1

SUMMARY NOTES

Sea Duck Joint Venture Continental Technical Team (14-18 November 2016)

and Management Board (17-18 November 2016)

Huntsman Marine Science Centre

St. Andrews, New Brunswick Continental Technical Team Monday, November 14 Attendees: Christine Lepage (CAN co-chair), Sean Boyd, Josh Stiller, Grant Gilchrist, Dan McAuley, Shannon Badzinski, Dave Safine, Eric Reed, Pam Loring, Scott Gilliland, Kyle Spragens, Nic McLellan, Tony Roberts, Tim Bowman; Emily Silverman (US co-chair) will arrive Tuesday Nov 15 Regrets: Sarah Sonsthagen, Richard Cotter 1. Status of budgets and funding in Canada (Christine Lepage)

CWS currently spends about $400K on research and monitoring projects that have some relevance to sea ducks. Expecting 10% cut to CWS budget next year.

Science and Technology branch spends additional funds – would bring overall Canadian fed govt expenditures to >$1 million when Grant’s programs are included. Expecting no cut to S&T budget next year.

Ducks Unlimited Canada – no changes expected next year; largely dependent on US NAWCA funding.

2. Status of budgets and funding in the US (Tim Bowman)

High degree of uncertainly given upcoming change in administration

Expected to be under Continuing Resolution (CR) well into 2017, until Congress passes a FY2017 budget

CR allows for conservative spending based on previous years budget with some holdback.

Overall SDJV appropriation has been about $500K. Projected funds available for science program for FY17, assuming near-level funding, is about $174,000, after current obligations are met (continuing multi-year projects) are taken into account.

Need to consider uncertainly in future budgets as we select projects for funding, particularly projects that require multi-year funding

3. Opportunity for CTT members to share news pertinent to sea ducks or the SDJV

Steller’s eider reintroduction to Yukon Delta, Alaska (Dave Safine): Surrogate species approach attempted in 2016 where STEI eggs placed in nests of COEI, greater scaup, and pintail. 8-10 clutches; no ducklings survived. No plans to repeat experiment in

2

2017; Eider recovery team to review options. Scott G to provide Dave with info on common eider releases in Newfoundland.

Harlequin ducks in BC (Sean Boyd): has marked birds (PTTs, geolocators) along coast and in breeding streams in Alberta and Rocky Mtn states to better define links among breeding and wintering areas in southern part of HARD range; studies will continue. Has seen shifts in molting areas from BC to southern AK. Trend of decreasing survival in adults.

Northern COEI (Grant Gilchrist): Seeing increases in northern range; evidence of recovery. Avian cholera and polar bear predation becoming important issues. Has students working on COEI dynamics and polar bear energetics. Using drones to film polar bears/gulls on COEI nesting islands. Noted that landscape is more dangerous to work in due to bears.

4. Update and feedback on SDJV web site (Tim)

Continue to get positive feedback

Stats on usage not very informative

Clickable projects map will be completed soon - links to any reports or pubs generated by each study

Sea Duck Bibliography will soon be updated and posted

Key Habitat Sites page will be constructed once we have sufficient material for posting

SDJV “Internal” web site contains lots of info for members – please bookmark it! (http://seaduckjv.org/internal)

When annual project summaries are posted, Tim will send note to CTT and Board 5. Review/discussion of FY2017 proposals

Update on ongoing projects funded last year by SDJV: i. Am COEI population dynamics study: QC and NS data have been analysed and

they have received data from Maine, NB, and NL and beginning work on this. ii. BLSC satellite telemetry, Alaska: Capture efforts successful last spring; birds

providing breeding locations and filling in gaps for Pacific region iii. Wing collections for genetics and isotopes: excellent support for collecting

wings from US and CAN wing bees; still have gaps for species that have lower harvest rates

Overview of process and evaluation criteria i. Question about prioritizing among science needs: too late to do that this year,

could consider for future years. Suggestion to consider time sensitivity in future evaluation criteria.

ii. Guidelines state that we will only consider a max of one proposal per science need unless approaches are obviously different among proposals

Preliminary scores distributed to CTT as a quick look at relative priorities i. Several low-ranking proposals were excluded for further discussion

Proposal-by-proposal review i. CTT had generated 28 pages of written comments which won’t be repeated here

– contact Tim if you want a copy of those comments. ii. Several general questions that arose or were re-iterated during discussions

included: 1. What is the role of the SDJV in monitoring and what commitments are

the chief management agencies willing to make regarding funding of surveys now at operational stage?

