Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia riparia) Conservation,Population and Habitat Trends Middle Sacramento River

Joe SilveiraUS Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Adam HendersonCalifornia Department of Water Resource Northern District

Gregg GoletThe Nature Conservancy Sacramento River Project, Chico

Nat SeavyPRBO Conservation Science SF Bay Research Center, Petaluma

Presentation Outline

Bank Swallow, Breeding Colonies & the Sacramento River

Population & Habitat Trends Middle Sacramento River

Bank Swallow Habitat, Restoration and Management

California Department of Fish & Game / Sacramento River NWR Conservation Plans

Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee Bank Swallow Conservation Strategy Middle Sacramento River

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia riparia)Smallest (& cutest) Swallow

Migratory Neotropical

Colonial Nesting

CA Threatened Species

RHJV Focal Species

TNC Ecological Flows Study Terrestrial Indicator Species

______________

Reach 1 Reach 2Reach 4Redding to Red BluffRed Bluff to Chico LandingChico Landing to ColusaColusa to VeronaOver 70 % of the California BANS Population Breeds on the Sacramento River& its largest tributary, the Feather River __________________________Reach 3

Nesting burrows made in eroding banks

Burrow Dimensions: 2 in. H x 3 in. W x 2 to 6 ft. deep

Sacramento River

Reach 2 & 3

Sinuosity;over-bank flooding,erosion & deposition;lateral channel migration,floodplain re-working;on-channel meander loops, off-channel oxbow lakes, floodplain sloughs

Patterns of Riparian & Floodplain VegetationValley Oak ForestCottonwood ForestWillow Scrub

THE BANK SWALLOW ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER

CDFG Bank Swallow Research Program, 1986 2007 Ronald W. Schlorff & Barrett A. GarrisonSurvey, Habitat Assessment & MonitoringSurvey: Sacramento River (1986); Statewide (1987)Burrow counts, Reproductive Studies, Habitat Assessment, Banding, Colony ResearchMonitoring: Sacramento River, 1988 2007Burrow Counts, Habitat Assessment

Barry Garrison

Riparia riparia ripariaLouis Agassiz Fuertes Allan Brooks

Bank Swallow Population Trend 1986 1998Listed as ThreatenedRecovery Plan &PVA1986Nesting PairsYear199819891992

Bank Armoring (Rip-rap) Identified as a Major Cause of Habitat Loss

1,093, 1,094, 1,095, 1,096.Annual BANS Colony Population Survey Sacramento River & Tribs1, 2, 3, 4, .Bank Swallow ColonySurvey Crew

Annual Bank Swallow Survey:Sacramento RiverRed Bluff (RM 243) to Colusa (RM 143)

Annual Bank Swallow Survey:Sacramento River, Red Bluff (RM 243) to Colusa (RM 143)

YEARTotal BurrowsPercent Change from Previous YearThree-Year Mean of Total BurrowsPercent Change from Previous three-Year Mean201111,7109.812,877-13.3201010,662-34.414,860-13.5200916,259-7.917,1864.6200817,6600.116,4301.3200717,64026.116,223-1.3200513,990-17.916,430-4.2200417,040-6.717,153-4.0200318,26013.017,8630.2200216,160-15.717,820-0.8200119,1705.717,963200018,1309.3199916,590

Trend for fewer, larger colonies2007 8 Colonies contained 49% of the BANS Population 19862008

Dawn GarciaDr. Coleen Hatfield

QA/QC & Analysis of 10 Years of BANS Population Data relative to Over Bank Vegetation, Erosion, Sinuosity & FlowsCSu CHICO

Chart1

199916590

200018130

1796319170

1782016160

1786318260

1715317040

1643013990

1622317640

1643017660

1718616259

1486010662

3-Yr Avg.

Annual Avg.

Total Number of Burrows

Sheet1

Year3-Yr Avg.Annual Avg.

