* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PROCEEDINGS STREAKED HORNED LARK WORKSHOP 2007
Survey
Document related concepts
Wildlife corridor wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Source–sink dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Operation Wallacea wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife crossing wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
PROCEEDINGS STREAKED HORNED LARK WORKSHOP 2007 The Clark Center, Washington State University Vancouver 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue Vancouver, Washington 98686 Friday, September 28, 2007 “The Service, at least the ecological services folks from Portland and Washington were energized by the speakers and the interest in the room. We can't wait to get rolling on lark conservation.” Jodi Bush, USFWS Sponsored by Organizing partners TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introductory/Status Presentations Streaked Horned Lark: Then and Now Streaked Horned Lark Conservation Genetics Policy Related Presentations Endangered in Washington: the Process and Implications of State Listing Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan Streaked Horned Lark Conservation and Recovery Planning In Canada Streaked Horned Lark and the USFWS Habitat and Threat Presentations Breeding Habitat Selection and Threats Oregon Breeding and Winter Ecology and Distribution Streaked Horned Lark Demographic Analysis Population Monitoring and Reproductive Success Conservation Presentations Streaked Horned Lark Conservation in South Puget Sound Streaked Horned Lark at the mid-Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges If we Build it, Will They Come? Conservation Strategy: A Path to Recovery Breakout Session Discussion Questions Breakout Session Notes Agriculture Airports and Roadsides Coastal Beaches Lower Columbia River and Islands Native Prairie – Oregon Native Prairie – Washington Supplemental Information STHL Range Map STHL Literature List Workshop Attendee Contact Information 3-5 6-10 6-8 9-10 11-19 11-12 13-14 15-17 18-19 20-35 20-26 27-31 31-33 34-35 35-50 35-39 40-41 42-43 44-50 51 52-58 52 53 54 55 56 57 58-62 58 59-60 61-62 2 Executive Summary The Streaked Horned Lark workshop, held at WSU Vancouver, Sept 28th, 2007 was a success at transmitting information on a variety of topics to a range of key folks working throughout the historic range of the species. The breakout sessions helped generate discussion about the species, define obstacles as well as concrete conservation actions for the disparate sites/areas where the lark occurs. Below is a brief summary of each presentation session, breakout groups, and workshop outcomes. The pages following provide abstracts, speaker biographies, and the power point presentations themselves. Status The workshop opened with introductory presentations of the Lark, focusing on the general historic and current status of the bird, followed by information about its genetics. Historically, in the core breeding areas of the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound, the Lark was considered an abundant and common breeder even up until the 1950s. Since that time, the range has contracted considerably, with the bird becoming extirpated from the northern and southern extents of its range. Historic habitats included native prairie in the South Sound and Willamette Valley as well as beach and fore dune accretion flats along the Washington coast and Columbia River. Current occupied sites include remnant prairie sites, airports, Washington coast, dredge material islands on the Columbia, fallow fields, agricultural fields of many types, and agricultural roadsides. Threats to the Lark have also changed considerably through time, moving from primarily “natural” balanced levels of predation to a variety of human-induced threats. Genetics work has shown that the Streaked Horned Lark has remarkably low genetic diversity that is consistent with a bottleneck hypothesis. Any recovery strategy written for the Streaked Horned Lark should address this important issue. Policy The 2nd workshop session focused on policy-related presentations including a summary of State, Provincial, and Federal policies. The Streaked Horned Lark is a US Federal Candidate for listing under the ESA. It is listed as Endangered in Canada under SARA, Red Listed in British Columbia, State-Endangered in Washington, and an Oregon Species of Concern. Representatives from State and Federal agencies gave brief overviews of their listing processes and protection offered from those policies. The Lark is also an included species of the Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan currently in production in Oregon. Habitat and Threats This session focused on habitat and threats, first looking at breeding populations in the northern portion of the current range. In the Puget Lowlands, WA Coast, and lower Columbia islands, research has shown that the Lark is selecting very large (>300 acres), tree- and shrub-less landscapes dominated by grasses and forbs. Within those landscapes the Lark selects sparsely-vegetated areas with a high percent cover of bare ground. Through experimentation it has been shown that Larks respond positively to areas that have been burned. A summary of threats to the disparate site types including Airports, Prairies, Coast, and Columbia River Islands was presented. Several threats are pervasive across site types including habitat loss, change in ecological processes, invasive vegetation, and human activities. The threat of dredge material deposition on the islands of the Columbia River may present a potential win-win