1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this plan is to gain an understanding of the current conditions that

exist at the property outlined below and to evaluate the goals of the landowner. In

addition, to outline objectives that will assist in reaching above mentioned goals, evaluate

and review feasible results, and recommend practical management strategies for future

application.

1.2 Owner Information

The property is owned and managed by Mr. Bill Fenimore. Mr. Fenimore is an

avid birder and local spokesman for public awareness on birding. He is the owner of The

Wild Bird Center retail store in Layton, Utah. He conducts weekly bird walks for the

public throughout the Wasatch Valley. He also is intimately involved in the yearly Great

Salt Lake Bird Festival and is a naturalist for the Farmington Bay Waterfowl

Management Area. Mr. Fenimore is a member of the Northern Region Advisory Council

of the Division of Wildlife Resources where he is a Northern RAC At Large

Representative.

1.3 Property Description

2

The property is located on the north end of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge

found west of Brigham City, Utah (figure 1). The 2,000 acres of privately owned land lies

north of the North Bay region of the refuge and south of Highway 83, in Box Elder

County. To the west of the property is the Public Shooting Ground Management Area

and to the east is the city of Corinne, Utah. The property contains a diversity of wetland

types including intermittently flooded mudflats, meandering stream channels, both

emergent and submergent marsh, and uplands which provide nesting sites for many birds.

As with other wetlands in the area, the property is surrounded by arid desert regions and

has been a critical site for many breeding and migratory waterbirds for many years. The

property has been used historically for agricultural use, including farming, grazing and

irrigation. Today, it is used primarily as a wetlands reserve for many shorebird and

waterfowl species. In the fall, the property opens for hunting to members of the Tri-State

Sportsmen Club.

The property is fairly flat, starting at an altitude of about 4190' and increasing to

an altitude of 4520'. The average temperature ranges from 37.6 F to 62.6 F. The

minimum average, which occurs in January, is 14.8 F and the maximum average, in July,

is 90.8 F. The average annual precipitation is 14.09" (WRCC).

The soil makeup of the area is fairly varied. The major soil types include: Lasil

silt loam, moderately alkali; Playas; Pogal silt loam, rolling; and Saltair-Logan

association (figure 2). The Lasil silt loam, moderately alkali soil is composed primarily of

agricultural areas that are currently under cultivation. The soil itself is somewhat poorly

drained and has a water table of 18-36 inches. It is made of primarily silt and loam, but in

the deeper layers of the soil profile clay is found. The map shows this soil type making up

3

30% of the land; however much of what is measured on the map in this soil type in not a

part of the property; therefore, this soil type does not constitute a large portion of the

land. The two most productive plant species on this soil type are salt grass, Distichlis

spp., and sacaton, Sporobolus airoides. These two species account for 45% of the

productivity on this soil.

Playas make up a large portion of the soil on the property, about 25% of the land,

approximately 500 acres. The soil is very poorly drained and is prone to frequent ponding

events. The water table is at 0 inches. The soil is composed of clay, loam, and fine sand.

The main vegetation found on playas is saltgrass and iodinebush, Allenrolfea

occidentalis. These two plant species account for 80% of the productivity on the playas

soil type.

Pogal silt loam, rolling is a well drained soil that composes a smaller portion of

the land, 8% about 160 acres. As the name implies it is composed entirely of silt loam,

and is moderately or strongly saline. The plants characterizing this soil are squirrel tail,

Elymus elymoides, and black greasewood, Sarcobatus vermiculatus, which account for

65% of the plant composition on the soil.

The Saltair Logan association is the dominant soil type taking up 33% of the area,

660 acres. It is a poorly drained soil that has occasional flooding. Its profile is primarily

silty clay loam. The water table is at 0-12 inches from the surface. There are many plants

on the Saltair Logan association. The plant population includes many types of grasses,

forbes, and several shrub species as well. It is a very productive area for vegetation; in

fact it is the most productive soil on the property. It suffers from problems with erosion

4

so it is important not to disturb this soil because if it is lost many valuable plant resources

will be lost with it.

There are also areas of water. This includes sulphur creek, and several ponds. The

slope on all of the soil types is low, not exceeding 4%. This is consistent with the low

increase in elevation on the land 330'. Vegetation and soil data is taken from the Natural

Resources Conservation Service website. See appendix A for more soil data.

Animal life on the property is composed of a wide variety of avian species

including: waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines, and raptors. The area is also home to many

species of small mammals, and several mesopredator species. These predators include

skunks, raccoons, and foxes. Coyotes can be found on the property, but are not very

common. There are also several species of reptiles and amphibians.

2.0 Goal 1

2.1 Target Species

The main target species for the waterfowl will be represented by Mallards Anas

platyrhynchos, Northern Pintails Anas acuta, and Northern Shovelers Anas clypeata. All

of these are dabbling ducks. One of the main goals of the owner of the land is to provide

a quality hunting experience to the members of the waterfowl hunting club that use the

property. These three species make up a large portion of the take during hunting season,

so if their populations can be maximized the hunters’ satisfaction will also be greater.

2.2 Goals and Objectives

Hunters’ approval will increase if they can fill their limits, or if they have a

greater opportunity to do so. This means that the more ducks that there are in the area the

5

more satisfied the hunters will be. To increase satisfaction the objectives and goal are

geared to increase waterfowl in the area. The goal is to increase the productivity of

breeding waterfowl on the property.

Egg and hatchling depredation dramatically lower the nesting success rate of

ducks. The first objective is to reduce the mesopredator populations to increase nesting

success of the local waterfowl.

Aquatic plants and invertebrates are a major source of nutrition for ducks, but to

achieve maximal production in aquatic ecosystems solar radiation must be able to

penetrate the water. The second objective will be to clarify the water to maximize aquatic

vegetation which will increase food for the waterfowl.

2.3 Feasibility assessment

Many of the duck species have similar requirements for survival and

reproduction. To maximize success it will be important to focus on these similarities and

maximize the habitat to take advantage of these characteristics.

2.4 Species Requirements

Mallard, Anas platyrhynchos, – The Mallard is a very common and wide ranging

duck. It occupies most of North America. Adult ducks weigh from 1 Kg to 1.3 Kg; their

weight depends on how old they are and the time of year. Mallards are the most heavily

hunted duck in North America, despite this fact they manage to maintain healthy

populations.

They can withstand very cold temperatures but do require unfrozen water for the

entire year. Because of this fact, mallards are a year round resident in Utah they, have

everything that they need to survive. They breed here and they winter here.

