I I I I I I I I WATERBIRD USE OF AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR COOK INLET STATE GAME REFUGES. Richard Sellers. Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Transcription

1 fo 0 U( ALt:!(A S!t!f-!S t S..,".!1Y &i o Uno :a;-o. tt WATERBRD USE OF AND MANAGEMENT CONSDERATONS FOR COOK NLET STATE GAME REFUGES by Richard Seers Aaska Department of Fish and Game QL 684 A4 S

2 b1 6)(...., \ "",...,... ALKA RSm.. n:-c,e! ts ""rty 1!1..,..""",.,-!i i!:!>-.,..,. UU -- vd fwi!t iv!-ahir;-\n --; - ":\. ;;j., _, - WATERBRD USE OF AND MANAGEMENT CONSDERATONS FOR COOK NLET STATE GAME REFUGES -::..,,_i - _) j _.,..) n by Richard Seers f r d r -: -" r w L Aaska Department of Fish and Game 1979

3 - - =:!!f\" -. _. : WATERBRD USE OF AND MANAGEMENT CONSDERATONS FOR COOK NLET STATE GAME REFUGES The coasta marshes of Cook net have ong been recognized as important resting and staging areas for waterbirds during spring and fa migrations. A 1962 spring survey estimated over 100,000 birds utiized Susitna Fats for resting (E.. Cramer and.l. Bergstrand, unpubished report of the Aaska Department. of Fish and Game ADF&G]). P.D. Havens (1973, unpubished report for ADF&G) stated that tens of thousands of waterfow fed and rested on Susitna Fats during the spring. He observed that fa bird use was equa to or greater than spring, and was spread over a onger period. Quimby (1972) reported over 10,000 waterfow on Chickaoon Fats in spring A peak concentration of just under 9,000 waterfow occurred about 1 October, These estimated "peak popuations" did not account for tota waterfow use because the rate of "turnover" was not determined. _) -... j _)! Quimbys study and ADF&G aeria surveys begun in 1975 (Tfmm 1978) reveaed the importance of Cook net marshes as waterfow breeding habitat. These coasta marshes, in addition to being important to waterbirds, provide hunting and other recreationa opportunities in Aaskas most heaviy popuated area. From 1971 to 1976 approximatey 26 percent of the statewide duck hunting effort and 29 percent of the duck harvest occurred in Cook net (Timm). During this period, Susitna Fats and Pamer Hay Fats were the two most popuar waterfowing areas in Aaska, averaging 4,473 and 4,150 hunter days per year, respectivey. Potter Marsh, Trading Bay and Goose Bay were aso among-the-top 25 waterfow hunting areas with average_hunting pressure of 814, 508 and 522 days per year, respectivey (Tabe 1). To insure protection and adequate-management of these marshes, the Aaska State Legisature created State Game Refuges at Potter Point Marsh (1971), Pamer Hay Fats (1975), Goose Bay (1975), Susitna Fats (1976) and Trading Bay (1976). _, ;-ti _ -41 The bis passed in 1976 stated that these game refuges were estabished to protect fish and widife habitats and popuations and to protect pubic uses of fish and widife, particuary waterfow, moose and bear hunting, viewing, photography and other recreation. Oi and gas eases were et on some areas of these marshes before refuges were estabished, and exporation and deveopment have continued under the terms of the pre-existing eases. Future ease agreements wou ony be made when compatibe with the stated purposes of the refuges. The egisation prohibits State aquisition of private inhodings by eminent domain and ensures access to inhodings. However, the Aaska Department of Natura Resources was given authority_to adopt zoning reguations under Aaska Statue when necessary to insure the intended uses of refuges. Trading Bay State Game Refuge egisation differs from the other bis in that the Department of Natura Resources was directed to estabish reguations governing the issuance of permits, for seasona cabins existing on-une 24, The cabin site permits were not to exceed 5 years, but coud be renewed.

4 c-- - : C, C. ].,"] u... LL,_....,_ c....) 1.. ;. 1 L... ii.l.;.. t......,.i > Tabe 1. Waterfow hunter days and average harvest per day on Cook net Refuges, , cacuated from statewide waterfow hunter mai surveys. Percent of Average Average State waterfow ducks geese Hunter Da:s hunter das day{ day Refuge average hunter hunter Susitna Fats Pamer Hay Fats Goose Bay Trading Bay Potter Marsh o.o \

5 - - j, < f) ---S: ::::5 :.--! - " ---,.. d - =j n._] r :] r- i -" 3 1, L Athough some information existed. ADF&G reaized that more ecoogica information on these refuges.was needed to formuate ong range game management objectiv. es. especiay with regard to oi-gas deveopment. interspersion of and ownership (private, native, borough and state),.the fate of private cabins on pubic and, pubic access, and the possibe probem of ead poisoning of waterfow. ntensive studies began in ate May, 1978 on Susitna Fats. Pamer Hay Fats and Goose Bay with these objectives: to determine waterbird densities in eary. mid and ate summer; to measure habitat preferences of waterfow and shorebirds; to measure waterfow production; to determine migration of ocay produced ducks; to resove the issue of possibe ingested ead shot poisoning; and to evauate ate summer and fa food habits of ducks. Aso. data and persona impressions were obtained on how human activities (gas exporation, private cabins and aircraft traffic) affect widife habitat and its use. One of the principe reasons for estabishing State Game Refuges was to provide recreationa opportunities. To hep assess pubic use and opinions on management of these refuges, questionnaires were distributed from une to December The studies accompished by ADF&G and reported here focused on widife use of State Game Refuges. Our understanding of these areas wi be greaty compimented by an independent study of the ecoogy of sat marsh pant communities on Susitna Fats begun in 1978 by Aison Snow, University of Massachusetts, and Susan Vince, University of Michigan. They were funded during the summer of 1978 by the Aaska Waterfow Association, and ADF&G provided ony imited ogistic support and technica assistance. This study is schedued to continue in STUDY AREA Unike some coasta marshes in Southcentra Aaska, (i.e. Copper River Deta, Portage. Chickaoon Fats). the three Cook net marshes in this study- Susitna Fats (136 sq mi), Pamer Hay Fats (42.7 sq mi) and Goose Bay (9.2 sq mi), Fig. 1- were reativey unaffected by the.964 earthquake. Foster and Karstrom (1967) reported, "Aong the west shore of Cook net from Point McKenzie to Kamishak Bay, there was 1 to 2 feet of subsidence aong the sumped front of the Susitna Deta area Probaby most of this subsidence can be attributed to sumping and compaction of the deta frorit and adjoining eevated tida fats between the Susitna River and McKenzie Point. This concusion seems reasonabe because (1) the coasta margin was extensivey cracked during the earthquake and (2) changes in bathymetry of the bordering seaway record a major sump of materia aong the coast " They did not describe the disturbance at Goose Bay or Pamer Hay Fats. Quimby (1972) described vegetation patterns at Chickaoon Fats reated to frequency of tida fooding. Toerance of sat water affects the distribution of pant communities n other coasta marshes in Cook net in a simiar way. Ground transects measuring bird densities on a three Refuges incuded habitat from intertida mud fats to a shrub-bog community. These transects on Susitna Fats were ocated within the outined.study area (Fig. 2), and those on Pamer Hay Fats and Goose Bay are shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectivey. -