situation, as within a few years the dredge material can become suitable Lark habitat. The major threat is presented when dredge material is deposited directly on, or adjacent to Lark territories and nest sites. In the Willamette Valley, wintering and breeding Larks are closely associated with agricultural habitats, as well as airports. Threats at airports are similar as in the north. Threats to agricultural sites include changes in agricultural management practices and land-use patterns. Because there is very little historic information about the wintering ecology of Streaked Horned Larks, including where they 3 spend their winter, non-breeding ecology has recently been a topic of research and a hurdle for restoration efforts. Other research needs in the Willamette include sound population and distribution estimates as well as habitat-specific reproductive successes and associated variables. Demographics A demographic analysis comparing Streaked Horned Larks (E. a. strigata) to its northern relative (E. a. articola), showed that Washington Streaked Horned Lark populations are declining and that juvenile and adult survival are important factors driving population growth. Further, annual fecundity is lower in Washington than in B.C. and may be due to smaller clutch size, reduced hatching success, lower nest survival, and longer re-nesting intervals. Streaked Horned Lark reproductive success in Washington has been quantified as 21-33% of eggs hatching and fledging from the nest. Predation was the primary source of nest failure. Documented predators include American crow, garter snake, northern harrier, killdeer, and western meadowlark. Managing habitat structure to preclude predators may be an important strategy for conservation. Research has shown that adult Larks exhibit very high site fidelity, returning to the same breeding grounds each year. Data from banded birds has yielded information that 1st year birds may disperse to new sites. Conservation The last presentation session focused on conservation work occurring throughout the range of the subspecies. In South Puget Sound the Streaked Horned Lark is included in several large-scale conservation efforts including the Army Compatible Use Buffer Program and a multi-partner Candidate Conservation Agreement. Larks in Wildlife Refuges in the Willamette Valley have been survey targets for the last 2 years. Refuge management may provide a model for Lark restoration in an agricultural landscape. In north Portland, an interesting multi-partner project is occurring on the prized heavy industrial landscape. Development is scheduled to occur where the Larks breed. Partners are moving sand onto the nearby St. John’s Landfill to mimic existing habitat and hopefully attract the birds to a more secure location. Finally, a comprehensive look at conservation and recovery across the range of the sub-species is presented in the form of a flow chart. The chart is designed to guide research and on-the-ground work by breaking down overall conservation objectives within and among each geographic region where the Lark occurs. It provides an up-to-date snapshot of where we are on the recovery path, and what key actions need to occur still. Discussion Sessions Following the presentations, a series of discussion sessions ensued. Workshop participants broke into 6 groups, each aimed at a certain habitat site type: airports & roadsides, agriculture, coastal beaches, Columbia River islands, native prairie-Oregon, and native prairie-Washington. A series of discussion questions were presented to provide participants with a guiding hand, although the groups were by no means held to the questions only. Discussions varied over a wide range of topics including threats, opportunities, listing, education, alternative sites, restoration, multi-species management, and translocation. See pages (51-57) for the list of discussion questions as well as detailed notes from the group moderators about their sessions. The agricultural group focused on key actions including filling in knowledge gaps, development of best management practices for agricultural lands, incorporating Lark management into agricultural production goals, prairie restoration, and multiple species conservation efforts, outreach to private landowners, and work with NRCS for better use of incentives. The airport session identified that airports are 1 of 2 critical habitats for existing Lark populations. The group identified several major threats including airport development, direct bird/aircraft impacts, and bird control efforts. They also identified opportunities for multi-use management such as the 4 adjustment of mowing regime and timing as well as managing the airport to be unattractive to problem species such as geese. The coastal beach group had several primary research questions such as: what are coastal predators, is the food source limited, why are eggs not hatching? However, even in the absence of answers, there are real opportunities for multi-species conservation synergy. The snowy plover and Streaked Horned Lark occupy similar habitats and their distributions often overlap. The group identified the Willapa Nat’l Wildlife Refuge and Ledbetter Point state park as a “best hope” for populations in WA. The group for the lower Columbia River Islands identified the development of best management practices and maintenance of dredge material islands/sites as a priority. They also suggested the exploration of other potential sites, such as the dredge material sites at the mouth of the Toutle and Cowlitz rivers. Because Larks are more abundant in Oregon than in Washington, the native prairie-Oregon