Avian Monitoring on Wetland Reserve Program Easements in Northeastern California: a Report of the 2010 Field Season

Avian Monitoring on Wetland Reserve Program Easements in Northeastern California: A report of the 2010 field season

January 2011

Ryan DiGaudio and Alicia Young

PRBO Conservation Science 3820 Cypress Dr. #11 Petaluma, CA 94954

PRBO Contribution #1792

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 2

METHODS ...... 4

Wetland Habitat ...... 4 Upland Habitat ...... 5 Breeding Status ...... 6

STATISICAL ANALYSIS ...... 6

Wetland Habitat ...... 6 Assessing Grazing in Wetland Habitat ...... 7 Upland Habitat ...... 7 Bird Community Composition Similarity Analysis ...... 8

RESULTS ...... 9

Summary (All Habitats Combined) ...... 9 Wetland Habitat ...... 9 Management intensity ...... 12 Grazing intensity ...... 12 Upland Habitat ...... 12 Ecological Similarity Analysis ...... 14

DISCUSSION ...... 14

Wetland Habitat ...... 14 Upland Habitat ...... 16 Ecological Similarity ...... 20

CONCLUSIONS ...... 21

AKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 22

LITERATURE CITED ...... 23

TABLES ...... 26

FIGURES ...... 34

APPENDICES...... 42

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Northeast California, which consists largely of the Modoc Plateau ecoregion, supports a diverse and exemplary avifauna. The region has the highest diversity of breeding waterfowl in the state, and overall supports over 235 bird species, including many species of conservation concern. Although the majority of the region’s natural wetlands have been converted to agricultural lands, the region still hosts about 80% of the Pacific Flyway population of waterfowl during migration and large numbers of other wetland- dependent species during the breeding season and migration. Despite its importance to waterfowl and other wildlife, only 2% of the Modoc Plateau is protected and managed for wildlife benefits. Thirty- seven percent of the region is privately owned, and much of this land is managed for livestock production and other agricultural uses. However, the U.S.D.A. – Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), a voluntary habitat easement and restoration program, provides landowners with an opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. In order to evaluate the conservation benefits of the program and provide land management feedback, PRBO Conservation Science conducted avian monitoring WRP easements throughout northeastern California from May through September in 2009 and 2010.

In 2010, a total of 142 bird species were found on the WRP easements, which included 22 special status species (species of conservation concern based on various state, regional, continental, and global assessments). Grouped by foraging guild, the list of species detected included 9 dabbling duck species, 2 geese / swans, 13 shorebirds, 6 large waders, 10 surface divers, 4 plunge divers, 1 gull, 8 marsh birds, 17 aerial feeders, 9 aerial predators, and 63 upland bird species. Thirty-seven species were confirmed as breeding on WRP sites, including 5 special status species, and an additional 20 species were suspected of breeding, including 3 special status species. Habitat conditions, bird species richness and bird density varied considerably between wetland sites, though it appears that more intensively managed wetlands supported significantly more species than unmanaged sites. Furthermore, each WRP site supported a unique species assemblage, as indicated by a low mean Sørensen similarity index of 0.49 between sites (0 = no species overlap, 1 = 100% species overlap). Given a low ecological similarity between sites, we recommend careful consideration be given to which management practices are implemented on a site- specific bases to account for the needs of the species at each particular site.

We examined the effects of grazing on the avian community at a subset of wetland sites where grazing history data were available. At these sites, grazing intensity did not appear to influence species richness or the abundance among most foraging guilds, however there were weak positive correlations between grazing intensity and the density of two foraging guilds: gulls and upland birds. These relationships are difficult to interpret due to the confounding effect of water availability and also by a small sample size. In future studies, we recommend comparing grazed sites with ecologically similar ungrazed reference sites. We also recommend using alternative metrics for measuring grazing intensity, such as stubble height or residual dry matter.

Overall, effectively managed WRP easements in northeast California can provide quality habitat for many resident and migratory birds, including special status species. General management recommendations include assisting landowners with securing a reliable water sources for wetlands, controlling invasive plant species, and restricting grazing in sensitive riparian zones. More research is needed, however, to determine appropriate grazing regimes that would be compatible with WRP conservation objectives. Ultimately, however, adaptive management that includes an information feedback loop such as this monitoring program is crucial for achieving NRCS’s goal of providing the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in WRP.

INTRODUCTION The Modoc Plateau and Southern Cascade ecoregions of northeast California contain a broad range of habitat types, including sagebrush, mixed coniferous forests (ponderosa pine and western juniper), and large mountain valleys containing grasslands, wet meadows, riparian corridors, and palustrine wetlands. Given this varied landscape, the region supports a diverse and exemplary avifauna. The Modoc Plateau, which comprises the majority of northeast California, supports the highest diversity of breeding waterfowl in the state and overall supports up to 235 bird species, including many species of conservation concern based on various state, regional, continental, and global assessments (Appendix A; Shuford and Gardali 2008, Bunn et al. 2007).

Much of northeastern California is in the rain shadow of the Siskiyou and southern Cascade mountain ranges and receives relatively little precipitation, ranging from 10.87 inches / year in Tulelake to 27.14 inches / year in Burney (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). Despite the relatively dry climate, northeastern California is particularly important for supporting wetland-dependent bird populations. According to the Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV), the southern Oregon / northeast California (SONEC) region is one of only two areas in the Intermountain West that is considered continentally significant for spring and fall migratory waterfowl, and is one of the most important waterfowl staging areas in North America (IWJV 2009). The IWJV has therefore designated the upper Klamath Basin, the northernmost portion of the Modoc Plateau, as a high priority conservation area.

Even though the majority of natural wetlands in northeastern California have been converted to agricultural lands, this area is known to support about 80% of the Pacific Flyway population of waterfowl during migration, plus large numbers of other wetland-dependent species both during the migration and breeding seasons (Shuford 2009). For example, the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge supports one of the largest breeding populations of Black-necked Stilts (for scientific names see appendix) and perhaps American Avocets in the Intermountain West (Shuford 2009). Other shorebirds that breed in the Klamath Basin in smaller numbers include Killdeer, Willet, Long-billed Curlew, Wilson’s Snipe, Wilson’s Phalarope, and Snowy Plover (Shuford 2009).

Despite its importance to waterfowl and other wildlife, only a small portion of the Modoc Plateau and Southern Cascades are managed solely for wildlife benefits. In the Modoc Plateau, just 2% of the land is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as refuges, and 1% is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game as wildlife areas. The majority of the Modoc Plateau is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (30%) and BLM (26%), and about 37% of the region is privately owned or belongs to

2 municipalities (Bunn et al. 2007). Much of this privately owned land is currently managed for livestock production and other agricultural uses, however there remains much potential for the protection and restoration of wetlands and other important habitats within these working landscapes.

The U.S.D.A. – Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary habitat easement and restoration program that provides landowners with an opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property in exchange for retiring marginal agricultural land. The NRCS goal of the Wetlands Reserve Program is to “achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program”. In order to evaluate the avian conservation benefits of the program in northeast California and to provide land management feedback, PRBO Conservation Science monitored bird use on WRP easements from May through September in 2009 and 2010. This report summarizes results from the 2010 field season, including site- specific information on bird species occurrence, abundance, and breeding status, and also provides site- specific habitat management recommendations. Additionally, to help evaluate NRCS’s Compatible Use Authorizations for livestock grazing on WRP lands, we also examined relationships between indices of the avian community and livestock grazing intensity at a subset of the study sites.

STUDY AREA Avian monitoring occurred at WRP easements chosen by NRCS, in which site selection was contingent upon landowner cooperation and willingness to grant observer access. The selected WRP sites contained a variety of wetland habitat types, and many also contained large portions (up to 50% of a parcel) of non- wetland habitat, including wet meadow, riparian, sagebrush, grassland and mixed coniferous forest. All habitat types were surveyed in order to provide a thorough evaluation of bird use on WRP easements.

Seventeen Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easements were monitored across northeastern California in 2009 and 23 were monitored in 2010 (Tables 1 and 2, Fig 1). Seven of the WRP easements represented 2 properties composed of multiple contiguous easement parcels (Quail Valley Ranch and Hanna) and were consolidated into 2 WRP study sites; therefore we report on a total of 18 WRP study sites (Table 2). According to the ecoregions defined within the State Wildlife Action Plan (Bunn 2007), 15 of the WRP sites are located in the western Modoc Plateau region, and the remaining 2 are located on the northeastern edge of the Sierra Nevada – southern Cascades region. Four of the northernmost WRP sites in Siskiyou County are on the southern edge of the upper Klamath Basin, one of which is contained within the Lower Klamath Lake NWR and 2 additional sites border the refuge. Two sites are in Surprise Valley in eastern Modoc County, and the remaining sites are located throughout Lassen, Shasta, and Modoc counties

3 within the Pit River watershed near the towns of Burney, McArthur, Bieber, and Lookout. All WRP sites are located within Bird Conservation Region 9 (NABCI 2009) and fall within the southern Oregon / northeastern California (SONEC) conservation focal area of the Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV 2009).

METHODS

Wetland Habitat We used systematic scan-sampling to census 34 wetland survey plots in 2010 (Reed et al. 1997). Wetland survey plots were established on 17 WRP easements (Table 3); one WRP (Kramer) did not have an area suitable for this type of survey method. The 34 wetland survey plots represented a variety of wetland acreages and management intensities and included seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands (Table 3). Conducting systematic scan surveys of all wetlands on very large WRP parcels (e.g. Lookout Ranch) was not feasible; therefore we selected a subset of wetland survey plots representative of the wetland habitat within large WRP parcels. Most wetland plot boundaries were defined by a major levee or the natural wetland boundary; however the boundaries of 3 survey plots were arbitrarily defined to facilitate survey logistics (Appendix I).

Surveys were conducted between all daylight hours, but primarily concluded by early afternoon. Wetland survey plots were censused approximately every 3 weeks from May through September (Appendix B). This survey period corresponded with late spring migration, the breeding season, post breeding dispersal, and fall migration. The 3 week survey interval allowed us to manage a large number of survey plots while still capturing a variety of bird use during the survey period.

Wetland survey plots were scanned with binoculars and/or a high powered spotting scope (30-60X) from multiple vantage points to achieve the best count of all birds present. Duration of surveys varied according to the number of birds present and size of the wetland, where wetland plot size varied from 4.3 acres to 366 acres (Table 3). All bird species seen or heard in the wetland survey plot, including those aerial feeding, were recorded. Birds flying overhead but not foraging aerially were not considered to be using the wetland and noted separately. Any evidence of breeding was also noted (see breeding status section below). Secretive marsh birds (i.e. rail species) and breeding indicators were undoubtedly underestimated as we did not attempt to flush them from vegetative cover or conduct call-playbacks to solicit vocal responses.

During each plot visit we recorded the habitat conditions including the percent and type of vegetative cover and the relative amounts of shallow water (<10 cm depth), deep water (>10 cm depth), bare ground, and mud. The number of islands was noted as well as the surrounding land use. At the end of the survey season, each wetland site was ranked with a “management intensity” score numbering 1– 3. The categories were determined based upon evident management activities. In general, the ranked management categories were defined as follows: 1 = little to no evidence of vegetation or water level management; 2 = some management activity evident, e.g. occasionally added water to wetland; 3 = vegetation and water level management clearly evident.

Upland Habitat Breeding season. To evaluate landbird usage of WRP upland habitat (riparian, grassland, sagebrush, and mixed conifer) during the breeding season, we used 5-minute variable circular plot point count surveys. Point count surveys are designed to assess landbird presence/absence, diversity, and abundance (Ralph et al. 1995). We established one point count transect each in riparian, grassland, sagebrush, and mixed conifer habitat located at Kramer, Quail Valley Ranch, C-A-N Living Trust, and Lookout Ranch/Bill Wright WRPs, respectively. The number of point count stations was determined by the habitat patch size and configuration within each WRP.

Point count surveys began within 15 minutes of sunrise and were completed within four hours (i.e. peaking singing hours). We recorded all species detected by sight or sound and placed them in distance bins based on their initial distance from the point count station; the bin intervals were 0-10m, 10-20, 20- 30, 30-50, 50-100, and greater than 100. Type of detection (song, visual, or call) and breeding behavior (e.g. copulation, nest building, food carry to fledgling) were recorded. Birds flying over the study site not using the habitat were noted separately and were not included in point count analyses. Surveys were not conducted in weather conditions that could significantly influence observers’ ability to detect birds such as rain or wind over 10mph. All transects were surveyed 2 times at least 30 days apart during peak landbird breeding season (Appendix C).

