hay-zama lakes duck breeding and molting...executive summary the hay‐zama lakes complex is widely...
TRANSCRIPT
Hay-Zama Lakes Duck Breeding and Molting Population Density Surveys, 2005 - 2007
CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION
REPORT REPORT
SERIESSERIES
CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION
REPORT REPORT
SERIESSERIES 25% Post Consumer Fibre
When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable
The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.
Hay‐Zama Lakes Duck Breeding and Molting Population Density Surveys, 2005 ‐ 2007
Ken D. Wright and Ryan Hermanutz Alberta Conservation Association
9621 – 96 Avenue Peace River, Alberta, Canada
T8S 1T4
Report Editors DOUG MANZER KELLEY KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres NW Box 1139, Provincial Building Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Blairmore, AB T0K 0E0 Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐8218‐2 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐8219‐9 Publication No.: Pub No. T/211 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Wright, K.D., and R. Hermanutz. 2009. Hay‐Zama Lakes duck breeding and molting
population density surveys, 2005 ‐ 2007. Data Report, D‐2009‐002, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 25 pp. + App.
Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association 101, 9 Chippewa Road Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1999 Fax: (780) 410‐6441 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex is widely recognized as an important waterfowl staging
area, however little information exists regarding the importance of this unique wetland
area for breeding and molting waterfowl. Waterfowl management in this area has
focused on monitoring staging waterfowl numbers near the numerous producing oil
and gas well sites within the wetland complex since 1978. Ongoing monitoring is
expected to continue until oil and gas activity is phased out between 2012 and 2017.
The purpose of this survey was to provide stakeholders with additional waterfowl
population data for consideration in managing this complex as new economic values
develop. Our objectives were to estimate waterfowl population density in the Hay‐
Zama complex during breeding and molting seasons over a three‐year period, and to
identify and characterize areas within the complex with the greatest densities.
We flew a series of aerial surveys over a three‐year period during breeding and molting
seasons. Four surveys were flown each year; one in late May and one in early June for
the breeding season, and one in late July and one in early August for the molting
season. Waterfowl observed were grouped into social classes to estimate breeding
density, and total numbers observed were used to calculate molting densities. Social
classes are a tool developed for calculating densities during the breeding period and are
not applicable during the molting season.
Breeding densities of all species combined (indicated breeding birds per hectare
(IBB/ha)) ranged from 0.511 to 1.179 and molting densities from 0.916 to 2.454 birds/ha
over the three‐year survey period. Greatest densities of breeding birds were found on
the north and east portions of the complex, whereas greatest densities of molting birds
were observed in the center of the complex.
Key words: Hay‐Zama Lakes, wetlands, waterfowl, breeding birds, molting, staging,
aerial survey.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the following individuals and agencies for their contributions and
assistance in delivering this project. Alberta Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture
provided financial assistance. Technical support for aerial surveys was provided by
Robb Stavne (Alberta Conservation Association) and Reg Arbuckle (Alberta Tourism,
Parks, Recreation and Culture). Jonathon Thompson (Ducks Unlimited Canada)
advised on study design. Velma Hudson, Doug Manzer (Alberta Conservation
Association) and Kelley Kissner reviewed this report and provided valuable insights
and editorial suggestions.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Study rationale ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Study objectives ......................................................................................................... 2
2.0 STUDY AREA................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Description ................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Ecoregion, forest cover and soils ............................................................................. 4 2.3 Plant and animal communities ................................................................................ 4
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................... 5 3.1 Sampling design ........................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Data manipulation................................................................................................... 11
4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Weather and habitat conditions............................................................................. 12 4.2 Aerial survey results ............................................................................................... 14 4.3 Summary................................................................................................................... 22
5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 24
6.0 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................... 26
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of the Hay‐Zama Lakes duck breeding and molting population density survey area.. ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2. Transect routes for aerial waterfowl surveys during breeding and molting periods in the Hay‐Zama complex, 2005............................................................. 7
Figure 3. Map of the Hay‐Zama Lakes duck breeding and molting population density survey area. ............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4. Transect routes for aerial waterfowl surveys during breeding and molting periods in the Hay‐Zama complex, 2006 and 2007. ........................................... 9
Figure 5. Mean monthly water level recorded by Environment Canada at Sousa Creek from March to October, 2005, 2006 and 2007. ....................................... 13
Figure 6. Densities of breeding birds per hectare for each waterfowl species observed in the Hay‐Zama study area in 2005, 2006 and 2007. ...................................... 16
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Classification and surface area of wetland cells contained within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2006 – 2007. ...................................... 14
Table 2. A comparison of breeding bird densities among years for all ducks combined and for three of the most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, for the entire study period (2005 – 2007). ......................................................................................................... 15
Table 3. A comparison of breeding bird densities among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2006........................................... 17
Table 4. A comparison of breeding bird densities among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2007........................................... 18
Table 5. A comparison of molting bird densities among years for all ducks combined, and for three of the most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, for the entire study period (2005 – 2007). ......................................................................................................... 19
Table 6. A comparison of densities of molting birds among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2006........................................... 20
Table 7. A comparison of densities of molting birds among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2007........................................... 21
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Weather conditions during aerial surveys of the Hay‐Zama complex
for study period, 2005 to 2007. ................................................................. 26
Appendix 2. Categories of social classes used for calculating indicated breeding birds in a waterfowl population............................................................... 27
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background
The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex is recognized internationally as an important waterfowl
staging area along the Pacific, Central and Mississippi flyways. Official designations of
the complex include: “Wetland of International Importance‐Ramsar Site” (1981 Ramsar
Convention), “Wetland for Tomorrow” (Ducks Unlimited Canada/Government of
Alberta), World Heritage Site (1990 World Heritage Convention, UNESCO) and in 1999
the complex was designated by the Province of Alberta as a “Special Places Wildland
Park”.
