903R90109
Chesapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl
Policy and Management Plan
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
July 1990
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POUCY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTION STATEMENT ii
PREFACE iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
POUCY vii
INTRODUCTION 1
THE WATERFOWL RESOURCE 2
Types of Waterfowl 2
Migration 6
Defining the Waterfowl Resource 7
Status and Trends 8
EXISTING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 10
Federal 10
Maryland 12
Virginia 14
Pennsylvania 15
NEW INITIATIVES 17
Chesapeake Bay Agreement 17
North American Waterfowl Management Plan 18
North American Wetlands Conservation Act 18
RESEARCH 19
NEW MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 20
Goals and Objectives 20
Management Actions 21
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl Policy and Management Plan for the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 3 of the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement:
1o adopt a schedule for the development of Bay-wide resource management strategies for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable species."
We agree to work together to achieve the goal of the Plan:
"to restore, enhance, and protect waterfowl habitats and populations to derive the greatest
long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits from the resource."
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable financial support and human resources to the task of
conserving, protecting, and enhancing Waterfowl.
In addition, we direct the Waterfowl Management Team of the Living Resources Subcommittee to guide
efforts to meet the Plan's objectives and to prepare annual reports addressing progress in implementing the
Plan.
Date:
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the District of Columbia
For the United States of America
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl Policy and Management Plan
PREFACE
In July 1988, members of the Chesapeake Executive Council approved the "Schedule for Developing
Baywide Resource Management Strategies." The schedule is designed to commit certain members of the
multi-agency Chesapeake Bay Program to develop management plans for a variety of "commercially,
recreationally and selected ecologically valuable species." Five major groups of living resources have been
identified for development of management plans: (1) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation; (2) Wetlands;
(3) Waterfowl; (4) Finfish and Shellfish; and (5) Other Ecologically Valuable Species.
Waterfowl are the subject of this management plan. The Plan fulfills a commitment presented in the
"Schedule for Developing Bay Wide Resource Management Strategies" to set forth specific actions to
restore, protect, and enhance waterfowl habitat and populations. The Plan was developed by a team of
federal and state waterfowl specialists and resource managers on behalf of the Resource Management
Workgroup under the Living Resources Subcommittee. The Plan is for all species of waterfowl that use
Chesapeake Bay. The Schedule for Developing Baywide Resource Management Strategies (Chesapeake
Executive Council 1988) established the present approach for developing resource management strategies.
In that document, the Executive Council determined that each resource management strategy should
include a statement of the current status of a living resource, how far this status is from a preferred level
of abundance and distribution, a policy and/or a set of goals for restoring and protecting the resources, and
steps which could be taken to achieve these goals, both baywide and in critical habitats within the Bay
ecosystem.
Actions identified in this Plan when implemented by signatories and their respective agencies will benefit
waterfowl. It will be difficult to restore waterfowl without a strong cooperative effort to restore, protect and
enhance habitat, and to relieve other pressures that may be detrimental to waterfowl species using the
Chesapeake.
For the most part, short-term tasks of the Plan are being undertaken with existing resources and authorities.
The ability to conduct long-term tasks naturally depends on future availability of the necessary funds and
authorities.
Members of the Waterfowl Management Team (WMT) that developed this plan are:
John Dunn Bureau of Wildlife Management
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Richard W. Dyer Northeast Regional Office
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Douglas J. Forsell Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Steven L Funderburk Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John W. Gill Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
G. Michael Haramis Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
iii
-------
Fred J. Hartman
Larry J. Hindman
Richard L Jachowski
David G. Krementz
Peter Poulos
Jerome R. Serie
Fairfax H. Settle
Bureau of Wildlife Management
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Forest, Park and Wildlife Service
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Migratory Bird Management
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Migratory Bird Management
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wildlife Division
Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries
iv
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Historically the Chesapeake was rich in waterfowl abundance, to the point that they seemed to blanket areas
of the Bay. Today, their numbers are greatly reduced. Wide-spread deterioration of shallow water habitats
and wetlands, coupled with an ever-increasing human population, has reduced the value of many
Chesapeake Bay areas to waterfowl.
Signatories of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement have committed to the protection and restoration of
Chesapeake Bay's living resources. In support of this commitment, a "Schedule for Developing Baywide
Resource Management Strategies" was adopted for a variety of "commercially, recreationally, and selected
ecologically valuable species." Waterfowl, including ducks, geese, and swans, are one of the major
categories of living resources for which management strategies are being developed.
The Waterfowl Management Team (WMT) of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee developed the strategy for protection and restoration of Chesapeake Bay's waterfowl
resource. The workgroup includes representatives from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and the Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries.
The Plan will guide the protection and restoration of all waterfowl species using Chesapeake Bay. The Plan
emphasizes protection and restoration of habitats these species are dependent upon throughout
Chesapeake Bay, its tidal tributaries, and adjacent uplands.
Management Issues
The goal of the Waterfowl Management Plan is "to restore, protect, and enhance waterfowl habitats and
populations to derive the greatest long term ecological, economic, and social benefits from the resource."
To achieve this goal, the Plan defines the resource, life history characteristics, research priorities, and it
outlines three clear objectives:
Objective 1: Prevent loss and degradation of habitat, and restore and enhance habitats presently
degraded or unsuited for use by waterfowl.
Actions
Identify essential habitat requirements for waterfowl in the Chesapeake Bay region, including
water quality requirements.
Determine suitable habitat management practices for waterfowl, taking into account interests
for conservation of other natural resource values.
Encourage measures to restore submerged aquatic vegetation to pre-1960s levels of
distribution and abundance in Chesapeake Bay.
Provide guidance to agencies, organizations, and the public on habitat management
practices needed to benefit waterfowl.
Encourage programs to control the spread of plants that diminish the value of wetlands for
waterfowl.
Recommend measures to minimize the adverse effects on waterfowl from human
disturbance and land development.
-------
Objective 2:
Actions
o
o
Objective 3:
Action
o
Support responsible waterfowl management programs to restore waterfowl populations and
habitats to at least 1970's levels by the year 2000.
Promote responsible use of waterfowl resource by coordinating with the Atlantic Flyway
Council and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding harvest restrictions and provisions.
Minimize adverse effects of hand-reared mallards on wild populations.
Identify management actions to reduce concentrations of waterfowl where they damage
habitat and are exposed to an increased risk of disease.
Survey waterfowl populations in the Chesapeake Bay region as needed to monitor their
trends in relation to habitat conditions.
Support development and implementation of new or improved waterfowl management
techniques.
Improve public understanding of the waterfowl resource and its habitat needs.
Identify opportunities to develop new educational programs and products.
Specific waterfowl management statements and action items are in this plan. Meeting the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement's goals for protecting and restoring Bay waterfowl populations provides an important
opportunity for interested citizens, resource managers and legislators to focus their commitment to
Chesapeake Bay living resources.
vi
-------
It is the intent of the Chesapeake Executive Council to set forth this policy for developing and implementing
a comprehensive strategy for the protection and management of all Chesapeake Bay waterfowl and their
habitats.
The goal of the Waterfowl Management Plan is to restore, protect, and enhance waterfowl habitats and
populations to derive the greatest long term ecological, economic, and social benefits from the resource.
The objectives are to:
o Prevent loss and degradation of habitat, and restore and enhance habitats presently
degraded or unsuitable for use by waterfowl.
o Support responsible waterfowl management programs to restore waterfowl populations and
habitats to at least 1970's levels by the year 2000.
o Improve public understanding of the waterfowl resource and its habitat needs.
The Waterfowl Management Team that developed this plan will become a permanent unit of the Resource
Management Workgroup under the Living Resources Subcommittee to guide implementation of the Plan.
vii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Waterfowl help define the wonder and beauty of the Chesapeake Bay. Historically the Chesapeake was rich
in waterfowl. It is nearly impossible to know just how abundant waterfowl were hundreds of years ago.
However, anecdotal information paints a rather awe inspiring picture. The 17th century explorer, George
Alsop, reported that waterfowl "rose in flocks not of ten or twelve, or twenty or thirty, but continually,
wherever we pushed our way; and as they made room for us, there was such an incessant clattering made
with their wings on the water where they rose, and such a noise of those flying higher up, that it was as if
we were all the time surrounded by a whirlwind." Waterfowl seemed to blanket areas of the bay. During the
late 19th century and early 20th century, waterfowl wintering on the Chesapeake Bay were greatly reduced
by uncontrolled market-hunting. Fortunately, the U.S. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in
1918 which prohibited uncontrolled take of waterfowl. It is this law that protects all migratory birds and that
forms the basis 1or annual waterfowl hunting regulations.
The Chesapeake Bay area is of prime importance to waterfowl using the Atlantic Flyway. Today, about one
million waterfowl winter on Chesapeake Bay representing about 35% of all waterfowl in the Atlantic Flyway.
Although the total number of waterfowl has averaged about one million birds, species that rely on aquatic
habitats have declined significantly. A quick synopsis of overall trends shows that over the last 40 years,
the abundance of ducks has declined 70-80% from highs in the mid-1950's. Species showing significant
declines are the American black duck, American wigeon, northern pintail, canvasback and redhead. In
contrast, geese have increased over the last 40 years, because they have taken advantage of grains left
in agricultural fields after harvest and are not dependent upon aquatic foods for survival.
The Chesapeake Bay has not escaped problems in recent times. Habitat for breeding waterfowl, particularly
black ducks, has been significantly degraded. Many species find it difficult to cope with the increasing
human population on the bay, but the biggest problem faced by waterfowl in the final decade of this century
is wide-spread deterioration of shallow-water habitats and marshes around the bay. Deterioration of aquatic
habitats is caused by pollution that contribute excess nutrients and contaminants into the Chesapeake. The
principal impact has been reduction in valuable food for wintering waterfowl, especially submerged aquatic
vegetation, mollusks, and other invertebrates.
Special efforts are necessary on Chesapeake Bay to enable waterfowl to survive and increase in abundance.
