A. HIGHLIGHTS f
B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
C. LAND ACQUISITION
1. Fee Title
2. Easements
3. Other
4. Farmers Home Administration Conservation Easements
D.PLANNING
1. Master Plan
2. Management Plan
3. Public Participation
4. Compliance with Environmental/Cultural Resource Mandates
5. Research and Investigations
Results of Water Quality Monitoring in Sump l(B) as part of a Wetland Enhancement Project, Tule L David M. Mauser, Ph.D, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, 4009 Hill Road, Tulelake, CA 96134 John Beckstrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, 4009 Hill Road, Tulelake, CA 96134 Dani Thomson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, 4009 Hill Road, Tulelake, CA 96134 The following is a summary of the 2004 Report: Introduction. 2004 was the fifth year of implementation of the Sump 1(B) Wetland Enhancement Project, a plan to establish desired emergent vegetation within Sump l(B) on Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (TLNWR). In brief, the 1 project seeks to transform Sump l(B), previously an open water impoundment, into a permanently flooded emergent wetland by promoting germination of desired vegetation through timed water removals and replacements during an initial seasonal wetland cycle. For the first time since project implementation, Sump l(B) was maintained as a year round flooded wetland. Since water was not removed from Sump l(B) and pumped into Sump l(A) as occurred in previous years, water quality was not monitored in Sump l(A). Because two species of federally-listed endangered species, the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus), may utilize Sump l(B) in the future and these fish are dependent on minimum water quality standards for their survival, it was necessary to monitor water quality within Sump l(B) in 2004. This report summarizes results of dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature monitoring conducted in 2004 with comparisons to previous years. Methods. In 2004, we again made instantaneous measurements of DO and temperature but sampled at two new sites in Sump l(B). No sampling occurred in Sump l(A). Samples were collected from 3 June to 24 September, 2004 at the Sump l(B) side of the metal pipes at the "English Channel" and at the outlet structure located on the north levee on Sump l(B) (Fig. 1). We recorded DO in mg/I and temperature (0 C) approximately 1 foot above the sediment between the hours of 0645 and 0900, a time of day when DO is generally near its lowest point. Figure 1. Water Quality Monitoring Sites, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. L__ _ PumpC II • ~ Sump 1(8) Meters 0 1000 2000 300 2 Results. Results of each sampling date are depicted in Table 1. The lowest DO measurement was recorded on 12 August at the outlet channel of Sump l(B) (0.98 mg/l). This particular reading was low relative to other readings from 2004 which otherwise ranged from 4.01 mg/l to 11.38 mg/l. Temperature readings ranged from 13.47 °c (24 September) to 22.52 °c (1 2 August) . . Table 1. Instantaneous dissolved oxygen readings for sample sites in Sump l(B) at the English Channel and the outlet structure on the north levee at Tule Lake NWR, June~ September 2004. 1(B) Side Between English Channel and Sump 1(B) North Side Outlet Drift Sump 1(8) DO drift DO DO Date Time Temp. (° C) Date Time Temp. (°C) from (mg/L) (mg/L) 100% 3-Jun 815 9.56 17.45 3-Jun 825 7.74 17.87 -0.9% 18-Jun 815 8.7 20.34 18-Jun 822 9.4 19.76 -3.9% 2-Jul 808 11 .38 21.66 2-Jul 816 9.34 20.48 -5.0% 15-Jul 917 9.86 19.91 15-Jul 925 5.66 20.28 -2.0% 30-Jul 849 8.35 22.01 30-Jul 857 6.73 22.22 -3. 8% 12-Aug 835 10.95 22.52 12-Aug 845 0.98 21.4 1.3% 27-Aug 900 9.36 17.06 27-Aug 908 7.03 16.93 -4.7% 13-Sep 915 4.01 17.1 13-Sep 925 7.2 16.53 -2.3% 24-Sep 812 9.35 13.92 24-Sep 820 5.85 13.47 -3.5% Discussion Comparison with water quality data collected in previous years is difficult for several reasons. First, with the exception of 1999, most water quality data has been collected from Sump l(A). Secondly, continuous readings were replaced with instantaneous readings in 2001, and third, sample sites in 2004 were changed from those used in Sump l(B) in 2004. In 1999, samples were collected in two sites within Sump l(B) with both sites located near the center of the unit. Of 7 sample periods over two sites in 1999, minimum DO ranged from 2.3 mg/l to 10.5 mg/l (mean = 5.9 mg/l). In 2004, DO ranged from 0.98 mg.fl to 11.38 mg/l (mean = 7 .34 mg/l). Although the mean appears larger in 2004, the small number of samples and changes in methodology and sample sites between years makes interpretation and conclusions from this data difficult. Conclusion Although data comparisons with previous years are djfficult, there is some indication that DO levels have improved compared to pre-project years. Additional studies conducted in 2006 and beyond should be more definitive in documenting whether water quality and/or sucker movement patterns and distribution has changed as a result of this habitat enhancement project 3 Abundance, Distribution, and Phenology of Nongame Waterbirds in the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California in 2004 (pending). W. David Shuford, PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 Shoreline Highway, Stinson Beach, CA 94970 Dani Thomson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, 4009 Hill Road, Tulelake, CA 96134 David M. Mauser, Ph.D, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, 4009 Hill Road, Tulelake, CA 96134 John Beckstrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, 4009 Hill Road, Tulelake, CA 96134 The 2004 Report is pending. The abstract from the 2003 Report and a summary of data collected on Tule Lake NWR in 2004 follows: Abstract (2003): With a tightening water supply in the Klamath Basin, against a backdrop of extensive historic habitat loss, there is a crucial need for current biological knowledge to assess how future water allocation scenarios might effect the Basin's waterbird resources, which are among the most important in the lntermountain West. To provide such information, we conducted surveys of nongame waterbirds in the Klamath Basin in 2003 with a particular focus on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges. We tallied a total of 49 species of nongame waterbirds on three comprehensive surveys of the Basin's wetlands. Estimated totals for all species combined were 62,561 individuals in early May, 59,392 in mid-June, and 87,727 in mid-August. Given lirllits to visibility, these one-time counts provide minimum estimates for most species, particularly during migratory periods when many individuals passed through the Basin both before and after our counts. Though their importance varied seasonally, grebes, pelicans and cormorants, wading birds (bitterns, herons, egrets, ibis), shorebirds, and gulls and terns were the groups accounting for the bulk of all individuals on each survey. Species or species groups with basin wide populations of >5000 individuals were the Eared Grebe (May and June), American White Pelican (August), White-faced Ibis (June and August), Black-necked Stilt (August), Western and Least sandpipers (May and August), Long-billed Dowitcher (August), and Ring-billed Gull (all seasons). Eleven other species exceeded 1000 individuals in at least one season. Species varied considerably in their patterns of seasonal use from spring through fall, demonstrating the importance of having a large amount of suitable wetland habitat throughout the year to accommodate birds during various parts of their annual cycles. Although many species were distributed over a wide array of wetlands, many others were concentrated at relatively few. Certain wetlands or large water bodies stood out in supplying breeding or foraging habitat for large numbers of particular species or species groups, hosting species of very limited distribution within the Klamath Basin, or supporting populations that are of regional or continental importance. Among these key sites were Clear Lake NWR, Klamath Marsh NWR, Lower Klamath NWR, Sycan Marsh, Tule Lake NWR, and Upper Klamath Lake. Other wetlands were important for supporting large colonies of one or two species or particular at-risk species. The Klamath Basin is of regional or continental importance to breeding populations of colonial (Eared, Western, and Clark's grebes, American White Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant, Great Egret, White-faced Ibis, Ring-billed Gull, and Caspian, Forster's, and Black terns) or other waterbirds (Yellow Rail, Sandhill Crane, Black-necked Stilt) and to migrant Sandhill Cranes, shorebirds, and Black Terns. It also hosts several breeding waterbird species (Red necked Grebe, Snowy Egret, Yellow Rail, Franklin's Gull) with disjunct populations or that reach the limit of their range in the area. 4 Figure 2. 