The complex and surrounding area host a variety of user groups with significant
interests in the wetland’s resources. The people of the Dene Tha’ First Nation use the
complex extensively for traditional hunting, fishing, trapping and ceremonial activities.
The oil and gas industry is very active in this area (nearly twice the well density and
three times the density of linear disturbance relative to the entire northwest region)
with several wells situated on man‐made islands.
1.2 Study rationale
Oil and gas production within the complex is expected to cease sometime between 2012
and 2017. To date, wildlife management in the complex has focused on monitoring
concentrations of staging waterfowl within 30 m of producing well sites (Wright 1999).
Moving forward, the Hay‐Zama Committee is looking for future economic
opportunities (i.e., tourism) as activity within the complex shifts from oil and gas
extraction. Therefore, additional ecological information is needed to more fully
understand the importance of this complex for waterfowl populations.
To date, little is known about the significance of this complex for breeding and molting
waterfowl. Although waterfowl monitoring within 30 m of well heads meets the basic
requirements of the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, it does not measure
waterfowl population density for the complex, nor identify areas and characteristics of
1
2
concentrated use by breeding or molting waterfowl. We attempted to clarify these data
gaps to provide further clarity on the value of this complex for waterfowl.
Annual and seasonal water levels in the complex can vary widely. Annual variability
can result in some areas providing good breeding habitat in one year, while being
completely dry and of limited value the next. Seasonal variability can also contribute to
the usefulness of particular areas to waterfowl through the breeding and molting
seasons. We suspect that the variation in water levels within and between areas may
affect temporal and spatial distribution of waterfowl on the complex.
1.3 Study objectives
Our objectives of the study were to:
i. Estimate waterfowl density in the Hay‐Zama complex during breeding
and molting seasons for three years;
ii. Identify areas (cells) within the complex with the greatest densities of
breeding and molting waterfowl; and
iii. Characterize environmental conditions of those areas of greatest
breeding and molting density compared with those areas of less dense
concentrations.
2.0 STUDY AREA
2.1 Description
The Hay‐Zama Lakes are part of a unique and diverse wetland complex located in
northwestern Alberta at 58o 45’ N, 119o 00’ W (Figure 1). Comprised of over 50,000 ha
of open water, wet meadows, rivers and floodplain woodlands, this area is
characterized by highly variable water levels both on a seasonal and annual basis
(Fearon and Larsen 1986).
Figure 1. Map of the Hay‐Zama Lakes duck breeding and molting population density survey area. Inset is a map of Alberta showing the location of the survey area within the province.
3
The complex’s major fluvial system, Hay River, meanders through the complex,
separated from lacustrine cells by high levees. Other fluvial systems entering the
complex include Sousa Creek to the southeast, Vardie River, Amber River, and Zama
River all to the north, and Mega River to the northwest, as well as several unnamed
creeks (Figure 1). Major lacustrine cells include Hay, Zama, Duck and Sand lakes.
Numerous shallow sloughs make up the remainder of the complex’s wetted area.
During spring runoff high water in the Hay River backs up Omega River and Sousa
Creek filling the complex. After peak runoff, the complex slowly discharges into the
Hay River via these same drainages. By mid‐summer some of the large ephemeral
lacustrine cells recede into vast grasslands.
2.2 Ecoregion, forest cover and soils
The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex occurs in the Mid‐boreal Mixed‐wood ecoregion (Strong
and Leggat 1992). The climate is characterized by relatively low annual precipitation,
cool summers and long, cold winters (Strong and Leggat 1992).
Forest cover in the ecoregion is dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and
balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) with understories commonly containing species like
blue joint (Calamagrostis canadensis), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), bunchberry (Cornus
canadensis), wild sarsaparilla (Arilia nudicaulis), dewberry (Rubus pubescens) and
common fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium) (Strong and Leggat 1992).
Soils in the study area include luvisols, regosols, gleysols and organic types (Bentz et al.
1994). Luvisolic soils dominate the well‐drained, upland sites where glaciolacustrine
deposits form the dominant parent material. Regosolic soils are prominent on recently
deposited sediments of fluvial origin like the floodplains of the Hay River and its
tributaries. Gleysolic soils are very common in poorly drained areas, often overlain by
organic layers or peat (Bentz et al. 1994).
2.3 Plant and animal communities
Fluctuating water levels in the complex is an important attribute of the region and
profoundly influences the structure and functioning of plant communities. Aspen and
4
balsam poplar dominate the limited upland sites with sporadic occurrence of white
spruce (Picea glauca) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Fluvial deposits adjacent to
watercourses are dominated by balsam poplar, with a dense understory of willow (Salix
spp.), red‐osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana).
Dense willow thickets, often associated with thick grass and sedge meadows (Carex
spp.), cover the poorly drained transitional areas between the river levees and the
ephemeral lacustrine basins. Sedges, slough grass (Beckmannia syzigachne), water
smartweed (Polygonum spp.), yellow cress (Rorippa palustris) and small bedstraw
(Galium trifidum) cover the ephemeral lacustrine basins once water levels have receded.
