Nevada Department of Wildlife. Duck Stamp Program. Fiscal Year 2013 June Photo by Jack Spencer. Photo by Jack Spencer

Transcription

1 Nevada Department of Wildlife Duck Stamp Program Fiscal Year 2013 June 2012 Photo by Jack Spencer Photo by Jack Spencer

2

3 Table of Contents Page Relevant Duck Stamp Nevada Revised Statutes... 2 Progress Report on Duck Stamp Projects Funded in FY Summary of Proposed FY 2013 Duck Stamp Projects (table) Duck Stamp Account Budget Status (table) Proposed FY 2013 Duck Stamp Projects

4

5 Relevant Duck Stamp Nevada Revised Statutes NRS Duck stamps: Deposit of fees; accounting records; reimbursement of administrative costs. All money received pursuant to NRS must be deposited with the State Treasurer for credit to the Wildlife Obligated Reserve Account in the State General Fund. The Department shall maintain separate accounting records for the receipt and expenditure of that money. An amount not to exceed 10 percent of that money may be used to reimburse the Department for the cost of administering the state duck stamp programs. This amount is in addition to compensation allowed persons authorized to issue and sell licenses. (Added to NRS by 1971, 940; A 1979, 300, 900; 1981, 539; 1985, 1708; 1993, 1668; 2001, 976; 2003, 1542, 2548) NRS Duck stamps: Use of money received pursuant to NRS Before the Department may undertake any project using money received pursuant to NRS , it shall analyze the project and provide the Commission with recommendations as to the need for the project and its feasibility. 2. Money received pursuant to NRS must be used for projects approved by the Commission for the protection and propagation of migratory game birds, and for the acquisition, development and preservation of wetlands in Nevada. (Added to NRS by 1979, 300; A 1981, 539; 1985, 1708; 1993, 1668; 2001, 976; 2003, 1542) NRS Duck stamps: Reports to Legislature regarding program. The Department shall, not later than the fifth calendar day of each regular session of the Legislature, submit to the Legislature a report summarizing any projects undertaken, receipt and expenditure of money, and public benefits achieved by the program for the sale of state duck stamps. (Added to NRS by 1979, 300; A 1985, 1353; 1993, 1668; 2003, 1543) 2

6

7 Progress Report on Duck Stamp Projects Funded in FY 2012 Steptoe Valley WMA Weed Control Duck Stamp funds were was used to purchase herbicides to spot treat approximately 800 acres of hoary cress, Canada thistle, and Russian knapweed. Herbicide application was done by in-house personnel, the Tri-County Weed Control District, and Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) Conservation Crews. Approximately $4,115 was expended on mileage, herbicides, and miscellaneous sprayer parts. Locke s Ranch Noxious Weed Control Duck Stamp funds were used to treat hoary cress, tall whitetop, Russian olive, and salt cedar on spot treatments of a 440 acre parcel. Herbicide application was done by NDOW staff, Tri-County Weed Control and NDF Conservation Crews. A total of $1,790 was expended on mileage, herbicides, and miscellaneous sprayer parts. Key Pittman WMA Noxious Weed Control A total of $2,590 was expended on herbicides. This funding was used to treat hoary cress, Russian olive, salt cedar, hardstem bulrush, cocklebur, puncturevine, phragmities and other invasive weeds. Approximately 90 acres were treated. Herbicide application was completed by NDOW staff. Food Plots at Key Pittman WMA A total of $3,183 was spent on seed using Duck Stamp funds (an additional $2,932 of Upland Game Bird account funds also were used on this project). Approximately 60 acres were seeded this spring with wheat, barley, cereal rye, hairy vetch, strawberry clover, Palmer penstemon, Rocky Mountain bee plant and sunflower. This project was completed by NDOW staff. 3

8 North American Waterfowl Management Plan A total of $10,000 was donated to support migratory bird projects associated with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The projects are implemented by Ducks Unlimited and are conducted in the prairie potholes region of Saskatchewan and Alberta Canadian provinces that serve as sources of a significant number of waterfowl that pass through Nevada each year. Overton WMA Farming Approximately 60 acres were seeded this spring with barley, cereal rye, alfalfa and sunflower. This project was completed by our share cropper and a total of $3,500 was spent on seed and fertilizer. 4

9 Overton WMA Vegetation Management Duck Stamp funding was used to treat Russian olive, salt cedar, hardstem bulrush, cocklebur, puncture vine, Russian knapweed, Yellow starthistle and other invasive weeds. Approximately 30 acres were treated and the herbicide application was done by NDOW personnel. A total of $1,011 was expended on herbicides and miscellaneous sprayer parts. Kirch WMA Utility Terrain Vehicle A total of $6,045 in Duck Stamp funding was expended along with Habitat Conservation Fee funds on a 2012 Polaris Ranger XP 800. This vehicle will be used for Kirch WMA operations and maintenance, noxious weed treatments, and food plot development. 5

10 Mason Valley WMA Cattail Control A total of $1,992 was expended on herbicides to control cattail and hardstem bulrush in and around various ponds on the WMA. The application was done by air on approximately 170 acres by a private contractor. Mason Valley WMA Tall White-Top Control Duck Stamp funds were used to treat hoary cress, salt cedar, and tall whitetop on the WMA. The herbicide application was done by NDOW staff and approximately 100 acres were treated using ATV s and backpack sprayers. A total of $1,478 was expended on herbicides. Mason Valley WMA Redhead Pumping Station A total of $1,967 was used to help pay the electrical power bill for the Redhead pumping station. Approximately 700 ac-ft of water from the Mason Valley State Fish Hatchery was moved to specified points in the eastern ponds of the WMA. The water from this well was used to create over 500 acres of suitable waterfowl habitat. Small Game On-line Questionnaire The Small Game On-line Questionnaire Project was developed to provide a more efficient and cost-effective method of getting upland game and waterfowl hunter harvest information. The old method required mailing out a multi-page, paper questionnaire to retrieve the data. Printing costs, envelope costs, postage and return postage were all paid for by NDOW. Additionally, an NDOW employee was tasked with entering the approximately 11,000 questionnaire returns. Under this project a new on-line questionnaire system was developed. Hunters who purchased upland or waterfowl stamps or privileges received a post-card in the mail directing them to an on-line web page. They were presented with the same questions as the traditional paper questionnaire. Once completed and submitted, their data goes directly into a database. Approximately 8,000 responses have been received in one months time (compared to 11,000 in two month s time with the mailed hard-copy questionnaire). A second notice is planned to go out in mid-may. To date, the project has paid post-card 6