Post-breeding dispersal and fall migration. To evaluate landbird usage of WRP upland habitat during post breeding dispersal and fall migration, we used 20-minute standardized area search surveys (Ralph et al. 1993). Area search data are designed to assess avian presence/absence, richness, and density during the non-breeding season. One to two area search plots were established in the following habitat types: wet meadow, riparian, grassland, sagebrush, mountain meadow and mixed conifer, (Appendix D). We

5 determined the number of area search plots and their locations based on habitat patch size and configuration within each WRP.

Surveys began within 15 minutes of sun-rise and were completed within 4 hours. Each area search plot was surveyed within 20 minutes and the number of individuals of each species seen or heard was recorded. Birds outside the search area were recorded separately and not used in area search analyses. Each area search plot was surveys 2-3 times during August and September (Appendix D).

Breeding Status For all habitat types surveyed, we noted evidence of breeding to establish breeding status for each species. We considered a species a “confirmed” breeder if at least one of the following behaviors were observed: nest found, distraction display, copulation, feeding young or fledglings, and food or fecal sac carries. We considered a species as a “suspected” breeder if observed exhibiting breeding behavior (singing, paired, courtship and/or territorial behavior) on ≥ 2 visits during the breeding season ≥ 10 days apart. Birds were considered “potential” breeders if observed singing or exhibiting breeding behavior in suitable habitat only 1 time during the breeding season.

STATISICAL ANALYSIS

Wetland Habitat Wetland survey data were summarized by property and by survey plot for 11 foraging guilds of birds. Species within these guilds share certain behavioral traits and have similar environmental requirements (Appendix E). We calculated species occurrence, the number of special status species, and the number of species breeding (confirmed or suspected) on each property. For each wetland site, we calculated the mean number of adults and species detected per survey, and the maximum number of adults and species observed in a single survey.

In order to compare WRP usage of wetland associated birds during the breeding season versus post- breeding dispersal and migration, we determined the average density of each foraging guild across all wetland sites during these two time periods. For calculating densities during peak breeding season, we restricted breeding season survey data to June and July, since many north-bound migratory birds were still present during the surveys in May. We included all survey data from August and September for determining the late summer/early fall densities. Densities within these two time periods were determined by first calculating the density of each foraging guild for each site by survey, and then averaging the site per survey densities across all surveys.

We categorized wetland species assemblages and relative abundance of each species according to foraging guild for two survey periods: May – July and August – September. Comparing count data from these two periods characterizes wetland bird use from the end of spring migration and the breeding season through post-breeding dispersal and fall migration.

To examine the effects of management intensity on bird habitat, we compared average species richness and bird density across the 3 ranked categories of management intensity for each wetland. We tested the difference of mean species richness and bird density using one-way ANOVA tests, in which species richness and density were the dependent variables and management intensity was the dependent variable. We subsequently used Tukey’s HSD tests to determine which means were significantly different among groups.

Assessing Grazing in Wetland Habitat To assess the proximate impacts of cattle grazing on bird use in wetland habitat in 2010, we used grazing data from 2009 provided by the landowner via NRCS. Since grazing occurs from late summer through late fall, we assumed that the grazing activity reported from 2009 represented the most recent grazing activity leading up the 2010 breeding season. NRCS provided grazing data from 5 of the 18 of the 2010 WRP study sites, where data consisted of a map of management units within each WRP, acres per management unit, number of cows in each unit, and the dates cows were added and removed from each unit (Appendix F). From these data, we derived a grazing intensity index for each site, where grazing intensity = (total days of grazing)*(number of cows per acre). We used linear regression to examine the relationship between grazing intensity and avian species richness, and the relationship between grazing intensity and the breeding season densities of each of the 11 avian foraging guilds.

Upland Habitat Point Counts. We standardized detection effort by using only those birds recorded within 50 m of the observer and assumed similar detection probabilities within this distance. Migrants and non-territorial individuals were rarely detected because point count surveys were limited to the middle of the breeding season. To ensure independent sampling between point count stations, we excluded from analysis all non-territorial species and species with average territories >100 m in length (e.g. waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors). Furthermore, we excluded from analysis exotic species such as European Starling, House Sparrow, and Eurasian Collared Dove.

Analyses of point count data provide information on species diversity, species richness, abundance, and relative frequency by species. Bird species diversity measures ecological diversity based on the number of species detected, weighted by the proportional abundance of each species. To calculate species diversity, we used a transformation of the Shannon-Weiner index, which is symbolized by H' (also called the Shannon-Weaver index or Shannon index; Nur et al. 1999). This transformed index, which was

introduced by MacArthur (1965) is N 1 where:

i=S H' = N1 = e and 'H ∑( pi )(ln pi ) i=1 Pi is the proportion of the total number of individuals for the ith species. Using this formula, species diversity was calculated for each point averaged by site and year. Similarly, species richness is the mean number of species detected per station and total bird abundance is the mean number of individuals detected for each station. For each site/transect, we calculated these avian community indices for each point count station and then averaged the resulting values over the entire transect.

Area Searches. Analyses of area search data provide an inventory of bird species, avian richness, and relative density. Avian richness was calculated at the plot level by averaging the total individual species detected across visits. Relative density (birds per 10 acres) was calculated by averaging the total individual birds detected across visits and dividing by the acreage of the plot and multiplying by 10. Density is presented as the number of birds per 10 acres in order to facilitate cross-site comparisons. Area search data were grouped by property and habitat type (each property represented a different habitat type).

Bird Community Composition Similarity Analysis To examine how ecologically similar each WRP is to each other based on their unique bird species composition, we calculated Sørensen similarity indices between each of the WRPs, where an index of 0 = no species overlap between two sites, and 1 = 100% species overlap. The Sørensen similarity index is a statistic used for comparing the similarity of the species compositions between two samples, or in this case, two WRP’s (Nur et al. 1999). The formula for calculating the Sørensen similarity index is: 2͞ C Ɣ Ρ ͕ ƍ ͖

Where j = the number of species found at both site A and B, a = the number of species in site A and b = the number of species found in site B. Since we were interested in the species composition similarities at the WRP parcel level, we used species presence/absence data from the combined data of all survey methods (wetland, point count, and area searches).

RESULTS

Summary (All Habitats Combined) Species occurrence . Combining data from all census methods of all habitat types, including incidental observations on the WRP parcels, a total of 142 species were detected in 2010, including 22 special status species (Table 2; Appendices A and G). The number of species grouped by foraging guild were: 63 upland birds; 13 shorebirds; 17 aerial feeders; 10 dabbling ducks; 10 surface divers; 9 aerial predators; 8 marsh birds; 6 large waders; 4 plunge divers; 2 geese / swans; and 1 gull (Appendix E).

Breeding status . Thirty-seven species were confirmed as breeding on WRP sites in 2010, with an additional 20 species suspected of breeding (Table 2; Appendix G). Five special status species were confirmed as breeders and an additional 3 special status species were suspected of breeding (Table2; Appendix G). Special status species that were confirmed breeding were Redhead, Northern Harrier, Black Tern, Yellow-headed Blackbird, and Yellow Warbler (Appendix G).

Wetland Habitat Summary statistics on abundance, species richness, and special status species richness for each wetland survey plot is presented in Table 3, and maps of each wetland survey plot are shown in Appendix I. The number of species detected across the 34 wetland survey plots during a single visit ranged from 7 to 51 species. McArthur #2 B had the highest mean species richness per visit (18 spp.), whereas Klamath Sprig and Honker had the highest maximum species richness in a single survey (28 spp; Table 3).

Breeding season species occurrence . Between May 6 and July 23 2010, a total of 131 wetland surveys were conducted at 34 wetland survey plots across 17 WRP easements (Appendix B). A total of 111 species were observed during this period from 11 foraging guilds. The five most abundant species from each of the foraging guilds are presented in Table 4 along with their relative abundance and percent occurrence on WRP. Seventeen special status species were detected in wetland surveys, 8 of which were in the top 5 most abundant species within their respective guilds: Black Tern (aerial feeders); Bald Eagle, Northern Harrier, and Swainson’s Hawk (aerial predators); Greater Sandhill Crane (large waders); Yellow-headed Blackbird (marsh birds); and Redhead and American White Pelican (surface divers; Table 4 and Appendix A). Here we discuss species occurrence and breeding status for 4 foraging guilds of waterbirds (dabbling ducks, shorebirds, surface divers, and large waders):

Dabbling Ducks. There were a total of 9 species of dabbling ducks, where the 5 most common species (in descending order of abundance) were Mallard, Gadwall, Cinnamon Teal, Northern Shoveler, and Wood Duck (Table 4). Mallard, Gadwall, Cinnamon Teal, and Wood Duck were confirmed breeding.

Shorebirds. A total of 13 shorebird species were observed during May – July surveys. The 5 most common species were dowitchers (likely Long-billed Dowitchers), Killdeer, Willet, Wilson’s Phalarope, and American Avocet. Shorebirds that were confirmed breeding were Black-necked Stilt, Wilson’s Phalarope, Wilson’s Snipe, Willet, Killdeer, and American Avocet.

Surface Divers. Nine species of surface divers were detected in May – July. Two out of 5 of the most common surface divers were special status species: Redhead and American White Pelican (Table 4 and Appendix A). Pied-billed Grebe, Redhead, and Bufflehead were confirmed as breeding (Appendix G).

Large Waders. Six species of large waders were detected during the breeding season; in descending order of abundance, the five most abundant species were White-faced Ibis, Greater Sandhill Crane, Black- crowned Night-Heron, Great-blue Heron, and Great Egret ( Table 4). Greater Sandhill Crane was suspected of breeding on 4 properties and Black-crowned Night-Heron was confirmed breeding on 1 property (Appendix G).

Late summer / early fall species occurrence . Between August 4 and September 22, 2010, a total of 91 wetland surveys were conducted on 34 wetland plots across 17 WRP easements (Appendix B). A total of 104 species were observed during this period of post breeding dispersal and fall migration. Eleven special status species were detected in wetlands in August and September: Northern Harrier, Swainson’s Hawk (aerial predators); Greater Sandhill Crane (large wader); Yellow-headed Blackbird (marsh bird); American White Pelican and Redhead (surface divers); and 6 upland bird species: Brewer’s Sparrow, Nuttall’s Woodpecker, Sage Thrasher, Vesper Sparrow, and Yellow Warbler. Here we discuss the species occurrence for 4 foraging guilds of waterbirds during late summer and early fall (dabbling ducks, shorebirds, surface divers, and large waders):

Dabbling Ducks. A total of 9 species of dabbling ducks were detected August – September, where the most common species was Gadwall (59% of all detections), followed by Mallard (29%; Table 5).

Shorebirds. Seven shorebird species were detected in wetlands August-September. Shorebird abundance was very low due to limited shorebird habitat in 2010. The most abundant species was Killdeer (54%),

10 followed by Wilson’s Snipe (15%; Table 5). The only migratory shorebird encountered in the fall was Greater Yellowlegs (8%; Table 5).

Surface divers. Six species of surface divers were detected in wetlands August-September, with Pied- billed Grebe as the most commonly detected species (47% of detections; Table 5). Three individual Redheads, a special status species (California Bird Species of Special Concern), were found on one property in the late-summer/early fall period (Table 5).

Large Waders. A total of 5 species of large waders were detected, and as in the breeding season, White- faced Ibis was the most common large wader (77% of all detections; Table 5). Greater-Sandhill Crane, a special status species (State Endangered), was the third most abundant large wader and was found on 3 properties in August-September.

Bird densities at wetland survey plots: peak breeding season vs. late summer/early fall Peak breeding season . Mean bird densities between foraging guilds varied considerably in June and July (Fig. 2a). Mean densities in 2010 ranged from ~ .01 birds/10 acres (surface divers, plunge divers, and aerial predators) to 7.9 birds/10 acres (upland birds). Average density of marsh birds was 4.7 birds / 10 acres in 2010; this much lower than what we observed in 2009, when marsh bird density was over 13 birds/10 acres (Fig 2a). Dabbling ducks had the next highest density (6.9 birds/10 acres), which was up from 1.8 birds/10 acres in 2009.