This plan establishes a solid framework for management, with particular attention to habitat and public
awareness. It complements the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, signed by the United States
and Canada in 1986, and helps fulfill the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The plan defines the resource,
its importance, threats, and needs. The plan is ambitious but illustrates clearly the magnitude of work
needed to restore our valuable Chesapeake waterfowl.
-------
THE WATERFOWL RESOURCE
Waterfowl can be found in every available aquatic habitat from ocean surf and coastal marshes to inland
potholes and bottomland forest. Each species has its own habitat preferences, breeding behavior, food
preferences, and migration patterns. The one unifying aspect of waterfowl is their dependence on aquatic
habitat or wetlands. To a large extent, the quantity and quality of our wetland resource will dictate the
condition of our waterfowl resource in the Chesapeake Bay. Another condition that is common with
waterfowl is that most migrate from breeding grounds to winter grounds, and back. Discussion on the
unique characteristics of each waterfowl group follow. In this report, waterfowl are grouped into five general
types: swans, geese, dabbling ducks, bay ducks, and sea ducks. It is essential to understand the various
characteristics of these groups when deciding which management strategies are necessary for Chesapeake
Bay.
Types of Waterfowl
Twenty nine species of waterfowl use the Chesapeake Bay for wintering, breeding, or as a stopover during
migration. Only a small portion of the birds breed in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The major importance
of Chesapeake Bay to waterfowl is the extensive wintering habitat it provides. To a lesser but largely
unknown extent it is also important as a stopover for migrating birds. (Table 1).
Swans
Two species of swans, the mute swan and the tundra swan, are found on Chesapeake Bay. The mute
swan, the common orange-billed swan of waterfront residences, city parks, and zoos, is not native to North
America. It has established breeding populations in various regions of the country including Chesapeake
Bay. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is the mainstay food item for the adult mute swan. The mute
swan is in this plan because of potential habitat destruction behavior and conflicts with endemic waterfowl
species. Control of mute swans may be necessary if local populations continue to increase.
Until recently, Chesapeake Bay has been the most important wintering area for tundra swans in North
America. However, the population in North Carolina has recently increased to include more than half of the
Atlantic Flyway population. Tundra swans have traditionally fed on the leaves, stems, and tubers of SAV and
marsh plants. The decline in SAV throughout Chesapeake Bay has led to the southern shift in wintering
distribution to the Carolines. Additionally, with the decline in SAV during the early 1970s, swans began
feeding in agricultural fields on waste com, waste soybeans, winter wheat, and barley. They commonly fly
as far as 15 miles inland to feed.
Geese
The three species of geese that winter on Chesapeake Bay are the snow goose, Canada goose, and brant.
Although brant were once abundant on Chesapeake Bay during the 1930's, they declined drastically as a
result of the almost complete disappearance of eelgrass, their principal food. Most brant now are found in
coastal bays and lagoons where they feed extensively on sea lettuce, followed by eelgrass, widgeongrass,
and smooth cordgrass.
Canada geese are the most abundant species of waterfowl in the Chesapeake Bay area. Canada geese
wintering in Chesapeake Bay generally arrive in early October. Spring departure occurs around mid-
February. Wintering Canada geese have greatly benefited from agriculture. On the Atlantic Flyway,
Canadas have largely forsaken aquatic food plants for upland crops including waste com, waste soybeans,
winter wheat, and clover. This change in food use is so complete that the availability and quality of
agricultural fields now determines the areas where Canada geese concentrate. The most attractive grain
fields to geese are large and open in dose proximity to an undisturbed body of water. Increases in
populations of Canada geese have provided extensive recreational hunting opportunities on the eastern
shore of Chesapeake Bay; however, over the past 5 years, Canada geese have declined considerably and
hunting restrictions have been tight.
-------
Table 1. Waterfowl and their use of Chesapeake Bay. The categories of use are: high = greater than
25,000 birds or high importance to Atlantic Ryway population; medium = 5,000 to 25,000 birds
or moderate importance to flyway population; low = less than 5,000 birds and low importance
to flyway populations; none = little or no use.
SPECIES
SWANS
Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus)
Mute Swan (Cygnus dor)
GEESE
Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens)
Brant (Branta bernicla)
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
DABBUNG DUCKS
Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca)
American Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
Mallard (Anas platyrhvnchos)
Northern Pintail (Anas acuta)
Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)
Northern Shoveler (Anas clyoeata)
Gadwall (Anas strepera)
American Wigeon (Anas americana)
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
BAY DUCKS
Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)
Redhead (Aythya americana)
Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)
Greater Scaup (Aythya marila)
Lesser Scaup (Aythva afflnls)
Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamalcensis)
SEA DUCKS
Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalls)
Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra)
Surf Scoter (Melanitta oerspicillata)
White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca)
Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)
Hooded Merganser (Mergus cucullatus)
Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)
Red-Breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)
WATERFOWL USE
BREEDING
none
low
none
none
none
none
high
high
none
low
none
low
none
high
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
MIGRATING
medium
none
medium
none
medium
medium
high
high
medium
medium
low
medium
medium
high
high
low
low
high
high
high
high
medium?
medium?
low?
medium
medium
low
low
low
WINTERING
high
low
medium
low
high
low
high
high
low
none
low
low
medium
low
high
low
low
medium
high
high
high
medium?
medium?
low?
medium
medium
low
low
medium
-------
Two sub-species of snow geese, the lesser and greater, winter in the region. Greater snow geese are more
abundant than lesser snow geese. Fewer than 4,000 lesser snow geese winter at Blackwater and Presquile
National Wildlife Refuges. Greater snow geese feed in agricultural fields and roost on inland ponds and Bay
tributaries. Greater snow geese are expanding their winter range to include more of the Chesapeake area,
resulting in increased conflicts with agricultural interests.
Although snow geese have adapted to feeding in agricultural fields, favorite foods of this species are
estuarine emergent wetland plants and rootstocks. Preferred food plants include: common threesquare,
smooth cordgrass, and saltmarsh bulrush. Concentrations of feeding snow geese often root and dig-out
marshes creating "eat-outs" in the coastal marshes of Delaware and Virginia; they have yet to cause similar
problems in Chesapeake Bay marshes. This may become a more serious management concern if the
greater snow geese population increases and expands its winter range.
Dabbling Ducks
Dabblers (surface-feeding ducks, marsh ducks, puddle ducks) and wood ducks are associated with the
small, shallow fresh to brackish tributaries of Chesapeake Bay as well as inland lakes, ponds, and marshes.
Their ability to forage ashore, to feed efficiently in the shallows, and to dive moderately well makes dabbling
ducks the most versatile feeders of all waterfowl. As a group, the dabblers make use of dozens of
submerged, emergent, and moist soil aquatic plants; innumerable species of aquatic and terrestrial animals,
especially invertebrates; and many kinds of farm crops. Species using the Chesapeake include the black
duck, mallard, northern pintail, gadwall, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, American
wigeon, and wood duck. The black duck and mallard are the most abundant. Dabblers which breed in the
Chesapeake include black duck, mallard, gadwall, blue-winged teal, and wood duck.
A wide variety of habitat types are used by nesting black ducks; however, they generally construct ground
nests well hidden in densely vegetated upland areas. In Chesapeake Bay, uninhabited offshore islands and
remote marshes are the best black duck production areas. Black ducks raise their broods in intertidal flats,
emergent marshes, beaver ponds, submerged aquatic beds, impoundments, and alder-fringed streams.
Brood habitat close to nesting habitat is important. Intense development throughout the Chesapeake
watershed has limited the area where these two types of unaltered habitats occur together. This coupled
with the black duck's intolerance to human disturbance is greatly limiting local production.
Mallard breeding in the Chesapeake Bay Region has significantly increased in recent history from game-
farm stock. In the 1940's the State of Maryland and private groups began releasing farm-reared mallards.
Today, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is mandated by law to spend up to 50% of the
monies collected from its State duck stamp sales for its mallard release program. Between 1974 and 1986,
over 200,000 farm-raised mallards have been released each year by private farms (Regulated Shooting
Areas) and the Department of Natural Resources. Over 10% of the released birds came from State stock.
Nesting habitat preferences are similar between the black duck and mallard, although the mallard will nest
in close association with humans. The majority of resident Chesapeake Bay mallards are semi-
domesticated, and are often associated with housing, marinas, and other areas of intense human uses.
Resident mallards may negatively affect black duck populations by competing for breeding and wintering
habitat, and through hybridization with black ducks.
Wood ducks are one of the few locally breeding species of waterfowl common to Chesapeake Bay. Wood
ducks use forested wetlands which provide food and nesting sites for these cavity-nesting ducks. The
major wintering range occurs south of Maryland in the Atlantic States. The most important factor limiting
wood ducks is the availability of mixed hardwood forested wetlands and stream corridors. A nest box
program that provides predator-proof nesting has benefitted local production of wood ducks in areas where
cavities are limited but where foods are plentiful. Preserving forested wetlands is the most critical need for
wood ducks.
-------
Bay Ducks
Although wintering bay ducks use most aquatic habitats of the Bay region, they most often use extensive
open water shoals with fresh to brackish water. The species of Bay ducks in the Chesapeake Bay are the
canvasback, redhead, greater scaup, lesser scaup, and ring-necked duck. Formerly, two of the most
significant areas for Bay ducks were the mouth of the Chester River and the Susquehanna Rats. These
areas were hard hit by declines of SAV and no longer attract large numbers of ducks.
The canvasback is the most abundant Bay duck on the Chesapeake. These birds rely heavily on small
clams for food, although in years past they preferred wild celery in the Susquehanna Rats when this plant
was abundant. Declines in wild celery caused canvasback to shift to eating clams. Canvasback continue,
however, to be the most abundant Bay duck wintering on Chesapeake Bay.
Redheads tend to feed in shallow waters, and unlike other pochards rely extensively on SAV. Because of
drastic declines in SAV, and an apparent inability to switch to animal foods, redheads now use Chesapeake
Bay only in small numbers.
Ring-necked ducks feed in shallower water than other Bay ducks, usually less than 6 feet. They are often
associated with tidal freshwater wetlands and impoundments where they feed on vegetation to a large
extent.