2004 Waterbird Survey Areas, Tule Lake NWR. 2004 Water-bird Survey Areas Tule bake NWR '/ /, '.;:'. ,~,/ KEY: C:::J Open Water 1m-a:m-1m111mllill:i;::z:::a:11ma1111811i______I [:::::J Seasonal Wetland ~ Waterbfrd Survey Area 5 Table 2. Birds Observed on Ttile Lake NWR during 2004 Comprehensive Waterbird Surveys. May 3rd June 9th -10111 August 11th common loon 0 0 0 pied-billed grebe 23 31 374 horned grebe 0 0 0 red-necked grebe 0 0 0 eared grebe 5,021 4,340 2,335 western grebe 97 119 51 Clark's grebe 3 10 2 western/Clark's grebe 1,293 949 1,158 American white pelican 383 529 120 double-crested cormorant 30 38 28 American bittern 0 1 0 great blue heron 0 0 4 great egret 54 46 40 snowy egret 3 1 5 green heron 0 0 0 black-crowned night heron 8 31 9 white-faced ibis 58 327 76 Virginia rail 0 0 1 sora 0 0 18 sandhill crane 1 2 0 black-bellied plover 5 0 0 snowy plover 0 0 0 semipalmated plover 0 0 0 killdeer 13 28 5 black-necked stilt 79 230 28 American avocet 20 188 2 greater yellowlegs 0 0 0 lesser yellowlegs 0 0 0 yellowlegs spp. 0 0 0 will et 0 1 0 spotted sandpiper 8 0 3 solitary sandpiper 0 0 0 long-billed curlew 0 0 0 marbled godwit 0 0 0 western sandpiper 0 0 0 least sandpiper 0 0 0 least/western sandpiper 155 0 0 dunlin 7 0 0 Baird's sandpiper 0 0 0 red knot 0 0 0 dowitcher spp. 883 0 8 common snipe 0 0 0 Wilson's phalarope 33 8 16 red-necked phalarope 0 0 0 phalarope spp. 0 0 0 unidentified shorebird 0 0 0 Franklin's gull 1 2 0 Bonaparte's gull 0 0 1 ring-billed gull 41 802 184 California gull 0 77 0 gull spp. 209 57 5 Caspian tern 253 11 143 Forster's tern 255 91 464 black tern 26 0 900 TOTAL 8 962 7 919 5,980 6 6. . . E. ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel 2. Youth Programs 3. Other Manpower Programs 4. Volunteer Program 5. Funding 6. Safety 7. Technical Assistance 8. F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1. General In 1928, Tule Lake Refuge was superimposed on lands withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation as part of the Klamath Reclamation Project. As per the Kuchel Act of 1964, specific areas of the Refuge are available to local residents to competitiv:ely bid to farm, hay and graze livestock on parcels of land owned and developed by the Federal Government. It is the Service's responsibility to manage land and water units for the benefit of waterfowl, subject to contracts with the Bureau and local irrigation districts for the control and disposition of irrigation waters. Today, the Bureau handles the cash lease program on approximately 16,000 acres of irrigated croplands on the refuge. The Service farms by force account or through cooperative farming agreements approximately 1,000 acres of "buffer strips" adjacent to water areas. The Service paid $9,282 to the Tulelake Irrigation District for water delivery in 2004. 2. Wetlands The wetlands of Tule Lake Refuge comprise 9,500 acres of shallow open water with scattered beds of sago pondweed, and 3,000 acres of hardstem bulrush/cattail marsh. The area serves as an irrigation source and a return flow sump. Water levels are manipulated by the Tulelake Irrigation District by diverting inflows and pumping excess. Operating levels were established by agreement between the Service, the Bureau, and the District to provide winter drawdown for floodwater storage, to preclude nest flooding in the spring, and to reduce botulism outbreaks in the summer. A Biological Opinion dated July 22, 1992, mandates specific minimum water levels in the sumps to protect the endangered shortnose and Lost River suckers. 7 Water distribution operations of the Bureau of Reclamation's (BR) Klamath Project which were shut down in 2001 in compliance with Biological Opinions issued by National Marine Fisheries Service and by the Klamath Falls Office of the USFWS, were resumed prior to the 2002 growing season. In 2004, Tule Lake NWR and its leased lands received water deliveries consistent with those of past non-shutoff years. Minimum water levels for Sump 1(A) were met and Sump l(B) and Flood Fallow Project fields were flooded as planned (Figure 3). Figure 3. Wetland Habitats, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. .. 2004 Habitat Map Tule Lake NWR l'"v'-./'./...,V•/V'•/V". /v"'../ ·'"""" ,,...,,, ./ / ~ • .,...... ,,..., c i I I''<,'.;.:! Seasonal Wetland lilm111:11-..-1111i::m ___1:111Zlll_im:_lllllllilll-&11- I Q Flooded Crop (post-harvest) D Leased Land Lot LJ CoopLot 8 2004 was the fifth year of implementation of the Sump l (B) Wetland Enhancement Project, a plan to establish extensive new areas of emergent marsh habitat within the Refuge. The project seeks to promote germination of desired vegetation by transforming Sump l(B), historically an open water impoundment, into a seasonal wetland for as many as ten years. This is accomplished through carefully timed spring drawdowns and fall flood-ups of the Sump. Sump l(B) was not drawn down in 2004. It was kept flooded throughout spring and summer to control a recent proliferation of undesirable plants including aster and biennial wormword. These flood intolerant species began to outcompete beneficial annuals like smartweed and red goosefoot in 2003, so a temporary return to year-round flooding was proposed that year and implemented in 2004. Spring waterfowl use of Sump l (B) has increased dramatically since the Enhancement Project began. In 2004, 9.5 million waterfowl use days were reported for the period January through April. That number is up 45% over the spring 2003 total, and up over 1000% since 2000, the last year before the Project was implemented. These increases can be attributed primarily to heavy influxes of geese (Figure 4). Figure 4. Comparison of Spring (Jan - Apr) Waterfowl Use Days Pre- and Post- Wetland 1 Enhancement Project, Lower Sump , Tule Lake NWR, 1999 - 2004. 12.00 ------~------, 10.00 .., 8.00 c ~ I., 6.00 >- c.,.."' :::> 4.00 2.00 2000(PRE)" 2001 (POST) 2002(POST) 2003(POST) 2004 (POST) CGeese 0.43 0.24 2.47 1.60 1.54 0.88 C Ducks 0.56 0.49 2.98 6.63 3.86 7.77 • AJIWaterfowl" 1.13 0.84 5.61 9.44 6.54 9.46 Year 1Lower Sump includes Sump l(B), Frey's Island, Hovey Point, and Sump 2 *First drawdown occurred after Spring 2000 **All Waterfowl includes geese, ducks, swans, and coots 9 Fall waterfowl on Sump l (B) peaked at 251,260 birds on 6 October. Waterfowl use days totaled 8.1 million for the period September - November 2004, a 31 % decrease from fall 2003, and a 20% increase over 1999, the last year before the Enhancement Project's implementation. Geese alone accounted for the entire difference. Duck use has increased slightly post-implementation, up 4% since 1999 (Figure 5). Figure 5. Comparison of Fall (Sep - Dec) Waterfowl Use Days Pre- and Post- Wetland 1 Enhancement Project, Lower Sump , Tule Lake NWR, 1998 - 2004. 1 2.00 ~---- 8.00 (ii' c g.!2 CIJ 6.00 ..>- c., CIJ ~ 4.00 2.00 0.00 1998 (PRE) 19~ (PRE) 2000(POST) 2001 (POST) 2002 (POST) 2003(POST) 2004 (POST) CGeese 1.76 2.06 2.06 2.06 1.45 1.44 0.29 C Ducks 3.91 5.75 5.82 9.23 6.33 9.61 6.00 • All Waterfowl' 7.61 9.77 8.64 11.73 10.80 11 .77 8.14 Year .. 1Lower Sump includes Sump l(B), Frey's Island, Hovey Point, and Sump 2 *All Waterfowl includes geese, ducks, swans, and coots It is expected that waterfowl response will increase into the future as habitat conditions continue to improve. Refuge biologists feel that, with proper habitat conditions, Sump l(B) could easily support over 500,000 waterfowl and will be instrumental in returning historic numbers of wildlife to this refuge. Waterbirds using Sump 1(B) were censused three times in 2004 as part of the Abundance, Distribution, and Phenology of Nongame Waterbirds Project (see Research and Investigations section of this narrative). The results are summarized in Table 3. 