6

Spring migrations begin as soon as the temperatures start increasing. Many begin

moving in January while others will wait until March or April. Mallards are generalists in

many aspects; they will eat a wide variety of foods, live in and nest in a wide variety of

habitats. Although capable of eating many different types of food, during the breeding

season they will eat primarily invertebrates especially females. This includes water

invertebrates, and land invertebrates. During the breeding season they will also eat, seeds

but the majority of its diet will consist of the invertebrates.

Mallards are affected by many predators, especially females during the breeding

and nesting season. Both avian and mammalian predators will eat eggs and young of

Mallard ducks. Predation is a major cause of mortality on nesting females, eggs, and

hatchlings.

Ducklings feed primarily on invertebrates, but as they grow they begin to eat

more and more seeds. By the time they begin flying most of their diet consists of seeds.

This follows the same pattern that nesting females have. In the spring they feed primarily

on invertebrates switching to seeds as they become available later in the year. Mallards

will eat cereal grain crops and wild seeds. They will also eat aquatic vegetation, but this

does not constitute a majority of their diet. Mallard information taken from Drilling,

Titman, and McKinney (2002).

Northern Pintail, Anas acuta, – The Northern Pintail like the mallard is a year

round resident of the property. It is a resident of most of North America. Males migrate

first then the females and then the young. Pintails migrate very early in the season

arriving very early to breeding grounds. Because they arrive very early to their breeding

range they suffer large losses due to predation. The cause of this is twofold; first the

7

cover has yet to regenerate completely so the ducks remain exposed to predators. The

second reason is because this early in the season the prey available to predators is limited,

so pintails are a good food source for the predators. The predators include both

mammalian and avian predators.

The main foods taken by Pintails include grains; wheat, barley, and corn, they

also eat water plants and water invertebrates. Invertebrates are an important food source

during breeding and incubation. They also make up the majority of hatchling diets. Grass

seeds are also an important source of food for the hatchlings. These ducks are not

territorial; they will however defend a small area around the nest. They have no defined

territory.

Pintails make nests in short thin grassy areas. It is the only duck known to build

nests on crop stubble. This means that farming can have a great impact on the nest

success of pintails. Short grassy areas will provide the best habitat for nesting pintails;

however this same situation is not desirable for other duck species. This kind of habitat is

currently found on the property, so no new efforts need to be made to satisfy this

condition. Northern Pintail data from Austin and Miller (1995).

Northern Shoveler, Anas clypeata, – Shovelers are also year round residents of

Northern Utah. They are different from other dabbling ducks in that their bill is specially

designed to filter the water for invertebrates. Both males and females depend primarily on

free swimming water invertebrates; however, they can feed on grains and plant material.

Females, in the breeding season, consume invertebrates almost exclusively.

Compared to other dabbling ducks Shovelers aggressively defend their territory.

Males will defend the area which is chosen by the female, for much longer periods of

8

time than will other ducks. Males remain to defend their territory almost until hatching

occurs. Nesting female Shovelers, like mallards and pintails, are more susceptible to

predation than are males.

Female shovelers will nest closer to water than will mallards or pintails. They nest

in short grasses <1m. As with the other two species the female is solely responsible for

the incubation and the rearing of the young. The young feed on water invertebrates. One

benefit that shoveler hatchlings have is that they will feed on invertebrates that are

smaller than what the young of other species will feed on. They can use any water source

if it has invertebrate life in it. The young will also feed on some types of aquatic

vegetation, mostly duck weed.

Although Shovelers are a common species they aren’t a very heavily hunted

species compared to other duck species. They are however an important species that still

needs to be looked at. Northern Shoveler life history from DuBowy (1996).

2.5 Target areas

The target area for the first goal covers the entire property. Trying to lower the

predator population in a small area would be pointless and impossible. For the first

objective to have any success at all it needs to be implemented across the entire property.

The entire mammalian predator population will not be removed. When the numbers of

these animals begin to decrease on the property other individuals looking for good habitat

will move in. This means that the objective will be a continuous project.

The target area to help with sedimentation of the ponds cannot be determined at

the moment. First the source of the sediment needs to be determined, and then the proper

actions can be taken. If the sediment is being stirred up by carp in soft bottomed ponds

9

then the target area will be any pond that has carp in it. If the problem is occurring due to

excessive erosion above the property then education of local ranchers will be the best

method to clean the water.

2.6 Management Constraints

It is very possible that while trapping for foxes, raccoons and other animals that

ferile cats are caught. If the trapper is using live traps then these animals need to be taken

to the Humane Society of Utah. Although this is an area of privately owned land care

should be taken to make sure that all practices are humane, and environmentally friendly.

It also needs to be assured that any trapping done is in accordance with the current

furbearers proclamation, see http://wildlife.utah.gov/proclamations/ for current

proclamation. There are no threatened or endangered species in the area so no special

considerations need to be given to them.

2.7 Recommendations

2.7.1 Management action – Predator Control

Nest predation is a major source of reproductive failure in waterfowl (Ackerman

et al. 2004, West and Messmer 2004). Predator control needs to be implemented. All

species of waterfowl are greatly impacted by the effects of predation. All three of the

target species are severely limited in their nest success by predators. Although the list of

predators includes mammalian and avian predators trapping will only control the

mammalian predators. Most managers see predation as having a great impact on nest

success and trapping as an acceptable way to control predators (West and Messmer

2004). A reduction in the number of mammalian predators will help the productivity of

the breeding waterfowl. It can be assumed that since predators are abundant and common

10

on Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge that the same conditions apply on this land (Frey

and Conover 2006).

Avian predators may not affect the breeding waterfowl as much when the

mammalian predators are removed because other prey sources will increase e.g. small

mammals. Ackerman has shown that mallard nest success is positively related to rodent

abundance (2002). Although this particular study was done with mammalian predators

the same trend could apply to avian predators as well. It has also been shown that there is

no connection between density and predation (Ackerman et al. 2004), so by increasing

the breeding waterfowl population predation will not increase with it. Predator control

will not only increase nest success. It will also help to increase hatchling survival (Pearse

and Ratti 2004).

A system of trapping could be easily implemented in one of two ways. Since it is

a hunting club, some members may already have a furbearer’s license or may be

interested in obtaining one. If this is found to be true the members could begin trapping

and hunting on the property. The members of the hunting club should be given the

opportunity first, however if none of the members are interested in trapping or hunting

the animals a business could be contacted.