11 printing, to inform hunters of the new format and the web address for the questionnaire. The cost of the first mail-out was $1,192 and the second notice is estimated to cost $1,040. This estimated total cost ($2,232) is being shared equally by the Duck and Upland Game Bird Stamp accounts and is about $3,600 less expensive than originally anticipated. Eastern Region WMA Weed Control Approximately $3,502 of FY12 Duck Stamp funds were used in a cooperative effort with NDF and the Nevada Division of State Parks to clean up important waterfowl habitat. Noxious weed control efforts were completed around the wetlands at the north and south ends of South Fork Reservoir. Canada thistle, musk thistle, bull thistle, white top, curly dock and leafy spurge were treated on State lands. This effort will reduce further weed encroachment at the sites and diminish transportation of noxious weed seeds downstream on the Humboldt River system. Carson Lake and Pasture Aerial Tule Control Herbicides were purchased and aerially applied to approximately 250 acres of cattail and hardstem bulrush in the Sprig and Big Water units. In addition, herbicides were applied via airboat to maintain boat channels in those units. The total amount of Duck Stamp funds spent on herbicides was $5,335. 7

12 Wood Duck Project Field work occurred continuously from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012, including winter banding (hunting season) for the second time. A total of 768 Wood Ducks were banded for the first time, 204 of which occurred during the winter. A total of 775 previously marked Wood Ducks were recaptured as part of the banding program. As this project also uses individually coded tarsal bands, which are readable up to 100 yards with a spotting scope, an additional 716 marked individuals were encountered. The first nest checks were initiated during the 3 rd week of March, Nest initiation will end in early July, but by the end of May, 63 nests have been located in which 24 nests have hatched. A total of 952 eggs were laid in these nests of which 330 hatched and 325 of those hatchlings were fitted with web tags. Funding for this project supported a technician, Justin Duke, from July 1, 2011 through October 31, 2011 and March 2012 through June 30, A second technician, Ben Sedinger, was supported from mid-march through June 30, It is estimated that approximately $32,000 of Duck Stamp funds will be spent on this project by the end of FY12. 8

13 Status of FY12 Projects Delayed Until FY13 WMA Pond Leveling Projects A total of four pond enhancement projects at Overton, Kirch and Key Pittman and Mason Valley WMAs were approved for funding with a total amount of $31,056 for all four projects. However, due to staffing shortages and high water levels at some of the WMA s, work was not completed during FY 12. These projects are expected to be completed in FY13. Key Pittman WMA Prescribed Fire FY12 Duck Stamp funding in the amount of $4,500 was approved for NDF Conservation Crews to assist with a prescribed fire at Key Pittman WMA. Due to staffing shortages at the Pioche Conservation Camp, the work could not be scheduled and this project is expected to be completed in FY 13. Scripps WMA Well Pumping The Scripps WMA well is used to add water to the tanks of spray rigs to mix up herbicides for treating tall whitetop at the WMA. Washoe Lake water levels were too high this past fiscal year to effectively treat the areas that need to have applications to control the stands of tall whitetop. As the water recedes, it is expected that this $2,000 project will take place in FY13. 9

14

15 Proposed FY 2013 Duck Stamp Projects Title of Project $ Requested from Duck Stamp Account Carson Lake and Pasture Cattail Control $ 6,000 Carson Lake and Pasture Water Control Structures $ 3,600 Fallon Wood Duck Project $ 23,500 Key Pittman WMA Farming and Upland Food $ 3,200 Plots Key Pittman WMA Vegetation Control $ 1,300 Lockes Ranch Noxious Weeds $ 1,800 Bruneau WMA, Franklin Lake WMA and Birch $ 3,750 Creek Property Weed Control Mason Valley WMA Cattail and Hardstem Bulrush $ 3,404 Control Mason Valley WMA Joggles Well Pumping $ 5,800 Mason Valley WMA Redhead Pumping Station $ 3,500 Steptoe Valley WMA Noxious Weeds $ 4,000 Overton WMA Farming $ 3,500 Overton WMA Vegetation Control $ 1,070 Overton WMA Water Outlet Structure $ 2,850 Scripps WMA Well Pumping $ 1,000 North American Waterfowl Management Plan $ 10,000 Support Total $ 78,274 The proposals for the FY 2013 projects listed above start on page 12. The impact of these proposed projects on the Duck Stamp account balance is defined on the next page. 10

16

17 Duck Stamp Account Budget Status Balance in the Account at Start of FY 2012 $ 503,138 Estimated Revenue Accrued During FY 2012 Estimated Total FY 2012 Expenditures $ 92,049 $ 79,506 Estimated Balance at the Start of FY 2013 $ 515,681 Estimated Revenue to be Accrued During FY 2013 $ 92,049 Total FY 2012 Project Expenditures During FY 2013 Proposed New Project FY 2013 Expenditures $ 49,671 $ 78,274 Estimated Balance at End of FY 2013 $ 479,785 Note: The budget information in this table is preliminary, based on estimates from late May of 2012, and is thus subject to change. 11