10 Table 3. Numbers Waterbirds Observed on Sump l (B), Tule Lake NWR, 2004. May 3rd June 9th August 11th pied-billed grebe 18 15 290 eared grebe 2,284 1,113 766 western grebe 27 64 51 Clark's grebe 0 1 2 western/Clark's grebe 43 0 1 American white pelican 0 0 47 double-crested cormorant 3 11 13 great blue heron 0 0 1 great egret 1 3 21 snowy egret 1 0 5 black-crowned night heron 1 2 0 white-faced ibis 0 54 39 killdeer 1 3 2 black-necked stilt 0 2 1 spotted sandpiper 2 0 0 Wilson's phalarope 18 2 0 Franklin's gull 1 0 0 ring-billed gull 2 8 1 California gull 0 2 0 gull spp. 5 0 5 Caspian tern 0 0 0 Forster's tern 62 40 2 black tern 26 0 0 TOTAL 2.495 1.320 1,247 In 2004 the Flood Fallow Program, now in its fifth year, was renamed the Walking Wetlands Program. The Program is a cooperative effort between the Refuge, Bureau of Reclamation, and lease land farmers to supplement wildlife habitat and promote organic control of agricultural pests through multi-year flooding of Refuge agricultural lands. In 2005, we hope to expand the program onto private lands and are currently working with several local growers to achieve that goal. Lands flooded this year included Lots 8306 (Lot 6), 8357 - 8362 (the "D Blind" wetlands), and, during Fall, Lots 8315 - 8317, 8334 - 8335, and 8349 - 8354 (the "C Blind" wetlands). The locations of all wetland habitats on Tule Lake NWR in 2004 are mapped in Figure 3. Three ground counts of waterbirds using flood fallowed fields were conducted as part of the Abundance, Distribution, and Phenology of Nongame Waterbirds Project (see Research and Investigations section of this narrative) between 3 May and 11 August, 2004. The results are summarized in Table 4. 11 Table 4. Numbers Waterbirds Observed on Flood Fallowed Lots, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Date Ma 3rd June 10th August 11th Lots Lots Lots Species Lot6 Lot6 Lot6 8357-8362 8357-8362 8357-8362 pied-billed grebe 0 0 4 0 7 eared grebe 25 0 315 4 79 American white pelican 78 10 27 0 6 double-crested cormorant 3 0 0 12 0 great egret 2 0 0 12 2 black-crowned night-heron 0 0 0 12 0 white-faced ibis 16 6 1 235 2 'O 3. Forests 4. Croplands Tule Lake NWR croplands received full delivery of irrigation waters in 2004. Both co op and leased lands on the Refuge were farmed this year. Crops planted in each are listed in Tables 5 and 6 and mapped in Figures 6 and 7. 12 TABLE 5. Crops Planted, Coop Farming Program, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Lot Total Acres Crop (acres) Discovery Marsh 123.4 Permanent Wetland(61.7)/ Seasonal Wetland( 61. 7) B-1-W 39.1 Barley(39 .1) B-1-E 39.1 Oats(39.1) B-4 59.3 Wheat(59.3) B-5 51.7 Barley(51.7) B-6 50.6 Oats(50.6) B-7 26.4 Wheat(26.4) B-2-G 55.0 Wheat(55.0) B-2-H 55.0 Oats(55.0) B-2-I 55.0 Oats(55.0) B-2-J 55.0 Oats(55.0) B-2-K 55.0 Oats(55.0) B-2-L 55.0 Oats(55.0) B-2-M 46.5 Wheat( 46.5) B-3 47.9 Fallow(47.9) C-1-C 103.3 Barley(103.3) D-6-D (Frey's Island) 31.6 Seasonal Wetland(31.6) D-6-E (Frey's Island) 31.8 Seasonal Wetland(31.8) D-6-F (Frey's Island) 31.7 Seasonal Wetland(31 .7) TOTAL: 1,012.4 Barley(l 94.1)/Wheat(l87 .2)/0ats(364.7)/ Seasonal Wetland(156.8)/ Permanent Wetland( 61. 7)/Fallow( 4 7 .9) 13 TABLE 6. Crops Planted, Lease Land Farming Program, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Lot Total Acres Crop (acres) Sump 2: 8201 60.5 Oats(60.5) 8202 78.3 Alfalfa(78.3) 8203/8204 157.8 Alfalfa(157.8) 8205/8206 138.1 Barley(138.l) 8207/8208 131.9 Alfalfa(131.9) 8209/8210 136.0 Barley(45.0)/0ats( 41.3) / Alfalfa(49.7) 8211 71.2 Barley(59.2)/Alfalfa(12.0) 8212/8231 155.8 Alfalfa(155.8) 8213/8214 165.2 Wheat(l 10. l )/Potatoes(55. l) 8215/8216 167.5 Alfalfa(l 67 .5) 8217/8218 171.0 Wheat(l 71.0) 8219/8220 169.7 Alfalfa( 169. 7) 8221 79.6 Alfalfa(79 .6) 8222 89.8 Barley(89.8) 8223/8224 150.5 Alfalfa( 150.5) 8225/8226 150.3 Barley(150.3) 8227/8228 146.0 Barley(48. 7)/Wh~at( 48.6)/0nions(48. 7) 8229/8230 151.6 Wheat(101.1)/0nions(50.5) 8232/8233/8234 262.6 Barley(87 .5)/Wheat(87 .5)/0nions(87 .6) 8235/8236/8237 227.9 Wheat(l 77 .O)/Potatoes(50.9) 8238 83.3 Oats(26.6)/Alfalfa(53.2) 8239 76.3 Wheat(53.2)/0nions(26.6) 8240/8241 149.7 Barley(99.8)/0nions(49.9) 8242/8243 144.3 Barley(48.1 )/Wheat(96.2) 8244/8245 151.0 Alfalfa(151.0) 8246 78.2 . Alfalfa(78.2) 8247 68.5 Barley(68.5) 8248/8249 131.2 Alfalfa(131.2) 8250/8251 146.9 Alfalfa(146.9) 8252 77.0 Barley(51.3)/Potatoes(25.7) 8253 72.8 Wheat(72.8) 8254/8258 163.4 Alfalfa(163.4) 8259/8260/8261 223.7 Alfalfa(223.7) 8262/8263 148.8 Barley(99 .2)/Alfalfa( 49 .6) 8264/8265/8266/8267 289.5 Wheat(63.7)/Rye(72.5)/Alfalfa(153.3) 8268 82.1 Wheat(82.1) 8269/8270 144.4 Wheat(76.2)/0ats(68.2) 14 TABLE 6. (continued). Crops Planted, Lease Land Farming Program, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Lot Total Acres Crop (acres) Sump 3: 8301/8302 212.9 Barley(71.0)/Wheat(71.0)/Potatoes(70.9) 8303/8304 211.3 Barley(70.4 )/Wheat(70.4 )/Potatoes(70.5) 8305 93.9 Potatoes(93.9) 8306 95.2 Flood Fallow(95.2) 8307 96.8 Wheat(96.8) 8308/8309 190.6 Barley(190.6) 83 10/8311 192.3 Barley(192.3) 8312 96.4 Barley(32.1 )/Wheat(32.1 )/Potatoes(32.2) 8313/8314 193.5 Barley(64.5 )/Wheat( 64.5)/Potatoes(64.5 ) 8315 113.8 Wheat(75.9)/Potatoes(37.9) 8316/8317 228. 3 Wheat(l 52.2)/Potatoes(7 6.1) 8318 99.6 Barley(33.2)/Wheat(33.2)/Potatoes(33.2) 8319/8320 199.5 Barley( 66. 5)/Wheat( 66.5)/Potatoes( 66.5) 8321 103.0 Barley( 103 .0) 8322/8323 189.6 Barley(63.2)/Wheat(63.2)/Potatoes(63.2) 8324 94.1 Wheat(94.1) 8325/8326 191.8 Wheat(191.8) 8327/8328 229.9 Wheat(229.9) 8329/8330 227.9 Wheat(227 .9) 8331 102.0 Barley(102.0) 8332/8333 204.9 Barley(102.5)/Wheat(l02.4) 8334 104.9 Wheat(35 .O)/Potatoes( 69 .9) 8335 110.3 Wheat(l 10.3) 8336/8337 181.2 Wheat(181.2) 8338/8339 190.3 Wheat(190.3) 8340/8341 191.1 Wheat( 127.4 )/Potatoes( 63. 7) 8342/8343 184.4 Wheat( 153 .6)/Potatoes(30. 8) 8344/8345 192.9 Wheat(128.6)/Potatoes(64.3) 8346/8347 193.5 Wheat( 161 .1)/Potatoes(32.4) 8348/8398 197.3 Wheat(197.3) 8349/8350 192.4 Barley(128.3)/Wheat(64. 1) 8351/8352 201.2 Barley(l 34.1)/Wheat(67 .1) 8353/8354 202.0 Barley( 117. 7)/Wheat(84.3) 8355/8356 213.5 Wheat(213.5) 8357/8358 183.8 Flood Fallow(183.8) 8359/8360 191.8 Flood Fallow(191.8) 8361/8362 191.8 Flood Fallow(191.8) 15 TABLE 6 (cont.). Crops Planted, Lease Land Farming Program, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Lot Total Acres Crop (acres) 8363/8364 202.4 Wheat(l34.9)/Potatoes(67.5) 8365/8366 201.3 Wheat(l 34.2)/Potatoes(67 .1) 8367/8368 209.9 Wheat(209.9) 8369/8370 210.7 Wheat(140.5)/Potatoes(70.2) 837118372 219.6 Wheat(146.4)/Potatoes(73.2) 8373/8379 203.2 Barley(65.5)/Wheat(l04.9)/Potatoes(32.8) 8374/8380 223.2 Wheat(l48.8)/Potatoes(74.4) 8375/8381 223.4 Wheat(148.9)/Potatoes(74.5) 8376/8382 221.6 Wheat( 14 7. 7)/Potatoes(73. 9) 8377/8383 223.4 Alfalfa(223 .4) 8378/8384 144.1 Barley(144.1) 8385/8391 196.8 Barley(103.8)/Wheat(62.0)/Potatoes(3 l .0) 8386/8392 215.4 Barley(68.2)/Wheat(71.8)/0ats(75.4) 8387/8393 215.1 Wheat( 143 .4 )/Potatoes(71. 7) 8388/8394 213.6 Alfalfa(213.6) 8389/8395 213.1 Alfalfa(213 .1) 8390/8396 189.9 Alfalfa(189.9) 8397 93.8 Alfalfa(93.8) Cl A 99.0 Oats(99.0) ClB 99.0 Oats(66.0)/0nions(33.0) C2B 100.0 Barley(33.4)/Wheat(33.3)/0ats(33.3) Dl 104.4 Wheat( 69. 6)/Potatoes(34. 8) D2 100.0 Wheat(70.0)/0ats(30.0) D3 109.8 Barley(73.2)/Wheat(36.6) D4 68.6 Barley(45. 7)/0nions(22. 9) D5 31.6 Barley(21.0)/0nions(10.6) D6A 40.7 Potatoes(30.0)/0nions(10.7) D6B 41.2 Fallow(41.2) D6C 40.9 Wheat(40.9) Area J: 8401 38.0 Horseradish(33.0)/Fallow(5.0) 8402 154.0 Wheat( 102. 7)/Potatoes(51.3) TOTAL: 16,029.8 Barley(3,0l l .8)/Wheat(6,371 .7)/0ats(500.3)/ Rye(72.5)/Potatoes( 1, 7 54.1 )/Onions(340.5)/ Horseradish(33 .0)/ Alfalfa(3 ,237 .1 )/ Fallow(46.2)/Flood Fallow(662.6) 16 Figure 6. Distribution of Crops on Co-op and Leased Lands, Tule Lake NWR, Sump 2, 2004. ·~- . ------· ------~~--. Distribution of Crops on Co-op and Leased Lands, Tule Lake NWR, Sump 2, 2004 00[ oor 00[ OOL • 00[ oar . 0 0 1 > : ~ GOlilGO -'.;' - '. 88 8 13 fi l '= fJ '. ; , u ci r '.l '' ~ 'I P J t; Fl 8 ·1 l H H 3 , '. 1 -, - <- 1 -1 - I "' -1- 1 - 1 . t - I - •- 1 - 1 0000[ JO L1 000 - I - ' · I - I - I - OOIJOl 10 0 000 OOCJOL JOO ODD ' - ' aaoor )DOD O O ' - ' - I r - 1- • - · I - I I ..o 1- t- ' - 8 8 B llafB BB88888B l 0 8 8 5 l 8 8 6 8 B - I - 1 · I • I • I • I • ! - 1 - I - t • I 1 H 8 - f - • - I • t - I - I - 1 •l I • l - I _ , _ , 88 888 ~:~ :-~ nr:i1i:n '.'.\.AL\.!\ ~ ~. b. t:. CJ. 6 /:I. t: D. D. /:,, {_ ... B 8 8 • ' - I 8 8 G 8 8 ' - , _' ' - ' - ' • 1 - • 1 - 1 - 1 - KEY: Ll Barley C] Alfalfa ~ggg'. I Oats IW/ I Fallow/ Idle D Wheat c=J Co-op Unit Rye CJ' Potatoes mm!' Onions El' ------·---·------·------ 17 Figure 7. Distribution of Crops on Co-op and Leased Lands, Tule Lake NWR, Sump 3, 2004. Barley 0 Alfalfa Oat a BJ Fallow/ Idle Wheat ~ Flood Fallow I Wetland Potatoes D Co-opUnll Onions Horseradish J'>UOu r: n n•. n 1.:. 11 1.. .1 ~.:.:i:.r. l '•U::Ull:JO<•ll 1.- tl t. on :H. :!fl l l:'O UUOOO!JO u •:o :oco u:::: n .nr: o . 1u1:u t.o u o • u ooouoo lOOn o oo o H'.l!l/HlOO O - • lOOU UOOO 'llO OODUO -··- - - - ~ · ·- --· · o• J OO O UOO O l OOD OOQ O • 1nr1oncoc Jono o 0000\uoo cj l. - . 