salmo river harlequin duck inventory, monitoring and brood ... · stream loafing sites (i.e., large...

Prepared for

Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program��103 - 333 Victoria Street, Nelson, British Columbia, V1L 4K3��

��

�� -��

Written by

Marlene M. Machmer705 Stanley StreetNelson, British ColumbiaCanada V1L 1N6

In cooperation with the

Box 718Salmo, British ColumbiaCanada V0G 1Z0

Salmo RiverHarlequin Duck Inventory,

Monitoring and BroodHabitat Assessment

January 2001

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page i

SUMMARY

In partnership with the Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society (SWSS) volunteers, Pandion Ecological

Research Ltd. conducted pre-incubation and brood inventories for harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in

the Salmo River Valley from May to August of 2000. Objectives of this project were to (i) repeat the 1999 pre-

incubation inventory and obtain additional baseline data on the distribution and abundance of individuals and

mated pairs; (ii) conduct brood inventories to identify locations and numbers of successful broods and associated

habitat attributes; (iii) summarise habitat attributes associated with confirmed brood locations and compare with

random locations in the watershed; (iv) summarise findings of inventories and public involvement components

of the project; (iv) make recommendations for future inventory and monitoring efforts and preservation or

enhancement of specific sites.

Pre-incubation surveys were completed on foot and by drift boat from May 7 to 16, 2000. The survey area

encompassed the Salmo River mainstem (from Clearwater to Wallack Creeks), and included lower sections of

Clearwater and Erie Creeks, Sheep Creek (Curtis Creek mouth to the Salmo River confluence), and the South

Salmo River (Rainy Creek mouth to South Salmo River mouth). A total of 51 adults (31 males and 20 females)

were found during the pre-incubation period. These sightings were supplemented by 116 incidental observations

of 232 adult birds (170 males and 92 females). Rather than a uniform distribution, pairs and/or bachelor males

were concentrated at a number of locations on the upper half of the mainstem, on the Sheep Creek tributary, on

the lower South Salmo River, and on the lower mainstem between Pete and Wallack Creeks. Locations where

adult harlequin ducks were active had low stream gradients with relatively swift-flowing water, islands or in-

stream loafing sites (i.e., large boulders, cobble bars or logs), and one or both banks of adjacent shorelines

densely vegetated. Although overall numbers of adults during pre-incubation have remained relatively stable

from 1996−2000, the proportion of the total population using the Sheep Creek tributary has dropped since 1996.

Brood surveys were conducted on foot and by drift boat from June 8 to August 8, 2000. Based on 35 discrete

observations of broods, a minimum of 10 (with brood sizes ranging from 2−6 ducklings) were active in the

watershed. An additional 42 observations of 73 adult birds (5 bachelor males and 68 broodless females) were

made during the brood survey period. At least 10 of 20 (50%) females successfully hatched a brood and 12 of

43 ducklings (27.9%) reached the class III stage of development (i.e., fully feathered but incapable of sustained

flight), resulting in a minimum productivity estimate of 0.60 ducklings per female. Observed brood locations

correspond closely to those of mated pairs during the pre-incubation period.

A total of 42 plots (21 used by broods and 21 randomly selected) in the Salmo watershed were sampled for a

range of habitat parameters in early August of 2000. Channels used by broods measured 13−37 m (wetted width)

with stream gradients ≤3.2%. These sites were characterised by cobble/boulder substrates, glide/riffle habitat and

Salmo River Harlequin Duck Inventory, Monitoring and Brood Habitat Assessment

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page ii

relatively high levels of overhanging vegetative cover, instream bars, islands, and eddies compared with random

sites. The habitat variable with most influence on brood use was % eddies. QAICc model selection procedures

indicated that harlequin duck broods prefer sites with eddies, high island area and overhanging vegetative cover,

and avoid sites with a high proportion of gravel substrates. The precision of brood use estimates is low, so the

model can only predict general association rather than absolute use as a function of a predictor variable.

Incidental sightings of harlequin ducks provide valuable information on the local breeding chronology and

migration schedule of this species. The earliest sighting was of a pair on April 21st and the last male sighting

was on June 29th, indicating that most males depart for their wintering grounds by this time. The latest broodless

female sighting was on July 26th and most had disappeared by mid-July, confirming that females also leave

earlier, if breeding is not successful. The earliest brood of class IA ducklings was detected on June 8th and

observations of broods were recorded until August 28th, after study completion.

Harlequin duck pre-incubation, incubation and brood rearing schedules coincide with periods of increased

recreational activity in the Salmo watershed. Dismantling of the Burlington Northern rail line in fall of 1998 has

resulted in increased access and recreational use of this corridor from May to September. Harlequins are

sensitive to disturbance and periodic population monitoring should be a priority to facilitate quantification of

potential recreational or other impacts. A number of recommendations are proposed for the location, timing,

method and frequency of future monitoring efforts, for the preservation and enhancement of specific sites, and

for the promotion of harlequin duck awareness and stewardship in the Columbia Basin.


Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program for funding this initiative,

John Krebs for administering the project, and Ian Parfitt for patiently generating maps and developing a GIS

method to determine nearest tributary distances. Thanks also to Christine Bialkowski and Thomas Hill for

providing much needed assistance with the sampling of brood habitat plots. Albert Chirico (Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks) loaned us an Abney level and supplied background fish inventory data for the

Salmo watershed. Mike van Wijk was an enthusiastic field assistant and covered alot of the watershed on foot.

John Boulanger provided assistance with regression analysis and photos were provided by Jakob Dulisse and

Marlene Machmer. Several members of the Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society (James Baxter, Vladamir

Kuzma, Kevin Maloney, Peter Neill, Gerry and Alice Nellestijn, Chris and Travis Steeger, and Mike, Paul and

Kay van Wijk) contributed sighting records and/or assisted with boat surveys and/or habitat assessments. This

group was enthusiastic despite some relatively damp drifting. Alice designed an excellent title page for this

report. Thank-you all for your efforts and special thanks to Gerry and Peter for their commitment to this study!

We would like to acknowledge other watershed residents who took an interest in this project and provided

incidental harlequin sightings: Bill Bryce, Judy Sadoway, June Stockdale, Steve Tarasoff, and Carly MacKenzie.

These observations were helpful in corroborating our survey results. Ken Wright and Cyndi Smith generously

shared information and kept us up to date on their harlequin studies in B.C. and Alberta, respectively.


Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................. I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................................... III

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................... IV

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................V

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................V

1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 STUDY AREA.......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.3 BROOD SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2.4 BROOD HABITAT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 BROOD SURVEY ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.4 BROOD HABITAT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 12

4.0 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 19

5.1 LOCATION, TIMING, METHOD AND FREQUENCY OF FUTURE INVENTORY AND MONITORING EFFORTS ... 19

5.2 PRESERVATION AND/OR ENHANCEMENT OF SPECIFIC SITES .................................................................... 20

5.3 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT............................................. 22

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................... 24

7.0 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................... 27

1. SWSS LETTER TO MAINSTEM RESIDENTS............................................................................................. 27

2. HARLEQUIN DUCKLING AGE CLASSES BASED ON PLUMAGE CHARACTERISTICS................................. 28

3. LETTER SUMMARISING SWSS INVOLVEMENT....................................................................................... 29

4. MAPSHEET: HARLEQUIN DUCK PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY 2000......................................................... 30

5 DATABASE: HARLEQUIN DUCK PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY AND INCIDENTAL SIGHTINGS..................... 31

6. MAPSHEET: HARLEQUIN DUCK BROOD SURVEY 2000 ........................................................................ 32

7. DATABASE: HARLEQUIN DUCK BROOD SURVEY AND INCIDENTAL SIGHTINGS ................................... 33

8. DATABASE: SUMMARY OF HABITAT SAMPLING IN BROOD USE AND RANDOM PLOTS ......................... 34

9. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF PROJECT ACTIVITES ................................................................................ 35


Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page v

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of 25 habitat variables measured in 50 m brood use and random plots. ................................... 6

2. Summary of brood survey (BS) and incidental (I) observations by brood code (A−J) ........................... 10

3. Summary of the habitat characteristics in brood use (n = 21) and random plots (n = 21)....................... 13

4. Results of QAICc model selection procedure ......................................................................................... 13

5. Type 3 log likelihood ratio results for (i) the most supported model and (ii) a model including

vegetative cover ...................................................................................................................................... 14

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Map of the study area showing survey area boundaries ............................................................................ 2

2. Predicted brood use of habitat as a function of (a) the presence/absence of eddies or (b) % gravel, (c) %

island area, or (d) % vegetation cover with or without eddies (confidence intervals for predicted values

are shown as staggered bars) ................................................................................................................... 15


Pandion Ecological Research Ltd./ page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is a small and colourful sea duck that winters and moults in

coastal marine environments and migrates to undisturbed, turbulent mountain rivers and streams to breed. On

their breeding grounds, harlequins feed by dipping and diving for aquatic insect larvae (e.g., blackflies,

stoneflies, caddisflies, and mayflies) captured in shallow freshwater rapids (Palmer 1976; Breault and Savard

1991). They are considered sensitive to deforestation because of erosion of streamside breeding areas and

negative effects of siltation on their macroinvertebrate food supply (Wright and Chatwin 1997). A recent study

in southwestern B.C. found that breeding pairs used riparian areas with intact forest cover and adjacent logged

areas did not appear to support breeding activity (Freeman and Goudie 1998; cf. Aquatic Resources Limited

1998). Harlequins are sensitive to disturbance and recreational use of breeding sites may negatively impact these

birds as well (Kuchel 1977; Spahr et al. 1991; Hunt 1998; Wright and Clarkson 1998). For all of the above

reasons, this species is an excellent indicator of intact freshwater riparian ecosystems (Breault and Savard 1991;

Wright and Chatwin 1997).

Harlequin duck populations are found along both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and numbers have been

declining throughout their North American range (Goudie 1989, 1991; Reichel and Genter 1995; Cassirer et al.

1996). Since 1990, the eastern population has been listed as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife (COSEWIC). Harlequin ducks are yellow-listed in British Columbia and Alberta,

reflecting growing concerns over declining populations and associated human impacts. These declines have

been attributed to loss of nesting habitat due to hydro-electric projects, road construction, logging, mining,

grazing and degradation of riparian areas, as well as to over-hunting, oil pollution, and recreational activities

(Cassirer et al. 1993; Hunt 1994, 1995a,b).

To monitor western population trends, the Canadian Wildlife Service initiated an intensive harlequin duck

banding program in the Strait of Georgia. Over 3000 over-wintering birds have been banded since 1993, and

annual counts of moulting ducks continue to decline (Wright and Clarkson 1998; Robertson and Goudie 2000).

Information on breeding distribution, abundance and habitat use of this globally significant population is needed

in order to evaluate population status and formulate long term management strategies (Cassirer et al. 1993; Smith

2000).

1.1 STUDY AREA

The 69 km long Salmo River located in southeastern B.C. originates from its headwaters at Clearwater Creek

and flows into the Pend d’Oreille River, near Nelway, B.C. (Figure 1). A total of 51 ducks (33 males and 18

2000

20002000

2000

20

00

2000

20

00

2000

2000

2000

2000

20

00

2000

2000

2 000

20

00

2000

2000

20

00

20

00

200

0

2 000

2000

2000

1000

200

0

1000

2000 2000

1000

1000

10

00

200

0

1000

10 00

R

S

B o u n d a r y

St

ag

leS

AL

MO

R

R

T

ORI L L E

E

Wynndel

Creek

AliceSiding

Lis

HuscroftRykerts

Mount

M

e a c

Ck

C r

K iL

Mount

Skelly

Mtn

MtnAkokli

Haystack

White Gr

Snowcrest

Mtn

Pass

Hooker Pass

Mt

Irish Queen

PeakHungry

Rice

Old Tom

Mount

Loki

Rose

Mountain

Mountain

Mtn

Mtn

MtnPeak

Peak

Lost

Nevada

Yellowstone

RenoThree

Sisters

John Bull

Kootenay

Mtn

Mtn

MountBaldy

Ymir

McGregor

Mount

MtnOutlook

Cornfield

Mtn

Mtn

MountainVirgil

Kyawats

Erie

Porto Rico

Willow Point

BayCresent Longbeach

Balfour

HarropSunshineBay

Procter

Queens Bay

Hot Springs

Riondel

Walkers

KootenayBay

BayCrawford

GrayCreek

Boswell

Sanca

Kuskonook

Sirdar

PilotPt

CapeHorn

Mountain

Re

dd

in

g

Du

ck

S k e l l y

Cr

C r

C r e

ek

S a n c a

A k o k l i

L aF r a n c e

Ha

ll

Cr

ee

k

C o p p e r y C r

Cr

ee

k

T a m O S h a n t e r

Cr

Ho

ug

ht o

n

Cr e e k

G r a yC r

Cr a w f o r d

Cr e

ek

KO

OT

EN

AY

S

LA

KE

B j e r k n e s s C

Cr

C r

C r

C o f f e e

L e n d r u m

Wo o d b u r y

Ke

en

Cr

ee

kCr

ee

kCr

ee

k

Du

ha

me

l

Si

tk

um

Ko

ka

ne

e

S p r i n g e r

C r

C

k

C r e e k

n t e r p

ri

se

ek

e k

Sl

UP

PE

RP

RI

E

C r e e k

C o r n

C r e e k

C r e e k

C r e e k

Ne

xt

El m o

C r e e k

La i b

C r

B l a z e dC

r

K u t e t lC r

S e e m a n

C r e e k

Mi d

ge

Cr

ee

k

Wi

ls

on

Cr

Na

rr

ow

sC

r

La

sc

a

Cr

ee

k

Fi

ve

Mi l e

Cr

ee

k

Co

tt

on

wo

od

C

r

C l e a r wa t

er

C r

Ymi r

Cr e e

k

a r r e t tC r

C r e e k

C r e e k

H i d d e n

P o r c u p i n e

C r e e k

C r e e kL o s t

S h e e p

S u mm i t

C r e e k

ap

Cr

SO

UT

H

SA

LM

OR

IV

ER

We

s t

A r m

Kokanee

Glacier

C u l t us

Boom

eran

g

Hall

Ainsw

orth

Atbar

a

Ape

xC

reek

Grassyountain

SiwashMtn

MtnCopper

Mt

MountGrohman

Eccles

Granite

Blewett

TaghumBeasley

CorraLinn

edale

Ross Spur

Meadows

Brandonlocan

Perrys

nk

Mount

Kelly

Cr

ee

k

Cr

ee

k

S p r o

ul

e

Gr

oh

ma

n

Cr

ru

sa

de

r

C r e e

L e m o n

R I V E R

B

Fo

rt y

ni n e

Cr

Er

ie

Cr

ee

k

C r e e k

Ti

ll

ic

um

Cr

LeachLake

Duck

Lake

Six

MileSlough

Erickson

Ymir

Creston

Nelson

Salmo

itvale

49 00 N

49 30 N

117 30 W 117 00 W 116 30 W

Figure 1. Location of the Salmo River Harlequin Duck SurveyColumbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program -- August 28, 2001

Survey Area0 5 10 15 20 25 km

Scale: 1:500,000 - Map Projection: UTM Zone 11 - Datum: NAD 83

3



females) were counted in the watershed during a May 1999 pre-incubation inventory conducted by Pandion Ltd.

(Machmer 1999). The survey area encompassed the Salmo River mainstem (from Clearwater Creek in the north

to Wallack Creek in the south), and included lower sections of Sheep Creek (Nugget Creek to the Salmo River

confluence), Erie Creek, and the South Salmo River. Rather than a strictly uniform distribution, mated pairs

and/or bachelor males were found clumped at selected locations.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The following objectives were addressed by Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. worked in partnership with the

Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society (SWSS) during year two of this project:

(i) Conduct an inventory of surveyable “reaches” to obtain pre-incubation data on the distribution and

abundance of harlequin ducks on the Salmo River and major tributaries.

(ii) Conduct an inventory of surveyable “reaches” to obtain data on the locations and numbers of successful

harlequin duck broods on the Salmo River and major tributaries.

(iii) Collect data and summarise habitat attributes associated with confirmed brood locations and compare

with random locations in the watershed.

(iv) Summarise findings of inventories and public involvement components of the project.

