Talk:Delta Management for Waterfowl

1) Importance: The authors do not provide evidence that they understand local biological, social and political conditions. Thus we believe there is a high risk of failure for the project. Problem Statement implies that social objections to restoration center on the loss of freshwater systems. In fact, the social opposition stems primarily from reduced access because of tidal inundation. Freshwater habitats are typically available within the nearby farm fields during the wet months in which the study will occur. We do not understand how objectives 1 and 2, which look at regional scale bird movements and prey availability, will inform managers about habitat and food resource changes resulting from local estuary restorations. Existing (Port Susan Bay Preserve) and potential (Leque Island) restored estuary in Port Susan Bay is 142 ha., assuming total restoration at Leque Island. Existing intertidal marsh in Skagit and Port Susan Bays exceeds 30,000 ha. The methods described are unlikely to produce site specific results that can be directly attributed to restoration activities.

Objective 1: Regional Habitat Use.

a) Pintail and wigeon are far less abundant in Port Susan and Livingston Bays, compared to points north. Authors should articulate where their capture sites will be located and describe their relationship to the restoration sites.

b) N= 20/species may not be adequate. No analysis was presented to explain the sample size, but we suspect it is not sufficient to accomplish the goals of the project, and does not allow for for radio failure or natural and hunting mortality of marked birds during the course of the study . Ducks will be captured pre and post hunting season: how will marked animals be distributed in the pre and post hunting periods (eg 10 pre and 10 post), and why?

c) Capturing ducks prior to the hunting season: If bait is used, federal rules require no bait of any kind be present at a site 10 days prior to any waterfowl hunting season. Thus all baiting would have to cease by August 31. The target species generally do not arrive until around the 3rd week of September. Nets captures require intimate familiarity with bird use of the area and local landowners that we do see evidence that this group has established.

d) Waterfowl move throughout the greater Stillaguamish/Skagit ecosystem according to disturbance, weather, and food resources. Therefore, measurement of direct effects of bird use on Leque Island pre-and post- restoration will be challenged by the size of available habitat in the two bays and their uplands combined.

Objective 2: Local-Scale Prey Availability and Diet.

Leque Island restoration is scheduled to begin in summer, 2016. We question whether sampling immediately after the restoration, in the fall of 2016 will be representative of conditions that will evolve and stabilize over time. Thus, it is unlikely that an immediate post restoration sampling effort will actually represent long term conditions of a restored site.

2) Efficiency:

a) Leque Island is a relatively small area within a much larger mosaic of agricultural lands, estuary marsh, mudflat, and ephemeral freshwater ponds. It is unlikely that 40 marked individuals will spend enough time there to distinguish use from other sites, so the cost of radio equipping birds is very high relative to the certainty that birds will react to restoration actions. Marked bird surveys are to be augmented with ground counts. However, surveys may be biased because not all of the bays and uplands where birds are likely to spend time can be seen from the ground.

b) Timeframe: According to page 11, bird captures were to have begun prior to the 2014/2015 waterfowl hunting season and continued into January 2015. We are confused about the target dates presented in the proposal. Additionally, changes in food resources and habitat conditions post-restoration will take several years to stabilize. We believe this project may not result in a population level utilization distribution that accounts for restoration changes occurring at Leque Island, at least not within the timeframe of the project.

c) A graduate student is listed as conducting project tasks for $5,000 but there is no statement about who the student is or where they will come from, thus it’s difficult to determine whether or not using a student is realistic. Unless they are local, housing costs and/or mileage reimbursement should be provided. These costs do not appear to be addressed in the proposal.

d) Mileage reimbursement for citizen scientists and volunteer hunters is apparently not addressed in the budget. Citizen scientists have not been contacted so their availability and interest in participating in the project is not certain. We cannot determine how many are needed, how often they would be expected to drive to the field, or how critical their role will be to the success of the project from the proposal. Volunteer training is minimally mentioned in the proposal; successful citizen science projects result from extensive and careful training of volunteers.

3) Policy Impact:

The authors have identified local opposition to estuary restoration as focusing on freshwater wetland habitat versus estuary habitat. The social issues identified for Leque Island include interest in understanding habitat changes and maintaining quality habitat for birds. However, maintenance of freshwater wetlands, specifically has not been identified as a primary social concern at Leque Island. Primary concerns are: access for hunting, bird watching, dog training, hiking, photography, water access and boating. Salmon recovery is also a value Leque Island stakeholders have said they support. Understanding habitat changes relative to restoration and its impact on birds is important, but this project focuses primarily habitat choices currently available to waterfowl in the area versus accounting for changes that come specifically from restoration actions.

4) Transferability:

As written, this project applies to Leque Island and the surrounding “region”, which is not defined specifically. The authors do not discuss how this project will be applicable to other restoration activities elsewhere in Puget Sound.

5) Learning Prioirity:

Pilchuck Audubon and Skagit Audubon say they have not had any discussions with the authors about this project. Ecostudies Institute has requested not to be involved with it. Ducks Unlimited is not the correct organization to connect hunters with the project. Establishing hunter check stations will be challenging due to the large number of hunters and hunting sites distributed across a large area. WDFW Enforcement officers have not been consulted on how check stations might be conducted. Ruth Milner and Loren Brokaw, the local WDFW contacts are listed as partners in the project, however, WDFW participation will be limited to: coordinate and facilitate access to the Leque Island property with USGS through a Right of Entry permit. Property access details will be coordinated with the Skagit Wildlife Area Manager in order to minimize conflicts with ongoing activities on the site. Additionally, WDFW will share data and studies related to planning of the restoration project as requested by USGS.

comments on waterfowl proposal -- ESRPAnon (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2014 (PST)

While there are some interesting research questions here I think a more meaningful assessment of waterfowl response to restoration might be to apply simpler methods to more species. The question about waterfowl is about more than two species and information on spatiotemporal distribution and behavior (e.g., feeding) can presumably be collected by relatively simple field surveys.