2. Should a portion of SDJV funds be used to help resume or serve as bridge funding for high priority operational monitoring surveys?

3. Can alternative sources of funding be found to enable some of these projects? E.g., CWS funding for Great Lakes project.

3

4. Canadian wing samples are now available for the stable isotope pilot project that weren’t available when RFP was posted.

5. Who “owns” the data or other products (algorithms) from SDJV-funded studies?

iii. Discussion was followed by an opportunity for CTT members to revise their scores. See Table 1 for final scores and ranks.

iv. There was considerable discussion about the 3rd-ranked project (…Detection and Species ID of breeding scoters) for which predicted SDJV funding would not cover project at proposed funding levels in FY17 or FY18.

1. Can they meet objectives with less money? (probably) 2. Are there alternative sources of funding for this project? (yes, CWS

funds, possibly USFWS funds) 3. Noted that CWS funds committed to this project must be spent this year 4. Recommendation is to tentatively fund this project with available SDJV

funds at a reduced level from what was proposed. The actual funding level, however, will remain uncertain until SDJV gets its FY17 appropriation (possibly spring 2017)

5. Will discuss further with Mgt Board v. CTT recommended not dropping down the ranked list of projects below Project

#3 (Computer Vision…) (see Table 1) and that if there were any balance of SDJV funds, they be applied to the second year of the top-ranked proposal (AmCOEI genetics)

6. Identification of communications or other projects that may require SDJV funding in FY17

Recommend $4000 be retained to help with Key Habitat Sites write-ups (contract with Rian Dickson) and for web site development of a Key Sites page

SDJV Communications Plan was reviewed: Most outreach products are ongoing at no, or little, cost (already included under Coordination & Communication for web site maintenance and minor revisions)

Harvest page on SDJV web site needs more graphics and info about subsistence hunting

i. Grant to provide photos illustrating aboriginal harvest of sea ducks in Canada ii. Tim will seek outreach materials about Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management

Council and post on the Hunting page. 7. CTT membership

Review of current by-laws

i. Recommended the following clarification to by-laws concerning CTT membership: A Continental Technical Team (CTT) comprises representatives of organizations seated on the Board; individuals and their replacements may be identified by the respective organizations. Additional members may be included but require a two-thirds vote of the CTT members for approval.

Consideration of request for additional member i. Pending request for consideration of an additional DUC representative (Jeff Ball)

was rescinded for now by DUC due to concerns about status of their arctic program, which Jeff represented.

Tuesday, November 15; Workshop: Population Delineation Expected outcome: CTT has an understanding of why the SDJV placed high priority on population delineation, what’s been done to date and where the remaining gaps are, and most importantly, identifies the highest priorities moving forward.

4

8. What is population delineation and why is it important for sea duck management and conservation?

Powerpoint presented by John Pearce, participating by phone)

Powerpoint presented by Sean Boyd

Both Powerpoint presentations are posted on the SDJV Internal page 9. A species-by-species summary of results by various techniques (John)

Each species had a one page handout with 4 maps that depicted 1) banding data, 2) genetics, 3) satellite telemetry results, and 4) range (from SDJV web site). John is seeking feedback on manner of presentation for each data type, especially genetics.

Here are some species-specific comments/notes: i. BAGO: Sean noted that PTT data is available on Movebank ii. BLSC: range map shows wintering in Gulf of Mexico; these are likely rare

observations and should be deleted if the purpose of maps is to show “primary” versus “full extent” of range. East-west continental delineation is established.

iii. BUFF: no genetic differentiation across range; banding data agrees with genetics, no need for PTT data for broad scale distributions

iv. AmCOEI: Missing PTT data from a) Mark Mallory in Nova Scotia, b) a few PTTs that J-P Savard put out (poor data), and c) MA/ME deployments (Chris Dwyer)

v. HCOEI and NCOEI: PTT portrayed for HCOEI is actually that of NCOEI. Similarly, DNA collection sites are not correctly assigned to these races.