(v) Make preliminary recommendations for the preservation and/or enhancement of specific sites and for

the location, timing, method and frequency of future inventory and monitoring efforts.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

In late April of 2000, a harlequin duck awareness campaign was established targeting mainstem residents of the

Salmo River Valley. A letter composed by SWSS (Appendix 1) was sent to watershed residents informing them

of the continuation of the inventory project and providing direction on how to report harlequin sightings by

telephone. M. Machmer provided background information and distributed data sheets to SWSS members at a

meeting held in early May. Breeding chronology and scheduling of drift boat surveys (co-ordinated by SWSS

volunteers) were also discussed at that meeting. All sightings reported to Pandion Ltd. were recorded on data

sheets and subsequently entered into a database for follow-up observation.

2.2 PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY

A pre-incubation inventory of harlequin ducks was conducted from May 7−16th, 2000. The survey area

encompassed the Salmo River mainstem (Clearwater to Wallack Creek) and included lower sections of

Clearwater Creek (from Qua Creek to Clearwater Creek mouth), Erie Creek (from 0.5 km below Hooch Creek



mouth to Erie Creek mouth), Sheep Creek (from Curtis Creek mouth to the Salmo River confluence), and the

South Salmo River (from Rainy Creek mouth to the South Salmo River mouth; see Figure 1). Surveys were

conducted on foot adjacent to the shoreline (using the rail corridor or a secondary road as an access route) or by

drift boat on navigable lower sections of the mainstem (i.e., Hidden to Pete Creeks). A total of 12 person-days

were spent on the pre-incubation inventory, with all survey observations made by M. Machmer and M. van

Wijk.

During surveys, observers noted the date, time, sighting location, number and sex of individuals, presence and

colour/code of leg bands, and activity when initially sighted (e.g., swimming, foraging, mating, loafing on rocks

or boulder, rock, or log, etc.). The following habitat descriptors relating to the immediate sighting location were

also recorded: channel type (e.g., main channel, side channel, or channel associated with in-stream island),

channel velocity (pool, riffle or cascade) and presence of dense overhanging vegetation on adjacent banks (i.e.,

zero, one or both banks vegetated). All locations were noted on 1:5,000 scale air photos and 1:20,000 scale

topographic maps for subsequent mapping and a photographic record of sighting locations was established.

2.3 BROOD SURVEY

All surveyable reaches where pre-incubating adults were observed during May were re-visited at least twice (and

sometimes up to ten times) during the brood survey period (June 8th to August 8th, 2000). Shorelines were

intensively searched on foot or from a drift boat for females with ducklings and a total of 20 person-days were

spent surveying for broods. These were supplemented with observations made on nine additional drift boat trips

from Hidden to Wallack Creek by G. Nellistijn, P. Neill and J. Baxter (in association with a SWSS Bull Trout

project), and by other SWSS volunteers (K. Maloney and V. Kuzma). Females with broods were extremely

cryptic and attempted to hide under overhanging vegetation or swim away or dive when disturbed. Because

broods were difficult to detect and sightings of broods were relatively rare, both observations by Pandion Ltd.

and SWSS volunteers were included as “survey” observations.

The following parameters were recorded during brood surveys: date and time of sighting; sighting location;

number and sex of adults; number, size coloration and plumage development characteristics of ducklings; and

presence and colour/code of leg bands. Brood activity when initially sighted and habitat descriptors relating to

the immediate sighting location were also noted during brood surveys, as described in section 2.2. Locations

were recorded on 1:5,000 scale air photos and 1:20,000 scale topographic maps for subsequent mapping, and a

photographic record of brood sighting locations was established.

Calculations of the number of broods present in the watershed was based on the number, distribution, timing and

nature (i.e., brood size, duckling size, brood age based on coloration and plumage development) of survey

observations. During brood surveys, each brood was assigned an age class using the system developed by



Gollop and Marshall (1954) and adapted by Kuchel (1977; Appendix 2). Population recruitment rates were

based on the number of class III ducklings detected during brood surveys (Ringelman and Longcore 1983).

2.4 BROOD HABITAT ASSESSMENT

To characterise harlequin duck brood habitat use, a diversity of habitat parameters were sampled in “use” plots

(representing 50 m sections of river/creek centred on previously flagged brood sighting locations) during early

August of 2000. A 50 m long segment was chosen for sampling because it was long enough to bracket a broods’

normal movements during an observation bout, but short enough to allow visual habitat estimates from one

central location. To characterise brood habitat availability, 21 “available” locations in the watershed (from the

Salmo and South Salmo Rivers and Sheep and Erie Creek tributaries) were randomly sampled for the same

habitat characteristics. Random plots overlapped with brood use plots in 4.8% of cases (i.e, 1 of 21 plots).

Habitat characteristics in use and random plots were compared to provide insight on habitat variables that

harlequin ducks are potentially selecting for or against (i.e., those used more or less than expected relative to

their availability, respectively; Manly et al. 1993).

The selection of habitat variables for sampling was based on (i) a review of previous studies describing breeding

habitat (Wallen 1987; Crowley 1993; Smith 2000), (ii) discussions with other researchers investigating harlequin

duck breeding habitat use, and (iii) review of potentially applicable stream and fish habitat inventory variables

(Resources Inventory Committee 1998). An attempt was made to standardise habitat parameters and data

collection methods with those of a concurrent B.C. Hydro-funded study investigating harlequin duck breeding

habitat use on the Bridge and Yalakom Rivers of southwestern B.C. (K. Wright, unpublished data).

Two observers sampled a total of 25 variables in 42 plots (Table 1). Variables requiring visual assessment (see

Table 1) were estimated independently and then averaged in the field to generate a mean estimate.

Channel/wetted widths and wetted depth were measured instream with a 50 m tape and a calibrated “probing”

pole, respectively. Above measurements were taken at the downstream (0 m), middle (25 m) and upstream (50

m) ends of each 50 m section, and later averaged to generate an overall mean. Stream gradient was measured

with an Abney level. Percent vegetative cover, screening cover, vegetation height, island area and bar area were

estimated visually, and the number of islands and bars falling within plots was counted. To estimate availability

of loafing sites for ducks (Bengtson 1972), numbers of emergent instream boulders were categorised as 0, 1−5,

6−20 and >20. The percent of bed material occupied by boulder, cobble, gravel, fine, and bedrock (see

definitions in Table 1) substrates was visually estimated for each 50 m section. Wetted channels were classified

into four broad habitat types (pools, glides, riffles and cascades) and the percent area occupied by each was

determined visually. The percent of the stream channel occupied by eddies (i.e., areas with current opposing the

main flow and adjoining areas with still water) and water <30 cm in depth was also visually estimated. A GIS



TABLE 1. Summary of 25 habitat variables measured in 50 m long brood use and random plots.

Variables Codes Definitions (Resources Inventory Committee 1998)

Mean channel width (m) CW Width of the bankfull flood stage of the channel.Mean wetted width (m) b WW Width of the wetted portion of the channel.Mean wetted depth (m) b WD Depth of the wetted portion of the channel.Stream gradient (%)b SG Slope or rate of drop per unit of land of the channel bed.Vegetative cover (%)a, b VC The % of channel area covered by overhanging live and dead streamside riparian vegetation.Mean screening cover (%)a SC % of bank where view of stream is obscured by vegetation >1.3 m tall (mean of right and left banks).Mean vegetation height (m) a VH Height of vegetation along the bank (mean of right and left banks).Vegetation description VD Major tree and shrub species bordering the channel.Number of islands IN Number of instream areas with soil and permanently rooted vegetation.Island area (%)a, b IA Percent of the channel covered by instream areas with soil and permanently rooted vegetation.Number of bars BN Number of uniform instream areas with emergent gravel, boulder or cobble falling.Bar area (%)a, b BA Percent of the channel covered by uniform instream areas with emergent gravel, boulder or cobble.Number of loaf sites b LS Number (0; 1−5; 6−20; >20) of emergent instream boulders (>256 mm in size) per 50 m section.Boulder (%)a, b BO Percent of channel occupied by boulders (>256 mm in size).Cobble (%)a CO Percent of channel occupied by cobble (64-256 mm in size).Gravel (%)a, b GR Percent of channel occupied by gravel (2-64 mm in size).Fines (%)a FI Percent of channel occupied by fines (<2 mm in size).Bedrock (%)a BE Percent of channel occupied by large boulders, blocks (>4000 mm in size) and bedrock.Pools (%)a PO % of wetted channel area with slow, deep water, concave bottom profile, fine sediments and a stream

gradient near 0%.Glides (%)a GL % of wetted channel area with fast-flowing non-turbulent water.Riffles (%)a RI % of wetted channel area with fast-flowing turbulent water.Cascades (%)a CA % of wetted channel with steep stepped “riffles” of bedrock or emergent cobbles/boulders with gradients

>4%.Eddies/still water (%)a, b ED % of wetted channel area with true eddies (where current opposes main flow) and adjoining still water.Water <30 cm deep (%)a LT % of wetted channel area with water less than 30 cm in depth.Distance to nearest tributary (m) b TD Distance from the plot centre to the closest permanently wetted tributary stream (measured using GIS)._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a Variables requiring visual estimation.b Short-listed variables used in logistic regression.



program developed by Ian Parfitt was used to estimate distance of use and random plot centres to the closest

permanently wetted tributary stream.

Habitat data were entered into excel spreadsheet files and correlation matrices were used to identify highly

correlated variables (-0.7 > rs > 0.7). Channel width, number of islands and bars, percent cobble, fines and

bedrock, percent pools, glides, riffles, cascades and water <30 cm deep were highly positively correlated with

other variables and were therefore removed for further analyses. Mean screening cover and vegetation height

showed significant variation among observers and these variables were therefore discounted. Logistic regression

(Manly et al., 1993; McCullough and Nelder 1989) was used to compare short-listed habitat variables (11 in

total; see Table 1) in brood use versus random plots. The dependent variable was whether a site was used or not

and predictor variables were the habitat variables. Data were screened to determine the relative distribution of

each predictor variable and to identify outlier observations. Screening resulted in removal of one observation of

90% gravel (all other observations were below 30%) and conversion of % eddies from a continuous to a

categorical variable (most observations were 0% and the remainder were <15% with the exception of one outlier

of 25%).

Low sample sizes precluded building a logistic model that considered all 11 variables simultaneously, so AIC

model selection procedures were used (Burnham and Anderson 1998). Models with the lowest AICc scores are

those most supported by data and the Delta AICc measure considers the difference between the AICc score of the

lowest model and that of other competing models. The degree of non-independence in the data set (based on

repeat observations for some broods) was estimated using the goodness of fit of the logistic model (Pearson chi-

square value divided by the associated degrees of freedom). That value was used to estimate QAICc model

selection value. QAICc model selection criteria are similar to AICc criteria, however they incorporate effects of

non-independence of data into the model selection process (Burnham and Anderson 1998). SAS PROC

GENMOD (SAS Institute 1997) was used for all calculations and a SAS macro written by John Boulanger was

used for AIC and QAICc calculations.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

SWSS members contributed 29.0% (n = 41) and 37.7% (n = 29) of all pre-incubation and brood observations,

respectively, for a total of 70 observations. This was a substantial contribution to the overall data set and

provided much needed coverage of some areas. Other residents of the watershed contributed an additional 2.9%

(n = 4) and 3.9% (n = 3) of pre-incubation and brood observations, respectively.



SWSS members also contributed to the success of this study by (i) providing transportation on four drift boat

survey trips, (ii) supplementing this coverage with nine other drift boat trips undertaken by SWSS members

(during which harlequin observations were recorded), and (iii) assisting brood use and random plot sampling.

Other SWSS contributions include a public awareness article summarising the findings of this project (which is

being jointly prepared by G. Nellestijn and M. Machmer) for submission to the Nelson Daily News and the

Salmo Valley Newsletter. All SWSS in-kind contributions are summarised in a letter to the CBFWCP

(Appendix 3).

3.2 PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY

A total of 45 adults (31 males and 14 females) were counted during pre-incubation surveys of the watershed in

May of 2000. Survey sighting locations are shown on the pre-incubation mapsheet in Appendix 4 and

information recorded in conjunction with pre-incubation (and incidental) sightings is listed in spreadsheet format

in Appendix 5. Harlequin ducks were observed on the Salmo River mainstem between Clearwater and Hall

Creeks (3 pairs), at Hall Creek mouth (1 pair), between Hall and Stewart Creeks (2 pairs; 1 male), between

Stewart and Ymir Creeks (1 male), between Ymir and Porcupine Creeks (2 males), at Porcupine Creek mouth (1

pair), near Hidden Creek mouth (2 males), at Erie Creek mouth (1 male), near Sheep Creek mouth (3 males),

between Pete and Creggan Creeks (1 pair), at Creggan Creek mouth (2 pairs; 1 male), and between Creggan and

Wallack Creeks (1 male). Harlequin ducks were also detected on Sheep Creek (2 pairs; 4 males) and on the

South Salmo River (2 pairs; 1 male). Rather than a uniform distribution, pairs and/or bachelor males were found

concentrated at certain locations (i.e., on the upper half of the mainstem, at Sheep Creek mouth and along the

tributary, on the lower South Salmo River, and on the lower mainstem between Pete and Wallack Creeks.

A total of 116 incidental sightings of one or more birds were made during the pre-incubation period (late April to

early June 2000; see Appendix 4 and 5). Incidental sightings from Elise, Stewart, Hidden, Hearn and Sheep

Creeks (where either no ducks or only males were detected during the May 7−16 survey period) suggest that the

number of females and total ducks was underestimated based strictly on survey observations. In the case of

Stewart Creek for example, two mated pairs (in addition to the lone male detected during the survey) were

observed in the one kilometre section below Stewart Creek on multiple occasions, but were not recorded during

the formal survey. Similarly, incidental observations of a mated pair above Elise Creek, a single female

(accompanied by as many as five males) at Hidden Creek, and mated females on the Salmo mainstem near

Hearn and Sheep Creek mouths were not repeated during the formal survey (Appendix 4). These discrepancies

suggest that our survey estimate of 14 females for the watershed should be at least 20, and they demonstrate the

value of gathering incidental observations to corroborate survey findings. Female harlequins were often

observed incidentally during early mornings and evenings during the incubation period (see Appendix 5). Based

on the timing of brood observations, some females may already have been incubating during formal surveys and

this may explain why they were not readily detected during formal surveys conducted throughout the day.



The breakdown of adult birds engaged in different activities when sighted (survey and incidental sightings

combined) was as follows: loafing on boulders/rocks (52.1%), gravel bars (4.3%), logs (2.1%), swimming

(25.7%), foraging (9.3%), and flying (6.5%). At least three banded individuals were observed during the survey

period: (i) a male 1.5 km below Hall Creek mouth observed only once on May 8th, (ii) a female that bred below

Stewart Creek mouth, and (ii) a male seen repeatedly between Oscar and Porcupine Creeks. All three had one

aluminium and one lime green colour band (band combinations in white could not be clearly distinguished).

General habitats associated with survey and incidental sighting locations were described as either main channels

≥10 m in width (63.6%), in-stream islands (32.1%), and side channels <10 m wide (4.3%). Given their rarity,

vegetated in-stream islands (e.g., at Hall Creek, below Stewart Creek, below Sheep Creek, and on the Sheep

Creek and South Salmo River tributaries) were intensively used habitats. Only 9.5% of randomly surveyed plots

in the watershed had in-stream islands, but 32.1% of adult locations during pre-incubation were either on or

adjacent to such islands, suggesting that islands are preferred habitats (χ2 = 13.9; df = 2; P < 0.001). Channel

velocities where adults were detected were classified as riffle (70%), cascade (12.9%), mixture of riffle/cascade

(9.3%), and pool (7.8%). The proportion of sightings in which dense riparian vegetation (i.e., >1.3 m in height

and >50% screened) covered zero, one or both banks of the shoreline adjacent to the sighting location was 0.7%,

48.6% and 50.7%, respectively, compared with 23.8%, 52.3% and 23.8% of random plots. These results suggest

avoidance of areas without vegetative screening along banks and selection for areas with screening on both

banks (χ2 = 9.53; df = 2; P < 0.01). In general, locations where pre-incubating harlequin ducks were observed

had low stream gradients with riffle habitat, islands and in-stream loafing sites (i.e., boulders, cobble/gravel bars

or logs), and one or both banks of adjacent shorelines densely vegetated.