18

19 Proposal Guidance for Fiscal Year 2013 Wildlife Reserve Account Projects (formerly Level B Projects) Project Title: Carson Lake Cattail Control Project Summary NDOW Reserve Program to Provide Funding: Duck Stamp Funds NDOW Project Manager (PM): Russelle Smith PM Phone Number and Address: (775) ; rsmith@ndow.org Total Funds Requested from this Program: $6,000 Funds Requested from Other Sources: $0 Total Project Cost: $6,000 Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes X No Project Proposal I. Project Goals and Objective(s). The goals for this project are to minimize the growth of hardstem bulrush and cattails that has encroached into waterfowl and shore bird habitat. We plan to expand the habitat for the waterfowl and shorebird communities through removal of the two invasive species mentioned. This action will benefit the consumptive users (hunters) and biologists by increasing access to areas for hunting, wildlife surveys and studies. Access increase will be accomplished through elimination of the encroaching vegetation. II. Project Location(s). Carson Lake and Pasture, in southern Churchill County III. Project Description and Proposed Activities. Herbicides (such as AquaNeat and Rodeo) will be aerially sprayed on approximately 166 acres by a private contractor. Herbicides will also be applied by in-house personnel from an air-boat on the main channels. 12

20 IV. Project Timeline: This project will start in mid spring when the cattails and bulrush are actively growing. The aerial spraying will occur in the middle of September. Spraying invasive weeds is an ongoing process because conditions are very suitable for them to become established and outcompete the desirable aquatic vegetation, which is more appropriate for waterfowl and shore bird habitat. This activity has been and will continue to be a top priority on all WMA s for years to come. V. Relationship to Existing and Proposed Land and Resource Management Plans. Spraying hardstem bulrush and cattails is an ongoing part of the WMA Management Plan. It will enable us to accomplish our habitat goal ratio of open water to emergent vegetation (70%- 30%). The desired outcome is to provide suitable habitat for the fauna of the Carson Lake. That fauna is an extremely diverse one, comprised of both open water wetlands and marsh habitats. Carson Lake (as part of the Lahontan Valley Wetlands) is designated as a location of Great Importance by the Western Hemispheric Shore Bird Reserve Network (WHSRN). The exceptionally high waterfowl and shorebird use totals, emphasizes the biological importance of the area. Historically, the area was developed for the preservation of habitat for waterfowl, but other species including raptors, songbirds, and neo-tropical migrants. Carson Lake also serves as a valuable support role in sustaining migratory, shore bird and wading bird populations which the Lahontan Valley Wetlands are famous for. (Conceptual Management Plan page ) VI. Existing Habitat and Species Baseline Conditions. Currently cattails and hardstem bulrush have infested the York, Rice, Big Water and Sprig Units. The long term goal is to reduce these invasive aquatic weeds and have more production of native aquatic vegetation such as sago pondweed and alkali bulrush (nutgrass). Eradicating the cattails and hardstem bulrush will also optimize the resting, nesting and feeding habits for waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds using the area. VII. Measuring Results. The net benefit would be the reduction of cattails and hardstem bulrush and increasing opportunities for desirable aquatic plant species. This change in vegetation will allow for an increase in waterfowl, shore bird and wading birds. The increase in open water will also give better access for biologists to conduct their surveys and scientific studies as well as provide improved access for waterfowl hunters. Evaluations of treatments will be conducted the following spring when cattail and hardstem bulrush begin to grow. VIII. Monitoring and Adaptive Management. Noxious and invasive weed control will be an ongoing objective for all of WMA s. Monitoring will include an evaluation of the effectiveness of noxious weed control efforts and measuring the resultant open water and reestablishment by desirable aquatic plant species. 13

21 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Cost and Funding Summary 1. Dollar Amount Requested from This Program $ 6, Other Funding Sources for This Project a. $ b. $ c. $ d. $ e. Total Other Funding Sources (Lines a-d) $ 3. In-Kind Services and Donations for This Project a. Volunteer Time $ b. Equipment $ c. Materials $ d. $ e. $ f. $ g. $ h. Total In-Kind Services and Donations (Lines a-g) $ 4. Total Project Funding $ 6,000 (Add Lines 1, 2e and 3h) 14

22 Project Cost Estimates Costs to be Covered by this All Other Costs Program 1. Land Acquisition $ $ 2. Personnel $ $ 3. Travel a. Per Diem $ $ b. Mileage $ $ c. Total Travel Costs (Lines a-b) $ $ 4. Equipment Items a. Crop duster $ 2,500 $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Equipment Costs (Lines a-d) $ 2,500 $ 5. Materials a. Herbicides $ 1,500 $ b. Kinetic Adjuvant $ 2,000 $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Material Costs (Lines a-d) $ 3,500 $ 6. Miscellaneous Costs a. $ $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (Lines a-d) $ $ 15

23 7. Total Costs to be Charged to This Program $ 6,000 (Add Left Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs to be Funded by Other Programs $ (Add Right Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ 6,000 (Add Lines 7, 8) Other Funding Considerations Why Does Your Project Need to be Funded by this Program? Controlling noxious and invasive weeds on Carson Lake will help maintain and enhance wetland habitat, with waterfowl as the primary beneficiary. This project also is needed to help provide funds for state matching purposes. Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No If Yes, Which Federal Grant Would the Matching Funds be Used For? WMA System Federal Grant 16

24

25 Fiscal Year 2013 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Proposal (formerly referred to as a Level B project proposal) Project Summary Project Title: Carson Lake and Pasture Water Control Structures NDOW Reserve Account Program to Provide Funding: Duck Stamp NDOW Project Manager (PM): Russelle Smith PM Phone Number and Address: (775) ; rsmith@ndow.org Total Funds Requested from this Program: $3,600 Funds Requested from Other Sources: $0 Total Project Cost: $3,600 Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No Project Proposal I. Project Goals and Objective(s). To provide improved water distribution capability at the Carson Lake and Pasture. II. III. Project Location(s). Carson Lake and Pasture / Fallon, Nevada Project Description and Proposed Activities. Funding would be used to purchase two water control structures. Both structures would be installed in the banks of the Rice Drain with one providing improved water delivery capability to the York wetland unit and the other providing the same function for the Rice wetland unit. 17

