American White Pelican Conservation Plan 2016-2025 › sites › default › files ›...
Transcript of American White Pelican Conservation Plan 2016-2025 › sites › default › files ›...
Prepared by IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAMEMay 2016
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans
in Idaho 2016-2025
Idaho Department of Fish & Game iii
Recommended Citation:Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2016. Management plan for the conservation of American white pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA.
Front and Back Cover Photographs:Front Cover: “One pelican on the foreground and a small group of pelicans on the background”, Image
ID 94978795, Igor Kovalenko©, shutterstock.com.
Back Cover: “American white pelican lifting off”, Image ID 94978789, Igor Kovalenko©, shutterstock.com.
Additional copies:Additional copies can be downloaded from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game website at idfg.idaho.gov
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) adheres to all applicable state and federal laws and regulations related to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, gender, disability or veteran’s status. If you feel you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility of IDFG, or if you desire further information, please write to: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, ID 83707 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Assistance, Mailstop: MBSP-4020, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, Telephone: (703) 358-2156. This publication will be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact IDFG for assistance.
Costs associated with this publication are available from IDFG in accordance with Section 60-202, Idaho Code. Approved May 2016 Idaho Fish and Game Commission Meeting. Printed 1/2015/50/PCA 47872
Idaho Department of Fish & Gameiv
Numbers of American white
pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), including adult nesting birds, have increased dramatically
in southern Idaho since 2002. These increases have been well documented at Idaho’s main two nesting colonies located on islands in Blackfoot Reservoir and Lake Walcott (Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge [NWR]). Numbers at Minidoka NWR increased from approximately 400 breeding birds in 2002 to more than 4,000 breeding birds in 2008. The Blackfoot Reservoir colony increased from approximately 1,400 breeding birds in 2002 to 2,400 breeding birds in 2008. Since implementation of the 2009 pelican management plan, the Blackfoot and Minidoka colonies have averaged 2,126 breeding birds/yr (range 724-3,174) and 3,400 breeding birds/yr (range 1,998-4,408), respectively. Pelicans established a new breeding colony at Island Park Reservoir in 2012 with approximately 300 breeding birds, increasing to over 600 birds by 2015. Pelican distribution and abundance has increased at other water bodies throughout southeastern Idaho.
Increases in pelican populations are generally considered as positive contributions to pelican conservation goals in the western population, but the increased number of pelicans has also resulted in documented predation impacts on native cutthroat trout and other important recreational fisheries in southern Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) believes there is a need to develop an approach to manage impacts of pelicans on native trout and sport fisheries in Idaho that balance conservation and recreation interests for both birds and fish.
IDFG has conducted numerous management actions in recent years in an attempt to reduce impacts of pelicans on trout in the Blackfoot Reservoir-Blackfoot River complex. Trout stocking
Executive Summarypractices were modified to reduce opportunistic predation by pelicans. Significant hazing actions (noise making and bird wires), with lethal reinforcement, have been conducted in an attempt to reduce pelican predation on migrating Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri). Lethal actions have been authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a depredation permit in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of hazing. Modifications to the nesting island, hazing at the nesting island, and USFWS-permitted egg/nest destruction have been used to reduce the number of nesting pelicans and their productivity.
This document represents the IDFG-proposed ten-year management plan (2016-2025) for reducing pelican predation on fish in areas where current management conflicts exist. The plan identifies both statewide and regional pelican population and management objectives. In southeast Idaho (IDFG Southeast Region), where impacts of avian predation on fish are greatest, the regional population objective (established in 2009) is to maintain a five-year average of 700 breeding pelicans at Blackfoot Reservoir. The colony objective for Minidoka is to maintain 1,800 breeding birds, and the objective for Island Park is 300 breeders. Collectively, management objectives are intended to reduce pelican predation on migrating native cutthroat trout, and to reduce pelican predation on sport fish in other important recreational fisheries.
The overall goal of this plan is to maintain viable breeding populations of pelicans in Idaho while reducing impacts to native fish and recreational fisheries. Emphasis is on reducing predation rates in fisheries in southern Idaho through a combination of management actions that include hazing of foraging birds, manipulation of nesting habitat, and/or directly limiting pelican production and recruitment. Comprehensive monitoring of both bird and fish populations will facilitate an adaptive management approach throughout the life of this plan.