3.3 BROOD SURVEY

A total of 73 survey observations and three incidental sightings were made during the brood period (see

mapsheet and summary of brood survey and incidental observations in Appendices 6 and 7, respectively). These

observations include 36 sightings of broods ranging in size from 2–6 ducklings, 40 sightings of 1–4 broodless

females, and three sightings of 1–2 males. Sightings of broods, broodless females and males represent some

repeated observations of the same individuals over time, and should therefore not be interpreted as population

estimates.

Based on the distribution, timing and nature (i.e., brood size, duckling age class) of 36 brood sightings, these

observations represent from 1−7 sightings of at least ten broods (denoted by letter codes A to J in Table 2).

Broods were found on the Salmo River at Hall Creek (A), Elise Creek (B), Stewart Creek (C and D), between

Stewart and Ymir Creeks, between Oscar and Porcupine Creeks (E), at Hidden Creek (F), between Hidden and



TABLE 2. Summary of brood survey (BS) and incidental (I) observations by brood code (A−J).

Brood Record Obs. Type Date Time Northing Easting Female Ducklings Class

Hall CreekA 49 BS 12-Jul-00 16:00 5468400 482700 1 5 classIIA

A 51 BS 13-Jul-00 17:00 5468500 482800 1 5 classIIA

Elise Ck.

B 2 I 14-Jun-00 8:00 5463005 482275 1 5 classIA

Stewart Creek South

C 29 BS 5-Jul-00 19:20 5461950 483535 1 4 classIB

C 32 BS 6-Jul-00 20:30 5461820 483540 1 4 classIB

C 41 BS 8-Jul-00 21:00 5462000 483470 1 4 classIC

C 46 BS 11-Jul-00 21:00 5462190 483390 1 4 classIC

C 55 BS 16-Jul-00 20:30 5462000 483470 1 4 classIIA

Stewart Creek South

D 4 BS 17-Jun-00 12:45 5461875 483580 1a 6 classIA

D 15 BS 25-Jun-00 10:00 5462035 483400 1a 3 classIB

D 16 BS 26-Jun-00 11:30 5461900 483550 1a 3 classIB

D 22 BS 30-Jun-00 17:00 5461950 483535 1a 3 classIC

D 28 BS 4-Jul-00 19:30 5461950 483535 1a 3 classIIA



Porcupine Creek North

E 33 BS 6-Jul-00 7:00 5457160 485120 1 5 classIIA

E 47 BS 11-Jul-00 9:00 5457160 485120 1 5 classIIB

E 58 BS 18-Jul-00 10:00 5457300 485350 1 5 classIIC

E 61 BS 19-Jul-00 17:00 5457300 485350 1 5 classIIC

E 65 BS 21-Jul-00 18:00 5457300 485350 1 5 classIIC

E 69 BS 25-Jul-00 15:45 5457450 485500 1 5 classIII

E b 74 BS 4-Aug-00 11:00 5460700 483775 1 5 classIII

Hidden Creek South

F 38 BS 8-Jul-00 20:30 5454000 482470 1 2 classIIA

F 39 BS 8-Jul-00 21:00 5454000 482500 1 2 classIIA

F 45 BS 9-Jul-00 20:30 5454000 482470 1 2 classIIA

F 72 BS 31-Jul-00 7:00 5454000 482650 1 2 classIII

F 73 BS 1-Aug-00 7:00 5454000 482650 0 2 classIII

Hidden Creek South

G 71 I 27-Jul-00 12:30 5451800 481575 1 5 unknown

G 75 BS 6-Aug-00 19:30 5454000 482470 0 5 classIII

G 76 BS 8-Aug-00 19:25 5454000 482500 0 5 classIII

Sheep Creek tributary

H 24 BS 1-Jul-00 15:00 5443178 485479 1 3 classIIA

Sheep Creek mouth

I or J 1 BS 8-Jun-00 12:00 5443250 480750 1 6 classIA

I or J 26 BS 2-Jul-00 11:00 5443000 480550 1 2 classIIA

I or J 27 BS 4-Jul-00 12:00 5443000 480550 1 2 classIIA

I 63 BS 21-Jul-00 12:00 5443000 480550 1 2 classIIC

J 64 BS 21-Jul-00 12:15 5442300 480200 1 2 classIICa Banded female.b Could potentially be a different brood missed during previous surveys.



Hearn Creeks (G), and below Sheep Creek (I and J). A single brood was also found on the Sheep Creek

tributary (H), between Aspen and Annie Rooney Creeks. In the case of broods C and D below Stewart Creek, a

banded female and a difference in brood size and age made it possible to distinguish between these two.

Similarly, two broods at Hidden Creek were clearly distinguished by brood size and age class. Below Sheep

Creek mouth on the Salmo River mainstem, two broods of two ducklings each (broods I and J) were

differentiated based on sightings of both broods within a 15 minute period on the same boat survey. Some

uncertainty is associated with sighting of a class III brood with female on August 4th between Stewart and Ymir

Creeks. Based on brood size and age, it is assumed that this sighting represents brood E after shifting north from

Porcupine Creek north, although we cannot entirely discount the possibility that this was a different brood

missed during earlier surveys. Based on brood age and size, brood H (observed only once on Sheep Creek

tributary) could represent brood I or J after loss of one duckling and a downstream movement of 8 km.

Using an adjusted estimate of 20 females for the watershed during pre-incubation, at least 50% (10 of 20)

successfully hatched a brood and at least one brood of 6 was reduced to 3 by late June (Table 2). Twelve of 43

ducklings (27.9%) reached the class III stage of development (i.e., fully feathered but incapable of sustained

flight), resulting in a minimum productivity estimate of 0.60 ducklings per female. Monitoring data for

individual broods covers a 1–29 day period (broods I and J, for which the monitoring interval cannot be

determined, are excluded from this calculation), and broods re-sighted on multiple occasions (e.g., C, D, E and

F) tended to remain within a 1.5 km section of river. However, our inability to re-sight some broods after July

suggests that they ventured further at that time.

Brood locations correspond closely to those of mated pairs during the pre-incubation period (compare survey

and incidental observations in Appendices 6 and 7 with 4 and 5). For example, a mated pair was observed

repeatedly at Hall Creek mouth where brood A was sighted during mid-July. Similarly, one or more mated pairs

were observed near Elise, Stewart, Porcupine, Hidden, and Sheep Creek mouths on the Salmo River mainstem,

as well as on the Sheep Creek tributary. Pairs that did not appear to produce broods were found on the Salmo

River between Clearwater and Hall Creek mouths (3 pairs), at Ymir Creek mouth (1 pair), near Hearn Creek

mouth (1 pair), south of Pete Creek mouth (1 pair), and near Creggan Creek mouth (2 pairs). At least one mated

pair on Sheep Creek tributary (near Nugget Creek mouth) and two pairs on the South Salmo River (between Lost

Creek and the confluence) also appeared unsuccessful.

The breakdown of broods engaged in different activities when sighted (survey and incidental sightings

combined) was as follows: swimming (58%), foraging (17%), and loafing on boulders/rocks (16.7%) and gravel

bars (8.3%). Channel habitats associated with brood sighting locations were described as either main channels

≥10 m in width (61.1%), in-stream islands (36.1%), and side channels <10 m wide (2.8%), similar to results for

pre-incubating adults (see section 3.2). Given that only 9.5% of randomly surveyed plots in the watershed had

instream islands, but 36.1% of brood locations were either on or adjacent to such islands, the later appear to be



preferred habitats for harlequin broods as well (χ2 = 13.9; df = 2; P < 0.001). Channel characteristics where

broods were detected were classified as riffle (72.2%), pool (16.7%), mixture of pool/riffle (5.6%), and cascade

(5.5%). The proportion of brood sightings in which dense riparian vegetation (i.e., greater than 1.3 m in height

and 50% screened) covered zero, one or both banks of the shoreline adjacent to the sighting location was 0%,

33.3% and 66.7%, respectively, compared with 23.8%, 52.3% and 23.8% of random plots. These results suggest

brood avoidance of areas without vegetative screening along banks and possible selection for areas with

screening on both banks, relative to habitat availability (χ2 = 22.6; df = 2; P < 0.001; see also section 3.4).

3.4 BROOD HABITAT ASSESSMENT

Findings of all habitat sampling conducted in 21 brood use and 21 random plots are provided in Appendix 8 and

summarised in Table 3. Two-tailed t-tests comparing group means for continuous variables indicated several

significant differences between use and random plots. Brood use plots had significantly higher levels of

vegetative cover overhanging the stream channel, more islands and bars, and a greater area occupied by islands

and eddies (see Table 3). Use plots also tended to have more channel area consisting of bedrock and pools, and

less of gravel, however the latter trends were not significant (i.e., 0.05 < P < 0.01).

The habitat variable with most influence on brood use was % eddies. Given the large number of sites with 0%

eddies, this variable was best represented as categorical rather than continuous for regression analysis. The

Pearson chi-square/df statistic for the most supported model was 1.33 and this value was used in the QAICc model

selection procedure (Table 4). Models that considered % eddies and gravel, island area and vegetative cover were

most supported by the data (i.e., Delta QAICc <2). The results of the best model (incorporating eddies, gravel and

island area) from the QAICc selection criteria were also supported by log likelihood ratio tests (Table 5). Log

likelihood test results for a model including the previous variables plus vegetative cover indicated that only eddies

and gravel were significant (Table 5). Conversely, vegetative cover was significant in a model with gravel, eddies

and vegetative cover (i.e., χ2 =5.65; df = 1; P = 0.0174). This disparity is likely because the power to detect

associations for any one variable in the four variable model is reduced; the QAICc procedure optimises model

power and therefore selects models with three rather than four variables.

Figure 2a shows predicted use of a site from the most supported QAICc model as a function of presence or

absence of eddies (with all other variables standardised to mean values based on random sites). Predicted use as

a function of % gravel, % island area, and % vegetative cover (with or without eddies) is shown in Figures 2b, 2c

and 2d, respectively. Model results indicate that harlequin broods select for sites with eddies, relatively high

island area and overhanging vegetative cover, and against sites with a high gravel substrates.



TABLE 3. Summary of the habitat characteristics in brood use (n = 21) and random plots (n = 21).

Habitat variables Brood use plots Random plots

Continuousa Mean ± SE Range Mean Range P-valueMean channel width (m) 38.9 ± 5.2 20.5 - 123.3 29.5 ± 2.7 13.5 - 54.3 0.115Mean wetted width (m) 20.8 ± 1.4 12.8 - 36.7 19.2 ± 2.4 6.9 - 51.5 0.557Mean wetted depth (m) 0.9 ± 0.1 0.4 - 2.3 0.7 ± 0.1 0.3 - 1.5 0.111Stream gradient (%) 1.3 ± 0.2 0 - 3.2 1.4 ± 0.3 0.2 - 4 0.551Overhanging vegetative cover (%) 21.2 ± 2.9 4 - 50 13.4 ± 1.6 0 - 20 0.024*Mean screening cover (%) 52.1± 4.2 25 - 75 45.4 ± 4.9 2.5 - 80 0.271Mean vegetation height (m) 9.9 ± 1.0 3 - 21.5 8.1 ± 1.2 0.7 - 25 0.245Number of islands 0.8 ± 0.2 0 - 3 0.1 ± 0.1 0 - 2 0.018*Island area (%) 12.0 ± 4.3 0 - 60 2.2 ± 1.9 0 - 40 0.042*Number of bars 2.4 ± 0.3 0 - 6 1.6 ± 0.2 0 - 4 0.024*Bar area (%) 32.5 ± 3.9 0 - 65 23.4 ± 4.3 0 -75 0.128Boulder (%) 16.3 ± 4.2 0 -70 28.3 ± 5.3 0 - 75 0.102Cobble (%) 63.7 ± 5.7 20 - 100 52.7 ± 6.4 4 - 90 0.206Gravel (%) 2.9 ± 0.8 0 - 10 10.9 ± 4.2 1 - 92 0.069Fines (%) 6.7 ± 1.3 0 - 20 5.1 ± 1.0 1 - 20 0.319Bedrock (%) 9.9 ± 2.8 0 - 40 3.0 ± 2.1 0 - 45 0.058Pools (%) 10.4 ± 3.1 0 - 50 3.5 ± 1.7 0 - 25 0.058Riffles (%) 33.2 ± 4.9 0 - 80 33.0 ± 6.7 0 -80 0.986Glides (%) 52.6 ± 4.9 10 - 100 58.7 ± 7.1 10 - 92 0.488Cascades (%) 3.1 ± 0.8 0 - 10 4.0 ± 1.6 0 - 25 0.586Eddies (%) 4.2 ± 1.3 0 - 25 0.0 ± 0.0 0 - 1 0.002**Depth <30 cm (%) 41.2 ± 5.4 0 - 80 49.5 ± 5.8 5 - 90 0.300Distance to nearest tributary (m) 607.6 21 – 1,632 1006.3 23 – 4.886 0.288Categoricalb Median Range Median Range P-valueNumber of loaf sites 3 1-3 2 0-3 0.387a Means compared using two sample t-tests.b Category frequencies compared using chi-square test.*Means for brood use and random plots are significantly different at alpha = 0.05 level (two-tailed).**Means for brood use and random plots are significantly different at alpha = 0.01 level (two-tailed).

TABLE 4. Results of QAICc model selection procedure.

Habitat variables in model QAICc Delta QAICc Variable numberEddies, gravel, island area 31.46 0 5Eddies, gravel, vegetative cover 31.89 0.42 5Eddies, gravel, island area, vegetative cover 32.75 1.29 6Eddies, gravel 33.54 2.08 4Eddies 38.82 7.36 3Gravel 41.36 9.89 2Vegetative cover 43.96 12.50 2Island area 44.45 12.99 2Boulders 45.95 14.49 2Wetted channel depth 46.01 14.55 2Bar area 46.23 14.77 2Distance to tributaries 47.16 15.70 2Stream gradient 47.80 16.34 2Wetted channel width 47.81 16.35 2Number of loafing sites 51.74 20.28 4



TABLE 5. Type 3 log likelihood ratio results for (i) the most supported model and (ii) a model includingvegetative cover.

(i) Most supported (ii) Vegetative cover

Habitat variable df χ2 P-value df χ2 P-valueEddies 1 15.84 0.0001 1 15.60 0.0001Gravel 1 9.67 0.0019 1 8.04 0.0046Island area 1 6.22 0.0126 1 2.52 0.1125Vegetative cover - - - 1 1.95 0.1621

4.0 DISCUSSION

SWSS volunteers contributed significantly to the collection of survey and incidental data and their involvement

in this project has been key to its success. Public participation has also promoted greater awareness of harlequin

duck habitat and the value of this relatively unique resource in our watershed. Recommendations to encourage

ongoing community involvement are provided in section 5.0.

Year 2000 pre-incubation surveys generated an adjusted estimate of 51 adult harlequin ducks (31 males and 20

females) for the study area, which is consistent with 1999 results (i.e., 51 adults with 33 males and 18 females;

Machmer 1999). A 1996 aerial survey conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service yielded an estimate of 54

ducks (33 males and 21 females) for this same population (K. Wright, unpublished data). Although overall

numbers have remained stable from 1996−2000, the proportion of the total population using the Sheep Creek

tributary has dropped somewhat (31.5, 11.8 and 17.8% in 1996, 1999 and 2000, respectively). All surveys

covered approximately the same area and time frame, so reasons for this drop are not readily apparent.

Furthermore, hiking surveys are reportedly more effective in relatively narrow channels with high levels of cover

like Sheep Creek (Aquatic Resources Ltd. 1998), and it is unlikely that a significant number of ducks were

missed during 1999 and 2000. Contaminants (e.g., aluminum, iron, manganese, ammonia and arsenic) from the

Canex landfill site have recently been confirmed leaching into Sheep Creek (Klohn-Krippen Consultants Ltd.

2000). Biological impacts of these contaminants are not well established, however even sewage effluent has

been shown to reduce numbers of ‘sensitive’ benthic macroinvertebrates that are highly correlated with the mean

daily abundance of harlequin ducks (M. Bowman, pers. comm., cited in Smith 2000). As a precautionary

measure, possible negative impacts of landfill leachates on harlequin duck habitat suitability and use in lower

Sheep Creek should be investigated.

