MONTANA STATE This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes MUN I MNM 3 I Alt LlttHAH Y 3 0864 0009 8255 6 iritue^KTus RESULTS OF HARLEQUIN DUCK (Histrionicus histrionicus) SURVEYS IN WILDERNESS AREAS OF THE FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION NOV 1997 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY „ 1515 E. 6th AVE. by HELENA, MONTANA 59620 David N. B. Lee and David L. Genter Montana Natural Heritage Program 1515 East Sixth Avenue Helena, MT 59620 to the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Flathead National Forest Kalispell, Montana Cooperative Challenge Cost Share Program Montana Natural Heritage Program Flathead National Forest October 1991 "^ 1 ■ » ' ■ - ■-; ■• ■■ ■ , ■ :• y TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5 SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 7 SURVEY AREA 9 METHODS 11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 13 The Stream Surveys 13 Harlequin Sightings 13 Habitat Characteristics 18 Stream Flow 22 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 4 LITERATURE CITED 26 APPENDIX A 28 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Stream Survey Data 15 Table 2. Harlequin Duck Sightings, June-August, 1991 Flathead National Forest 16 Table 3. Habitat Components of Streams Surveyed 19 Table 4. Stream Flow Data 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Harlequin Duck occurrences, Hungry Horse and Spotted Bear Ranger Districts 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dave Lee and Rob Work conducted field surveys with assistance from Dave Genter and John Carlson. Forest Service staff at Spotted Bear Ranger District provided logistical support. Pat Troyer, Al Koss, Sue Johnson, Dave York, Gordon Ash, and Jerry Hess all contributed to the success of the study. Nancy Warren at the Flathead National Forest Supervisor's Office provided support and technical review of the project and report. Staff of the Hungry Horse Ranger District also assisted with field logistics. Staff of the Montana Natural Heritage Program provided technical advice, mapping, and logistical support throughout the study. SUMMARY Surveys of Harlequin Duck habitat were conducted during June through August 1991 in the wilderness portion of the Flathead National Forest. Over 220 miles (352 km) of stream were surveyed, yielding six sightings of Harlequin Ducks, totaling 13 individuals and two broods. In addition, eight other sightings in the study area were reported by Forest Service staff and private citizens. Most sightings occurred in the drainage of the South Fork of the Flathead River. Harlequin Ducks are localized and uncommon throughout the area. Descriptive data on stream characteristics such as loafing sites, streambed composition, stream-bank vegetation, and flow rates are presented. Record high spring runoff was recorded in the Flathead River and throughout western Montana during 1991. This reduced brood production to less than 15% of pairs attempting to nest statewide, thus contributing to the already limited productivity of the Harlequin Duck. Despite the low brood numbers, wilderness portions of the Flathead National Forest - particularly tributaries and main-stem waters of the South Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River - are identified as significant nesting and rearing areas for Harlequin Ducks in western Montana. Potential management challenges to maintaining this breeding population are discussed. INTRODUCTION In the Rocky Mountain region, Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) are known to occur as rare and local breeders from northwestern Wyoming to British Columbia and Alberta. Western Montana is near the eastern limit of their breeding range, and according to Kuchel (1977) , breeding populations are uncommon and localized in this region. The western populations of harlequins winter along the north Pacific coast on rocky seashores from the Aleutian Islands to central California (Kuchel 1977) . A few individuals marked in northwest Wyoming and northern Idaho have been sighted near