The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex is important for many wildlife species in addition to
migrating waterfowl, especially wood bison (Bison bison athabascae). The Hay‐Zama
herd is reported to be the only free‐ranging, disease‐free bison herd in Alberta (Moyles
1997). Wright (2000) reported 39 species of neotropical migrants in a 1999 mist‐netting
study in riparian habitats in the complex, and flooded grasslands in spring provide
spawning and rearing habitat for northern pike (Esox lucius) (Moller and Rosin 1994;
Shaffe and Wright 1997; Wright 1998).
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Sampling design
We flew aerial surveys in a Bell 206 rotary wing aircraft at approximately 30 m above
ground level (AGL) with ground speeds of 60 to 100 km/h. Surveys started no later
than one hour after sunrise and ended by 13:00. Our survey team consisted of one
observer/navigator on the left side of the aircraft and one observer on the right, in
addition to the pilot. Observers identified waterfowl species and social class within 200
m on their respective sides of the aircraft as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service/Canadian Wildlife Service (1987) and recorded observations on a digital voice
recorder. Survey crew members wore polarized glasses to reduce the effect of glare
from sun reflection over water. Surveys were not flown when winds exceeded 25
knots. Four surveys were flown each year; one in late May and one in early June for the
breeding season, and one in late July and one in early August for the molting season
5
6
(actual dates of the surveys are reported in Appendix 1). Environmental conditions (air
temperature, wind speed and direction, cloud cover and general survey conditions)
were recorded at the beginning of each survey flight.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Canadian Wildlife Service (1987) recommend spacing
transects 400 m apart for complete coverage; however due to budget constraints we
placed our transect lines 800 m apart. Prior to the surveys, we created a map of the
complex with transect lines 800 m apart laid out over the entire wet area using
geographic information system (GIS) (Esri ArcGIS 9.0) software. Waypoints at the end‐
points of each of the transect lines were provided to the pilot to enter into the aircraft’s
navigational Global Positioning System (GPS) for accurate navigation of transects. For
the first year of the study (2005), the entire wetland complex was regarded as one water
body and transects extended over the entire complex, excluding wooded upland areas
(Figure 2). The total area of the complex surveyed in 2005 equaled 30,490 ha. During
the 2005 flights, we observed that the complex was made up of a number of distinct
cells separated by levees and willow‐covered uplands and that the 2005 transects also
extended over several areas of wooded uplands between the complex’s waterbodies
that were not suitable waterfowl habitat. To identify areas within the complex most
important to breeding and molting waterfowl, 19 separate and distinct cells were
defined for 2006 and 2007 surveys (Figure 3). Using GIS software, ortho‐rectified aerial
photography and satellite imagery, boundaries of each of the 19 cells were determined,
cell area calculated and transects redrawn (Figure 4). Transects were aligned for most
efficient coverage of the wet area of each cell, while avoiding the wooded upland areas
and, as in 2005, were spaced 800 m apart. The total area of the complex surveyed in
2006 and 2007 equaled 20,786 ha. To compare environmental conditions of those areas
of greatest breeding and molting density with those areas of less dense concentrations,
we classified the cells into the following categories based on visual observations using
criteria adopted by the Alberta Water Resources Commission (1987).
Figure 2. Transect routes for aerial waterfowl surveys during breeding and molting periods in the Hay‐Zama complex, 2005.
7
Figure 3. Map of the Hay‐Zama Lakes duck breeding and molting population density survey area showing survey cells. Individual cells are identified by number to determine areas within the complex most important to breeding and molting waterfowl.
8
9
Figure 4. Transect routes for aerial waterfowl surveys during breeding and molting periods in the Hay‐Zama complex, 2006 and 2007.
Non‐permanent wetlands
Non‐permanent slough/marsh – wetland in a depression where surface drainage is
obstructed, with less than 50% of the area as open water. Surface water is not always
present; the area is usually dry for the growing season, especially in late summer and
fall.
Sheetwater – areas of relatively flat, level terrain that are periodically inundated by
shallow, open water that persists for short periods.
Seep – wet areas resulting from groundwater discharge at the soil surface.
Permanent wetlands
Permanent slough/marsh – wetland in a depression where surface drainage is obstructed,
with less than 50% of the area as open water. Surface water is present year‐round or
climax vegetation is present.
Lake/pond – permanent body of open water.
Watercourse – channel for running water and adjacent floodplain.
Fluctuating water levels in the complex (Fearon and Larson 1986) can have a
considerable effect on the area of the cells, especially non‐permanent cells, which may
affect the distribution of waterfowl within the complex. Water level data for the study
period were obtained from Environment Canada, Water Survey Division, which
monitors water levels in creeks and rivers throughout Canada. Although no
monitoring station exists within the complex boundaries, Environment Canada has a
station at Sousa Creek, a major fluvial system feeding the complex approximately 26
km upstream. This station was the closest monitoring station to the study area;
therefore, we assumed that water levels within the complex were similar to those
measured at the Sousa Creek station.
10
3.2 Data manipulation
Two surveys were completed during the spring breeding season to ensure that both
early‐ and late‐nesting species were counted. Some waterfowl species nest earlier or
later than others, therefore using highest aggregate counts to calculate densities
enhances the likelihood that early and late nesters are represented (J. Thompson, Ducks
Unlimited Canada, pers. comm.). We selected the highest aggregate count for each
species in each cell from the two spring breeding season surveys to determine numbers
of indicated breeding birds (IBB). Used by the Canadian Wildlife Service and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, IBB is a measure that incorporates social class
data and species‐specific formulas to provide an estimate of total members of the
breeding population for a particular season. Categories of social classes used for
breeding waterfowl surveys are listed in Appendix 2.