Because pintails nest in more open areas it is important to help conceal them from

avian predators. The best way to do this is to limit the number of perches available to

raptors. Raptor predation on pintails can be very serious (Richkus et al. 2005). Removing

any dead trees or other unused perch sites will help improve nesting and hatchling

success. Although these actions will help to reduce the predation on ducks, nests, and

nestlings it will not eliminate it. Ravens, Magpies, and other birds will still be a source of

11

mortality. Raptors and mesopredators will also still cause some mortality; however, this

action will help all early nesting ducks. Predator control will help all of the ground

nesting birds incubate and rear hatchlings more successfully. It will be especially helpful

for early nesting species which is important because early nesting ducks have a better

chance of success than do later nesting conspecifics (Hoekman et al. 2004). Reducing

predation will allow even more of the early nesters to have successful nests.

2.7.2 Management action – Food Availability

The second action that needs to be taken is to increase the availability of food,

especially invertebrates, so that the ducklings and the nesting females can obtain the

protein that they need. To accomplish this, water in the ponds needs to be clarified

Sago is a common beneficial aquatic plant. Ducks can eat the tubers from it, the

vegetation, and the invertebrates that live in the vegetation. By increasing the sago

population in the water, waterfowl will be benefited. Turbidity has been shown to be a

limiting factor in the distribution of Sago (Kantrud 1990), but by clarifying the water all

aquatic plants will be benefited. The vegetation will increase because sunlight will be

able to penetrate the water column to greater depths and that will allow more vegetation

to grow. The benefits of increased vegetation are twofold. First the waterfowl can feed

directly on the vegetation and its products. Second the vegetation will provide more

habitat for invertebrates which will increase their populations. Both of these benefits will

provide more food for the waterfowl. Food abundance is related to the survival of

hatchlings so more food will help recruitment in the population (Gunnarsson et al. 2004).

This will help maximize the benefits of foraging time for nesting females and it will

nourish the hatchlings so that they can achieve maximal growth rates, and survival.

12

To accomplish this action the cause of the excessive sedimentation needs to be

found. Carp have been known to stir up sediment in soft bottomed ponds, and because

there are carp in the ponds this could be the cause. It is also possible that the creek

feeding the ponds carries excessive sediment with it. To determine which the cause is the

carp need to be removed from the one of the ponds.

A survey of the carp using a gill net could be done to determine the abundance of

carp in the ponds. This would be a good non-invasive technique to determine if there are

sufficient carp tow worry about. If the carp are at levels that could increase the turbidity

of the ponds further investigation could be done. This could be achieved by emptying a

pond during the fall or winter. It will be better to do this in the winter because during the

winter the water is not needed for crops or other purposes. This will also allow the pond

to refill in the spring. During this time, after removing the carp and after the pond has

been refilled, the turbidity of the water should be measured with a secchi disk. A secchi

disk is an eight inch, 20 cm, diameter circle that is painted into black and white quarters.

The disk is attached to a pole that has been marked with measurements. You dip the disk

into the water and record when the disk disappears. This method will give you a relative

measure of the clarity of the water. If you can place the disk deeper into the water column

the water is clearer. If you want to find the extinction rate of light in the water you can

use the formula K=1.7/D, where D is the depth of the disk (Idso and Gilbert 1974).

Measurements from the secchi disk should be taken from the carp-less pond and the

ponds with carp. From this information it can be determined if the carp play a role in the

sedimentation of the ponds.

13

If carp are found to be the cause of the excessive turbidity of the water then

measures need to be taken to reduce or remove them from the ponds. Because there are

already in place several dikes in place to control the water, it would be useful to place

screens at the outlets of these dikes. This will help to control the spread of the carp, but it

will also be necessary to remove the carp already in the ponds. This can be done by

emptying the ponds to kill the carp, sago seeds will still germinate even if they dry out for

a short period of time (Kantrud 1990). A reduction in carp population can be also be

achieved by fishing. If fishing is used to reduce the carp populations then it needs to be

done in accordance with the current fishing proclamation which can be found at

http://wildlife.utah.gov/proclamations.

If the turbidity of the water is not reduced by removing the carp then the source of

the sedimentation is probably the creek feeding the ponds. The best way to reduce the

amount of sediment in the creek is to stop it from getting into the creek in the first place.

Much of the sediment probably comes from the agricultural activities in the area.

Education of local ranchers will help alleviate the sediment problem. The key to make

this work will be to show that the ranchers themselves will benefit by making the

changes. Topsoil is a valuable commodity that when lost hurts the ranchers as well as the

waterfowl. The USDA has many sources available to help farmers reduce erosion and

sediment pollution. Although many of their recommendations include making a buffer

area which would reduce the field size the land is lost may be eligible to be registered

under the CRP program. Which can help the farmers save money and make money. More

information about the CRP can be found at

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp. The Nature

14

Conservancy is also a good source of information as they have experience in dealing with

landowners.

Prevention of the erosion is the best practice however ranchers may not be

interested or it may not be feasible to do. The only other option is to slow the flow of

water so that the sediment has more time to fall out. This can be done in one of two ways

first another dike could be built around the stream to hold the water for a longer period of

time. This method will give you more control over the size of the pond however it will

also be more invasive for the property. The second method is the “beaver dam” method.

In this method several wires will be stretched across the stream and a mesh placed in

front of the wires. This setup will catch wood and other large debris and hold as this

builds up the water will be held back and a small pond will form in which the sediment

will fall out. This method does not give you as much control over the size of the pond,

but it is less invasive and damaging to the landscape. Both methods will be effective in

reducing the amount of sediment that reaches the lower ponds.

2.8 Markets

Management Action Cost $ Benefit

Predator Control

Allow club member or local access to land to trap and remove predators

None Increase nest success by lowering nest predation rates

Reduce water sedimentation

Find cause of sedimentation Increase aquatic vegetation to Provide more food resources

Table 1. Proposed costs and benefits for increased waterfowl production.

15

3.0 Goal 2

3.1Target Species

The group of animals which are included as the target species for our second goal

is the shorebirds. The species specific for this management plan are the American

Avocet (Recurvirostra americana), Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), Snowy

Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), and Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous). It is these

species of shorebirds that are most commonly found within the property.

3.2 Goal / Objectives

The desired goal is to increase diversity and productivity of the breeding

shorebirds that frequent the property. We want to improve the habitat in order to provide

ideal conditions for breeding and also have the proper amount of habitat types for both

foraging and nesting. We want to ensure that factors such as prey availability, substrate

type, salinity, and selenium level are in proper balance in order to assist in diversity and

productivity. In addition, we want to provide a varying habitat that will allow the

shorebirds to cope with environmental changes. Further, we feel the most crucial step in

accomplishing this goal will be to gain an understanding of the current habitat status, in

order to know which changes should me made.

