Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins, CO
8-10 September 1999
Present: John Cornely, Murray Laubhan, Dave Hamilton, Dave Sharp, Rick Sojda, and Bob Trost

• biological perspective
• administrative perspective
• population management - elements of both biological and administrative
• Other possibilities:
• range wide management
• biological flyway management

Flyway Management:

• new refuge planning is providing opportunities to consider each refuge in a larger migratory bird context
• integration of federal, state, NGOs, provincial, and other agencies with migratory bird responsibilities and interests (also integration of programs within agencies)
• some aspects are administrative, not biological, e.g., overall population goals and distribution
• we often manage or set goals on a population basis, but our habitat management is not based on single species
• antithesis: How should a refuge manage, versus how should a refuge manage for their portion of a population (where portion of a population is a group of birds for all or part of their life-cycle)?
• need to consider where birds are coming frown and where there are going when making local decisions

Local decisions should consider geographic location, historic use, and location in flyway. E.g., don't try to create prairie potholes in the desert Southwest.

Need to maintain some minimum of critical breeding, wintering, and migration habitat; and in most cases, the pieces of ground to provide these are interchangeable. But, managers always view their piece as important.

Management plans need distribution goals as well as population goals. Even if population goals are being met, are the distribution goals being met? (This is generally a distribution of breeding birds.)

Ideal distribution means a more "even" distribution. No single area has a high proportion of population, thus reducing disease risk and spreading out use.

Local goals are often based on historical numbers.

How would you determine what a desired distribution would be?

• Administratively/politically, there may be some areas that don't want the birds.
• There is probably a mathematical answer based on risk assessment.

• Trumpeter swans historically used a much larger area
• Tri-State is probably marginal wintering habitat, but that's where they remain. However, remember that there is likely not enough food and open water, and that supplemental feeding sustained them.
• A large proportion of the population is wintering in a single area, with the potential for catastrophic loss.

Bear River MBR might be a good stop over area for birds moving to the Gulf Coast or Central Valley, but Bear River MBR may not be a good wintering area because it typically freezes over.

Need to compare the risk of catastrophic loss if all stay in the Tri-State area versus the risk of hunting losses at Bear River MBR.

Substantial loss from the Canadian segment is not as much of a concern as substantial loss from Tri-State segment because the Canadian segment is more likely to recover. The best way to help the Tri-State segment may be to reestablish historical breeding areas.

The following six scenarios were developed prior to the meeting as an aid to generating discussion. In these notes, they will be referred to by scenario number.  Not all were discussed.
Flyway Management Scenario #1
Place: Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Current Date: Mid October
Situation: There are currently two units, about 400 acres each, that are flooded and have excellent stands of sago pondweed. Depths range from 6-24", but the vast majority of each is 18" deep. The refuge objective calls for having 400 acres of this type of habitat on the average during November through freeze-up. Water from one or both of these units could be used to flood other units, one of about 600 acres with dense stands of Salicornia, or another with 200 acres of Eleocharis. The refuge appears unlikely to meet its objectives for these two habitat types without draining the sago units.
Question: What information do you need to make the determination of which units to flood or keep flooded?

Flyway Management Scenario #2
Place: Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Current Date: Mid September
Situation: This was a great year for cygnet production in the Centennial Valley. The September survey indicates 40 young of the year on the refuge, plus about 120 older birds. Currently Lower Red Rock Lake is at full summer levels, and inflows are still moderate to high.
Question: How would you describe the ideal habitat, including water levels, for the Lower Lake when waterfowl season opens (around 1 October)? Assume there are no vegetative or muskrat complications, i.e., consider only migratory bird needs.

Flyway Management Scenario #3
Place: Snake River from Grand Teton National Park to Jackson
Current Date: June
Situation: The Bureau of Reclamation has requested advice on what the optimum flows for wintering swans will be this winter from Jackson Lake dam.
Question: What information would you need to make this recommendation? Sketch out the justification you would provide to the Bureau.