00001 - - DODO< • - noou c. ------·------·------·- 18 In 2004, acres of alfalfa grown on the leased lands increased for the fifth year in a row. A total of 3,237 acres of alfalfa were grown this year, up 26% since 2003 and 232% since 1999. All alfalfa added in 2004 was in Sump 2. Alfalfa grown north of Frey's Island in Sump 3 was not searched for duck or pheasant nesting casualties this year. Grain acres were up 2% in 2004, but have decreased 6% since 1999. Row crop acres were down 11 % since last year and 35% since 1999. Flood fallowed acres also decreased in 2004 (Figure 8). Figure 8. Crop Acres, Lease Land Farming Program, Tule Lake NWR, 1999 through 2004*. a Grain a Row Crops • Alfalfa B Flood Fallow 10000 9000 8000 7000 en ~ 6000 4000 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 Year *2001 not included because of irrigation shut-off. 19 5. Grasslands 6. Other Habitats The cottonwood trees at Hovey Point continue to be an attractive day roost for bald eagles. In winters past, up to 20 bald eagles have been seen roosting on these trees. This one acre area, consisting of approximately 20 cottonwood trees, also provides nesting habitat for raptors and passerines each summer. The only other treed habitat available at Tule Lake is at Headquarters Field, where several dozen widely spaced trees grow in and around the Refuge's Office Complex and Demonstration Marsh. Spontaneous establishment of woody vegetation elsewhere on the Refuge is largely precluded by intermittent water availability, use of broadleaf herbicides and prescribed fire for weed-management, and by soil-impaction from heavy equipment along berms and field edges. 7. Grazing 8. Haying 9. Fire Management 10. Pest Control 11. Water Rights Refuge staff continues to participate in the Oregon State Water Rights Adjudication. 12. Wilderness and Special Areas 13. WPA Easement Monitoring 14. Farmers Horne Administration Easements 15. Private Lands 20 G. WILDLIFE 1. Wildlife Diversity A total of 433 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians have been observed or are known to exist on the refuge complex. Reports of unusual wildlife sightings are included in the table below. TABLE7. Unusual/Uncommon Wildlife Sightings, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Species Location Date Observer Lapland longspur (150) Sump 3 (Frog Pond) January 3 K. Spencer Barrow's goldeneye English Channel February 12 D. Menke Short-eared ow1 (3) Auto Tour Route March 10 L. Pollard Red-shouldered hawk Discovery Marsh September 6 D. Menke White-throated sparrow Visitor Center October 4 D. Menke Red-necked grebe TLNWR October 8 J. Livaudas Common moorhen SE Corner November 8 M.M. Varied thrush Visitor Center November 9 D. Menke Arctic tern Auto Tour Route November 14 R. Ekstrom Common redpoll SW Corner Sump l(A) November26 D. Shuford American tree sparrow Auto Tour Route December 17 S. T. Harris' sparrow Auto Tour Route December 17 S. T. 2. Endangered/Threatened Species The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was proposed for delisting by USFWS on July 6, 1999. While the proposed delisting is under review, this species remains federally-listed threatened. It is state-listed endangered by California Department of Fish and Game. Both ground counts and aerial counts of bald eagles were conducted on Tule Lake NWR in 2004. The peak number of bald eagles counted during the year was 66 on a 28 February aerial count. All 2004 count results are listed in Table 8. 21 TABLE 8. Summary of Bald Eagle Count Results, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Date Aerial Count Ground Count January 10 16 January 14 20 February 10 16 February 28 66 March 10 4 March 23 1 April 7 0 April 22 1 September 8 0 September 23 0 October 6 1 October 21 2 November4 0 November 19 2 December 2 19 --= no count performed There was no change in the endangered status of the shortnose sucker or Lost River sucker during the year. 3. Waterfowl Total waterfowl maintenance (ducks, geese and swans, Jan.-Dec.) was 33.6 million use days, down 30% from 48.2 million use days last year. Overall spring waterfowl use was also down ( 11 %) in 2004. Duck and swan numbers showed small increases that season, up 17% and 5% repectively, but goose numbers declined by 43%. Fall use was down 48%, reflecting strong decreases in both duck (45%) and goose (70%) numbers. Fall swan use increased 167%. (Table 9). Breeding populations of ducks on Tule Lake Refuge were down again in 2003 with a total of 3,932 pairs counted during May population surveys. This is a 12% decrease from the 4,462 pairs counted in 2003. Mallard, pintail, shoveler, cinnamon teal, ruddy duck, scaup, and Canada goose pairs all contributed to the decrease. Numbers of gadwall and redhead both increased, but not enough to offset losses by other species (Table 10). 2004 estimated duck production was 2% below the 5-year average, and estimated goose production was 12% below the 5-year average (Table 11). 22 TABLE 9. Waterfowl Maintenance (Use Days x 1 Million), Tule Lake Refuge, 2000-2004. Spring Fall Summer Total Year Duck Goose Swan Duck Goose Swan WF* WF* 2000 2.52 4.20 0.056 10.43 3.20 0.017 1.81 22.56 2001 7.34 5.50 0.12 17.36 3.73 0.004 1.55 36.57 2002 10.48 9.50 0.16 17.66 2.49 0.008 1.99 43.07 2003 10.70 9.52 0.039 23.22 2.69 0.006 1.79 48.15 2004 12.51 5.41 0.041 12.74 0.82 0.016 1.37 33.62 *WF =All Waterfowl TABLE 10. Waterfowl Breeding Pairs, Tule Lake Refuge, 2003-2004. Species 2003 2004 % Change Gad wall 1,780 2,010 +13 Mallard 1,335 824 -38 American wigeon 9 0 Redhead 86 301 +250 Canvasback 0 35 Cinnamon teal 229 187 -18 Green-winged teal 0 0 0 Ruddy 180 104 -42 Pintail 25 6 -76 Lesser scaup 583 308 -47 Shoveler 235 45 -81 Ring-necked duck 0 32 Bufflehead 0 16 Goldeneye spp. 0 0 0 Wood duck 0 0 0 Merganser spp. 0 0 0 Canada Goose ___]2 _M _:22 Total 4,462 3,932 -12 Coots 1 28,560 15,565 -46 1 Number of individuals 23 TABLE 11. Estimated Production, Tule Lake Refuge, 2000-2004. Year Duck Coot Goose 2000 6,853 1,892 280 2001 6,808 13,548 131 2002 6,798 6,108 150 2003 7,204 10,710 141 2004 6,762 2,918 151 Average 6,885 7,035 171 Brood survey data collected on Tule Lake NWR in 2004 yielded the following average brood sizes for Class I broods; mallard x = 6.7 (n = 6, sd = 2.2), gadwall x = 6.9 (n = 10, sd = 2.5). Average Class I & II brood size for Canada goose was 5.6 goslings (n = 9, sd = 2.1 ). Brood surveys on Tule Lake NWR are conducted along the route shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. Brood Survey Route, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Brood Survey Route, Tule Lake NWR ....-----.----.~ .· .. .1+,.-. 1 Sump 1(A) ...... I ··------~';;' ---+----+---'- ~-..i.-.....-i--1-----~ l---·---'r---· ' KEY: Road • • • Survey Route In 2004, Refuge staff again surveyed Tule Lake NWR, Lower Klamath NWR, and nearby private lands for tule white-fronted geese as part of California Department of Fish and Game's Coordinated White-fronted Goose Population Survey. Once per week for three successive weeks in September, all white-fronted goose flocks within the survey area were examined for the presence of tule geese. Tules were found to be present each week, though difficulty in distinguishing them from Pacific white-fronts at a distance likely affected the reliability of the reported numbers. Survey results appear in Table 12 below. Table 12. Results of Coordinated White-fronted Goose Population Survey of Tule Lake NWR, Lower Klamath NWR, and nearby Private Land, 2004. Subspecies Week 1 Week 2 Week3 (September 15th) (September 22"d) (September 30th) Tu le 375 20 97 1 Pacific 502 336 2,771 Unclassified 1 0 0 0 Unobservable2 955 103 2,338 Total 1,832 459 6,080 1 Observed closely, but subspecies could not be determined 2 Not able to observe closely. 4. Marsh and Water Birds Research conducted by Dr. Dan Anderson and Leopoldo Moreno from the University of California, Davis indicates that Tule Lake is the most heavily utilized foraging area for white pelicans within the Klamath Basin. This year the peak number of pelicans counted on Tule Lake Refuge was 502 on 9 June, a decrease from last year's 900 bird peak. Grebe nesting on both Sumps was censused from the air on 18 July, 2004. 2,200 eared grebe nests and 25 western/Clark's grebe nests were counted in Sump l(A). 200 eared grebe nests and 100 western/Clark's grebe nests were counted in Sump l(B). Great egrets also continued to nest on the Refuge. 