the San Juan Islands off Washington's northern coast (Cassirer and Wallen, unpubl . data) . Harlequins return in March and April to inland breeding sites, which are usually located on fast moving, low gradient mountain streams with high water quality and dense vegetation (Wallen and Groves 1989) . Although some streams appear to be ideal harlequin habitat, human disturbance and precise ecological requirements severely restrict harlequins' breeding range (Kuchel 1977) . After mating, males return to the Pacific coast (late May - early July) and are followed by females and their broods in late August and early September (Kuchel 1977, Miller 1989) . In 1990, Carlson (1990) surveyed several streams for Harlequin Ducks on the North, South and Middle forks of the Flathead River, concentrating mainly on non-wilderness areas in the Flathead National Forest (FNF) . This study compliments Carlson's efforts and attempts to determine the status of breeding Harlequin Ducks in the wilderness portion of the FNF. While information on Harlequin Ducks remains sparse in the literature, several studies have provided insights on their management needs. Among the earliest and most thorough studies of harlequin biology are those conducted in Iceland by Bengston (1966, 1972) and Bengston and Ulfstrand (1971). Kuchel ' s (1977) classic study on harlequin breeding behavior and ecology in Glacier National Park provides the most complete account for the species to date in the western U.S. Other surveys of breeding harlequins include Miller's work on the lower Clark Fork River (Miler 1988, 1989), and Carlson's (1989) surveys on the FNF. Other recent studies have been completed by Dzinbal (1982) , who studied harlequin ecology in Prince William Sound, Alaska and Wallen (1987) , who examined habitat utilization by harlequins in Teton National Park, Wyoming. Several workers have completed m research projects in Idaho, including Cassirer (1989) , who studied harlequin distribution and status on the Nez Perce National Forest and Wallen and Groves (1988, 1989) efforts on harlequin distribution, breeding biology and nesting habitat in northern Idaho. » SURVEY AREA All of the surveys completed were in the Flathead National Forest, northwest Montana and most were in the Bob Marshall, Great Bear and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas of the Forest (Fig. 1) . A few streams were surveyed in the non-wilderness area of the Forest (see Table 1) . The surveys were conducted along three main drainages; the South and Middle Forks of the Flathead River and the Spotted Bear River. Tributaries and side creeks of these drainages comprised the remainder of the survey mileage. Two days were spent on the southern end of the Forest surveying Monture Creek and the North Fork of the Blackfoot River, sections of which lie in the adjacent Lolo National Forest. Harlequin Duck Occurrences Hungry Horse and Spotted Bear Ranger Districts A/ Breeding Habitat Af Surveyed Stream Segments Brood locations Flathead National Forest Wilderness Areas Other National Forest 3 Glacier National Park ["' '-"I Indian Reservations I State Lands Corporate Timber Lands Scale in Miles 0 4 8 12 3/30/95 Montana State Library NRIS Natural Resource Inl'omatkn Syssm Montana Natural Heritage Program 10 METHODS Harlequin Duck summer habitat has been defined by Wallen and Groves (1989) as low gradient mountain creeks and rivers that are greater than 10 meters wide, lined by dense vegetation along their streambanks and contain high quality water. Streams surveyed were selected using these criteria, recommendations by Montana Natural Heritage Program Staff, and reported sightings of Harlequin Ducks in the FNF . The study began on June 24 and ended on August 28, 1991 . Three types of surveys were utilized: dry land, floating, and wading. Early in the study, when streams were in their flood stage, wading and floating were not possible, and land surveys (i.e. walking and bushwacking along streambanks) were most practical. Later, as water levels dropped and currents quieted, wading and floating became