6 n :o;" L 1-1 ::... 1"1 n,.,- c.._ 0 ) C) 1"1 )... i_.. :X,P- r; C) -... C) -1 "-0, \) 9 io..., F.:::., -en r r L-

7 :j... OQ N = en c::: CD 1-- rt ::s 1- rt CD CD rt c: Q. «11 CD \. i..)." f : \ \ \ \ i \ \:: \ \._ i -: : -.. z

8 .,. }j: : :?.. rj «::::)....:!: :... ::.-. :<.. 1 ;_?:" i.h. i.. :. --c;::;: :... :-... : >. : , :.," -.(,. " 1,1.,. 7.,j C.,zof ;... " \ f.. 4 \ \. (,, ---. r } r., r G,. (... L.,&".,t. t,..- : r.,1 2.9 : ; --. r -- -., j- -.,, L. Duck -.iq 6 5,riFfW ii:f ft..,. ij_:;: i:i>!ti Fig. 3. Pamer Hay Fats ground transects.,,

9 ..., \ "i :pasue.:x puno.:x8.a?g asoo!) ""7 6 f- L r L.; - L..

10 - :::::;.. For purposes of determining habitatusage, five broad types of pant communities were identified on a- three areas: j ::-3 _; --" _ Tida Fats (TF) extend towards the inet from about mean high tide ine and consist of exposed mud fats vegetated ony by agae. Puccineia-Trigochin.(PT) Community is ocated just inand from mean high tide ine and is dominated by patches of creeping akai grass (PucaineZZia phygrcmodes), cumps of arge akai. grass (Pucaine7,7,a grandis) and seaside arrow-grass (TrigZochin maritimum) interspersed with patches of mud often coonized by sender gasswort (SaZicornia europaea), spurry CsperguZaria canadensis), sea bight (Suaeda depressa) and agae. Other important pants in this. community are goose tongue (Ptantago maritimajuncoides), Pacific siverweed (PotentiZZa egedii grandis) and sea mikwort (GZau: maritima). Recenty exposed mud, such as where ponds were drained by tida guts (e.g., parts of Stump Lake west of the Susitna River) often support neary pure patches of creeping akai grass. o --. i _) _] 1 _; _..; - Ramenski sedge - shaow pond (RS) Community begins further inand where Ramenski sedge (Carex Ramenski) gains dominance over the Puccineia Trigochin community. Cumps of seaside arrow-grass are often scattered in the RS community. Ponds within this habitat are shaow (generay ess than 2 ft) with sharpy defined shoreines, itte emergent vegetation and usuay unvegetated bottoms. Near the interface with the marsh community, ponds are deeper and have four-eaf mares tai (Hippuris tetraphyzza) and may support pondweed (Potomageton fiziformis). Sighty eevated ground, such as banks of tida guts and edges of oxbows, are vegetated by by grass-forb communities featuring beach rye (EZymus arenarius mozzis), buejoint (CaZamagrostis canadensis), bue grass (Poa eminens), r fescue (Festuca rubra), Pacific siverweed, Artie daisy (Chrysanthemum arcticum), wid iris (ris setos) squirre-tai barey (Hordeum jubatum), upine (Lupinus arctiais), beach ovage (Legusticum scoticum), wid ceery (AngeZica Zuaida), shooting star (Dodecatheon pazchezzum) and Saussurea nuda. Marsh (M) Community is a diverse interspersion of wetand, wet meadow and grass-forb communities. Waterbodies vary from shaow ponds to sma akes, and are characterized by indistinct shoreines with a fringe of emergent vegetation. Many of the smaer wetands are neary covered by emergents, the most prevaent being sedges (Carex spp), creeping spike rush (Scripus pazudosus), four-eaved mares tai and burush (Scripus vazidus). Many ponds support submergents incuding pondweeds (Potomageton spp), horned pondweed (ZanicheZZia pazustris), water mifoi CMYrophyZZum spicatum) and wigeon grass (Ruppia spirazis). Wet meadows are inundated by high tides (+32 ft) severa times during the year. Pants growing here (sedges, siverweed, goose tongue, and seaside arrow-grass) are toerant of saturated akaine soi conditions. Drier sites have grass and forb species as described for the RS community. Shrubbog (SB) Community is the east affected by tida fooding and covers the argest area on these three refuges. t extends inand from the marsh community to where eevation and drainage aow upand pants to grow. Ponds within this habitat are generay deeper and have distinct, ;