To improve the habitat we first must know the population size of the birds visiting

the property during the breeding season and from the collected data, calculate the needed

area of each habitat type. The property is used for both foraging and nesting activities of

shorebirds. For the purpose of proposing the amount of habitat required to support

breeding shorebirds, we have assumed that foraging habitat will be provided primarily in

16

the form of shallow water managed to create optimal foraging depths for shorebirds and

about 2 g of benthic invertebrates are available per square meter. Consequently, an

average shorebird requires about 4 m² of foraging habitat each day (Loesch et al. 1994).

Different shorebird species use water of different depths, but the total range of utilized

conditions — from damp mud to several cm — covers only a portion of any water

management unit at any time. Over time, this band shifts with gradual flooding, draw

down, or evaporation, and these shifts are necessary to expose new foraging opportunities

to the birds (Loesch et al.). During breeding season it will be critical for the property to

contain shallow sheet flows of water that will provide the needed foraging habitat for

shorebirds. From previous observation, we are assuming that this habitat need is

currently provided within the property during the breeding season and no major changes

are needed.

Prey availability, substrate types, and salinity can be managed to some degree by

controlling water levels. Manipulation of water levels and salinity in both natural and

human-constructed habitats may play significant roles in determining which habitats

shorebirds can successfully exploit (Boettcher).

Many wetlands used by shorebird species in the western United States have been

contaminated by selenium, as result of irrigation and other human activities (Robinson et

al. 1997). American Avocets at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, in San Joaquin

Valley, California, failed to reproduce successfully because drain water supplying the

wetland was contaminated with selenium concentrated through soil-leaching and water-

recycling (Robinson et al.). Selenium contamination at the Great Salt Lake (GSL) has

been documented as well (Brix et al. 2003). Due to the close proximity of the property to

17

the GSL, it is recommended that selenium tests be conducted on the property. However,

this is usually left to the State and Federal Governments for collection and testing.

Changes in climate, weather, and human activity play a vital role in nesting

success. Providing a variety of habitats will allow shorebirds to cope with these changing

local conditions. This means either altering existing habitat or creating new habitat that

will support a breeding population of shorebirds.

3.3 Feasibility Assessment

Since each of the target species for this goal is a species of shorebird, the habitat

requirements are similar, but differences to exist. The plan’s objectives are very feasible

and aimed to meet each species’ needs.

3.4 Species Requirements

The American Avocet is a large, long-legged wading shorebird that is

characterized by a long, very thin, upturned black bill. Avocets specialize in using the

temporally unpredictable wetlands of the arid western United States and breed in large

numbers at the marshes of Great Salt Lake, the Tulare Basin of California, and in shifting

abundance across the northern Great Basin. The species was extirpated from much of its

eastern range at the beginning of the twentieth century (Robinson et al.).

During breeding season, avocets inhabit areas such as salt ponds, potholes, or

shallow alkaline wetlands; also mudflats of inland lakes, impoundments and evaporation

ponds (Robinson et al.). They utilize wetlands characterized by common cattail (Typha

latifolia), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), or sedges (Carex spp.). However, individuals spend

18

most of their time in open areas void of vegetation or characterized by small plants such

as salt grass (Distichlis spp.). Open water is also used extensively by individuals for

feeding, usually in water 0–20 cm deep, but will also use deeper water where swimming

is required. Avocets forage at various water depths, depending on age and bill length.

Young (0-3 wk old) chicks forage at water depths of 0-90 mm, but mainly at about 8 mm.

Older (3-6 wk old) chicks forage at depths from 0 to 100 m, but mostly at about 53 mm.

Adult females forage at >80 mm, and adult males forage at about 100 mm. Avocets

partition food resources depending on water depth and method of prey capture. It has

been reported that adult avocets forage at depths ranging from 90 to 160 mm (Dechant et

al. 2002).

Major food items found in the diet of freshwater wetland avocets include: water

boatmen (Hemiptera, Corixidae); adult and larval beetles (Coleoptera); fly larvae

(Diptera), especially midges (Chironomidae); brine flies in more saline wetlands; seeds

of marsh or aquatic plants, especially sago pondweed (Potomogeton pectinatus), salt

grass (Distichlis spicata), and bulrushes. In saline inland wetlands: brine shrimp and

brine flies (Robinson et al.). Avocets generally nest on unvegetated ground or in areas

with short, sparse vegetation that provide an unobstructed view from the nest (Dechant et

al.).

The Black-necked Stilts is also a large, long-legged wading shorebird but is

smaller than the American Avocet. It is characterized by a long, thin black bill and pink

legs. The interior breeding range of stilts in the western United States has expanded

northward over last 20 years. Species has been sighted as an occasional visitor in British

Columbia and Manitoba and successful nests in Alberta and Saskatchewan have been

19

documented (Robinson et al.). Black-necked Stilts commonly share habitat with the

American Avocet and prefer similar environmental types. During the breeding season,

stilts utilize edges of salt ponds, sewage ponds, or shallow inland wetlands, but are

usually found in fresher parts of wetlands with emergent vegetation, including cattails

(Typha latifolia), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.) (Robinson et al.).

Common food items in the stilts diet include on salt ponds: brine shrimp, brine flies, and

terrestrial insects. In freshwater wetlands: crawfish (Cambarus sp.); water-boatmen

(Hemiptera, Corixidae); adult and larval beetles (Coleoptera), especially crawling water-

beetles (Haliplidae), predaceous diving beetles (Dysticidae), water-scavenger beetles

(Hydrophilidae), and aquatic species of weevils (Curculionidae); fly larvae (Diptera),

especially soldier flies (Stratiomyiidae) and brine flies (Ephydridae); snails

(Gastropoda); small fish (carp [Cyprinus carpio] and sunfish [Centrarchidae]); and frogs

(Anura) (Robinson et al.).

The Snowy Plover is a small, light-colored shorebird with a short, thin, dark bill.

Despite this species’ breeding tenacity, its numbers are small. Only about 21,000

individuals inhabit the United States; numbers in the rest of North America are largely

undocumented but probably small. Along the U.S. Pacific and Gulf coasts, the

population is shrinking because of habitat degradation and expanding recreational use of

beaches. The Pacific Coast population now is designated as Threatened by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (Page et al.1995).

Snowy plovers, with an inland breeding range, utilize barren or sparsely vegetated

ground at alkaline or saline lakes, reservoirs, or ponds; riverine sand bars; and sewage,

salt-evaporation, and agricultural waste-water ponds (Page et al.). Food items vary with

20

location for plovers. In the Great Basin region, at saline and alkaline lakes, flies

(Ephydrahians, Thinophilus spinipes, T. latimanus, Mosillus bidentatus, Lamproscatella

salinara and Lispe sp.), beetles (Bembidion ephippigerum, Tanarthrus inyo, Bledius sp.,

Carpelimus sp., and Cicindelidae), hemipterans (Saldula arenicola), and brine shrimp

(Artemia monica) are common. In salt flat habitats of the Great Plains, flies (Ephydra

sp.), beetles (Bledius sp., Cicindela sp.), and terrestrial insects blown onto flats, including

a wide variety of grasshoppers, lepidopterans, and beetles comprise the Snowy plover’s

diet (Page et al.).