possible. Both wading and floating were far more accurate than land surveys. During land surveys the observer's view of the stream was often obstructed by vegetation and other obstacles. Hens and young birds will occasionally hang close to the bank, thus avoiding detection from the land. 11 Survey accuracy was evaluated using the concept of sighting potential. The possibility of seeing a subject that was swimming or loafing in the stream was defined as the sighting potential, expressed as a percentage of the length of stream surveyed. The average sighting potential for land surveys was estimated at 64%, whereas the average sighting potential for wading and floating was about 95%. Several stream characteristics were recorded during the surveys. The number of logjams, cliff loafing sights, mid-stream loafing sights, stream bed composition, bank vegetation type, percent ground cover, channel type and human proximity were summarized for each mile of stream (see Appendix A for definitions of the above variables) . Flow rate, stream depth and width were measured at the mouth of each creek. Flow rate was determined by timing a float attached to a 5-meter length of monofilament. Steam depth was measured using a calibrated rope weighted with a rock, and stream width was estimated using a pair of binoculars as a range finder. Volume of stream flow was then calculated using methods described by Robins and Crawford (1954) . When harlequins were sighted, time, exact location, stream habitat characteristics, and notes on behavior were recorded. 12 The number of individuals, and their sex and age, was also noted. A summary was completed for each survey day. The summary included miles of stream surveyed, hours required to complete the survey, survey type, number of observers, sighting potential, other waterfowl, weather and site condition. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Stream Surveys Over 220 miles of creeks and rivers were surveyed between June 24 and August 28, 1991. Some streams in the study area were not surveyed because they did not meet certain criteria for Harlequin Duck habitat, usually the size at the stream's mouth. For streams that were wide enough, we attempted to survey at least five miles upstream from the mouth. Table 1 summarizes the streams surveyed, as well as the length, start and stop point for each survey. Harlequin Sightings A total of 25 harlequins were recorded in the study area: 13 13 from our direct observations and 12 from qualified reports of others. Of those 25, eight were sighted alone and nine were sighted in adult groups. The remaining birds were in two broods, one of two ducklings and the other of four. Harlequins were observed in five of the 31 surveys conducted (Table 1) . This yields an average of about one sighting per 50 miles of stream surveyed. Data from these sightings and those reported by Forest Service employees and private individuals are presented in Table 2. Fourteen sightings are summarized in Table 2. Almost half of those (6) , were either on the South Fork of the Flathead or on one of its tributaries. Four of the sightings occurred on the Spotted Bear River, and three on the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. The remaining sighting was on the North Fork of the Blackfoot River. 14 Table 1 . Stream Survey Data River/ Creek Date Miles Ducks Present Start Point Stop Point South Fork* South Fork* South Fork* Gordon Ck South Fork* South Fork* Spotted Bear River Gordon Ck Young ' s Ck Babcock Ck Danaher Ck South Fork* Holbrook Ck thite River outh Fork* Big Salmon Little Salmon South Fork* South Fork* "■■unker Ck Wheeler Ck Dolly Varden Ck Strawberry Ck Schafer Ck Middle Fork* South Fork* Riverside Ck Ryle Ck Monture Ck North Fork, Blackfoot River 6/24/91 4 6/26/91 5 6/27/91 3 6/27/91 3 6/28/91 5 7/2/91 3 7/7/91- 32 7/14/91 7/18/91 6 7/20/91- 14 7/21/91 7/22/91 6 7/24/91 9 7/29/91 8 7/30/91 1 7/31/91 5 8/1/91 6 8/2/91 5 8/3/91 7 8/4/91 22 8/5/91 7 8/6/91 5 8/7/91 1 8/18/91 4 8/20/91 1 8/21/91 1 8/20/91- 40 8/23/91 8/25/91 8 8/26/91 1 8/26/91 8/27/91 8/28/91 1 4 6 T21N,R13W,S17 