowned Kinglet                     23.3                     19.0                     28.7                        10                      126

Mountain Chickadee                         20.9                     14.7                     29.8                        18                        80

Black-capped Chickadee                  18.3                     10.1                     33.1                        31                        55

Western Tanager                                 16.3                       7.8                     33.9                        38                        25

Mountain Bluebird                             13.5                       6.7                     27.4                        37                        30

Yellow Warbler                                    13.2                       7.4                     23.6                        30                        27

Western Wood-Pewee                        12.4                       8.9                     17.3                        17                     54

Green-tailed Towhee                          10.3                       5.7                     18.5                        30                     33

White-crowned Sparrow                    8.7                       5.0                     15.0                        28                       25

Red-breasted Nuthatch                       5.9                       4.4                       8.2                        16                       44

Hermit Thrush                                       5.5                       3.5                       8.8                        24                       34

Northern Flicker                                    3.7                       2.0                       6.6                        31                       27

Tree Swallow                                          2.9                       1.6                       5.1                        30                       29

 


D = density estimate in birds/km2; LCL and UCL = lower and upper 95% confidence limits on D; CV = coefficient of variation of D; n = number of observations used to estimate D

 

Grassland

 

          We established 23 transects and conducted 315 counts along those transects.  We detected 54 species with an average of 2.6 species per count station and obtained density estimates for seven species (Table 22).

 

Table 22.  Estimated densities of breeding birds in Grassland in Wyoming, 2002.

 


Species                                                    D                       LCL                     UCL                   CV (%)                    n

 


Horned Lark                                       74.1                     48.9                     112.5                      21                       285

Lark Bunting                                      40.1                     32.7                       49.1                      10                       344

Brewer's Sparrow                              29.8                     17.9                       49.7                      26                         67

McCown's Longspur                       14.8                       8.0                       27.2                      32                         64

Vesper Sparrow                                 14.5                       8.5                       24.8                      28                         72

Chestnut-collared Longspur         11.9                       8.1                       17.3                      19                         70

Western Meadowlark                      11.9                       8.8                       16.2                      16                       237

 


D = density estimate in birds/km2; LCL and UCL = lower and upper 95% confidence limits on D; CV = coefficient of variation of D; n = number of observations used to estimate D

 

Juniper Woodland

 

          We established 23 transects and conducted 270 counts along those transects. We detected 55 species with an average of 4.0 species per count station and obtained density estimates for 16 species (Table 23).

 

Table 23. Estimated densities of breeding birds in Juniper Woodland in Wyoming, 2002.

 


Species                                                    D                       LCL                     UCL                   CV (%)                    n

 


Gray Flycatcher                                 62.0                       46.1                     83.3                       15                       162

Chipping Sparrow                            39.8                       31.2                     50.7                       12                       130

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher                     24.8                       15.2                     40.6                       25                         40

Green-tailed Towhee                        24.4                       17.6                     33.7                       17                       122

Brewer's Sparrow                              18.4                       11.9                     28.5                       22                       101

Vesper Sparrow                                 11.0                         7.3                     16.6                       21                         77

Black-thr. Gray Warbler                  10.9                         7.2                     16.4                       21                         54

Mountain Bluebird                            6.6                         4.6                       9.4                       18                         56

Brown-headed Cowbird                  5.5                         3.6                       8.5                       22                         42

Bewick's Wren                                    5.3                         3.2                       8.7                       26                         44

Western Meadowlark                       4.8                         3.4                       6.9                       19                         69

Rock Wren                                            4.2                         2.8                       6.4                       21                         70

Mourning Dove                                  3.9                        3.0                       5.0                       13                         85

House Finch                                         2.6                         1.6                       4.1                       24                         27

American Robin                                  2.2                         1.3                       3.5                       25                         26

Pinyon Jay                                             0.8                        0.4                       1.4                       29                         26

 


D = density estimate in birds/km2; LCL and UCL = lower and upper 95% confidence limits on D; CV = coefficient of variation of D; n = number of observations used to estimate D

 

 

Mid Elevation Conifer

 

          We established 23 transects and conducted 307 counts along those transects.  We detected 67 species with an average of 3.9 species per count station and obtained density estimates for 11 species (Table 24).

 

Table 24. Estimated densities of breeding birds in Mid Elevation Conifer in Wyoming, 2002.