The formula used for calculating total number of IBB for all species except redhead
(Aythya americana), scaup (A. affinis or A. marila), ring‐necked (A. collaris) and ruddy
(Oxyura jamaicensis) ducks was:
IBB = (2 x pairs) + (2 x lone males) + (2 x flocked males < 5) + (1 x grouped birds > 4).
Lone males and males in small groups (< 5) are assumed to be mates of a breeding hen,
therefore lone females are not included in the IBB formula so the assumed pairs are not
counted twice. The formula used for calculating total number of IBB for redhead,
scaup, ring‐necked and ruddy ducks was:
IBB = (2 x pairs) + (1 x lone males) + (1 x lone females) + (1 x flocked males < 5) + (1 x
grouped birds > 4).
Lone males and males in small groups (< 5) of these species are assumed to be part of
the breeding population, but are not “paired” with an unseen female. Lone females are
included. Sex ratios for these species are skewed toward males, accounting for the
differences in IBB estimate calculations mentioned above. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service/Canadian Wildlife Service (1987) provides standard operating procedures
outlining methods and formulas used in this study.
11
Densities of IBB per wetland cell were calculated to gain an understanding of how
waterfowl species were spatially distributed within the complex, as well as to provide a
measure of cell productivity. Indicated breeding birds (IBB) per cell were divided by
the total transect area of each cell to calculate densities (IBB/ha). Social classes were
used to determine the number of breeding birds in a population; however waterfowl do
not remain in these social classes after the breeding season is finished. Therefore,
molting season densities were estimated from the total numbers observed as:
Molting density = total of species per cell / (transect length x transect width)
All adult waterfowl observed during molting surveys were assumed to be molting
birds.
4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Weather and habitat conditions
One of the most unique characteristics of the Hay‐Zama Lakes complex is the high
variability of water levels, both annually and seasonally. Environment Canada (2007)
reported average (mean) monthly water levels ranging from 1.03 m to 2.74 m recorded
at Sousa Creek station during open water seasons for 2005 to 2007 (Figure 5).
12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Month
Water level (m)
2005 2006 2007
Figure 5. Mean monthly water level recorded by Environment Canada at Sousa
Creek from March to October, 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Based on visual observation during the aerial surveys, water levels were slightly higher
in some of the ephemeral areas of the complex in 2005 than in 2006 and were
substantially higher throughout the complex in 2007. The low levels we observed in
the complex in 2006 were corroborated by the low flows entering the complex via Sousa
Creek in May (Figure 5). This spring freshette plays an important role in re‐charging
the ephemeral cells of the complex each year.
Of the 19 separate cells we identified for 2006 and 2007 surveys, five were classified as
non‐permanent wetlands and 14 as permanent wetlands (Table 1). Non‐permanent
wetlands included four non‐permanent sloughs and one sheetwater ranging in area
from 143 to 796 ha. Permanent wetlands included five permanent sloughs ranging in
area from 264 to 1,930 ha and nine permanent lakes ranging in size from 376 to 5,814 ha.
13
Table 1. Classification and surface area of wetland cells contained within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2006 – 2007.
Cell no. Area (ha) Classification Non‐permanent wetlands
15 143 Non‐permanent slough/marsh 10 208 Non‐permanent slough/marsh 1 223 Non‐permanent slough/marsh 9 357 Non‐permanent sheetwater 14 796 Non‐permanent slough/marsh
Permanent wetlands (slough/marsh) 5 264 Permanent slough/marsh 3 274 Permanent slough/marsh 2 285 Permanent slough/marsh 17 441 Permanent slough/marsh 13 1,930 Permanent slough/marsh
Permanent wetlands (lake/pond) 18 376 Permanent lake/pond 4 416 Permanent lake/pond 16 428 Permanent lake/pond 12 551 Permanent lake/pond 19 867 Permanent lake/pond 6 896 Permanent lake/pond 8 1,792 Permanent lake/pond 11 4,725 Permanent lake/pond 7 5,814 Permanent lake/pond
Total 20,786
4.2 Aerial survey results
4.2.1 Breeding bird populations
Breeding bird population densities for the entire complex varied widely throughout the
study period, from a low of 0.511 IBB/ha in 2005 to a high of 1.179 IBB/ha in 2006 (Table
2). Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) and bufflehead (Bucephala
albeola) were among the top six species we observed in all three years. Total densities
for these species are displayed in Table 2.
14
Table 2. A comparison of breeding bird densities (IBB/ha) among years for all ducks combined and for three of the most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, for the entire study period (2005 – 2007).
Year Mallard Lesser scaup Bufflehead All ducks
2005 0.122 0.030 0.026 0.511
2006 0.242 0.106 0.79 1.179
2007 0.065 0.076 0.037 0.899
Annual variation in population densities was even more pronounced for individual
species. Of the 16 species of ducks we observed during breeding bird surveys, only
gadwall (Anas strepera) and green‐winged teal (A. crecca) decreased in density each
consecutive year. All other dabblers, as well as lesser scaup, bufflehead and redhead,
displayed a spike in density in 2006 (Figure 6). Five species, all divers (canvasback
(Aythya valisineria), ring‐necked duck, ruddy duck, surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)
and white‐winged scoter (M. fusca)), increased in density each year (Figure 6).