40 egret nests were counted in Tule Lake Marsh on 14 June. 25 egret nests were counted in Sump l(B) on 25 June. No count of double-crested cormorant nests was conducted on the Refuge in 2004. In 2004, the first recorded nesting colony of white-faced ibis was established in Sump l(B). A total of 1,039 individuals were observed during a flyout count of the colony on 25 June. 25 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species Because Sump l(B) was kept flooded throughout the spring and summer of 2004 (see Wetlands section of this narrative), less shallow water and mudflat habitat was available to shorebirds than in recent years. A decrease in Flood Fallow acres further limited shorebird habitat this year, and shorebird numbers were down considerably as a result. Tables 3 and 4 in the Wetlands section of this narrative summarize counts of shorebirds using the Refuge in 2004. Gulls and terns are usually present in the summer foraging over the sumps for fish, or in the fields for voles. Table 13 summarizes observations of these birds on the Refuge in 2004. Table 13. Observations of Gulls and Terns, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Species Forster's Caspian Franklin's Bonaparte's black tern tern tern gull gull Number 461 900 223 10 1 Peak Individuals Counted Date August 11 August 11 May3 April 24 August 11 Location l(A) l(A) 8306 l(B) l(A) Ring-billed and California gulls also forage, but do not nest on Tule Lake NWR, but detailed censuses of these species were not conducted in 2004. 6. Rap tors 7. Other Migratory Birds 8. Game Mammals 9. Marine Mammals 10. Other Resident Wildlife Since 1996 Refuge biologists and volunteers have conducted call or "crow" counts for pheasants over several mornings in May. Two transects are surveyed on Tule Lake Refuge. Transect 1 starts at Refuge headquarters, travels north around Sump l(A), and ends in Sump 3. Transect 2 begins on the west side of Sump l(A), travels south around Sump l(A), and ends in Sump 2 (Figure 10). 26 Figure 10. Pheasant Crow Count Transects, Tule Lake NWR, 2004. Pheasant Crow Count Transects, Tule Lake NWR I ·-rI --- Road - - • Transect 1 • n • 11 • Transect 2 Q Crow Count Point Two additional transects are surveyed in the Copic Bay area SE of the refuge. Each of these transects is the same length as those described above, but the two run together to form a single long survey route. They start at the SE comer (Frey's Island) of the Refuge, extend south through the Panhandle and Copic Bay, and end across Highway 39 (Figure 11). 27 Figure 11. Pheasant Crow Count Transect, Copic Bay, Modoc County, CA, 2004. Pheasa nt Crow Count Transect, Copic Bay, Modoc County, CA The Peninsula iii c: .,0 I z"' I ~ r-----11-L---" co Canal ••••• Transect 0 Crow Count Point Ten listening stations are located a minimum of 112 mile apart on each transect. All rooster pheasant calls heard during a two minute listening period at each station are tallied and recorded. All surveys are completed before sunrise. While the number of pheasants cannot be determined by this method it does provide for comparisons between areas and across years. In 2004 crow counts were higher than the 5-year average on both Tule Lake routes and below the 5-year average on both Copic Bay routes. 28 Table 14. Average Number of Pheasant Calls per Station, Tule Lake and Copic Bay Routes, 2000-2004. Tule Lake Copic Bay Year Transect 1 Transect 2 Stations 1-10 Stations 11-19 Average 2000 3.6 0.3 0.3 6.5 2.1 2001 2.1 1.2 0.0 3.0 1.6 2002 3.5 0.0 0.2 2.4 1.5 2003 4.7 1.4 0.4 1.9 2.1 2004 4.4 Ll 0.0 2.4 2.0 Average 3.7 0.8 0.2 3.2 1.9 11. Fisheries Resources 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking 13. Surplus Animal Disposal 14. Scientific Collections 15. Animal Control In order to preserve the structural integrity of water control facilities on Tule Lake NWR, muskrats that burrow into them must be removed in substantial numbers. The most effective way to control these introduced rodents is through trapping. Each year the Refuge employs a trapper under a Volunteer Services Agreement to trap muskrats between 1 November and 30 April. Trapping is conducted by an employee so as to comply with California Proposition 4, which bans leg-hold trapping and the sale of furs taken with leg-hold traps. In addition, trapping is restricted to within 50 yards of dikes, ditches, canals, and other water control structures. All traps are either conibear or leg-hold drown sets, which result in instantaneous death to the trapped animal. All muskrats trapped are the property of FWS and are disposed of by incineration. During the 2003-2004 trapping season 1,636 muskrats were taken from Tule Lake NWR. 29 16. Marking and Banding A total of 1,169 ducks and 2 coots were banded on Tule Lake NWR between 12 August and 1 September, 2004. Birds were captured in bait-traps set in Sump l(B) and banded as part of a USFWS research effort to compute reporting rates for standard USFWS bands stamped with a 1-800 band report phone number. Each captured adult mallard was randomly assigned to the treatment or control group, the former to be fitted with a $100 reward band and standard USFWS non-reward band, the latter with a standard band only. Because $100 reward bands are known to generate a 100% reporting rate, the ratio of control group returns to treatment group returns will be used by researchers at the Bird Banding Laboratotry to calculate the non-reward (1-800 number) band reporting rate. Juvenile mallards and other waterfowl were not targets of this research, and were banded with standard USFWS bands only. Table 15 summarizes the marking effort. TABLE 15. Species, Age, and Sex of Birds Banded at Tule Lake Refuge, 2004. Male Female Status AHY HY AHY HY Local Total Mallard Reward Band 164 6 314 0 0 484 Standard Band 170 8 327 11 0 516 Northern Pintail 127 1 39 0 0 167 Gad wall 0 0 0 1 0 1 Canvasback 1 0 0 0 0 1 American Coot _Q _Q _Q _Q _l _l Total 462 15 680 12 2 1,171 30 17. Disease Prevention and Control Waterfowl losses to both botulism and cholera on Tule Lake NWR were low in 2004 (Figure 12). Figure 12. Duck and Goose Losses to Avian Cholera and Botulism, Tule Lake NWR, 1979 through 2004. -Botulism I 3900 3400 2900 'C 2400 ~ I.) ..9:! 0 (.) 1900 II) 'E iil 1400 900 400 "',._ :iii ... N ::! (! ::! A total of 119 birds affected by avian cholera were collected between 28 February and 6 April from Sumps l(A) and l(B). 92% of this total were snow and Ross' geese. The remaining 9% were white-fronted geese and assorted ducks. Collection effort totaled 41.0 man hours (21.5 boat hours) over 9 patrols. Collections were conducted entirely by volunteers representing Cal Ore Wetlands. Botulism losses totaled 40 birds, all collected on Sump l(A). Mallards made up 48% of this total. Other ducks made up the remaining 52%. Three patrols were conducted between 4 August and 15 August. Collection effort totaled 10.6 man hours (9.3 boat hours). Cal-Ore Wetlands volunteered 100% of this time. Table 16 summarizes all diseased birds picked up on Tule Lake NWR in 2004. 31 TABLE 16. Diseased Birds Collected, Tule 'Lake Refuge, 2004. Species Avian Botulism Avian Cholera Total Swan sp. 0 0 0 Snow goose 0 73 73 Ross' goose 0 36 36 White-fronted goose 0 2 2 Canada goose 0 0 0 Cackling Canada goose 0 0 0 Mallard 19 0 19 Northern pintail 6 1 7 Northern shoveler 1 1 2 Gad wall 8 0 8 American wigeon 4 0 4 Green-winged teal 1 1 2 Cinnamon Teal 0 0 0 Canvasback 0 0 0 Ruddy duck 0 1 1 Bufflehead 0 2 2 Scaup sp. 1 1 2 Ring-necked Duck 0 1 1 American Coot 8 6 14 Other ~ _l ...2 Total Ducks 40 8 48 Total Geese 0 111 111 Total Other _n .1 J_2 Total 52 126 178 32 H. PUBLIC USE 1. General 2. Outdoor Classrooms - Students 3. Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers 4. Interpretive Foot Trails 5. Interpretive Tour Routes 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations 7. Other Interpretive Programs 8. Hunting 9. · Fishing 10. Trapping 11. Wildlife Observation 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation 13. Camping 14. Picnicking 15. Off-road Vehicling 16. Other Non-wildlife Oriented Recreation 17. Law Enforcement 18. Cooperating Associations 19. Concessions 33 I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 1. New Construction 2. Rehabilitation 3. Major Maintenance 4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement 5. Communications Systems 6. Computer Systems 7. Energy Conservation 8. Other J. OTHER ITEMS 1. Cooperative Programs 2. Other Economic Uses 3. Items of Interest 4. Credits K. FEEDBACK L. INFORMATION PACKET (inside back cover) 34 Duck Nest Success on Lower Klamath NWR, 2004 Biological Staff, Klamath Basin NWR Introduction: In 2004 we continued with duck nest searching begun in 2002 over concerns that waterfowl productivity on the refuge was in decline. Between 11 May and 12 July we spent 12 days nest searching and located 101 active duck nests on the levee tops or road edges between units 6a and 6bl and 6b2 , 6c, and 3b. Methods: Duck nests were located by walking