Late summer / early fall. Mean bird densities among the foraging guilds during post-breeding dispersal and fall migration (August and September) were generally less than during the breeding season (Fig. 2b). Mean densities in 2010 ranged from 0.28 birds/10 acres (geese) to 10.5 birds/10 acres (upland birds). Fall dabbling duck density was greater in 2010 at 5.28 birds/10 acres, compared to 0.57 birds/10 acres in 2009 (Fig 2b).

Habitat conditions . Habitat conditions varied considerably between May and September at each WRP site in 2010. Haying, mowing, and cattle grazing reduced the cover and amount of vegetation in and surrounding wetlands at several of the WRPs. Water levels decreased from May to September at the majority of WRPs via active and passive water management. At a handful of sites, notably C-A-N Living Trust, Klamath Sprig & Honker NW and SE, and McArthur #2 B, active management increased or maintained water levels throughout the season (Fig. 3).

Management intensity, species richness and bird density . Of the 34 wetland survey plots, 7 were ranked as having a low management intensity level, 8 were ranked as medium, 14 were ranked as high management intensity, and 5 were left uncategorized (Table 3).

Mean avian species richness/survey was highest in both the medium and high management intensity groups at about 11 species observed per survey, with the low management intensity groups at 6.6 species (Fig 4). One-way ANOVA showed the difference between mean species richness among the management groups to be significant; F(2, 28) = 4.362, p < 0.023, where the high and medium management intensity groups had significantly higher species richness than the low management group (Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05), though there was not a significant difference between the high and medium management groups.

Mean bird density was greatest in the medium management intensity group at 33.6 birds/10 acres, followed by the high and low management intensity groups at 27.7 and 13.1, respectively (Fig. 5). The differences between groups, however, were not statistically significant according to a one-way ANOVA test; F(2, 21) = 0.867, p = 0.432).

Grazing intensity, species richness, and bird density . Of the 8 wetland survey plots where we had grazing data, we did not find a significant relationship between varying levels of grazing intensity and species richness (Fig. 6). Out of the 11 foraging guilds, there appeared to be a weak positive correlation between grazing intensity and both gull and upland bird density, however the relationship is not entirely conclusive given the small sample size (Fig. 7).

Upland Habitat Breeding season . Species richness, Shannon diversity index, and total bird abundance decreased in 2010 at the riparian and grassland habitats from 2009, while these metrics all increased or remained the same at the mixed conifer and sagebrush habitats (Fig. 8). Species richness was greatest at the mixed conifer habitat in 2010 at 6.3, a 25% increase from 2009 (Fig. 8a). Species richness at the riparian habitat in 2010 was 5.2, followed by the sagebrush habitat at 3, and the grassland habitat at 1.6. Similarly, the mixed conifer habitat had the greatest Shannon diversity in 2010 at 5.9, an increase of 31% from 2009 (Fig. 8b). The riparian habitat had the next greatest diversity at 4.6, followed by the sagebrush habitat at 2.5, and the grassland habitat at 1.45. Total bird abundance was greatest at the riparian habitat this year even though it decreased from 7 in 2009 to 5.3 in 2010 (Fig. 8c). The mixed conifer habitat had the next great abundance at 4.1, followed by the sagebrush and grassland habitats at 3.4.

A total of 67 species, including 11 special status species, were detected during point count surveys conducted during the breeding season in riparian, mixed conifer, sagebrush, and grasslands habitats on the WRPs. Bird species composition within 50m of each point count station varied greatly between the habitat types, and Western Meadowlark was the only species detected within all four habitats (Table 6). The mixed conifer habitat had the greatest percentage of unique species at 77.8% detected only within mixed conifer, followed by the riparian habitat at 62.5% unique, the sagebrush habitat at 55.6% unique, and the grassland at 33.3% unique. In the mixed conifer habitat, American Robin, Mountain Chickadee, and Western Wood-Pewee were the most abundant species, comprising 12% of all detections. Spotted Towhee was the next most frequently detected at 10%, followed by Gray Flycatcher at 8%, and Chipping Sparrow and Western Tanager at 7% each. In riparian habitat, Western Meadowlark was the most abundant species detected, comprising 23% of all detections, followed by Song Sparrow at 11%, and the brood-parasite Brown-headed Cowbird at 10%. In sagebrush habitat, Brewer’s Blackbird and Brewer’s Sparrow were the most common species comprising 25% of all detections followed by Western Meadowlark at 19%, and Savannah Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow at 7% each. In grassland habitat, Western Meadowlark was by far the most abundant species comprising 82% of all detections, followed by Horned Lark at 15% and Savannah Sparrow at 3%.

Post breeding dispersal and fall migration . The ranking of species richness and density in 2010 at the 6 habitat types in the late fall and early summer was similar to those in 2009. Species richness was once again greatest at the riparian habitat with 11.5 species detected in 2010 (Fig. 9a). The sagebrush habitat had the next greatest richness at 8, followed by the mixed conifer habitat at 7.5, the wet meadow habitat at 5.3, the mountain meadow habitat at 4.5, and the grassland habitat at 3. Bird density was greatest at the sagebrush habitat in 2010 at 23.4, matching the density in 2009 (Fig. 9b). The mixed conifer habitat had the next greatest bird density at 17.2, followed by the wet meadow habitat at 14.6, the riparian habitat at 9.3, the grassland habitat at 8.3, and the mountain meadow habitat at 7.95.

A total of 42 species, including 11 special status species were detected at the six different upland habitats during late summer/early fall area search surveys. Species composition varied greatly among the habitat types with no species common to all six (Table 7). White-crowned Sparrow and Western Meadowlark were the most ubiquitous species; both were detected in four of the six habitats. Ten unique species were detected in riparian habitat, 6 in wet meadow, 3 in sagebrush, 2 in mixed conifer and mountain meadow, and 1 in grassland. At the riparian habitat, Barn Swallow were the most frequently detected species comprising 16% of all detections, followed by White-crown Sparrow at 14%, Lincoln’s Sparrow at 12%,

13 and American Robin at 11%. At the wet meadow habitat, Savannah Sparrow was by far the most abundant species at 48%, followed by Western Meadowlark at 23%, Cliff Swallow at 10%, and Black- necked Stilt at 6%. The sagebrush habitat was equally represented by Barn Swallow, Black-billed Magpie, Brewer’s Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, and White-crowned Sparrow each comprising 13% of detections. Mountain Chickadee was the most abundant species in the mixed conifer habitat at 33%, followed by Pygmy Nuthatch at 20%, Stellar’s Jay at 13%, and White-breasted Nuthatch at 9%. Mountain meadow was dominated by Chipping Sparrows in the fall, which comprised 56% of all detections, followed by Barn Swallow, Northern Flicker, and White-crowned Sparrow, each at 7%. The grassland habitat was dominated by two species in the fall, Western Meadowlark and Savannah Sparrow, at 49% and 46%, respectively. Northern Harrier compromised the remaining detections at the grassland at 5%.

Ecological Similarity Analysis Sørensen indices between the 18 WRP parcels ranged from 0.29 (Inter County Title vs. Kramer) to 0.76 (McArthur 2B vs. Estes; Appendix H). The average similarity between all sites combined was 0.49 (standard error = 0.09). Based on the average similarity indices among all WRPs for each site, the most unique WRP in terms of its species composition was S and H Trust, whereas John, McArthur has the most species in common with the other sites (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

Wetland Habitat The species composition on WRP wetlands in northeast California in 2010 was very similar to the species that have been observed on WRP wetlands in the Central Valley (Hickey et al. 2008). Northeast California WRP wetlands, however, support several breeding waterbird species that do not regularly breed in the Central Valley or in any other region of California, including Greater Sandhill Crane, Willet, Wilson’s Snipe, Wilson’s Phalarope, and possibly Long-billed Curlew.

Not surprisingly, water availability was a limiting factor in providing wetland habitat through the breeding season and into fall migration. Water levels fluctuated throughout the breeding season, and a majority of the sites saw a steady decline in water until September (Fig. 3). Several sites that had water throughout the breeding season and into the fall in 2009, including S and H Trust and Klamath Sprig and Honker, were dry for much of 2010 and had correspondingly lower avian indices and confirmed breeding species compared to last year. Water availability and level had the greatest influence on avian use of WRP wetlands. Wetlands that became dry during the breeding season had lower avian indices, suspected and confirmed breeders, and use by special status species. For example, in 2010 the McArthur #2B WRP was

14 supplied with water throughout the breeding and fall season and had correspondingly high avian indices including 7 confirmed breeding species (Tables 2 and 3, Fig. 3, App. H). In contrast, the McArthur #2A WRP, just to the south, only had high water levels for the first two surveys and had lower avian indices and no confirmed breeding species. When managed wetlands are allowed to dry up during the breeding season, waterbird reproductive success can be negatively affected by stranding nests on “dry islands” or forcing abandonment by adults due to lack of foraging and nesting habitat. Estimating reproductive success was beyond the scope of this study, but it appears few if any waterfowl attempted to breed at the dry wetlands. Future studies should be conducted to determine what factors influence reproductive success, such as the timing, duration, and amount of water on the WRP easements.

Avian use of WRP wetlands was dependent on their relative management intensity (see above definitions). We found that on average, wetlands categorized with “high” and “medium” levels of management intensity supported significantly more bird species than those with “low” management levels. This suggests that investing in management activities such as managing water levels, controlling exotic plants, and planting native vegetation is recommended for increasing wildlife values of WRP easements. Without this investment, some sites may become degraded over time (e.g. invasive weeds, dilapidated water control structures) and resulting in poor habitat for value wildlife. For example, in 2009 the Klamath Sprig & Honker WRP was supplied with water throughout the survey season, the levees were well maintained and planted with bunch grass to prevent invasive pepperweed from establishing, and as a result, had correspondingly high avian indices: an average species richness of 20 species per survey, an average density of over 40 birds/10 acres, and 11 confirmed breeding waterfowl and marsh species (DiGaudio and Young 2009). In contrast, Intercounty Title Co., a WRP bordering Klamath Sprig & Honker to the south, supported an average species richness of just 4.2 species per survey, an average density of 3.2 birds/10 acres per survey, and only 2 confirmed breeding species, Brewer’s Blackbird and Ring-necked Pheasant. Water was not actively managed on the Intercounty Title Co. WRP and the vegetation was dominated by a dense monoculture of perennial pepperweed ( Lepidium latifolium ).

For the small subset of wetland plots that had grazing information, we were able to examine potential relationships between the avian community and the grazing intensity from the previous grazing season. There did not appear to be a relationship between species richness and grazing intensity, and there were only weak positive correlations between grazing intensity and the density of two foraging guilds: gulls and upland birds. These relationships, however, may be confounded by the overarching importance of water availability in wetland habitat, a habitat condition independent of grazing. The results are also difficult to interpret given the small sample size (8 plots). We would have more statistical power if we

15 could incorporate grazing information for all of the plots monitored (34 total). In lieu of grazing data, however, we could alternatively look at proxy variables in future years, such as stubble height and residual dry matter (RDM). RDM is considered a standard measure of grazing intensity by many rangeland scientists (Bartolome et al. 2002). It is possible that RDM or stubble height may be better predictors of bird response than grazing intensity per se. However, the effects of grazing are habitat and region specific, therefore it will be important to group similar sites when evaluating the ecological effects of grazing practices on the WRPs.

With the exception of the Hanna WRP, we found evidence of recent or current grazing on all of the WRP sites we surveyed in 2010, making it difficult to categorically compare sites that were grazed versus ungrazed. It was questionable to use Hanna as an ungrazed reference site because of its unique habitat mosaic which included an intensively managed wetland complex with a secure source of water and lush riparian vegetation. Furthermore, it would be difficult to evaluate the impacts of grazing by comparing among WRP easements because each WRP in northeastern California has intrinsically unique habitat features independent of its management or grazing regime; the ecological uniqueness of each WRP is further discussed below in the Ecological Similarity section. For accurate comparisons between the effects of grazing versus not grazing on WRP easements, we recommend comparing grazed sites with paired ungrazed reference sites that are otherwise ecologically similar. Locating ungrazed reference sites, however, may be challenging given how ubiquitous cattle grazing is in the region. An alternative approach would be to experimentally exclude cattle for several years on parcels that can then be compared to ecologically similar grazed parcels.

Upland Habitat Species richness in 2010 compared to 2009 varied among the six upland habitat types. While the mixed conifer (Lookout Ranch) and sagebrush (C-A-N Living Trust) habitats had greater species richness in 2010, the riparian (Kramer), grassland (Quail Valley Ranch), and wet meadow (Estes) had decreased species richness. The mountain meadow (Lookout Ranch) was the only habitat that supported the same number of species from last year. Similarly, the mixed conifer and sagebrush habitats had greater species abundance in 2010 compared to 2009, while the riparian, grassland, wet meadow, and mountain meadow all had decreased abundance.