Based on the locations of adults during pre-incubation, harlequin ducks use wetted channels >10 m wide with

low stream gradients, riffle habitats, islands or in-stream loafing sites (i.e., boulders, cobble/gravel bars or logs),

and one or both banks of adjacent shorelines densely vegetated. These general findings are consistent with those

of a number of other studies (Clarkson 1992; Freeman and Goudie 1998; Smith 2000).



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

absent present

Eddies

Pro

babi

lity

of u

se

a

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 5 10 15 20 25

% Gravel

Pro

babi

lity

of u

se

eddies absent eddies presentb

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% Island area

Pro

bab

ility

of

use

eddies absent eddies present

c

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% Vegetation cover

Pro

bab

ility

of

use

eddies absent eddies present

d

FIGURE 2. Predicted brood use of habitat as a function of (a) the presence/absence of eddies or (b) % gravel, (c) % island area, or (d) % vegetationcover with or without eddies (confidence intervals for predicted values shown as staggered bars).



Incidental sightings of harlequin ducks provide valuable information on the local breeding chronology and

migration schedule of this species. The earliest sighting was of a pair on April 21st and the last male sighting

was on June 29th, indicating that most males depart for their wintering grounds by this time. The latest broodless

female sighting was on July 26th and most had disappeared by mid-July, confirming that females also leave

earlier, if breeding is not successful. The earliest brood of class IA ducklings was detected on June 8th and

observations of broods were recorded until August 28th, after study completion. Based on a 28-day incubation

period and a laying period of up to 13 days for an average clutch of six (Kuchel 1977), at least one female (i.e.,

mother of broods I or J in Table 2) initiated a clutch before the end of April. Two others (mothers of broods B

and D) started laying in the first half of May. Timing of harlequin breeding in this study area is comparable to

Idaho (Wallen and Groves 1989; Cassirer and Groves 1991), Montana (Kuchel 1977), and the Oregon Cascade

range (Wright et al. 2000).

Harlequin duck pre-incubation, incubation and brood rearing schedules coincide with periods of increased

recreational activity (e.g., fishing, canoeing, kayaking, mountain biking, rafting, swimming, inner tubing and

hiking) in the Salmo watershed. Although this has always been the case, dismantling of the rail line (running

parallel to the Salmo River between Nelson and Salmo) in fall of 1998 has resulted in a substantial increase in

ATV, dirt bike, and mountain bike usage of this corridor from May to September (pers. obs.). Harlequins are

sensitive to disturbance and adults often fly or swim away when confronted with nearby loud noises (pers. obs.).

There has also been an increase in kayak and canoe usage of the Salmo mainstem in conjunction with a local

paddling club and a whitewater rescue course. During the spring and summer of 2000, harlequin ducks (adults

and broods) were observed flying or swimming away when confronted with approaching groups of kayakers and

canoeists or motorised vehicles on the rail line (pers. obs.). Displacement rates of 87% were recorded for

harlequins encountering watercrafts (i.e., canoes, kayaks or rafts) on the Maligne River in Jasper (Hunt 1998).

Several studies have concluded that harlequin duck reproductive success is negatively affected by an increase in

recreational use of rivers (Kuchel 1977; Cassirer and Groves 1989 and Cassirer et al. 1996), and periodic

population monitoring should be a priority to facilitate quantification of impacts.

Although finding nest sites was not a primary objective of this study, intensive observations of two adult females

at Stewart Creek suggest that both nested on a large (i.e., >250 m long) island with dense riparian vegetation

(Appendix 9). Females were repeatedly observed flying onto the island at dusk after foraging or loafing nearby,

and this same area was intensively used by both females with young broods. These observations are consistent

with descriptions of harlequin nest sites in Banff National Park (i.e., 87% of 15 nests were on islands and nest

sites were characterised by dense overhanging riparian; Smith 2000). A third suspected nest was located

adjacent to the left bank of the Salmo River, 75 meters upstream of Sheep Creek. On June 2, P. Neill observed a

male flying into a stand of trees along the shoreline in this area and a female was observed flying out a few

minutes later. A brood of tiny ducklings (class IA) was observed at the same site on June 8. A foot search of the



area revealed a large live western red cedar tree with a lateral crack at a height of 3.5 m. Although nesting could

not be confirmed, harlequins are facultative cavity nesters and this tree potentially represents suitable habitat.

A minimum of 10 harlequin duck broods were active in the study area and approximately half (10 of 20) of the

females detected successfully hatched a brood. This compares with 70.6% and 75% of radio-marked females

hatching at least one duckling in southwestern Alberta (Smith 2000) and in the central Oregon Cascade range

(Bruner 1997), respectively. The proportion of females attempting to breed was likely higher in this study as

well, but nesting attempts may have failed, or newly hatched ducklings could have died prior to being detected.

Brood sizes ranged from 2–6 and mean brood size (4.30 ± 0.47) in this study was only slightly higher than the

average reported for B.C. (3.93 ± 2.05 for 76 nests; Wright and Goudie 1998). Several ducklings were

comparable in size to adult females by late July or early August of 2000, but still did not appear capable of

advanced flight (i.e., class IV). A minimum of three broods (12 of 43 ducklings or 27.9%) survived to class III,

which compares closely with a survival rate of 26.8% for 56 ducklings in Alberta (Smith 2000). Survival to

class III has traditionally been considered a reliable index of harlequin duck recruitment (Ringelman and

Longcore 1983) and using a population estimate of 20 females, each produced an average of 0.60 class III

offspring. This is higher than the estimated 0.40 class IV ducklings produced per female based on radio-

telemetry monitoring in southern Alberta (Smith 2000). Post-fledging mortality of ducklings was substantial in

the latter study, and productivity estimates that ignore post-fledging mortality will tend to overestimate

population recruitment, as is likely the case in this study.

Available monitoring data for individual broods (1–7 repeat observations covering a 1–29 day period) suggest

that most remain within a relatively confined area (i.e., 1.5 km) for extended periods. We had poor success re-

sighting broods after July, implying that they venture further at this stage. Two broods of class III ducklings at

Hidden Creek were not accompanied by their mother when last sighted in early August (Table 2), and it is

unclear whether they were in fact independent or whether females were either temporarily absent or depredated.

Smith (2000) found that female harlequin ducks do not abandon their broods, but actually accompany them on

migration from breeding streams to wintering areas. They do however leave their broods to forage

independently, which can result in overestimating brood abandonment and numbers of broodless females during

surveys.

Our anecdotal observations provide important insights into harlequin duck rearing behaviour. At Stewart Creek

for example, broods C and D (with an unbanded and banded female, respectively) were observed swimming

upstream together beside the large vegetated island on the evenings of July 6 and 8th (Appendix 9). On both

occasions, the banded female was observed leading all seven ducklings around the north end of the large island,

while the unbanded female flew upstream and foraged at the mouth of Stewart Creek, a distance of

approximately 160 m. The unbanded female joined her brood behind the island after foraging for about 15−20



minutes. These observations could be interpreted as a form of “cooperative brood care”, which has not been

reported in the literature for harlequins.

Broods were detected from just north of Hall Creek mouth to 1.5 km south of Sheep Creek mouth on the

mainstem, and along the Sheep Creek tributary, with locations corresponding closely to where pairs were

detected during pre-incubation. Although comprehensive brood surveys were not conducted in 1999, it is

interesting to note that anecdotal observations of 1999 broods were in the same areas as 2000 broods (i.e., below

Elise and Stewart Creek mouths, at Hidden Creek and below Sheep Creek; Machmer 1999). These patterns are

consistent with high site fidelity reported for breeding harlequin ducks in other areas (Bruner 1997; Smith 2000).

Unsuccessful pairs tended to be found on the uppermost and lowermost portions of the mainstem and on the

South Salmo River, implying that conditions for successful breeding may have been less favourable in the latter

areas. Indeed, during surveys and random sampling of the South Salmo River, we noted that many areas had

unusually high algae abundance (Appendix 9), which impeded walking on boulders. The South Salmo River

experienced a severe landslide event during spring of 1998 that caused extensive channel-bed movement and

riparian scour. Such events can result in lower invertebrate prey densities, which are associated with a reduction

in harlequin numbers, lower productivity and a seasonal delay in brood development (Wright et al. 2000).

Wetted channels used by broods were 13−37 m wide with stream gradients ≤3.2%. These sites were

characterised by cobble/boulder substrates, glide/riffle habitat and relatively high levels of overhanging

vegetative cover, instream bars, islands, and eddies compared with random sites. Model results suggest that

harlequin duck broods select for sites with eddies, high island area and overhanging vegetative cover, and

against sites with a high proportion of gravel substrates. The precision of brood use estimates is low, indicating

that the model can only predict general association rather than absolute use as a function of a predictor variable.

Brood selection for high overhanging vegetation cover likely reduces brood detection and predation rates, and is

consistent with the findings of other studies (Aquatic Resources Limited 1998; Freeman and Goudie 1998).

Similarly, islands may reduce predation risk by providing resting sites and hiding and escape cover. The habitat

variable with most influence on brood use in this study was eddies. This result is consistent with a parallel study

investigating harlequin duck breeding habitat selection on the Bridge and Yalakom Rivers (Wright 1998). Plots

used by adult harlequins tended to have a higher proportion of eddies in the latter study, as well as more bars and

shallow water (<30 cm depth) areas (K. Wright, unpublished data). Eddies are often associated with the

downstream side of large instream substrates such as islands, bars, large boulders or logs, and selection for

eddies is clearly related to the presence of these substrates. A preference for eddies is likely related to enhanced

foraging opportunities but may confer other advantages as well, such as reducing the energetic cost of

maintaining a channel position, or lowering the risk of young ducklings being separated from females and swept

away (see Smith 2000). Our findings suggest that there is potential to enhance harlequin duck habitat through



strategic creation of eddy habitat and by promoting vegetation establishment in areas subject to vegetation

removal and/or disturbance.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 LOCATION, TIMING, METHOD AND FREQUENCY OF FUTURE INVENTORY AND

MONITORING EFFORTS

The Salmo watershed is currently experiencing various types of development. Recreational use of the rail

corridor has increased substantially since removal of the rail line in fall 1998, and a proposal to establish a linear

park from Waneta through Salmo to Troup Junction is currently under consideration (D. Wahn, Regional

District, pers. comm.). There has been an increase in the harvest of privately owned riparian cottonwood stands

(which are not subject to Forest Practices Code regulations) in the lower half of the watershed. These stands are

important components of local biodiversity and dominated the Columbia and Kootenay River valleys prior to

extensive damming (Rood 1995). New industrial developments (e.g., an ore crushing mill and tailings pond at

Barrett Creek) and expansion of existing facilities (e.g., the Regional District of Central Kootenay landfill at

Sheep Creek) are being proposed (D. Wahn, pers. comm.). All of these changes potentially influence water

quality and riparian habitat availability with associated implications for harlequin ducks and other sensitive

species. Regular and systematic collection of baseline population data on indicator species provides an

opportunity to assess watershed health and identify potential problems, if they arise. We recommend the

following with respect to future harlequin duck monitoring efforts in the Salmo watershed:

1. A combination of systematic pre-incubation and brood inventory should be conducted every 3−4 years in the

same areas of the Salmo watershed that were surveyed in 1999 and 2000. Locations and numbers of adults

(1999 and 2000) and ducklings (2000 only) will serve as an excellent baseline against which to compare

analogous data gathered at 3−4 year intervals, depending on the degree of development in the watershed and

funding availability.

2. Pre-incubation surveys should be conducted during the second to third week of May, beginning with lower

portions of the watershed and proceeding to upper elevation, more snow-covered inaccessible reaches.

Hiking surveys are preferred for surveying confined reaches with high levels of canopy closure and riparian

shrub cover, as are generally found on Sheep Creek, the South Salmo River and on the mainstem from

Clearwater to Hidden Creek. In wider, more open portions of the watershed (e.g., Salmo River from Hidden

Creek downstream), drift boat surveys (in navigable sections) in combination with hiking surveys are

recommended. Helicopter surveys would be an efficient alternative in wider more open portions of the

mainstem (Aquatic Resources Ltd. 1998), but hiking/boat surveys permit simultaneous collection of more

detailed behavioural and habitat use information if desired. Surveys should be conducted by trained



observers walking upstream (or floating downstream in the case of a boat survey), noting the location, sex

and band status/coding of all individuals detected. Locations should be plotted on 1:20,000 trim maps or

1:15,000 air photos on site and if possible, and a hand-held GPS unit should be used to establish precise

locations.

3. Systematic brood surveys should be scheduled from the second week of July to mid-August and conducted

by experienced personnel using a combination of hiking and boat surveys. In addition to recording the

locations and numbers of females with ducklings and broodless females (analogous to pre-incubation

surveys), ducklings should be aged visually based on plumage characteristics (Appendix 2). As in 2000,

survival to class III should be used as a minimum criterion for duckling recruitment (in the absence of radio-

telemetry data or re-sightings of marked broods; see section 5.3).

4. During future survey years, SWSS members (and other watershed residents) should be encouraged to report

incidental adult and brood sightings. When gathered on a consistent basis, this information provides

important context for survey observations and supplements coverage of many areas. An information package

with details on how to report sightings (including data sheets describing what information to gather) should

be mailed to participating residents in late April of survey years. Incidental sightings reported by telephone

should be followed up by a biologist during pre-incubation and brood survey periods.

5. Potential impacts of landfill contaminants leaching from the Canex landfill site into Sheep Creek on harlequin

duck habitat suitability and use of lower Sheep Creek should be investigated. Evaluations should compare

densities, distributions and types of freshwater macroinvertebrates in conjunction with broad spectrum

toxicity sampling upstream and downstream of the site. Parallel monitoring of harlequin duck adult and

brood activity and success on upper and lower Sheep Creek would be helpful.

6. During 1999−2000, at least three banded birds were observed in the watershed and clearly, it would be

helpful to establish their band codes, trace where they were banded, establish where they overwinter, and

determine whether these same individuals return to breed locally in future seasons. Establishing a banding

and re-sighting program in our watershed as soon as possible would provide an opportunity to expand our

information base on survivorship and movements of individuals locally, as well as on their wintering

grounds. Although banding would have to be conducted by qualified personnel, there is ample opportunity

for SWSS members and other watershed residents to get more involved by reporting band sightings and

managing a band sightings database. Furthermore, the characteristics of the river are almost ideal (in terms

of access and logistics) for a concerted banding effort. A harlequin duck banding/re-sighting project has the

potential to enhance awareness and stewardship in the Salmo watershed, and throughout the Columbia Basin.

By linking with coastal researchers monitoring and banding harlequin ducks, it will also create a broader

awareness of local resource values and stewardship efforts.



5.2 PRESERVATION AND/OR ENHANCEMENT OF SPECIFIC SITES

Harlequin ducks are relatively long-lived and show high breeding site fidelity, therefore it is assumed that

confirmed breeding areas deserve the highest priority for protection. Concentrations of harlequin duck breeding

activity and/or successful broods were detected at Hall, Elise, Stewart, Porcupine, Hidden, Sheep and Creggan

Creeks on the mainstem, and along the Sheep Creek and South Salmo River. These areas should receive priority

as candidates for possible preservation efforts.

The Burlington Northern rail corridor runs parallel to the Salmo River mainstem from Clearwater to north of

Hearn Creek. The river is clearly visible along parts of this corridor (especially in May before leaf out) and the

potential for conflict between recreational users and harlequin ducks is highest where the corridor is immediately

adjacent to the river. Harlequin disturbance was observed anecdotally this summer near Hall, Elise, Stewart,

Ymir, Oscar, Porcupine and Hidden Creeks. These incidences involved use of motorised vehicles (i.e., ATVs,

dirt bikes, and motorcycles which were not used along the corridor prior to fall 1998) where pairs or broods were

active, causing them to flush and repeatedly leave an area. It is unknown whether harlequins habituate to such

disturbance over time or whether they eventually abandon frequently disturbed areas, as some studies have

suggested (Hunt and Clarkson 1993).