Greater scaup feed upon both plant and animal life; however, in most areas clams constitute the principal
food item. SAV is a preferred food item in areas of the Chesapeake where it is available. Lesser scaup feed
primarily on animal life, but will consume the seeds and foliage of pondweeds and widgeon-grass. Habitats
as diverse as farm ponds only a few feet deep to estuarine bays up to 25 feet deep are used as feeding
sites.
The ruddy duck is found on the open Bay as well as on creeks and small ponds. Chesapeake Bay winters
nearly 30% of the Atlantic Flyway population, with most of the population arriving by early December.
Ruddy ducks are primarily vegetarians and secondarily consumers of animal life. Animal food appears to
be used only when suitable plant items are unavailable.
Sea Ducks
Sea ducks use coastal marine and open estuarine waters. These species feed mainly on aquatic animal
foods such as mdlusks, crustaceans, amphipods, and fish. The group includes bufflehead, gddeneye,
scoters, oldsquaw, and mergansers.
Mergansers, have streamlined bodies and serrated narrow bills which are ideally adapted to pursue fish, their
primary food. Upon arriving on the Chesapeake, the red-breasted merganser winters on the coastline, the
common merganser uses both inland lakes, rivers, and coastal waters, and the hooded merganser remains
almost entirely inland.
Common gddeneye and bufflehead are associated with open estuarine waters to a much greater extent.
Buffleheads were traditionally the only species of sea ducks which were taken by hunters in significant
numbers. In recent years, however, oldsquaw and scoters have been hunted to a greater extent as
populations of other more desireable species have declined. Little is known about these species, relatively
speaking, because of their off-shore habits and because previously they were subject to minor harvest
pressure.
-------
Migration
Most species of North American waterfowl are migratory, moving from northern breeding areas to southern
wintering areas and back again. Many dabblers and divers breed in the prairie pothole regions and migrate
south or to the coasts for the winter. Sea ducks migrate along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The
Chesapeake Bay, located in the Atlantic Ryway, receives birds from all across northern Canada and parts
of Alaska east to Labrador and Greenland.
Migration allows waterfowl to escape harsh winter conditions in Canada and Alaska by moving to warmer
areas of the country, including Chesapeake Bay. Waterfowl breeding at northern latitudes can take
advantage of a brief but insect-rich arctic summer (insects are an important protein source for waterfowl
broods), and then fly south or to the coasts to more hospitable climates.
Waterfowl tend to return to the same breeding and wintering areas; however, food supply can alter migratory
patterns. Tens of thousands of Canada geese now winter several hundred miles north of traditional winter
grounds as a result of availability of both feed and cereal grains from agriculture. Likewise, when hurricanes
opened up dense coastal marshes in Louisiana, tens of thousands of ducks began wintering there rather
than continuing to the traditional wintering grounds on the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. It is important to
recognize from a management perspective that waterfowl will take advantage of newly developed food and
habitat resources.
The resources of the Bay are of primary importance to waterfowl spending the winter. Their ability to
survive the winter and depart for their breeding grounds with energy reserves to make the migration and
successfully reproduce depends largely on the Bay's resources. The Bay also provides important resting
areas and food for waterfowl passing through the Bay during fall and spring migrations.
Migration Pathways to Chesapeake Bay
Migration Pathway
Waterfowl that use the Bay as a resting
ground continue migrating South
-------
Defining the Waterfowl Resource:
An essential element in managing migratory bird species is to monitor population levels. Fluctuations in bird
populations can indicate healthy or degraded habitats. That information, in turn, will influence management
activities that help maintain healthy populations or that emphasize restoration of declining populations. The
information is critical to establishing limits on the numbers of waterfowl that may be harvested annually.
Since the mid 1930's, extensive winter waterfowl surveys have been conducted annually for virtually all of
the United States, and on less frequent occasions Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. In the late
1940's, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed aerial waterfowl breeding and production surveys.
These initial efforts have evolved into a cooperative U.S.-Canadian effort that surveys waterfowl populations
and habitat changes over 1.4 million square miles. This breeding survey supplemented the mid-winter
survey in the mid 1950's as a primary source of information used in the development of annual waterfowl
hunting regulations.
Beginning in the spring of 1990, breeding survey coverage will extend farther into boreal areas of eastern
Canada, the St. Lawrence lowlands, and portions of the northeastern U.S. Information derived from these
surveys is expected to increase our knowledge of birds that winter in the Chesapeake Bay.
Numerous surveys that evolved from the "first" nationwide survey are oriented toward individual species and
local populations. These surveys also are used extensively in our area to measure waterfowl abundance
and distribution. These population data are used with other information to set waterfowl hunting regulations,
to support habitat acquisition programs, develop mitigation plans, assess environmental impacts, provide
information for legal actions, and appraise potential impacts of disease outbreaks. Specific surveys
discussed in this management plan include the mid-winter waterfowl survey, November Canada goose
survey, and Maryland waterfowl breeding survey.
Several points should be kept in mind in any discussion of waterfowl surveys. First, due to annual variations
in weather and habitat conditions, distribution of waterfowl may differ from year-to-year and, second, an
effort is always made to conduct surveys during the same time period each year simultaneously throughout
the flyway.
The mid-winter survey is considered by many biologists as the most important survey in the Atlantic Flyway.
It is conducted by all the states in the flyway, and counts are made of all species of ducks, geese, and
swans observed. The mid-winter is an aerial survey and is conducted the first 2 weeks of January. It is
used to estimate population size, trend, and distribution of geese and swans and to determine the relative
numbers of waterfowl on wintering grounds. Since blacks duck are so difficult to survey on their breeding
grounds in eastern Canada and the northeastern U.S., this survey is also used as an index to the population
trend of this species. This survey is the basis of our population estimates of most species in the Bay.
A second survey that is conducted by Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania covers virtually all of the
Chesapeake Bay region is the November Canada goose survey. This survey had been conducted by the
Atlantic Flyway states since the early 1960's and was originally designed to determine when goose
populations peak during the year. While some flyway states no longer conduct this survey, Maryland and
Virginia also use this survey as an opportunity to monitor the abundance of greater snow geese, brant,
tundra swans, and 4 species of diving ducks.
Maryland also conducts a breeding waterfowl survey in the spring that was originally designed to determine
the effects of captive mallard releases on the native breeding ducks. The survey has been done annually
from 1974-1987, but in 1989 Maryland will incorporate the survey into a multi-state mallard and black duck
breeding survey effort. Virginia also conducts this breeding waterfowl survey and plans to continue at least
through the spring of 1991.
Other surveys that occur in the area include the November canvasback survey, Maryland and Virginia mute
swan survey, greater snow goose inventory, December swan survey, Pennsylvania breeding pair survey, and
Pennsylvania brood survey.
-------
Status and Trends
Knowing the status of the waterfowl population, and trends over long periods of time, is essential to
management. Gaining a clear picture of status and trends for migratory birds, however, can be extremely
difficult because they are so mobile and influenced by numerous environmental conditions. This Plan
focuses on the Chesapeake Bay region; however, population levels of ducks, geese, and swans may be
influenced by environmental conditions outside the Chesapeake Bay. For example, canvasback numbers
in any given year may be down in the Chesapeake Bay because of drought conditions in the prairie pothole
region. The following information considers status and trends of certain species, with the understanding
that conditions in the Chesapeake Bay may satisfy only a portion of a species' needs during an annual cycle.
The Chesapeake Bay's primary contribution to the nation's migratory bird resource is to provide an area that
is a major migration and wintering site. Although some waterfowl breeding occurs in the Bay, this is a
relatively minor component of the Bay's overall waterfowl value. It is estimated that nearly one million
waterfowl winter on the Bay each winter (unpublished data, Office of Migratory Bird Management, USFWS,
Laurel, MD, 1948-1986) (Table 2). This represents more than 35% of all waterfowl wintering along the
Atlantic coast. Twenty-nine species of waterfowl have been identified wintering on the Bay, although 4-5
species make up the largest percentage of birds using the Bay.
Despite a stable average of one million birds during the 1980's, there were major changes in species
composition. Populations of Canada geese during the early 1980's were three times higher than the
average levels recorded in the 1950 's; however, in the late 1980's populations exhibited a sharp
decline. During this same period, all ducks except mallards have shown sharp declines, which
coincides with the degradation of aquatic habitats in Chesapeake Bay.
Graphs of Status and Trends to be included in printed final Plan
(In preparation by USFWS Office of Migratory Bird Management)
-------
Table 2. Summarized results of winter waterfowl surveys for Maryland and Virginia. For the most
part the data are representative of Chesapeake Bay, but they also include the birds recorded
on the Atlantic costal bays. For the 1980s data, these coastal areas account for 10% of the
swans; 11% of the geese; 23% of the dabbling ducks; 2% of the bay ducks; and 20% of the
sea ducks. These numbers probably still underestimate Chesapeake Bay populations because
the surveys do not record all birds, occur after the hunting season, and are primarily coastal,
thus, they under estimate the numbers of sea ducks in open waters. Nevertheless, the data
are very useful as an index of change.
Species
Highest Year
Recorded Recorded
1940-1990
1950s
MEAN FOR DECADE
1960s
1970s
1980s
SWANS
Tundra Swan
GEESE
Snow Goose
Brant
Canada Goose
DABBLING DUCKS
Green-winged Teal
American Black Duck
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
American Wigeon
BAY DUCKS
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Greater and Lesser Scaup
Ruddy Duck
SEA DUCKS
Oldsquaw
Black, Surf, and
White-winged Scoter
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded, Common, and
Red-Breasted Merganser
TOTAL
75,854 1955
32,337
40,065
38,790 34,100
127,200
62,200
701,400
55,927
281,485
182,195
78,211
10,700
18,900
15,300
144,350
399,320
118,900
18,500
403,700
124,740
21,900
130,900
40,700
24,700
1985
1954
1981
1941
1955
1956
1956
1949
1966
1980
1955
1954
1956
1942
1954
1953
1972
1971
1956
1967
33,400 1955
6,634
19,600
177,710
3,100
142,922
71,379
40,428
550
85
1,000
74,230
179,072
76,429
5,090
101,545
65,995
3,550
19,064
22,068
9,105
8,073
1,059,996
23,885
10,310
318,040
2,330
86,600
41,260
14,186
40
960
1,085
18,710
102,450
34,485
2,825
71,610
30,720
3,615
8,350
25,920
11,730
5,180
854,356
27,600
9,415
561,340
1,970
54,420
47,160
4,000
35
905
4,080
8,010
63,890
10,930
865
54,630
18,060
9,500
32,085
12,060
22,470
2,840
985,587
62,906
23,331
570,138
1,062
49,338
56,812
3,381
43
194
3,475
4,925
52,963
3,162
2,081
30,900
17,262
7,088
6,538
12,563
17,112
5,213
964,460
-------
EXISTING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
For most of this century, waterfowl on Chesapeake Bay and in the nation have been managed for harvest.