Eleven special status species were detected during upland surveys in 2010. While managing for species of conservation concern should remain a high priority for WRP management, habitat-specific focal species

16 identified by California Partners in Flight (CalPIF) can be more useful as indicators of habitat quality because their populations and distributions are large enough to provide sufficient sample sizes for statistical analysis across sites and/or regions. The CalPIF focal species were chosen for their habitat- specific requirements including spatial attributes, habitat characteristics, and management regimes representative of a “healthy” system (Chase and Geupel 2005). Each WRP upland habitat type supported at least one of these focal species during the breeding and fall seasons, thus indicating these sites have components of a healthy system. However, opportunities exist to improve the overall habitat condition and quality for many of the sites, which are explained below.

Riparian/Wet Meadow. Riparian and wetland habitats have been identified as the single most important habitat for bird species and are known to support the most diverse and abundant bird communities in the western United States (Siegel and DeSante 1999, Knopf et al. 1988a, Dobkin 1994, Saab et al. 1995). Of all the WRPs surveyed in 2010, only the Hanna and Kramer properties had any appreciable amount of riparian habitat. However, there appeared to be opportunities for restoring or enhancing riparian habitat at several other WRPs, such as the three contiguous WRPs (McArthur, John, Halpenny, and Boggs) that adjoin Kramer to the south along a shared meandering channel system. Potential riparian habitat could also be developed at smaller more isolated WRPs, such as McArthur #2C and Nardella.

At the Hanna WRPs, we found evidence of breeding riparian-obligate species including Song Sparrow, Tree Swallow, and Yellow Warbler, all CalPIF riparian focal species. Suspected breeding birds at the Kramer WRP included Song Sparrow, Bullock’s Oriole, Yellow Warbler and Black-billed Magpie. This group of riparian-associated birds represents a suite of habitat niches and requires different successional stages of riparian ecosystems; Song Sparrow is an early successional understory nester, Tree Swallow is a cavity nesters, and Yellow Warbler, Bullock’s Oriole, and Black-billed Magpie are canopy nesters. The use of WRP riparian habitat as nesting sites by such a diversity of species is a positive indicator of a healthy and structurally complex riparian system.

Although several riparian-associated species are using the Kramer WRP in the breeding and fall migration seasons, the narrow corridor width and sparse understory may be limiting this site’s potential habitat value. A significant difference between the Kramer WRP and the Hanna WRP is that the riparian habitat at Hanna is along the edges of large ponds with gradual sloping banks and narrower shallow connecting channels, whereas the riparian habitat at the Kramer WRP follows a meandering incised channel no wider than 12 m across (pers. obs.). The wider and less sloping features of the Hanna WRP allows a more

17 diverse and structurally complex assemblage of vegetation to develop, e.g. cattails and sedges in the shallow areas of the waterways, young willows at the pond and channel edges, and more mature cottonwoods on higher ground; and thus a greater diversity of bird species can also utilize the WRP. The Kramer WRP in contrast has a channel that is greatly incised - in areas 3 m below the surrounding landscape with steeply angled bank walls, has no understory herbaceous vegetation, and no tall tree species.

The apparent degraded state of the riparian habitat at the Kramer WRP may be exacerbated by the presence of cattle. In addition to reducing herbaceous and hardwood cover in riparian areas, livestock are also known to erode channel banks and cause channel incision as observed at the Kramer WRP (Belsky et al. 1999). The effects by livestock have been shown to make habitat unsuitable for many riparian bird species that are sensitive to changes in vegetation complexity and structure (Mosconi and Hutto 1982, Taylor 1986, Taylor and Littlefield 1986, Knopf et al. 1988b). Specifically, riparian species such as Yellow Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, Lincoln’s Sparrow, Song Sparrow, White-crowned Sparrow, and the California state endangered Willow Flycatcher respond negatively to cattle grazing in riparian habitat (see Saab et al. 1995 for a complete review). We suggest excluding livestock in any riparian areas by installing livestock fencing with a 30m buffer (RHJV 2004). By excluding cattle from the water channel at the Kramer WRP, the understory herbaceous vegetation would have an opportunity to regenerate, as well as promote the return of mid and upper canopy shrub and tree layers. We would expect the riparian bird population to respond positively to the cattle exclusion within one or two years as improved food and nesting resources developed due to increased plant structure and abundance as well as decreased trampling and erosion (Dobkin et al. 1998, Nelson et al. In press ). Perhaps after woody plants become well reestablished, returning low level rotational grazing could be ecologically compatible with the system, though this hypothesis has not been tested.

Mixed Conifer and Mountain Meadow. The Lookout Ranch/Bill Wright WRP upland habitat was primarily composed of mixed conifers (ponderosa pine and western juniper) with open pockets of mountain meadows composed of Big Sagebrush ( Artemsia tridentate ). For the second year in a row, the mixed conifer habitat had the second greatest species richness during the breeding season (riparian habitat at the Kramer WRP had the highest). Five of the top six species detected during surveys were suspected of nesting within the mixed conifer habitat. Two of these species, Gray Flycatcher and Chipping Sparrow, are CalPIF conifer focal species. A total of six CalPIF conifer focal species were detected during surveys. However, all of these CalPIF species are mid-story to canopy level nesting species. The only understory/ground nesting species detected during surveys was Spotted Towhee, a generalist species that

18 is capable of utilizing numerous habitat types for breeding. The lack of conifer-associated understory/ground nesting species such as Fox Sparrow and Dark-eyed Junco is most likely due to the lack of a significant herbaceous layer. The grazing within the upland habitat at Lookout Ranch may be suppressing the growth of the understory layer and thus reducing habitat for understory-nesting species.

During the late summer/fall migration surveys, both the mixed conifer and mountain meadow habitats had similar species richness to 2009, while total bird abundance increased at the mixed conifer habitat and decreased at the mountain meadow habitat. The increased abundance within the mixed conifer habitat was largely due to an abundance of Mountain Chickadee and Pygmy Nuthatches detections. Many of these detections were presumably of juveniles, as small family groups were seen foraging together during visits. Numerous detections of juveniles in the late summer and early fall indicates that these cavity nesters had a productive nesting season. The number of open-cup nesters during the early fall months, however, was relatively low, suggesting perhaps a year of low nesting success for open-cup nesters.

Sagebrush. The C-A-N Living Trust WRP was the only property surveyed that contained true sagebrush habitat. Despite the fact that this site supported fewer bird species than riparian and mixed conifer sites, sagebrush is important for a number of bird species not commonly found in other habitat types. For example, Brewer’s Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow, two CalPIF sagebrush focal species, were suspected of breeding in the sagebrush at C-A-N Living Trust but not at any other WRP. Species richness and total bird abundance were slightly higher in 2010 compared to 2009, and the distribution of species abundance was much more even. Whereas Brewer’s Sparrows accounted for 56% of all detections in 2009, this year five species had frequencies of eleven percent or more. It is unclear what contributed to this increase in species “evenness” as it doesn’t appear any management changes occurred in the sagebrush habitat. A habitat or management change within the larger surrounding area might explain the change in species abundance on the C-A-N Living Trust upland habitat. We will be better able to assess the change in species composition at this site following additional years of surveys.

Grassland. Many grassland bird species have experienced significant declines throughout the United States (Peterjohn and Sauer 1999, Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005). In California, declines of grassland birds have been attributed to the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of grassland habitat to urban sprawl and agricultural development (Johnson and Schwartz 1993, CPIF 2000, Gennet 2007). Additionally, remaining grassland ecosystems are impacted by non-native plant species and changes in grazing and disturbance regimes (CPIF 2000, Gennet 2007). While there is acknowledgment of grassland bird

19 declines, there have been relatively few studies on grassland birds in the West (Gennet 2007, Rao et al. 2008).

The majority of the habitat at the Quail Valley Ranch WRP was composed of grassland. While only four species were detected during upland surveys in 2010: Western Meadowlark, Savannah Sparrow, Northern Harrier, and Horned Lark; all of them are grassland specialists. Western Meadowlark, Savannah Sparrow, and Northern Harrier are all CalPIF grassland focal species and the latter is also a California Bird Species of Special Concern. And while not a focal species, Horned Lark is considered a grassland-associated species which prefers plowed or fall-planted agricultural fields for nesting sites (Beason and Franks 1974). All of these species, save for Northern Harrier, are suspected of breeding at the Quail Valley Ranch WRP.

The presence of so many grassland-specialist species is a positive indicator the Quail Valley Ranch WRP grassland is providing both adequate nesting sites and foraging sites. However, the abundance of grassland birds could be improved. The grassland habitat had close to the lowest total bird abundance in both the spring and fall surveys. The dense swaths of the non-native invasive grass species Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae ) may be limiting the potential benefits of this grassland habitat. By selectively removing and replacing this non-native species with a native counterpart, additional nesting and foraging sites could be created at the Quail Valley Ranch WRP potentially increasing the number of birds that can utilize the habitat.

Ecological Similarity Knowing how ecologically unique one WRP site is from the next can help inform management decisions. For example, a given management practice may not affect the ecology of each site equally if the species compositions are different between sites. Our similarity analysis demonstrated that each of the WRPs we monitored were on average approximately 49% unique from one another (Table 2, Appendix H). Given the relative unique suite of species each of the WRP supports in NE California, we recommend careful consideration be given to how and which management practices are used on a site-specific bases, taking into account the needs of the species at a given site.

CONCLUSIONS Effectively managed WRP easements in northeast California can provide quality habitat for breeding and non-breeding waterbirds and landbirds, including special status species. Given sufficient resources and landowner willingness, there are vast opportunities for improving the overall habitat value on acres enrolled in WRP. The greatest limiting resource for effectively managing WRP wetlands is undoubtedly water availability, therefore assisting landowners with finding reliable sources of high quality water for WRP wetland management should be a high priority. Additionally, continuing assistance with wetland design to optimize their function and value and controlling and removing invasive plant species would further improve habitat quality on WRPs. In upland habitats, management priorities should be placed on controlling invasive plants, restricting grazing in riparian zones, and developing compatible grazing practices for non-riparian areas. We recommend additional focused monitoring to determine what level of grazing intensity is appropriate for meeting conservation objectives. Many opportunities remain for habitat restoration and enhancement activities on WRP easements, especially within riparian areas. Identifying, protecting, and restoring riparian areas on WRP lands should be a high priority. Although highly altered, riparian systems have been shown to respond positively to restoration and recovery programs (Kattelmann and Embury 1996, Gardali et al. 2006). Given the limited availability of this important habitat, encouraging landowners to protect and develop the riparian areas on their WRP easements could have enormous conservation benefits.

Adaptive management is the key to meeting the NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program goal of providing the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. Therefore, having an information feedback mechanism such as this avian monitoring program can help deliver NRCS’s goals. This monitoring program can also help serve an additional and key purpose – outreach to private landowners who are sharing in the responsibility with agencies to provide essential habitat to support wildlife populations. The importance of their participation and support in providing wildlife habitat cannot be overstated.

AKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not be possible without the cooperation of the private landowners and managers and we thank them for allowing us access to their properties and for their dedication to providing habitat for northeast California bird populations. Funding for this project was provided by the U.S.D.A.- Natural Resources Conservation Service through its Wetlands Reserve Program. Special thanks to Jessica Groves and Dean Kwasny of NRCS for providing the support to initiate this study and Allison Pierce of the NRCS Tulelake office for helping PRBO biologists orient on the back roads of northeast California and for logistical support. A huge thanks to Laurence Clemente and Michael Hague for their tireless efforts collecting data in 2010. Also special thanks to Pablo Herrera for allowing us to use his 4X4 pickup truck for much of the 2009 and 2010 field seasons, Khara Strum for her GIS technical assistance, and Geoffrey Geupel and Catherine Hickey, who along with many others helped to pioneer the Avian Monitoring on Private Lands project in the Central Valley, which provided the catalyst for avian monitoring on WRP easements in northeastern California.

LITERATURE CITED

Bartolome, J.W., W.E. Frost, N.K. McDougald, and M. Conner. 2002. California guidelines for residual dry matter (RDM) management on coastal and foothill annual rangelands. University of California Division of Agriculture. Rangeland monitoring series. Publication 8092. http://californiarangeland.ucdavis.edu/Publications%20pdf/8092.pdf

Beason, R. C. and E. C. Franks. 1974. Breeding behavior of the Horned Lark. Auk 91:65- 74.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.