group felt that the need to further understand the ecology was of primary importance. They discussed the need to learn more about site selection, reproductive success, what is driving distribution in the Valley. For restoration efforts they identified the need to learn the effects of management strategies and to take a broad-scale, long-term view. The Valley refuges could serve as core area of restoration work because the Larks are already present. Finally, the native prairie Washington group focused their discussion around habitat management. They suggested the restoration of fringe sites surrounding occupied sites, as well as targeting heavily degraded sites for Lark management. The use of fire and grazing was suggested as habitat restoration strategies. They also brought up the issues of translocation and recruitment as it is not understood how to entice Larks to use habitat once it is restored/created. Outcomes The workshop was has jump-started combined efforts to recover this rare species. Biologists, researchers, land managers, and funding/regulatory agency representatives were updated on the status of the species and have identified what actions they can implement. The workshop helped define a common direction for recovery within and among regions. Several key actions that resulted from discussions in the workshop were to increase and enhance work at airports, including the inclusion of the FAA, identify habitat requirements in relation to Lark distribution in the Willamette Valley, and examine highly degraded sites in WA and OR as potentials for restoration. In addition to discussions and informative presentations, the workshop generated interest in the formation of a Streaked Horned Lark working group that will follow up with practitioners across the range and track the status of the species as well as associated research and conservation. The US Fish and Wildlife Service announced they are creating an Action Plan that will outline the next several priority actions that should be undertaken to conserve and recover the species. The Service will use this action plan as a tool to help them decide where to direct their available funds and resources. The first impromptu meeting of the working group was held in the weeks following the workshop to answer this call to action, and the draft Action Plan has been generated. The Plan is a fluid document that will be updated regularly as new information is secured. Additional meetings of the working group are to come, and it is hoped that people from all reaches of the Lark’s historic range will be represented to work together on Lark conservation. 5 Introductory/Status Presentations Streaked Horned Lark: Then and Now Presented by: Bob Altman American Bird Conservancy This introductory talk briefly outlines what we know and don’t know about the historic and current status and ecology of Streaked Horned Lark as a framework for the talks that will follow. The historic versus current condition in terms of the species distribution, abundance, population size, habitat, and threats are compared. Bob Altman works for the American Bird Conservancy as the Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region Coordinator. He also is a Science Coordinator for the Pacific Coast Joint Venture. In these roles, he works with all the bird initiatives and numerous other partners from northern California to western Alaska to advance bird and habitat conservation through a variety of activities. Bob has been active in the Partners in Flight Initiative for land bird conservation for 15 years, and initiated recent interest in the status of Streaked Horned Lark with work in the mid 1990s in the Willamette Valley. 6 7 8 Streaked Horned Lark Conservation Genetics Presented by: Scott Pearson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife This talk focuses on genetic distinctiveness and evidence of low genetic diversity. Scott Pearson received his Ph.D. in Wildlife Science from the University of Washington, B.S. and M.S. from the University of Michigan. His current positions include; Western Washington Wildlife Research Team Leader for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Affiliate Assistant Professor at the University of Washington, Museum Research Associate at The Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture in Seattle. His current research focuses on habitat use, habitat selection and diet in rare bird species. Scott also oversees Washington's at-sea marbled murrelet monitoring, coordinates and conducts Washington's snowy plover monitoring and research examining the role of diet in limiting marine bird populations in the Puget Sound, and is assessing the status of the tufted puffin in Washington. His lark research has been ongoing for the past six years and included examination of a number of questions associated with the Streaked Horned Lark including studies of genetic diversity and distinctiveness, habitat selection, response of larks to fire, factors influencing reproductive success, and other factors contributing to lark rarity. 9 Policy Related Presentations 10 Endangered in Washington: The Process and Implications of State Listing Presented by: Derek Stinson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Derek Stinson is a Wildlife Biologist in the T & E Section of WDFW's Wildlife Program. He writes status reports and recovery plans for wildlife species, and works on other aspects of listing and recovery planning. He wrote the status report for the Streaked Horned Lark. 11 Benton County Habitat Conservation Plan Presented by: Carolyn Menke Institute for Applied Ecology The presentation provides a brief introduction to what a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is, and then discusses the goals of the Benton County HCP, the status of the project, and how the Streaked Horned Lark fits in to conservation in Benton County. 