The CBFWCP should work closely with Burlington Northern, the Regional District, and the ‘rails-to-trails’

initiative to (i) define acceptable recreational uses for the corridor from late April to August with special

emphasis on harlequin ducks, (ii) encourage enforcement of regulations, and (iii) proactively delineate locations

for future amenities (e.g., camp sites, outhouses, fire pits) associated with future trail development. It is also

recommended that the CBFWCP initiate a broader harlequin duck awareness campaign to ensure that local

paddling clubs and businesses involved in kayak, canoe and whitewater rescue activities minimise potential

disturbance to harlequin ducks. A diversity of other wildlife (including sensitive species such as great blue

heron, wood duck, river otter, rubber boa, grizzly bear) use the Salmo River and adjoining floodplain areas

during the summer months (M. Machmer, pers. obs.). Proactive planning for responsible recreational use of the

river and corridor will minimise potential conflicts with wildlife and habitat requirements in future.

Acquisition of waterfront property is a consideration if the Burlington Northern property is eventually

subdivided and sold. Priority should be given to areas with multiple instream islands and bars, braided channels

and dense overhanging vegetation cover. Good candidate areas include the section from the upper to lower

Porto Rico bridge north of Ymir, the meandering section between Oscar and Porcupine Creeks along Wesco

Road, and the s-bend channels above and at Hidden Creek.



The mouth of Sheep Creek and the island network downstream to Linus Road is visible and easily accessible

from the highway. This section of river is bordered by private land and is a popular spot for recreation (fishing,

boating, swimming, picnicking, kayaking, canoeing, etc.) during the summer months. Intensive use of the

foreshore (as well as instream-islands inundated in May/June) by ATVs, dirt bikes and pick-up trucks was

observed in July and August when two broods were active in the area. Floodplain riparian areas should remain

off limits to motorised vehicles and posting signage coupled with enforcement and/or a public education

campaign may be helpful. Land acquisition between Sheep Creek mouth and Linus Road is also a possibility.

The Creggan Creek site upstream of the entrance to Shenango Canyon is an important adult loafing site, however

the area is more remote and currently unpopulated, minimising the need for special preservation considerations

at this time.

Sites that could be considered for future harlequin habitat enhancement efforts include those where previous

disturbance (e.g., logging, grazing, mining activities) have removed the riparian cover on both banks of an

otherwise suitable reach. A good example of a candidate area for enhancement would be the mouth of Ymir

Creek where old tailings devoid of vegetative cover occupy a significant portion of the foreshore. Incidental

observations were made of harlequins foraging in this area, however the habitat value would be significantly

enhanced through the establishment of riparian vegetation on and around the tailings. Similar examples of

tailings that require re-vegetation to promote wildlife use are found at Porcupine Creek mouth. Several stretches

along the rail corridor between Clearwater and Salmo are immediately adjacent to the river and could benefit

from some form of cover enhancement. This includes selected industrial sites located immediately adjacent to

the foreshore (e.g., Labyrinth Sawmill near Porcupine Creek and Eggers sawmill at Barrett Creek), as well as

private properties with extensive foreshore logging (e.g., between Hidden and Hearn Creeks and south of Lower

Airport Road on the mainstem).

Prior to 2000, a pair of harlequin ducks was active in the riffle area adjacent to highway 3 south of Salmo (just

south of the tailings pond where the gas pipeline was established in summer 2000). No activity was recorded in

2000 and re-vegetation of this area will be important to promote harlequin duck re-use in future. Similarly,

harlequin activity was previously observed along portions of the South Salmo River recently impacted by

landslides. Re-vegetation of selected sites (especially those in close proximity to the highway) would likely

benefit this species.

Enhancement involving strategic placement of boulders and logs to create suitable eddy habitat should be

considered in areas with intact riparian cover but a lack of suitable in-stream loafing sites. Examples of

candidate enhancement areas on the mainstem include the sections of river near Barrett Creek mouth, on lower

Porto Rico Road south to Ymir, from Ymir Creek mouth to 0.5 km below Oscar Creek mouth, between Hidden

and Hearn Creeks, and below Erie Creek mouth. The lower portion of Sheep Creek (Woodchuck Creek mouth

to Airport Road bridge) and the South Salmo River (Wilson to Lost Creek mouth) may also benefit from



additional substrate placement. Such activities should only be planned in close cooperation with fisheries

agencies.

5.3 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT

This study has improved our knowledge of harlequin duck breeding habitat selection in the Salmo watershed. It

would be useful to know if important habitat variables and ranges of channel characteristics (e.g., stream

gradients, wetted channel widths and depths) used in this study could be used to predict harlequin duck habitat

suitability in other watersheds. Findings from this study could be used to develop a habitat suitability model for

the Columbia Basin. Data on most variables important to harlequin ducks are gathered in conjunction with

1:20,000 Reconnaissance Fish and Fish Habitat Inventories (A. Chirico, pers. comm.), and there may be

opportunities to use information already available in this database to assist in ranking high, medium and low

suitability reaches in the basin. A subset of these could then be surveyed for harlequin broods, as a preliminary

test of the model.

Movements and survival of class III broods could not be established by observation and a more involved study

involving radio-telemetry techniques and/or marked birds would be required to address the latter questions. A

more detailed evaluation may be warranted in future, if population declines are detected during routine

monitoring efforts.

Copies of this report should be made available to watershed residents through the Salmo Public Library and the

Ymir General Store and findings should be extended to other parts of the Columbia Basin.



6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Aquatic Resources Limited. 1998. Studies of the biology of Harlequin Ducks in tree farm licence 48,northeastern British Columbia. Prepared for Canadian Forest Products Limited, Chetwynd Division. ARLRep. No. 258-3. 89pp.

Bengtson, S.A. 1972. Breeding ecology of the Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus (L.) in Iceland. OrnisScandinavica 3: 1-19.

Breault, A.M. and J.P.L. Savard. 1991. Status report on the distribution and ecology of Harlequin Ducks inBritish Columbia. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 110. 108pp.

Bruner, H. 1997. Habitat use and productivity of Harlequin Ducks in the central Cascade range of Oregon.M.Sc. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Burnham, K.P. and D.R. Anderson. 1998. Model selection and inference: a practical information theoreticapproach. Springer, New York.

Campbell, R.W. 1997. British Columbia Nest Record Scheme: Instruction Manual. Victoria, B.C. 46pp.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990. TheBirds of British Columbia. Vol. 1. Nonpasserines: Loons through Waterfowl. Royal B.C. Museum, Victoria,B.C.

Canadian Wildlife Service. 1997. The Harlequin Duck. Hinterland Who’s Who Series, Ottawa, Ont. 3pp.

Cassirer, F.E., A. Breault, P. Clarkson, D.L. Genter, R.I. Goudie, B. Hunt, S.C. Latte, G.H. Mittlehauser, M.McCullough, G. Shirato and R.L. Wallen. 1993. Status of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) inNorth America. Report of the Harlequin Duck Working Group, March 1993.

Cassirer, F.E. and C.R. Groves. 1991. Harlequin Duck ecology in Idaho: 1987-1990. Idaho Dept. of Fish &Game, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Boise, ID. 93pp.

Cassirer, F.E. and C.R. Groves. 1989. Breeding ecology of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in theAniksu National Forest, Idaho. Unpubl. Rep., Idaho Dept. of Fish & Game, Boise, ID. 48pp.

Cassirer, F.E. J.D. Reichel, R.L. Wallen and E.C. Atkinson. 1996. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus):United States Forest Service/ Bureau of Land Management habitat conservation assessment and conservationstrategy for the U.S. Rocky Mountains. Unpublished Technical Report, Idaho Dept. Fish & Game, Lewiston,ID. 52pp.

Clarkson, P. 1992. A preliminary investigation into the status and distribution of Harlequin Ducks in JasperNational Park. Unpublished Tech. Rep. Natural Resource Conservation, Jasper National Park, Alberta. 63pp.

Crowley, D.W. 1993. Breeding habitat of Harlequin Ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska. M.Sc. Thesis,Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Crowley, D.W. 1999. Productivity of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Pp 14-20 In R.I.Goudie, M.R. Petersen, and G.J. Robertson, eds. Behaviour and ecology of sea ducks. Occ. Paper No. 100,Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Freeman, S.D. and R.I. Goudie. 1998. Abundance, distribution and habitat use of Harlequin Ducks in the upperNahatlatch River, British Columbia, 1996/1997. Report to Forest Renewal BC.



Gollop, J.B. and Marshall, W.H. 1954. A guide for ageing duck broods in the field. Miss. Flyway Council Tech.Sect. Rep. 14pp.

Goudie, R.I. 1991. The status of the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) in eastern North America.Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, Ontario.

Goudie, R.I. 1989. Historical status of Harlequin Ducks wintering in eastern North America - a reappraisal.Wilson Bull. 101: 122-114.

Hunt, W.A. 1994. Jasper National Park Harlequin Duck research project. 1992 pilot projects – interim results.Jasper Warden Service Biological Report Series No. 1. 67pp.

Hunt, W.A. 1995a. Jasper National Park Harlequin Duck research project. Progress report – 1993 field season.Jasper Warden Service Biological Report Series No. 2. 52pp.

Hunt, W.A. 1995b. Jasper National Park Harlequin Duck research project. Progress report – 1994 field season.Jasper Warden Service Biological Report Series No. 3. 24pp.

Hunt, W.A. 1998. The ecology of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) breeding in Jasper National Park,Canada. M.Sc. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, B.C. 127pp.

Hunt, W.A. and P.V. Clarkson. 1993. The distribution, status, and conservation needs of the Harlequin Duck(Histrionicus histrionicus) on breeding ranges in the Candian Rocky Mountains. Unpublished Tech. Rep.,Parks Canada, Jasper.

Klohn-Krippen Consultants Ltd. 2000. Canex Landfill Hydrogeological Impact Assessment. Unpublished reportprepared for the Regional District of Central Kootenay, Nelson, B.C.

Kuchel, C.R. 1977. Some aspects of the behavior and ecology of Harlequin Ducks breeding in Glacier NationalPark, Montana. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 169pp.

McCullough, P. and J.A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Machmer, M.M. 1999. Pre-Incubation Inventory of Harlequin Ducks on the Salmo River. Report prepared forthe Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program by Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. and theSalmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society. 40pp.

Manly, B.F.J., L.L. McDonald, and D.L. Thomas. 1993. Resource selection by animals: statistical design andanalysis for field studies. Chaman & Hall, London.

Palmer, R.S. (ed.) 1976. Handbook of North American Birds, Vol. 3. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.

Reichel, J.D. and D.L. Genter. 1995. Harlequin Duck surveys in Western Montana: 1995. Montana NaturalHeritage Program. Helena, MT.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1998. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) fish and fish habitat inventory: standards andprocedures. Version 1.1. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.

Robertson, G.J. and R.I. Goudie. 2000. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) in A. Poole and F. Gill,editors. The birds of North America, No. 466. The birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,USA.

Rood, S.B. 1995. Cottonwoods along the Columbia River and potential impacts of river stage declinedownstream from the Keenleyside Dam, British Columbia. Dept. of Biological Sciences, Univ. ofLethbridge, Alberta. 27pp.



SAS Institute. 1997. SAS/STAT software: chances and enhancements through release 6.12. SAS Institute, Cary,NC.

Smith, C.M. 2000. Population dynamics and breeding ecology of Harlequin Ducks in Banff National Park,Alberta, 1995-1999. Unpublished Technical Report. Parks Canada, Banff National Park, Banff, Alberta,Canada. 107pp.

Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of theIntermountain Region. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

Wallen, R.L. 1987. Habitat utilization by Harlequin Ducks in Grand Teton National Park, M.Sc. Thesis,Montana State University, Bozeman. 67pp.

Wright, K.G. 1998. A preliminary survey of Harlequin Duck broods and other riverine birds on the Bridge andYalokom Rivers, British Columbia. Unpublished report prepared for B.C. Hydro. 14pp.

Wright, K.G. and T.A. Chatwin. 1997. Romancing the harlequin. Cordillera, Winter 1997, p. 36-42.

Wright, K. and P. Clarkson. 1998. Harlequin Duck monitoring in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. p. 8-9(source unknown).

Wright, K. and R.I. Goudie. 1998. Breeding distribution and ecology of harlequin ducks in British Columbia.Abstracts of the 4th Biennial Harlequin Duck Working Group and 1st Annual Pacific Flyway Symposium,March 2nd and 3rd. Otter Rock, Oregon.

Wright, K.K., H. Bruner, J.L. Li, R. Jarvis and S. Dowlan. 2000. The distribution, phenology, and prey ofHarlequin Ducks, Histrionicus histrionicus, in a Cascade Mountain stream, Oregon. Can. Field. Nat. 114:187-195.

Greetings Mainstem Property Owners,

I'm writing to let you know that the Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society (SWSS) is teaming up once againwith Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. to study Harlequin Ducks in our watershed. You may recall that thesebeautiful, yellow listed ducks overwinter on the coast. They migrate here in the end of April. They need fastflowing river habitat to breed. The males (drakes) arrive here first to find appropriate nesting/rearing areas toimpress their mates. Harlequins mate for life, after breeding the drakes return to overwintering areas to awaitreunion with the hens who stay behind to rear broods on their own. This year we have increased the scope ofour study to include breeding and rearing habitat characterization as well as an inventory. Our project willaptly be called "The Salmo River Harlequin Duck Inventory Monitoring And Breeding Habitat Assessment".Last year our "Pre-incubation Inventory of Harlequin Ducks in the Salmo River Valley" yielded an estimate of53 birds (35 males an 18 females) for the Salmo mainstem and Sheep Ck. Pre nesting individuals showed asomewhat clumped (rather than uniform) distribution in our area. Follow up brood surveys showed very lowlevels of Harlequin reproductive success for 1999.

We felt that these findings pointed to the need to further monitor reproductive success of this significantpopulation and to characterize our local breeding habitat requirements. This means that you may very well seePandion staff and streamkeepers members getting wet with tape measures and clinometers trying to discerndifferences between habitat that is used by these beautiful ducks and randomly chosen habitat locations. Fromthis information we will be able to locate "hotspots" (areas with females and broods) so that we can informvarious user groups to avoid or minimize use or impact within these areas, if they can, during brooding times.This information could also be useful in providing insight into future habitat management and conservationefforts as well.

Last years inventory raised a great deal of local concern for the "Best Dressed Duck Around". There were manyvolunteer hours spent by SWSS members, our youth group and mainstem property owners and others sightingand informing us of sightings. We hope this year we can match or even increase this participation. If you'reinterested please call us for convenient recording sheets. Enjoy watching these fascinating birds in ourwatershed.

For more information, to get answers to any of your questions or to voice any concerns please don't hesitate tocall me at 357-2630 or Pandion Staff at 354-0150.

Sincerely,

Gerry Nellestijn

TELEPHONE 250 357-2630 FAX 250 357-2630EMAIL [email protected]

PO BOX 718, SALMO, BRITISH COLUMBIA V0G 1Z0

John KrebsProject Biologist,Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation ProgramRe: Salmo River Harlequin Duck Inventory, Monitoring and Brood Habitat Assessment

Dear Mr. Krebs,

I am pleased to write this letter to briefly describe the involvement of the Salmo Watershed StreamkeepersSociety (SWSS) in the above mentioned study. SWSS has had a great deal of responsibility in promotingcommunity recruitment that has made this study a success. Also, we have almost single handedly contributedto the awareness that our community has of the biology and concerns of this beautiful species. We have donethis through the production and distribution of posters, community based presentations and news articles inlocal papers and we have trained local volunteers to be involved in low impact observation and recordingsightings. I assure you that these awareness options will continue to be utilized even after the contractual termswith the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program are completed.

SWSS members were responsible for many of the sightings of Harlequin from the first to the last sighting. Overa dozen river trips were undertaken by SWSS members, 9 of which were 'in kind'. Often these tripsaccomplished other goals in addition to locating Harlequin. Certainly they contributed to and positivelyaugmented Pandion effort. Hundreds of 'in kind' miles were contributed to ensuring a satisfactory Harlequinsighting and brood habitat assessment. SWSS members were fortunate enough to increase the quality andquantity of Harlequin photographic record, the hours spent and the equipment and film and processing costswere also largely 'in kind'. SWSS happily contributed to the knowledge and time necessary to complete thecharacterization of known brood habitat and randomly located comparative habitat. SWSS GPS equipment wasused in the course of this study.