Bunn, D., A. Mummert, H. Hoshovsky, K. Gilardi, S. Shanks. 2007. California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges (California’s Wildlife Action Plan). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Chase, M. K. and G.R. Geupel. 2005. The use of avian focal species for conservation planning in California. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191.

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2000. Version 1.0. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California (B. Allen, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/CPIF/Consplan.html

DiGaudio, R. and A. Young. 2009. Avian monitoring on Wetland Reserve Program easements in northeastern California. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA. Contribution #1765.

Dobkin, D. S. 1994. Conservation and management of Neotropical migrant landbirds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Dobkin, D.S., A.C. Rich, and William H. Pyle. 1998. Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great basin. Conservation 9 Biology 12:209- 221.

Gardali, T., A. L. Holmes, S. L. Small, N. Nur, G. R. Geupel and G. H. Golet. 2006. Abundance patterns of landbirds in restored and remnant riparian forests on the Sacramento River, California, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology 14: 391-403.

Gennet, A, S. 2007. Environmental determinants of plant community composition and songbird abundance in a California coast range grassland. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

Goguen, G.B. and N.E. Mathews. 1999. Review of the causes and implications of the association between cowbirds and livestock. Studies in Avian Biology No. 18: 10-17.

Hickey, C., J. Wood, L. Stenzel, R. DiGaudio, G. Page, L. Culp, C. Tonra, K. Kreitinger, and G. Geupel. 2008. Avian Monitoring on Private Lands: Measuring bird response to easement, restoration, enhancement, and incentive programs in the Central Valley, 2004-2006. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA. Contribution #1582.

IUCN. 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org).

IWJV (Intermountain West Joint Venture). 2009. Focal area maps. http://iwjv.org/?a=65

Johnson, D. H., and M. D. Schwartz. 1993. The Conservation Reserve Program and Grassland Birds. Conservation Biology 7: 934-937.

Kattelmann, R., and M. Embury. 1996. Riparian areas and wetlands. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. III. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Knopf, F. L., R. R. Johnson, T. Rich, F. B. Samson, and R. C. Szaro. 1988a. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 100:272-284.

Knopf, F.L., J.A. Sedgwick, and R.W. Cannon. 1988b. Guild Structure of a riparian aviafauna relative to seasonal cattle grazing. J. Wildl. Manag. 52(2):280-290.

MacArthur, R. H. 1965. Patterns of species diversity. Biological Reviews 40:510 –533.

Mosconi, S.L., and R.L. Hutto. 1982. The effects of grazing on land birds of a western Montana riparian habitat. Pp. 221-233 in Wildlife-livestock relationships symposium (J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke, eds.). University of Idaho, Forest Wildl. Range Exp. Sta., Moscow, ID.

NABCI (North American Bird Conservation Initiative). 2009. Bird Conservation Regions. http://www.nabci-us.org/map.html

Nelson, K., E. Gray, and J. Evans. In press. Finding solutions for bird restoration and livestock management: Comparing grazing exclusion levels. Ecological Applications. [doi:10.1890/10-0032.1]

Nur, N., S.L. Jones and G.R. Geuepel. 1999. Statistical guide to data analysis of avian monitoring programs. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, BTP-R6001-1999, Washington, D.C.

Peterjohn, B. G., and J. R. Sauer. 1999. Population status of North American grassland birds. Studies in Avian Biology 19: 27-44.

Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA Forest Service Publication, PSW-GTR 144. Albany, CA.

Ralph, C. J., J. R. Sauer and S. Droege. 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point counts. USDA Forest Service Publication, PSW-GTR 149, Albany CA.

Rao, D., S. Gennet, M. Hammond, P. Hopkinson, and J. Bartolome. 2008. A landscape analysis of grassland birds in a valley grassland-oak woodland mosaic. Pp. 385 – 397 in Merenlender, A., D. McCreary, and K. Purcell (ed.). Proceedings of the sixth California oak symposium: today’s challenges, tomorrow’s opportunities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-217. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 677 p.

Reed, J. M., N. Warnock, and L. W. Oring. 1997. Censusing shorebirds in the western Great Basin of North America. International Wader Studies 9:29-36.

RHJV (RIPARIAN HABITAT JOINT VENTURE). 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/pdfs/riparian.v-2.pdf.

Saab, V. A., C. E. Bock, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects on migratory landbirds in western North America. Pages 311-353 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch (eds.). Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford University Press, New York.

Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Shuford, W.D. 2009. Key shorebird areas of the inter-mountain west: Klamath Basin CA/OR. Pages 39 – 41 in L.W. Oring, L. Neel, and K.E. Oring. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan- Intermountain West regional Shorebird Plan. http://iwjv.org/61/north-american-bird- initiatives.html?get=1.28.129.download=force .

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. Desante. 1999. Version 1.0 The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight.

Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine bird nesting in riparian habitat. J. Range Manag. 39:254-258.

Taylor, D.M. and C.D. Littlefield. 1986. Willow Flycatcher and Yellow Warbler response to cattle grazing. Amer. Birds 40:1169-1173.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. U.S. Fish & Wildl. Serv., Div. Migratory Bird Mgmt., Arlington, VA (http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf).

Western Regional Climate Center 2009. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/

Table 1. Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) easements in NE California where PRBO conducted avian monitoring in 2009 and 2010. Easement Year WRP Name COUNTY ACRES Duration Enrolled Boggs** Lassen 236 2010 Halpenny Lassen 189.3 Permanent 2004 Kramer, Charles Lassen 342 Permanent 2002 Lookout Ranch #2 Modoc 1032.4 Permanent 2002 Lookout Ranch/ Bill Wright Modoc 1610 Permanent 1998 McArthur, John Modoc 1750 30-year 1998 Nardella** Modoc 181.5 Permanent 2007 Quail Valley Ranch Modoc 399 Permanent 1996 Quail Valley Ranch Modoc 185 Permanent 1992 Winje, Russ** Modoc 236 2008 Bar-D-Bar Ranch #1* Shasta 10 Permanent 1992 Bar-D-Bar Ranch #2* Shasta 112 Permanent 1996 Estes, Carsin Shasta 243.7 Permanent 2003 Hanna Unit 1** Shasta 177 Permanent 2000 Hanna Unit 2** Shasta 102 Permanent 1995 Hanna Unit 3** Shasta 108 Permanent 1995 Hanna Unit 4** Shasta 54 Permanent 1996 Hanna Unit 5** Shasta 160 Permanent 1992 McArthur #2 A Shasta 28.4 30-year 2003 McArthur #2 B Shasta 31.3 30-year 2003 McArthur #2 C Shasta 15.5 30-year 2003 C-A-N Living Trust Siskiyou 650 Permanent 1996 Intercounty Title Co. Siskiyou 705 Permanent 2003 Klamath Sprig & Honker Club Siskiyou 855.05 Permanent 2004 S and H Trust #14, #15 Siskiyou 1540 Permanent 1995 *surveyed in 2009 only **surveyed in 2010 only

Table 2. Number of species (species richness), species confirmed or suspected of breeding and number of special status species during PRBO surveys on NE California WRP sites in 2009 and 2010.

Total Total Additional Special Special Special Mean species species species status status spp. Status spp. Sørensen observed confirmed suspected species confirmed suspected of similarity WRP breeding of breeding observed breeding breeding index 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2010 Lassen County Boggs n/a 29 n/a 4 n/a 3 n/a 1 n/a 0 n/a 0 0.47 Halpenny 63 26 4 2 7 6 4 2 0 0 1 1 0.51 Kramer, Charles 50 38 3 1 5 8 6 3 0 0 1 1 0.43 McArthur, John 62 50 13 8 6 8 4 5 2 1 0 1 0.54 Modoc County Lookout Ranch #2 56 61 8 6 8 9 7 4 0 0 2 0 0.49 Lookout Ranch/ Bill Wright 96 76 14 17 15 12 11 9 2 3 0 1 0.48 Nardella n/a 50 n/a 7 n/a 7 n/a 5 n/a 0 n/a 0 0.52 Quail Valley Ranch 40 43 5 3 7 10 4 4 0 0 1 0 0.51 Winje, Russ n/a 33 n/a 2 n/a 3 n/a 3 n/a 0 n/a 1 0.44 Shasta County Bar-D-Bar Ranch #1 29 n/a 1 n/a 6 n/a 2 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a Bar-D-Bar Ranch #2 25 n/a 2 n/a 2 n/a 2 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a Estes, Carsin 72 50 12 12 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 0 0.53 Hanna (Pfendler) n/a 62 n/a 8 n/a 5 n/a 6 n/a 1 n/a 0 0.51 McArthur #2 A 61 30 1 0 3 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 McArthur #2 B 65 50 11 7 8 6 8 4 1 1 1 0 0.53 McArthur #2 C 60 35 3 3 6 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 0.52 Siskiyou County C-A-N Living Trust 61 46 10 4 3 8 11 9 3 1 2 2 0.50 Intercounty Title Co. 29 20 2 1 7 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.42 Klamath Sprig & Honker 65 46 11 1 7 6 8 5 1 0 1 0 0.49 S and H Trust #14, #15 61 24 12 3 2 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0.39

Total for all sites: 154 142 43 37 22 20 21 22 6 5 5 3

Table 3. Management intensity, and average and maximum species richness and avian abundance detected during PRBO surveys on WRP easements in NE California, 2010. Max Max Date of Survey Mean species/ Total Mean Mean adults/ max adult/ Plot Management species/ single species adults/ density single single County and WRP Code Acres Intensity 1 survey survey detected survey (birds/10ac) survey survey Lassen County Boggs, Rick BOG1 26.3 n/a 7.1 13 18 31.4 12.0 74 6/17/10 Boggs, Rick BOG2 45.7 n/a 7.0 15 24 29.6 6.5 65 7/14/10 Halpenny HALP 32.4 1 11.3 12 26 44.2 13.6 91 6/17/10 McArthur, John MC1 49.9 2 13.2 20 28 93.0 18.6 132 5/7/10 McArthur, John MC2 50.2 1 11.4 16 35 33.7 6.7 49 8/5/10 McArthur, John MC3 147.8 2 9.7 19 28 84.4 5.7 188 5/28/10 Modoc County Lookout Ranch #2 LORA 42.1 3 12.3 20 19 50.9 12.1 84 8/10/10 Lookout Ranch #2 LORB 138.4 2 8.5 15 30 35.8 2.6 74 5/27/10 Lookout Ranch/ Bill Wright LORC 39.0 1 6.5 11 7 26.7 6.8 58 5/14/10 Lookout Ranch/ Bill Wright LORD 203.2 2 17.7 25 48 237.3 11.7 396 5/14/10 Nardella, Frank (Lynne) NARA 24.7 3 10.0 15 25 39.0 15.8 53 7/23/10 Nardella, Frank (Lynne) NARB 20.0 3 8.0 14 21 55.5 27.8 114 5/21/10 Nardella, Frank (Lynne) NARC 11.0 3 6.3 13 51 28.0 25.5 50 5/21/10 Nardella, Frank (Lynne) NARD 16.2 3 5.3 9 33 14.8 9.2 27 5/21/10 Quail Valley Ranch QVRD 7.3 1 5.0 9 27 36.7 50.0 119 6/17/10 Quail Valley Ranch QVRP 4.3 2 10.3 14 23 61.9 143.3 118 9/21/10 Quail Valley Ranch QVRW 5.4 1 2.1 3 21 5.4 10.1 12 5/15/10 Winje, Russ WINA 29.9 n/a 7.2 13 27 21.7 7.2 41 5/21/10 Winje, Russ WINB 24.8 n/a 5.5 8 19 44.3 17.9 97 6/11/10 1 Management Intensity: 1 = little to no evidence of vegetation or water level management; 2 = some management activity evident, e.g. occasionally added water to wetland; 3 = vegetation and water level management clearly evident.