PELICAN CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game v
Table of ContentsIntroduction ...............................................................................................................................................................1
Plan Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................................1
American White Pelicans ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Population Status and Trends ...............................................................................................................2
Rangewide ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Western Population ............................................................................................................................................... 2
Idaho ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Ecology...........................................................................................................................................................5
Taxonomy and Distribution ............................................................................................................................... 5
Breeding ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Reproductive Success and Survival ................................................................................................................ 6
Feeding Habits......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Conservation status ............................................................................................................................................... 7
State classification ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Fisheries Conflicts ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Native Trout ..................................................................................................................................................8
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout .............................................................................................................................. 8
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout ................................................................................................................................. 8
Other Sport Fisheries................................................................................................................................9
Adaptive Management .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Statewide .......................................................................................................................................................11
Goal .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Panhandle, Clearwater, and Salmon Regions ..........................................................................................................................................12
Management Objectives and Actions............................................................................................................. 12
Southwest Region ......................................................................................................................................12
Pelican Populations and Trends ........................................................................................................................ 12
Management Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Strategies Implemented ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Idaho Department of Fish & Gamevi
Table of Contents cont.
Management Objectives and Actions............................................................................................................. 12
Magic Valley Region ..................................................................................................................................13
Pelican Population and Trends .......................................................................................................................... 13
Management Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Strategies Implemented ..........................................................................................................................16
Management Objectives and Actions............................................................................................................. 16
Southeast Region .......................................................................................................................................17
Pelican Populations and Trends ........................................................................................................................ 17
Management Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 18
Strategies Implemented ..........................................................................................................................19
Hazing and Lethal Reinforcement ................................................................................................................... 19
Bird Lines on River ................................................................................................................................................. 20
Nesting Island Exclusion and Hazing .............................................................................................................. 20
Nest Destruction ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
Management Objectives and Actions............................................................................................................. 21
Upper Snake Region .................................................................................................................................22
Pelican Populations and Trends ........................................................................................................................ 22
Management Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Strategies Implemented ..........................................................................................................................24
Management Objectives and Actions............................................................................................................. 24
Statewide Coordination ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Pelican Monitoring .....................................................................................................................................25
Breeding Population Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 25
Statewide Distribution and Abundance ....................................................................................................... 25
Production and Productivity .............................................................................................................................. 26
Marking ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Fisheries .........................................................................................................................................................27
Pelican Predation Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 27
Catch Rates and Return to Creel of Hatchery Trout ................................................................................. 27
Statewide Information Needs .............................................................................................................................. 28
Idaho Department of Fish & Game vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of nests reported from western American white pelican colonies from 1980-2013, with a comparison between the number of nests from five colonies which have been continuously active since at least the 1960s (“Old”) and four colonies that are new or re-established since 1980 (“New”). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Current locations and relative sizes (average of 2010-2014 nest counts) of western pelican colonies. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Relative contribution by state and province of breeding adult American white pelicans in the western population (these data represent population estimates from the 2014 Pacific Flyway range wide survey effort). ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4. Estimated number of breeding pelicans at Idaho’s three nesting colonies during annual nest counts, 1989-2015. Counts were conducted once per season during the peak nesting period. For Blackfoot Reservoir, the gap between 1993 and 2002 reflects lack of survey effort, not necessarily absence of pelicans. ..............................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 5. Historic (pre-1960) and current (2013) distribution of western American white pelican colonies. The dashed black line represents median latitude of historic colonies and the solid black line represents median latitude of currently active colonies. ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 6. Number of breeding pelicans at Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge, 1989–2015, and the population objective for 2016-2025. ............................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7. Pelican response to mortality disposal at private hatcheries. ............................................................ 14
Figure 8. Number of breeding pelicans at Blackfoot Reservoir, 1993 and 2002–2015, and number of spawning cutthroat trout in the Blackfoot River above the Reservoir, 2001–2015. ...................................... 17
Figure 9. Estimated productivity (pre-fledglings / nest) and production (number of pre-fledglings) at Blackfoot Reservoir, 2007 – 2015. The triangle symbol represents productivity of remaining nests after colony management actions. .................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 10. Number of breeding pelicans during nest count in late May/early June and after egg oiling and nest removal actions at Blackfoot Reservoir. A depredation permit was secured for nest destruction in 2012-2015. .....................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 11. Detections of banded pelicans from the Blackfoot (black dots) and Minidoka (red dots)
colonies, 2007-2015. ..............................................................................................................................................................27
Figure A. Relationship between a study waters’ distance from the nearest American white pelican colony and the recovery efficiency (at the nearest colony) of PIT tags implanted in hatchery Rainbow Trout and fed directly to pelicans at that study water. The line and equation depict an exponential relationship fit to the data. ..................................................................................................................................................34
Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Idaho Department of Fish & Gameviii
List of Figures cont.