11 ... =-1,... i - though often foating, shoreines and itte aquatic vegetation. The shrub-bog community is poory drained but thicky vegetated. mportant pants incude sweet gae <MYrica gaze), dwarf birch (BetuZa nana), Arctic dock (Rumex arcticus), water hemock (Cicuta dougzosii), cotton grass (Eriphorum spp.), buejoint, marsh five fingers (PotentiZZa pazustris) and buckbean (Menyanthes trifoziator). Sighty drier sites have wiow (SaZ spp.), back spruce (Picea mariana), heaths (Ledum spp.) and (KaZmia spp.). _d : -; ; j j! _::) - j. --"1, The width of these pant communities and the proportion of wetand in Marsh and RS Communities varies consideraby between and even within refuges. The extent of the PT Community is much greater and generay ess densey vegetated on Susitna Fats east of the Susitna River, where subsidence was greater foowing the 1964 earthquake. Here the RS and Marsh areas are restricted to a strip about 0.4 mi. wide. West of the Susitna River, the PT community is narrower and more-densey vegetated, and the RS and Marsh habitat is about 0.8 mi. wide. HETHODS Annua breeding bird surveys of these three coasta marshes commensed in 1975 (Timm 1976), and the areas were again fo on 26 May On 19 uy 1978 a brood survey was fown using the same procedure except the count area was reduced to 18 mi. wide. Ground transects in 1978 samped bird densities in habitats from tida mud fats to shrub-bog. _Since none of the refuges were type mapped, the extent of various pant communities have not been quantified. Consequenty, we did not attempt to estabish ground transects to cover habitats in proportion to their tota occurrance. At Susitna Fats most transects were straight strips running north-south. To agument these N-S strips, additiona transects aong tide ine and aong two streams samped a _ communities except the SB. Logistica and topographic considerations at Pamer Hay Fats and Goose Bay precuded straight ine transects Transects on these two refuges foowed subjective routes (Fig. 3 and 4). A transects were 18 mie wide-(110 yards either side of the observer), with boundaries estimated by eye and by correating and marks with coor aeria photos (scae 4":1 mie). Transects were segmented by quarter mie intervas, and each segment was cassified by pant community so bird densities by habitat type coud be cacuated. Timing of ground surveys was: Susitna Fats Pamer Hay Fats Goose Bay Eary Summer 31 May-8 une 12 and 14 une 13 une Mid Summer 8-15 uy 26 uy 25 uy Late Summer August 29 and 31 August 28 August Pubic questionnaires and cover ettes (Figs. 5 and 6) were maied to Susitna cabin owners, sporting goods stores, the USFWS, and the Audubon Society in une 1978, and they were avaiabe in the Anchorage, Pamer and Sodotna offices of ADF&G from une to the competion of this report. Some questionnaires were aso distributed directy to hunters using refuges in September 1978.

12 . :-1< Pt3UC QTtSTCD.U!tE o:; t"ppe!t COOK Dit.ET. :tetucts Pease ansvar each qestiou for r.f&.2!!!!, i yo have sed th.1t refg. P.\L.".O. ;;oosc: st:sr.i.\ FLATS!!LW FLATS!R...\DC 3AYi 3A =o -.. ot bow iiany days per year dg you tb, futr = a) Huc vacarfov b) Rune otber >tame c) Soon: fish d). Commercia fish e) Genera en1oven: of na f) Other name t11e111 Co U:S: (:Z) eo-encs: About: bow aach gua d1. you shoot: aac vur ou t1e retun? a) OucU b) c... c) Snioe or c d) Other tame n.ame so acies (3) Bow O&UY yean have you h=ted. vateriow. w h area _., \ j (4) f you have h=ted ou ;!:; rafups for 5 or more vears, do you think the waceriov is getd.zc beccar, -worse or no chaosze? eo-ants: = _) (5) U you anmred tie quud.ott abova. "hy dg you think your hmdd& success mav have chaoszed! eoanents: (6) Shouc use of the fooving "Ch n< zac vehices 011 refuges be: unrescrtccec. restricted by time ancor area. o-r orohibited? a)-airboats b) ATV 1 s c) Aircrait Coiiiiii8Uts: (7) Do you object to a,.,.tbar incuna roads vitbin refuges? (e.g. 3P!oac ou Pamer Bay Fats and.evi.s 1 ver Road on Susitna) eo-ts:! f T r i i -. _1 (8) Do you or frti!d<s you 11=1: d:h <n a cabin 011 the refuges f so. were on the refuge (genera area)! (9) Do you t1int tbe number of cabins on refuges are too ::aaay, too fev o-r about titb:! (10) Wouc you!.ike to see Fish m4 Game operate pubic use cabins ac a nomina fee? (11) Other comments: <se back of age if ecessarv) Your Name and Address: Deiver to an Aaska Deparaent of Fi.sh and Came off:!.ce or :aai co the Came Divisiou 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage You vi e notified of a pubic eeting this fa. Fig. 5. Pubic questionnaire (reduced by 65%)

13 .. :.. _.) 11 <]LH &K\ AYS. HAMMOND. GOVERNOR UEPHT.MET Ot tsh..\t Ci.:\E s - ASPBERY ROAD AtCHOAS _ une : ATTENTON SPORTSMEN ) - 1..:.i ).. - State game refuges were recenty created.by the Legisature on Susitna Fats, Pamer Hay Fats, Trading Bay and Goose Bay. These refuges were created primariy for waterfow, other widife and fisheries and for the peope who use and enjoy these resources. For Fish and Game to administer these refuges in the best interests of the pubic, it is essentia that we know what you use the refuges for and how you think they shoud be managed. As the popuation grows around Upper Cook net, pubic use of these areas wi ikewise intensify. t wi be our job to not ony protect widife, but to aso perpetuate pubic use and to minimize conficts between user groups. Unti we determine the present and potentia impacts of cabins on refuges, there is a moritorium on any new cabin construction. Aso, some sort of a ease or use permit system wi evove for those cabins on the Refuges. Late this fa we wi hod severa pubic meetings regarding future refuge management. To assist us in preparing for these meetings and to find out more about your use of the refuges, pease fi out the attached questionnaire. Mai it to the Game Division, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, 99502, or drop it by an Aaska Department of Fish and Game office in Pamer, Kenai or Anchorage. You wi be notified of the time and pace of the pubic meeting at a ater date. Thanks for your hep. Sincerey, _,.,..- r) :-:- < : d-n<..,-r ohn Vania Regiona Game Supervisor - Fig. 6. Cover etter distributed with pubic questionnaire on State Game Refuges. 1--