In 2005, we observed 15 species of breeding ducks. The four most commonly observed,
in descending order, were mallard (0.122 IBB/ha), northern shoveller (Anas clypeata)
(0.043 IBB/ha), blue‐winged teal (A. discors) (0.041 IBB/ha) and lesser scaup (0.030
IBB/ha).
15
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
Mallard
Northern Shoveller
Lesser Scau
p
Canvasb
ack
American Widg
eon
Bufflehead
Blue‐w
inged Teal
Ruddy D
uck
Redhead
Gadw
all
Comm
on Gold
eneye
Northern Pintail
Ring‐necked Duck
Unknown T
eal
Green‐w
inged Teal
White‐w
ing Scoter
Surf S
coter
Species
Density (IBB/ha)
2005 2006 2007
Figure 6. Densities of breeding birds per hectare (IBB/ha) for each waterfowl species
observed in the Hay‐Zama study area in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
In 2006, we observed all the same species of ducks as in 2005, with the addition of surf
scoter, for a total of 16 species. The four most commonly observed species, in
descending order, were mallard (0.242 IBB/ha), northern shoveller (Anas clypeata) (0.173
IBB/ha), lesser scaup (0.106 IBB/ha) and American widgeon (A. americana) (0.092
IBB/ha).
Cell 10, a 208 ha non‐permanent slough, had the greatest density for all duck species
combined in 2006 with 5.155 IBB/ha (Table 3). We also observed high densities in cell
14 (3.082 IBB/ha) and cell 15 (3.068 IBB/ha). Both cells were classified as non‐permanent
wetlands, with cell 14 being the largest of the non‐permanent sloughs at 796 ha and cell
15 the smallest at 143 ha. Cell 14 was also where we observed the greatest density of
mallards in 2006 (1.547 IBB/ha) and cell 15 had the greatest densities of northern
shovellers (0.722 IBB/ha) and American widgeons (0.541 IBB/ha). Lesser scaup density
(0.656 IBB/ha) was greatest in cell 18, a 376 ha permanent lake.
16
Table 3. A comparison of breeding bird densities (IBB/ha) among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2006.
Cell no. Mallard Northern shoveller
Lesser Scaup
American Widgeon
All ducks
1 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 2 0.122 0.029 0.021 0.029 0.537 3 0.050 0.161 0.025 0.000 0.565 4 0.448 0.491 0.093 0.027 1.939 5 0.139 0.097 0.582 0.028 1.365 6 0.124 0.171 0.105 0.131 1.532 7 0.011 0.009 0.025 0.008 0.324 8 0.151 0.028 0.125 0.115 1.021 9 0.183 0.154 0.074 0.114 1.165 10 0.061 0.396 0.107 0.030 5.155 11 0.444 0.361 0.070 0.183 1.564 12 0.058 0.031 0.634 0.258 1.421 13 0.400 0.414 0.048 0.109 1.502 14 1.547 0.165 0.028 0.023 3.082 15 0.180 0.722 0.248 0.541 3.068 16 0.038 0.075 0.278 0.053 1.376 17 0.104 0.129 0.179 0.043 0.948 18 0.017 0.035 0.656 0.156 1.172 19 0.012 0.019 0.093 0.019 0.501
All cells combined 0.242 0.173 0.106 0.092 1.179
In 2007, we observed 16 species of ducks. The four most commonly observed species,
in descending order, were canvasback (0.087 IBB/ha), lesser scaup (0.076 IBB/ha), ruddy
duck (0.072 IBB/ha) and mallard (0.065 IBB/ha).
Cell 10 had the greatest density for all duck species combined in 2007 with 3.739 IBB/ha
(Table 4). We also observed high densities in cell 12 (3.739 IBB/ha) and cell 1 (1.569
IBB/ha). Cell 12 was classified as a 551 ha permanent lake and cell 1 as a 223 ha non‐
permanent slough. Cell 12 was also where we observed the greatest densities of lesser
scaup (0.532 IBB/ha) and ruddy ducks (0.274 IBB/ha) in 2007, and cell 1 was where we
observed the greatest density of mallards (0.780 IBB/ha). Canvasback density (0.573
IBB/ha) was greatest in cell 14, a 376 ha permanent lake.
17
Table 4. A comparison of breeding bird densities (IBB/ha) among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2007.
Cell no. CanvasbackLesser scaup
Ruddy duck Mallard
All ducks
1 0.039 0.049 0.019 0.780 1.569 2 0.029 0.036 0.014 0.057 0.795 3 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.025 0.677 4 0.013 0.080 0.053 0.007 0.325 5 0.069 0.111 0.132 0.139 1.213 6 0.131 0.112 0.226 0.028 0.931 7 0.031 0.081 0.042 0.018 0.721 8 0.143 0.079 0.185 0.011 0.891 9 0.011 0.029 0.011 0.011 0.514 10 0.198 0.038 0.015 0.282 3.739 11 0.020 0.015 0.042 0.139 0.765 12 0.135 0.532 0.274 0.132 2.854 13 0.154 0.049 0.015 0.012 0.585 14 0.573 0.068 0.009 0.009 1.191 15 0.045 0.124 0.135 0.000 1.489 16 0.113 0.113 0.041 0.045 0.806 17 0.200 0.125 0.190 0.086 1.560 18 0.087 0.043 0.009 0.113 0.929 19 0.050 0.068 0.081 0.044 0.822
All cells combined 0.087 0.076 0.072 0.065 0.899
Other species we observed incidentally, or in very small, insignificant numbers
included Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera),
eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), red‐necked
grebe (Podiceps grisegena), common merganser (Mergus merganser), red‐breasted
merganser (Mergus serrator), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) and common loon (Gavia
immer). We also observed numerous American coots (Fulica americana) throughout the
study period that likely represent a significant breeding population; however they were
not included in this study.