The Killdeer is a medium sized shorebird with a short neck, long wings and tail,

and moderately long legs. Once the target of market hunters and in serious decline, the

Killdeer is probably more common today than at any time in its history as a result of

habitat changes wrought by humans. At the same time, the species is vulnerable to

twentieth-century problems such as pesticides, oil pollution, lawnmowers, and

automobiles. Breeding Bird Surveys suggest that it is declining in some western states.

Killdeer, during breeding season, frequent open areas, especially sandbars, mudflats,

heavily grazed pastures, graveled or broken-asphalt parking lots, and graveled rooftops

(Jackson et al. 2000). They are the most widespread and familiar North American plover

due to their diverse habitat and tolerance to humans. Killdeer diet includes earthworms,

insect larvae, crayfish (Decapoda) and other small crustaceans, snails (Mollusca),

grasshoppers (Orthoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and small seeds (Jackson et al.).

3.5 Proposed Target Areas

21

The proposed management actions are to occur throughout the property.

Population assessments, made through point counts, will be conducted randomly

throughout the property. Periodic surveys of the habitat for sheet flow observations;

salinity and selenium assessments; and habitat overview observations are to be conducted

throughout the property as well, focusing on areas where each action would most likely

be presented. Prey availability assessments are to be made at sheet flow habitats as well

as deeper water level habitats found in both large ponds.

3.6 Management Constraints

The most notable limitation to the proposed management actions is manpower to

complete the work. Many hours of field work may be required to gain an understanding

of the current status of the property. Activities such as point counts, sweep and core

sampling, and habitat observations require regular and consistent work throughout

breeding season. Such work will require dedicated and hardworking individuals.

Construction of nest ridges, which may require closure of roads or dikes, may

cause travel limitation and denied access within the property.

3.7 Recommendations

The proposed management activities are aimed at gaining an understanding of the

current status of the property. Recommendations are made with the desire to assist in the

future success of the property’s shorebird population.

3.7.1 Management Action – Population Assessment

First, we recommend conducting point counts of the target species. By

conducting point counts and obtaining population data, habitat requirements can be better

22

understood and met. Points to be counted can be laid out systematically or selected

randomly within the study area (Bibby et al. 2000), we recommend point counts be

conducted monthly throughout the breeding season (April – August). We recommend

enlisting volunteers from the birding community, who are acquainted with the owner and

will have at least moderate waterbird identification skills. An alternate choice is Weber

State’s Spring Semester Ornithology students, who will have recently acquired field

identification skills and who would cost the landowner essentially nothing for their work.

3.7.2 Management Action – Provide Foraging Habitat

We recommend close observation and periodic surveying and assessment of the

habitat in order to insure proper sheet flow for foraging birds. We suggest a minimum of

one inspection per week for each qualifying area of the property. Proper sheet flow can

be managed by manipulation of water levels within the property. We recommend

experimenting with water levels not only to maintain sheet flow, but to also assess proper

water levels for prey availability, vegetative growth, substrate type, and salinity levels.

During the months of May and June, when optimal numbers of shorebirds are present, we

suggest conducting a comparison of water levels between Big Lake and Donut Hole

Pond. We recommend lowering the level of Big Lake to the recommended sheet flow

level and maintaining Donut Hole Pond at deeper levels. By carrying out this action, and

following close observation, data will be able to be collected concerning the value of

sheet flow management within the property. This may all be completed by the landowner

himself, or by opening the property to the undergraduate students at Weber State

University, who are looking for research projects and experiences.

3.7.3 Management Action – Prey Availability

23

We recommend collecting core and sweep samples, using a standard tube corer

and aquatic dip net, to obtain prey availability data. We suggest collecting samples

weekly, throughout the breeding season, in order to determine invertebrate numbers and

density at random habitat types throughout the property. We recommend acquiring

assistance from Weber State University. Offering the property to the Weber State

University faculty, staff, and students for summer field research may prove essential to

gaining a better understanding of the habitat requirements needed to sustain a healthy

shorebird population.

3.7.4 Management Action – Salinity Assessment

We recommend collecting water and soil samples for salinity assessment. We

suggest collecting samples randomly throughout property during the breeding season.

Each pond should be tested, in addition to intermittently flooded mudflats, meandering

stream channels, and both emergent and submergent marsh. We recommend assistance

from Weber State University. Every year hundreds of undergraduate students are looking

for research experiences. Instructed and trained by learned professors and skilled

mentors, undergraduate students do posses ample knowledge for scientific work and will

be able to give trusted results and quality feedback.

3.7.5 Management Action – Island Management

Areas managed for waterfowl can be made more amenable to shorebirds by the

construction of sparsely vegetated nesting islands with gently sloping beaches

surrounding deep-water zones. The islands and beaches can provide nesting habitat for

American Avocets. Unless vegetation is managed to maintain sparseness, islands created

for waterfowl may be unsuitable for avocets after vegetation has become established

24

(Dechant et al.). We recommend vegetation control be implemented on Fox Hole Island,

in order to establish improved nesting habitat for the avocets. This would include

eliminating the growth of high or dense vegetation, which areas are not utilized by

avocets for nesting. This management action is an ideal research project for students at

Weber State University. Botany or zoology students would have the proper background

for such a project. If construction of new islands on the property is of interest, see

appendix B.

3.7.6 Management Action – Habitat Overview

We recommend a basic habitat overview, which involves conducting water level

and vegetative cover observations and studies. We suggest the duration be the length of

the breeding season, so changes in the environment will be taken into consideration. We

recommend offering a research project to Weber State University for undergraduate

students interested in this field of work.

3.7.7 Management Action – Nesting Assistance

We recommend alternating existing habitat or creating new habitat in order to

provide a variety of habitats that will allow shorebirds to cope to changing local

conditions. We suggest nest ridges, built from existing substrate or transported

materials, to protect and enhance Snowy Plover breeding habitat. Nest ridges are

designed to offer elevated nesting sites safe from sheet flooding. In previous studies,

birds usually waited for constructed ridges to weather before moving in, usually within

one year of construction (Boettcher). Nest ridge construction is recommended to be

completed as a volunteer project by members of the Tri-State Sportsmen Club or local

25

birders with a desire to help a state-sensitive species. Ridges can be constructed with

mounds of gravel topped with sand; 19-liter buckets of each have been used for nest

ridges constructed in Kansas (Koenen et al. 1996). Ridges may also be constructed by

simply converting a dike or road into an undisturbed nesting habitat for snowy plovers.