Management encompasses a wide variety of activities but can generally be grouped as either population
management or habitat management. Population management primarily involves factors affecting mortality;
recreational hunting is of primary importance here. Other concerns include diseases, lead poisoning, illegal
killing, human disturbance, and conflicts with man (e.g., geese on golf courses). Habitat management is
equally important. It involves activities designed to prevent loss or degradation of waterfowl habitat, or to
restore areas that have already suffered loss or degradation. These activities include acquisition of important
habitats, wetland restoration, marsh management, wetland creation, and improvements of water quality.
An important consideration for management of migratory waterfowl is that they require different habitats at
different times of the year, and habitat needs vary between species. Consequently, waterfowl management
strategies must encompass breeding habitat requirements, migratory stopover habitats, and wintering
habitat requirements for each species. For the majority of waterfowl, Chesapeake Bay will only provide one
or two habitat components (e.g., migration or wintering habitat). The specific actions put forth in this plan
to restore, protect, and enhance waterfowl habitats and populations are intended to complement other
waterfowl management efforts that address factors outside of Chesapeake Bay.
Much has been done on Chesapeake Bay to protect waterfowl from excessive harvest and to provide
wintering habitat. Following are descriptions of the long-standing activities of state and federal agencies
toward those goals.
Federal
Harvest Management (Federal) The Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility to provide federal
leadership for the conservation, protection, management, and enhancement of the nation's waterfowl
resource. The Service's goal is to perpetuate and improve migratory bird populations for the benefit of
people. With a limited resource in high demand, management is needed to provide optimum opportunity
for people to use and enjoy migratory birds. Under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, annual
hunting regulations are used to regulate sport hunting of migratory birds, afford significant recreational
opportunity, and play an important role in migratory bird management.
The objectives of annual regulations for the hunting of migratory birds are:
To provide an opportunity to harvest a portion of certain migratory game bird populations by
establishing legal hunting seasons.
To limit harvest of migratory game birds to levels compatible with tr»e/r ability to maintain their
populations.
To provide equitable hunting opportunity in various parts of the country within limits imposed by
abundance, migration, and distribution patterns of migratory game birds.
The regulatory process has evolved dramatically from its inception in 1918 when it was a liberal, brief,
simple, and uniform procedure. Severe drought conditions, concern about habitat, and a growing general
interest in the welfare of migratory birds led to more restrictive regulations in the 1930's; however, they still
remained uniform and relatively simple. In the 1940's, state involvement and investment in migratory bird
programs grew and demands for greater participation in the process of developing annual hunting
regulations increased. Responding to these demands, regional differences in hunting conditions were
recognized and by 1947, the nation was divided into four administrative 'flyways' for purposes of setting
10
-------
regulations. By 1952, all states had organized along flyway lines into flyway councils: Atlantic, Mississippi,
Central, and Pacific. In 1953, the National Waterfowl Council was established.
As a result of these changes, regulations became more complex. Waterfowl populations were generally
abundant in the 1950's and with flyway and state input, regulatory activities proceeded without difficulties.
In the 1960's, however, waterfowl populations were down and regulations became more restrictive. Public
and private interests became focused on habitat protection. Restrictions in harvest also led to more
specialized regulations, such as identifying regional harvest units. By the 1970's special harvest strategies,
such as the point system, were used to reduce hunting pressure on more desireable species which were
declining.
Restrictions also were introduced to protect declining species such as the black duck and special harvest
strategies were initiated. The 1970's were a decade of greater public awareness in environmental issues.
Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act began regulating certain wetland alteration activities.
Consequently the regulatory process became more complex. By the 1980's waterfowl numbers nationally
were down, demand for the resource was even higher, and a commitment to habitat conservation was
stronger than ever.
Annual regulations are divided into two categories, framework regulations and special regulations.
Framework regulations are the oldest and include a window of time for opening and closing seasons,
season length, and daily bag limit. Special regulations generally are species-, area-, or situation-specific.
They employ measures such as split seasons, zoning or bonus bag limits. Most have been developed in
response to specific interests and management needs. These regulations tend to be complex and they now
comprise most of the volume of annual regulations.
In summary, regulations permitting the hunting of migratory waterfowl serve a number of management goals
and objectives. Dating back to 1918, these regulations have evolved from simple, uniform, and liberal, to
large, complex, and more restrictive. The demand for the waterfowl resource has increased while the supply
has decreased. Management capabilities have increased with the advent of surveys and better knowledge
of bird populations, and the states and public have become more actively involved. Management agencies
and the public are now more aware of the importance of the habitat protection component of management
and have begun to approach this problem with the intensity that had been reserved for the regulatory
process.
Habitat Protection (Federal) In 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act emphasized the need to acquire lands
to protect and conserve migratory bird populations. Through enactment of the Migratory Bird Conservation
Act in 1929, Congress set in motion acquisition of refuges to preserve important waterfowl habitat.
Although lands have been donated to the Service, most National Wildlife Refuges have been established on
either withdrawn lands or acquired lands. Withdrawn lands are those that were in the public domain and
were reserved for wildlife by Executive Order, Presidential Proclamation, or Public Land Order. Acquired
lands are those that were privately owned and were obtained for wildlife pursuant to a specific authorization
under laws such as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, (which authorizes Federal Duck Stamp sales), the
Endangered Species Act and the Federal Aid-in-Wildlife Restoration Act.
Each refuge has one or more primary purposes for which it is established and around which its management
is designed. The purposes of individual refuges range from very narrow ones, such as preserving or
managing the habitat for a single species, to much broader ones such as conserving natural diversity,
fulfilling international treaty obligations, ensuring water quality, and providing opportunities for scientific
research and public use.
11
-------
All National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) within the Chesapeake Bay drainage are located in Maryland or Virginia.
The following summarizes existing holdings:
MARYLAND VIRGINIA
Blackwater NWR 15,687 acres Featherstone NWR 164 acres
Eastern Neck NWR 2,286 acres Fisherman Island NWR 1,025 acres
Martin NWR 4,424 acres MacKay Island NWR 874 acres
Patuxent NWR 4,682 acres Marumsco NWR 63 acres
Susquehanna NWR 4 acres Mason Neck NWR 2,277 acres
Nansemond NWR 208 acres
Total 27,083 acres Plum Tree Island NWR 3,276 acres
Presquile NWR 1,329 acres
Total 9,216 acres
Research (Federal) Information to support waterfowl management at the national level is generated by
Wildlife Research Centers of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Most of the Service's research on waterfowl in
Chesapeake Bay is performed by Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, in cooperation with universities, state
agencies, and wildlife refuges. Studies are undertaken in response to needs of the Service for regulation
of the waterfowl harvest and for management of habitat. Recently, habitat-oriented research has emphasized
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center has conducted waterfowl research on the Chesapeake Bay for 50 years.
Current efforts include an investigation of the survival rates of female black ducks and mallards during
breeding and of their broods during the pre-flight period. This study uses radio-marking of birds to help
answer questions about the long-term decline of black duck populations.
Extensive research on the ecology of canvasbacks on Chesapeake Bay involves three studies by Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center: (1) effects of age, sex, and body weight on winter distribution, (2) habitat use and
survival of juvenile canvasbacks wintering on the Bay, and (3) influence of foraging habitat on survival,
energetics, and reproduction of canvasbacks wintering on the Bay.
Canada goose populations are the subject of intensive study, involving the Fish and Wildlife Service and
states throughout the Atlantic Flyway. Data from observations on geese marked with numbered neck collars
are treated using sophisticated statistical methods to analyze regional changes in the survival and distribution
of populations.
Toxic materials in Chesapeake Bay might have contributed to the decline of waterfowl populations. Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center is conducting studies (1) to assess metal residues from oldsquaws in the Bay, (2)
to determine the effects of contaminants on submerged aquatic vegetation from the Bay, (3) to investigate
the relationship of benthic invertebrate assemblages to the waterfowl that forage in Baltimore Harbor and
to contaminants that may be in the benthic organisms, and (4) to survey the contaminant loads of waterfowl
wintering in Baltimore Harbor.
Maryland
Management of waterfowl by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources is the responsibility of the
Migratory Bird Program, whose long-range goals are to: (1) ensure the continued existence of the migratory
bird resource and (2) meet the demand of recreation oriented toward this resource.
Harvest Management (Maryland) Maryland, after careful review of biological data, publicly advertises hunting
regulation proposals for public input. Each year in late August, 3-4 public hearings are held in the state to
solicit public opinion regarding these proposals. Following the public review process, the Secretary of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in consultation with the Department's biological staff and 12
12
-------
member Wildlife Advisory Commission, makes season and bag limit recommendations to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The Service promulgates and publishes the final season and bag limits. The state
recommendations can be more restrictive than federal frameworks, but may never exceed them. State
regulations have been more restrictive than federal regulations in the past, particularly for Canada geese.
The Department is represented on the Atlantic Waterfowl Council by the Assistant Secretary, Forest Park and
Wildlife Service, and on the Council's Technical Section by the manager of the agency's Migratory Bird
Program. These groups meet semi-annually in March and July to discuss waterfowl management and to
formulate flyway recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning hunting season regulations
and related issues.