Numerous ducks observed throughout the breeding bird surveys were unidentified or
identified to tribe but not to species; dabblers (Anatini) or divers (Athyini, Mergini and
Oxyurini). In 2005, unidentified teals accounted for a density of 0.032 IBB/ha,
18
unidentified dabblers 0.004 IBB/ha, unidentified divers 0.007 IBB/ha and unidentified
ducks 0.021 IBB/ha. In 2006, unidentified dabblers accounted for a density of 0.036
IBB/ha, unidentified divers 0.086 IBB/ha and unidentified ducks 0.058 IBB/ha. In 2007,
unidentified teals accounted for a density of 0.002 IBB/ha, unidentified dabblers 0.016
IBB/ha, unidentified divers 0.059 IBB/ha and unidentified ducks 0.303 IBB/ha. Most
unidentified ducks in 2007 were from one survey event on 23 May 2007 (Appendix 1).
Survey conditions were generally good on this day, but there was steady wind (not
gusting). The sky was overcast, so excessive glare was not a problem. However, the
reduced light may have affected our ability to identify species.
4.2.3 Molting bird populations
Molting bird population densities varied widely throughout the study period, from a
low of 0.916 birds/ha in 2005 to a high of 2.454 birds/ha in 2007 (Table 5). Mallard, blue‐
winged teal and gadwall were among the top five species we observed in all three
years. Total densities for these species are displayed in Table 5.
Table 5. A comparison of molting bird densities (birds/ha) among years for all ducks combined, and for three of the most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, for the entire study period (2005 – 2007).
Year Mallard Blue‐winged
teal Gadwall All ducks
2005 0.144 0.035 0.064 0.916
2006 0.096 0.084 0.066 1.762
2007 0.154 0.100 0.066 2.454
In 2005, we observed 15 species of molting ducks. The four most commonly observed
species, in descending order, were mallard (0.144 birds/ha), northern shoveller (0.088
birds/ha), gadwall (0.064 birds/ha) and blue‐winged teal (0.035 birds/ha). In 2006, we
observed 15 species of molting ducks. The four most commonly observed species, in
descending order, were lesser scaup (0.120 birds/ha), mallard (0.096 birds/ha), blue‐
winged teal (0.084 birds/ha) and gadwall (0.066 birds/ha).
19
We observed the greatest density of all molting duck species combined (4.219 birds/ha)
in 2006 in cell 19, a 867 ha permanent lake (Table 6). We also observed high densities in
cell 5 (3.466 birds/ha) and cell 8 (3.142 birds/ha). Cell 5 was classified as a 264 ha
permanent slough and cell 8 as a 1,792 ha permanent lake. Lesser scaup density (0.386
birds/ha) was greatest in cell 7, the largest permanent lake on the complex at 5,814 ha,
and mallard density (0.609 birds/ha) was greatest in cell 15, the smallest of the non‐
permanent sloughs at 143 ha. Blue‐winged teal density (0.822 birds/ha) was greatest in
cell 10 and gadwall density (0.286 IBB/ha) was greatest in cell 9, a 357 ha non‐
permanent sheetwater.
Table 6. A comparison of densities (birds/ha) of molting birds among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2006.
Cell no. Lesser scaup Mallard
Blue‐winged teal Gadwall All ducks
1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.014 0.007 0.000 0.000 1.203 3 0.000 0.000 0.311 0.000 0.615 4 0.063 0.159 0.073 0.000 2.337 5 0.000 0.076 0.430 0.097 3.466 6 0.068 0.147 0.053 0.014 2.461 7 0.386 0.049 0.016 0.066 2.043 8 0.049 0.171 0.028 0.039 3.142 9 0.000 0.228 0.006 0.286 1.605 10 0.000 0.183 0.822 0.000 2.246 11 0.001 0.073 0.067 0.100 0.779 12 0.074 0.083 0.089 0.018 2.901 13 0.001 0.072 0.247 0.005 0.904 14 0.000 0.093 0.105 0.012 0.596 15 0.000 0.609 0.575 0.068 2.166 16 0.045 0.079 0.004 0.004 1.283 17 0.064 0.089 0.000 0.111 1.428 18 0.056 0.043 0.000 0.052 0.973 19 0.081 0.261 0.114 0.228 4.219
All cells combined 0.120 0.096 0.084 0.066 1.762
20
In 2007, we observed 15 species of molting ducks. The four most commonly observed
species, in descending order, were American widgeon (0.226 birds/ha), canvasback
(0.196 birds/ha), mallard (0.154 birds/ha) and lesser scaup (0.152 birds/ha).
In 2007, cell 15 had the greatest density for all molting duck species combined with
4.941 birds/ha (Table 7). We also observed high densities in cell 5 (4.748 birds/ha) and
cell 1 (4.679 birds/ha). These three cells were also where the greatest densities of some
of the most commonly observed species occurred during the 2007 molting period.
Table 7. A comparison of densities (birds/ha) of molting birds among cells for all ducks combined, and for the four most commonly observed species within the Hay‐Zama wetland complex sampling area, 2007.