T21N,R13W,S32 T20N,R13W,S10 T19N,T13W,S5 T20N,R13W,S32 T24N,R14W,S32 T24N,R12W,S4 T24N,R12W,S4 T19N,R14W,S9 T20N,R12W,S31 T19N,R14W,S34 T19N,R11W,S30 T20N,R13W,S10 T21N,R13W,S17 T21N,R12W,S14 T21N,R13W,S17 T21N,R15W, S23 T21N,R14W,S19 T22N,R14W,S23 T25N,R15W,S17 T24N,R15W,S26 T27N,R17W,S22 T27N,R13W,S26 T26N,R11W,S17 T27N,R13W,S35 T26N/R11W,S18 T29N,R17W,S8 T29N,R17W,S7 T16N,R12W,S29 T16N,R11W,S23 T21N,R13W,S32 T20N,R13W, S8 T20N,R13W,S23 T20N,R13W,S23 T20N,R12W,S31 T24N, R14W, S20 T25N,R14W, S20 T25N,R15W, S17 T19N,R13W, S5 T18N,R13W, S17 T19N,R13W,S33 T20N,R12W,S31 T21N,R13W,S17 T21N,R13W,S17 T21N,R13W,S8 T22N,R14W,S35 T22N,R14W,S35 T22N,R14W,S23 T24N,R14W,S32 T26N,R16W,S23 T24N,R14W,S20 T22N,R17W,S22 T26N,R12W,S7 T26N,R13W,S19 T27N,R13W,S26 T29N,R15W,S31 T29N,R17W,S6 T29N,R17W,S8 T16N,R12W,S17 T17N,R10W,S29 dotal Miles Surveyed: * - Flathead River 223 15 Table 2 HARLEQUIN DUCK SIGHTINGS, JUNE-AUGUST, 1991 FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST Date Time Location T,R,S Observations 6/16/91* 1600 Middle Fork, T28N 1 adult male Flathead River R15W 1 adult female S34 6/16/91* Mid Creek T24N 1 adult female R14W flying upstream S32 6/22/91* Granite Creek T28N 1 adult female R14W S25 6/26/91* 1700 Spotted Bear River T24N 1 adult female R12W swimming in river S4 6/28/91 1155 South Fork, T20N 2 adult females Flathead River R13W loafing on freshly S25 cut river bank. 7/9/91* 1530 Spotted Bear River T25N 3 adult females R13W swimming in river S36 7/10/91 1444 Spotted Bear River T25N 1 adult female R13W loafing on cliff S36 bedrock 7/11/91 1005 Spotted Bear River S32 7/21/91* 1130 Bunker Creek 'Reported Sighting T25N 1 adult female R12W loafing on rock ledge T24N 1 adult female R15W S26 16 TABLE 2. (cont'd.) 7/25/91* 1300 Middle Fork, T29N 1 adult female Flathead River R15W S25 8/1/91 1220 South Fork, T21N 1 adult female Flathead River R13W 2 ducklings S17 swimming in river 8/3/91 1735 Little Salmon T22N 1 adult female Creek R14W swimming in S22 creek 8/7/91* 1400 South Fork, T22N 2 adult females Flathead River R14W S26 8/28/91 1440 North Fork, T17N 1 adult female Blackfoot River R10W 4 ducklings S31 loafing on rock * Reported sighting 17 Habitat Characteristics Data on the number of log jams, loafing sites, vegetation density, streambed composition and other habitat characteristics were recorded each mile of the surveys, averaged, and compiled into Table 3. These characteristics varied considerably along the stream continuum. Therefore data presented here should only be considered as a rough attempt to characterize a given stream. The number of log jams varied from zero to almost 12 per mile, reflecting the difference in overall stream character. Cliff loafing sight availability also varied considerably and was related the channel type (i.e. canyon- type streams had more cliff loafing sites) . Mid stream loafing sites similarly varied. It must be noted that water levels were dropping throughout the study period, and stream characters such as these obviously change with water level. Shrubs comprise the majority of the stream bank vegetation, while trees and herbaceous plants appeared in roughly equal proportions. Cobbles composed the largest 18 Table 3 . Habitat Components of Streams Surveyed Gordon Young's Babcock Danaher Holbrook Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Log jams /mi: 9 1.6 4.4 5 10 Mid-stream Loafing Sites/mi: 1 7.2 8.6 4.9 11 Cliff Loafing Sites/mi: 0 1.4 2.2 1.1 0 Dominant Streambank Vegetation (%) : Tree 20 30 34 19 30 Shrub 80 55 46 50 60 Grass/Forbs 0 15 20 31 10 Channel Type: Mndr Mndr(60%) Mndr(90%) Mndr(70%) Mndr Cany(40%) Cany (10%)Brad (30%) Bed Composition: Boulder 0 14 10 3 20 Cobble 80 62 62 64 80 Pebble 20 24 28 33 0 Human Prox. Near Near Near Near Near 19 Table 3. (cont.) Bunker Wheeler D.Varden Strawbry. Schafer Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Log jams /mi : 1.8 3 8.7 Cliff Loafing Sites/mi: 0 16 0 Midstream Loafing Sites/mi: 10 25 8.7 Dominant Streambank Vegetation (%) : Tree 73 45 30 40 60 Shrub 18 45 23 40 30 Grass/Forbs 9 10 47 20 10 Channel Type: Mndr