26 IV. Project Timeline. This project would be completed during the winter of 2012 V. Relationship to Existing and Proposed Land and Resource Management Plans. Although a conceptual management plan has not yet been written for Carson Lake and Pasture, this project would provide improved water management capabilities, an objective of all wetlands managed by NDOW. VI. VII. VIII. Existing Habitat and Species Baseline Conditions. The shallow water wetland units at Carson Lake and Pasture provide the second highest waterfowl use days of any wetland area in Nevada. The wetlands and wet meadows of the area are recognized as part of the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network due to the massive numbers of shorebirds that use the area as breeding, nesting and migratory habitat. Measuring Results. The results of the project would be measured by the effective functioning of water management in the two units. Monitoring and Adaptive Management. Monitoring would consist of observing the water flow to the two units and managing the rate of flow to maintain, or increase habitat. Adaptive management would consist of altering the rate and amount of flow to the two units to maximize desired use to meet management goals. Wildlife Reserve Account Project Cost and Funding Summary 1. Dollar Amount Requested from This Program $ $3, Other Funding Sources for This Project a. $ b. $ c. $ d. $ e. Total Other Funding Sources (Lines a-d) $ 3. In-Kind Services and Donations for This Project a. Volunteer Time $ b. Equipment $ 18

27 c. Materials $ d. $ e. $ f. Total In-Kind Services and Donations (Lines a-e) $ 4. Total Project Funding $ $3,600 (Add Lines 1, 2e and 3h) Project Cost Estimates Costs to be Covered by this All Other Costs Program 1. Land Acquisition $ $ 2. Personnel $ $ 3. Travel a. Per Diem $ $ b. Mileage $ $ c. Total Travel Costs (Lines a-b) $ $ 4. Equipment Items a. $ $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Equipment Costs (Lines a-d) $ $ 5. Materials a. Water control structures $ 3,600 $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Material Costs (Lines a-d) $ 3,600 $ 19

28 6. Miscellaneous Costs a. $ $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (Lines a-d) $ $ 7. Total Costs to be Charged to This Program $ $3,600 (Add Left Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs to be Funded by Other Programs $ (Add Right Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ $3,600 (Add Lines 7, 8) Other Funding Considerations Why Does Your Project Need to be Funded by this Program? This project would greatly benefit NDOW s ability to provide quality waterfowl habitat at Carson Lake and Pasture. Consequently, it should be funded with Duck Stamp funds. In addition, the funding would compose NDOW s match for a NAWCA grant that could provide up to $3,000,000 for wetland enhancement work in Mason and Lahontan valleys. Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No If Yes, Which Federal Grant Would the Matching Funds be Used For? W 61 D Carson Lake and Pasture Grant 20

29 Fiscal Year 2013 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Proposal (formerly referred to as a Level B project proposal) Project Title: Fallon Wood Duck Project Project Summary NDOW Reserve Account Program to Provide Funding: Duck Stamp NDOW Project Manager (PM): Russell Woolstenhulme PM Phone Number and Address: (775) ; russellw@ndow.org Total Funds Requested from this Program: $23,500 Funds Requested from Other Sources: $2,000 from USFWS Education Grant and $53,800 in inkind services from USFWS, USDA and volunteers. Total Project Cost: $79,300 Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No Project Proposal I. Project Goals and Objective(s). This project s goal is to collect data that will direct and simplify waterfowl hunting regulations in Nevada (and elsewhere), primarily through a relaxation of species and gender restrictions. Our hypothesis is that annual wood duck survival is not influenced by different levels of harvest. The role of harvest in the dynamics of North American waterfowl populations remains controversial. It is widely accepted that harvest mortality is additive to other sources of mortality for geese (Rexstad 1992, Sedinger et al. 2007), but the issue of additive harvest mortality for ducks remains unresolved. Harvest strategies for continental mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), and northern pintails (A. acuta) incorporate the assumption of at least partially additive harvest mortality. For the latter two species, mortality rates over recent decades have not varied with harvest rates, inconsistent with additive harvest 21