Cell no. American widgeon Canvasback Mallard
Lesser scaup
All ducks
1 0.409 0.000 0.614 0.000 4.679 2 0.021 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.910 3 0.547 0.006 0.068 0.043 1.894 4 0.162 0.123 0.050 0.381 3.518 5 0.749 0.000 0.277 0.028 4.748 6 0.012 0.044 0.137 0.210 2.056 7 0.520 0.668 0.073 0.323 4.189 8 0.013 0.005 0.461 0.009 0.891 9 0.029 0.000 0.171 0.126 0.914 10 0.129 0.000 0.594 0.122 3.145 11 0.080 0.018 0.189 0.064 1.526 12 0.000 0.006 0.083 0.065 0.338 13 0.030 0.054 0.077 0.073 1.050 14 0.000 0.012 0.072 0.061 0.792 15 0.056 0.000 0.259 0.395 4.941 16 0.349 0.023 0.158 0.244 3.465 17 0.326 0.000 0.215 0.004 1.958 18 0.269 0.096 0.096 0.187 3.968 19 0.381 0.073 0.006 0.077 3.567
All cells combined 0.226 0.196 0.154 0.152 2.454
Cell 15 had the greatest density of lesser scaup (0.395 birds/ha), cell 5 the greatest
density of American widgeon (0.749 birds/ha) and cell 1 the greatest density of mallard
(0.614 birds/ha). Canvasback density (0.668 birds/ha) was greatest in cell 7 (Table 7).
21
Numerous ducks observed throughout the molting bird surveys were unidentified or
identified to tribe but not to species; dabblers (Anatini) or divers (Athyini, Mergini and
Oxyurini). In 2005, unidentified teals accounted for a density of 0.019 birds/ha,
unidentified dabblers 0.160 birds/ha, unidentified divers 0.017 birds/ha and
unidentified ducks 0.348 birds/ha. In 2006, unidentified teals accounted for a density of
0.026 birds/ha, unidentified dabblers 0.282 birds/ha, unidentified divers 0.042 birds/ha
and unidentified ducks 0.875 birds/ha. In 2007, unidentified teals accounted for a
density of 0.015 birds/ha, unidentified dabblers 0.181 birds/ha, unidentified divers 0.109
birds/ha and unidentified ducks 0.968 birds/ha.
4.3 Summary
Throughout the survey period (2005 to 2007), we encountered 16 species of waterfowl
breeding on the Hay‐Zama complex with combined breeding densities ranging from
0.511 to 1.179 IBB/ha. Leach and Patton (2003) found similar results in the Utikima
Lake area, observing 19 species with a total breeding density of 0.700 indicated
breeding pairs (IBP)/ha, and Falk (2004) recorded 12 breeding duck species with a total
density of 0.417 IBP/ha in the Fort Nelson area to the west of Hay‐Zama. However, the
formula for calculating IBP is more conservative, including only observed pairs, lone
males and groups of males < 5. In contrast, the IBB formula also includes grouped birds
> 4. For redhead, scaup, ring‐necked and ruddy ducks, only observed pairs and lone
males are included in the IBP formula. In contrast, the IBB formula also includes lone
females, flocked males < 5 and grouped birds > 4.
The most commonly observed species breeding on the complex was different each
year. Mallard was most abundant in 2005, lesser scaup in 2006 and canvasback in 2007.
Although their ranking changed each year, mallard and lesser scaup were among the
top four breeding species each year and bufflehead was among the top six. In the Fort
Nelson area, Falk (2004) also recorded bufflehead, mallard and scaup species as the
prominent waterfowl species observed.
The greatest densities of breeding ducks were on the north and east portions of the
Hay‐Zama complex. The greatest densities of breeding ducks in both 2006 and 2007
22
were found in cell 10, a small (208 ha) non‐permanent slough on the north end of the
complex. Other areas in the complex with high densities of breeding ducks were cells
1, 12, 14 and 15. With the exception of cell 12, all were classified as non‐permanent
sloughs, and although cell 1 had the third highest density of total breeding ducks in
2007, it was completely dry in 2006, except for the small drainage running through it,
and had the lowest breeding bird density for that year.
Molting bird densities ranged from 0.916 to 2.454 birds/ha over the three‐year survey
period. Mallard, blue‐winged teal and gadwall were among the top five species
observed in all three years. Primary molting areas were found throughout the complex.
Highest densities of molting dabbling ducks were found in the center of the complex in
cell 15, a small (143 ha) non‐permanent slough, and in cell 19, a mid‐size (867 ha)
permanent lake. The Hay‐Zama complex may be more intermittently important to
molting birds than previously suspected. Poston et. al (1990) lists the Hay‐Zama
complex as a regionally important molting area (flocks of 5,000 to 20,000 ducks, or 3,000
to 8,000 ducks of a single species). Observations of total molting birds in 2005 (n =
14,711) and in 2006 (n = 19,648) fall into the range defined as regionally important.
However, in 2007 considerably more molting birds were observed (n = 27,364),
suggesting that the complex is of national importance (flocks of more than 20,000
ducks, or 8,000 ducks of a single species; (Poston et. al 1990) in some years).
Overall, the complex appears to be important habitat for breeding and molting
waterfowl, as well as for staging birds. The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex is internationally
recognized as an important waterfowl staging habitat. During the three‐year study
period, highest aggregate staging waterfowl counts ranged from 15,675 (2007) to 29,014
(2005) during spring migration and from 42,295 (2006) to 53,021 (2005) during fall
migration (Wright 2007, 2009). In 2005 and 2006, highest aggregate counts of molting
birds exceeded that of spring staging birds.
23
5.0 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Water Resources Commission. 1987. Drainage potential in Alberta: an
integrated study. Prepared for Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. 163
pp.