14 .i.. Waterfow reactions to aircraft were noted whenever observed. Data were recorded on type of aircraft, visua estimate of vertice and horizonta distance between birds and aircraft, type of habitat, number and species. of waterfow and the birds reaction.! =1._, i _; : j j 1 j " -...d j Resuts of the ead poisoning and food habits study wi be covered in a separate report. RESULTS AND DSCUSSON Summer Use of Refuges by Waterbirds Ducks - Cook net marshes host arge numbers of ducks during spring migration and may ater serve as a staging area for drakes and nonbreeders prior to their moving to moting areas (Timm 1975). Aeria surveys were initiated in 1975 to estimate the breeding popuation of waterfow on these marshes. However, determining the number of ducks nesting on these areas may be confounded by the presence of ate migrants andor congregations of post and nonbreeding drakes from surrounding habitat. Timing of breeding popuation surveys is critica to an accurate estimate. dea timing woud be during an interva after departure of migrants and before gathering of post-breeding drakes from other areas, if in fact such an interva occurs. Resuts of aeria and ground estimates of waterbird densities in 1978 are compared to previous years in Tabe 2. The 1978 aeria survey showed a drop of over SO percent from 1977 duck densities which were infated with birds that overfew drought stricken Canadian prairies (Timm 1978). Breeding duck popuations in 1978 on other areas in the Kenai-Susitna region, as estimated by the U.S. Fish and Widife Service, decined 70 percent from 1977 (King and Conant 1978). A second reason for the ower aeria count in 1978 might have been timing. Ony 2 percent of a dabbers recorded during the 1978.survey were in focks, whie 31 percent were in pairs and 67 percent were one drakes (Timm 1978). t appears that the 1978 survey was we timed. During the une 1978 ground counts, ony 16 percent of the dabbers were paired, and the vast majority of birds observed were drakes in sma to medium sized focks up to 15 birds. Spring was eary in 1978, and 23 broods and broody hens were found during the une ground transects. Ground counts were apparee}y conducted too ate to accuratey measure the nesting popuation and they probaby incuded a number of drakes from other areas congregating in preparation for a mot migration. Another reason we recorded higher dabber densities onground transects than estimated from the aeria survey (Tabe 2) was that reativey ess SB community was samped on the ground. On Pamer Hay Fats, Goose Bay and Susitna Fats, 42 percent of the aeria survey was fown over SB whie ony 14 percent of the ground transects were in SB. To evauate waterfow use of SB versus sat marsh communities (M, RS, PT and TF), the 1978 aeria survey of Cook net was divided into 19 sq. mi. of sat marsh habitat and 42 sq. mi. of inand habitat (argey SB). The sat marsh habitat supported 57 dabbers and 8 divers per sq. mi. The inand

15 L.. L.,;....._ -... " :_... L \L-"-..:1 dh - L..,_i.. b1e 2. Breeding Densities of Waterfow on Cook net State Gme Refuges - (BirdsSq. mi.) L.,.::.H...,,. L -... Pamer Ha:y: Fats Goose Ba:y: Aeria Ground Aeria Ground Lbbers vers !ese rans mdhi :anes OOS Susitna Fats Aeria Groun , t o. 7 \

16 ., _) :1 _).,. ; ; - \ j j 1..,.,! j -1.i --- habitat had densities of 14.dabbers and 7 divers per sq. mi. The sat marsh received four _times as much dabber use, but approximatey the same eve of diver use as adjacent inand habitat. Aeria estimates of waterfow breeding popuations were derived using air:ground visibiity correction factors cacuated for each species from studies on the Canadian prairies (.G. King, persona communication). The accuracy of these correction factors has not been verified for Cook net coasta marshes, and may have been a source of error when comparing air and ground surveys. King beieves that surveys in Aaska underestimate the popuation. The arge variation in une dabber densities (37, 226 and 550 birds per sq. mi. at Goose Bay, Susitna Fats and Pamer Hay Fats, respectivey) is probaby a resut of the sma area (between 1 and 2 sq. mi.) samped on each refuge and.unequa coverage of various pant communities. For exampe 29 percent of the ground. transects at Goose Bay were in SB, but ony 7 percent of Susitna ground transects were in SB. The four year average dabber density from aeria surveys of these three refuges (Pamer Hay Fats- 52, Goose Bay- 57, and Susitna Fats - 66 birds per sq-. mi.) show itte difference in breeding dabber densities. Goose Bay is sma, with few arge waterbodies; and the sma duck popuation, as estimated on the une ground survey, probaby refected unsuitabiity as a premot staging area rather than inferior breeding habitat. n fact, Goose Bay had a higher brood density in 1978 than Pamer Hay Fats. The duck species composition on Cook net refuges varied with the survey method the habitat covered and date (Tabe 3); but the dominance---. of dabbers on sat marsh habitat is evident. The SB community generay harbored proportionatey more maards and divers, and the sat marsh supported more pintais. A search for bird nests (other than gu nests) on Susitna Fats was conducted 31 May to 4 une. One or two peope with a dog searched nesting cover near Lewis River Sough. Ony 10 nests were found during this period,and seven others were ocated ater or esewhere. The number of nests and cutch sizes were: four pintais (7, 6, and two found after hatching), four shoveers (11,10,10,8), one wigeon (9), one greenwinged tea (10), one unknown duck (10), three Canada geese (6, 5, 4), one bad eage (2), one sandhi crane (2), and one short-bied dowitcher (4). Of 11 duck. nests, 6 were in mixed grass-forb cover within 50 ft. of the van River. A duck nests averaged 64 ft. (range 0 to 175 ft.) from the nearest marsh pond. One duck nest was abandoned within 2 days after being found; six nests were successfu; and the fate of the other four was uncertain since no trace of the eggs was found. t is ikey that these nests were destroyed by predators (bear, fox, coyote) that remove eggs whoe, athough one of these nests may have been fooded by a high tide. A goose nest, ocated on a sma (about 2 ft. in diameter) sedge hummock 50 ft. offshore in front of the fied camp on Lewis River Sough, was watched throughout incubation. The incubating goose had the nearconstant companionship of two herring gus that often sat on a og about 1.5 ft. from the goose nest The nest contained 4 goose eggs,

17 ... j L.; L.. L. \L... L... L:":.:.. L... LL.. :j L _;j L.. L... _. \;c _ L._...1 :... _. Tabe 3. Duck composition (percent by _species) for aeria and ground surveys of Cook net Marshes,-summer Aeria Survey 1978 Ground Survey Pamer Hay Fats, A Cook net une uy Species Sitna Fats and Goose Bay Sat Marsh Shrub Bog Breeding Popuation Broods Pintai Maard Green-winged Tea Wigeon Shoveer Gadwa tr Bue-winged Tea tr Scaup Canvasback Godeneye Redhead Merganser p 0 Sampe Size \