Nest ridges are recommended to be built during the breeding season of 2007 (April –

August).

3.8 Markets

As part of the goal for this management plan we wanted to present and offer low-

cost solutions to the owner. Our recommendations are written such that progress can

begin at little cost and may continue for the duration of many years with minimal funds.

As shown below, five of the seven management action recommendations will cost

nothing for the property owner. By obtaining volunteers from the community, members

of the Tri-State Sportsmen Club and students from Weber State University, a great

amount of work and research can be completed at little cost. In addition, the owner can

complete much of the recommended observations himself. An alternate route would be

to hire part-time and full-time summer interns for the duration of the breeding season. If

field equipment is needed to be purchased for core and sweep sampling, costs are

recorded below. However, it may be possible to utilize equipment from Weber State

University and complete the work at no cost.

The construction of nest ridges has minimal costs attached and will be determined

by the number of ridges constructed. The cost estimates below are from information

obtained from Rickly Hydrological Company, West Coast Analytical Service, and

Lowe’s Home Improvement Online Store, respectively.

26

Management Action Cost ($) Benefit Population Assessment Point counts None Obtain population data in

order to know habitat requirements for breeding shorebirds

Provide Foraging Habitat Maintain sheet flow Periodic surveying of habitat

None Create optimal foraging depths for shorebirds

Prey Availability Assessment

Collect sweep/core samples - 1 standard tube

corer ($325.00) - 1 aquatic dip net

($149.00)

*500 Obtain prey (invertebrate) availability data

Salinity Assessment Collect soil/water samples None Determine appropriate

salinity levels for shorebird habitat

Island Management Vegetation control on Fox Hole Island

None Create optimal nesting habitat for avocets

Habitat Overview Conduct water level / vegetative cover study

None Determine which habitats shorebirds can successfully exploit

Nesting Assistance Construct Snowy Plover nest ridges

- 1 ridge provided from existing substrate (i.e. road)

- 5 ridges constructed from gravel and sand (19 L of gravel and sand for each ridge at $4.00 per 14 L bag)

None – Existing substrate ***65 – Gravel and sand

Offers elevated nesting sites safe from sheet flooding

* Rickly Hydrological Company ** West Coast Analytical Service *** Lowe’s Home Improvement Online Store Table 2. Market cost benefit analysis for shorebird productivity increase.

27

4.0 Final Recommendations

To increase the productivity of the waterfowl on the land factors affecting all

waterfowl need to be addressed. Two of those factors are mortalities due to predation,

and food availability. If adequate food can be provided for the breeding waterfowl they

will not only be able to produce healthy young that can survive they will also return to

the land in subsequent years (Nicolai et al. 2005). If the predator populations can be

reduced then the number of ducks with successful nests will increase. Both of these

actions can be taken with little monetary investment, however it will take time. The most

time demanding aspect will be to determine the source of the excessive sediment and then

taking the proper action.

Shorebird recommendations rely on providing ideal habitat types for foraging and

nesting birds. The work required is suggested to be done through volunteers and

undergraduate research students. We feel that the most crucial steps for an increase in

diversity and productivity of waterfowl and shorebird species to occur within the property

will be research and education. We recommend field observations, random samplings,

and habitat assessments. We also recommend educating the local public on the

environmental needs of the land. We feel by accomplishing these main points, the

established goals will be met successfully.

28

Appendix A – Soil Information

29

Map Unit Description Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part

Lasil silt loam, moderately alkali Setting Elevation: 4220 to 4520 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 14 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 150 days Composition Lasil, moderately alkali, and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 4 percent Minor Components Description of Lasil, moderately alkali Setting Landform: Lake terraces, valley floors Parent material: Lacustrine deposits Slope: 0 to 1 percent Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Calcium carbonate maximum: 30 percent Gypsum maximum: 0 percent Salinity maximum: Moderately saline or strongly saline (12.0 to 20.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio maximum: 25.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.8 inches) Properties and Qualities Interpretive Groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability (non irrigated): 7w Ecological site: Alkali Bottom (Alkali Sacaton) (R028AY001UT) Typical Profile 0 to 6 inches: silt loam 6 to 9 inches: silt loam 9 to 13 inches: silty clay loam 13 to 19 inches: silty clay loam 19 to 23 inches: silty clay loam 23 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Poorly drained soil, hydric, not correlated soils Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Lake terraces

30

Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part Map Unit Description

Lewiston fine sandy loam Setting Elevation: 4220 to 5250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 47 to 51 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 155 days Composition Lewiston and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 5 percent Minor Components Description of Lewiston Setting Landform: Lake plains, lake terraces Parent material: Lacustrine deposits derived from limestone, quartzite, and sandstone Slope: 0 to 1 percent Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high or high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 30 to 48 inches Frequency of flooding: None Calcium carbonate maximum: 30 percent Gypsum maximum: 0 percent Sodium adsorption ratio maximum: 15.0 Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.3 inches) Properties and Qualities Interpretive Groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w Land capability (non irrigated): 4w Typical Profile 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam 10 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam 15 to 29 inches: fine sandy loam 29 to 40 inches: fine sandy loam 40 to 70 inches: loamy fine sand Poorly drained soil, hydric, not correlated soils Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Lake terraces Tabular Data Version: 3 Tabular Data Version Date: 11/30/2005 Page 2 of 6

31

Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part Map Unit Description

Playas Setting Elevation: 4190 to 4350 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 53 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 180 days Composition Playas: 95 percent Minor components: 5 percent Minor Components Description of Playas Setting Landform: Depressions Slope: 0 to 1 percent Drainage class: Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 0 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Calcium carbonate maximum: 40 percent Gypsum maximum: 2 percent Salinity maximum: Moderately saline or strongly saline (16.0 to 32.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio maximum: 90.0 Properties and Qualities Typical Profile 0 to 60 inches: stratified silty clay to silt loam to very fine sand Saltair soils Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Lake plains Ecological site: Desert Salty Silt (Pickleweed) (R028AY132UT) Eimarsh soils Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Lake plains Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: WET SALINE MEADOW (R028BY012NV) Tabular Data Version: 3 Tabular Data Version Date: 11/30/2005 Page 3 of 6