Flyway Management Scenario #4
Place: Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area
Current Date: February
Situation: The Service is trying to determine an objective for swan production for this area. There appears to be about 2000 acres of habitat or potential habitat. The entire area is currently open to all types of hunting. The area consistently does well in terms of waterfowl, black tern, and sandhill crane production.
Question: What information would you gather to develop such an objective for trumpeter swan production?

Flyway Management Scenario #5
Place: Henry's Fork, Harrimann State Park
Current Date: October
Situation: Most of southern Alberta, British Columbia, and northern Montana are in the midst of a prolonged drought and extremely little wetland habitat has water. Production of arctic breeding swans (trumpeters and tundras) has been nearly at record levels the past two years. Island Park Reservoir is near typical volume for October.
Question: Should birds be hazed this year? If so what should be the schedule?

Flyway Management Scenario #6
Place: Pacific Flyway
Current Date: 1999
Situation: The current plan calls for approximately 2,200 RMP swans as a Winter objective, with not more than 1,500 wintering in the core, Tri-state Region. The 700 birds are ideally to be distributed in southern Idaho, northern Utah, northern Nevada, and California.
Questions: What should the target distribution be for these 700 birds? How many acres of habitat and sanctuary will be needed in each location?

Discussion of Scenario # 6:

• Need some minimum number of birds to increase survival at each site.
• Aim for as even a distribution as possible given each area's carrying capacity and risk factors.

1. Areas are linked through migration
2. Type of habitat needed is based on
• what species migrate in a particular corridor
• average migration chronologies among years
• annual life cycle and condition of bird
3. Amount of habitat types needed is based on
• population levels and trends
• species' priority
4. Timing of when habitat is needed (within years, as well as more generally on the average) is based on
• migration chronologies within years, as well as on the average
• annual life cycle and condition of birds
5. Species' priorities are determined by
• general rarity
• population trends
• type of habitat base available (or potentially)
6. Providing refuge (i.e., freedom from disturbance) has a role in affecting survival rates
7. An objective for a particular survival rate can be recommended and can be used to determine progress toward flyway population objectives
8. OTHERS??? --From a flyway/regional perspective, what else would you like refuge biologists and managers to consider when they're managing wetlands?

• The original intent was biological, but there is also a political/administrative aspect to this.

• Organize by breeding, wintering, migration
• Breeding habitat in Tri-State area may be saturated; therefore may need to expand breeding habitat.

• on rarity; but our management should not be based on least common denominator. E.g., if you get trumpeters at Bear River, should you manage for trumpeters rather than tundras? - No.
• on use; E.g., mallards may remain a priority even though population is increasing because they are heavily hunted.
• on greatest utility
• on population trends -- This is the most important.

• Gives survival advantage, i.e., disturbance reduces survival. This seems to be accepted without direct supporting evidence. There is evidence that it affects production. Disturbance alone will not have a big effect on survival.
• If birds are in good condition, migration will be successful - don't necessarily need a chain of linked refuges every one hundred fifty miles.

• is both survival and recruitment
• need to refine our breeding surveys to include breeding distribution

• cannot be set until you have population objectives (how to set population objectives?); or should process work in the other direction?

The discussion then went on to some other items:

• Consider conflict with other management
• Consider risk factors
• Consider refuges part of larger system (you may not have to everything on your wetlands). The rationale for considering only the refuge is that we don't have control over lands outside the refuge.
• Are you in wintering, breeding or migration range? (May be more than one.)
• what components of that habitat can you provide?
• may not want to introduce/encourage birds and areas with all three components because we may want migratory birds not sedentary birds.
• How do you know when management in one location affects another location? E.g., is poor production at Red Rocks due to poor breeding habitat at Red Rocks or poor wintering habitat elsewhere?
• long-term adverse population trend is an important indicator
• one year's change is not important
• a significant change in the five-year average would be important
• compare the trend in the cygnet: white birds ratio to the population trend

• It is important to know what wetlands are in the landscape (County? Forty mile radius?). What kinds of wetlands are limiting (possibly come up with proportions to describe an ideal complex, such as 10 to 15 percent permanent, 20 percent semipermanent, and the rest seasonal).
• Refuge managers often seem to want a cookbook.
• They usually know what they want to do and are looking for confirmation or support.
• Someone needs to consider the flyway perspective, but that probably isn't the refuge manager. Their concern should be more local (e.g., county; 40 mile radius).
• We might ask manager if they have seen marked birds. Then, they could find out where they came from, and where they are likely to go.
• Consider whether this location is in the center of the range of the species or peripheral.
• If the area has a store or record of swans, has the hydrology of the area been altered?