We wish to thank you for the opportunity to work with the compensation project on this project. We areconfident that this effort has translated into increased membership and community knowledge and concern forour local Harlequin population. We also want to thank you for the productive knowledge, encouragement andfun we had working with Marlene Machmer of Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. Marlene in specific andPandion in general gave freely of knowledge and time to increase the capacity of our group. We look forwardto working with the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program in the future. Indeed, due toreduced numbers in observed Harlequin adults in our two years of inventory we recommend future monitoringbe undertaken.

Best Regards,

Gerry Nellestijn

TELEPHONE 250 357-2630 FAX 250 357-2630EMAIL [email protected]

PO BOX 718, SALMO, BRITISH COLUMBIA V0G 1Z0



APPENDIX 4.MAPSHEET: HARLEQUIN DUCK PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY 2000

This map is not included in the PDF version of the report due to its large size (5.5MB).A PDF copy of the map can be obtained by contacting CBFWCP at [email protected].

APPENDIX 5. DATABASE: HARLEQUIN DUCK PRE-INCUBATION SURVEY (IS) AND INCIDENTAL (I) SIGHTINGS

Rec# Type Observer(s)Date Time Location Channel Northing Easting Total Male Female Banded Band code

1 I G. Nellestijn 21-Apr-00 20:15 50 m S of Hidden Ck.mouth Salmo R. 5454050 482450 3 3 0 0 n/a2 I M. Machmer 22-Apr-00 16:00 at big rock below big instream island at Stewart Ck. Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a3 I G. Nellestijn 22-Apr-00 14:00 100 m N of Hidden Ck.mouth Salmo R. 5454100 482600 1 1 0 0 n/a4 I G. Nellestijn 23-Apr-00 11:00 50 m N of Hidden Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5461910 483600 1 1 0 0 n/a5 I M. Machmer 23-Apr-00 8:40 at big rock below big instream island at Stewart Ck. Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a6 I M. Machmer 24-Apr-00 17:10 floating S from right channel on big instream island Salmo R. 5461910 483600 1 1 0 1 lime green R with white writing; metal L7 I M. Machmer 25-Apr-00 19:15 at big rock below big instream island at Stewart Ck. Salmo R. 5461875 483580 3 2 1 0 n/a8 I M. Machmer 29-Apr-00 8:00 S. end of big instream island by log Salmo R. 5461820 483540 1 1 0 0 n/a9 I V. Kuzma 29-Apr-00 8:00 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 2 1 1 0 n/a10 I V. Kuzma 30-Apr-00 13:00 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 1 1 0 0 n/a11 I M. Machmer 01-May-00 19:50 E. bank on rock in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 2 1 1 0 n/a12 I M. Machmer 01-May-00 7:20 S. end of big instream island by log Salmo R. 5461900 483560 3 2 1 0 n/a13 I G. Nellestijn 01-May-00 16:30 500 m N of Hidden Ck. At deep hole Salmo R. 5454450 483050 1 1 0 0 n/a14 I Alice Nellestijn01-May-00 19:00 sauna cliff face S. of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482500 3 3 0 0 n/a15 I M. Machmer 02-May-00 7:00 W. bank by rocks in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 3 2 1 1 lime green R; metal L16 I M. Machmer 03-May-00 6:20 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 3 2 1 1 lime green R; metal L17 I M. Machmer 03-May-00 19:30 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 4 3 1 1 lime green R; metal L18 I G. Nellestijn 04-May-00 6:20 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 3 2 1 1 lime green R; metal L19 I M. Machmer 04-May-00 19:30 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 3 2 1 1 lime green R; metal L20 I M. Machmer 05-May-00 8:10 instream island at upper Porto Rico bridge Salmo R. 5463250 482350 2 1 1 0 n/a21 I V. Kuzma 05-May-00 9:00 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 4 4 0 0 n/a22 I G. Nellestijn 05-May-00 9:45 40 m S of Hidden Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5454050 482450 5 5 0 0 n/a23 I G. Nellestijn 05-May-00 11:45 250 m N of Sheep Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5443475 480750 2 1 1 0 n/a24 I G. Nellestijn 05-May-00 11:50 150 m N of Sheep Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5443400 480800 2 1 1 0 n/a25 I G. Nellestijn 05-May-00 11:55 Sheep Ck. Confluence Salmo R. 5443250 480750 2 1 1 0 n/a26 I M. Machmer 06-May-00 7:20 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 2 2 0 0 n/a27 I V. Kuzma 06-May-00 8:30 Westco Rd swimming hole Salmo R. 5456950 485050 1 1 0 1 lime green R with white writing; metal L28 I G. Nellestijn 06-May-00 9:00 40 m S of Hidden Ck. mouth Salmo R. 5454050 482450 3 3 0 0 n/a29 I V. Kuzma 07-May-00 21:30 Westco Rd swimming hole Salmo R. 5456950 485050 3 2 1 1 lime green R with white writing; metal L30 I M. Machmer 10-May-00 18:30 W. bank by rock in front of our place Salmo R. 5461875 483580 3 2 1 1 lime green R; metal L31 I V. Kuzma 10-May-00 7:45 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 2 2 0 1 lime green R with white writing; metal L32 I M. Machmer 11-May-00 18:30 channel by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 2 1 1 0 n/a33 I G. Nellestijn 11-May-00 7:40 100 m N of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454010 482700 2 1 1 0 n/a34 I G. Nellestijn 12-May-00 19:30 W. bank by rock in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 4 2 2 0 n/a35 I Carly 12-May-00 16:00 Wildhorse Ck. Mouth flying downstream Salmo R. 5459300 484400 3 2 1 0 n/a36 I G. Nellestijn 12-May-00 7:00 100 m N of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454010 482700 1 1 0 0 n/a37 I M. Machmer 13-May-00 9:45 S. end of big instream island Salmo R. 5461900 483510 4 2 2 0 n/a38 I M. Sadoway 14-May-00 16:00 Hall Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5468400 482700 1 1 0 0 n/a

Number of harlequin ducks

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. 31

Behavior Habitat Velocity Cover Comments

loafing/rock main riffle both near saunaswimming instream riffle one exposed on property sideswimming main rapid bothswimming main riffle bothswimming instream riffle/rapidoneswimming side rapid both went to Matt & Cindy'sforaging main riffle/rapidone also loafing on big rockloafing/rock instream riffle one also loafing on big rockloafing/rock main pool both flew away when approachedloafing/rock main pool bothswimming instream riffle/rapidone also loafing on logswimming instream riffle one also loafing on logswimming main riffle one at deep holeloafing/rock main rapid one loafing at cliff faceloafing/rock instream riffle one banded male tries to approach female and males fightforaging instream riffle one banded male approached pair and loafedloafing/log instream riffle oneloafing/log instream riffle oneloafing/log instream riffle one band has white writing; right legloafing/rock main rapid one very visible from bridge deckforaging main pool both swimming in deep hole and then foraging in riffle upstreamloafing/rock main riffle one driftboatswimming main pool both driftboat-right bank looking downswimming main pool both driftboat-left bank on mainstemswimming main rapid one drfitboat-at confluenceloafing/rock instream riffle one band has white writing; right legforaging main pool both loafing and foragingloafing/rock main pool oneloafing/rock main pool both banded male challenging paired male for femaleswimming instream riffle one banded male swims to attck loafing male of pairloafing/rock main pool both banded male challenging and fighting with unbanded maleswimming side riffle/rapidone foraging extensively in stream channelloafing/rock main riffle bothforaging instream riffle/rapidone foraging and loafing-photographedflying instream riffle one flying past store and downstreamswimming main riffle oneswimming instream riffle one both pairs courting and one female on instream islandswimming instream riffle both



39 I M. Machmer 14-May-00 10:00 S. end of big instream island Salmo R. 5461900 483510 3 2 1 0 n/a40 I V. Kuzma 14-May-00 9:00 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 1 1 0 1 lime green R with white writing; metal L41 I G. Nellestijn 14-May-00 13:00 200 M S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 5 4 1 0 n/a42 I M. Sadoway 15-May-00 20:00 S. end of Hall Ck. Opposite Sadoways Hall Ck. 5468350 482550 1 0 1 0 n/a43 I M. Machmer 15-May-00 7:45 large rapids S of big rock Salmo R. 5461800 483500 3 3 0 0 n/a44 I G. Nellestijn 15-May-00 19:00 200 m S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 3 3 0 0 n/a45 I M. Machmer 16-May-00 5:35 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 1 1 0 0 n/a46 I M. Sadoway 17-May-00 7:00 Hall Ck. Mouth Hall Ck. 5468400 482700 2 1 1 0 n/a47 I M. Machmer 17-May-00 6:00 bottom end of big instream island Salmo R. 5461820 483540 1 1 0 0 n/a48 I M. Van Wijk 17-May-00 14:30 Hidden Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5454050 482500 5 4 1 0 n/a49 I M. Van Wijk 17-May-00 16:30 Below Black bluffs at Creggan Ck. Salmo R. 5431500 478000 4 2 2 0 n/a50 I M. Machmer 18-May-00 6:45 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 1 1 0 0 n/a51 I M. Machmer 19-May-00 5:30 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 1 1 0 0 n/a52 I M. Machmer 19-May-00 7:45 bottom end of big instream island Salmo R. 5461820 483540 4 4 0 0 n/a53 I G. Nellestijn 19-May-00 10:30 200 m S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 4 3 1 0 n/a54 I M. Machmer 20-May-00 6:05 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 2 1 1 0 n/a55 I M. Machmer 20-May-00 18:00 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 2 1 1 0 n/a56 I M. Machmer 20-May-00 6:05 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 2 1 1 0 n/a57 I G. Nellestijn 20-May-00 10:30 50 M S of sauna beach Salmo R. 5454000 482470 6 5 1 0 n/a58 I G. Nellestijn 20-May-00 11:00 Ron Lee's property line where Act cut Salmo R. 5452300 481690 4 3 1 0 n/a59 I G. Nellestijn 20-May-00 11:30 100 m N of Stockdale's unnamed Ck. Salmo R. 5451800 481560 2 2 0 0 n/a60 I G. Nellestijn 20-May-00 14:15 right channel just downstream from Sheep Ck. Bridge Salmo R. 5443150 480610 2 2 0 0 n/a61 I M. Machmer 21-May-00 7:30 Stewart Ck mouth Salmo R. 5462140 483390 2 1 1 0 n/a62 I M. Machmer 21-May-00 19:18 W. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483530 2 1 1 0 n/a63 I M. Machmer 21-May-00 8:45 bottom end of big instream island Salmo R. 5461820 483540 1 1 0 0 n/a64 I G. Nellestijn 21-May-00 13:00 side channel 20 m upstream from Hidden Ck. Bridge Salmo R. 5454020 482650 1 0 1 0 n/a65 I M. Machmer 22-May-00 6:52 E. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 2 1 1 0 n/a66 I M. Machmer 22-May-00 12:00 E. bank by log in front of our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 2 1 1 0 n/a67 I M. Machmer 22-May-00 17:30 at big rock below big instream island at Stewart Ck. Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a68 I M. Machmer 22-May-00 20:00 at big rock below big instream island at Stewart Ck. Salmo R. 5461875 483580 4 3 1 0 n/a69 I G. Nellestijn 22-May-00 7:00 200 M S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 5 4 1 0 n/a70 I M. Machmer 23-May-00 6:48 E bank by rock and log in front of place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 1 0 0 n/a71 I G. Nellestijn 23-May-00 19:30 500 m N of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454450 483050 2 0 2 0 n/a72 I G. Nellestijn 23-May-00 6:45 200 M S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 4 3 1 0 n/a73 I M. Machmer 24-May-00 20:00 E bank by log Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 1 0 0 n/a74 I M. Machmer 24-May-00 18:30 below big instream island Salmo R. 5461820 483540 2 1 1 0 n/a75 I M. Machmer 25-May-00 18:00 E bank by log Salmo R. 5461925 483535 4 2 2 0 n/a76 I G. Nellestijn 25-May-00 19:30 100 m N of Hidden Ck. Under bridge Salmo R. 5454100 482600 1 0 1 0 n/a77 I M. Machmer 26-May-00 6:30 E bank by log Salmo R. 5461925 483535 2 1 1 0 n/a




loafing/rock instream riffle one female climbed onto island a few times during courtingswimming main pool both later loafing on rocksswimming main riffle bothswimming side riffle oneforaging main rapid both foraging in large rapidsloafing/rock main riffle one below cliff across from saunaloafing/rock instream riffle one foraging in large rapidsswimming side riffle one photographed and videotaped by braid in creekloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/gravel barmain riffle oneflying main riffle one could not tell if they had bandsloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle oneswimming instream riffle/rapidoneloafing/beachmain riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle oneswimming main riffle both driftboatloafing/rock main pool one driftboat-Ron Lee's property line where Act cutloafing/rock main riffle both driftboat-100 m N of Bill & June's beachloafing/rock main rapid both driftboat-got really close in boatflying main riffle both flying N. past Stewart Ck.loafing/rock instream riffle oneswimming instream rapid one in rapids below islandswimming side riffle both seen from bridgeswimming instream rapid one in rapids below islandswimming instream riffle oneloafing/rock main riffle both water level very high-have loafed here all dayloafing/rock main riffle both same pair plus 2 lone males 15 m Nloafing/rock main riffle both saunaloafing/rock main riffle one water very highswimming main riffle one deep hole 500 m upstream from Hiddenloafing/rock main riffle both saunaloafing/rock instream riffle oneforaging instream rapid one foraging near where 3 briads joinloafing/rock instream riffle oneswimming main riffle one under the bridgeloafing/rock instream riffle one



78 I M. Machmer 26-May-00 18:45 E bank by log Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 1 0 0 n/a79 I M. Machmer 27-May-00 19:00 below big instream island where 3 braids meet Salmo R. 5461820 483540 2 1 1 0 n/a80 I M. Machmer 27-May-00 19:10 below big instream island where 3 braids meet Salmo R. 5461820 483540 2 2 0 0 n/a81 I M. Machmer 28-May-00 17:40 willow bush by instream island opposite our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 0 1 0 n/a82 I M. Machmer 28-May-00 6:45 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a83 I M. Machmer 29-May-00 4:50 big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a84 I M. Machmer 29-May-00 17:45 big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 1 0 0 n/a85 I M. Machmer 29-May-00 21:00 big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a86 I M. Machmer 30-May-00 6:25 big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 1 0 0 n/a87 I M. Machmer 31-May-00 20:47 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 5 4 1 0 n/a88 I M. Machmer 31-May-00 8:45 big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 1 1 0 n/a89 I M. Machmer 31-May-00 18:00 big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 3 3 0 0 n/a90 I M. Machmer 01-Jun-00 17:30 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 1 0 0 n/a91 I M. Machmer 01-Jun-00 17:55 20 m upstream from Porcupine Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5456650 484830 3 2 1 0 n/a92 I M. Machmer 01-Jun-00 17:55 15 m downstream of Porcupine Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5456600 484750 1 1 0 0 n/a93 I G. Nellestijn 01-Jun-00 20:00 100 m N of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454100 482600 2 1 1 0 n/a94 I M. Machmer 02-Jun-00 8:00 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 3 1 2 0 n/a95 I G. Nellestijn 02-Jun-00 9:30 200 M S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 4 3 1 0 n/a96 I P. Neill 02-Jun-00 11:30 75 m N of Sheep Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5443420 480700 2 1 1 0 n/a97 I M. Machmer 03-Jun-00 7:00 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 2 1 1 0 n/a98 I M. Machmer 04-Jun-00 19:00 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 3 1 2 0 n/a99 I M. Machmer 04-Jun-00 17:45 18 m downstream from Hidden Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5454050 482450 2 1 1 0 n/a100 I M. Machmer 05-Jun-00 6:30 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 4 1 3 0 n/a101 I M. Machmer 05-Jun-00 18:40 by log across from our place Salmo R. 546925 483535 1 0 1 0 n/a102 I M. Machmer 06-Jun-00 19:35 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 0 n/a103 I M. Machmer 06-Jun-00 6:15 by log across from our place Salmo R. 546925 483535 1 0 1 0 n/a104 I M. Machmer 07-Jun-00 6:25 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 0 n/a105 I M. Machmer 07-Jun-00 18:40 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 0 n/a106 I M. Machmer 08-Jun-00 18:12 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 1 0 0 n/a107 I M. Machmer 09-Jun-00 15:15 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 0 n/a108 I M. Machmer 10-Jun-00 7:15 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 1 0 0 n/a109 I M. Machmer 10-Jun-00 19:45 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 0 n/a110 I M. Machmer 11-Jun-00 20:45 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 0 n/a111 I M. Machmer 12-Jun-00 7:30 E bank by log at instream island Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 0 1 0 n/a112 I G. Nellestijn 12-Jun-00 19:00 20 m N of Hidden Ck. Bridge Salmo R. 5454020 482650 1 0 1 0 n/a113 I M. Machmer 14-Jun-00 19:30 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 0 n/a114 I G. Nellestijn 14-Jun-00 7:00 Ron Lee's property line where Act cut Salmo R. 5452800 481800 5 2 3 0 n/a115 I G. Nellestijn 14-Jun-00 8:00 20 m N of Stockdale's unnamed Ck. Salmo R. 5451800 481575 2 1 1 0 n/a116 I M. Machmer 15-Jun-00 7:00 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 0 n/a