vi. PCOEI: there may be DNA samples from Cape Espenberg captures. Telemetry data doesn’t portray some important delineations (e.g., all Canada birds winter in Russia, Y-K Delta birds all winter slightly to south, but not to Russia)

vii. COGO: John was wondering if there are genetic samples from eastern NA. viii. COME: Josh Stiller has additional PTT data from birds marked in NY state. ix. HARD: may be missing some telemetry data done by Sean Boyd on coastal

areas and by colleagues in interior breeding sites x. HOME: some genetic evidence of east-west differentiation, but not strong;

banding shows some dispersal between east & west populations. xi. KIEI: missing PTT data from Banks Island (see Lynne Dickson pub). Some

genetic evidence of a split in arctic Canada; isotope work (Mehl) suggests some individuals switch winter locations among years (east vs west)

xii. LTDU: Genetics data is confusing; need more east coast genetics samples. Missing PTT data for AK north slope (MR Petersen). PTT data in western NA is limited to 2 molting areas and one breeding area (YKD)

xiii. RBME: no genetic differentiation across range. xiv. SUSC: there shouldn’t be a genetics sample point in Newfoundland. Major PTT

gap is for Alaska. Some overlap in breeding range for Atlantic and Pacific wintering birds. Sarah to present genetics work on scoters at sea duck conference.

xv. WWSC: Missing PTT data from Juneau, AK area (Jason Schamber). Major PTT gap is for Alaska. Probable overlap in breeding range for Atlantic and Pacific wintering birds.

xvi. MISC notes: 1. For some PTT-marked birds marked during non-breeding season, we

know subsequent breeding locations so you will have genetics samples for breeding grounds.

2. Can we indicate sample sizes on telemetry and banding maps? 3. If there is more detailed information for a species/site/technique, we

could provide a link to the appropriate reports or web sites once these maps are posted on the SDJV site.

Next steps: review maps for accuracy, and completeness

1-2 reviewers per species - report to John by 1 February, assignments as follows:

5

BAGO: Christine, Sean

BLSC: Tim, Scott

ACOEI: Christine with help from Nic, Scott

HCOEI: Grant

NCOEI: Grant

PCOEI: Eric R, Dave

COGO: Tony

COME: Josh

HARD: Sean, Scott

HOME: John, Christine

KIEI: Grant, Dave

LTDU: Shannon, Tim

RBME: John

SUSC: Kyle, Scott

WWSC: Kyle?, Dave, Christine

10. What does the PTT sample size analysis tell us about samples size requirements for satellite telemetry studies? (Emily, Tony)

This analysis originally started by Jenn Barrett, later contracted to Suzanne Giffords

Case study: are effective sample sizes for BLSC and SUSC from the Atlantic and Great Lakes Sea Duck Migration Study large enough to answer key questions? Are there management questions that require additional sampling?

What is minimum number of deployments needed to describe overall range (i.e.,1 state)?

11. Priorities for population delineation (to be summarized in Implementation Plan)

BLSC: east-west delineation basically completed. Genetics work underway.

SUSC: reasonably comfortable with calling east-west distinct populations, but there is some overlap in mid-continent area. Should look at genetics work underway now, especially in terms of gene flow and juvenile dispersal.

WWSC: satellite telemetry studies underway on both Atlantic and Pacific coasts; need to finish those; genetics studies are underway as well.

LTDU: most uncertain and highest priority gap. Genetics data are confusing; need more east coast genetics samples. PTT data in western NA is limited to 2 molting areas and one breeding area (YKD). Arctic may be underrepresented by winter markings on east coast and Great Lakes, as some LTDU are known to winter in eastern Canada and limited band returns suggest some arctic-nesting LTDU may be wintering in Greenland or eastward (1 recovery from Russia).