199916,590

200018,130

200117,96319,170

200217,82016,160

200317,86318,260

200417,15317,040

200516,43013,990

200716,22317,640

200816,43017,660

200917,18616,259

201014,86010,662

To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

BANKS OF THE SACRAMENTO1995, 2002, 2007A product of the Environmental Services Section Northern District, Division of Planning and Local Assistance Department of Water ResourcesAdam Henderson (Reach 2 2007)

Typical agency medium-size quarried rock..

.which can support vegetation (but is this habitat?)

Large Woody Debris & Salmonid Habitat

Privately applied rubble permitted or not

.and other categories as needed, such as 1956-ish rusty Desoto

ErosionalDepositionalStable

Meters ofriprapYear

River Mile 233.5 Left BANS 2007 Survey = 1,191 Burrows High Quality Bank Swallow Habitat

Low Gradient, Low Profile Banks (Over Gravel & Sand)Low Quality BANS Habitat

Predation & Habitat QualitySnakes access burrowsfrom over-hanging branches & exposed roots

Mammals from low banks

Very HighMediumLowNo matter the habitat quality,

it will change

BANS Habitat is Ephemeral..being lost & created as thechannel meanders

Recent alluvium has not yet developed pedogenic acquired soil horizons they are inherited through the various associated dynamic energies at the time of deposition, and on top of this, channel migration / floodplain reworking further mixes and creates new (inherited) horizons resulting in unpredictable, azonal stratigraphic soil texture horizonsacross the recent (100-year) floodplainColumbia & Gianella Soils with & without gravel lenses

Floodplain MappingSacramento River NWR Deadmans Reach Unit Orchards & Vicinity

Floodplain MappingSacramento River NWR Rio Vista Unit Restoration & Vicinity

Soil Pits silt loamSacramento River NWR La Barranca Unit

Soil Pits silt, sand, gravelSacramento River NWR La Barranca Unit

Soil Pits clay & sandSacramento River NWR La Barranca Unit

Privately installed rubble prior to USFWS acquisitionpotential for removal and habitat restoration

Flynn Unit Levee Shasta View Farms, RM 232.8 Right

Floodplain Restoration Flynn UnitSummer/Fall 2001

Levee removal completed Fall 2001Sacramento River floods, bankfills & collapses (Winter 2001- 02)

BANS Survey June 2002 Flynn Unit = 2,770 nesting pairs

Soil Sampling of Bank Swallow ColoniesSacramento River Aug-Sept, 2009 2010Dean W. BurkettUSDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service

Joe SilveiraUSDI-Fish and Wildlife Service

Koll BuerCalifornia Resources Agency-Department of Water Resources

Stops 1 and 2, Soils, Rm, 1997 & 2004 channel, Colonies, 100yr flood

UseSampling Strategy

Soils sampled in use and non-use areas to determine preferred textureNon-UseUse

Summary of DataYellow = Use area (burrows)

Soil Textures: Sand, Loamy sand, sandy loam, loam

Clay range: 1-15 %

Blue = Non-use area Soil Textures: Sandy loam, Loam, Silt loam Clay range: 10-20 %

Floodplain Restoration Pine Creek Unit2010: 450 acres of riparian grassland restoration

Sacramento River Wildlife AreaJacinto UnitRiver Mile 182 RWinter 2006Winter 2007

UC DavisCSu CHICOThe Bank Swallow Working Group

PRBO Conservation Science

Mission StatementThe Bank Swallow Technical Advisory Committee (BANS-TAC) promotes collaborative long-term conservation and recovery of the Bank Swallow along the Sacramento River, its tributaries, and other areas throughout California by coordinating and supporting monitoring and research, habitat restoration and management, and outreach and education.