Figure B. Relationship between a study waters’ distance to the nearest American white pelican nesting colony and the pelican predation rate on hatchery Rainbow Trout stocked at that water. Predation rates for the waters labeled with an “x” were predicted based on the relationship in Figure A. The line and equation depict an exponential relationship fit tothe data. ...................................................34
Figure C. Relationship between estimates of American white pelican predation and angler harvest in select Idaho waters where pelicans have been known to congregate. Predation rates for the waters labeled with an “x” were predicted based on the relationship in Figure A. ....................................................35
PELICAN CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 1
American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos; pelican) breed at three nesting colonies in Idaho and
abundance of breeders has increased significantly since the 1990s. The pelican colony on Blackfoot Reservoir increased from approximately 200 breeding birds in 1993 to almost 2,400 in 2008. The colony at Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) experienced similar growth, reaching over 4,400 breeding birds in 2012, and pelicans established a new breeding colony at Island Park Reservoir in 2012. Increases in pelican distribution and abundance were documented throughout southern Idaho through 2010, generally coinciding with documented population increases at the nesting colonies. Since 2010 the statewide breeding population has fluctuated annually, with a most-recent 5-year average of 5,600 breeding pelicans. In Idaho, pelicans predominantly forage on abundant populations of nongame fish resulting in non-consequential or acceptable impacts to other resource values and users. However, pelican predation in some areas measurably impacts sport fishing and native trout conservation programs, creating conflict between pelican and fisheries management objectives.
Based primarily on the documented conflict between increasing pelican predation and native Yellowstone
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri; YCT) in the Blackfoot River drainage, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) developed a five-year pelican management plan in 2009 (IDFG 2009). Emphasis was on maintaining viable populations of breeding pelicans in Idaho while reducing predation on YCT and other fisheries. Since 2009 IDFG has actively monitored pelican populations and, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), implemented a number of measures at Blackfoot to reduce predation impacts. IDFG has also completed several projects to document direct pelican predation impacts at Blackfoot and other southern Idaho fisheries which help describe the scope of conflicts. This new information serves as a basis on which to update the 2009 plan. An adaptive approach to managing pelican predation conflicts, and ongoing monitoring of both pelicans and fisheries, will be required to ensure an appropriate balance between pelican conservation goals and other public resources.
Plan Goals and Objectives
The overall goal of this plan is to establish a management framework which ensures viable breeding populations of pelicans in Idaho while reducing impacts to native trout and recreational fisheries. Emphasis is on reducing predation rates through a combination of management actions that could include hazing and lethal reinforcement of foraging birds, manipulation of nesting habitat, and directly limiting pelican production and recruitment by removing or oiling eggs. Comprehensive monitoring of both pelican and fish populations will facilitate an adaptive management approach throughout the duration of this plan.
Introduction
ADULT PELICANS CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game2
American White PelicansPopulation Status and Trends
Rangewide
The continental population of pelicans experienced long-term declines until the 1960s (Knopf and Evans 2004). The population has subsequently experienced a steady increase since the 1980s, likely due to the decrease in the use of organochlorine pesticides, increased federal and state protection, and the adaptability of pelicans (Keith 2005). The most current continental estimate, using survey data from 1998-2001, was 134,000 breeding pelicans in North America (King and Anderson 2005) and an unknown number of non-breeding individuals.
Western Population
In the early 1900s, there were approximately 24 breeding pelican colonies in the western population segment, and 60,000 breeding birds (compilation of data from: Schaller 1964; Shuford 2005; Keith 2005; D. Withers, pers. comm.; Luft, pers. comm.). According to the USFWS (USFWS
1984), this included four colonies in Idaho. By the late 1970s, the western population declined to eight colonies and 16,000 breeding birds, none of which were in Idaho. Pelicans of the western population are an example of a “boom-and-bust” species (Anderson and King 2005), with breeding colonies fluctuating in size and productivity from year to year. In less than a five-year period, the number of nesting birds and/or nest success at particular colonies can vary by 50–100% or more. Changes in colony size from year to year may not be reflected in the pelican population as a whole or in the number of birds using local areas during the nesting season.
Following the decline in pelican abundance in the western population, the USFWS drafted the “Guidelines for the Management of the American White Pelican, Western Population” in 1984, in hopes of establishing or reestablishing colonies in the West to avoid potential ESA listing of the western pelican population. The western population subsequently increased through the 1990s to a peak of 46,000 breeding birds, and has since remained relatively stable (Moulton et
Figure 1. Number of nests reported from western American white pelican colonies from 1980-2013, with a comparison between the number of nests from five colonies which have been continuously active since at least the 1960s (“Old”) and four colonies that are new or re-established since 1980 (“New”).
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 3
American White Pelicans
Figure 2. Current locations and relative sizes (average of 2010-2014 nest counts) of western pelican colonies.