Table 3 continued. Max Max Date of Survey Mean species/ Total Mean Mean adults/ max adult/ Plot Management species/ single species adults/ density single single County and WRP Code Acres Intensity 1 survey survey detected survey (birds/10ac) survey survey Shasta County Estes, Carsin ESTEA 21.7 2 10.4 21 36 133.1 61.2 583 6/18/10 Estes, Carsin ESTEB 16.1 3 9.6 16 33 98.0 60.8 255 5/8/10 Hanna (Pfendler) HANA 13.6 3 14.5 23 38 91.5 67.3 287 8/4/10 Hanna (Pfendler) HANC 28.0 3 12.2 22 35 41.0 14.6 85 5/20/10 Hanna (Pfendler) HAND 35.8 3 14.5 25 45 63.5 17.7 146 5/20/10 Hanna (Pfendler) HANG 60.8 n/a 3.0 4 10 11.6 1.9 32 7/1/10 McArthur #2 A MCARA 28.2 2 7.3 21 30 45.4 16.1 193 5/6/10 McArthur #2 B MCARB 28.0 3 18.0 25 52 166.6 59.5 446 9/10/10 McArthur #2 C MCARC 15.4 3 12.1 18 35 93.4 60.8 254 8/4/10 Siskiyou County C-A-N Living Trust CALT 110.9 2 12.4 16 37 109.6 9.9 197 6/10/10 Intercounty Title Co. INCOE 100.4 1 6.6 9 20 31.4 3.1 63 6/29/10 Intercounty Title Co. INCOW 114.3 1 3.2 6 9 15.2 1.3 29 9/22/10 Klamath Sprig & Honker Club HONKE 154.3 3 11.4 28 41 154.9 10.0 691 5/13/10 Klamath Sprig & Honker Club HONKW 239.1 3 10.1 28 40 144.9 6.1 634 5/13/10 S and H Trust #14, #15 S&H1 367.0 3 8.0 13 25 43.4 1.2 82 5/13/10 1 Management Intensity: 1 = little to no evidence of vegetation or water level management; 2 = some management activity evident, e.g. occasionally added water to wetland; 3 = vegetation and water level management clearly evident.

Table 4. Five most abundant species grouped by foraging guilds detected during PRBO wetland surveys on WRP easements in NE California, April – July 2010. Total adults observed (n), percent of guild total, and percent occurrence for each species out of the 15 WRP’s surveyed are given (<5 species detected for Geese/Swans, Gulls, and Plunge Divers). Species names in bold indicate special status species based on various regional, national, and global conservation assessments. Foraging Guild Five Most Abundant Species per % of total % occurrence (species total/guild) Foraging Guild N detected in guild on WRP's Aerial Feeders Cliff Swallow 482 54% 100% (13 species) Tree Swallow 127 14% 47% Black Tern 90 10% 18% Violet-green Swallow 74 8% 6% Barn Swallow 66 7% 47% Aerial Predators Red-tailed Hawk 25 33% 65% (9 species) Northern Harrier 18 24% 41% American Kestrel 14 19% 41% Great Horned Owl 6 8% 18% Bald Eagle 4 5% 18% Swainson's Hawk 4 5% 6% Dabbling Ducks Mallard 1536 50% 88% (9 species) Gadwall 612 20% 94% Cinnamon Teal 403 13% 88% Northern Shoveler 379 12% 47% Wood Duck 56 2% 18% Geese / Swans Canada Goose 232 100% 71% Gulls Unidentified Gull 8 80% 18% (2 species) Ring-billed Gull 2 20% 6% Large Waders White-faced Ibis 184 69% 35% (6 species) Greater Sandhill Crane 30 11% 41% Black-crowned Night-Heron 23 9% 53% Great Blue Heron 18 7% 53% Great Egret 11 4% 24% Marsh Birds Red-winged Blackbird 1709 56% 100% (8 species) American Coot 579 19% 65% Yellow-headed Blackbird 538 18% 47% Marsh Wren 186 6% 47% Common Yellowthroat 25 1% 41% Plunge Divers Forster's Tern 36 82% 18% (4 species) Osprey 5 11% 6% Caspian Tern 2 5% 6% Belted Kingfisher 1 2% 6% Surface Divers Bufflehead 86 43% 24% (9 species) Redhead 37 19% 29% Ruddy Duck 26 13% 12% Pied-billed Grebe 26 13% 53% American White Pelican 11 6% 12% Shorebirds Dowitcher sp. 387 38% 18% (13 species) Killdeer 129 13% 76% Willet 104 10% 76% Wilson's Phalarope 98 10% 47% American Avocet 63 6% 24% Upland Birds Brewer's Blackbird 671 34% 94% (39 species) Western Meadowlark 241 12% 88% Savannah Sparrow 168 9% 88% Song Sparrow 155 8% 71% Brown-headed Cowbird 152 8% 94%

Table 5. Five most abundant species grouped by foraging guilds detected during PRBO wetland surveys on WRP easements in NE California, August - September 2010. Total adults observed (n), percent of guild total, and percent occurrence for each species out of the 15 WRP’s surveyed are given (< 5 species detected for Geese/Swans and Plunge Divers. Species names in bold indicate special status species based on various regional, national, and global conservation assessments.

Foraging Guild Five Most Abundant Species per % of total % occurrence on (species total/guild) Foraging Guild N detected in guild WRP's Aerial Feeders Cliff Swallow 257 68% 53% (13 species) Barn Swallow 36 10% 47% Tree Swallow 29 8% 12% Violet-green Swallow 16 4% 18% Western Kingbird 14 4% 29% Aerial Predators Northern Harrier 30 42% 53% (7 species) Red-tailed Hawk 24 34% 59% American Kestrel 8 11% 29% Prairie Falcon 3 4% 18% Great Horned Owl 3 4% 6% Dabling Ducks Gadwall 568 59% 47% (9 species) Mallard 273 29% 59% Cinnamon Teal 79 8% 41% Northern Shoveler 12 1% 24% Wood Duck 11 1% 6% Geese Canada Goose 137 95% 12% (2 species) Greater White-fronted Goose 7 5% 6% Large Waders White-faced Ibis 251 77% 35% (5 species) Great Egret 42 13% 41% Greater Sandhill Crane 17 5% 18% Great Blue Heron 15 5% 53% Black-crowned Night-Heron 2 1% 12% Marsh Birds Red-winged Blackbird 112 38% 53% (7 species) Marsh Wren 104 36% 53% Yellow-headed Blackbird 35 12% 35% American Coot 13 4% 35% Common Yellowthroat 8 3% 24% Plunge Divers Belted Kingfisher 4 100% 12% Surface Divers Pied-billed Grebe 16 47% 29% (6 species) Ring-necked Duck 12 35% 24% Redhead 3 9% 6% American White Pelican 1 3% 6% Double-crested Cormorant 1 3% 6% Shorebirds Killdeer 57 54% 47% (7 species) Wilson's Snipe 16 15% 24% Greater Yellowlegs 9 8% 24% Black-necked Stilt 8 8% 12% Spotted Sandpiper 6 6% 24% Upland Birds Brewer's Blackbird 501 30% 47% (47 species) Savannah Sparrow 384 23% 88% Western Meadowlark 129 8% 82% Lesser Goldfinch 127 8% 47% European Starling 117 7% 24%

Table 6. Breeding season (April – July) landbird species occurrence and relative abundance based on PRBO point count surveys in upland habitats on WRP easements in NE California, 2010. % of total # Habitat Species N detected Riparian Western Meadowlark 16 23% Song Sparrow 11 16% Brown-headed Cowbird 9 13% House Wren 7 10% Gadwall 5 7% Bullock's Oriole 4 6% Empidinax Flycatcher 4 6% Wilson's Warbler 3 4% Yellow Warbler 3 4% Townsend's Warbler 2 3% Black-billed Magpie 1 1% Black-necked Stilt 1 1% Brewer's Blackbird 1 1% Orange-crowned Warbler 1 1% Violoet-green Swallow 1 1% Western Wood-Pewee 1 1% Mixed Conifer American Robin 7 12% Mountain Chickadee 7 12% Western Wood-Pewee 7 12% Spotted Towhee 6 10% Gray Flycatcher 5 8% Chipping Sparrow 4 7% Western Tanager 4 7% Western Meadowlark 3 5% Brown-headed Cowbird 2 3% Dusky Flycatcher 2 3% Pygmy Nuthatch 2 3% Red-breasted Nuthatch 2 3% Stellar's Jay 2 3% Western Bluebird 2 3% Yellow Warbler 2 3% Cassin's Finch 1 2% Hairy Woodpecker 1 2% Western Kingbird 1 2% Sagebrush Brewer's Blackbird 16 25% Brewer's Sparrow 16 25% Western Meadowlark 12 19% Savannah Sparrow 7 11% Vesper Sparrow 7 11% Barn Swallow 2 3% Black-billed Magpie 1 2% Golden-crowned Sparrow 1 2% Northern Harrier 1 2% Grassland Western Meadowlark 28 82% Horned Lark 5 15% Savannah Sparrow 1 3% Bolded species indicate a bird with a designated conservation concern Italicized species indicate a California Partners in Flight focal species for the habitat type.

Table 7. Late summer / early fall (Aug – Sept) landbird species occurrence and relative abundance based on PRBO area search surveys in upland habitat types on WRP easements in NE California, 2010. % of total # % of total # Habitat and species N detected Habitat and species N detected RIPARIAN SAGEBRUSH Barn Swallow 18 16% Barn Swallow 2 13% White-crowned Sparrow 16 14% Black-billed Magpie 2 13% Lincoln's Sparrow 14 12% Brewer's Sparrow 2 13% American Robin 12 11% Savannah Sparrow 2 13% Orange-crowned Warbler 8 7% White-crowned Sparrow 2 13% Western Meadowlark 7 6% American Goldfinch 1 6% House Wren 6 5% American Kestrel 1 6% Spotted Towhee 5 4% Brewer's Blackbird 1 6% American Goldfinch 4 4% Prairie Falcon 1 6% MacGillivray's Warbler 4 4% Western Meadowlark 1 6% Song Sparrow 4 4% Yellow-rumped Warbler 1 6% Common Yellowthroat 3 3% MOUNTAIN MEADOW Black-billed Magpie 2 2% Chipping Sparrow 15 56% California Quail 2 2% Barn Swallow 2 7% Great Blue Heron 2 2% Northern Flicker 2 7% Northern Flicker 2 2% White-crowned Sparrow 2 7% Yellow Warbler 2 2% Dusky Flycatcher 1 4% Brewer's Blackbird 1 1% Mountain Chickadee 1 4% Killdeer 1 1% Pygmy Nuthatch 1 4% MIXED CONIFER Stellar's Jay 1 4% Mountain Chickadee 15 33% White-breasted Nuthatch 1 4% Pygmy Nuthatch 9 20% White-headed Woodpecker 1 4% Stellar's Jay 6 13% WET MEADOW White-breasted Nuthatch 4 9% Savannah Sparrow 51 48% Dusky Flycatcher 2 4% Western Meadowlark 24 23% Northern Flicker 2 4% Cliff Swallow 11 10% Red-breasted Nuthatch 2 4% Black-necked Stilt 6 6% Western Bluebird 2 4% Cinnamon Teal 4 4% Red Crossbill 1 2% Great Blue Heron 2 2% Spotted Towhee 1 2% Western Bluebird 2 2% White-crowned Sparrow 1 2% Yellow-headed Blackbird 2 2% GRASSLAND American Goldfinch 1 1% Western Meadowlark 20 49% American Kestrel 1 1% Savannah Sparrow 19 46% Great Egret 1 1% Northern Harrier 2 5% Wilson's Snipe 1 1% Bolded species indicate a special status species (species with a designated conservation concern) Italicized species indicate a CalPIF focal species for the habitat type

Figure 1. PRBO monitoring sites on WRP easements in northeastern Californian

Figure 2. Densities (bird per 10 acres) of select foraging guilds observed during PRBO surveys on WRP wetlands in NE California in 2009 and 2010 during peak waterbird breeding season (A) vs. late summer / early fall (B) with standard error bars given.

Breeding Season Wetland Bird Density 12

6 2009 4 2010 Birdsper 10 acres 2

B) Fall Wetland Bird Density 10

2009 4 2010

Birdsper 10 acres 2

Figure 3 . Estimated percent area flooded at PRBO wetland survey plots on WRPs in NE California, 2010. Julian dates 150, 200, and 250 correspond with May 30, July 19, and September 7, respectively.

Figure 4. Average bird species richness in 2010 at NE California WRPs managed at three different intensity levels, with standard error bars. Level 3 = high management intensity, Level 2 = medium management intensity, and Level 1 = low management intensity.

mean species mean richness 4

0 1 2 3 management intensity

Figure 5. Average bird density in 2010 at NE California WRPs managed at three different intensity levels, with standard error bars. Level 3 = high management intensity, Level 2 = medium management intensity, and Level 1 = low management intensity.

birdsper 10 acres 20

0 1 2 3 management intensity

Figure 6 . Scatter plot and linear regression results of species richness vs. grazing intensity at 8 wetland sites in 2010.