through suitable cover along road edges and on levee tops until a hen was flushed off the nest. Nest locations were marked with metal poles affixed with numbered flagging and were located at least 4 meters away from the nest. Locations were recorded with a handheld GPS. At each nest site the dominant plants were recorded along with the duck species, number of eggs and the incubation stage (determined from candling the eggs). Nests were revisited at 1 to 2 week intervals. Results: Sixty of the lOlduck nests were gadwall (Anas americana), 21 mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), 19 cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), and 1 northern shoveler (Anas Clypeata). Of the 101, 16 nests were not relocated at some point in attempting to revisit them (14 gadwall, 1 mallard and 1 cinnamon teal) and therefore were left out of nest success calculations. Of the remaining 85 nests: 41 were destroyed by predators, 19 were abandoned and 25 hatched. All nests were initiated between 25 April and 6 June and hatched (if all were to hatch) by 11 July. The average clutch size of known full clutches was: gadwall x = 9.7 (n =51), mallard x = 8.5 (n =13), and x = 9.8 (n =16) for cinnamon teal. No estimate of nest density was made because most searching was on foot, however, while working around one nest other hens were often flushed from nearby nests and nest densities probably approached 2 nests per acre. The apparent nest success is the percentage of observed nesting attempts that were successful: P 1 = Nsl(Ns +Nu) where Ns = number successful nests and Nu = number unsuccessful nests For the usable nests the apparent nest success is .294 (P 1 = 25/(25 + 60) =.294). The apparent method reflects the true success rate only when all clutches are found on the day they were initiated, and it overestimates success when clutches are found at a later date. The Mayfield method (1961, 1975) however, overcomes the bias in the apparent method by estimating daily survival during the time each nest is under observation and using it to estimate nest success from the equation : P2 = sh = ( 1- NufE)h wheres = the daily survival rate ((the complement of the daily mortality rate (m)) or, s = 1- m and E is the total number of exposure days and h = the mean laying period plus the incubation period of 34 8 successful clutches. For the 85 nests Mayfield success ( P2) = (1-60/1224) · = .174. Broken out by 35 species nest success for gadwall was: ( P2) = (1-32/749) = .227, mallard nest success was ( P2) = (1 - 34 16/228)35 = .078, and cinnamon teal nest success was ( P2) = (1-12/218) = .145. For precise estimates of nest success Klett et al. (1986) recommend at least 750 exposure days. Discussion: Previous nesting studies have indicated high waterfowl nesting success within the Klamath Basin (Miller and Collins, 1954, Rienecker and Anderson, 1960). In 1957 Rienecker and Anderson located 1,151 duck nests on Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges (mostly on Lower Klamath NWR) and calculated apparent nest success as .848. They attributed the low incidence of nest failure due to predatory mammals to the absence or rare occurrence of the raccoon, spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). Mauser (1991) found Mayfield nest success rates of .254 in 1988, .699 in 1989 and .388 in 1990. Nest searching by refuge staff between 1984-89 yielded combined apparent nest success of .78 and Mayfield shortcut method of .62 (n=352). Shortcut nest success rates ranged from .40 in 1984 to .81 in 1987. Last year the Mayfield success rate from nests located on the refuge was .223, however the sample size that year was small (about one-half the recommended number of use days). The rate calculated this year is similar to that found in 2002 when Mayfield success was 178. Literature Cited: Klett, A. T. , H.F. Duebbert, C. A. Faanes, and K. F. Higgins. 1986. Techniques for studying nest success of ducks in upland habitats in the prairie pothole region. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., Resour. Publ. 158. 24pp. Mauser, D. M. 1991. Ecology of mallard ducklings on Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, California. Phd. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 104pp. Mayfield, H. 1961. Nest success calculated from exposure. Wilson Bull. 73:255-261. __. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull. 87:456-466. Miller, A. W. and B. D. Collins. 1954. A nesting study of ducks and coots on Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges. Calif. Fish and Game. 40:17-37. Rienecker, W. C., and W. Anderson. 1960. A waterfowl nesting study on the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath NWR, 1957. Calif. Fish and Game 46:481-506. ./ Results of Duck Nest Searching on Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, 2004 Julian Date Exposure Days Nest# Species Unit Dominant Plants Date Found Last date nest viable Fate determined Termination known Estimated hatch * Known Probable Total Fate UTM'smE * UTM'smN 1 cteal 6c pepperweed 132 132 146 159 0 7 7 destroyed 607532 4644216 2 Mallard 6c I oeooerweed 132 132 146 161 0 7 7 destroyed 607534 4644222 3 cteal 6c Ipepperweed 132 146 162 163 14 6.4 20.4 destroved 607539 4644296 4 Mallard 6c loeooerweed 132 146 162 162 14 6.4 20.4 destroyed 607530 4644613 5 Mallard 6c Ioeooerweed 132 146 162 160 14 6.4 20.4 destroyed 607531 4644624 6 Mallard 6c Ipepperweed 132 132 146 159 0 7 7 abandoned 607538 4644790 7 Mallard 6c l11Pnnerweed 132 146 162 151 19 0 19 hatched 607528 4645024 8 Mallard 3b tall wheat orass 132 132 153 154 0 8.4 8.4 abandoned 604605 4648817 9 Mallard 3b tall wheat i:irass 132 153 163 158 26 0 26 hatched 604578 4648168 10 cteal 6a Igrass 134 134 146 163 0 6 6 abandoned 607265 4646658 11 c teal 6a lorass 134 146 162 156 22 0 22 hatched 606507 4645447 12 Mallard 6a 1i:irass 134 146 162 168 14 6.4 20.4 abandoned 604768 4644675 13 Mallard 6a Nettles 134 134 146 168 0 6 6 abandoned 605199 4644887 15 Mallard 6a tall wheat grass 134 162 168 167 33 0 33 hatched 606257 4645231 16 Mallard 6a Nettles 134 134 146 165 0 6 6 destroyed 606534 4645460 17 Mallard 6a pepperweed 134 134 146 159 0 6 6 destroyed 606970 4646520 18 Mallard 6a oeooerweed 134 134 146 156 0 6 6 destroyed 607032 4646558 19 c teal 4b cattails 135 135 153 163 0 7.2 7.2 destroyed 608736 4646828 20 cteal 4a hemlock 135 135 153 155 0 7.2 7.2 destroyed 610088 4646510 21 c teal 4a hemlock 135 153 163 159 24 0 24 hatched 610142 4646421 22 c teal 4e Nettles 135 153 163 161 26 0 26 hatched 610422 4646101 23 Mallard 4c hardstem bulrush 135 135 153 153 0 7.2 7.2 destroyed 611784 4645342 24 cteal 4c Nettles 135 135 153 156 0 7.2 7.2 destroyed 609807 4646824 25 cteal 4c pepperweed 135 135 153 158 0 7.2 7.2 destroyed 609510 4646797 27 Mallard 6c hemlock 146 146 162 178 0 6.4 6.4 destroyed 607540 4644470 28 Gadwall 6c hemlock 146 162 168 183 16 3 19 destroyed 607533 4644458 29 Gadwall 6c pepperweed 146 146 162 176 0 6.4 6.4 destroyed 607533 4644666 30 Gadwall 6b1 lorass 146 168 189 173 27 0 27 hatched 607300 4646674 31 Gadwall 6b1 nettles 146 162 168 183 16 3 19 abandoned 606453 4646364 32 Gadwall 6b1 nettles 146 146 162 186 0 6.4 6.4 abandoned 606598 4646138 33 Gadwall 6b2 loeooerweed 146 146 162 179 0 6.4 6.4 abandoned 606612 4645449 34 Gadwall 6b1 thistle 146 162 189 179 16 6.8 22.8 hatched 606706 4645343 35 Gadwall 6b2 nettles 146 162 176 166 16 2 18 destroyed 605974 4643989 37 Gadwall Sb nettles 146 174 189 175 28 0 28 abandoned 604614 4643195 38 Gadwall 6b2 1i:irass 146 174 189 177 28 1.5 29.5 abandoned 604618 4643221 39 N shoveler 6b2 Igrass 146 168 174 174 174 28 0 28 hatched 604601 4643235 40 Gad wall 6b2 lorass 146 162 168 175 16 6.5 22.5 destroyed 604467 4643829 41 Gadwall 6b2 nettles 146 168 174 174 28 0 28 hatched 604614 4644168 42 Gadwall 6b2 larass 146 146 162 175 0 6.4 6.4 destroyed 604699 4644618 43 Gadwall 6a Nettles 146 174 189 177 28 0 28 hatched 604974 4644764 46 Gadwall 6a nettles 146 162 168 167 21 0 21 hatched 605749 4645140 48 cteal 4a orass 153 153 163 173 0 5 5 destroyed 608851 4646819 49 Mallard 4a hardstem bulrush 153 153 163 171 0 5 5 destroyed 609835 4646833 50 Gad wall 4d nettles 153 168 189 177 15 4.5 19.5 destroyed 609987 4646696 51 cteal 4d oeooerweed 153 163 168 184 10 2.5 12.5 abandoned 610105 4646459 52 c teal 4e hemlock 153 153 163 174 0 5 5 abandoned 610307 4646228 54 Mallard 4e hemlock 153 153 163 182 0 5 5 abandoned 610613 4645993 55 Gadwall 3b i:irass 153 163 168 180 10 2.5 12.5 destroyed 604595 4648118 56 Gadwall 6c hemlock 162 162 168 188 0 3 3 abandoned 607530 4644698 57 Gadwall 6c nettles 162 168 189 177 15 0 15 hatched 607528 4644908 