Figure 3. Relative contribution by state and province of breeding adult American white pelicans in the western population (these data represent population estimates from the 2014 Pacific Flyway range wide survey effort).
al. In Review; Fig. 1). Three new colonies were established in the early 1990s and include Arod Lake (MT), Canyon Ferry Lake (MT), and Badger Island on the Columbia River (WA). Since 2007, three additional colonies have become active. These include Malheur NWR (OR), which was inactive for a number of years but has been used consistently by breeding birds since 2010, Miller Sandspit (WA; established in 2010), and Island Park Reservoir (ID; established in 2012). Current (2014) information indicates the western population includes 18 colonies (four were inactive in 2014) and approximately 43,000 breeding birds (Pacific Flyway Council 2015; Fig. 2). In 2014 approximately 92% of the breeding population was distributed among six colonies; these include the colonies at Minidoka NWR and Blackfoot Reservoir. Idaho currently supports approximately 16% of the western pelican breeding population and is the third largest relative contributor to this population (Fig. 3).
Data provided by: Ministry of Environment (Canada), Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, National Park Service, Oregon State University, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Services, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game4
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Idaho
The three documented nesting colonies in Idaho are located at Blackfoot Reservoir, Minidoka NWR, and Island Park Reservoir. It is assumed that the Blackfoot Reservoir colony (Gull Island) originated shortly after the construction of Blackfoot Reservoir in 1910. Local anglers deterred successful nesting at this site as late as the early 1960s (Burleigh 1972; USFWS 1984). Surveys conducted in the mid-1980s documented adult birds but no evidence of nesting (Trost 1985). In 1991 and 1992, IDFG contracted with USDA Wildlife Services to remove native predators (badgers) from Gull Island. The following year (1993) was the first record of pelican production at Blackfoot Reservoir when 80–100 nearly-fledged young were observed (Trost and Gerstell 1994). IDFG began surveying the colony in 2002 and counted 1,352 breeding birds. The colony increased to a peak of 3,418 breeding birds in 2007 and has averaged 1,860 breeding birds the last 5 years (range 724–3,034; Fig. 4). In 2010,
IDFG began installing nest exclusion fences and flagging to reduce the habitat available to nesting pelicans at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony.
The Minidoka NWR colony in Lake Walcott was active in the early 1910s, but became inactive in the late 1950s, likely as a result of disturbance from recreational boating near the nesting islands (USFWS 1984). Pelicans were successful at reestablishing this colony in the 1980s. Similar to the Blackfoot colony, this colony increased steadily to a peak of 4,408 in 2012, and has averaged 3,400 breeding birds the last 5 years (range 1,998–4,408; Fig. 4).
The Island Park Reservoir colony on Trude Island became established in 2012. There are no prior records of pelicans nesting in this location. There were approximately 300 and 460 breeding birds during 2012 and 2013, respectively, but no fledglings were produced. The colony was
Figure 4. Estimated number of breeding pelicans at Idaho’s three nesting colonies during annual nest counts, 1989-2015. Counts were conducted once per season during the peak nesting period. For Blackfoot Reservoir, the gap between 1993 and 2002 reflects lack of survey effort, not necessarily absence of pelicans.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 5
American White Pelicans
successful in 2014 when 326 breeding birds produced 88 young (Fig. 3). In 2015, 632 birds bred on the island; the colony was successful at producing young, but a count was not conducted.
Ecology
The American white pelican is the second largest bird in North America, next to the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus).They are colonial-nesting, long-lived, fish-eating birds. The typical lifespan of a pelican is 12–14 years, although the maximum reported lifespan is 26.4 years (Clapp et al. 1982). During the breeding season, pelicans predominantly use isolated, permanent islands in freshwater lakes or ephemeral islands in shallow wetlands (Knopf and Evans 2004). In Idaho, pelicans currently nest successfully only on isolated islands within managed reservoirs. Winter range typically includes southern and western coastal marine habitats, including shallow coastal bays, inlets, and estuaries (Chapman 1988). However, band returns from pelicans banded as fledglings in Idaho indicate that most winter inland on reservoirs and large rivers that remain ice-free. Birds usually winter where minimum January temperature stays above 40º F (Root 1988), although some birds banded in Idaho have been observed over-wintering in the Salt Lake, Utah area.
Taxonomy and Distribution
Breeding range for the pelican is from Canada through Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Idaho. Pelicans are divided into two distinct populations (eastern and western) based on their breeding and wintering distributions, as reflected in banding data, and the contrasting ecological conditions they inhabit. Most pelicans from the western population (including Idaho’s birds) breed west of the Continental Divide. Winter range includes the Pacific coast from central California south to Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula. Pelicans migrate annually, traveling to northern breeding grounds during the spring, and returning to winter range during the fall.