32

Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part Map Unit Description

Pogal silt loam, rolling Setting Elevation: 4210 to 4250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 13 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 51 degrees F Frost-free period: 100 to 130 days Composition Pogal and similar soils: 85 percent Description of Pogal Setting Landform: Knolls on lake plains Parent material: Lacustrine deposits derived from sandstone and/or lacustrine deposits derived from limestone Slope: 1 to 3 percent Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Frequency of flooding: None Calcium carbonate maximum: 30 percent Gypsum maximum: 0 percent Salinity maximum: Moderately saline or strongly saline (16.0 to 32.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Low (about 5.4 inches) Properties and Qualities Interpretive Groups Land capability (non irrigated): 7s Ecological site: Alkali Flat (Black Greasewood) (R028AY004UT) Typical Profile 0 to 4 inches: silt loam 4 to 13 inches: silt loam 13 to 22 inches: silt loam 22 to 35 inches: silt loam 35 to 41 inches: silt loam 41 to 60 inches: silt loam

33

Map Unit Description Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part

Saltair-Logan association Setting Elevation: 4200 to 4300 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 110 to 150 days Composition Saltair and similar soils: 55 percent Logan and similar soils: 35 percent Minor components: 10 percent Description of Saltair Setting Landform: Lake plains Parent material: Lacustrine deposits Slope: 0 to 1 percent Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: Occasional Calcium carbonate maximum: 40 percent Gypsum maximum: 0 percent Salinity maximum: Moderately saline or strongly saline (16.0 to 32.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio maximum: 90.0 Available water capacity: Low (about 4.2 inches) Properties and Qualities Interpretive Groups Land capability (non irrigated): 8w Ecological site: Alkali Bottom (Alkali Sacaton) (R028AY001UT) Typical Profile 0 to 7 inches: silty clay loam 7 to 20 inches: silty clay loam 20 to 30 inches: silt loam 30 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Description of Logan Setting Landform: Lake plains Slope: 0 to 1 percent Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low or moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 12 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: Rare Calcium carbonate maximum: 45 percent Gypsum maximum: 0 percent Salinity maximum: Slightly saline or moderately saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio maximum: 30.0 Available water capacity: High (about 10.3 inches) Properties and Qualities Interpretive Groups Land capability (non irrigated): 7w Ecological site: Wet Saline Meadow (R028AY024UT) Typical Profile 0 to 11 inches: silty clay loam 11 to 23 inches: silty clay loam 23 to 47 inches: silty clay loam 47 to 60 inches: silty clay loam

34

Map Unit Description Box Elder County, Utah, Eastern Part

Minor Components Fresh water marsh Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Valley floors, depressions on flood plains Playas Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Ecological site: Desert Salty Silt (Pickleweed) (R028AY132UT) Water Composition Water: 100 percent Description of Water

35

36

37

38

Rangeland Productivity and Plant Composition In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of rangeland or forest understory vegetation are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water. This table shows, for each soil that supports vegetation suitable for grazing, the ecological site; the total annual production of vegetation in favorable, normal, and unfavorable years; the characteristic vegetation; and the average percentage of each species. An explanation of the column headings in the table follows. An "ecological site" is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time throughout the soil development process; a characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff that has developed over time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others. The plant community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. Descriptions of ecological sites are provided in the Field Office Technical Guide, which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). "Total dry-weight production" is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation for favorable, normal, and unfavorable years. In a favorable year, the amount and distribution of precipitation and the temperatures make growing conditions substantially better than average. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. In an unfavorable year, growing conditions are well below average, generally because of low available soil moisture. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content. "Characteristic vegetation" (the grasses, forbs, and shrubs that make up most of the potential natural plant community on each soil) is listed by common name. Under "rangeland composition," the expected percentage of the total annual production is given for each species making up the characteristic vegetation. The amount that can be used as forage depends on the kinds of grazing animals and on the grazing season. Range management requires knowledge of the kinds of soil and of the potential natural plant community. It also requires an evaluation of the present range similarity index and rangeland trend. Range similarity index is determined by comparing the present plant community with the potential natural plant community on a particular rangeland ecological site. The more closely the existing community resembles the potential community, the higher the range similarity index. Rangeland trend is defined as the direction of change in an existing plant community relative to the potential natural plant community. Further information about the range similarity index and rangeland trend is available in the "National Range and Pasture Handbook," which is available in local offices of NRCS or on the internet.

39

The objective in range management is to control grazing so that the plants growing on a site are about the same in kind and amount as the potential natural plant community for that site. Such management generally results in the optimum production of vegetation, control of undesirable brush species, conservation of water, and control of erosion. Sometimes, however, an area with a range similarity index somewhat below the potential meets grazing needs, provides wildlife habitat, and protects soil and water resources. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. (http://www.glti.nrcs.usda.gov/)

40

Appendix B – Construction of Earthen and Rock Islands

41

Locating, Constructing, and Managing Islands for Nesting Waterfowl*

Construction Guidelines for Earthen Islands

To create a natural appearance, islands should be built in an oval, kidney, or peanut shape with rounded outlines rather than square corners (Figure 1). The erosive effects of waves can be reduced when the point of the island is directed into the prevailing storm winds that occur during the ice-free months. In the United States, data on winds can be obtained from the National Weather Service at most major airports or from the National Climatic Data Center, 37 Battery Park Ave., Asheville, NC 28801-2733. In Canada, wind information is available at the Atmospheric Environment Service, 266 Graham Ave., Winnipeg, MB R3C 3V4.

Figure 1. Islands built in an oval shape with a rounded outline create a more natural appearance.

To minimize costs, islands should be constructed where the water depth seldom exceeds 3 feet. Water-level information might be obtained from local residents or by locating previous high-water marks. Ideally, construction should take place when the wetland is dry or in winter when there is sufficient ice to support heavy equipment. All ice and vegetation must be cleared from the island base during site preparation. In open water habitat, Ducks Unlimited recommends that the island base be as high as the average water level in the wetland and constructed with 10:1 side slopes (Figure 1). The

42

top of each island should rise 4 feet above the base and have 4:1 side slopes. A 10-foot-wide, flat berm is usually constructed between the bottom of the island slope and the top edge of the base slope to absorb wave energy and to slow island erosion. Where islands are built in wetlands with moderate wave action, a single 6:1 or 8:1 side slope without a berm is acceptable. The island should be constructed with soil or fill from the wetland bottom immediately adjacent to the construction site or from an upland borrow area. Because mink are attracted to permanent, steep-sided ponds, excavated areas in wetlands should be no more than 1 or 2 feet deeper than pond bottom. Most suitably, fill should be taken from an area immediately around the island, leaving an excavation with 20:1 or gentler side-slopes.

All ice and vegetation must be cleared from the island base during site preparation. (photo by Ducks Unlimited)

The mid-wetland sites recommended for islands subjects them to severe wave action. Preferred soils for island construction should contain about 30% clay mixed with silt and sand and preferably some aggregate. Fill material should not include chunks of ice. Prior to moving fill material from the borrow site, topsoil should be removed and stockpiled for later use. During construction fill material should be deposited in a continuous, layering fashion. Each layer of material must be thoroughly compacted before another layer is put into place. Upon completion of construction, the previously stockpiled topsoil should be spread 4 to 6 inches deep across the surface of the island. When construction is completed, haul-roads should be removed and the entire area reshaped to restore the original contours.