58 Gadwall 6c oeooerweed 162 162 168 191 0 3 3 destroyed 607538 4644990 59 Gadwall 6b1 hemlock 162 162 189 183 0 8.4 8.4 destroyed 606664 4645387 60 Gadwall 6b1 hemlock 162 162 189 183 21 0 21 hatched 606697 4645351 Nest# Soecies Unit Dominant Plants Date Found Last date nest viable Fate determined Termination known Estimated hatch • Known Probable Total Fate UTM'smE• UTM'smN 61 Gadwall 6b1 hemlock 162 162 189 183 21 0 21 hatched 606698 4645348 63 Gadwall 6c thistle 162 189 194 193 27 2 29 destroyed 605841 4643419 64 Gadwall 6c thistle 162 174 189 184 12 5 17 abandoned 605802 4647922 65 c teal 6b2 tallwheat grass 162 174 189 183 21 0 21 hatched 604980 4642476 66 Gadwall 6b2 162 174 189 187 12 6.5 18.5 destroyed 604963 4642510 67 Gadwall 6b2 orass 162 162 168 188 0 3 3 destroyed 604886 464261 5 68 c teal 6b2 grass 162 168 174 188 6 3 9 destroyed 604875 4642628 69 Gadwall 6b2 arass 162 168 174 189 6 3 9 destroyed 604831 4642714 70 Gadwall 6b2 thistle 162 168 174 185 6 3 9 destroyed 604733 4642932 71 Gadwall 6b2 thistle 162 174 189 190 12 6 18 abandoned 604574 4643300 73 Gadwall 6b2 tallwheat arass 162 174 189 192 12 6 18 destroyed 604430 4643736 74 Gadwall 6b2 thistle 162 174 189 185 12 6 18 destroyed 604438 4643757 75 Gadwall 6b2 thistle 162 174 189 187 25 0 25 hatched 604530 4643991 76 Gadwall 6b2 arass 162 162 168 191 0 3 3 abandoned 604593 4644143 77 Gadwall 6b2 Nettles 162 174 189 1.89 12 6 18 destroyed 604608 4644171 78 Gadwall 6b2 Nettles 162 174 189 189 12 6 18 destroyed 604687 4644357 82 Mallard 6a hemlock 162 162 168 180 0 3 3 abandoned 604868 4644715 84 Gadwall 6a Nettles 162 174 189 189 27 0 27 hatched 605095 4644837 85 Gadwall 6a Nettles 162 162 168 168 6 0 6 hatched 605300 4644956 86 Gadwall 6a thistle 162 176 189 185 23 0 23 hatched 605303 4644960 88 Gadwall 6a larass 162 162 176 179 0 7 7 destroyed 606170 4645213 89 Gadwall 6a 1grass 162 176 189 189 27 0 27 hatched 606272 4645236 91 ctea l 6a tallwheat arass 162 176 189 179 14 1.5 15.5 hatched 606272 4645241 92 Mallard 6a larass 162 168 176 190 6 4 1O destrayed 606292 4645254 93 Gadwall 6a nettles 162 176 189 183 14 3.5 17.5 hatched 606527 4645455 94 c teal 4d hemlock 163 168 189 188 5 8 13 destroyed 610062 4646591 96 Gadwall 3b 1grass 163 168 189 181 5 6.5 11.5 destroved 604602 4648159 97 Gadwall 3b Igrass 168 168 189 185 0 8.4 8.4 destroyed 604593 4648176 98 cteal 6a nettles 168 168 176 174 0 3 3 hatched 606540 4645468 101 Gadwall Sa thistle 168 176 189 191 8 6.5 14.5 abandoned 605753 4645144 102 Gadwall 6a Nettles 168 174 189 191 6 6 12 destroyed 604767 4644669 103 Mallard 6b2 thistle 168 168 174 174 174 6 0 6 hatched 604437 4643777 Total exposure days 1,223.6 Total hatched 25 Total destroyed 41 Total Abandoned 19 • Datum NAO 27 Jcumulative Proportion of Hatched-N~~by Date, Lower Klamath NWR, 2004J 100 90 80 "' 70 -(I) z"' "C (I) 60 .c (,) :c-co 50 ...... 0 40 c: -(I) (,) :i... (I) 30 a. 20 10 0 May 30 - Jun 5 Jun 6 - Jun 12 Jun 13 - Jun 19 Jun 20 - Jun 26 Jun 27 - Jul 3 Jul 4 - Jul 11 IProjected Duck H~tchDates, Lower Klamath NWR, 2004.j 25 ..,-~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~-,--~~~~ ~~~~~~~..,..- ~~ ~~~~~~~--. 20-l---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -?';:_~~~~~-= ~~~~ ---:i ....ti) ti) (1) 15 z ~0 10 -~~~~~--:-7'~~~~~:::'-:::...... _-::::::::=:.-;;,J'_~~~-;;-"'~-:_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ z~ 5 -t-~~~~---, ::;;--~==-~~~~~~ --= :=..-11::-~ +-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ x 0 I May 30 - Jun 5 Jun 6 - Jun 12 Jun 13 - Jun 19 Jun 20 - Jun 26 Jun 27 - Jul 3 Jul 4 - Jul 11 1-+- Gadwall ----- Mallard c. teal ~ N. shoveler--=;::..J\iinoucks] Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge; Duck Nest Success 2004 Prepared for: Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge ENV 210 Sophomore Projects i. \ I t • By Travis Grieser October ·7, 2004 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 11 BACKGROUND...... 1 LKNWR History...... 1 Duck Nest Success...... 2 Factors that lower success...... 3 4 Nest Records...... 5 Duck Identification ...... _ ...... 6 Incubation period ...... 6 Nest Location...... 7 Nest Fate...... 8 . I , RESULTS...... 9 Nest Success...... 10 DISCUSSION...... 11 CONCLUSION...... 12 APPENDIX A...... 13 FIGURE 1...... 14 FIGURE 2...... 15 FIGURE 3...... 16 WORKS CITED ...... : ...... 17 11 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Duck Nest Success 2004 The Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (LKNWR) has experienced a decrease in duck nest success in the last two duck nest success studies. There are many factors that could be contributing to this decline at LKNWR, but before the refuge spends a couple million dollars trying to solve the problem, they need to get some more data. After this data is collected the LKNWR can decide if the decrease in duck nest success is going to fix itself, and duck nest success numbers will go up, or is something going to have to be done to prevent future decline. In 1905 the entire makeup of the Klamath Basin changed as the federal government began draining vast wetlands in order to create rich farmland that was then I offered to WW I and II veterans (Byron, 2002.). In the next few years it was decided that some of this wetland should be returned for the waterfowl that had previously used this I vast area. By 1908 the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge was established as the nation's first waterfowl refuge. The refuge lies mainly in California but does have a portion that lies in Oregon which is separated from California by Hwy 161. Not only does the LKNWR establish a safe resting area for nearly 1 million birds per year, . . between LKNWR and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge, but it also provides many public and commercial uses (LKNWR, 2004). - 1 - suggests that the following be done in the field: (1) Birds that flush from their nests will either have to be identified on the wing or from clues at the nest site; (2) The incubation period of the eggs will be determined; (3) The location of the nests will be marked (4) The duck nests will be documented on the nest record sheet; (5) The fate of the nest will be evaluated. Nest Records Nest records were kept on a nest record checklist supplied by the protocol (Figure 2, Appendix A) but modified by the author. All parts of the nest record sheet were filled out according to the number codes listed in the USDI protocol on location during each nest site visit. Three sections, marked, UTM's and file name, were added by the author to accommodate LKNWR biologists. Marked, was added tQ show the distance and · direction from the nest that the metal stake was placed. UTM's was added to write down the UTM's in NAD 27 Conus. File name was added to remind the netJQ.$earcher what site each nest was. The nest report was taken out to the nest every time that ~e nest site was visited and the appropriate data was filled in. Nests were to be visited at least three times .)ff'(: from late April to late June to get a good estimate of the total number of nests and the id~ · actual fate of the nests. Some ducks, like mallards, nest earlier than others, sµch as IH!t gadwalls, so the dates that are used for visiting nest sites will be spread out, keeping in mind that it took several days, May 11, 13 and 14, to finish checking all the nests. This does not mean that each nest was checked for three consecutive days but that each nes.t •N 'f;'!