Habitat Protection and Enhancement (Maryland) Habitat activities include the development and
enhancement of waterfowl habitat on public lands using revenues from the sale of Maryland Migratory
Waterfowl Stamps. Also, landowners are offered a tax credit for expenditures used to develop and enhance
waterfowl habitats on private lands by entering into a 10-year licensing agreement for approved projects.
The Department also offers landowners a wildlife enhancement program known as the Wildlife Habitat
Improvement Program (WHIP). This program pays farmers to leave crops unharvested to provide winter
food for Canada geese and upland wildlife. This program is offered to landowners provided they commit
at least 10 acres of unharvested crops in fields that are at least 20 acres in size. Foods may include com,
sorghum, millet, grasses, and clover. Waterfowl hunting is not permitted on the property.
Under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan's Atlantic Coast Habitat Joint Venture, a minimum
of 140,000 acres are proposed for enhancement and protection by the year 2000. Five focus areas in
Maryland have been initially targeted for habitat enhancement. Maryland already has a number of state
areas protected for waterfowl (Table 3).
Table 3. Maryland State Waterfowl Areas.
AERA NAME
ACREAGE
COUNTY
Bowen
Cedar Island
Deal Island*
Dierrsen
Earleville
E. A. Vaughn
Ellis Bay
Fairmount
Fishing Bay*
Islands of the Potomac*
Isle of Wight
McKee-Beshers*
Myrtle Grove
Pocomoke River
Pocomoke Sound
Sinepuxent Bay
South Marsh Island*
Taylor's Island*
TOTAL
919
2,880
11,902
40
190
17,501
2,094
3,883
17,208
329
256
1,947
831
505
922
25
2,969
1.020
65,421
Prince George's
Somerset
Somerset
Montgomery
Cecil
Worcester
Wicomico
Somerset
Dorchester
Montgomery
Worcester
Montgomery
Charles
Worcester
Somerset
Worcester
Somerset
Dorchester
13
-------
Research Projects (Maryland) The Department is currently expanding the use of wood duck nest boxes to
increase wood duck production. Annual survival rates of adult female wood ducks are being monitored by
capturing and banding incubating females and recapturing them in subsequent years. This technique
provides a reliable indicator of wood duck population trends and requires smaller samples of banded birds
than banding programs that depend upon hunter-killed recoveries.
Also under investigation is the relative effectiveness of taxidermy-mounted Canada goose decoys in decoying
geese within gun range. This popular decoy is being compared to two commercially available decoy types.
This research should help managers decide whether the increase in the use of taxidermy-mounted decoys
significantly influences harvest success. Results of this research could lead to restrictive use of this decoy
type as a means of reducing harvest in lieu of reducing hunting opportunity.
In 1991 Maryland will initiate a 3-year Canada goose banding project to mark a representative sample of
both resident and migrant Canada geese. This research will provide an estimate of geese breeding in the
state, the effects of harvest regulations upon annual survival, and survival outside of the hunting season
for both resident and migrant geese. This research is a cooperative effort between Atlantic Flyway states
and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Department is currently involved in the development and implementation of a production assessment
for Canada geese in northern Quebec. This is a cooperative venture with the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. This work will be initiated in spring 1990 and
will involve an aerial survey in mid-June to determine nesting effort and an aerial survey in July to determine
gosling production. This information will be available to managers prior to the setting of harvest regulations
in August.
Virginia
Harvest Management (Virginia) Management of waterfowl by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries is a responsibility of the Wildlife Division. The 10-member Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries Board of Directors conducts an advertised public meeting in late August each year to receive staff
and public recommendations for waterfowl seasons and bag limits to be selected within the federal
frameworks regulations established by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Board votes on the waterfowl
regulation options at the public hearing meeting. In recent years the Board has established regulations more
restrictive than those allowed under the federal frameworks.
The agency is represented on the Atlantic Waterfowl Council by the Director and on the Technical Section
of the Council by a staff biologist. These groups meet semi-annually in March and July to discuss waterfowl
management and to formulate recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning hunting
regulations.
Survey and Inventory (Virginia). Division personnel are involved in numerous surveys including: spring
breeding waterfowl surveys; fall goose, swan, and canvasback surveys; and midwinter waterfowl inventories.
Weekly waterfowl surveys are conducted by project personnel on certain Wildlife Management Areas during
the October-March period. Productivity surveys of greater snow geese, Atlantic brant, and tundra swan are
made by both federal and state personnel. Division personnel participate in special waterfowl population,
harvest, and hunting pressure surveys as needed. Plans to expand waterfowl surveys are under
consideration.
Habitat Protection and Enhancement (Virginia). The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries is
deeply committed to the goals set forth in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan with particular
emphasis on the Atlantic Coast Habitat Joint Venture, which targets 60,400 acres of waterfowl habitat in
Virginia for protection or enhancement. Eight of the ten focus areas identified in Virginia are located within
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These Bay focus areas total 36,600 acres; 34,775 of which are to be
protected; 1,825 enhanced. Protection can be accomplished by any of several methods (e.g., fee
acquisition, easement, lease, cooperative agreement, legislation).
14
-------
Many varied waterfowl habitat programs are underway at the current time which will move Virginia forward
toward achieving habitat objectives. There are nine state wildlife management areas (WMA) in Virginia
totalling over 28,000 acres operated with waterfowl management as a major priority (Table 4). Additionally,
cooperative wildlife agreements exist with eleven Department of Defense bases in Virginia. Sikes Act-
funded waterfowl projects are being conducted on a number of these installations.
Table 4. Virginia Waterfowl Management Areas.
AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE
Chickahominy WMA Charles City County 5,155
Game Farm Marsh WMA New Kent County 429
Hog Island WMA Surry County 3,907
Kittewan WMA Charles City County 250
Lands End WMA King George County 463
Saxis WMA Accomack County 6,385
Ragged Island WMA Isle of Wight County 1.537
TOTAL ACRES 18,126
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation maintains a natural area preserve system of some
15,000 acres protecting natural heritage resources (endangered species and significant natural communities)
including natural habitat corridors critical to migratory waterfowl and neotropical migrants. The Department
also cooperates with Ducks Unlimited, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and The Nature
Conservancy to acquire significant habitat consistent with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Research (Virginia). Virginia has been involved in an Atlantic Flyway Canada goose movement and survival
study using neck-collared birds and is embarking on a wood duck banding and survival study. A newly-
hired waterfowl research biologist will carry out scheduled projects.
Pennsylvania
Harvest Management (Pennsylvania) In Pennsylvania, waterfowl management is the responsibility of the
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC). The 8-member PGC Board of Commissioners enacts basic and
framework waterfowl regulations at a public meeting of the Board. The PGC personnel meet with and
receive comments from waterfowl hunters and other interested groups and individuals about proposed
regulations. Appropriate Harrisburg staff and personnel of the Waterfowl and Migratory Game Bird Section
(WAMGABS) (of the Bureau of Wildlife Management) complete the specific items for waterfowl regulations.
At times, PGC has implemented regulations more restrictive than provided by the federal framework. The
PGC Executive Director represents PGC on the Atlantic Waterfowl Council and the PGC Waterfowl Biologist
serves as the representative on the Technical Section.
A number of PGC personnel, especially WAMGABS members, are involved in many and diverse projects
that directly and indirectly deal with or influence waterfowl populations, management, and regulations.
Programs are directed toward benefrtting local and migratory waterfowl, waterbirds, other wetland associated
wildlife, and providing ample opportunities for consumptive and non-consumptive users.
15
-------
Survey and Inventory (Pennsylvania): WAMGABS staff, plus other PGC staff conduct a number of waterfowl
surveys to monitor local and Atlantic Flyway populations. The winter waterfowl inventory has been
conducted along the same areas of the Susquehanna River for many years and will continue. A November
goose survey is done annually in each county. Regular, periodic observations are made for collared geese
during fall and winter. Three waterfowl production surveys are conducted: A PGC breeding pair survey, a
PGC brood survey, and an AF breeding survey. Portions of all surveys and inventories are in the
Chesapeake drainage area. As needed, various waterfowl population, harvest, and hunter surveys are
conducted.
Habitat Management (Pennsylvania): PGC is participating in two Joint Ventures of the North American
Waterfowl Management Program (NAWMP): Lower Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Habitat Joint Venture and the
Atlantic Coast Habitat Joint Venture (ACJV). Much of the ACJV in Pennsylvania is in the 8 focus areas in
the ACJV in Pennsylvania; 4 are in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage. In these 4 Focus Areas, these acreage
needs have been identified: Protection -14,800 acres and Enhancement -18,300 acres.
Since the 1930's the PGC has acquired almost 1.5 million acres of land as State Game Lands (SGL). Of this
acreage, about 113,000 acres are of importance to waterfowl and are situated in the Chesapeake watershed.
Considerable waterfowl habitat management has been done on these SGL's.
Additional waterfowl management activities include the following: An extensive wood duck nesting box
program on SGL and to a limited degree on other agency lands and private lands. PGC also cooperates
with other public agencies, private organizations, and individuals to provide them with proper assistance for
waterfowl management. PGC is an active participant in the land-use permitting process and actively reviews
all permits that affect wetlands. PGC is an active participant in the Ducks Unlimited MARSH program. In
the last several years PGC has initiated a stream-side fencing program to exclude farm animals from streams
and to reduce degradation to streams and stream banks. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the Chesapeake
Bay Program have provided funding for this most worthwhile program. Thus far, 118 farms are participating
with a total of 41 miles of streams fenced. The resultant vegetative growth and waterfowl use (especially
nesting) is impressive. Each year PGC provides $10,000 to Ducks Unlimited for habitat management that
benefits waterfowl that nests in eastern Canada, migrates through Pennsylvania, and winters in Chesapeake
Bay.
Research (Pennsylvania): PGC has expended considerable efforts on waterfowl banding, both local breeders
and migrants, chiefly wintering birds. From 1975 to 1985, 100,000 waterfowl have been banded in
Pennsylvania. PGC is participating in an Atlantic Flyway (AF) preseason banding program to assess AF
breeding duck populations. Participation in an AF Canada goose banding and neck collaring program has
been a major endeavor. Other recent or current waterfowl research projects include analyses of game farm
mallard releases, experimental plantings of aquatic plants, marsh ecology, and waterfowl ecology.