18 j , d., 1._ -]! - _, ::.1 =] 1 =j -.d..... _,_] with two other broken eggs on the edge of the hummock. No antagonism was observed between the goose or her mate and the two gus, athough opportunities for interactions were observed. On 3 une 1978 at 7:15P.M., a foat pane took off from Lewis River Sough, fushing the incubating goose and two gus from the hummock The goose few about 150 yds. to the east end of Lewis River.Sough where she. joined her mate. The gus circed for about 2 min and then anded on the end of the og, about 8ft. from the.goose nest. The gus performed a bief courtship dispay (bis extended into air) and then preened. After a few minutes of this activity, both gus waked up the og to within 2 ft. of the goose nest. One gu then hopped into the water and remained near the nest whie the other gu jumped down into the nest. The gu removed some nesting materia (dead sedge or grass) and deposited it about 2 ft. from the nest near one of the broken goose eggs. Both gus then swam to another hummock about eight feet west of the nest where they oafed. Meanwhie the geese were swimming back to the nest, arriving at 7:25 P.!!. (abput 3 minutes after the gu had eft the nest). The goose cimbed upon the hummock, preened briefy and then sat on the nest. The gander remained on the water about 30 ft. east of the nest for at east 15 min. Dispite disturbance from foat panes using Lewis River Sough, our daiy activities and the presence of a pair of gus, the geese. and four gosings eft the nest the morning of 10 une. The other two Canada goose nests were found in SB community on Pamer Ray Fats by an ADF&G empoyee. Both nests were active when checked a week ater (27 May), but their fate was not determined. The bad eage and sandhi crane nests (ocated at the edge of the SB community) and the short-bied dowitcher nest (in RS community) a were successfu. Athough duck nests were-net searched for intensivey, some persona impressions were formed. A ack of residua nesting cover and te threat of tida fooding precude nesting activity in most of the RS and PT Communities. Nesting was concentrated primariy in grass-forb cover within the marsh community and near the marsh-sb interface. The SB community provided vast amounts of thick residua cover, but the use of this community for waterfow nesting needs further evauation. f the SB community proves unattractive to nesting birds, the productivity of these coasta marshes might be augmented by habitat management creating more grass-forb cover. Maard and pintai broods first appeared about 22 May, indicating that nesting began about mid-apri. Of 45 pintai broods aged and back dated in 1978, 56 percent hatched between 26 May and 5 une, 24 percent from 9-14 une, and 18 percent between 24 une and 1 uy. The ater group probaby resuted from renesting. The maard hatch was essentiay the same as the pintai. Green-wing tea nests began hatching the first week of une, and the hatch was distributed over the next 5 weeks. On 31 August a green-winged tea approximatey 34 days od was seen on Pamer Hay Fats. This represents the atest hatch (about 28 uy) recorded in Wigeon and shoveer hatch peaked during the ast haf

19 j.. : -- : _ j., -. > ::.:i ; _ i 3 = - --., of une. uy. Two broods of greater scaup hatched during the first week of Average brood sizes of dabbers by age cass, with sampe size in parenthess were:_a- 8.4(11), b- 6.2(15), c- 3.8(6), - 6.0(10) and - 6.0(5). As observed in studies esewhere, the greatest ducking osses occured within two weeks of hatching. The numbers of broods per sq mi. were 18.0, 15.3 and 8.4 for Susitna Fats, Goose Bay and Pamer Hay Fats, respectivey, and averaged 14 broods per sq. mi. for a areas. We did not "beat out" a wetands on transects, but a trained retriever was used to fush broods or broody hens. fet that most broods present were detected. Given at east moderate nesting success, brood densities suggest the actua breeding popuation was ower than estimated from une ground counts on Susitna Fats and Pamer Hay Fats, but was cose to that estimated from the air. Species composition of 148 broods observed was 53 percent pintai, 15 percent green-winged tea, 13 percent maard, 12 percent shoveer, 5 percent wigeon, 1 percent scaup and 1 brood each of bue-winged tea and gadwa. Sighty more pinta and fewer wigeon broods were observed than were expected from the une duck species composition (Tabe 3). n the aeria brood survey, fown 19 uy over the same transects as the breeding popuation survey, we recorded an unadjusted density of 1.2 broods per sq. mi. The proportion of broods seen from the air depends upon many variabes (species composition, age of broods, type of cover, density of broods, water eve, weather and the abiity of the observers). With this number of variabes, it is understandabe that visibiity correction factors for aeria brood surveys have not been standardized. The USFWS uses unadjusted brood density as an index of annua production, and does not make direct comparisons between breeding popuation density and brood density for a specific area. The USFWS conducted a study from 1961 to 1964 comparing air-ground counts of broods in southern Aberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They determined crude visibiity rates for broods based on age cass; and found that of a broods ocated by ground counts, ony 10.7, 32.3 and 46.0 percent of cass, and broods, respectivey, were seen from the air (Renny et a. 1972). We appied these adjustment factors to the aeria brood survey of Pamer Hay Fats, Goose Bay and Susitna Fats and cacuated a brood density of 4.3 per sq. mi. Sti, this figure is not comparabe to the ground estimate of 14 broods per sq. mi. because much of the aeria survey was of SB community. -ue seected 9.5 sq. mi. of aeria transects (segments 5, 6, 12, 13, 20-23, 26, 27, 47-49, 50, 57, 59, Timm 1976) which covered habitat simiar to that covered on the ground, and found an unadjusted brood density of 4.2 per s. mi. After appying the adjustment factors, the density increased to 13.5 broods per sq. mi., compared to 14 broods per sq. mi. seen on the ground. The adjusted brood density for southern portions of the prairie provinces was 7.65 per sq. mi. Thus, it appeared that the most productive habitat (marsh and RS communities) in Cook net marshes was more productive than the prairie pothoe region of Canada, at east for the period. However sampe size in our study was sma. -