loafing/rock instream riffle oneforaging instream riffle both disturbed by kayakers and flew upstream out of areaflying main riffle both 2 more males flying upstream from matt & cindi's disturbed by kayakersfying instream riffle both female flies into island opposite willow bush-no obvious burrows visible but disappearedloafing/rock main riffle bothloafing/rock main riffle bothloafing/rock main riffle both later foraging in rapidsloafing/rock main riffle both female flies off and disappears at island-probably nesting on small or large island behindloafing/rock main riffle/rapidboth foraging in rapids downstreamloafing/rock instream riffle one all loafing at log and 4th male flies inloafing/rock main riffle/rapidbothloafing/rock main riffle/rapidone 2 males on rock; one besideloafing/rock main riffle bothloafing/gravel barmain riffle bothloafing/gravel barmain rapid bothloafing/rock main riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock main rapid both loafing against cliff face across from saunaflying main riffle both male flew into Cw 75 m upstream, then female, then male flew out; possible nest?loafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock main riffle bothforaging main rapid bothloafing/rock main riffle both water level high after sunny warm weekendloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock main riffle bothloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle oneloafing/rock main riffle both later swam up to instream island and stahyed >1hrloafing/rock main riffle bothloafing/rock main riffle/rapidboth foraging in rapids as wellloafing/rock main riffle/rapidbothloafing/rock main riffle both foraging as wellloafing/rock main riffle bothloafing/rock instream riffle one flew to instream island and disappeared again midwayswimming side riffle both on side channel just upstream of bridgeloafing/rock main riffle both water high for last 6-7 daysloafing/rock main rapid one drfitboat-loafing on large rocks at Ron Lee'sloafing/gravel barmain riffle both driftboat-on gravel bar above Stockdale's beachloafing/rock main riffle both water high for last 6-7 days



117 IS M.Machmer 08-May-00 10:00 between abandoned mine and Boy's camp Salmo R. 5470790 484598 2 1 1 0 n/a118 IS M.Machmer 08-May-00 10:40 40 m N of unamed Ck. between field and Hall Ck. Salmo R. 5470300 483200 2 1 1 1 lime green R; metla L119 IS M.Machmer 08-May-00 15:00 instream island at river bend at Spilkers beach Salmo R. 5469100 483970 2 1 1 0 n/a120 IS M.Machmer 08-May-00 17:30 on instream island at Hall Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5468400 482700 2 1 1 0 n/a121 IS M. Van Wijk 10-May-00 9:15 1.5 km S of Hall Ck mouth Salmo R. 5467550 483390 2 1 1 0 n/a122 IS M.Machmer 10-May-00 14:00 100 m downstream from pair Salmo R. 5467400 482200 1 1 0 0 n/a123 IS M.Machmer 10-May-00 15:50 0.5 km upstream from unnamed Ck.between Hall and Porto RicoSalmo R. 5466000 482400 2 1 1 0 n/a124 IS M.Machmer 09-May-00 10:30 at S border of our property with Matt & Cindi Salmo R. 5461400 483550 1 1 0 0 n/a125 IS M.Machmer 09-May-00 13:00 120 m N of Ymir-Wildhorse bridge Salmo R. 5459100 484510 1 1 0 0 n/a126 IS M.Machmer 09-May-00 14:15 Oscar Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5458400 485020 1 1 0 0 n/a127 IS M.Machmer 10-May-00 11:30 Porcupine Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5456600 484750 2 1 1 0 n/a128 IS M.Machmer 10-May-00 9:00 130 m S of Hidden Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5454000 482500 2 2 0 0 n/a129 IS M.Machmer 12-May-00 11:30 Erie Ck mouth Salmo R. 5448500 480600 1 1 0 0 n/a130 IS M. Van Wijk 16-May-00 10:05 20 m downstream of Nuggett/Sheep Ck confluence Sheep Ck. 5443700 488950 2 1 1 0 n/a131 IS M.Machmer 12-May-00 14:00 150 m upstream of Sheep Ck mouth Salmo R. 5443450 480750 1 1 0 0 n/a132 IS M. Machmer 07-May-00 15:55 gravel bar at mouth of Sheep Ck. Salmo R. 5443250 480750 2 2 0 0 n/a133 IS M. Machmer 07-May-00 13:40 50 m upstream from first fork on Sheep Ck. Road Sheep Ck. 5443250 483200 2 2 0 0 n/a134 IS M. Van Wijk 07-May-00 14:00 on Sheep Ck. near Aspen Ck mouth Sheep Ck. 5443090 485700 3 2 1 0 n/a135 IS M. Van Wijk 07-May-00 15:00 on Sheep Ck. At Annie Ro oneyCk. mouth Sheep Ck. 5443020 484380 1 1 0 0 n/a136 IS M. Machmer 07-May-00 12:00 instream island near trailer on lower S. Salmo South Salmo R.5435660 480350 3 2 1 0 n/a137 IS M. Machmer 07-May-00 9:00 40 m upstream of Lost Ck. Mouth South Salmo R.5435150 481750 2 1 1 0 n/a138 IS M. Van Wijk 11-May-00 14:00 40 m downstream from transmission line Between Pete & Creegan Cks.Salmo R. 5432300 478400 2 1 1 0 n/a139 IS M. Van Wijk 11-May-00 17:35 400 m upstream of Wallack Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5431700 476200 1 1 0 0 n/a140 IS M. Van Wijk 11-May-00 15:30 directly below Black bluffs at Creggan Ck. Salmo R. 5431500 478000 5 3 2 0 n/a




loafing/gravel barinstream riffle one west bank is part of old road to camp; small island presentswimming main riffle one loafing on upstream end of ssmall islandloafing/rock main riffle oneloafing/rock instream riffle both on cobble island right at mouthswimming main riffle bothswimming main riffle one no instream loafing rocks available hereswimming main riffle bothflying main riffle both flies downstream; found mossy burrow 2.5 m from high water at this spotloafing/rock main riffle one opposite footpath near Ymirswimming main rapid both flew downstreamloafing/rock main riffle one foraging near sauna at S-bend eddy and shoreline riffleforaging main riffle both foraging near sauna at S-bend eddy and shoreline riffleforaging main riffle one flew downstream 1.5 km with boatforaging main rapid bothloafing/rock main rapid both flew downstream with us to OG islandswimming main riffle one flew in from N on Salmo R.flying main rffle one males flew in from upstream Sheep Ck.swimming main rapid both diving on and around streamside bouldersloafing/rock main riffle both in middle of streamforaging main riffle both foraging in riffle below large instream island where 3 braids meetloafing/rock main riffle both large brown/orange boulder in centre of riverflying main riffle both flying upstreamloafing/rock main riffle/rapidbothloafing/rock main riffle/rapidnone lots of courtship displays and lone male chasing other males




APPENDIX 6.MAPSHEET: HARLEQUIN DUCK BROOD SURVEY 2000

This map is not included in the PDF version of the report due to its large size (5.5 MB).A PDF copy of the map can be obtained by contacting CBFWCP at [email protected].

APPENDIX 7. DATABASE: HARLEQUIN DUCK BROOD SURVEY (BS) AND INCIDENTAL (I) SIGHTINGS

Rec # Type Observer(s) Date Time Location Channel Northing Easting Total Male Female Duckling

1 I B. Bryce 14-Jun-00 8:00 CWD island at Porto Rico s-bend Salmo R. 5463005 482275 6 0 1 52 BS M. Machmer 17-Jun-00 12:45 by big rock to instream island Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 03 BS M. Machmer 17-Jun-00 12:45 by big rock to instream island Salmo R. 5461875 483580 7 0 1 64 BS M. Machmer 18-Jun-00 8:00 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 0 1 05 BS M. Machmer 18-Jun-00 6:30 1 km downstream of Hellroaring Ck. Salmo R. 5444700 480600 5 2 3 06 BS M. Machmer 18-Jun-00 15:00 2 km downstream of burnt out bridge on S-bend Salmo R. 5438020 480200 2 0 2 07 BS M. Machmer 19-Jun-00 18:45 by instream island across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 1 0 1 08 BS M. Machmer 20-Jun-00 18:00 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 2 0 2 09 BS G. Nellestijn 20-Jun-00 0:00 20 m N of Hidden Ck. bridge Salmo R. 5454020 482650 1 0 1 010 BS M. Machmer 21-Jun-00 12:45 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 1 0 1 011 BS M. Machmer 22-Jun-00 19:30 by log across from our place Salmo R. 5461925 483535 4 0 4 011 I S. Tarasoff 24-Jun-00 15:00 on gravel bar island in front of Steve's place Erie Ck. 5448700 478880 1 1 0 012 BS M. Machmer 25-Jun-00 7:30 75 m downstream from dome on Porto Rico Salmo R. 5463120 482480 2 0 2 013 BS M. Machmer 25-Jun-00 20:39 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 014 BS M. Machmer 25-Jun-00 10:00 in side channels behind big instream island near tracks Salmo R. 5462035 483400 4 0 1 315 BS M. Machmer 25-Jun-00 11:30 below lower bridge by pond outlet Salmo R. 5461900 483550 4 0 1 316 BS M. Machmer 26-Jun-00 19:35 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 017 BS M. Machmer 28-Jun-00 19:35 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 018 BS M. Machmer 29-Jun-00 19:30 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 2 0 2 019 BS P. Neill 29-Jun-00 9:30 by burnt out bridge Salmo R. 5439400 481190 2 1 1 020 BS M. Machmer 30-Jun-00 21:17 by big rock Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 021 BS M. Machmer 30-Jun-00 17:00 by liitle instream island in line with willow bush Salmo R. 5461950 483535 4 0 1 322 BS M. Machmer 01-Jul-00 20:00 Stewart Ck mouth Salmo R. 5462140 483390 1 0 1 023 BS M. Van Wijk 01-Jul-00 15:00 instream island at HB mine site Salmo R. 5443178 485479 4 0 1 324 BS M. Machmer 02-Jul-00 11:00 just below big OG island downstream of Sheep Ck bridge Salmo R. 5442800 480400 3 0 3 025 BS G. Nellestijn 02-Jul-00 11:00 200 m S of Sheep Ck. Salmo R. 5443000 480550 3 0 1 226 BS G. Nellestijn 04-Jul-00 12:00 200 m S of Sheep Ck. Salmo R. 5443000 480550 3 0 1 227 BS M. Machmer 04-Jul-00 19:30 N end of littler island in front of our place Salmo R. 5461950 483535 4 0 1 328 BS M. Machmer 05-Jul-00 19:20 S end of little island in front of our place Salmo R. 5461950 483535 5 0 1 429 BS M. Machmer 06-Jul-00 20:45 N end of big island in front of our place Salmo R. 5462000 483470 1 0 1 030 BS M. Machmer 06-Jul-00 20:45 N end of big island in front of our place Salmo R. 5462000 483470 4 0 1 331 BS M. Machmer 06-Jul-00 20:30 S end of big island in front of our place Salmo R. 5461820 483540 5 0 1 432 BS V. Kuzma 06-Jul-00 7:00 at Robertsons above swimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5457160 485120 6 0 1 533 BS M. Machmer 07-Jul-00 16:45 rock outcrop above Linus Rd Salmo R. 5442300 480200 3 0 3 034 BS M. Machmer 08-Jul-00 15:25 Westco Rd swimming holeswimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5456950 485050 1 0 1 035 BS G. Nellestijn 08-Jul-00 11:00 Creggan Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5431500 478000 3 0 3 036 BS G. Nellestijn 08-Jul-00 15:30 100 m N of Creggan Ck. Salmo R. 5431470 478100 2 0 2 037 BS G. Nellestijn 08-Jul-00 20:30 200 m S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 3 0 1 2




Banded Band code Code Stage Behavior Habitat Velocity Cover Comments

0 n/a B classIA swimming instream riffle one brood swimming N from behind rock by island channel0 n/a n/a swimming instream riffle both unbanded females sticking close to brood with female1 lime green R; metal LD classIA swimming instream riffle both brood swims N behind little island along big island; 2 unbanded females closeby0 n/a n/a loafing/rock instream riifle one0 n/a n/a loafing/gravel barmain riffle one garbadge pull-out area0 n/a n/a flying main riffle both flew all the way to Berberine's0 n/a n/a flying instream riffle one flying N to Stewart Ck.0 n/a n/a loafing/rock instream riffle one later swam downstream toward Matt & cindi's0 n/a n/a swimming side riffle one0 n/a n/a swimming main pool both foraged in riffles 20-25 m downstream0 n/a n/a loafing/rock instream riffle one 2 loafing; 2 swimming; lots of head bobs and display0 n/a n/a loafing/rock instream riffle one0 n/a n/a swimming instream pool one burrow 3.5 m away from waters edge ith concealed path to pool; possible nest?1 lime green R; metal Ln/a loafing/gravel barmain riffle both1 lime green R; metal LD classIB swimming side rifle both swimming in shallow riffle near shrub bank; cut into main channel1 lime green R; metal LD classIB swimming instream pool one swimming in pool area below outflow0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main riffle one 2nd female foraging0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle both swam towards instream island0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle/rapid both swam towards instream island0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main riffle none0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main riffle/rapid both area has turned into a pool adjacent to big rock1 lime green R; metal LD classIC foraging instream riffle one swam into channel between lttle and big instream island0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle/rapid both0 n/a H classIIA foraging main riffle both on instream island and then foraging upstream0 n/a n/a loafing/rock instream pool both photographed 200 m below island0 n/a I or J classIIA swimming main rapid both big rock on right channel of S end of OG island0 n/a I or J classIIA swimming main rapid both big rock on right channel of S end of OG island1 lime green R; metal LD classIIA swimming instream riffle both went in channel between little and big island when approached0 n/a C classIB swimming instream riffle one different brood; swam to N end of big island and disappeared behind0 n/a n/a flying instream riffle both flew from N end of big island to Stewart Ck mouth and loafed there1 lime green R; metal LD classIIA swimming instream riffle one swam back & forth across channel at N end with other brood 0 n/a C classIB swimming instream riffle one swam along little island and then big island to top0 n/a E classIC swimming main pool both0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main riffle both loafed for 30 minutes and then swam upstream0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle both flies upstream0 n/a n/a swimming main riffle both0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main rapid one seen below Black Bluffs0 n/a F loafing/gravel barmain pool/riffle both at sauna beach

Brood

Brood


Rec # Type Observer(s) Date Time Location Channel Northing Easting Total Male Female Duckling