12 Carolyn Menke is the Habitat Conservation Plan Coordinator & Plant Ecologist for the Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE), Corvallis, OR. IAE is a non-profit organization whose mission is to conserve native ecosystems through restoration, research and education. 13 14 Streaked Horned Lark Conservation and Recovery Planning in Canada Presented by: Kevin Fort Canadian Wildlife Service This presentation gives a brief overview of the current conservation status of the Streaked Horned Lark in Canada. It also describes the listing and recovery planning process under the federal Species at Risk Act, both in general terms but also as it pertains to our specific approach to the Streaked Horned Lark. Kevin’s educational background is not typical of the ‘average’ conservation biologist. He started with a Bachelor’s in English and Philosophy at York University in Toronto, Ontario, then completed a Master’s in Philosophy at University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC. After spending a summer as a research assistant for a songbird community project on Vancouver Island, he returned to UBC to do undergraduate courses in ecology until he was accepted into the graduate program at University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George BC, where he studied the impacts of habitat disturbance on the reproductive success and behavior of black-capped chickadees. Kevin has been working as a program biologist for the Canadian Wildlife Service since 2003, primarily in the Species at Risk section. 15 16 17 Streaked Horned Lark and the Service: What we did, What we are doing, and Why we are doing it Presented by: Jodi Bush US Fish and Wildlife Service Jodi Bush is the Manager of the Division of Listing and Recovery for the USFWS Western WA, Fish and Wildlife Office. 18 19 Habitat and Threats Breeding Habitat Selection and Threats Presented by: Scott Pearson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife This presentation discusses which habitats and specific habitat features are selected at the territory and nest site scale in the Puget lowlands, Washington coast and lower Columbia River. It also outlines observed threats at these same sites. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Streaked Horned Larks in Oregon: Breeding and Wintering Ecology and Distribution Presented by: Randy Moore Oregon State University This presentation discusses results of three seasons of the study to determine winter range and winter habitat as well as what is known of breeding season distribution, abundance and reproductive ecology in Oregon. After studying birds all across the U.S. and in several other countries, Randy Moore recently settled down and received his Ph.D. in avian conservation biology from OSU's Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife. He's been studying Streaked Horned Lark ecology and conservation for 3 years after a grad school project on their winter distribution piqued his interest. 27 28 29 30 31 Streaked Horned Lark Demographic Analysis Presented by: Alaine Camfield University of British Columbia We examined a suite of demographic variables for two subspecies of horned larks in Washington State (Eremophila alpestris strigata) and British Columbia (E. a. articola) and estimated population growth rates for both subspecies. We then evaluated which demographic variables contributed the most to changes in population growth (juvenile survival, adult survival or annual fecundity). Annual fecundity is lower in Washington than in British Columbia and may be due to smaller clutch size, reduced hatching success, lower nest survival and longer re-nesting intervals. We found that horned larks in Washington are declining while those in British Columbia are increasing and that juvenile and adult survival are important factors driving population growth in Streaked Horned Larks. In the interim between the workshop and the distribution of these proceedings, results from this study have changed slightly, although the overall message remains the same. For updated information, contact Alaine Camfield. Alaine Camfield is a PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. 32 33 Population Monitoring and Reproductive Success Presented by: Scott Pearson Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife This talk examines patterns of reproductive success spatially and over time. It also provides some information on population trends and discusses site fidelity. 34 35 Conservation Streaked Horned Lark Conservation in the South Puget Sound Presented by: Hannah Anderson The Nature Conservancy This presentation gives a brief description of programs and projects that incorporate conservation work for the streaked horned lark in the South Puget Sound including: The Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program, the multi-partner and multi-species Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA), and the status of a habitat enhancement experiment on Fort Lewis. Hannah Anderson is the Rare Species Project Manager with The Nature Conservancy of Washington, South Puget Sound Program. She holds a Master’s degree in Environmental Studies. Her thesis work focused on the Streaked Horned Lark, examining the effects of internal edge and Scotch broom on nest predation. Hannah’s work with The Nature Conservancy is aimed at promoting the regional recovery of federal candidate species occurring on the grasslands of the Willamette Valley / Puget Trough / Georgia Basin eco-region. Her project promotes this agenda by working beyond political and geographic barriers and with all organizations and individuals who can assist in the recovery process. This regional cooperative approach provides the best chance for proactive, successful conservation, restoration, and recovery of target species and habitats. 