Bentz, J.A., A. Saxena, and D. O’Leary. 1994. Biophysical inventory of shoreline areas
of the Hay‐Zama Lakes, Alberta. Prepared by Geowest Environmental
Consultants Ltd. for Resource Information Division, Alberta Environmental
Protection, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 105 pp.
Environment Canada. 2007. File data. Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of
Canada, Water Survey Division, Peace River, Alberta, Canada.
Falk, D. 2004. Preliminary results from the Fort Nelson, British Columbia waterbird
inventory project, 2003 progress report. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. 20 pp.
Fearon, P.W., and G.I. Larson. 1986. Hay Zama Lakes survey report. Ducks Unlimited
Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 10 pp.
Leach, A., and K. Patton. 2003. Utikima project annual progress report, April 2002 –
March 2003. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 28 pp.
Moller, K., and J. Rosin. 1994. Preliminary investigation of pike spawning potential on
the Hay Zama Wetland complex. Alberta Environmental Protection, Peace
River, Alberta Canada. 7 pp.
Moyles, D.L.J. 1997. Wood bison surveys in the Hay‐Zama lowlands, March 11‐12,
1997. Alberta Environmental Protection, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 7 pp.
Poston, B., D.M. Ealey, P.S. Taylor, and G.B. McKeating. 1990. Priority migratory bird
habitats of Canadaʹs prairie provinces. Canadian Wildlife Service, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. 107 pp.
24
25
Strong, W.L., and K.R. Leggat. 1992. Ecoregions of Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands
and Wildlife, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 55 pp + App.
Schaffe, C.M., and K.D. Wright. 1997. Hay‐Zama Lakes biological study. Alberta
Environmental Protection, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service / Canadian Wildlife Service. 1987. Standard operating
procedures for aerial waterfowl breeding ground population and habitat
surveys in North America. U.S. Department of the Interior and Environment
Canada, Laurel, MD, USA. 103 pp.
Wright, K.D. 1998. Hay‐Zama Lakes complex fisheries and wildlife monitoring
1997/98. Data report. Alberta Conservation Association. Peace River, Alberta,
Canada. 17 pp.
Wright, K.D. 1999. Hay‐Zama Lakes complex wildlife monitoring 1998/99. Data
report, Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 15 pp.
Wright, K.D. 2000. Hay‐Zama Lakes complex wildlife monitoring 1999/2000.
Unpublished report by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta,
Canada. 18 pp.
Wright, K.D. 2007. Hay‐Zama Lakes waterfowl staging and raptor nesting monitoring
program, 2006. Data report, D‐2007‐004, produced by the Alberta Conservation
Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 19 pp + App.
Wright, K.D. 2009. Hay‐Zama Lakes waterfowl staging and bald eagle nesting
monitoring program, 2007. Data Report, D‐2009‐001, produced by the Alberta
Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 21 pp. + App.
6.0 APPENDIX Appendix 1. Weather conditions during aerial surveys of the Hay‐Zama complex
for study period, 2005 to 2007.
Date Survey type
Temp (oC)
Wind direction / speed (knots)
Cloud cover (%) General conditions
26‐May‐05 breeding 8 W / 3 ‐ 5 15 Good
8‐Jun‐05 breeding 14 NW / 5 10 Good
14‐Jul‐05 molting 11 SW / 5 0 Some glare
5‐Aug‐05 molting 10 W / 10 ‐ 12 95 Light precipitation to east
8‐Sep‐05 staging 6 W / 10 75 High ceiling
22‐Sep‐05 staging 2 SW / 3 ‐ 5 10 Light fog early in survey
25‐May‐06 breeding 14 SW / 8 ‐ 15 5 Wind gusting
13‐Jun‐06 breeding 18 SE / 5 ‐ 10 20 Good
20‐Jul‐06 molting 14 W / 3 ‐ 5 0 Some glare
4‐Aug‐06 molting 10 SW / 3 ‐ 5 100 High ceiling
11‐Sep‐06 staging 5 SW / 5 ‐ 7 0 Some glare
26‐Sep‐06 staging 4 W / 10 ‐ 12 100 1500’ ceiling
23‐May‐07 breeding 3 W / 7 ‐ 10 100 High ceiling
8‐June‐07 breeding 12 W / 10 ‐ 12 10 Some glare on south‐bound transects
24‐Jul‐07 molting 11 SW / 3 ‐ 5 20 Good
14‐Aug‐07 molting 9 SW / 3 ‐ 5 100 Light, intermit. precip; 1,200’ ceiling
13‐Sep‐07 staging 1 SW / 5 ‐ 10 5 Wind gusting; some light fog
25‐Sep‐07 staging 2 W / 3 ‐ 5 100 1,500’ ceiling; some light patchy fog
26
27
Appendix 2. Categories of social classes used for calculating indicated breeding birds in a waterfowl population.
Social Class Description
Pairs Total number of male and female groupings observed.
Lone males Total number of lone males observed.
Lone females Total number of lone females observed without a male (only counted towards total for redhead, scaup, ring‐necked and ruddy ducks).
Flocked males Total number of males observed with one or more other males (no females present). Flocked males of all species numbering five or more are classified as ‘grouped birds’.
Grouped birds Total number of groups of five or more individuals, both male and female, observed in association, which cannot be separated into singles and pairs at the time of observation. Groups of five or more are not doubled when calculating total indicated breeding birds. For example, a group of five males and a female would be counted as a pair and four males.
CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONREPORT REPORT SERIESSERIES
The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of
this project