• 20 breeding areas are to be established in the core area. Does the refuge need to alter management to provide more migration habitat?
• Much of the management is for tundra swans. Therefore, they probably will also provide adequate migration habitat for trumpeters.
• But, maybe need to consider hunt program.
• We do know where the birds might go.
• Establish a migration habitat here might be considered successful if we get 100+ birds.
• Legally tolerable hunting losses of trumpeters is 20.
• What if Great Salt Lake comes up again and covers the marshes?
• What about botulism outbreaks at Bear River?

• number breeding pairs
• cygnets produced
• number of non-breeders
• number of swan use days
• trends in the above (time series) and fluctuations
• movements of birds - restricted to refuge; use of off-refuge wetlands
• bird mortality in the past
• compare these to the RMP to determine contribution
• bird band returns or marked birds sighted
• any problems, e.g., predation, cygnet survival
• the anecdotal questions above help to interpret quantitative information
• number of birds in other (nonbreeding) seasons. Are the same birds here as breeders, or do they come from elsewhere?

• partly refuge manager and partly flyway perspectives

• the RMP subcommittee as well as other experts

• Region 4 has tried to step down Joint Venture habitat goals and objectives to individual stations. Could something similar be done with trumpeter swan goals and objectives? They have started to step down in terms of identifying numbers of new breeding areas, multiple wintering areas, etc.. They have not tied that to habitats, yet.

• Evaluations of habitat and management capability at individual refuges might indicate areas where refuge could contribute more to flyway goals (e.g., good cygnet production but high winter mortality) or where to best establish the new breeding or wintering are.

• Who should lead this effort and what information is needed to make these determinations?

• The subcommittee should spearhead this with help from various experts. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility for migratory birds. But, this has to be a cooperative effort.

• Biologically, we can identify suitable new sites, but the final decision will be based largely on political/administrative considerations.

• Describe swan usage of the river.

• Relationship between flow and food availability

• minimum flow necessary
• flow the would be detrimental

• Some oxbows stay opened

• Provides alternate site (e.g., to Elk Refuge)

• Would flows sufficient to keep open water cause other problems?

• If this is the only wintering area for birds from Yellowstone, then it's important to keep this open; but may be forcing birds to winter in milder areas would return them to the breeding ground in better condition.

• This probably is not a critical issue. It is marginal habitat and only for a few birds.

• Why is Fort Hall good wintering habitat, or why is it better than Island Park?

• food base
• less harsh/milder
• lower elevation
• limited access; low disturbance
• open water throughout the winter

• But, how you determine carrying capacity of areas such as this?

• The current management plan would haze the birds.

• This may be a good year to haze - plenty of young birds to "train" to go elsewhere, and adult birds are already stressed due to poor conditions elsewhere.

• We don't currently make or alter management decisions based on body condition.

• There is no evidence that wintering habitat is limiting. Further, two groups share the same wintering area, but one group is increasing while the other one isn't. Therefore, there must be a difference in breeding/recruitment.

• What to flood?
• depends on what food sources you want to flood to make resources available, i.e., what are your objectives?
• instead of worrying about trade-offs among different species, manage instead for a diverse wetland complex in a local area.

• Are there flyway considerations or just regional ones?
• goals and objectives of RMP plan important
• How could management on the refuge contribute to the RMP plan?
• assume refuge is within the species' range, and is doing CCP
• assume top priority is Tri-State breeding

• If objective is to have 33 nesting pairs in a general area, then get constituents together to determine where we can accommodate those. This approach has always worked better than writing step-down implementation plans.