Mndr(2 5%) Mndr(50%) Mndr Mndr Cany(75%) Brad(50%) Bed Composition: Boulder 4 30 3 20 0 Cobble 83 70 48 70 70 Pebble 13 0 59 10 30 Human Prox: Near Near Near Near Near 20 Table 3. (cont.) Monture N. Fork B.Salmon L.Salmon Creek Blackfoot Creek Creek Log jams /mi: 9 0.3 2.3 11.8 Cliff Loafing Sites/mi: 0 >30 1.7 3.2 Midstream Loafing Sites/mi: 0.3 0 0.3 1.4 Dominant Streambank Vegetation (%) : Tree 3 0 17 30 42 Shrub 57 17 40 45 Grass/Forbs 13 66 30 13 Channel Type: Mndr Cany Mndr Mndr (85%) Brad(15%) Bed Composition: Boulder 0 7 3 7 Cobble 50 80 80 63 Pebble 50 13 17 30 Human Prox: Near Near Near Near Channel Type Abbreviations Brad = Braided Mndr = Meander Cany = Canyon 21 part of the streambed, usually accounting for 60 to 80% of the rock sizes. Pebbles were less common but still prevalent, making up about 30% of the streambeds, while boulders usually made up less than 10% of rock types. Since trails were used to access the streams, the human proximity category was always "near" (see definitions, Appendix A) . Stream Flow Stream flow data such as flow rate, width, depth and temperature were recorded at each creek mouth. These data are presented in Table 4, along with the stream flow volume, calculated from the field data. Water temperature was also recorded, which was usually 15 degrees Celsius, plus or minus a few degrees. Again, it should be noted that water volume in the streams was decreasing, at times drastically, throughout the study. Although the habitat data gathered in this study provide a rough outline of stream characteristics, a more concentrated and detailed effort would be necessary to provide data sufficient for the comparison of harlequin habitat from one stream to the next. Because of the low numbers of harlequins observed, no statistical tests were run to correlate habitat characteristics with use by the ducks. Because these were the first surveys for harlequins 22 Table 4 . Stream Flow Data Stream Flow Flow Width Depth Temp Volume Date Creek Rate(m/s) (m) (cm) ( C) (cms) 7/29/91 Gordon Ck 0.91 15 51 15 556.92 7/14/91 S.B. River 1.63 20 40 12 1043.20 7/19/91 Young's Ck 0.83 32 40 14 849.92 7/22/91 Babcock Ck 0.81 20 23 14 298.08 7/20/91 Danaher Ck 1.34 10 47 15 503.84 7/30/91 Holbrook Ck 0.93 6 35 14 156.24 7/31/91 White River 0.60 28 33 17 443.52 8/1/91 B. Sal. Ck 0.80 20 47 17 601.60 8/3/91 L. Sal. Ck 0.64 13 45 14 299.52 8/6/91 Bunker Ck 1.49 13 35 14 542.36 8/7/91 Wheeler Ck 0.45 7 43 15 108.36 8/18/91 Dol. V. Ck 2.61 11 29 15 666.07 8/20/91 Straw. Ck 1.32 8 23 11 191.36 23 conducted in the wilderness portions of FNF, it is not possible to estimate the relative abundance of harlequins in this area by comparing the number of sightings, broods and individuals over several breeding seasons. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of this study suggest harlequins are localized and uncommon in the wilderness portions of Flathead National Forest. This is consistent with findings in similar studies conducted in northern Idaho and Montana (Wallen and Groves 1989, Carlson 1990) . Harlequins have been consistently reported in low number in the Rocky Mountain breeding areas (Wallen and Groves 1989, Carlson 1990, Kuchel 1977) . This inherent low density, combined with the extensive modification and loss of breeding habitat via human activities (such as dam building, stream-side development and water quality degradation) warrants a high level of protection for the Harlequin Duck and its remaining habitat. A significant potential impact on the breeding population in the wilderness areas of FNF is recreational 24 floating and increased human activity in the riparian areas. This is especially critical during early summer while hens are tending ne'sts and prone to abandon nest sites. Preliminary information from the Canadian Park Service indicates a strong negative correlation between Harlequin Duck numbers and increased recreational floating along some rivers (P. Clarkson, pers. comm.). Given the likelihood of increased water-borne recreation on the FNF and other primitive areas, this is an issue for which more information and attention is warranted. Future studies of Harlequin Ducks in Northwest Montana should seek to standardize the methodology used by field workers. A field coordinator should be used to assist in this process as well as to conduct training for those researchers unfamiliar with the survey and habitat assessment techniques. Harlequin researchers should meet at least once during the field season to discuss common difficulties and their solutions, and once at the end of the season to review their results. 