38 BS G. Nellestijn 08-Jul-00 21:00 sauna shore at Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482500 3 0 1 239 BS M. Machmer 08-Jul-00 21:00 little island and N end of big island Salmo R. 5462000 483470 4 0 1 340 BS M. Machmer 08-Jul-00 21:00 little island and N end of big island Salmo R. 5462000 483470 5 0 1 441 BS M. Machmer 09-Jul-00 14:50 100 m downstream from bull trout hole on Westco Rd Salmo R. 5457250 485250 3 0 3 042 BS G. Nellestijn 09-Jul-00 14:30 100 m N of Creggan Ck. Salmo R. 5431600 478200 2 0 2 043 BS G. Nellestijn 09-Jul-00 11:00 Creggan Ck. Mouth Salmo R. 5431500 478000 3 0 3 044 BS G. Nellestijn 09-Jul-00 20:30 200 m S of Hidden Ck. Salmo R. 5454000 482470 3 0 1 245 BS M. Machmer 11-Jul-00 21:00 60 m upstream from Stewart Ck Salmo R. 5462190 483390 5 0 1 446 BS V. Kuzma 11-Jul-00 9:00 at Robertsons above swimming hole at Westco Rd Salmo R. 5457160 485120 6 0 1 547 BS M. Machmer 12-Jul-00 16:20 Hall Ck mouth Salmo R. 5468400 482700 3 0 3 048 BS M. Machmer 12-Jul-00 16:00 Hall Ck mouth Salmo R. 5468400 482700 6 0 1 549 BS G. Nellestijn 13-Jul-00 18:15 100 m N of Creggan Ck. Salmo R. 5431600 478200 2 0 2 050 BS M. Machmer 13-Jul-00 17:00 100 m upstream of Hall Ck Salmo R. 5468500 482800 6 0 1 551 BS M. Machmer 16-Jul-00 7:30 200 m upstream of oscar Ck mouth Salmo R. 5458450 484800 1 0 1 052 BS M. Machmer 16-Jul-00 9:30 150 m N of Westco Rd settlement area Salmo R. 5457800 485300 1 0 1 053 BS M. Machmer 16-Jul-00 12:30 160 m N of Porcupine Ck mouth Salmo R. 5456750 484980 1 0 1 054 BS M. Machmer 16-Jul-00 20:30 opposite outhouse and large instream island on our property Salmo R. 5462000 483470 5 0 1 455 BS James Baxter 18-Jul-00 10:30 100 m N of Labyrinth Sawmill Salmo R. 5455700 484110 2 0 2 056 BS G. Nellestijn 18-Jul-00 7:00 between Hidden Ck. Bridge and Ck Salmo R. 5454000 482620 1 0 1 057 BS James Baxter 18-Jul-00 10:00 Westco Rd bull trout hole Salmo R. 5457300 485350 6 0 1 558 BS M. Machmer 19-Jul-00 20:00 big rock at our place Salmo R. 5461875 483580 1 0 1 059 BS G. Nellestijn 19-Jul-00 7:00 between Hidden Ck. Bridge and Ck Salmo R. 5454000 482620 1 0 1 060 BS V. Kuzma 19-Jul-00 17:00 deep bull trout hole below Foxes place Salmo R. 5457300 485350 6 0 1 561 BS Marlene Machmer21-Jul-00 16:30 little island in front of our place Salmo R. 5461950 483520 1 0 1 062 BS K. Maloney 21-Jul-00 12:00 large OG island below Sheep Ck Salmo R. 5443000 480550 3 0 1 263 BS K. Maloney 21-Jul-00 12:15 rock outcrop above Linus Rd Salmo R. 5442300 480200 3 0 1 264 BS J. Baxter 21-Jul-00 18:00 bull trout hole on Westco Rd Salmo R. 5457300 485350 6 0 1 565 BS Marlene Machmer22-Jul-00 11:30 lower outflow areaat our pond Salmo R. 5461900 483550 1 0 1 066 BS Marlene Machmer25-Jul-00 14:30 bull trout hole on Westco Rd Salmo R. 5457300 485350 1 0 1 067 BS G. Nellestijn 25-Jul-00 7:00 between Hidden Ck. bridge and Ck Salmo R. 5454000 482650 1 0 1 068 BS Marlene Machmer25-Jul-00 15:45 across from VW van on Westco Rd Salmo R. 5457450 485500 6 0 1 569 BS M. Machmer 26-Jul-00 15:00 large OG island below Sheep Ck Salmo R. 5443000 480550 1 0 1 070 I J. Stockdale 27-Jul-00 12:30 Stockdale's beach Salmo R. 5451800 481575 6 0 1 571 BS G. Nellestijn 31-Jul-00 7:00 between Hidden Ck. bridge and Ck Salmo R. 5454000 482650 3 0 1 272 BS G. Nellestijn 01-Aug-00 7:00 between Hidden Ck. bridge and Ck Salmo R. 5454000 482650 2 0 0 273 BS M. Machmer 04-Aug-00 11:00 upstream of frisbee field Salmo R. 5460700 483775 6 0 1 574 BS G. Nellestijn 06-Aug-00 19:30 200 M S of Hidden creek Mouth Salmo R. 5454000 482470 5 0 0 575 BS G. Nellestijn 08-Aug-00 19:25 Hidden Ck sauna beach Salmo R. 5454000 482500 5 0 0 576 BS P. Neill 08-Jun-00 12:00 25 m upstream of Sheep Ck. Salmo R. 5443250 480750 7 0 1 6


Banded Band code Code Stage Behavior Habitat Velocity Cover Comments

0 n/a F loafing/rock main riffle one loafed by sauna and then swam N1 lime green R; metal LD classIIA swimming instream riffle both swimming with other brood of 4 smaller chicks plus female0 n/a C classIC swimming instream riffle both swimming with other brood of 3 bigger chicks plus female0 n/a n/a swimming main riffle both swam downstream0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main rapid one seen below Black Bluffs0 n/a n/a swimming main riffle both0 n/a F loafing/gravel barmain pool/riffle both at sauna beach0 n/a C classIC loafing/rock main riffle both foraging here as well0 n/a E swimming main pool both0 n/a n/a loafing/gravel barmain riffle both loafing on gravel bar of S bank0 n/a A classIIA loafing/gravel barinstream riffle both loafing of gravel bar E bank under veg and left when we arrived0 n/a n/a swimming main rapid both below Black Bluffs0 n/a A classIIA foraging main riffle both loafing on log covered in whitewash0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle one female foraging with merg female and brood of 6 chicks0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle both0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle both0 n/a C classIIA swimming instream riffle both0 n/a n/a swimming main riffle both0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle one0 n/a E swimming main riffle one below Foxes at 2nd deep hole0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main riffle both0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle one0 n/a E classIIC swimming main pool both0 n/a n/a flying instream riffle both female flew past going N0 n/a I classIIC loafing instream riffle both on east bank0 n/a J classIIC loafing main riffle both0 n/a E classIIC swimming main pool both0 n/a n/a loafing/rock instream riffle one0 n/a n/a loafing/rock main pool both left when tubers appraoched area0 n/a n/a foraging main riffle one0 n/a E classIII foraging main riffle both0 n/a n/a loafing instream riffle both on east bank0 n/a G unknown swimming main pool both dog chased them downstream0 n/a F classIII foraging main riffle one full feathers but tail blunt; couldn't fly0 n/a n/a classIII foraging main riffle one no mom present0 n/a E? classIII loafing/rock main riffle both mom and chicks just about the same size0 n/a G loafing/rock main riffle one on sauna beach and no apparent mom0 n/a G classIII swimming main riffle bone on east bank and no mom present0 n/a I or J classIA swimming main riffle both brood in shadows and hard to see; 6 or 5 chicks?


APPENDIX 8. SUMMARY OF HABITAT SAMPLING IN BROOD USE (U) AND RANDOM (R) PLOTS

PLOT# Channel Wet Wet % Stream % Veg % Screen VegDATE # TYPE NORTHINGEASTING width width depth gradient cover cover height m

03-Aug-00 1 U 5461875 483580 23.07 12.83 0.53 1.2 12 62.5 5

03-Aug-00 2 U 5461900 483550 33.17 18.57 0.67 2.2 22 70 3

03-Aug-00 3 U 5461950 483535 67.30 19.47 0.37 0.7 35 60 4.5

03-Aug-00 4 U 5462000 483470 68.37 30.23 0.37 1.3 50 75 3.5

03-Aug-00 5 U 5462190 483390 20.47 14.30 0.77 1.8 5 50 10

03-Aug-00 6 U 5463005 482275 44.53 18.20 0.67 2 40 45 4

04-Aug-00 7 U 5468500 482800 21.07 15.33 0.47 1.4 20 67.5 6

04-Aug-00 8 U 5468400 482700 25.53 13.40 0.47 2.1 30 70 11

04-Aug-00 9 U 5457450 485500 26.90 25.97 0.55 1 18 35 13.5

04-Aug-00 10 U 5457350 485450 34.37 18.93 0.87 0.5 5 30 8

04-Aug-00 11 U 5457000 485350 30.37 16.50 1.76 1.5 15 75 13

04-Aug-00 12 U 5454050 482500 44.03 31.47 0.57 2.2 5 25 13.5

04-Aug-00 13 U 5454000 482500 52.47 20.17 0.71 1.6 15 30 10

04-Aug-00 14 U 5451800 481575 29.47 16.40 1.38 0.3 8 42.5 12

04-Aug-00 15 U 5443000 480550 29.60 22.43 0.68 0 35 45 15

04-Aug-00 16 U 5442800 480400 28.57 24.17 1.46 1 22 35 21.5

04-Aug-00 17 U 5443300 480900 34.90 28.80 1.73 0.9 30 60 15

14-Aug-00 18 U 5443178 485479 26.27 15.73 0.73 3.2 35 57.5 8.5

07-Aug-00 19 U 5442300 480200 123.33 36.67 2.33 1 4 47.5 11

07-Aug-00 20 U 5460700 483775 22.33 18.93 0.54 0.3 30 42.5 8

07-Aug-00 21 U 5456950 485050 30.17 18.60 1.32 0.5 10 70 13

11-Aug-00 22 R 5470790 484598 24.83 11.60 0.43 1.8 15 45 7.25

11-Aug-00 23 R 5470406 483564 17.03 10.27 0.44 2.3 35 47.5 13.5

11-Aug-00 24 R 5469068 482945 27.00 11.63 0.41 0.5 12 52.5 8.5

11-Aug-00 25 R 5467797 482347 15.50 11.60 0.74 1 17 80 8

11-Aug-00 26 R 5464845 482602 20.13 15.63 0.56 1.5 13 75 11

11-Aug-00 27 R 5464284 482520 20.80 17.17 0.54 1 17 17.5 6

12-Aug-00 28 R 5456736 484863 40.67 20.87 0.56 0.7 13 57.5 8.5

12-Aug-00 29 R 5448645 480615 31.20 21.90 0.64 0.5 10 30 3.75

12-Aug-00 30 R 5448255 480618 42.27 32.90 0.52 0.2 15 25 2.75

12-Aug-00 31 R 5444325 480729 54.27 51.53 1.01 0.6 8 89 5

12-Aug-00 32 R 5440946 480402 50.13 29.10 1.48 0.2 0 45 4.5

12-Aug-00 33 R 5438856 480850 40.77 31.03 1.17 0.5 5 20 12

12-Aug-00 34 R 5434912 479690 43.57 34.37 1.15 0.5 15 35 4.25

13-Aug-00 35 R 5463542 482488 23.33 16.53 0.48 2 15 75 8

13-Aug-00 36 R 5462228 483368 23.10 12.93 0.44 0.9 6 40 1.25

14-Aug-00 37 R 5448674 478934 37.10 13.43 0.30 1.3 15 40 5

14-Aug-00 38 R 5443310 481891 17.60 11.13 0.78 2.1 18 35 5.5

14-Aug-00 39 R 5443789 488835 20.43 15.13 0.56 4 20 52.5 15

14-Aug-00 40 R 5443680 489050 18.37 12.60 0.44 3.9 17 65 25

14-Aug-00 41 R 5431562 484877 37.67 14.53 0.56 2 15 25 14

LOCATION


# Loaf Trib# area # area sites distance Boulder Cobble Gravel Fine BedrockPool Glide Riffle CascadeEddy <30 cm

0 0 1 40 3 336.3 5 85 0 0 10 0 33 65 2 0 30

1 20 3 20 3 304.6 6 90 2 2 0 0 60 35 5 3 50

2 50 3 15 3 272.4 10 90 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 80

3 50 6 20 3 126.4 15 80 0 5 0 0 75 25 0 0 80

0 0 1 30 2 78.0 13 80 0 5 2 5 60 30 5 5 40

3 35 3 35 3 334.2 15 69 3 3 0 0 35 60 5 0 40

0 0 1 35 2 199.4 2 96 0 2 0 5 63 20 2 5 45

1 10 5 65 3 21.2 5 70 10 10 5 20 10 60 10 5 70

0 0 0 0 1 1507.3 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 45

0 0 2 60 1 1204.2 2 53 5 15 25 10 60 30 0 5 50

0 0 2 50 2 599.7 0 65 0 10 25 13 50 35 2 5 20

0 0 3 35 2 170.4 15 80 0 5 0 0 65 30 5 0 65

2 8 2 65 1 204.8 5 83 2 10 0 10 70 20 0 0 10

0 0 3 40 3 2208.3 5 44 10 6 35 15 60 25 0 5 20

0 0 1 2 3 311.8 50 30 0 5 15 0 13 80 2 0 60

1 5 2 20 3 589.7 30 30 0 20 20 40 45 15 0 10 15

0 0 3 30 3 20.9 55 20 5 20 0 10 73 7 10 10 0

1 15 2 35 3 1097.2 70 20 7 3 0 0 20 70 10 0 20

2 60 4 30 3 1141.4 10 68 2 5 15 30 50 15 5 5 30

0 0 2 15 2 1632.2 15 60 5 5 15 10 80 10 0 5 80

0 0 2 40 2 398.2 15 25 10 10 40 50 33 15 2 25 15

0 0 3 50 2 306.9 15 80 3 2 0 0 35 55 5 0 75

0 0 2 20 3 874.7 25 65 3 7 0 0 20 80 0 0 85

0 0 2 75 1 434.7 5 70 15 10 0 0 25 75 0 0 75

0 0 1 20 3 176.2 15 80 3 2 0 0 90 10 0 0 75

0 0 2 30 3 23.5 20 73 5 7 0 0 73 20 7 0 50

0 0 2 20 1 431.0 15 75 5 5 0 0 85 15 0 0 85

0 0 2 42 2 112.4 7 90 2 1 0 0 92 8 0 0 50

0 0 2 15 2 140.5 5 85 3 2 5 2 78 20 0 1 40

0 0 1 10 2 46.6 10 82 3 5 0 2 96 2 0 0 85

0 0 2 4 1 1094.1 0 74 18 8 0 5 87 8 0 0 50

0 0 1 25 0 2719.1 0 4 92 2 2 20 80 0 0 0 15

0 0 1 30 0 4886.3 2 65 20 5 8 20 80 0 0 0 20

0 0 1 3 2 24.2 50 27 10 10 3 25 74 1 0 0 15

0 0 0 0 3 343.1 70 27 1 2 0 0 65 35 0 0 45

0 0 2 30 3 119.2 45 45 3 2 0 0 85 15 0 0 50

1 7 1 60 1 4103.1 15 75 3 7 0 0 90 10 0 0 90

0 0 1 15 3 288.1 75 15 7 3 0 0 10 80 10 0 15

0 0 2 15 3 323.6 75 15 8 2 0 0 17 75 8 0 35

0 0 1 8 3 66.7 75 15 7 3 0 0 10 70 20 0 45

2 40 4 20 3 4525.6 40 30 10 20 0 0 20 70 10 0 35

% HABITAT TYPEIsland Bar % SUBSTRATE TYPE


Comments

almost half the channel is a cobble gar

mowed lawn on RB; 3 channels come together into 1 here

braided channel with 3 parts all through plot

large island had 2 smaller channels running through it; braided channel all through plot

young otters observed on left bank

area is exposed to the road from above the LB; lots of large CWD

bit of debris build-up-they use these logs for loafing

lots of overhanging cover; adult female flies by plot

uniform glide throughout on straight stretch

huge gravel bar and bedrock are dominant features

cobble island with large log and lots of large loafing boulders

otter family at plot

cobble bars and swimming hole are dominant features

bedrock face and OG stand are dominant features

lots of whitewash on boulders; adult HADU just downstream

deep swimming hole and large rock outcrop with whitewash-loafing site

deep hole; lots of whitewash on boulders

RB exposed to road; some harvesting above LB

nice fines/gravel bar with overhanging veg

busy swimming area in July/August

RB is a dirt road' pair observed 28m s of plot in May

shady microsite and lots of debris in channel

across from old log jam

tailings pond on S end of plot

whole plot visible from bridge; lots of stonefly larvae cases

dyked on LB; propoerty with dog & houses all along

well screened on both sides

histroical logging with act regen

cows grazing all along RB

beaches on either side with activity

straight channel with no curves, bars, etc.

close to confirmed brood sighting

nice Cw-Hw forest on both sides


salmo river harlequin duck inventory, monitoring and brood ... · stream loafing sites (i.e., large...

Documents