16
-------
NEW INITIATIVES
Well over one million birds use the Chesapeake Bay during fall and winter. As brought out in the Status and
Trends Section of this document, however, serious problems exist for a number of species, particularly
ducks. Existing waterfowl conservation programs do much to protect our valuable waterfowl. However,
many other problems exist that cannot be satisfied under the existing waterfowl conservation programs. The
other problems include loss of wetland habitat from development, degradation of water quality from toxic
pollution and surface runoff from farm fields and urban landscapes, and significant declines in food
resources. Poor water quality has caused the loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and benthic
invertebrates, especially mollusks. Lead poisoning from lead shot can be a serious problem in given areas,
and recreational activities of man may be a form of harassment for local populations of waterfowl.
Constriction of migrating and wintering birds into pockets of available habitat pose threats of disease
outbreak and increased pressure from predators.
Many other activities outside the bounds of typical waterfowl management must be done to enhance the
survival and reproduction of waterfowl. These activities include new and innovative measures, such as the
1986 North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and changes to other programs that may benefit
waterfowl, as can happen if water quality is improved because of Federal and State pollution abatement
efforts. Commitment under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement can do much to benefit waterfowl habitat
if properly managed and implemented. These commitments include fulfillment of the Basin-wide Wetlands
Policy and the Basin Wide Policy for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Other initiatives that may benefit
waterfowl include use of the Agreement report "Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources"
to guide pollution abatement programs on meeting improved habitat requirements.
Following are discussions of these new areas that are important opportunities for improving the way we
manage and affect habitats important to waterfowl.
Chesapeake Bav Agreement
o Wetlands Policy and Implementation Plan: The Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy was
approved in January 1989 and calls for a long-term net gain in wetland resources. The
Wetland Implementation Plan will be approved in mid 1990. The policy emphasizes the
importance of Chesapeake wetlands to migrating and wintering waterfowl. Action items
presented in the policy will directly or indirectly benefit waterfowl. One action item calls for
development of a strategic plan for wetland acquisition. Development of that plan should
include a strong consideration for use of potential wetland areas by waterfowl. In addition,
development should consider goals and purposes of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.
o SAV Policy and Implementation Plan: The Chesapeake Bay SAV (submerged aquatic
vegetation) Policy was approved July 1989, and calls for a net gain in SAV. The SAV
Implementation Plan was approved July 1990. Action items identified in the Plan will
promote restoration of waterfowl. The Plan calls for research to further our understanding
of the relationships between SAV and waterfowl. This will be helpful to assess waterfowl
habitat areas deserving immediate attention.
o Habitat Requirements: In 1988 the Chesapeake Executive Council approved "Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources." This report fulfilled the first
commitment of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, and provides guidelines for orienting
pollution abatement programs with habitat requirement of 30 target species. Four species
of waterfowl (canvasback, redhead, black duck, wood duck) are included in the report, and
their habitat requirements have been summarized. A comprehensive revision of the report
will be completed by the end of 1990.
17
-------
o Other Resource Management Plans; A wide variety of living resource management plans
are called for under the 1987 Agreement. These include ones for blue crab, oysters,
American shad, striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, spotted sea trout, croaker spot, summer
flounder, American eel, red drum, black drum, and ecologically valuable species (to be
defined). Components of these plans often call for habitat preservation and improvements
in water quality. Successful implementation of these plans should also benefit waterfowl.
o Nutrient Reduction Strategy: The Bay Agreement commits to reducing nutrient levels in
Chesapeake Bay by 40% over levels recorded in 1985. Reductions of nitrogen and
phosphorous by this amount are expected to improve ambient water quality and promote
higher levels of dissolved oxygen. This should enhance light penetration for SAV, and help
sustain oxygen levels for benthic invertebrates. Resurgence of these food resources would
benefit Chesapeake waterfowl.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
The NAWMP was signed by the United States Secretary of the Interior and the Canadian Minister of the
Environment on May 14,1986. The plan is a broad international agreement which sets forth specific goals
and objectives for the conservation and management North America's waterfowl populations through the
year 2000. The plan also serves as a catalyst and establishes a framework for cooperative efforts among
federal, state, and private organizations in needed waterfowl and wetland conservation programs.
The NAWMP has a strong focus on protection and management of wetland habitats. Six geographic areas
in the United States are recognized in need of special conservation efforts due to their significance to
wintering or migrating waterfowl. The Atlantic Coast from Maine to South Carolina is one of those six priority
habitat. "Joint Ventures" are recommended as the means to initiate action.
The concept of joint ventures recognizes that the conservation and management of our waterfowl resources
and the preservation of our remaining wetland habitats are bigger issues than any one agency or
organization can effectively address. To be successful in stemming the loss of wetlands and returning
waterfowl population levels to those observed during the decade of the 70s, as called for in the NAWMP,
a revitalized spirit of cooperation is needed among a broad spectrum of federal, state, and private interests.
Federal and state natural resource agencies, national and local conservation organizations, and private
landowners will need to combine their collective talents and funding sources, to work together in a renewed
spirit of cooperation to reverse the decline of North America's waterfowl populations.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
The NAWCA was signed in December 1989. Approximately $25-30 million is potentially available each year
to support NAWMP projects in the U.S. and Canada. Funds would be generated by short-term investments
of federal excise tax revenues in the Pittman-Robertson Act fund, fines and forfeitures resulting from federal
wildlife law enforcement activities, and an authorized Congressional appropriation of $15 million.
Approximately 50% of the funds would be spent in Canada. Acquisition, enhancement, restoration, and
development projects are all eligible. Funds would be provided on a matching basis. The President's
budget has earmarked $15 million for NAWMP projects in FY 1991.
18
-------
RESEARCH
Research is an essential part of each resource management strategy, providing new information and ideas
upon which management decisions are based. Specific needs for information will arise while this strategy
is being implemented. Those anticipated at the outset are listed as tasks under actions specified in this
report. However, the strategy is not intended to identify all of the waterfowl research needs. Instead, it
establishes processes for identifying and fulfilling those needs, and it outlines broad areas of investigation
where needs are expected.
State agencies, universities, and the Fish and Wildlife Service maintain active research programs that address
a wide range of issues related to conservation of waterfowl and their habitats in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Studies focus on the status, distribution, and trends of populations, and on a wide range of environmental
factors influencing waterfowl. Some research activities are concentrated on species of special emphasis,
such as the blade duck or canvasback, while others are more generally oriented to concerns affecting a
range of waterfowl species.
The Waterfowl Management Team identified the following major types of research needed specifically to
support waterfowl management in the Chesapeake Bay region. These needs are reflected to some extent
in the actions and tasks listed later in this report. Some of the needs are now being addressed, but further
work is required in all of them to guide management decisions.
(1) Improved survey methods need to be developed to provide better estimates of regional waterfowl
populations.
(2) Better understanding is needed of the population dynamics of waterfowl, with emphasis on immigration,
emigration, and survival of populations in the Chesapeake Bay region.
(3) Knowledge of habitat requirements of waterfowl using the Bay needs to be strengthened, not only for
those species listed in the Bay Program's "Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources"
report, but for all other waterfowl regularly occurring in the region.
(4) The relationship of waterfowl to other components of the Bay ecosystem needs to be understood,
including interactions between waterfowl and SAV and benthic invertebrates. Research also is needed on
how foods available to waterfowl wintering in the Bay region affect physical condition and reproductive ability
of the birds.
(5) Effects of environmental contaminants and disease on survival of waterfowl in the Bay region are poorly
understood, and require fundamental research.
The Waterfowl Management Team identified these research needs to the Scientific and Technical
Committee's Research Planning Advisory Group for consideration in the development of the 1990 Research
Priorities report, and will continue to do so in future years to promote the goal of this plan.
19
-------
NEW MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
There is concern about the downward trend in waterfowl populations throughout North America. Many
factors are responsible for yearly population changes, and fluctuation causes are complex and often difficult
to investigate. Obviously, natural phenomena (e.g., drought or inclement weather on the breeding grounds)
will affect waterfowl trends regardless of management efforts. However, many other habitat and mortality
variable affecting waterfowl are direct consequences of human activities. It is these activities which are the
emphasis of management strategies in the Plan.
Goals and Objectives
The goal of this plan is:
to restore, enhance, and protect waterfowl habitats and populations to derive the greatest
long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits from the resource.'
The objectives are to:
o Prevent loss and degradation of habitat, and restore and enhance habitats presently
degraded or unsuitable for use by waterfowl.
o Support responsible waterfowl management programs, to restore waterfowl
populations and habitats to at least 1970's levels by the year 2000.
o Improve public understanding of the waterfowl resource and its habitat needs.
Management Actions
Following are the specific management actions that will be implemented over time to help achieve the goal
of this plan. The actions are numerous and ambitious. Actions may change as time progresses and
waterfowl populations fluctuate; however, actions now defined will be conducted with every expectation of
fulfilling the goal of this plan. The Waterfowl Management Team believes these actions will do much to
promote waterfowl conservation and restoration in Chesapeake Bay.
20
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 1: Prevent Loss and Degradation of Habitat, and Restore and Enhance Habitats Presently Degraded.
Action 1. Identify essential habitat requirements for waterfowl in the Chesapeake Bay region, including water quality requirements.
Background: Considerable information exists on the use of various habitats by most species of waterfowl. Little is known, relatively speaking, on exactly what
characteristics of a given area are particularly conducive to waterfowl use. Additionally, more information is needed on the daily activities and feeding
behavior of waterfowl species on Chesapeake Bay. Having a full appreciation of a species behavior and nutritional requirements is essential, and
knowing where nutritional requirements (food availability) can be met is critical. Once habitat characteristics are fairly well understood, then information
can be obtained on what environmental influences either degrade or enhance the availability of those habitats, thus refining management of water
quality and land use to benefit waterfowl.