36 37 38 39 Looking Beyond the Geese: Streaked Horned Lark Conservation at the mid-Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuges Presented by: Randy Moore Oregon State University This talk discusses the abundance on the three big goose refuges in the mid-valley and their potential for contributing to Streaked Horned Lark recovery. 40 41 If we build it, will they come? Presented by: Elaine Stewart Metro Parks and Greenspaces, Portland OR Horned larks nest on sandy dredge spoils in the Rivergate Industrial District of North Portland. This habitat is prized heavy industrial land and is rapidly being developed. Metro and the Port of Portland are moving sand onto the nearby St. Johns Landfill to mimic the larks' existing habitat and attract them to a more secure location. Elaine Stewart is a Natural Resources Scientist with Metro Parks and Greenspaces. After receiving her M.S. from the University of Missouri, Elaine worked for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for about 15 years before her move to Metro 10 years ago. As part of Metro's Science and Stewardship team, Elaine manages wildlife habitat on a variety of public lands in the Portland metropolitan area. 42 43 Conservation Strategy: A Path to Recovery Presented by: Hannah Anderson The Nature Conservancy To conserve and recover rare species is both complex and difficult. The Streaked Horned Lark is no exception. Due to time limitations at the workshop this talk was not presented. However, the following is the content of the presentation, displaying a conservation action chart that outlines a recovery strategy. The chart is designed to guide research and on-the-ground work by breaking down overall conservation objectives within and among each geographic region where the lark occurs. It provides an up-to-date snapshot of where we are on the recovery path, and what key actions need to occur still. 44 45 46 47 48 A 49 50 STREAKED HORNED LARK WORKSHOP 2007 Breakout Session Discussion Questions 1) What are the concrete, feasible actions that could occur in your area of interest to benefit the streaked horned lark, and what are the challenges to implementing those actions? 2) What are the land uses/threats that conflict with streaked horned lark conservation in your area of interest? 3) Are there spatial and/or temporal shifts in land use that could be beneficial to the larks without being detrimental to the primary land use? What steps need to be undertaken to ensure that shift could occur? 4) Are there other species of concern that may inhibit and/or enhance conservation efforts for streaked horned larks in your area of interest? 5) What funding or other resources could potentially be directed toward streaked horned lark conservation in your area of interest? 6) Who are the potential partners to enact conservation actions for streaked horned larks in your area of interest? 7) Is there a particular site in your area of interest that has the potential to be moved towards a conservation emphasis for streaked horned lark? 8) Would federal listing of streaked horned larks as endangered or threatened contribute/be detrimental to their recovery in your area of interest and why? 9) Are there education/outreach products that should be produced to support streaked horned lark conservation in your area of interest? 51 NOTES FROM BREAKOUT SESSIONS Agriculture Moderator: Peg Boulay, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife This break-out session focused on key actions. 1) Fill in gaps in knowledge What people need to manage? impacts – positive/negative basic biological needs management prescriptions non-habitat contributions to population declines sink vs. source dynamics landscape needs population estimate and systematic surveys 2) Develop best management practices for a. Agriculture – crop types, row spacing, “weedy” farming, seed mixes by seed size b. Vegetation management – fire, flooding, grazing, mowing, tilling, etc. c. Native prairies 3) How do you incorporate STHL conservation into land management objectives? e.g., agriculture production goals, prairie restoration, or multiple species conservation 4) Outreach to land owners: to public land owners, to public 5) Work with NRCS better use of existing incentives Recognition that farming community is key to this species’ conservation. Building partnerships around fire and grass management. 6) Identify and address constraints to management e.g., barriers to using prescribed fire; regulatory concerns by private landowners 7. Blocking actions for landscape approach Building partnerships across boundaries Prioritizing landscapes and populations Determine if a site has the right landscape characteristics (e.g., is it worth protecting in my area?). Some Conclusions and Other Thoughts: 1. Need to determine what is currently underway (e.g., some data gaps are being addressed) to prioritize actions. 