Am COEI: genetics work in progress, gaps should be filled with current research underway

Wednesday, November 16 (CTT joined by Mgt Board members Chris Dwyer and Jack Hughes, and USFWS Pop Surveys Chief Mark Koneff) Reports from subcommittees 12. Monitoring subcommittee

2007 report, Recommendations for Monitoring Distribution, Abundance and Trends for North American Sea Ducks, was reviewed and a process begun to prioritize those surveys (Tony)

i. Each survey was rated on its relative ability to address information needs for harvest, habitat conservation, and status and trends, for a suite of high priority

6

species – rankings were based on how the surveys were described in the 2007 report.

ii. Initial top-ranked surveys included the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey, Atlantic sea duck survey, scoter breeding survey. Ability to address key questions for multiple species at large scale was important.

Next steps toward development of a comprehensive monitoring strategy: i. Review and revise surveys and information needs table ii. Add cost/feasibility as evaluation criteria iii. Re-write or update survey descriptions from the 2007 report to reflect the

expected scope and methods for each survey iv. Review these revised survey descriptions and recommend options for “suites” of

surveys that will address key gaps v. Clearly justify why the recommended surveys or “suite” of surveys can improve

our ability to understand and manage sea ducks.

Tony agreed to assume chairmanship of monitoring subcommittee

Grant noted that a letter of endorsement from SDJV for surveys of northern common eider could help garner support among Canadian agencies, even if SDJV won’t fund (i.e., non-U.S. species not eligible for SDJV funding)

Mark Koneff noted that FWS Mig Bird Mgt is looking for cost-efficiencies during redesign of surveys; suggestions from SDJV would be important for MBM to consider, especially for WBPHS, but will be considering other surveys, too.

The proposed scoter breeding survey could be considered in the context of revising/improving the WBPHS.

13. Habitat subcommittee (Nic McLellan lead, with James Churchill on phone)

Update on Sea Duck Key Habitat Sites atlas (Nic) i. Making a lot of progress lately; about 30 sites documented and written up ii. Discussion about site criteria and intent: does not capture many breeding areas

due to density criteria, but many of these sites are captured in NAWMP map; intent is to focus on areas at scales logical and practical for habitat conservation or protection vs large blocks of habitat (e.g., species ranges).

iii. Kyle will look at sites in Pacific Northwest (U.S.) to see if other areas meet criteria.

iv. Emily et al. are working on identifying key sites along Atlantic coast based on winter sea duck survey data.

v. Tim will post on the SDJV Internal web page the link to the ArcGIS interactive key sites map

vi. Writers should identify which sub-areas or place names (e.g., bays, inlets, villages) should be noted on the maps - i.e., areas specifically referenced in the narrative. James will add to site map in document.

vii. If anyone has comments on the draft write-ups or maps, send to James and Nic.

Resources required to complete Key Sites atlas i. Current funding for James (mapping, data, writing) is adequate for FY17; $2500

will allow Rian Dickson to keep writing site descriptions as well; $1500 to have Key Sites web page developed for SDJV web site.

Making geospatial datasets available to stakeholders (Emily, Tim) i. Two main types: Survey data, satellite telemetry data ii. The SDJV doesn’t “own” any survey data – it’s managed by various agencies

and organizations. SDJV role may be limited to encouraging sharing and archival of data, and identify an entity to serve up data; USGS BISON project is one entity with sufficient scope, capabilities, and resources to accomplish this.

iii. Tim will send list of “significant” sea duck surveys and satellite telemetry data sets to Emily to share with BISON folks.

7

iv. Tim and Dave will work with FWS Region 7 Mig Bird program to determine how BISON can get ahold of their extensive survey data set (possibly through Audubon?, in tandem with Refuges Inventory and Monitoring program?)

Update on efforts to store and serve satellite telemetry data (Emily) i. Emily distributed a concept document outlining USGS proposal for storage,

access, and display of telemetry data. Centralized, consistent, queryable; includes an R-data analysis package.

ii. BISON can query Movebank if telemetry data are stored there and access granted. This system would be complementary to Movebank, not duplicative

iii. Will test-run system using sea duck data from SDJV’s Atlantic and Great Lakes Sea Duck Migration study

iv. Is there any opportunity to provide input on what products we would like to see? 14. Harvest subcommittee

Assessment report was sent to Flyways in July 2016 (Chris Dwyer).

Next step is an Expected Value of Partial Information process to provide further guidance on best investment i.e., how does a decrease in parameter uncertainty affect the decision framework?. Will be completed prior to winter flyway meetings, with a request for feedback on their management needs.