The condition of water plays an important role in the quality of habitat used by waterfowl. On Chesapeake Bay, as elsewhere, habitat includes areas
of cover for breeding protection, open water areas for loafing, and shallow to deep waters rich in food resources. Water quality will largely influence
the foods available to waterfowl. Highly turbid waters from sediment runoff and nutrient enrichment will eliminate valuable submerged aquatic grasses
such as wild celery and sago pondweed. Eutrophication depletes deep and shallow waters of oxygen, thus killing large expanses of benthic food
items such as worm, small clams, and crustaceans. Deterioration of water quality in Chesapeake Bay has already limited the abundance and
distribution of canvasback, redhead, northern pintail, gad wall, and American wigeon. Without an abundance of food, waterfowl will be more susceptible
to mortality, especially while migrating north to breeding grounds. Clean water quality is a critical need for Bay waterfowl.
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
A. Complete the revision of "Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources", Habitat September 1990
particularly for Canvasback, Redhead, Wood Duck and Black Duck. Objective
Workgroup
B. Conduct literature synthesis on habitat requirements for tundra swan, Canada goose, and Maryland Forest, December 1990
oldsquaw. Identify where inadequate habitat information exists, and promote appropriate Park, and
research. Wildlife Service
(MFPWS)
21
-------
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
C. Develop new management strategies based on new habitat information acquired via Action Waterfowl
1.B. Management June 1991
Team (WMT)
D. Determine the optimum levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that must be maintained to SAV Technical July 1990
promote growth of submerged aquatic vegetation; rely on efforts of SAV Technical Workgroup with
Workgroup. WMT member
E. Determine research needs for the acute and chronic impacts of contaminants (heavy metal, U.S. Fish and June 1991
organics) to waterfowl and geographic areas of high use: insure that the information is used Wildlife Service
by EPA and States in developing criteria and standards. (USFWS)
F. Determine research needed on select contaminants (herbicides, insecticides, etc.) which WMT and June 1991
could potentially threaten food resources of waterfowl and their broods; initiate necessary USFWS
research within 2 years of need assessment.
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 1: Prevent Loss and Degradation of Habitat, and Restore and Enhance Habitats Presently Degraded.
Action 2. Determine suitable habitat management practices for waterfowl, taking into account interests for conservation of other natural resource values.
Background: The management and manipulation of habitat to benefit one species or a group of species most often involves action that affect non-target organisms
as well. The manipulations may, In fact, be detrimental to the target species over the long term. For example, the flooding of an anadromous fish
spawning streams for waterfowl may be detrimental to commercial or recreational fisheries and the created impoundment may be used by waterfowl,
but it may also expose them to heavy harvest pressure. The careful examination of these impacts to other fish and wildlife species and the unknown
impacts to waterfowl, resulting from waterfowl management actions needs to be improved so that biologically sound judgement can be made in the
best interest of all species.
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
A. Develop immediate policy on wetland management practices that benefit waterfowl but that WMT
are known to have no or minimal affect on non-target species.
B. Conduct a full literature review and synthesis on known impacts of wetland habitat USFWS
manipulation for benefiting waterfowl (with particular attention to impoundments and marsh
burning). Literature should be reviewed toward impact assessment to all applicable wetland
dependent fish and wildlife species, and ecosystem functions.
C. Base on literature review (2.A.), research should be Identified, planned for, and budgeted, WMT
and conducted.
D. Develop new policies and agreements based on information obtained via 2.B. and 2.C. WMT
December 1990
December 1991
Plan by March 1992
June 1992
23
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 1: Prevent Loss and Degradation of Habitat, and Restore and Enhance Habitats Presently Degraded.
Action 3. Encourage measures to restore submerged aquatic vegetation to pre 1960's levels of distribution and abundance in Chesapeake Bay.
Background: Submerged aquatic vegetation is an essential component of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. It is of immense value as food to waterfowl and its
abundance directly effects the use of the Bay by waterfowl. SAV also harbors small fish, insects, and crustaceans that are also valuable food items
to waterfowl. The ability of waterfowl to complete their annual life cycle, migrating to and from breeding grounds, is heavily influenced by a bird's
ability to store food reserves for the long flight. Protection and enhancement of SAV will do much to promote waterfowl populations on Chesapeake
Bay.
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
A. Provide WMT representative to SAV Technical Workgroup to promote the Implementation
Plan for the SAV Policy.
B. Refine existing knowledge on the life history requirements of SAV to promote management
of these species.
C. Determine the need for research on the impacts of contaminants (heavy metals, organics)
and herbicides on the abundance and distribution of SAV.
D. Assess the impact of commercial clamming on SAV survival.
SAV Technical
Workgroup
and WMT
representative
WMT/USFWS
SAV Technical
Workgroup
MFPWS
July 1990
December 1990
per SAV plan
December 1991
24
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 1: Prevent Loss and Degradation of Habitat, and Restore and Enhance Habitats Presently Degraded.
Action 4. Provide guidance to agencies, organizations, and the public on habitat management practices needed to benefit waterfowl.
Background: Within the Chesapeake Bay area, critical areas for wintering and migration of waterfowl have been identified. Some of the areas are also important
for waterfowl production, especially the wood duck and black duck. All areas listed have also been targeted for wetland protection and enhancement
efforts as part of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, designed to promote wetland protection from
Federal, state, local, and private organizations. The total acreage that needs to be protected or enhanced within each area is also identified. Protection
means the long-term viability of the area needs to be secured via acquisition, easement, agreement, lease, or donation. Enhancement means the
capability of the area to support waterfowl needs to be improved through application of proven wildlife management practices.
In addition, there are actions that can be taken by individual landowners, agencies, and organizations to promote land management practices that
will directly or indirectly benefit waterfowl. These would include establishment of forest buffers along streamsides and shorelines and leaving crops
in fields for waterfowl. Moreover, certain government programs can be detrimental to protecting waterfowl habitats and they need to be carefully
examined.
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
A. Develop a strategy for protecting and enhancing areas to promote the Atlantic Joint Venture WMT June 1991
effort. Areas already identified include:
Maryland
Blackwater and Nanticoke River Marsh 53,500 5,000 58,500
Lower Eastern Shore Marshes 34,000 6,100 40,100
Dickenson Bay 1,250 1,250
Patuxent River Marshes 14,500 500 15,000
25
-------
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
Virginia
Virginia Easter Shore
Pamunkey River Marshes
Chickahominy River Marshes
James River Marshes
Rappahannock River Marshes
Mattoponi River Marshes
York River Marshes
Western Bayshore Marshes
(Reedville-Mobjack Bay)
Lower Susquehanna River
7,000
9,200
4,400
3,650
4.150
2,500
1,400
2,475
Totals 146,325
800
100
50
50
200
100
250
275
2.500
15,925
7,800
9,300
4,450
3,700
4,350
2,600
1,650
2,750
10.000
162,250
Other important areas, particularly areas subject to development, will be considered by the
WMT as the strategy is developed.
B. Promote the use of new and existing programs to protect and enhance habitats for
waterfowl on private lands. Programs may include:
o Expanded use of Conservation Reserve Program under Food Security Act
o Financial or Tax Credit Incentives for leaving crops unharvested for waterfowl, and
for leaving fallow fields adjacent to wetlands.
o Promote use of forest buffer strips, particularly hardwood forests.
WMT via
Progress
ReportJuly 1991
26
-------
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
o Provide financial or tax credit for creation of waterfowl habitat in areas that would
not adversely affect other fish or wildlife habitat.
o Develop give-away programs that provide private landowners with plants that
benefit waterfowl.
o Develop agricultural land preservation via zoning or legislation.
o Promote stream fencing programs similar to the program by the Pennsylvania
Bureau of Wildlife.
o Full use of existing BMP cost-share programs for agricultural lands.
C. Determine the impacts of existing government programs that adversely affect waterfowl and
wetlands and summarize in a report changes that would be beneficial to waterfowl. The
determination should consider the full range of Federal and State cost-share and assistance
programs that influence land use, and programs that regulate land use activities.
Wetlands Policy
Workgroup with
W M T
Representative
per Wetlands
Plan
per Wetlands Plan Schedule
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 1: Prevent Loss and Degradation of Habitat, and Restore and Enhance Habitats Presently Degraded.
Action 5. Encourage programs to control the spread of plants that diminish the value of wetlands for waterfowl.
Background: Phragmites and purple loosestrife exhibit aggressive growth patterns which enable the species to out compete traditionally dominant wetland plants.
Both species can invade a marsh to the point of forming predominantly monotypic stands.
As with other hydrophytes, phragmites and purple loosestrife provide resource values such as detrital production and export, pollutant uptake, end
erosion control. However, neither species provides much in the way of wildlife habitat. Expanding ranges of the two species negatively impact
waterfowl, waterbird, and furbearer habitats by decreasing desirable food plant abundance, habitat heterogeneity, and open water interspersion.
Phragmites presents other problems by being a serious fire hazard, restricting wildlife access to food items, and providing roosts for nuisance blackbird
concentrations. Of the two species, phragmites is of serious concern within the Chesapeake watershed. Purple loosestrife is a significant problem
in the northeast, and could present a future problem in the bay region. The extent and rate of range expansion is unknown.
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
A. Develop a means to monitor invasive species; incorporate monitoring into 5 year Status and
Trends survey called for by Wetlands Implementation Plan.
B. Determine the affect of prescribed burning on phragmites growth, and recommend
necessary management actions.
C. Determine tf herbicides can be used safely to control phragmites, and implement actions
that will not harm non-target species.
D. Determine growth characteristics of phragmites to improve techniques for control.
E. Inform the public about negative habitat qualities of phragmites and recommend ways the
public can reduce the spread of this plant.
Wetlands
Workgroup
and W M T
Representative
MFPWS
USFWS
MFPWS
USFWS
USFWS
per Wetland's Plan
June 1991
June 1991
June 1991
December 1990
28
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 1: Prevent Loss and Degradation of Habitat, and Restore and Enhance Habitats Presently Degraded.
Action 6. Recommend measures to minimize the adverse effects on waterfowl from human disturbance and land development.
Background: The Chesapeake Bay Region has exhibited exponential growth since the 1950's. The trend is continuing, with projections of 2.6 million new residents
in the region by the year 2020. This projected 20% growth in the human population will significantly alter the undeveloped areas remaining.