• There may be more vacant habitat than needed to meet objectives. If you have two possible areas and only need one:
• Does one have potential for developing a sedentary flock? Choose the one that does not.
• Is there a more desirable migration path for one, i.e., a path less likely to go through, or end up in one of the winter concentration areas?
• A safer migration path would mean fewer hunting areas, fewer power lines, and fewer stopovers with potential disease problems.

• Breakdown plan into breeding, wintering, and migration. Next, consider different geographic areas now various land within each area can contribute to the breeding, wintering, in migration needs for that area.

• Maybe the primary "flyway" constraints are guidelines to spread out breeding and wintering birds into multiple areas and to encourage migration (rather than create sedentary segments). From a flyway perspective, the viability or success of any specific refuge is not important, as long as there are alternative places for birds to go. Therefore, the " flyway" shouldn't become involved in refuge specific management decisions.

• We have better results when "like" areas work together, e.g., areas that all provide breeding habitat.

• It is less likely for breeding areas to communicate with and consider wintering areas when making their decisions, but there are cross-season effects, e.g., big breeding year may require more migration and wintering habitat.

• Possible questions:

• effects of tundra swan hunting (includes differential vulnerability)
• effectiveness of hazing
• use of alter lights to establish migration routes
• energetics/diet analysis
• spring food availability is key to the difference in Tri-State (sedentary) vs. Grande Prairie (migratory) birds (includes migration routes and chronologies)
• effects of supplemental feeding on subsequent breeding
• genetic differences among" populations"
• coexistence of tundras and trumpeters; hypothesis concerning larger vs. smaller bodied birds (like in geese)
• better monitoring; reliable breeding population survey (annual)
• effects of disturbance
• lead is mortality factor
• cygnet food habits (Tri-State vs. Grande Prairie)
• annual cycle model (satellites)

• It might be useful to develop a comparative study of Tri-State vs. Grande Prairie birds to determine reasons for differential population trends
• spring foods
• blood (genetics, lead)
• cygnet food habits
• production

• Annual cycle model
• demographics primarily, include nonbreeders (e.g., survival between time periods)
• based on satellite data

1. Can this area contribute to meeting the RMP Plan's breeding population goals?
2. Can this area contribute to meeting the RMP Plan's objective of re-distributing wintering swans?

• View the decision tree entitled, "Can this area contribute to the RMP Plan's breeding population goals?"
• View the decision tree entitled, "Can this area contribute to the RMP Plan's objective of redistributing wintering swans?"

The desirable number of wintering swans in Island Park is between 0 and 300.

It would be desirable to rate each area in the Tri-State region as follows:

• areas in core where you want fewer wintering birds
• areas in core where you can take more, but not many, wintering birds
• areas considered outside the core

In both the wintering and breeding trees in the proposed flyway management knowledge base, risk factors and dispersal factors could be included as part of habitat suitability.

The breeding tree is closer to the approach Murray was proposing. It evaluates suitability of habitat, taking into account distance other breeding areas and wintering areas.

A good fall migration area is not frozen during migration and provides food resources. In mild winters, it will winter some birds.

Ensure that Spring migration (pre-breeding) areas are sufficient to promote a 5 percent annual increase in RMP.

Discourage Fall use in the core Tri-State area (assumption: Fall and Spring habitat is equivalent):

• to maximize spring habitat
• to decrease the probability that Fall habitat doesn't turn into wintering areas

• Importance of fledging period (post-breeding habitat)
• The attention to entire life cycle, being aware that birds have different habitat needs as they go through the cycle. Also, different cohorts and sexes will likely have different habitat needs.

A few miscellaneous notes follow:

• From a flyway perspective, four concepts towards which to strive are:

1. greater habitat redundancy
2. greater habitat diversity
3. habitat distribution along suspected migration corridors
4. diverse migration pathways

• How do you set flyway population objectives? Determine how many the habitat can support. Determine how many are there now. Think this through iteratively, constrained by having too many in some cases.

• On a flyway basis, a five year time frame is the appropriate unit on which to judge changes. Consider using white bird:cygnet ratio.

• It was suggested that 4 modules (knowledge bases) be built that allow categorizing of all habitat as Spring migration, breeding, Fall migration, and wintering.

Return to the Swan Management Decision Support System homepage.