• was checked once and it took three days to finish checking each nest once. ' R iHIJ - 5 - in most cases, was able to determine the incubation period. This was marked down as either; 0 days, 4 days, 8 days, 12 days, 16 days, 20 days, 22 or more days, or as a dead embryo. Nest Location In the Original 1986 protocol that was used for this study, it was suggested that nest location be marked using an aerial photo. The protocol also stated that other physical features of the area be noted as well. This study still used physical features as a reference of nest sites but a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit was used to mark the nest location instead of the aerial photos. A metal stake with flagging was usually pushed into the ground 3 stake lengths from the nest site. The file name number, that was used to name the marked position on the GPS, was written on the flagging. Targeted Areas The areas that were targeted on the LKNWR were the ditch sidts of units 4 and 6. These were areas that had a large wetland area, surrounded by dense covlf;_(r along the roadside or dike. Unit 3B was the only unit that wasn't a dike or roadside)rr'ii'he reason that Unit 3B was searched was because of the use of this field by ducks in previous years. Unit 3B is a solid tall wheat grass field over 100 yards from water. Most of1the field's vegetation was sparse, but nests were found where the field was thicker in clumps of the grass. For the most part wetland vegetation was kept out of the search but in a few J, instances there were nests found in the wetlaml vegetation alongJhe.roadsides and dikes. The reason for this was because of the difficulty of walking through the wetland vegetation. John Beckstrand commented that on years of little nest activity along the - 7 - determine the fate of the nest. Often the nest will be abandoned by the hen when she is flushed from the nest in early egg laying stages. This should be recorded as the cause of abandonment if the hen does not return after she is flushed. Hens may also die trying to get out of the nest. This has become more apparent as different types of non-native species have invaded duck nesting areas. The hen is either slowed down by this brush as she tried to exit and was eaten by a predator, or she exhausted here self until death (Beckstrand, Personnel Communication). Dead embryos are eggs in which the hen is still incubating but the egg is either seen as dead or infertile when it is candled. RESULTS The table below shows the initial date that the ne3t was located, marked and candled by the observer. When a nest was found on the initial dates listed below, it was revisited on all remaining days until it was either abandoned by the h6~; destroyed or a successful nest was recorded. The table also divides the nests up into the species of duck that was determined on the initial day by clues at the nest or from in- flight~dentification. NUMBER OF NESTS BY SPECIES I -TABLE 1- ,S Day Nest -' Mallard Gadwall Cinnamon Teal Found May 11, 2004 7 0 2 May 13, 2004 5 2 2 May 14, 2004 1 0 6 May25, 2004 2 19 1 June 1, 2004 2 2 4 June 10, 2004 3 31 ·fl ... 3 June 11, 2004 0 2 1 June 16, 2004 1 5 1 TOTALS 21 61 20 - 9 - DISCUSSION Is the duck nest success at Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge continuing to drop as it has it previous years? The answer to this question may still not be able to be answered. The results from this study would show that the nest success at LKNWR is indeed still dropping. The one factor that maybe the most misleading is that the fate of most of the gadwall nests is not yet determined. 48 of the gadwall nests fate were not determined and most of the later nests could not have been given a fate of successful in the short span of time that they were observed. For this reason, the gadwall nest success will probably be seen as higher by the LKNWR biologists. This may have lowered the overall nest success by a little but it probably dropped the success of the gadwall nests by 5% or more. Although all of the nests were checked at least twice only the nests found before May 25 were all accounted as having a determined fate. These nests sfiow a success of around 16% which helps support the data on table 2 and shows that the determination of the remaining 50 nests will probably not give a drastic change to the data. 11 A duck nest success of 15% is needed for a population of ducks to increase from year to year (Beckstrand 2004). LKNWR is still meeting this goal of 15% but is way down from its early years of 35% - 80%. Duck nest success has continued to drop through the years while the appearance of dead hens has been rising. In the early 90's dead hens were nearly 1 in 500 during nesting periods (Mauser 2004). In 2004, 5 dead hens were found in the 102 nests that were observed. This appears·to be from the larger and harder to get out of vegetation that is present now but wasn't 15 years ago. Pepper - 11 - APPENDIX A FIGURE!...... 14 Is a map of the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. The Straits Unit is located towards the top middle of the map. The Sheepy West Unit is located straight south of the Straits Unit. These are the two main agricultural areas; however some of the numbered units also have agriculture. FIGURE 2...... 15 Is a picture of the Nest Record that will be used at each of the nest sites. The boxes on the Nest Record sheet are filled out with numbers given by the Protocol that is being used for this report. After the initial visit to the site, the only sections that will be filled out are: the nest Visitation Status section, which will be filled out on every return trip to the nest site; the Key Dates and Data Needed to Compute Nest Survival will be filled out when the nest fate is known. FIGURE3...... 16 Is the Dichotomous Key for keying the feathers found in each individual nest site. -13- LOWER KLAMATH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE MAP . . ' .t4wer Klamath · · Refuge ·· .. • o .All#rtPtJr ~ - . .P.aWfj ioildS. ,,,;. .._ ___ . ·Ghi ~ -- FIGURE 1 -14- NEST RECORD NEST RECORD UTM'S UTM'S FILENAME MARKED FILENAME MARKED I I I I I I I I I I I I -DATA CONTROL- -DATA CONTROL- REFUGE UNIT CELL REFUGE UNIT CELL I LKNWR I I I I I I I I I I LKNWR I I I I I I I I I YEAR NEST NO. SPECIES YEAR NEST NO. SPECIES I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I -RECORD ON DAY FOUND- -RECORD ON DAY FOUND- NEST STATUS ON NEST STATUS ON (DOMINANT PLANTS) DAY FOUND D (DOMINANT PLANTS) DAY FOUND D -NEST VISITATION STATUS- -NEST VISITATION STATUS- DATE #OF INCUBATION HEN NEST FATE DATE #OF INCUBATION HEN NEST FATE EGGS STAGE STATUS EGGS STAGE STATUS -DATA NEEDED FOR NEST SURVIVAL- -DATA NEEDED FOR NEST SURVIVAL- #EGGS WHEN INC. STAGE WHEN FULL FATE CAUSE #EGGS WHEN INC. STAGE WHEN FULL FATE CAUSE FOUND FOUND CLUTCH OF LOSS FOUND FOUND CLUTCH OF LOSS I I I I I I I I I D D I I I I I I I I I D D -KEY DATES- -KEY DATES- LAST LAST NEST NEST VISIT FOUND VISIT FOUND I DJ] FATE [II] DJ] FATE I I I VIABLE I I I I VIABLE I I I I TERMINATION I I I I HABITAT D TERMINATION I I I I HABITAT D -15- DICHOTOMUS KEY TO DOWN AND BREAST FEATHERS 1. Down wholly white ...... redhead Down not wholly white ...... 2 2. Vane of breast feathers mainly white (white at distal end; basal downy portion light grayish beige ...... green winged teal Vane of breast feather not mainly white ...... 3 3. Vane of breast feather dusky with definite light-terminal band and no other markings ...... 4 Vane of breast feather with conspicuous markings irrespective of tip characteristics ...... 7 4. Total shaft of breast feather dusky ...... lesser scaup Proximal third of shaft of breast feather light; distal portion darker ...... 5 5. Demarcation of dark areas and light tip of breast feather vane a fairly straight transverse line; down feather with inconspicuous light tips ...... canvasback Line of color demarcation decidedly curved ...... 6 6. Dark area of breast feather mottled; down feather with very conspicuous (white) tips ...... American wigeon Dark area of breast feathers darkest in center; down feather with inconspicuous white tips ...... gadwall 7. Vane of breast feather with alternating bars or a dark triangular area ...... mallard Vane of breast feather with conspicuous dark central area surrounded on at least three sides with a light marginal area ...... 8 8. Vane of breast feather with dark circular sub-terminal area ...... northern shoveler Vane of breast feather with dark elongated sub-terminal area ...... 9 9. Down feather with conspicuous white "center" and dark tips; proximal portion of breast feather very light ...... blue-winged teal Down feather with inconspicuous white "center"; down feathers appear (in bulk) almost evenly colored throughout; no white in vane of breast feather ...... northern pintail FIGURE3 -16- NEST RECORD NEST RECORD UTM'S UTM'S FILENAME MARKED FILENAME MARKED I I I I I I I I I I I I -DATA CONTROL- -DATA CONTROL- REFUGE UNIT CELL REFUGE UNIT CELL I LKNWR I I I I I I I I I I LKNWR I I I I I I I I I YEAR NEST NO. SPECIES YEAR NEST NO. SPECIES I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I -RECORD ON DAY FOUND- -RECORD ON DAY FOUND- NEST STATUS ON NEST STATUS ON (DOMINANT PLANTS) DAY FOUND D (DOMINANT PLANTS) DAY FOUND D -NEST VISITATION STATUS- -NEST VISITATION STATUS- DATE #OF INCUBATION HEN NEST FATE DATE #OF INCUBATION HEN NEST FATE EGGS STAGE STATUS EGGS STAGE STATUS -DATA NEEDED FOR NEST1 SURVIVAL- -DATA NEEDED FOR NEST SURVIVAL- #EGGS WHEN INC. STAGE WHEN FULL FATE CAUSE #EGGS WHEN INC. STAGE WHEN FULL FATE CAUSE FOUND FOUND CLUTCH OF LOSS FOUND FOUND CLUTCH OF LOSS I I I I I I I I I D D I I I I I I I I I D I I -KEY DATES- -KEY DATES- LAST LAST NEST NEST FOUND VISIT FOUND VISIT [[]] [IJJ FATE [[]] [IJJ FATE VIABLE I I I I VIABLE I I I I TERMINATION I I I I HABITAT D TERMINATION I I I I HABITAT D