Goal 1:Promote the Protection and Restoration of Bank Swallow Populations and Habitat

Goal 2:Facilitate Collaborative Long-term Bank Swallow Data Collection and Management

Goal 3:Improve and Maintain Communication and Management for Bank Swallow Conservation

Population Viability Analysis Revise and consider the effects of bank revetmentBank Swallow Recovery Plan Under RevisionBank Swallow Colony Dynamics (2010) Nesting phenology Multiple surveys to account for colony initiations, failures & overall success Evaluate Occupancy Rate Bank Swallow Conservation ProgramsAnnual Population Survey (Current/Annual) Sacramento River Reach 2 & Reach 3 (USFWS Sacramento River NWR coop) Resurvey Reach 1, Reach 4, & Feather River (DWR Red Bluff & Oroville Offices coop)California Department of Fish & GameState-listed Threatened Status Potential upgrade to Endangered Species Status if recent trends decline

Threatened & Endangered Species StrategiesConduct Annual BANS Population MonitoringSupport Cooperative BANS Research at the RefugeFloodplain & River Processes Strategies Modify privately constructed levees on Refuge and restore floodplain topography Coordinate with Federal, State, District, County, local groups, for best management practices re: flood management projects via technical investigations and advisoryMigratory Landbird Strategies Coordinate with PRBO, RHJV, CVHJV, and others to periodically monitor riparian focal species at restored and native areasStrategies for BANS Related ObjectivesRiparian Vegetation & Habitat Strategies Restore riparian and floodplain vegetation: grasslands Planned Refuge Management ProgramsSacramento River National Wildlife Refuge

Sacramento River: Flood Safety & Ecosystem RestorationBank Swallow Habitat for the FutureSouth Sacramento protected by leveesSacramento River floodplain connected to the main channel

*******Reach 2 and 3. HWY 32, Pine Creek, Stony creek, Big ChicoSinuosity, erosion and deposition complexes, meander loops on the floodplain. Back waters, oxbows. Remnant stands of the 5-10 percent of the remaining riparian forest on the Sacramento River. Mostly agricultural land use with public lands conserved and restored.

*Most people in the river world recognize that the most efficient way to improve the ecological health of a river is to allow for natural geomorphic processes, in the case of the Sac, that is meander. Remember we have flooding and floodplain connections.Rocking a bank blocks these processes. That is the purpose right? Rocked banks do not contribute sediments, course or fine to the River. They do not contribute woody material, locally and to the system as a whole. It can no longer provide the cover and shade that a natural bank can provide. Bankswallows dont like rock.Banks that cant meader cannot build the new surfaces required for pioneering cottonwoods and willows to establish successional riparian forests.************So in our role as the technical support for the SB1086 and the SRCAF, DWR Northern District has been surveying banks since 1995. I took over the project when Julie Cunningham left in 2000. mapped reach 3 in 2000 and reach 2 in 2002. When collaborated with SAM team and we designed and adopted the same data collection protocols.

*We differentiated rip rap into Rock Rubble Cobble ..And added more categories as we saw moreMost of the rock is medium, quarried rock, typical of agency jobs*Our main focus was measure all the revetment on the River, then monitor it through time. After 2002 we collected fish habitat data to feed the SAM.Example, shade no wood**2 weeks ago, notice Glen in the orange vestThere is lots of rock and rubble on the river that was never permitted, never tracked, with no enforcement from regulatory agencies.**Natural banks were mapped based on if the were Mostly Erosional, Mostly Depositional, or Mostly Stable. Then characterized by the type of vegetation, amount of shade, and woody debris associated with the bank**By 1940 Almost 2 miles Federal Bank Protection Pre Phase oneBy 1950 3.4 miles of rock Federal Bank Protection Pre Phase oneBy 1970 about 9 miles rock Sacramento River BPP Phase one/ Chico Landing to Red Bluff Bank PP in the early 60sBy 1980 about 28 miles Chico Landing to RB slows in the early 80s, In the mid to late 80s the State added quite a bit of rock, Since 1980 then at added least another 6 miles of rockGrand total over 47 miles of rock *****************************