20 ....; j -! 1 j :i i - 1, : : d : _ Adut duck densities for the three refuges decined 48 percent from an average of 252 per sq. mi. in une to 129 per sq. mi... in uy. When duckings were incuded in the uy popuation (14 broods per sq. mi. averaging 6 duckings per brood), the density rose to 213 ducks per sq mi. (Fig. 7). Diving ducks were very scarce in une and uy, athough two scaup broods were seen on Susitna Fats. By August the average density of dabbers had jumped to 527 birds per sq. mi. (545, 396, and 587 per sq. mi. for Susitna Fats, Pamer Hay Fats and Goose Bay, respectivey). The exact composition coud not be determined because arge mixed focks were difficut to enumerate by species. t appeared that by ate August pintais were reativey ess abundant and maards comparativey more abundant than earier in summer. A mixed fock of 250 divers observed on the Pamer Hay Fats in August resuted in a cacuated average density of 60 divers per sq. mi. (Fig. 7). Since no divers were seen on Goose Bay and ony 14 greater scaup were recorded on Susitna Fats (4.8 divers per sq. mi.), undoubtedy diver use of Cook net marshes in August was ower than indicated in Fig. 7. Geese - Estimates of Canada goose popuations from the May 1978 aeria survey on Susitna Fats, Pamer Hay Fats and Goose Bay were 147, 91 and 52 geese, respectivey. Observations of geese off transect ines indicated coser to 150 geese present on Pamer Hay Fats. Previous estimates of tota Canada goose popuations for these three refuges (Tabe 4) were 305 in 1975, 2366 in 1976 and 724 in Timm (1975, 1976) fet the estimate in 1975 was ow and the 1976 estimate was high. Nonbreeding geese present during the breeding popuation survey, especiay when distributed uneveny in focks, probaby distorted the estimates of Canada goose breeding popuation on Cook net refuges. Counts of 150 gosings in 1974 and 448 gosings in 1978 (Tabe 4) may more accuratey refect the importance of Pamer Hay Fats and Susitna Fats as breeding hbitat for Canada geese. Goose nesting has not been verified at Goose Bay. Canada geese were seen on each refuge during une ground transects, but an uneven distribution of focks on Pamer Hay Fats and Goose Bay rendered density estimates meaningess (Tabe 2). At Susitna Fats where arge focks of geese were not encountered, the une density was 4. 9 geese per sq. mi. No geese were taied on transects during uy ground counts, but by August Canada goose densities had increased to an average of 62 per sq. mi. (79, 60 and 22 geese per sq. mi. at Susitna Fats, Goose Bay and Pamer Hay Fats, respectivey). White-fronted geese were not seen on Pamer Hay Fats or Goose Bay,; during summer, 1978, athough a moting subadut was captured on Pamer,-u Hay Fats in At Susitna Fats, moderate numbers of white-fronts were present in eary une, but none were seen in mid summer. White- fronts are eary migrants and staging began in eary August.. By the third week of August whitefronts were abundant at Susitna, reaching a density of 55 geese per sq. mi n _i

21 0.. (j) CD <. OQ,.. (j) rt ;, cr... ; 11! p. p. ;:. CD ;;: r: (j).a... rt... CD... (j) H i 0 11 C (j)... rt r: sj 1- U rt (j).. 1-d U CD 11!... L L...,_. L, L..,,. u L.- ).; LL..... L..... LL...,. L... u! i a.. P.. " i!! : i i i :. "" i :.!... " c:o ; i :;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;m;;m;;;;;;;;;;i;;;;;;;i::;;iii:i:i::i::i::::i:::::::::::::m;;:,;,;: 8 7. Birds Sq Mi 40 L_ L,......L..... t! " = - 1itt!j1!t::!:!i1ii!i\:1(:::::{\H\:,>,=;.,: 1103* -! o. s " ",W =-.! fi:h1\\e\\:>:t-:\::- f!,..-ti=... :=::::"""":+,..,.::i:.:t;:f: f... -:... : ii:... = -! Birds Sq Mi a \

22 Tabe 4. Estimated Canada goose popuations on Pamer Hay Fats, Goose Bay and Susitna Fats. 30 uy une and 25 May une May uy 1978 Refu --Ad\ts_ Young Aiuts Aduts A 1\ts Aduts Aduts Young Pamer Hay Fats * 37* Goose Bay Susitna Fats * Seen during une ground counts. \,; n 1 r 1 r", -n r-- -:, r 1 n r 1 i... r- c 1 c L C.. ] L_ L._]

23 . -:1. i cj -...! "", -1..._, i Shorebirds - Northern phaaropes were the most abundant shorebird in une with 115 per sq. mi. (Fig. 7). By uy their density had dropped 33 percent, and by ate August most phaaropes had departed. Shortbied dowitchers were common in une and uy, but had decined about 85 percent by August. Hudsonian godwits peaked in uy and vanished by ate August. few whimbres were seen ony in une and uy. Sma shorebirds (peeps) were extremey abundant in uy, especiay aong tide ine at Goose Bay and exposed mud at Stump Lake, Susitna Fats. The most common peeps were east and semi-pamated sandpipers. Western sandpipers, dunins, semi-pamated povers, spotted sandpipers and pectora sandpiper were ess abundant. Greater and esser yeowegs and sandhi crane popuations were rather stabe throughout summer. Common snipe were more abundant in August.than earier in the summer. Other Birds - Bird checkists for each refuge (Appendix A) were used to note other birds seen during ground counts in une, uy and August. Each species was subjectivey rated as being rare (R), occasiona (0), common (C), very common (VC) or abundant (A). Athough some birds that occasionay use these refuges during the summer do not appear on the ist, the more frequent users are represented, and known breeders are noted. Arctic terns,_herring gus, gaucous-winged gus, mew gus, Bonaparts gus, tree swaows and ciff swaows were abundant ocay. Because these birds spent much time in the air and were difficut to keep track of, their densities were not cacuated. Gu and Arctic tern coonies were in marsh wetands, especiay where hummocks and driftwood ogs created nesting "isands". "1. L...! 4 c - An attempt was made to sampe sma mamma popuations in three pant communities on Susitna Fats. A tota of 350 trap nites (standard mouse traps) in une resuted in the capture of no mammas. No other quanitative assessment of mamma use of refuges was attempted. However, mammas known to use Susitna Fats were: red-backed voe, red squirre,. muskrat, mink, wease, red fox, coyote, wof, back and brown bear and moose. Moose is the most important big game species on refuges, and the SB community is the most heaviy used habitat throughout the year., Habitat Use ---i. ; ;,-: - Ducks - The density of adut dabbing ducks was consistenty highest in the marsh community, ranging from 300 birds per sq. mi. in uy t6 over 1100 per sq. mi. in August (Fig. 8 and 9). For 3 days foowing tida fooding on 20 August, maards and pintais heaviy used the PT community which was covered by 2 to 3 inches of water. By 23 August most water had drained and, the duck use of this habitat diminished drasticay Use of tida fats, particuary by maards and wigeon, increased in ate August. During the hunting season (September and eary October), ducks concentrated on these mud fats where they found food (mousks and agae) security from hunters. Marsh and RS communities received most brood use in uy (46 and 23 broods per sq. mi., respectivey). _