43

During island construction, fill material should be deposited in a continuous, layering fashion. Each layer of material must be thoroughly compacted before another is put into place. (photo by Ducks Unlimited)

Islands are occasionally used by colonial-nesting birds such as American white pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and common terns, and by shorebirds such as American avocets and piping plovers. These species occur so infrequently that it is not possible to predict which new islands they will use. Generally, American avocets and piping plovers prefer to nest on wide (≥75 feet) beaches located in alkaline wetlands. Beaches sought by these species are nearly free of vegetation but could include gravel or small stones. All of these are desirable species that do not consume waterfowl or other birds and they should be encouraged. Conversely, colonies of nesting California and ring-billed gulls on islands should be discouraged because these 2 large gulls prey on waterfowl, mainly ducklings, and other birds.

Rock Islands

Locations Factors Unlike earthen islands, rock islands are usually placed in seasonal wetlands, often close to shore, within stands of emergent vegetation. Rock islands function like large nest structures. Rock islands are probably successful because they are partially safeguarded from upland predators by water barriers yet they are too small to attract aquatic predators such as mink.

44

As a general rule, no more than 1 rock island should be placed in each 20 acres of wetland habitat. No more than 20 should be built in 1 square mile of prairie-pothole habitat. Space rock islands at least 100 feet apart.

Construction Guidelines Rock islands should be built when wetlands are sufficiently dry to support heavy equipment. Construction in winter is usually not necessary because seasonal wetlands, where rock islands are usually built, normally are completely dry by late summer. Rock islands are built primarily of rocks piled in a wetland basin to a height of 2 to 3 feet above the average water level. Another 2 to 3 feet of soil from the marsh bottom or from adjacent upland sites is placed on top of the rocks. The completed islands are only 10 to 15 feet in diameter.

Management On rock islands, nesting cover will usually develop from seeds contained within the soil covering. However, it is probably worthwhile to incorporate 3 or 4 ounces of seed into the top 1 inch of soil as a means of accelerating the vegetative process. Seeds of such plants as sweetclover, tall wheatgrass, and intermediate wheatgrass would be appropriate. Because rock islands are small and widely dispersed it is not cost-effective to visit each one annually to trap predators. However, a representative portion of rock islands should be occasionally visited to determined use and success by nesting waterfowl. * provided by Lokemoen et al. 1994

45

46

47

Figure 2: Shows the soil distributions on the property

48

Literature Cited Ackerman, J.T. 2002. Of mice and mallards: positive indirect effects of coexisting prey

on waterfowl nest success. Oikos. 99: 469-480 Ackerman, J.T., Blackmer, A.L., and Eadie, J.M. 2004. Is predation on waterfowl nests

density dependant? – Tests at three spatial scales. Oikos 107:128-140. Austin, J. E., and M. R. Miller. 1995. Northern Pintail (Anas acuta). In The Birds of

North America, No. 163 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Brix, K.V., D. K. DeForest, R. D. Cardwell, and W. J. Adams. 2003. Derivation of a

chronic site-specific water quality standard for selenium in the Great Salt Lake, Utah, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(3): 606-612.

Dechant, J. A., A. L. Zimmerman, D. H. Johnson, C. M. Goldade, B. E. Jamison, and B.

R. Euliss. 2002. Effects of management practices on wetland birds: American Avocet. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 24 pp.

Drilling, N., R. Titman, and F. McKinney. 2002. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). In The

Birds of North America, No. 658 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

DuBowy, P. J. 1996. Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata). In The Birds of North America,

No. 217 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Frey, S. Nicole, and Conover, Michael R. 2006. Habitat use by meso-predators in a

corridor environment. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(4): 1111-1118 Gunnarsson, Gunnar, Elmberg, Johan, Sjöberg, Kjell, Pöysä, and Nummi, Petri. 2004.

Why are there so many empty lakes? Food limits survival of mallard ducklings. Can. J. Zool. 82: 1687-1703

Hoekman, Steven T., Gabor, T. Shane, Maher, Ron, Murkin, Henry R., and Armstrong,

Llwellyn M. 2004. Factors affecting survival of mallard ducklings in Southern Ontario. The Condor. 106: 485-495

Idso, Sherwood B., and Gilbert, R. Gene. 1974. On the Universality of the Poole and

Atkins Secchi Disk-Light Extinction Equation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 11:1 p 399-401.

Jackson, B. J. S. and J. S. Jackson. 2000. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous). The Birds

of North America 517.

49

Kantrud, Harold A. 1990. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus L.): A

literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Resource Publication 176. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/pondweed/index.htm (Version 16JUL97).

Koenen, M. T., and R. B. Utych. 1996. Methods used to improve Least Tern and Snowy

Plover nesting success on alkaline flats. Journal of Field Ornithology 67(2): 281-291.

Loesch, C. R., K. J. Reinecke, and C. K. Baxter. 1994. Lower Mississippi Valley joint

venture evaluation plan. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 34 pp. Lokemoen, J. T. and T. A. Messmer. 1994. Locating, constructing, and managing islands for nesting waterfowl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Extension and Publications, Arlington, VA and The Berryman Institute, Logan, UT. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/island/index.htm (Version 12MAY03). Nicolai, Chris A., Flint, Paul L., and Wege, Michael L. 2005. Annual Survival and Site

Fidelity of Northern Pintails on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(3): 1202-1210

NRCS, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Page, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner, and P. W. C. Paton. 1995. Snowy Plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus). The Birds of North America 154. Pearse, Aaron T., and Ratti, John T. 2004. Effects of Predator Removal on Mallard

Duckling Survival. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68(2): 342-350 Richkus, Kenneth D., Rohwer, Frank C., and Chamberlain, Michael J. 2005. Survival and

Cause-specific Mortality of Female Northern Pintails in Southern Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(2): 574-581

Robinson, J. A., L. W. Oring, J. P. Skorupa, and R. Boettcher. 1997. American Avocet

(Recurvirostra americana). The Birds of North America 275. Robinson, J. A., J. M. Reed, L. W. Oring, and J. P. Skorupa. Black-necked Stilt

(Himantopus mexicanus). The Birds of North America 449. West, Ben C., and Messmer, Terry A. 2004. Impacts and Management of Duck-nest

Predation: the managers’ view. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(3): 772-781

50

WRCC, Western Regional Climate Center. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?utbrvr