Sport harvest is more of an issue for Atlantic and Miss flyways than it is for Pacific, but subsistence harvest is an issue in Pacific flyway.

How does population trend fit into model?

Some parameters (nest or duckling survival) are harder to estimate than others (harvest level).

A recommendation on how to change sampling framework for wings would be better received if from SDJV, not USFWS.

15. Recommended focus of 2017-2019 Implementation Plan

Science priorities i. What was identified by subcommittees at this meeting?

1. Population delineation a. LTDU still have many delineation needs. b. John Pearce will help support genetics work if SDJV includes this

as a priority in Implementation Plan c. Support and complete on-going satellite telemetry efforts for

BLSC, SUSC, WWSC d. Support and complete ongoing AmCOEI genetics work

2. Monitoring a. Continue review and evaluation of surveys; strive to have

recommendations by January to include in update of Implementation Plan

3. Habitat a. Continue Key Sites work b. Get Key Sites web page up once sufficient material is available

for posting c. Support efforts to make geospatial data available

4. Harvest a. Complete EVPI process and re-engage with flyways b. Identify research, monitoring, needs that will reduce uncertainty in

model parameters (i.e., investment strategy) c. May need to revisit subcommittee membership, direction, as a

result of feedback from flyways d. Continue AmCOEI genetics work on population delineation e. Continue wing tissue collection from wing bees in U.S. and

Canada to build tissue bank for genetic and isotope work

8

ii. Are there other science priorities noted in previous plan(s) that we want to

continue with? 1. For Implementation Plan,

a. Remove funded or completed projects b. Include only a list of high priority science needs; no reference to

RFP as unlikely to have one in 2017 c. Consider adding need(s) for info to better assess harvest of

HOME in Atlantic flyway and HARD in Pacific flyway.

Communication priorities i. Continue with ongoing efforts including web site, annual newsletter, e-blasts ii. Investigate need for targeted outreach

1. Aquaculture? a. What are the key issues/geographic extent/affected groups? b. What are the needs of growers? c. How can SDJV help mitigate adverse effects on sea ducks from

aquaculture, and vice versa? i. E.g., survey and telemetry maps to ID “red” zones

(avoidance areas) d. Consider contracting out for a scoping document on needs and

approach

Timeline and tasks for drafting new plan i. Target data for next version of Implementation Plan: March 2017

16. Any other messages or action items that we want the Mgt Board to consider tomorrow and Friday?

- What is the role of the SDJV in monitoring and what commitments are the chief management agencies willing to make regarding funding of surveys now at operational stage? (also see discussion on Thursday)

17. Update on 6th Intl Sea Duck Conference

Population delineation workshop: Dan Esler and Sean Boyd are organizers

Long-tailed duck workshop i. Organizers: Kevin Kenow, Ramuus Zydelis, Tim Bowman ii. 2 parts: a) general state of knowledge and info gaps; b) round-table discussion

about how to improve survival of LTDU marked with satellite transmitters (encouraging participation from veterinarians)

18. Passing of the Canadian CTT co-chair torch from Christine to Scott, effective January1, 2017 19. Next CTT meeting, fall 2017

CTT recommendation: LaConner, Washington, week of November 12-16 Joint Meeting of CTT and Management Board Thursday, November 17 Board members present: Eric Gardner, Tom Rothe, Mark Wimer, John Takekawa, Greg Soulliere, Jack Hughes, Brad Bortner, Garry Donaldson, Mark Gloutney, Glen Parsons (for Bob Petrie), Pete Probasco, Chris Dwyer Guests: Al Hanson (CWS Sackville) Regrets: Jay Osenkowski, Myra Robertson, Marie-France Dalcourt, Chris Davies, John Pearce, George Finney 20. Introductions and membership issues (Board co-chairs)

9

Introductions (new members or 1st-time attendees) i. Greg Soulliere, Upper Miss or Gr Lakes Region JV ii. Chris Dwyer, USFWS Region 5 iii. Jack Hughes, CWS Ontario iv. Eric Gardner, Washington Dept Fish and Wildlife (PF rep)

Status of Environment Canada Science & Technology rep i. Still no commitment, management still in state of flux; Garry will follow up with

leadership 21. Overview of SDJV funding

U.S. govt likely under Continuing Resolution until March

May not be able to fund all projects recommended for funding until SDJV has final budget and authority to spend funds

22. CTT recommendations for funding – FY17 projects

Overview of solicitation, evaluation, and scoring process (Tim) i. RFP open to anyone 8July 2016-26Sept 2016; received at least one proposal for

each of the 8 science needs ii. CTT provided written comments, then preliminary scores, then final scores after

discussion here on Monday.