30 mortality. This study will manipulate annual harvest rates between 0.03 and 0.30 (unmanipulated harvest rates have been in the 12-15% range) on a largely resident population of wood ducks (Aix sponsa) near Fallon NV (Churchill County), over an eight year period ( ). This proposal is very similar to the Stabilized Regulations experiment initiated in the 1980 s, but is different at two levels: 1) harvest rate is manipulated while habitat conditions remain constant, and 2) this experiment is at a county, rather than a continental level. The described study system is unique in that: 1) 60% of individual wood ducks are uniquely marked prior to hunting season, 2) 90% of the population marked prior to breeding, and 3) 83% of total harvest of this population occurs as local harvest. We will assess: 1) monthly age and gender specific survival, using encounters of uniquely marked individuals (bands and webtags) in response to variation in harvest rates, 2) variation in survival as a function of measures of individual quality (i.e., structural size, body mass, and reproductive history) which allows us to assess heterogeneity in survival and recovery at different levels of harvest, and 3) analyses will examine potential for trade-offs among different life history traits under varying levels of harvest. Under a hypothesis of compensatory harvest mortality we predict that annual survival will be invariant to different levels of harvest. We also predict that low quality individuals will be more vulnerable to harvest and that non-hunting mortality will be inversely correlated with harvest mortality for low quality individuals. Lastly, individuals may make trade-offs among different life history strategies across varying levels of harvest which may result in individual compensation. II. Project Location(s). The project would be located primarily along the lower Carson River (Lahontan Reservoir to Carson Sink) in the vicinity of Fallon, NV (Churchill County). All portions of the project would occur on private lands. III. Project Description and Proposed Activities. The role of harvest in the dynamics of North American waterfowl populations remains controversial (Ankney 1996, Arnold et al. 2008, Lynch 1984, Nicolai et al. 2005, Sedinger and Herzog 2012, Sedinger and Rexstad 1994,). The additive nature of harvest for geese is relatively well accepted (Rexstad 1992, Schaeffer et al. 2004, Sedinger et al 2007). In contrast, evidence of additive harvest mortality in ducks is either weak (Nicolai 2003, Nicolai et al. 2003, Nicolai et al. 2005, Nicolai et al. 2006a & b, Rice et al. 2010, Sedinger and Herzog 2012) or confounded by other factors (Sedinger and Rexstad 1994, Sedinger and Herzog 2012, Smith and Reynolds 1992). In lesser scaup, substantial variation in harvest rates have not been correlated with corresponding changes in annual survival (Afton and Anderson 2001, Boomer and Johnson 2007, Nicolai et al. 2006a & b), while in northern pintails a nearly 50% reduction in harvest rate in the 1980s had no influence on annual survival (Nicolai 2003, Nicolai et al. 2003, Rice et al. 2010). Increased habitat conditions in the breeding ranges of both pintails and scaup did not result in a numerical increase in these populations regardless of restrictive regulations (Afton and Anderson 2001, Hestbeck 1996, USFWS 2007). Incorporation of harvest into population models for northern pintails explained only an additional 4% of variation in predicted population size at time t + 1 beyond the predictive ability of population size at time t (Runge and Boomer 2005). A suite of historical studies also failed to detect evidence for additive harvest mortality (Boyce et al. 1999, 22

31 Errington 1945). Two studies have detected a negative correlation between harvest rate and survival (Smith and Reynolds 1992, Trost 1987), although in the Smith and Reynolds (1992) study density-dependent effects were confounded with harvest effects on survival (Sedinger and Rexstad 1994, Sedinger and Herzog 2012), making it impossible to interpret the apparent relationship between harvest rate and survival. A similar problem exists in the partial support for an additive mortality effect in adaptive harvest models used to manage continental mallards (Conn and Kendall 2004, Johnson et al. 1997, Sedinger and Herzog 2012). It is commonly assumed that density-dependence in the mortality process is required for harvest mortality to be fully compensated by changes in natural mortality (Anderson and Burnham 1976). Reduced numbers of individuals because of harvest mortality, result in increased survival of all remaining individuals. Lebreton (2005) has pointed out that densitydependent effects must be substantial for harvest mortality to be fully compensated. For populations near carrying capacity, however, it is certainly possible that harvest mortality could be fully compensated (Peron et al. 2012). Heterogeneity in individual survival probability provides an alternative, although not mutually exclusive, mechanism by which harvest mortality could be compensatory to other forms of mortality (Cam et al. 2002, Francis et al. 1992, Rexstad and Anderson 1992, Sedinger and Chelgren 2007). Several studies showed that individuals shot over decoys were in poorer condition than other individuals in the study populations (Dufour et al. 1993, Greenwood et al. 1986, Hepp et al. 1986). Condition is known to influence survival in ducks (Cox et al. 1998, Fleskes et al. 2007). Thus, individuals that are more vulnerable to harvest have a lower inherent probability of survival, independent of harvest. Rexstad and Anderson (1992) demonstrated substantial heterogeneity in survival probability among individual mallards while Royle and Dubovsky (2001) showed substantial heterogeneity in recovery rate. These studies suggest the potential that individuals shot by hunters would have had a low probability of survival, even in the absence of hunting. If substantiated, such covariance between inherent survival probability and the probability of being shot would produce compensatory harvest mortality at the population level. More simply, populations contain a set of individuals that have a high probability of mortality and these are the same individuals that tend to be shot by hunters rather than die of other means. We propose to take advantage of a unique population of wood ducks along the Carson River, in western NV to experimentally assess the effect of harvest on the mortality process in a North American population of ducks. This population is relatively sedentary and we encounter marked individuals in each month of the year. Furthermore, 83% of the harvest on this population occurs at the field site (Fig 1). Given the small geographical scale in which marking and harvest occurs, state waterfowl regulations could be modified within federal frameworks. Discussions began with Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) in 2010 regarding the potential to reduce daily bag limits on Wood Ducks within Churchill County, Nevada. Efforts to communicate with the public commenced and ultimately the Nevada State Wildlife Commission adopted an experimental reduction in daily bag for the 2011/12 waterfowl season and the Commission is aware that we will propose to repeat this treatment in 2013/14. Wood ducks in Churchill County occur almost entirely on private land. Local landowners have been relatively protective of wood ducks and many currently do not grant permission to hunt their properties. However, landowners have been involved in discussions regarding the proposed 23