 


Species                                                    D                       LCL                     UCL                   CV (%)                    n

 


Dark-eyed Junco                                215.1                    150.6                   307.2                      18                       189

Yellow-rumped Warbler 111.2                      93.1                   132.8                        9        259

Mountain Chickadee                        79.4                      63.3                     99.7                      12                       188

Ruby-crowned Kinglet                     38.5                      25.0                     59.2                      22                       192

American Robin                                  38.5                      25.0                     59.5                      22                       107

Chipping Sparrow                              36.7                      20.1                     67.1                      31                         56

Pine Siskin                                            23.0                      15.9                     33.4                      19                         93

Western Tanager                                 16.9                      10.5                     27.1                      24                         45

Red-breasted Nuthatch                    12.0                        9.1                     15.9                      14                         94

Steller's Jay                                              5.8                        3.2                     10.7                      31                         28

Common Raven                                     1.2                        0.7                       2.4                      33                         25

 


D = density estimate in birds/km2; LCL and UCL = lower and upper 95% confidence limits on D; CV = coefficient of variation of D; n = number of observations used to estimate D

 

Montane Riparian

 

          We established 23 transects and conducted 290 counts along those transects.  We detected 88 species with an average of 4.2 species per count station and obtained density estimates for 18 species (Table 25).

 

Table 25. Estimated densities of breeding birds in Montane Riparian in Wyoming, 2002.

 


Species                                                    D                      LCL                      UCL                   CV (%)                    n

 


White-crowned Sparrow                149.0                      74.5                   298.0                       36                      137

Song Sparrow                                     130.5                      99.1                   171.8                       14                      193

Yellow Warbler                                  115.2                      77.6                   171.0                       20                      134

Wilson's Warbler                                62.2                      37.1                   104.3                       27                        88

Lincoln's Sparrow                              58.8                      39.4                     87.8                       21                      117

Broad-tail. Hummingbird                 53.4                      23.3                   122.2                       43                        28

American Robin                                  50.5                      38.9                     65.5                       13                      129

Spotted Sandpiper                             40.9                      22.7                     73.6                       30                        41

Pine Siskin                                           37.4                      24.2                     57.9                       22                        47

MacGillivray's Warbler                     19.2                      10.9                     33.5                       29                        29

Warbling Vireo                                   16.8                        9.6                     29.6                       29                        30

Dark-eyed Junco                                  13.1                        7.9                     21.9                       26                        33

Dusky Flycatcher                                  9.0                        6.0                     13.3                       20                        33

Yellow-rumped Warbler     8.8                        5.3                     14.7                       26                        34

Ruby-crowned Kinglet                       8.2                        5.3                     12.7                       23                        54

Tree Swallow                                         7.1                        3.9                     12.8                       31                        25

Northern Flicker                                    6.2                        3.5                     11.1                       30                        26

Chipping Sparrow                               3.0                        1.8                       5.0                       26                        26

 

 

 

 


Shrub-steppe

 

          We established 23 transects and conducted 358 counts along those transects.  We detected 50 species with an average of 2.4 species per count station and obtained density estimates for nine species (Table 26).

 

Table 26. Estimated densities of breeding birds in Shrub-steppe in Wyoming, 2002.

 


Species                                                    D                      LCL                      UCL                   CV (%)                    n

 


Brewer's Sparrow                              45.5                        31.5                    65.7                        19                      249

Horned Lark                                       31.1                        26.9                    36.0                          7                       298

Vesper Sparrow                                 15.9                        11.2                    22.5                        18                      149

Lark Bunting                                        6.0                        4.3                       8.5                        18                        89

Sage Sparrow                                      5.6                        3.6                       8.6                        22                        57

Green-tailed Towhee                         4.1                        2.2                       7.6                        32                        25

Sage Thrasher                                     3.1                        1.9                       5.1                        25                        67

Lark Sparrow                                      2.7                        1.9                       4.0                        20                        40

Western Meadowlark                       2.4                        1.5                       4.1                        26                        58

 


D = density estimate in birds/km2; LCL and UCL = lower and upper 95% confidence limits on D; CV = coefficient of variation of D; n = number of observations used to estimate D

 

 

Discussion

 

          Population trend data take years to gather since individual years are the data points in trend analysis.  However, data gathered during this formative stage can be used to impart other information useful to land managers.  Habitat associations for individual species, particularly those that are Management Indicator Species or otherwise listed, along with GPS locations for these detections can be used immediately.

 

          This program is designed to provide for early warning of downward population trends.  We believe that this early warning will give land managers time to consider options for preventing species being listed under the Endangered Species Act (i.e., land-use decisions to stabilize or reverse trend).  However, causes of declines cannot be determined by MWB; species-focused research must be done to determine these causal factors.

 

          Lastly, we stress that transect locations should NOT be a factor in determination of future land management (e.g., timber sales, road improvements, prescribed burns), as the goal of the program is to monitor the effects of all disturbances, whether natural (e.g. drought or wildfire) or man-made (e.g. logging).  Managing around transects will eliminate the ability of this program to produce valid results.

 

Research Needs

 

          Research needs will become more apparent once the inventory and monitoring needs have been met.  Therefore, research needs will be addressed in a later version of the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan.

 

Back to Home

Back to Table of Contents