Overview of proposals that were evaluated (proposal synopsis provided ahead of meeting) and CTT recommendations for funding in FY17

i. See Table 1, below, for final ranking of proposals 1. CTT recommended that no proposals below solid cut-off line (in green in

Table 1) should be funded based primarily on concerns about methodology.

ii. Most discussion was focused on pros/cons and feasibility of funding Project #1, Scoter breeding survey development, which originally requested $155,950 for FY17 and $168,000 for FY18

1. Opportunity cost / trade-offs of funding this project versus not funding less expensive but lower ranked projects

2. Can they meet objectives with less money from SDJV? Yes, through other funding sources and possibly modified techniques for estimating detection.

3. Are there alternative sources of funding for this project? Yes, CWS funds, possibly USFWS funds in FY18

4. Since proposal was written, CWS has added a 3rd study site in NWT; CWS funds need to be spent this year

Other recommendations for funding independent of RFP (e.g., outreach & communications)

i. $4000 in support of Key Habitat Sites atlas development

Mgt Board decision on funding priorities for FY17 i. Motion to accept funding recommendations of CTT was made and accepted: ii. New proposals #12, 4, and 1 will be funded, conditional on funds availability

(current estimate is that SDJV $114K would be available for proposal #1 – Scoter Survey)

iii. Four ongoing multi-year projects will be funded: 1. Great Lakes LTDU satellite telemetry (agreed to last spring) 2. Southern New England LTDU satellite telemetry (agreed to last spring) 3. Scoter satellite telemetry, Alaska 4. Wing tissue collection from wing bees

iv. $4000 for key sites atlas

Greg Soulliere noted that he will contact the PIs of the unfunded (2nd) Great Lakes proposal and ask them to submit a proposal to Upper Mississippi and Great Lakes JV

10

for creation of an on-line database – to complement, not duplicate, the other Great Lakes project that we are funding in FY17.

23. Workshop on population delineation

Synthesis of presentations and discussions i. Presentations by John Pearce, Sean Boyd, and Tony Roberts ii. Species-by-species summaries graphically displayed as first cut in summarizing

information from banding, telemetry, and genetics. CTT members assigned to each species to review and revise these products.

Outcomes / Recommendations for future work (also see #11, above): i. Continental delineation (east vs west)

1. BLSC – completed – compelling data supporting separate east-west populations

2. SUSC – finishing up in Pacific, reasonally comfortable with calling them separate east-west populations, but with some overlap

3. WWSC – ongoing telemetry work both Pacific and Atlantic. Some overlap in mid-continent boreal areas. Awaiting genetics resultsLTDU – continentally - uncertain. Genetics – ongoing, needs more samples from eastern NA and Europe

ii. ACOEI – underway, ,primarily genetics approach; fine scale partitioning iii. Future emphasis: Complete ongoing telemetry and genetics work on SUSC,

WWSC, LTDU, ACOEI. Future focus on LTDU although difficult species to work on; isotopes may be effective (but not funded this year)

24. Update on Habitat Conservation efforts

Sea Duck Key Habitat Sites atlas (Nic) i. James Churchill (Atlantic Canada Data Conservation Centre) is on contract to

do data mgt, mapping, and some writing. Rian Dickson contracted to help with site write-ups.

ii. Key Site qualifying criteria: 5% of continental population or 20,000 total sea ducks AND density of at least 10 sea ducks per km2.

iii. Intent is to focus on important areas at scales appropriate for protection or conservation, not large tracts of habitat (e.g., species breeding ranges)

iv. About 30 key sites have draft write-ups now; focus has been on Arctic sites v. How to ensure key sites reflect best available data?