24 Pnt. M33rd.- :e ;1= en -c:n i-c ; - = fo :5 c:r en -en -= - - = F PTS a:shpts stfrtis as une uy August " une uy August j - _. --] -.c..i ==,..., =- ;en _;- en = -= =-=]Cia _ 401.,.. H "" :E en -=- -en -= - -= Cre witt Tn...i H PT RS S ff PT.S N S1 f P! S S F PT U S ff. P S M S1 H rt S une uy August une uy Augtist Fig. 8. Bird density by habitat type (TF = Tide Fats, PT = Puccineia-Trigochin, RS = Ramenski Sedge- Shaow Pond, M =Marsh, SB =Shrub-Bog). Unshaded portion of bars represents broods.

25 - --::.:! 4. """" ="".,,, ),_) j :& en -en -= - - = ) C n u - Ada Gem tr une uy August Wite frited -Geese :e,_ :n U C". en -= }= = L Fig. 9. une P S M S uy August S :s C" en Zot -en -= -1 - = HE1 w. H P S M S1 H P S S une uy August Bird density by habitat type (TF = Tide fats, PT = Puccineia-Trigod. L1, RS a Ramenski Sedge- Shaow Pond, M =Marsh, SB = Shrub-Bog). Unshaded portion of bars represents broods.

26 ....., -. _; --; d -, ;, j ) :_d 1! _--; -1 : --, - ; Pintai aduts and broods used the shaow ponds in the Rzcenski sedge community throughout the summer more than any other species, athough green-winged.tea did show some preference for this habitat in August. Brood use of shaow RS ponds was somewhat surprising because these wetands offer itte escape cover. Food (chironomid arvae, other invertebrates and aquatic pants) did not appear more abundant than in. marsh ponds. Perhaps ducking use of RS is reated to ow mammaian predator density. Three pintai broods were seen at the mouth of Goose Creek, Goose Bay, in uy; but no other broods were observed in the intertida zone. Diving ducks, mergansers, oons and grebes used deeper waterbodies within marsh and, to a esser extent, shrub-bog communities. However, coasta marshes of Cook net harbored few of these birds during the summer. Geese - Canada.geese during une used a habitats from the marsh to tida fats (Fig. 9). During the 19 uy aeria survey, most Canada geese on Susitna Fats were in either marsh or RS communities. By ate August, Canada geese were concentrated on the tide fats, and ony moderate use of the Puccinea-Trigochin and marsh habitat occurred. White-fronted geese had moved to their breeding grounds by eary une, athough a few were seen on marshes at Susitna Fats. By mid-august whitefronts again congregated on Susitna Fats, using tide fats primariy (Fig. 9). Shorebirds - Habitat preference varied both by species and month (Fig. 10 and 11). Unike other shorebirds, sandhi cranes and common snipe showed a preference for the shrub-bog community. The heaviest use of this habitat by sandhi cranes occurred in August, whie snipe shifted from this habitat to the RS Community in August. Yeowegs were primariy associated with marsh in une, with SB habitat used secondariy. Later in the summer, use of tida fats and RS increased and the use of SB areas dropped. Short-bied dowitchers reied heaviy on marsh habitat in une, but ater in the summer, as the wat.er eves dropped, they switched to feeding.on mud bottoms of shaow ponds in the RS Community. When these ponds were fu in eary une, a sharp edge was formed where thick Ramenski sedge cover abutted water severa inches deep. Perhaps this type of shoreine discouraged use by shorebirds that prefer to wade and feed on exposed mud or in very shaow water. Hudsonian godwits were most abundant in uy and used a combination of marsh, RS and PT habitats. Like dowitchers, Hudsonian godwits concentrted on exposed mud fats adjacent to shaow water. n uy ony Hudsonian godwits made significant use of tida sheet water on the PT fats. Least and semi-pamated sandpipers were abundant during uy on tida mud fats and on exposed mud fringes of drying wetands. L

27 - Fig. 10. Bird density by habitat type (TF = Tide Fats, PT = Puccineia-Trigochin; RS = Ramenski Sedge- Shaow Pond, M Marsh, SB =Shrub-Bog). Unshaded portion of bars represents broods. j ;

28 ::: 4? 1 -{ PairDP -"" ZSD W;_.-1 zao -_..-:-:: :E :s - - c-.so C" _;en en 80 en en ""-= 100 "::f...,_..cq : so S - = -fd TeiiD!rtp une uy August une uy August -1 \ j Petps!,). 1 -= - pi -1 :e en -en - -=,_ = ZHL t:o:::: V _ Tf P1 S S H P S STF P S S. une uy August - Fig. 11. Bird density by habitat type (TF = Tide Fats, PT = Puccineia-Trigochin, RS = Ramenski Sedge- Shaow Pond, M =Marsh, SB =Shrub-Bog). Unshaded portion of bars represents broods. _