32 harvest experiment and have suggested that they may allow access to their properties in years with a high harvest treatment. The majority of individuals in the population are marked and we have a high probability of encountering marked individuals each year. We will use our ability to manipulate harvest combined with our ability to track individuals with known histories to test the hypothesis that harvest mortality is compensated by changes in natural mortality and other demographic rates. IV. Project Timeline. The project would occur year-round with the most intense field work occurring from February through August. The remainder of the year is used for data analysis and intermittent field work. V. Relationship to Existing and Proposed Land and Resource Management Plans. This project helps meet Nevada s duck banding objective in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the related Western Mallard Model. VI. Existing Habitat and Species Baseline Conditions. This project has been underway since 2003 in which 4,441 wood ducks have been banded, resulting in 2,751 recaptures and 1,744 re-sightings of marked individuals. Additionally, 1,581 ducklings have been marked on their day of hatch. Given our past experience, reasonable samples of marked individuals should be obtained to address multiple hypotheses exploring effects of varying levels of human harvest (hunting) on this population. VII. Measuring Results. Hypotheses H1: Annual Survival Will Be Invariant With Respect To Harvest H1a: Nonhunting Mortality During Fall-Winter Will Vary Inversely With Harvest Mortality Traditional ideas about mechanisms underlying compensatory mortality postulate that mortality trade-offs occur between the hunting season (harvest mortality) and the nonhunting season (nonhunting mortality) (Krementz et al. 1988, Nichols et al. 1984). Survival rates for ducks tend to be high between the hunting season and breeding (e.g., Conroy et al. 1989, Cox et al. 1998, Fleskes et al. 2007). Furthermore, food may be most limiting during late hunting season (e.g., Delnicki and Reineke 1986, Miller and Newton 1999, Rhodes et al. 2006, Stafford et al. 2007) and disease events may occur coincident with the hunting season (Wobeser et al. 1983, Botzler 1991, Evelsizer and Clark 2010). Consequently, we expect that compensation for harvest mortality occurs during the hunting season. High encounter probabilities that we generate for the study population allow us to estimate monthly survival based on nonharvest encounters. We can thus estimate monthly survival during the fall-winter months using band recovery rates (from an analysis of recoveries) as a covariate. This is possible because the parameter estimates are derived from entirely independent data, which is unique to our study system. 24

33 H2: Low Quality Individuals Will Experience Higher Mortality Rates Than High Quality Individuals At All Levels Of Harvest H2a: Low Quality Individuals Will Be Harvested At Higher Rates Than High Quality Individuals Several studies indicate that individuals in poorer condition (e.g., low lipid stores) are more vulnerable to harvest than are individuals in good condition (Dufour et al. 1993, Greenwood et al. 1986, Hepp et al. 1986, Reinecke and Shaiffer 1988). We will assess the applicability of this pattern to wood ducks, by examining the relationships between condition measures (mass, mass controlled for structural size) or nesting history (adult females only) and recovery rate (Olson 2011). H2b: Low Quality Individuals Will Experience Higher Non-Hunting Mortality than High Quality Individuals Condition is related to survival of individual waterfowl (Cox et al. 1998, Fleskes et al. 2007, Haramis et al. 1986). We thus expect that individuals in poorer condition will experience higher levels of non-hunting mortality. Non-hunting mortality includes all sources of mortality which is not a result of being shot and can occur any time in the year (Reynolds et al. 1995). H2c: Individual Quality Will Interact With Harvest Mortality Rate and Non-Hunting Mortality Rate. Harvest Mortality Rate Of High Quality Individuals Will Not Vary With Harvest Treatment, While Harvest Mortality Rate Of Low Quality Individuals Will Vary Inversely With Non-Hunting Mortality Rate Across Harvest Treatments. If individual heterogeneity provides the underlying mechanism explaining compensatory harvest mortality we predict high quality individuals (as measured by body condition or reproductive history) will experience high survival under all harvest levels. In contrast, low quality individuals will experience low annual survival relative to high quality individuals but the source of mortality will vary with harvest rate. At low harvest rate, less mortality will be due to harvest, while at high harvest rates, harvest mortality will at least partially replace non harvest mortality. Analyses We use a suite of modern approaches for assessing the hypotheses identified above. We will use recaptures, observations of color banded individuals, and hunter recoveries to estimate monthly survival probability (1 mortality probability) for the hunting season and other seasons of the year. These analyses will be conducted using the Multi-state robust design with recoveries option in Program Mark so that we can include effects of temporary and permanent emigration (Lindberg et al. 2001, Kendall and Cooch 2006, Kendall and Nichols 1995, Kendall and Nichols 2002, White and Burnham 1999). Preliminary analyses suggest we can precisely estimate monthly survival, encounter probability, and recovery rate (SEs were 5% of estimates; Fig 4). Harvest rate is related to band recovery rate by the band reporting rate (e.g., Nichols et al. 1991), which is unknown for wood ducks. Recent use of bands, however, has increased band reporting rates for mallards and geese to approximately 0.8 (Zimmerman et al. 2009). Combined with the fact that hunters accounting for about 75% of the harvest of the study population 25

34 participate in the banding and nest monitoring effort, the effective reporting rate in our study should be > 0.9. Estimates of band recovery rate will, thus, represent a reasonable, although slightly biased estimate of harvest mortality rate. Because our estimate of total mortality rate is based on an independent analysis (recaptures and observations) we can partition total hunting season mortality into that due to harvest and that due to other causes. Such partitioning is not possible in studies dependent entirely on band recoveries, because such studies cannot estimate hunting season mortality, and estimates of survival covary with those of recovery rate (Nichols et a. 1991, Nichols and Hines 1983). We will assess H1 and H1A by estimating annual survival, hunting season survival, and nonharvest mortality as a function of harvest rate. Under a hypothesis of compensatory mortality we expect that annual survival and survival during the hunting season will be invariant to harvest rate while non-harvest mortality will be inversely correlated with harvest mortality. We will assess H2A by examining the relationship between band recovery rate and measures of individual quality, including breeding history, and body mass adjusted for structural size. We predict that low quality individuals (e.g., those that did not breed the previous summer) will be harvested at higher rates than high quality individuals. H2B will be assessed by estimating annual survival, harvest mortality and non-hunting mortality as functions of individual quality, with the expectation that low quality individuals will have lower annual survival and higher non-hunting mortality. Under H2C we anticipate an interaction between individual quality and non-hunting mortality across harvest levels. VIII. Monitoring and Adaptive Management. See section VII Literature Cited: A multi-page bibliography can be supplied upon request. 26