25 LITERATURE CITED Bengston, S. A. 1966. Field studies on the harlequin duck in Iceland. Wildfowl Trust Annual Report. 17:79-94 Bengston, S. A. 1972. Breeding ecology of the harlequin duck in Iceland. Ornis Scand. 3:1-19 Bengston, S. A. and S. Ulf strand 1971. Food resources and breeding frequency of the harlequin duck in Iceland. Oikos 22:235-239 Carlson, J. C. 1990. Results of harlequin duck surveys in 1990 on the Flathead National Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program report, Helena, MT . 32 pp. Cassirer, E. F. 1989. Distribution and status of harlequin ducks on the Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho. Idaho Dept . of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 13 pp. Dzinbal, K. A. 1982. Ecology of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska during summer. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 89 pp. Kuchel, C. R. 1977. Some aspects of the behavior and ecology of harlequin ducks breeding in Glacier National Park, Montana. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 14 7 pp. Miller, V. E. 1988. Harlequin ducks 1988 results of field surveys in west-central Montana. Unpublished report. Miller, V. E. 1989. Field survey report harlequin duck, Lower Clark Fork River drainage, west-central Montana. Unpublished report. 38 pp. Robbins, C. R. and R. W. Crawford 1954. A short accurate method for estimating the volume of stream flow. Journal of Wildlife Management, pp 366-369. 26 Wallen, R. L. 1987. Habitat utilization by harlequin ducks in Grand Teton National Park. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 67 pp. Wallen, R. L. and C. R. Groves 1988. Status and distribution of harlequin ducks in northern Idaho. Idaho Dept . of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 34 pp. Wallen, R. L. and C. R. Groves 1989. Distribution, breeding biology and nesting habitat of harlequin duck in northern Idaho. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 3 9 pp. 27 APPENDIX A. Field Definitions Channel type (from Carlson 1990) Meander Stream channel is located in a flat -bottomed valley with deep pools separated by shallow riffles. The channel appears to shift slightly during each peak flow period. Braided Stream channel is located in a flat-bottomed valley with shallow channels and islands. The channel may shift slightly during each peak flow period. Canyon Stream channel is structurally controlled by a "V" shaped valley. Rapids and runs characterize the stream flow. Virtually no movement of the channel occurs during peak flow periods. Channel Stream channel is artificially straightened by human activities. Human Proximity Near: 50 meters or more from a maintained trail Adjacent: Less than 50 meters from a maintained trail . Logjam Two or more trees 7 meters or longer protruding into the main flow of the stream but not 100% submerged. Mid-Stream Loafing Site An island of rock, wood, sand or gravel at least 30 square centimeters in area and isolated by a 3 -meter buffer of water. 28 APPENDIX A (cont. ) Cliff Loafing Site A shelf or series of rock ledges on the stream bank isolated both from above and on either side (i.e. inaccessible to predators) and not more than four meters above the stream surface. Stream bank Vegetation A zone of plant growth ten meters wide on both stream shores. Measurement begins at the high water line. Rock Types (simplified Wentworth scale) Diameter Range Pebble 2mm to 30mm Cobble 31mm to 3 0cm Boulder larger than 3 0cm 29 MONTANA STATE This "cover" page added by the Internet Archive for formatting purposes