29 4 : -"";., _; "].! j ""1 :d \\ =".-1 Aircraft Disturbance of Waterfow There has been growing concern expressed by ADF&G personne and sportsmen that increased ight aircraft traffic over Cook net refuges has caused disburbance of waterfow. Reference to the infuence of aircraft overfights on waterfow behavior reported in the iterature are somewhat diverse. Rowinski (1958) reported that aeria waterfow surveys fown at 200 ft. over Minto Fats caused itte disturbanc of breeding ducks. n British Coumbia, Hater (1973) few surveys, at about 200 feet, of waterfow using a coasta marsh during fa migration. He noted that the first fights of the survey (5 October) caused a geese to fush; by the Oth survey there was noticaby ess disturbance, and by the 17th fight (1 November) few geese fushed. Hater was not crtain whether the same geese were present throughout this period and simpy became accustomed to the survey fights, or whether ater arriving geese were ess fighty than those present in eary October. Dirksen et a. (1978) reported that moting geese and. brant on the North Sope of Aaska were affected by ow fying panes and heicopters. They observed that the ower the aircraft, the greater the disturbance. To minimize the impact of aircraft on important motingareas, they recommended that overfights be kept above 1525 meters. During the summer and fa of 1978 data were recorded for 82. incidents of aircraft fying over waterfow on Susitna Fats. There were many more overfights than this, but the observers were not aways in a position to record the reaction of waterfow. The obvious concusion from these observations was that fushing rates increased as the distance between birds and aircraft decreased (Tab-e 4")-. Litte disturbance was caused by fights over 400 feet, but substantia harassment of waterfow resuted from overfights beow 200 feet. Data were insufficient to draw concusions on whether habitat type or species of waterfow affected the resut of an aircraft pass. However, references to aircraft disturbance reported in the iterature, persona experience of other ADF&G personne and my own observations ead to the foowing theories: 1. Geese are generay more subject to disturbance than are ducks..., 2 Heicopters cause more of a reaction from waterfow than do panes fying at the same atitude. d \ _., _, Waterfow, particuary ducks, can become accustomed to aircraft fying above 400 feet provided there is not a direct association with harassment--i.e. if the passing aircraft does not pose an immediate threat to the birds. When the noise andor sight of passing aircraft is "frightening enough to pose a threat", the harassment caused is obvious. How cose a pane must be to "threaten" waterfow may vary with the species, ocation, habitat and time of year. At zembek and other staging areas aong the Aaska Peninsua, geese and brant react to aircraft severa thousand feet overhead. At Susitna Fats during the summer, fights above 200 feet may not "threaten" some ducks. _

30 0 t" :--""", ::;; -. _.,._i 5. Human activity,.if associated with an aircraft, may increase the "threat" fet by waterfow. For instance,. if waterfow are pursued by humans disembarking from an aircraft, the birds fear of aircraft may be heightened. Athough these theories need further testing, other questions of more immediate and practica concern must be addressed: how many "waterfow days" on Cook net marshes are ost due to premature departure of birds disturbed by aircraft; how much energy is wasted in birds disturbed by aircraft, and is it significant; is hunter success reduced from waterfow eaving an area or modifying their behavior; and is recreationa enjoyment on refuges diminished by aircraft disturbance? The extent of the probem can be iustrated on Pamer Hay Fats where a few panes are used to hunt geese on Coffee Point. D. Bader (ADF&G empoyee with 10 years experience on Coffee Point) has observed some significant changes in use of Coffee Point by staging esser Canada geese. He attributes aircraft disturbance-caused by hunters anding near geese and then staking the birds or by hunters who drop off companions and then use the airpane to herd geese back over the companions "hiding in ambush"--with the foowing adverse impacts: 1 """ _, f ] c Some frightened geese eave Pamer Hay Fats prematurey to continue their sou.thern migration. Geese have changed their feeding pattern to primariy nocturna activity, with dayight "activi.ty" restricted to unhuntabe ocations on the inet or mudfats. Geese thatare disturbed tend to form arger focks. nterference with other hunters use of the area and the goose resource. ;,..,_. A of the above impacts reduce the suitabiity of Coffee Point to migrating geese and diminish the recreationa enjoyment of the refuge by many hunters. For instance, Bader observed that the peak goose popuation using Coffee Point in ate September has dropped from between 15,000 and 20,000 in 1976 to 7,000 in 1977 and to about 2,500 in During this same three years airpane use for hunting has increased from one or two panes per week to about 7 per week. ---,,..i When asked about aircraft use of Pamer Hay Fats, 46 percent of the respondents to the questionnaire wanted aircraft restricted or eiminated. The sentiment against aircraft is higher at Pamer Hay Fats than at Susitna Fats or Trading Bay because Pamer Hay Fats.is accessabe by foot or sma boat, and possiby because the probems at Coffee Point are recognized. - The data coected on Susitna Fats, the observations on Pamer Hay Fats and the concern voiced by many sportsmen a point to the need for measures to reduce aircraft disturbance of birds, and humans, using state game refuges. These measures shoud not, however, precude access to these refuges. L-i

31 -".. _.;,; --1 Tabe Reaction of waterfow to aircraft, Upper Cook net Refuges, Straight ine distance between aircraft and waterfow. <100 ft ft ft ft. >400 ft. Percent of incidents causin& birds to fush Number observations "1 u c...) r; rd i u D c c t L Pubic Opinion on Use and Management of Cook net State Game Refuge By 1 December 1978, 111 questionnaries (Fig. 5) were received and tabuated. These questionnaires reported a tota of 2,196 days of recreation and 120 days of commercia fishing (Tabe 5). Waterfow hunting, genera enjoyment of nature, sport fishing, trapping and other hunting accounted for 60, 15, 13, 7 and 5 percent of the recreation days, respectivey. Athough widespread distribution of these questionnaires was made, waterfow hunters (especiay those using Susitna Fats) were probaby samped disproportionatey to other users. The Statewide Waterfow Hunter Mai Survey indicated that Susitna Fats and Pamer Hay Fats received neary the same hunting pressure from 1971 to 1976 (Tabe 1). n contrast, 76 percent of the respondents to the Refuge questionnaire reported hunting waterfow on Susitna Fats, and ony 32 percent reported waterfowing on Pamer Hay Fats (Tabe 6). Tabe 6. Percent of 111 respondents using Cook net Refuges for various activities. Percent Susitna Pamer Trading Goose Activity_ Fats Hay Fats Bay Waterfow hunting Other hunting Sport fishing Commercia fishing Enjoying nature The reported waterfow hunting pressure and harvest is shown in Tabe 7. Thirty-eight percent of hunters on Susitna, and 18 percent of those using Pamer Hay Fats took 20 or more ducks per season. No one reported taking more than 20 ducks at either Goose Bay or Trading Bay. Susitna waterfowers reportedy spent an average of 11 days per year hunting and achieved a daiy bag of about 2.4 ducks. Daiy harvest at Trading Bay and Pamer Hay Fats was about 2 ducks, whie at Goose Bay it was 1 duck per day. The seasona goose harvest was aso highest at Susitna (1.3 geese per year).