Figure 7. Scatter plot and linear regression results of each foraging guild density vs. grazing intensity at 8 wetland sites in 2010.

Figure 8 . 2009-2010 summary of breeding season point count surveys in WRP upland habitat: A) species diversity (Shannon index); B) species richness; and C) abundance

A) Species Richness 8 7 6 5 2009 4 3 2010 2

# of species # detected 1 0 Riparian Mixed Conifer Sagebrush Grassland

B) Shannon Diversity Index 7 6 5

4 2009 3 2010 2 1 0 Riparian Mixed Conifer Sagebrush Grassland

9 Total Bird Abundance 8 7 6 5 2009 4 2010 # of birds # 3 2 1 0 Riparian Mixed Conifer Sagebrush Grassland

Figure 9. Late summer / early fall upland A) bird species richness, and B) bird density per 10 acres with standard error bars of all species detected within PRBO area search plots located within six different habitat types on WRP easements in NE California, 2009 and 2010.

A) Richness 18 16 14 12 10 8 2009 6 2010 4 2 0 Riparian Mixed Sagebrush Mountain Grassland Wet Conifer Meadow Meadow

B) Density 30

15 2009 10 2010

0 Riparian Mixed Sagebrush Mountain Grassland Wet Conifer Meadow Meadow

Appendix A. Special Status Species

Appendix A. Special status species (species with status designations of special conservation concern from state, regional, continental, and global assessments) detected in 2009 and 2010 on WRP easements in NE California. Common Name BSSC a T&E b USFWS 2008 c IUCN 2008 d American White Pelican 1 Bald Eagle SE R, 9 Bank Swallow ST Black Tern 2 Brewer's Sparrow R, 9 Cassin's Finch R NT Eared Grebe 9 Loggerhead Shrike 2 R, 9 Long -billed Curlew R, 9 NT Northern Harrier 3 Olive -sided Flycatcher * R NT Redhead 1 Rufous Hummingbird R Greater Sandhill Crane SE Sage Thrasher R, 9 Short -billed Dowitcher R Swainson's Hawk ST R Tricolored Blackbird 1 R, 9 EN Vesper Sparrow 2 R White -headed Woodpecker R, 9 Willow Flycatcher SE R, 9 Yellow -breasted Chat * 3 Yellow -headed Blackbird 3 Yellow Warbler 2 aSpecies, subspecies, and distinct populations on the 2006 list of California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali 2008) that occur in the Central Valley. Numbered designations indicate priority levels within the list (1, 2, or 3; highest to lowest). b Species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal law. ST , state threatened; SE , state endangered; FT , federally threatened; FE , federally endangered. cSpecies or subspecies on the USFWS list of Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (USFWS 2008); includes taxa of lesser concern than those listed as Federally threatened or endangered (see footnote c above). R, USFWS Region 1 (states of CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, and WA, plus other Pacific islands). The number 9 refers to Bird Conservation Region 9 (Great Basin), which includes northeast California. dSpecies with IUCN Red List global conservation status ranks (listed here in descending order of conservation concern): CR , critically endangered; EN , endangered; VU , vulnerable; and NT , near threatened (IUCN 2008). * Species only detected in 2009.

Appendix B. Number of surveys by month for each PRBO wetland survey plot on WRP easements in NE California, 2010.

Number of Surveys Site I.D.

County and WRP Code Acres May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Boggs BOG1 26.3 2 1 1 2 1 BOG2 45.7 2 1 1 2 1 Halpenny HALP 32.4 1 1 2 2 1

Lassen McArthur, John MC1 49.9 2 1 1 2 0 MC2 50.3 2 1 1 2 1 MC3 149.0 2 1 1 2 1 Lookout Ranch #2 LORA 42.5 2 1 1 1 2 LORB 139.0 2 1 1 0 2 Lookout Ranch/Bill Wright LORC 39.3 2 1 1 1 1 LORD 203.0 2 1 1 1 2 Nardella, Frank (Lynn) NARA 24.7 1 2 1 2 0 NARB 20.0 1 2 1 2 0 NARC 11.0 1 2 1 2 0

Modoc NARD 16.2 Quail Valley Ranch #1 QVRD 6.8 2 1 1 1 2 QVRP 4.3 2 1 1 1 2 QVRW 5.4 2 1 1 1 2 Winje, Russ WINA 29.9 1 2 1 2 0 WINB 24.8 1 2 1 2 0 Estes, Carsin ESTEA 21.8 2 1 1 2 1 ESTEB 16.2 2 1 1 2 1 Hanna (Pfendler) HANA 13.6 1 0 2 2 1 HANC 28.0 1 0 2 2 1

HAND 35.8 1 0 2 2 1 HANG 60.8 1 0 2 1 1 Shasta McArthur #2A MCARA 28.2 2 0 2 2 1 McArthur #2B MCARB 28.0 2 0 2 2 1

McArthur #2C MCARC 15.4 2 0 2 2 1 C-A-N Living Trust CALT 112.0 1 2 1 1 2 Intercounty Title Co. INCOE 100.0 0 2 1 1 2 INCOW 115.0 0 2 1 1 2 Klamath Sprig & Honker

Siskiyou Club_1 HONKE 155.0 1 2 1 1 2 HONKW 240.0 1 2 1 1 2 S&H Trust #14, #15 S&H1 366.0 1 2 1 1 2

Appendix C. NRCS WRP site names, PRBO 4-digit point count codes, habitat type, number of point count stations, and 2010 point count visit dates. WRP Site I.D. Code Habitat Type # of points Visit 1 Visit 2 C-A-N Living Trust CALT Sagebrush 9 5/13/2010 6/10/2010 Kramer, Charles KRAM Riparian 5 5/20/2010 6/18/2010 Lookout Ranch/Bill Wright LOR Mixed Conifer 7 5/14/2010 6/16/2010 Quail Valley Ranch #1 QVR Grassland 5 5/15/2010 6/17/2010

Appendix D. NRCS WRP site names, PRBO 4-digit area search plot codes, habitat type, acreage, and 2010 area search visit dates. Site I.D. WRP Code Habitat Type acres Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 C-A-N Living Trust CALTA Sagebrush 12.8 9/3/10 9/22/10 ― Estes, Carsin ESTEC Wet Meadow 14.0 8/6/10 8/30/10 9/9/10 ESTED Wet Meadow 10.0 8/6/10 8/30/10 9/9/10 Kramer, Charles KRAM54 Riparian 22.3 8/20/10 9/15/10 KRAM31 Riparian 18.4 8/20/10 9/15/10 ― Lookout Ranch/Bill Wright LOR1 Mixed Conifer 13.1 9/1/10 9/21/10 ― LOR2 Mountain 17.0 Meadow 9/1/10 9/21/10 ― Quail Valley Ranch #1 QVR1 Grassland 24.6 9/2/10 9/21/10 ―

Appendix E. PRBO foraging guild classifications for species observed on WRP easements in NE California. Aerial Feeders (17) Geese and Swans (2) Upland Birds (63) Ash-throated Flycatcher Canada Goose American Crow Mountain Bluebird Bank Swallow Greater White-fronted Goose American Goldfinch Mountain Chickadee Barn Swallow Gulls (1) American Robin Mourning Dove Black Phoebe Ring-billed Gull Bewick's Wren Northern Bobwhite Black Tern Marsh Birds (8) Black-billed Magpie Northern Flicker Cliff Swallow American Coot Black-headed Grosbeak Nuttall's Woodpecker Common Nighthawk Common Yellowthroat Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Orange-crowned Warbler Dusky Flycatcher Marsh Wren Brewer's Blackbird Purple Finch Northern Rough -winged Swallow Red-winged Blackbird Brewer's Sparrow Pygmy Nuthatch Olive-sided Flycatcher Sora Brown Creeper Red Crossbill Pacific-slope Flycatcher Tricolored Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird Red-breasted Nuthatch Tree Swallow Virginia Rail Bullock's Oriole Red-breasted Sapsucker Vaux's Swift Yellow-headed Blackbird California Quail Ring-necked Pheasant Violet-green Swallow Plunge Divers (4) Cassin's Finch Rock Dove Western Kingbird Belted Kingfisher Cedar Waxwing Rufous Hummingbird Western Wood-Pewee Caspian Tern Chipping Sparrow Sage Thrasher Willow Flycatcher Forster's Tern Chukar Savannah Sparrow Aerial Predators (9) Osprey Common Raven Song Sparrow American Kestrel Surface Divers (10) Downy Woodpecker Spotted Towhee Bald Eagle American White Pelican Eurasian Collared-Dove Steller's Jay Great Horned Owl Bufflehead European Starling Townsend's Warbler Logger-head Shrike Canvasback Golden-crowned Sparrow Turkey Vulture Northern Harrier Common Goldeneye Gray Flycatcher Vesper Sparrow Prairie Falcon Common Merganser Hairy Woodpecker Western Bluebird Red-tailed Hawk Double-crested Cormorant Horned Lark Western Meadowlark Sharp-shinned Hawk Pied-billed Grebe House Finch Western Tanager Swainson's Hawk Redhead House Wren White-breasted Nuthatch Ring-necked Duck Lark Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Ruddy Duck Lesser Goldfinch White-headed Woodpecker Large Waders (6) Shorebirds (13) Lincoln's Sparrow Wilson's Warbler Black-crowned Night-Heron American Avocet MacGillivray's Warbler Yellow Warbler Great Blue Heron Black-bellied Plover Yellow-rumped Warbler Great Egret Black-necked Stilt Green Heron Dunlin Sandhill Crane Greater Yellowlegs White-faced Ibis Killdeer Dabbling Ducks (9) Least Sandpiper American Wigeon Long-billed Curlew Blue-winged Teal Dowitcher sp. Cinnamon Teal Spotted Sandpiper Gadwall Willet Green-winged Teal Wilson's Phalarope Mallard Wilson's Snipe Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler Wood Duck

Appendix F. Grazing data and grazing intensity indices (grazing days * cows per acre) for wetland survey plots that overlapped with WRP’s with available grazing data. PRBO Land unit Unit Grazing Cows per Grazing WRP plot ID ID Acres # cows Date in Date out Days Acre indensity index Lookout Ranch #2 LORA Lookout II 1000 198 10/15/09 11/21/09 37 0.20 7.33 Lookout Ranch #2 LORB Lookout II 1000 198 10/15/09 11/21/09 37 0.20 7.33 Lookout Ranch/ Bill Wright LORC Swamp A 92 84 10/15/09 11/21/09 37 0.91 33.78 Lookout Ranch/ Bill Wright LORD 3e 131 237 11/1/09 12/5/09 35 1.81 63.32 Nardella NARB 3 20 30 10/21/09 11/1/09 11 1.50 16.50 7/15/09, 8/15/09, Nardella NARD 7 50 23 10/30/09 11/15/09 45 0.46 20.70 Winje, Russ WINA 1 33 30 9/1/09 12/30/09 121 0.91 110.00 Winje, Russ WINB 2 24 30 9/1/09 12/31/09 122 1.25 152.50

Appendix G. 2010 species list and breeding status

Appendix G. All species detected and breeding status from Wetland Reserve Program sites in northeast California. Special status = species of conservation concern from various state, regional, continental, and global assessments; status codes: B = confirmed breeder; b = suspected breeder; p = potential breeder; x = detected but no evidence of breeding. Lassen Modoc Shasta Siskiyou

prig & Honker

Common and scientific Pfendler) special status species

name penny -A-N Living Trust Boggs, Rick Hal Kramer, Charles McArthur, John Lookout Ranch #2 Lookout Ranch Nardella Quail Valley Ranch Winje, Russ Estes, Carsin Hanna ( McArthur #2 A McArthur #2 B McArthur #2 C C Intercounty Title Co Klamath S S and H Trust Greater White-fronted Goose x Anser albifrons Canada Goose p p B p p p B B p B B p Branta canadensis Wood Duck p B x Aix sponsa Gadwall B p b B b B p b b p p b b p p b p Anas strepera American Wigeon x x x x Anas americana Mallard b b p b B B b b B B b b b b p b Anas platyrhynchos Blue-winged Teal x p p Anas discors Cinnamon Teal b p B b B B b B b b b B b p b Anas cyanoptera Northern Shoveler p p b x p p p p p Anas clypeata Northern Pintail p x p Anas acuta Green-winged Teal b p x x p p b Anas crecca Canvasback p Aythya valisineria Redhead x B x p p p Aythya americana Ring-necked Duck x x x x b x Aythya collaris Bufflehead B p p p Bucephala albeola Common Goldeneye x Bucephala clangula Common Merganser p Mergus merganser Ruddy Duck p p Oxyura jamaicensis California Quail p x p p p p p p p x Callipepla californica Northern Bobwhite B Colinus virginianus Chukar p Alectoris chukar Ring-necked Pheasant b p p Phasianus colchicus Pied-billed Grebe x p p B b B B p p p Podilymbus podiceps