1. Make available to key stakeholders (e.g., habitat JVs) 2. Intended to be a living document that can be revised as new info

becomes available, including addition of new sites vi. Final product will be web-based; both a downloadable document and an

interactive GIS map. Key sites write-ups can link to appendices with more detailed or supplementary info about the key site (e.g., telemetry maps showing seasonal use)

vii. How to move forward with this? 1. Continue with key sites documentation 2. Draft at least one Key Site document for coastal and Great Lakes habitat

JVs and ask for feedback (i.e., is the content appropriate for intended audiences?) Ambassadors include:

a. Eastern Habitat JV: Mark Gloutney b. San Francisco Bay JV: John Takekawa c. Pacific Birds JV: Tom Rothe d. Atlantic Coast JV: Chris Dwyer e. Upper Miss and Great Lakes JV: Greg Soulliere f. Deadline for feedback: January 15, 2017. Send to

subcommittee chair Nic (n_mclellan@ducks.ca) and Tim

11

Making geospatial datasets available to stakeholders i. Update on satellite telemetry data (Mark Wimer)

1. USGS efforts with USFWS (USGS BISON: Biological Information Serving Our Nation) – creating a platform for storing and presenting satellite telemetry data sets.

2. Helping to meet federal requirement for making data accessible 3. Starting work using sea duck data as an example (from SDJV’s Atlantic

and Great Lakes Sea Duck Migration Study) and is looking for feedback. 4. USGS has increased capacity to address this; the key is open access

and integration of data from multiple sources. 5. Issues include trans-boundary nature of data (has U.S. focus, but is also

storing Canada data), proprietary nature of data, and determining how Movebank fits into and complements this effort.

ii. Update on efforts to store and serve other spatial data (surveys) 1. SDJV doesn’t own survey data, but can encourage/support securing

pertinent data sets. 2. Again, looking at BISON; will try to test with Alaska MBM survey data

Update on Ocean Plans (NE and mid-Atlantic); what does this mean for the SDJV (Chris)

i. Northeast is developing and implementing their plans (http://northeastoceandata.org)

ii. NE Ocean Plan highlights some SDJV work , has web site to query survey data as static maps, but not movement data (telemetry)

iii. Opportunities are there to help us integrate with other disciplines and planning processes (e.g., key habitat sites atlas, telemetry data)

25. Update on Sea Duck Monitoring

SDJV produced a Monitoring Needs document in 2007. Mgt Board asked CTT to review this document, progress made, and identify a path forward.

Explanation of process for reviewing 2007 report and prioritizing needs (Tony) i. Each survey was rated on its relative ability to address information needs for

harvest, habitat conservation, and status and trends, for a suite of high priority species – rankings were based on how the surveys were described in the 2007 report.

Recommended work plan for next year i. Continue review and evaluation of surveys; recommend surveys or suites of

surveys with justifications; stay linked with flyways in the process ii. Fund scoter monitoring project as it ties in with review of Waterfowl Breeding

Population and Habitat Survey

Challenges, and resources required to address monitoring priorities i. Discussion about progress made for sea duck monitoroing

1. At Board direction, about $100K spent on monitoring projects most years since 2008. One survey (Pacific BLSC breeding survey) fully developed and at operational status, but not implemented, another survey (Atlantic Coast winter Sea Duck Survey) developed and could be operational in some form.

2. Previous SDJV focus was on developing surveys or survey methodologies and then handing over “operational” surveys to mgt agencies. The latter hasn’t happened.

ii. Should SDJV help to fund operational surveys? 1. In 2012, Mgt Board decided to allow up to 40% of monitoring budget for

operational surveys.

12

a. Concerns were expressed about budget being eaten up via surveys: better to either find new funding sources or have mgt agencies pick up surveys.

2. Current Mgt Board consensus was to clearly articulate the need for certain surveys in the ongoing monitoring review; consider individual surveys on their merits at later date. Sell it to management. Note: no new SDJV funds available until FY2019 anyway.