Figure 5. Historic (pre-1960) and current (2013) distribution of western American white pelican colonies. The dashed black line represents median latitude of historic colonies and the solid black line represents median latitude of currently active colonies.
Distribution changes resulting from colony inactivity and new colony establishment have resulted in a change in the mean and median latitude of western pelican colonies since the 1960s. While much of the initial change was the result of the historic colony loss in southern and central California, primarily from water diversion (Shuford 2005), recent changes have been a result of new colonies becoming established at higher latitudes. The current median location of active colonies is 44.01 degrees latitude (Moulton et al. In Review). This represents a 2.57 degree northward change in latitude, which is a 285 km shift over 53 years. Currently, Anaho Island (Pyramid Lake, NV) is the southernmost active colony; there were seven other historic colonies at lower latitudes that have not been active since the 1970s (Fig. 5). Of the ten colonies that are new or reestablished since the 1980s, all are at
Idaho Department of Fish & Game6
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
40 degrees latitude or higher and their median latitude is 45.24 degrees. The most recently established colony, at Island Park Reservoir (ID), is located less than 1 km from the current median latitude.
Breeding
Pelicans breed colonially on isolated islands in lakes of the inland northern U.S. and Canada, and require minimal disturbance at the nesting colony for successful nesting and rearing of young. When disturbance is significant, pelicans may abandon their nests or young (Knopf and Evans 2004). Breeding begins at age 3 (Sloan 1982), and individuals may breed each year thereafter (Knopf and Evans 2004). Although pelicans lay two eggs per clutch, it is rare for more than one chick to fledge. Young are capable of flight at 9–10 weeks and typically begin leaving the colony in late August to early September (O’Malley and Evans 1982).
Reproductive Success and Survival
Average annual productivity (chicks fledged / nest) in the western population has declined over the last 30 years, from 0.78 in the 1980s to 0.38 during 2003-2013 (Moulton et al. In Review). Despite this trend, overall abundance of breeding birds in the west has been stable or increasing over the last 30 years (Fig. 1), and Idaho populations have increased dramatically (Fig. 4). At the Blackfoot Reservoir colony productivity has averaged 0.34 from 2007 to 2014 (range 0.13 –0.60; see Southeast Region for details). After fledging, mortality has been estimated at 41% through the first year, 16% in the second year, and a mean of 21.3% for the third through thirteenth year (Strait and Sloan 1974).
Feeding Habits
Pelicans require shallow water (typically 1–2 ft; Ivey and Herziger 2006), or fish that can be reached within 3.3 ft of the surface of deep water (Finholdt and Anderson 1995). Pelican diets are predominantly comprised of nongame fish such as chubs, suckers (Castostomus sp.), and carp (Knopf and Evans 2004, Teuscher 2004). However, pelicans are opportunistic foragers, selecting sites and prey that are most readily available (Hall 1925; Knopf and Kennedy 1980, 1981; Lingle and Sloan 1980; Flannery 1988; Findholt and Anderson 1995). They are cooperative feeders that herd schools of fish to shore (or toward a culvert/weir) by forming a herding wing. Foraging groups are generally less than 10 birds, but can be up to 300 birds. Pelicans are capable of successfully foraging at night. Nestlings close to fledging are fed approximately 2.4 lbs of fish once a day (Knopf and Evans 2004). Breeding adult foraging requirements have been estimated at 4.0 lbs per day (20–40% of body mass). Total food to rear one young to fledging was estimated to be 150 lbs (Hall 1925). During the breeding season, foraging sites generally need to be within 50 miles of the nest colony, but it is not uncommon for
JUVENILE PELICANS CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 7
American White Pelicans
pelicans to regularly travel up to 80 miles to find food (Findholt and Anderson 1995, D. Withers, pers. comm.). Using PIT-tagged fish, Meyer et al. (2016) documented foraging distances up to 120 miles from Idaho colonies. Idaho likely provides foraging habitat for nesting birds from Utah’s colony at the Great Salt Lake (~22% of the western population), and migrating birds from Utah, Montana, and Wyoming (~32% of the western population).
Conservation status
Standard natural heritage methodology developed by NatureServe is used to compile population data and to assess current conservation condition across a species’ range and within individual states and provinces (http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/network.jsp). In 2008, NatureServe ranked pelicans rangewide as G4, or “apparently secure.” The reasons cited for the ranking were that the population included more than 120,000 breeding birds, and had increased greatly since the 1960s, but remained highly vulnerable to disturbance, with continued concerns regarding habitat protection and increased incidence and severity of disease (NatureServe 2015). Current threats to the western population include relatively few colonies, large fluctuations in colony size and productivity, hydrological alterations, disease pandemics, and possibly West Nile virus (Moulton
et al. In Review, Murphy and Tracy 2005, Rocke et al. 2005, Shuford 2005).