35 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Cost and Funding Summary 1. Dollar Amount Requested from This Program $ 23, Other Funding Sources for This Project a. USFWS Education Grant $ 2,000 b. $ c. $ d. $ e. Total Other Funding Sources (Lines a-d) $ 2, In-Kind Services and Donations for This Project a. Volunteer Time $ 32,000 b. Equipment $ c. Materials $ d. USFWS housing $ 9,600 e. USFWS vehicle $ 7,200 f. USDA air cannon $ 5,000 g. $ h. Total In-Kind Services and Donations (Lines a-g) $ 53, Total Project Funding $ 79,300 (Add Lines 1, 2e and 3h) 27

36 Project Cost Estimates Costs to be covered by this All Other Costs Program 1. Land Acquisition $ $ 2. Personnel $ 17,500 $ 34, Travel a. Per Diem $ $ b. Mileage $ 1,000 $ 7,200 c. Total Travel Costs (Lines a-b) $ 1,000 $ 7, Equipment Items a. Air cannon - USDA $ $ 5,000 b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Equipment Costs (Lines a-d) $ $ 5, Materials a. Corn $ 1,000 $ b. Trapping supplies $ 500 $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Material Costs (Lines a-d) $ 1,500 $ 6. Miscellaneous Costs a. Graduate student tuition & insurance $ 3,500 $ b. Housing $ $ 9,600 c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (Lines a-d) $ 3,500 $ 9,600 28

37 7. Total Costs to be Charged to This Program $ 23,500 (Add Left Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs to be Funded by Other Programs $ 55,800 (Add Right Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ 79,300 (Add Lines 7, 8) Other Funding Considerations Why Does Your Project Need to be Funded by this Program? This project is at a local level providing information for large-scale management of migratory birds. Changes in the large-scale management of duck hunting regulations may include a simplification of the regulations that would greatly benefit hunters that pay for this program. In addition, other funding sources are limited; however, funding from other sources, including the USFWS and the Delta Waterfowl Foundation (from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada), will continue to be sought to reduce the amount of Duck Stamp funding needed in future fiscal years. Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No If Yes, Which Federal Grant Would the Matching Funds be Used For? Federal Game Management Grant 29

38

39 Fiscal Year 2013 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Proposal (formerly referred to as a Level B project proposal) Project Summary Project Title: Key Pittman WMA Farming and Upland Food Plots NDOW Reserve Account Programs to Provide Funding: Upland Game Bird Stamp and Duck Stamp NDOW Project Manager (PM): Ron Mills PM Phone Number and Address: (775) ; rmills@ndow.org Total Funds Requested from these Programs: $6,400 total ($3,200 from each program) Funds Requested from Other Sources: $0 Total Project Cost: $6,400 Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No Project Proposal I. Project Goals and Objective(s). Goal: The goal of the project is to provide protection and enhancement of desirable wildlife habitats, promote hunting and watchable wildlife opportunities on the Key Pittman WMA. 30

40 Objectives: 1. Provide roosting, resting and feeding habitat for mourning dove, quail, cottontail rabbit, mule deer, waterfowl, and other wetland/water dependent game and non-game wildlife species; 2. Maintain food plots for upland game, waterfowl, big game and non game wildlife species; 3. In conjunction with the long-term noxious/invasive weed control program, establish desirable vegetation in areas made vacant by the removal of weeds and enhance existing habitats not impacted by weeds. II. Project Location(s). This project is located at the Key Pittman WMA located in Pahranagat Valley in Lincoln County. Key Pittman WMA is composed of a total of 1,332 acres, including two reservoirs and two wetland impoundments with seven identified habitat types. III. Project Description and Proposed Activities. A variety of seed will be sown in areas along the edges of the reservoirs and impoundments (left vacant by the removal of weeds) and in the established food plots. 1. A mixture of Indian Ricegrass, Japanese Millet, Annual Rye and Tall Fescue will be sown into areas left vacant through weed control activities. Seeding is expected to occur in the November to February timeframe. 2. Japanese millet, sunflower and sorghum will be hand broadcast along portions of the shore line of the impoundments and reservoirs. This seed mixture will provide feed, cover, and nesting opportunities for quail, mourning dove, waterfowl, mule deer, cottontail rabbit, and numerous non game species acres of food plots will be seeded with a variety of cereal grains, legumes, and forbs. These food plots are utilized by mourning dove, quail, waterfowl, sandhill cranes, herons, mule deer, small mammals and song birds. In early spring, wheat, barley, oats, cereal rye, hairy vetch, clover, annual sunflower, Palmer s penstemon, and rocky mountain beeplant will be drilled (inter-seeded) into the existing cover crop. During late August the fields will be strip-mowed to improve dove access and hunting opportunities. In early October the remaining standing vegetation is mowed, disked and drilled with a variety of seed including winter wheat, oats, barley, cereal rye, hairy vetch and clover to provide a cover crop. IV. Project Timeline. The proposed project is planned to occur year-round. The project description above outlines the time line for this project. V. Relationship to Existing and Proposed Land and Resource Management Plans. Annual vegetation enhancement and maintenance is identified in the Key Pittman WMA Conceptual Management Plan. The desired outcome is: Wildlife habitats are in good ecological condition, capable of supporting a diverse array of wildlife species. The Plan goals include: 31