Appendix G. 2010 species list and breeding status Lassen Modoc Shasta Siskiyou

prig & Honker

Common and scientific Pfendler) special status species

name penny -A-N Living Trust Boggs, Rick Hal Kramer, Charles McArthur, John Lookout Ranch #2 Lookout Ranch Nardella Quail Valley Ranch Winje, Russ Estes, Carsin Hanna ( McArthur #2 A McArthur #2 B McArthur #2 C C Intercounty Title Co Klamath S S and H Trust American White Pelican x x x x Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Double-crested Cormorant x x x x Phalacrocorax auritus Great Blue Heron p x p p x p p p p p p p Ardea herodias Great Egret x x x x x p p x x p p Ardea alba Green Heron p p Butorides virescens Black-crowned Night-Heron p p p p B p p p p p Nycticorax nycticorax White-faced Ibis p p p x x p x p p Plegadis chihi Turkey Vulture p p p p p p Cathartes aura Osprey p p Pandion haliaetus Bald Eagle x p p p Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern Harrier x p p p x x p x B p x p p Circus cyaneus Sharp-shinned Hawk x Accipiter striatus Swainson's Hawk x x p Buteo swainsoni Red-tailed Hawk p p x b p p p p x x p p p p Buteo jamaicensis American Kestrel p B p p p p p x x Falco sparverius Prairie Falcon p x x x x Falco mexicanus Virginia Rail p B p x Rallus limicola Sora p p x p Porzana carolina American Coot b p p B p B p p b B p Fulica americana Sandhill Crane (Greater) x b p b b p p b p x Grus canadensis Black-bellied Plover x Pluvialis squatarola Killdeer p x p p p x b p p p B p p p p Charadrius vociferus Black-necked Stilt p B B p b p Himantopus mexicanus American Avocet b x p p B Recurvirostra americana Spotted Sandpiper p x p b b p p Actitus macularia Greater Yellowlegs x x x x x Tringa melanoleuca

Appendix G. 2010 species list and breeding status Lassen Modoc Shasta Siskiyou

prig & Honker

Common and scientific Pfendler) special status species

name penny -A-N Living Trust Boggs, Rick Hal Kramer, Charles McArthur, John Lookout Ranch #2 Lookout Ranch Nardella Quail Valley Ranch Winje, Russ Estes, Carsin Hanna ( McArthur #2 A McArthur #2 B McArthur #2 C C Intercounty Title Co Klamath S S and H Trust Willet b p p B p b b b b P p p p b p Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Long-billed Curlew x p Numenius americanus Least Sandpiper x x Calidris minutilla Dunlin x x Calidris alpina Dowitcher spp. x x x Limnodromus spp. Wilson's Snipe p b b p B p p B p x Gallinago delicata Wilson's Phalarope b b p b p p B p Phalaropus tricolor Ring-billed Gull p Larus delawarensis Caspian Tern p Sterna caspia Black Tern x p B p Chlidonias niger Forster's Tern p p p Sterna forsteri Rock Pigeon p Columba livia Eurasian Collared-Dove p p x p p Streptopelia decaocto Mourning Dove b b p p p p Zenaida macroura Great Horned Owl p b p Bubo virginianus Common Nighthawk x p p p Chordeiles minor Vaux's Swift x Chaetura vauxi Rufous Hummingbird x x Selasphorus rufus Belted Kingfisher p x x Ceryle alcyon Red-breasted Sapsucker x Sphyrapicus ruber Nuttall's Woodpecker x p Picoides nuttallii Downy Woodpecker x x b p Picoides pubescens Hairy Woodpecker p Picoides villosus White-headed Woodpecker x p Picoides albolarvatus Northern Flicker p x p p p p p Colaptes auratus Olive-sided Flycatcher x x Contopus cooperi

Appendix G. 2010 species list and breeding status Lassen Modoc Shasta Siskiyou

prig & Honker

Common and scientific Pfendler) special status species

name penny -A-N Living Trust Boggs, Rick Hal Kramer, Charles McArthur, John Lookout Ranch #2 Lookout Ranch Nardella Quail Valley Ranch Winje, Russ Estes, Carsin Hanna ( McArthur #2 A McArthur #2 B McArthur #2 C C Intercounty Title Co Klamath S S and H Trust Western Wood-Pewee p b b p p p Contopus sordidulus Willow Flycatcher x x Empidonax traillii Gray Flycatcher b Empidonax wrightii Dusky Flycatcher x p Empidonax oberholseri Pacific-slope Flycatcher p Empidonax difficilis Black Phoebe x p p Sayornis nigricans Ash-throated Flycatcher p Myiarchus cinerascens Western Kingbird p x p p p p p x Tyrannus verticalis Loggerhead Shrike x p p p Lanius ludovicianus Steller's Jay p Cyanocitta stelleri Black-billed Magpie p b B B b p p Pica hudsonia American Crow p p p p p x p p Corvus brachyrhynchos Common Raven p p p p p x x Corvus corax Horned Lark p b p Eremophila alpestris Tree Swallow p p p B b p p p Tachycineta bicolor Violet-green Swallow p p x x x Tachycineta thalassina N. Rough-winged Swallow P p Stelgidopteryx serripennis Bank Swallow x x Riparia riparia Cliff Swallow p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Barn Swallow p x x B B x x p p p p p Hirundo rustica Mountain Chickadee b b Poecile gameli Red-breasted Nuthatch p Sitta canadensis White-breasted Nuthatch x Sitta carolinensis Pygmy Nuthatch x p Sitta pygmaea Brown Creeper x Certhia americana Bewick's Wren p p p Thryomanes bewickii

Appendix G. 2010 species list and breeding status Lassen Modoc Shasta Siskiyou

prig & Honker

Common and scientific Pfendler) special status species

name penny -A-N Living Trust Boggs, Rick Hal Kramer, Charles McArthur, John Lookout Ranch #2 Lookout Ranch Nardella Quail Valley Ranch Winje, Russ Estes, Carsin Hanna ( McArthur #2 A McArthur #2 B McArthur #2 C C Intercounty Title Co Klamath S S and H Trust House Wren b p p x Troglodytes aedon Marsh Wren x p B p p B p p x b p Cistothorus palustris Blue-gray Gnatcatcher x Polioptila caerulea Western Bluebird B B x Sialia mexicana Mountain Bluebird p Sialia currucoides American Robin x x p b p p p p p p p Turdus migratorius Sage Thrasher x p x Oreoscoptes montanus European Starling B B p p B B B B p x x x Sturnus vulgaris Cedar Waxwing p Bombycilla cedrorum Orange-crowned Warbler x x x x x x Vermivora celata Yellow Warbler x b p p p p B p x Dendroica petechia Yellow-rumped Warbler p x x x Dendroica coronata Townsend's Warbler p Dendroica townsendi MacGillivray's Warbler x x Oporornis tolmei Common Yellowthroat x p p x p p x p p p Geothlypis trichas Wilson's Warbler p p p p Wilsonia pusilla Spotted Towhee x b b x Pipilo maculatus Chipping Sparrow b B p Spizella passerina Brewer's Sparrow x b Spizella breweri Vesper Sparrow x p p b Pooecetes gramineus Lark Sparrow p Chondestes grammacus Savannah Sparrow p b B x p b b p b B B p p p p p Passerculus sandwichensis Song Sparrow p b b p b B B p b B p B p B Melospiza melodia Lincoln's Sparrow x x x x x Melospiza lincolnii White-crowned Sparrow x x x x x x x x x Zonotrichia leucophrys Golden-crowned Sparrow x Zonotrichia atricapilla

Appendix G. 2010 species list and breeding status Lassen Modoc Shasta Siskiyou

prig & Honker

Common and scientific Pfendler) special status species

name penny -A-N Living Trust Boggs, Rick Hal Kramer, Charles McArthur, John Lookout Ranch #2 Lookout Ranch Nardella Quail Valley Ranch Winje, Russ Estes, Carsin Hanna ( McArthur #2 A McArthur #2 B McArthur #2 C C Intercounty Title Co Klamath S S and H Trust Western Tanager p p x Piranga ludoviciana Black-headed Grosbeak x p Pheucticus melanocephalus Red-winged Blackbird p B b B p B p p B p p b b b p b B Agelaius phoeniceus Tricolored Blackbird x p Agelaius tricolor Western Meadowlark B b b B b p p b p b p p p b p p Sturnella neglecta Yellow-headed Blackbird x p B B B p p B p p Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Brewer's Blackbird B B p p p B b B B p B p B B B p B Euphagus cyanocephalus Brown-headed Cowbird p p b p p b b p p p p p p b p p p Molothrus ater Bullock's Oriole p p B b p b p Icterus bullockii Purple Finch p Carpodacus purpureus Cassin's Finch x p Carpodacus cassinii House Finch p p p Carpodacus mexicanus Red Crossbill x x Loxia curvirostra Lesser Goldfinch x B p p B x x x p Carduelis psaltria American Goldfinch x x x x x p p p p x x Carduelis tristis

Appendix H. Cross-wise comparison of Sørensen similarity indices between sites. The Sørensen index is a measure of beta diversity, ranging from a value of 0 where there is no species overlap between sites, to a value of 1 when exactly the same species are found at both sites.

Title Co. Co. Title

-A-N Living Trust Trust Living -A-N county county WRP name Klamath Sprig & Honker & Sprig Klamath #15 #14, Trust H S and Boggs, Rick Boggs, Halpenny Charles Kramer, John McArthur, #2 Ranch Lookout Ranch Lookout Nardella Ranch Valley Quail Russ Winje, Carsin Estes, (Pfendler) Hanna A #2 McArthur B #2 McArthur C #2 McArthur C Intercounty Boggs, Rick 1.00 Halpenny 0.62 1.00 Kramer, Charles 0.48 0.41 1.00 Lassen Lassen McArthur, John 0.59 0.59 0.49 1.00 Lookout Ranch #2 0.45 0.44 0.41 0.59 1.00 Lookout Ranch 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.54 0.63 1.00 Nardella, 0.49 0.49 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.52 1.00

Modoc Modoc Quail Valley Ranch 0.56 0.55 0.43 0.67 0.56 0.54 0.55 1.00 Winje, Russ 0.43 0.41 0.49 0.47 0.48 0.44 0.63 0.43 1.00 Estes, Carsin 0.46 0.59 0.40 0.61 0.57 0.67 0.54 0.54 0.42 1.00 Hanna (Pfendler) 0.48 0.45 0.53 0.58 0.54 0.61 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.56 1.00 McArthur #2 A 0.41 0.50 0.36 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.42 0.51 0.46 1.00

Shasta Shasta McArthur #2 B 0.46 0.61 0.37 0.61 0.55 0.56 0.45 0.57 0.37 0.76 0.49 0.58 1.00 McArthur #2 C 0.44 0.62 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.47 0.53 0.46 0.48 0.57 0.52 0.58 0.60 1.00 C-A-N Living Trust 0.51 0.54 0.46 0.62 0.50 0.43 0.58 0.48 0.47 0.53 0.52 0.45 0.51 0.55 1.00 Intercounty Title Co. 0.50 0.49 0.29 0.44 0.35 0.32 0.48 0.42 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.45 0.50 0.56 0.44 1.00 Klamath Sprig & Honker 0.43 0.51 0.34 0.49 0.46 0.53 0.43 0.55 0.29 0.60 0.52 0.59 0.74 0.48 0.47 0.44 1.00 Siskiyou Siskiyou S and H Trust #14, #15 0.38 0.52 0.33 0.38 0.29 0.32 0.44 0.45 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.41 0.36 0.41 0.52 0.42 0.41 1.00

Appendix I. 2010 PRBO study sites and survey areas within WRP easements in NE California.