2. Share information through working group, venues like this. 3. Need multiple-partner action plan. 4. Listing under the ESA would be counter-productive, even harmful, to conserving a species this dependent on very early successional habitat on private land. 52 Airports and Roadsides Moderator: Tara Chestnut, Washington State Dept. of Transportation 1) Threats Building/development – expanding infrastructure of airports and other existing sites – speed of development is it happening so fast that it is too late? Vegetation management – pesticides and mowing Bird strikes Operations and management – runway repairs 2) Opportunities Disturbance focused management regimes to maintain habitat Selling larks as a non-problematic bird species Mowing – shifting/timing What motivates the interest for airport managers to want to be pro-active about management? State wildlife action plan But seriously, eco roofs? 3) Management Airports being managed for airports – this land use is what is attractive to larks Making habitat unattractive to “problem” species e.g. geese, raptors Airports on historic prairies but they appear to persist because of management prescription Bird control on airfields - does the use of falcons/dogs make larks more vulnerable to bird strikes by flushing them? Work towards making airports less critical for species survival Longterm regional planning 4) Issues Bird strikes – costs (harm to people, damage to property) Internal policies –shifting attitudes Currently no strong political will for conservation Airports are 1 of 2 critical habitats identified for existing STHL populations Runway maintenance can only occur during summer months/bad timing for STHL 53 Coastal Beaches Moderator: Lisa Lantz, Washington State Parks 1) Needs If we had money –what would our priorities be? What info would we need? Would like to have the following before prioritizing: Why don’t eggs hatch? Role of predation in coastal habitats? What food to they eat? Is food a limiting factor? Is habitat a limiting factor? 2) Questions Ideally, would answer basic biology questions before investing big $ in restoration, but need to start now before information. At coast, can work on restoration to benefit other species (e.g. snowy plover), then measure benefits to larks. Real opportunity for multi-species synergy. Historically speaking – what was the habitat? Consider a gap analysis? Coastal species – e.g. processes erosion of sand on beaches Reasonably manage? Not really - scale too big? Best hope in WA – Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and Leadbetter Point State Park. However, since population is so low, need to look at a coast-wide plan to minimize risk of catastrophic losses. Number of staff needed to monitor and enforce and educate? Listing –potential benefit = additional money available. 54 Lower Columbia River and Islands Moderator: Mike Green, US Fish & Wildlife Service 1) Conservation Actions Develop Best Management Practices for development and maintenance of dredge material islands/sites o Management of existing disposal sites (islands & non-islands) o Recommendations for developing new sites (e.g. dredge materials at Rivergate) o Vegetation management on mature sites o Optimum timing of actions, when possible, to maximize STHOLA reproductive success Establish long-term acreage goals for islands (by island?), e.g. X ac/year in Y condition. Institutionalize BMPs within mgmt of island/site owners 2) Explore potential of other sites Non-island dredge material sites on Toutle and Cowlitz rivers --Ownership? The soon to close Centralia coalmine -- Ownership? Are there other sites like Rivergate along Columbia? Survey Ridgefield site and nearby lowland agriculture sites o Can we increase suitability for STHL? o Explore potential for hosting breeding STHOLA 3) Partners: ACOE, FWS, WDFW, WDNR, Port of PDX, OR Div SL, ODFW, TNC, Land trusts, etc 4) Potential conflicts/threats with STHOLA mgmt on/near Columbia River Columbia white tail deer Nesting waterfowl Caspian terns – like similar habitat, but ACOE hazes currently Hazing of CATE by ACOE? 5) Research tasks and questions Breeding & wintering birds o Where are they? o Where are there other potential sites? What is the timing of vegetation succession on dredge material islands? Establish population and habitat goals? Location and habitat characteristics of wintering sites? Institutionalize monitoring during spring and winter. 55 Native Prairies – Oregon Moderator: Jonathan Soll, The Nature Conservancy 1) Needs More information about lark biology & ecology, site selection and success What is driving distribution in places? Willamette Valley has more larks than WA so not as desperate to institute actions Learn effects of management strategies Refuges serve as core area of the work because birds there already Restoration trials – use short species Recognizing that prairie restoration may resolve over time – not instantly, longterm review, situations, fences, etc something look good but that will ruin it (scale and context dependent) 2) Threats Growth and development A lack of large tracks of prairie, there is no shortage of large tracts of grass fields Conflict with other rare species exist, but can be managed by working carefully and keeping scale in mind Scale dependent – lupine and burned area: A large area could be burned and smaller lupine areas protected All grassland bird species Opportunity to work with farm bureau and NRCS Working with prison lab – managed as experimental area Listing bad idea because importance of private lands – loss of cooperation because of fear Don’t know enough about the lark to do broad education with the public but targeted education efforts to airports, farms etc… is necessary 56 Native Prairies – Washington Moderator: Mason McKinley, The Nature Conservancy 1)Threats Invasive vegetation, predators, low populations, human activities, competing land values, other species, not enough space 2) Questions Diet How to translocate/recruitment? How do you get them to