41 Habitat is the key to the success of all wildlife populations. Effective habitat is an integral function of the Department of Wildlife. NDOW will preserve and protect quality habitats and enhance deficient habitats. The objectives identified include: Maintain, protect and enhance wildlife habitats on wildlife management areas by applying good science and best management practices through implementation of Comprehensive Management Plans on all WMA s (Comprehensive Strategic Plan). VI. Existing Habitat and Species Baseline Conditions. This project would target 80 acres of vegetation currently containing monotypic stands of noxious/invasive weeds, selected shore areas of impoundments and reservoirs and 60 acres of irrigated food plots. The project area provides feeding, resting and nesting areas to a variety of resident, seasonal or migratory game and non-game species. VII. Measuring Results. Success would be measured by the increase (above baseline) of wildlife use, hunter success, public use and positive public feedback. Public use and waterfowl use is closely monitored and documented. Upland game, mule deer and small mammal populations are also monitored. The trends noted would provide an indication of the effectiveness of this program. VIII. Monitoring and Adaptive Management. Following the seeding of the various areas the establishment of the desired vegetation is noted and evaluated. In addition, the response of the wildlife to the seeding will be monitored as well. This criterion is evaluated and adjustments (to the seed mixes, timing, irrigation schedule, seed bed preparation and chemical treatments, and application methods for noxious/invasive weed control) are implemented in the following years to optimize the effectiveness of this project. 32

42 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Cost and Funding Summary (Estimates Should Be for Fiscal Year 2013 Only) 1. Dollar Amount Requested from This Program $ 6, Other Funding Sources for This Project a. $ b. $ c. $ d. $ e. Total Other Funding Sources (Lines a-d) $ 3. In-Kind Services and Donations for This Project a. Volunteer Time $ b. Equipment $ c. Materials $ d. $ e. $ f. $ g. $ h. Total In-Kind Services and Donations (Lines a-g) $ 4. Total Project Funding $ 6,400 (Add Lines 1, 2e and 3h) 33

43 Project Cost Estimates (Estimates Should Be for Fiscal Year 2013 Only) Costs to be Covered by this All Other Costs Program 1. Land Acquisition $ $ 2. Personnel $ $ 3. Travel a. Per Diem $ $ b. Mileage $ $ c. Total Travel Costs (Lines a-b) $ $ 4. Equipment Items a. $ $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Equipment Costs (Lines a-d) $ $ 5. Materials a. Seed $ 6,400 $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Material Costs (Lines a-d) $ 6,400 $ 6. Miscellaneous Costs a. $ $ b. $ $ c. $ $ d. $ $ e. Total Miscellaneous Costs (Lines a-d) $ $ 34

44 7. Total Costs to be Charged to This Program $ 6,400 (Add Left Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 8. Total All Other Costs to be Funded by Other Programs $ (Add Right Hand Columns from Lines 1, 2, 3c, 4e, 5e, 6e) 9. Total Project Costs $ 6,400 (Add Lines 7, 8) Other Funding Considerations Why Does Your Project Need to be Funded by this Program? Upland game bird and duck stamp funds provide the best fit for this program. We also need a source of funding for state matching purposes. Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No If Yes, Which Federal Grant Would the Matching Funds be Used For? WMA System Federal Grant 35

45 Fiscal Year 2013 Wildlife Reserve Account Project Proposal (formerly referred to as a Level B project proposal) Project Summary Project Title: Key Pittman WMA Vegetation Control NDOW Reserve Account Program to Provide Funding: Upland Game Bird Stamp and Duck Stamp NDOW Project Manager (PM): Ron Mills PM Phone Number and Address: (775) ; rmills@ndow.org Total Funds Requested from this Program: $2,600 total ($1,300 from each program) Funds Requested from Other Sources: $0 Total Project Cost: $2,600 Would Funds from this Program Be Used for State Matching Purposes? Yes No 36

46 Project Proposal I. Project Goals and Objective(s). The objective of this project is to control 125 acres of undesirable vegetation on the Key Pittman WMA. This would be accomplished by applying herbicides to noxious/invasive weeds in upland, riparian areas, parking lots, food plots, rights of way, and to undesirable emergent vegetation along shorelines, ditches, wetland units, and boating access points. Herbicides are utilized to control noxious/invasive plants in order to restore high value plant communities. Wetland habitats are most productive when in a mosaic of 70% open water and 30% vegetative cover and having an edge effect with a mixture of cattail and hardstem bulrush, grasses and bare ground. Aquatic labeled herbicides will be used to treat these areas. Control of undesirable vegetation on ditches, boating access facilities, parking lots, and right-of-ways will facilitate water management, improves access for sportsmen, and the aesthetics of the WMA. II. III. Project Location(s). This project is located within the Key Pittman Wildlife Management Area located in Pahranagat Valley in Lincoln County. Key Pittman WMA is composed of a total of 1,332 acres, including two reservoirs and two wetland impoundments with seven identified habitat types. Project Description and Proposed Activities. The annual vegetation control program consists of the treatment of noxious/invasive weeds through application of herbicides with ground-based equipment. 1. Hoary Cress (Cardaria spp.), Phragmities (Phragmites ssp.) would be treated in the spring and summer of 2013 by applying Weedar 64 or Habitat from UTV, tractor boom sprayer or backpack sprayer. These species occur primarily in cropland, fresh emergent wetland, alkali desert scrub, urban and wet meadow. 2. Water control structures, roads, right of ways, boating access points, parking lots, and HQ grounds would be treated in 2013 with glyphosate or Weedar 64 during the spring and summer from UTV, tractor boom sprayer or backpack sprayer. Control of undesirable vegetation in these areas is essential for improved water delivery to impoundments, reservoirs and food plots, and for improved public access, reduction of fire hazards and to control invasive nuisance species such as puncture vine, cocklebur, and American kochia. 3. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) would be treated in May with the herbicide Poast. Johnsongrass was recently added to the state noxious weed list and can be found along roadsides and in some of the food plot fields on Key Pittman WMA. Treatment would consist of boom spraying the heavy infestations and spot spraying individual plants. 4. Emergent vegetation found on the lacustrine habitats would be treated with aquaticlabeled glyphosate in mid to late summer with the use of backpack or portable sprayers and applied by boat or with the Utility Terrain Vehicle. Wetland habitats are most productive when made up of a mosaic of 70% open water and 30% 37