The same methodology was used by IDFG (a member program of NatureServe) in 2015 to calculate a state conservation rank of S3B, or “vulnerable.” Other efforts to assess the conservation status of the pelican include Audubon’s watchlist (status is “green” for the pelican indicating no current conservation concerns), and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan’s (NAWCP) Conservation Concern List (pelican categorized as “moderate concern” - species that are either declining with moderate threats or distribution, stable with known potential threats and moderate to restricted distributions, or relatively small with restricted distributions).
State classification
Pelicans are classified as a species of greatest conservation need in all eight western states in which they breed, are listed as state-listed endangered in Washington, and are classified as endangered in British Columbia. In Idaho, pelicans are classified under the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) as “protected nongame”. The Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) identifies the pelican as one of 205 “species of greatest conservation need” due to (1) a low number of breeding colonies in Idaho, and (2)
a vulnerable rangewide conservation status (IDFG 2016). Specific conservation actions identified in the SWAP include working with the Pacific Flyway Council’s Nongame Technical Committee to develop and implement a wetland connectivity assessment to address impacts of drought, analyze trends in population size and productivity, and determine current survivorship rates.
PELICAN EGGS CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game8
Fisheries ConflictsNative Trout
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout
In Blackfoot Reservoir and the Blackfoot River drainage above, IDFG’s primary fisheries management objective is to recover the native cutthroat population, including the adfluvial component that rears in the reservoir and ascends the river to spawn. This fishery collapsed by the 1980s primarily due to overharvest, prompting development of a Blackfoot River Management Plan (Labolle and Schill 1988). In 1990 IDFG began restricting angler harvest and by 1998 both the reservoir and the river above were closed to YCT harvest. The cutthroat trout population responded dramatically, increasing from a few hundred spawning fish to an estimated run of over 4,700 spawners in 2001. Despite the early success of harvest closures, the run collapsed to a low of only 16 fish in 2005 and has since remained low with an average run size of about 650 (range 19 to 1,843). This more recent YCT trout collapse coincided with a rapidly expanding pelican breeding colony on Blackfoot Reservoir and increases in pelican use of the Blackfoot River to forage (Teuscher and Schill 2010). Subsequent work by IDFG staff has documented that pelican predation rates on adult and juvenile cutthroat trout generally exceeded 20%, with the highest values above 60% (Teuscher et al. 2015).
Pelicans have also been observed foraging on other YCT spawning runs in southeast and eastern Idaho. McCoy Creek, a tributary to Palisades Reservoir, also supports a spawning run of YCT. As many as 250 pelicans have been
observed foraging at the mouth of McCoy Creek during the cutthroat spawning run. At Henry Lake, large flocks of pelicans assemble around the mouths of key YCT spawning tributaries in spring, and also in mid-summer when YCT and other trout use these tributaries as thermal refugia. Specific predation rates and impacts to populations and/or fisheries have not been quantified in these locations. All of these YCT spawning streams are managed with restrictive seasons and bag limits to reduce or eliminate angler harvest, and managers are concerned that unmanaged pelican predation will negate the benefits from harvest closures, habitat improvements, and other actions to conserve YCT.
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout
The Bear Lake population of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah; BCT) is the only natural adfluvial stock existing in Idaho, with key spawning habitat in Fish Haven Creek and St. Charles Creek. Since 2002, pelicans have been observed foraging in spring at the mouth of St. Charles Creek, which is the most important spawning tributary for BCT in Bear Lake (IDFG and USFS 2007). Spawning BCT are particularly vulnerable to pelican predation in drought years when tributary flows are below average and Bear Lake elevation is low. These conditions have occurred about 5 of the last 10 years. No direct estimates of pelican predation rate are available for Bear Lake tributaries, but based on extensive experience at Blackfoot IDFG believes that BCT conservation goals may be compromised in some years. The IDFG and other conservation partners have spent considerable effort restoring
BonnevilleCutthroatTrout CCBY Joesph Tomelleri
YellowstoneCutthroatTrout CCBY Joesph Tomelleri
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 9
Fisheries Conflicts
and reconnecting stream habitats in both of these important Idaho tributaries. In order to be successful in building spawning runs to viable levels in both tributary systems, pelican predation must be appropriately managed.