use it even if you create it? Survey for other possible Washington populations – do we really know where all the larks are? Identify former/remnant sites Fine-tune our understanding of habitat requirements 3) Actions Restore unoccupied, degraded and “fringe” sites (ag, landfills adjacent sites to existing population) Develop/implement site enhancement stategies - don’t need a high quality prairie Effective methods to affordably develop “poor quality” sites into lark habitat – survey to find appropriate sites Opportunities to layer rare species management Opportunities to use grazing as a habitat management tool (geese) Educate public about the lark and about the importance of fire as a habitat management tool. 4) Ideas for potential suitable habitat (not enough available habitat to support all we want to do): San Juan islands ports landfills degraded sites 57 STREAKED HORNED LARK RANGE MAP figure from 2005. Drovetski et al. 58 STREAKED HORNED LARK LITERATURE Altman, B. 1997. Distribution, abundance, and habitat associations of declining and state sensitive bird species breeding in the Willamette Valley Grasslands. Prepared by Avifauna Northwest for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Altman, B. 1999. Status and conservation of state sensitive grassland bird species in the Willamette Valley. Prepared by Avifauna Northwest for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Altman, B. 2003. Horned lark. Pp. 425-428 in D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter and A.L. Contreras (eds.). Birds of Oregon: a General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 768 pp. Anderson, H.E. 2005. Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) nest predation on lowland Puget prairie remnants, Washington State – the effects of internal edges and Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparious). Masters thesis. The Evergreen State College. Olympia, WA. Beauchesne, S. & J. Cooper. 2003. COSEWIC status report on the Horned Lark Strigata Subspecies Eremophila alpestris strigata. Status report prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Bowles, J.H. 1898. Notes on the streaked horned lark. Osprey 3:53-54. Drovetski, S.V., S.F. Pearson, and S. Rohwer. 2005. Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) has distinct mitochondrial DNA. Conservation Genetics 6: 875-883. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened, Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions, and Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. October 30, 2001. Retrieved from the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov], Volume 66, Number 210, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR, Part 17, p. 54808. Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Horned Lark strigata subspecies (Eremophila alpestris strigata) with consideration for the Vesper Sparrow affinis subspecies (Pooecetes gramineus affinis) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. Vii + 30pp. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. Pearson, S.F. 2003. Breeding Phenology, nesting success, habitat selection, and census methods for the streaked horned lark in the Puget lowlands of Washington. Natural Areas Program Report 2003-2. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. Pearson, S.F., and B. Altman. 2005. Range-wide Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) assessment and preliminary conservation strategy. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Pearson, S.F., and M. Hopey. 2004. Streaked Horned Lark inventory, nesting success and habitat selection in the Puget lowlands of Washington. Natural Areas Program Report 2004-1. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. Pearson, S.F., and M. Hopey. 2005. Streaked Horned Lark nest success, habitat selection, and habitat enhancement experiments for the Puget lowlands, coastal Washington and Columbia River Islands. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-1. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. Pearson, S.F., H. Anderson, and M. Hopey. 2005a. Streaked horned lark monitoring, habitat manipulations and conspecific attraction experiment. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Pearson, S.F., M. Hopey, W. D. Robinson, R. Moore. 2005b. Range, abundance and movement patterns of wintering Streaked Horned Larks in Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Program Report 2005-2. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 59 Robinson, W.D. & R.P. Moore. 2004. Range, abundance, and habitat associations of streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) during winter. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Oak Creek Lab of Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 5 pp. Rogers, R.E. 2000. The status and microhabitat selection of streaked horned lark, western bluebird, Oregon vesper sparrow, and western meadowlark in western Washington. Masters Thesis, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. Stinson, D. W. 2005. Draft Washington State Status Report for the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Streaked Horned Lark, and Taylor’s Checkerspot. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.138+ xii pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Washington’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Final Draft. -- for copies of these documents, visit www.southsoundprairies.org/documents.htm or contact Hannah Anderson at [email protected] -- 60 Workshop Participant Contact Information NAME ORGANIZATION EMAIL PHONE Altman, Bob American Bird Conservancy - Corvallis, OR [email protected] 541-745-5339 Alverson, Ed The Nature Conservancy - Eugene, OR [email protected] 541-343-1010 Anderson, David Anderson, Hannah WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Trout Lake, WA [email protected] 509-395-2232 The Nature Conservancy - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-701-8803 Barnes, Susan OR Department of Fish & Wildlife - Clackamas, OR [email protected] 971-673-6010 Beall, Jock USFWS, Willamette Valley NWRC - Corvallis, OR [email protected] 541-757-7236 Boulay, Peg OR Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Salem, OR [email protected] 503-947-6316 Brennan, Kirsten Willapa National Wildlife Refuge - Ilwaco, WA [email protected] 360-484-3482 Bresson, Barb USDA Forest Service/USDI BLM - Sandy, OR [email protected] 503-668-1414 Brown, Cat US Fish & Wildlife Service - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-231-6179 Burke, Kelli WA State Parks - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-956-4804 Bush, Jodi US Fish & Wildlife Service - Lacey, WA [email protected] 360.753.6046 Camfield, Alaine University of British Columbia - Vancouver, BC [email protected] 604-822-9368 Chaney, Marty USDA - NRCS - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-704-7751 Chapman, Cliff The Nature Conservancy - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-280-4610 Chestnut, Tara WSDOT - Olympic Region - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-570-6739 Danver, Sue Black Hills Audubon Society/Friends of Prairies [email protected] 360-705-9247 Davis, Chris National Park Service – San Juan Island NHP [email protected] 360-378-2240 Dorsey, Geoff US Army Corps of Engineers - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-808-4769 Dunn, Pat The Nature Conservancy - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-956-9713 Elliott, Valerie McChord Air Force Base, WA [email protected] 253-982-6216 Engler, Joseph US Fish & Wildlife Service - Ridgefield, WA [email protected] 360-887-3883 ext 12 Flores, Bob USFWS, Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, Ridgefield, WA [email protected] 360-887-4106 Flotlin, Kim US Fish & Wildlife Service - Lacey, WA [email protected] 360-753-5838 Fort, Kevin Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC [email protected] 604-940-4678 Foster, Jeff Fort Lewis, WA [email protected] 253-966-6446 Fursman, Victoria WSDOT - Headquarters - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-705-6963 Gahr, John USFWS, Willamette Valley NWRC - Corvallis, OR Gilbert, Rod Fort Lewis Fish & Wildlife, Ft. Lewis, WA [email protected] 253-966-6472 Gilgert, Wendell USDA-NRCS-West Nat'l Technical Support Cntr, Portland, OR [email protected] 503-273-2426 Green, Mike US Fish & Wildlife Service - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-872-2707 Helzer, Dave Port of Portland, Portland, OR [email protected] 503-460-4879 Houk, Jim USFWS, Willamette Valley NWRC - Corvallis, OR Jancaitis, Jean The Nature Conservancy - Eugene, OR [email protected] 541-343-1010 Kreager, Ann OR Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Corvallis, OR [email protected] 541-757-4186 ext. 255 Lantz, Lisa WA State Parks - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-956-4803 Linders, Mary WDFW - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-902-8135 Lynch, Jim Fort Lewis Fish and Wildlife, Ft. Lewis, WA [email protected] 253-966-6440 McAllister, Kelly WSDOT -Headquarters - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-705-7426 McKinley, Mason The Nature Conservancy - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-584-2538 Menke, Carolyn Institute for Applied Ecology - Corvallis, OR [email protected] 541-753-3099 Miller, Patrick WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Longview, WA [email protected] 360-577-0672 Mitchell, Therese Portland Metro, Portland, OR [email protected] 503-572-9374 Monroe, Molly USFWS, Willamette Valley NWRC, Corvallis, OR Moore, Randy Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR [email protected] 541-760-5542 Morgan, Jim Metro Regional Parks and Greenspaces - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-797-1727 Nuckols, Jason The Nature Conservancy - Eugene, OR [email protected] 541-343-1010 Pearson, Scott Pendergrass, Kathy WDFW - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-902-2524 USDA,NRCS - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-414-3266 61 NAME ORGANIZATION EMAIL PHONE Pope, Michael OR Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Salem, OR [email protected] 503-947-6086 Popper, Ken The Nature Conservancy - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-802-8100 Purdom,Hans WSDOT - Olympic Region - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-570-6737 Schirato, Greg WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife - Shelton, WA [email protected] 360-490-0781 Schultz, Cheryl WSU Vancouver, Vancouver, WA [email protected] 360-546-9525 Smith, Ted WA State Parks - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-902-8639 Soll, Jonathan The Nature Conservancy - Portland , OR [email protected] 503-802-8100 Stewart, Elaine Metro Parks and Greenspaces - Portland, OR [email protected] 503-797-1515 Stinson, Derek WDFW - Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-902-2475 Tirhi, Michelle WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Olympia, WA [email protected] 253-813-8906 Vandenberg, Paul Portland Metro, Portland, OR [email protected] 503-797-1695 Vasquez, Matt WSDOT - Headquarters, Olympia, WA [email protected] 360-705-7449 Walker, Mike WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - Olympia, WA [email protected] 253-230-9687 62