3. SDJV priorities for monitoring may help agencies like CWS prioritize as well

26. Update on Sea Duck Harvest Assessment (Chris) i. Link to report: http://seaduckjv.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/01/SeaDuckHarvestAssessment_and_InformationPriorities2016.pdf

ii. Report sent out to flyways in July. 1. Atlantic flyway has proposed reductions in sea duck harvest, with goal of

25% decrease in harvest over 5 years. Mississippi flyway has high interest in LTDU harvest. Pacific flyway has concerns about subsistence harvest.

iii. The next step would be to complete an Expected Value of Partial Information (EVPI) process

1. Should be completed prior to winter flyway meetings and sent to flyways with a request for feedback

2. Cost is not included as a factor in this analysis iv. Discussion about using trend information in lieu of, or to complement, the

models. May be more efficient way to evaluate harvest. 27. Future of Waterfowl Management summit, week of Sept 25, 2017

At National Conservation Training Center in West Virginia

Organizers have requested 2 names from each JV to send invitations to 28. Draft guidelines for SDJV policy on advocacy (Tom Rothe)

Tom reviewed policy sections of three previous SDJV strategic plans, noting inconsistencies and vagueness

In U.S., lobbying/advocacy is OK as long as it isn’t targeted at explicitly influencing legislation – there’s still lots we can do legally

Draft advocacy and policy guidelines drafted by Tom and Mark G. i. Uses Conflict of Interest documents to stay out of trouble ii. all policy decisions are an act of the body (decision as a collective whole) versus

the individual.

Next steps: i. Look over draft (posted at http://seaduckjv.org/internal/) ii. Looking for concurrence – is Mgt Board willing to adopt? iii. Review and send comments to Tom by Dec 15; if OK, can be adopted either by

email or during next teleconference.

Discussion: how would a policy statement or action be implemented? i. Issue goes to policy committee – review the issue, do we have the expertise?

What are the political costs? Can we make a difference? ii. Draft statement, then run through CTT for technical accuracy, then to Mgt Board

for review and signature. 1. Letter could come from an NGO, but carries more weight if from SDJV 2. Need some expertise on Canadian laws. Mark G has asked for input

from his legal advisor. 29. Communication Plan

What are we addressing now?

13

i. In place: great web site, annual newsletter, e-blasts, wallet cards with talking points, fact sheets on Offshore Wind and Atlantic and GrLakes Sea Duck Migration Study

Needs that are not addressed? i. Messages to specific audiences; may be a need to look at something targeted to

the aquaculture industry. ii. SDJV web site has a draft (hidden) page called Information for Resource

Planners, which can be activated and filled in once we have material to populate it, such as Key Habitat Sites atlas, targeted fact sheets (offshore wind, aquaculture), links to entity serving sea duck geospatial data.

30. Discussion about Business Plan/Strategy for SDJV (Board co-chairs)

The idea would be to have a document(s) that defines a need, how the issue would be addressed, how the money would be invested and the benefits if successful.

“SDJV Initiatives” done in 2002 (Tim) i. Intended as marketing documents for Mgt Board – big picture, high cost

initiatives. One completed for each major science need (e.g., surveys, population delineation, contaminants, population dynamics). Never used.

Atlantic Shorebird Plan is grandiose, was intended to address NFWF needs and tap their partners, donors, for certain types of projects. How does NFWF set priorities and make funding decisions?

In 2008, SDJV worked with NFWF to draft a “Boreal to Bays” initiative, but it fizzled and we lost contact with NFWF representative

Garry and Brad will contact NFWF about priority needs for sea ducks 31. Update on Sea Duck Conference Feb 2017 (John Takekawa)

Expecting ~160 registrants, 54 papers, plus 45 posters

There will be an special session, Restoration and Recovery of Sea Ducks Injured in Coastal Oil Spills, which was funded via NRDA program

two workshops: Population Delineation and Conservation of Long-Tailed Ducks

Still need $$ contributions to cover costs of conference

USFWS sponsorship approved for $10K, half of those funds are secured; awaiting further decisions about FWS and USGS attendance

32. Fall meeting for 2017 – week of November 13-17, Board would meet Nov 16 for one day only. Optional field trip on Wednesday afternoon

Meeting location : LaConner, Washington (about 1 hr from Seattle, 2 hrs from Vancouver, BC)

33. Next Mgt Board teleconference

No date set; Tim will send out Doodle poll in January for teleconference in February or March.

14

Table 1. Ranked list of proposals and scores, SDJV FY2017