Both large-scale and small-scale alterations of wetland and adjacent upland habitats have occurred in the region due to past growth. Development
has resulted in direct and indirect waterfowl habitat loss, water quality degradation, and a decrease in the value of many remaining waterfowl habitats
due to human disturbance. Procedures currently used throughout the Bay region for managing growth and regulating development do not adequately
address the needs of waterfowl.
Much of the habitat loss problem is associated with the regulatory or management approach. Historically, the approach has been to react to an
individual proposal (e.g., wetland permit review), or optimize growth potential (e.g., local planning and zoning) without assessing cumulative impacts
and the overall affect on "public interest." To improve Chesapeake Bay's waterfowl value, growth and land use must be directed.
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
A. Develop maps or reports that identify waterfowl habitats on concern and needing permanent WMT December 1991
protection. Use and expand concept by MFPWS to record waterfowl concentrations by
longitude/latitude coordinates.
B. Provide information and technical assistance to local governments and municipalities to WMT On-going
direct population growth and land development away from valuable waterfowl habitat, or
to reduce potential adverse effects of approved development.
C. Assess the need for open water sanctuaries that would offer protection from boating WMT June 1991
activities and hunting; summarize findings in a report.
29
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POUCY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 2: Support Responsible Waterfowl Management Programs to Restore Waterfowl Populations
and Habitats to at Least 1970's Levels by the Year 2000.
Action 1. Promote responsible use of waterfowl resource by coordinating with the Atlantic Ffyway Council and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding harvest
restrictions and provisions.
Background: Harvest of waterfowl for recreational purposes is a longstanding tradition in the United States and Chesapeake Bay region. Establishing yearly harvest
regulations is a laborious and complex procedure whereby waterfowl harvest is regulated to assure sustained long-term reproduction and population
stability. Federal regulations cannot always ensure full protection for local populations. States often must enforce more restrictive regulations to provide
for their own waterfowl resource. There is a need to coordinate with all of the harvest regulation development to assure that population goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Waterfowl Management Plan are fulfilled.
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
A. Coordinate priority concerns regarding harvest to the Atlantic Flyway Council and U.S. Fish WMT
and Wildlife Source annually (if necessary).
B. Assess the need to impose greater restrictions on harvest of sea ducks (ddsquaw and WMT
scoters), including zoning restrictions designed to offer open water sanctuaries for sea
ducks.
Annually
June 1991
30
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 2: Support Responsible Waterfowl Management Programs to Restore Waterfowl Populations
and Habitats to at Least 1970's Levels by the Year 2000.
Action 2. Minimize adverse effects of hand-reared mallards on wild waterfowl populations.
Background: Both the State of Maryland and the private sector rear and release captive mallard for recreational purposes. Maryland DNR currently releases about
28,000 mallards annually. Most private releases occur on Regulated Shooting Areas (RSA), which are state licensed shooting preserves. At the present
time, their is concern that captive released waterfowl may be negatively affecting wild waterfowl populations, particularly the black duck. Numbers of
RSA's have increased in Maryland from 34 in 1985 to more than 100 in 1988. In Dorchester County alone, approximately 150,000 game farm mallards
were released for harvest during the 1988-89 hunting season. Federal regulations permit the taking of any number of captive reared mallards at any time
on RSA's provided that the birds are properly marked. Little information exists on past hunting season survival of released birds, or reproduction.
Regulated restrictions on the taking of wild populations (which are attracted to feed put out for captive reared birds), the potential conflict with
management of wild populations, and the lack of information on the impact of released birds on waterfowl habitat of the region, make an assessment
of these state and private release programs essential.
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
A. Determine whether special migratory bird regulations for harvest of captive-released USFWS June 1991
mallards allowed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 21.13) pose threats to wild
populations in the Chesapeake area.
B. Research is required to determine if RSA's increase or decrease hunting pressure on wild WMT June 1991
populations at the local level (e.g. decoying wildbirds). WMT should ensure research efforts
address this information need.
C. Research is required to determine if and how released mallards negatively impact migration WMT June 1991
and wintering habitats important to wild birds. WMT should ensure research efforts address
this information need.
31
-------
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
D. Research is required to assess the significance of hybridization between released mallards WMT June 1991
and wild black ducks, and other possible impacts to wild black duck reproductive potential.
FWS and MFPWS should ensure research efforts address this information need.
E. Determine if research is required to assess the disease threat from interaction of captive WMT June 1991
reared mallards with wild stock. WMT research efforts address this information need.
F. Determine if research is required to assess the impact of released mallards on Atlantic WMT June 1991
Flyway winter surveys and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service harvest estimates.
G. Reassess the proportion of Maryland State Duck Stamp money spent on the captive mallard June 1991
release program. Much of this money could be used to protect and enhance waterfowl
habitat.
32
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 2: Support Responsible Waterfowl Management Programs to Restore Waterfowl Populations
and Habitats to at Least 1970's Levels by the Year 2000.
Action 3. Identify management actions needed to reduce concentrations of waterfowl where they damage habitat or are exposed to an increased risk of disease.
Background: Waterfowl are gregarious by nature, particularly during migration and wintering periods when the largest numbers are in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Heavy waterfowl concentrations can result in adverse habitat impacts from intensive foraging, stressful intra and inter-specific competition, agricultural
field damage disease threats (e.g., avian cholera, avian botulism, duck plague, etc.) and increased potential for bird/aircraft strikes near airports.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Implementing Tasks
Create and maintain habitat diversity; provide a wide spectrum of waterfowl habitats
including natural wetlands, moist soil areas, impoundments, and a variety of buffer forest
and agricultural areas present progress in WMT annual report.
Geographically distribute management activities by dispersing acquisition of state/federal
wildlife areas, cooperative/easement areas and management on private lands; present
progress in WMT annual report.
Design waterfowl harvest management programs to disperse bird concentrations by
adjusting season dates (timing), season length and bag limits; present progress in WMT
annual report.
Discourage artificial feeding programs through educational programs. Such feeding causes
Lead Group
or Agency
WMT members
and Agencies
WMT members
and Agencies
WMT members
and Agencies
WMT members
Schedule
for Completion
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
unnatural concentrations of waterfowl which can result in a dependency on people, spread and Agencies
of disease and poor nutrition.
33
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 2: Support Responsible Waterfowl Management Programs to Restore Waterfowl Populations
and Habitats to at Least 1970's Levels by the Year 2000.
Action 4. Survey waterfowl populations In the Chesapeake Bay region as needed to monitor their trends in relation to habitat conditions.
Background: The primary waterfowl survey of the Chesapeake Bay area is the nationwide Midwinter Waterfowl Survey. This survey was initiated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service In 1935 to monitor waterfowl populations in support of the Service's regulatory responsibilities and is currently conducted in all
the states of the Chesapeake Bay region. It is held annually in the first full week of January. This survey is used by the various states and the Service
to monitor distribution of waterfowl, to determine habitat conditions and for regulatory consideration. As useful as the survey is, however, it fails to
satisfy all management needs. A more comprehensive waterfowl survey is needed. Currently, several smaller scale surveys are also conducted in
the region. These include the Mid-November Canada Goose survey, Coordinated Canvasback survey, and the Atlantic Flyway Tundra Swan Survey.
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
A: Assess strengths and weaknesses of existing survey methods and summarizes in a report; WMT December 1990
incorporate recommendations for improvement.
B. Based on 4.A. report, design necessary new surveys and seek agency support to WMT December 1991
accomplish surveys.
C. Promote acquisition of waterfowl concentration data from mid-winter survey, model WMT December 1990
approach after existing effort of MFPWS.
34
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 2: Support Responsible Waterfowl Management Programs to Restore Waterfowl Populations
and Habitats to at Least 1970's Level by the Year 2000.
Action 5. Support development and implementation of new or improved waterfowl management techniques.
Background: In the face of increased human population pressure and a degraded Bay environment, the future of the waterfowl resource on Chesapeake Bay will
depend first on improved understanding of waterfowl-habitat relationships and second, on development and implementation of new and innovative
management actions. New emphasis must be placed on improving both population and habitat management and, in particular, assessing a wide
variety of environmental influences on the waterfowl resource.
Implementing Tasks
Lead Group
or Agency
Schedule
for Completion
A. Identify and promote priority research that is aimed at enhancing management techniques; WMT
summarize findings in a brief report; submit to Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
via Living Resources Subcommittee.
B. Seek support for research on the benefits of artificial island creation using clean dredge USFWS
spoil material for waterfowl habitat.
C. Seek support for research on potential benefits of restoring wetlands containing borrow USFWS
areas originating from dredging activities.
D. Host special conferences as necessary to solve general and specific waterfowl problems. WMT
Invite recognized experts.
March 1991
March 1991
March 1991
Annually
35
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERFOWL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
OBJECTIVE 3: Improve Public Understanding of the Waterfowl Resource and its Habitat Needs
Action 1. Identify opportunities to develop new educational program and products.
Background: Informing the public about our valuable waterfowl resources is of critical importance to maintaining support for conservation and management.
Waterfowl probably are some of the more visible forms of wildlife, and the public is generally aware of these birds, particularly hunters and nature
enthusiasts. What waterfowl represent about the relative health of the Chesapeake Bay is little known or understood by the public at large. More
information needs to be distributed about the various species that use the Bay, their preferred habitats, their behavior, and how their abundance is
affected by the quality of habitats on the Bay.
Implementing Tasks Lead Group Schedule
or Agency for Completion
A. Develop a plan identifying new ways to educate the public, Including product descriptions, WMT July 1991
audience, time frames, equipment and budget needs.
B. Develop educational materials for use in agricultural extension program to create or improve WMT December 1991
waterfowl habitat
C. Generate public Interest and support for conservation of waterfowl in Chesapeake Bay WMT July 1991
through production of posters, fact sheets, status and trends report, and other educational
materials.
D. Produce educational materials to promote public support for measures to minimize WMT July 1991
disturbance of wintering waterfowl flocks, including support for marine sanctuaries.
36
------- |