Other Sport Fisheries
Avian predation impacts at Blackfoot Reservoir extend beyond native YCT and have also affected other sport fishing opportunity in the reservoir. Teuscher (2004) and Teuscher et al. (2005) documented significant avian predation on stocked rainbow trout. While over 96% of pelican diets was nongame fish (Teuscher 2004), the small proportion of the diet that was composed of rainbow trout amounted to a total weight of 7.6 tons, similar to the total weight of trout stocked during the study. Both pelicans and cormorants opportunistically forage on trout in Blackfoot Reservoir, but predation on rainbow trout was significantly higher immediately following stocking events. Pelican counts near the trout stocking site increased from 21 birds the day prior to stocking to 150 birds the day after stocking. During the first week after stocking, an estimated 27% (150,000) of the newly-stocked hatchery rainbow trout were lost to bird predation (Teuscher et al. 2005). Over the 90-day period, total rainbow trout consumption by pelicans and cormorants was an estimated 7.7 tons, which was 102% of the total weight of hatchery trout stocked in 2003 (7.5 tons). This prompted a change to a fall stocking strategy in 2005 to avoid avian predation. Subsequent fish population monitoring in the reservoir indicates increases in overall hatchery trout abundance since the shift to fall stocking.
Since completion of the 2009-2013 pelican management plan (IDFG 2009), IDFG has examined broader impacts of pelican predation on other fisheries in southern Idaho. Meyer et al. (2016) used fish tagged with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags to estimate the proportion of stocked hatchery trout consumed by pelicans for 19 stocking events over three years at various southern Idaho waters, and compared rates of pelican predation to angler catch for those same waters (see summary tables and figures in
Appendix I). Pelican predation on hatchery trout averaged 17% and ranged from 0-48%, whereas angler catch averaged 20% and ranged from 0% to 82%. Pelican predation rate was inversely proportional to distance from the nearest colony and inversely proportional to angler catch (Appendix I). The highest pelican predation rates observed were generally at waters within 100 km of the nearest nesting colony except at CJ Strike Reservoir, which was over 200 km from the nearest colony yet still received relatively heavy predation pressure by pelicans in some years. Results indicate that in some southern Idaho fisheries, pelicans are exploiting as many or more catchable-sized hatchery trout than anglers catch, and these two entities are in direct competition for this public resource.
Meyer et al. (2016) noted that most hatchery catchable trout fisheries in southern Idaho are within the foraging range of pelicans nesting at colonies other than Minidoka NWR and Blackfoot Reservoir, such as at Island Park Reservoir (northeast Idaho), Gunnison Island (northern Utah), Malheur NWR (eastern Oregon), Badger Island (eastern Washington), and Molly Island (western Wyoming). In October 2014, biologists recovered 11 PIT-tags on Gunnison Island from four of the study waters (up to 231 km away). At the Island Park Reservoir colony, one PIT-tag was recovered from a hatchery catchable trout stocked in Lake Walcott. The number of pelican-consumed PIT-tags recovered at the Lake Walcott and Blackfoot colonies (n = 383) compared to the Gunnison, Molly Island, and Island Park colonies (n = 12) led Meyer et al. (2016) to conclude that little of the pelican predation occurring in southern Idaho hatchery trout fisheries stems from pelicans breeding at colonies other than Lake Walcott and Blackfoot.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game10
Adaptive Management
The goals, objectives, and actions outlined below will be implemented by IDFG with an
adaptive management approach in partnership with other state and federal entities, landowners, and other cooperators. While many non-lethal management actions to reduce predation conflicts such as hazing and habitat alteration can be implemented under IDFG authority, any actions resulting in direct take of eggs or birds must be authorized by USFWS through a depredation permit to the state under guidelines developed by the Pacific Flyway Council (2012). The Pacific Flyway Council guidelines (2012) outline expectations to document depredation conflicts, and to investigate and apply non-lethal techniques to the extent practicable before seeking take authority from USFWS to resolve conflicts.
Since 2009 IDFG has evaluated the utility of several potential management approaches to reduce pelican predation conflicts, dismissing some as impractical and implementing others as resources and federal permit authority allow. A brief summary of management actions considered and/or implemented by IDFG is provided below (for more details see Appendix II).
1. I ncrease reservoir water levels to provide fish refugia–deemed infeasible due to state water law, existing federal water contracts, and expense.
2. Modify pelican prey composition (stocking additional species)–feasible, but deemed impractical & unrealistic.
3. Modify hatchery trout stocking strategies– feasible on a case-by-case basis, implemented in some locations.
4. Provide refugia (physical barriers to separate pelicans and fish)–feasible in site-specific circumstances but impractical to address the broad scope of documented conflicts.
5. Install bird lines in foraging areas–feasible in specific circumstances but high cost; implemented at Blackfoot, then abandoned for more effective measures.
6. Haze birds at foraging, loafing and nesting areas–feasible in some locations, requires high intensity; implemented intensively at Blackfoot, intermittently on other waters.
7. Translocations (establish new nesting colonies)–deemed infeasible and undesirable as long as statewide abundance exceeds objectives.
8. Manipulate nesting habitat–deemed feasible but labor intensive and costly; implemented at Blackfoot.
9. Introduce predators to nesting islands–feasible but a risk to non-targeted species, and there are other more efficient methods for take; attempted and failed at Blackfoot.
10. Harvest season on birds (by public)- deemed infeasible due to federal protections in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A harvest would require ammendments to international treaties.
11. Oil eggs to limit pelican productivity and/or recruitment–feasible; implemented at Blackfoot under USFWS permit.
12. Remove eggs to limit pelican colony expansion–feasible; implemented at Blackfoot under USFWS permit but caused more dispersal than desired.
13. Site-specific lethal take of adult pelicans–feasible; implemented at Blackfoot under USFWS permit; used only in support of hazing.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 11
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions
This section describes statewide long-term goals and objectives that are further refined
into regional objectives tied to near-term and long-term actions. The Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan established a statewide population objective of maintaining or increasing the current (2005) population of 2,770 breeding birds (2,800 birds, rounded to the nearest 100; Ivey and Herziger 2006). In the absence of other state or flyway population objectives from USFWS, IDFG adopted this statewide objective in 2009 (IDFG 2009) and remains committed to maintaining 2,800 breeding pelicans statewide, regardless of the number of colonies. Actions identified to reduced predation impacts are primarily focused on hazing where conflicts occur, and on managing recruitment at existing colonies, rather than lethal take of adult birds. IDFG remains committed to collaboration with USFWS and the Pacific Flyway Council to monitor pelican populations and refine population objectives as new data become available.
This plan is primarily driven by the need to reduce pelican predation on native fish and important recreational fisheries. The statewide population objectives are split between three pelican colonies. In the 2009 Idaho Pelican Management Plan (IDFG 2009), a pelican population objective of 700 breeding birds was established for the Blackfoot Reservoir breeding colony. This objective was presumed to reflect acceptable rates of pelican predation that would not limit YCT recovery in the Blackfoot drainage. The balance of the 2,800 objective for breeding pelicans was then simply allocated to Minidoka, the only other Idaho colony at that time. The breeding colony at Island Park Reservoir subsequently became established in 2012 (first successful in 2014). The Island Park objective is no more than 300 breeding birds which is expected to keep pelican predation impacts relatively low and also preserve important nesting habitat for other species at this location (see Upper
Snake Region section). To achieve the statewide objective the Minidoka colony objective is 1,800 breeding birds, roughly similar to estimated abundance in 2003–2005.
Staff will continue to monitor for new colonies or nesting activities in addition to annual breeding bird counts at the three current colonies in Idaho. As long as statewide abundance exceeds objectives, staff will use dissuasion techniques where possible to prevent establishment of new colonies. If statewide abundance declines to 2,800 or fewer due to colony management or other factors, IDFG staff will allow one or more new colonies to establish at sites that serve to disperse the breeding population.
Statewide
Goal
Maintain a viable population of pelicans while reducing impacts of pelicans on public resources throughout Idaho. See regional sections and statewide coordination section for more details on the following statewide objectives.
Objectives
Objective 1: Manage for a total of 2,800 breeding pelicans at nesting colonies in Idaho; discourage establishment of new colonies until this objective is met.Action: Present and discuss the statewide population objective with the Nongame Technical Committee of the Pacific Flyway Council.
Objective 2: Implement adaptive management actions at pelican foraging areas to reduce predation on native fishes and important sport fisheries throughout Idaho.
Objective 3: Monitor pelican population trends, distribution, and foraging patterns in Idaho.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game12
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Objective 4: Work with other Pacific Flyway states to monitor and analyze broader pelican demographic trends and population parameters; develop a population model to evaluate the influence of state population objectives on viability in the western population.
Objective 5: Communicate and coordinate with federal and state agencies as well as the public regarding strategies for managing pelicans and associated conflicts.
Panhandle, Clearwater, and Salmon Regions
There are currently no nesting colonies in these regions, pelican abundance is relatively low, and conflicts with fisheries or other resources have not been identified. The Panhandle and Clearwater regions participated in statewide pelicans counts conducted during the breeding season (late May/early June) in 2010, and 2012-14. In the Panhandle Region, an average of 260 pelicans was observed (range 173-314), nearly all associated with the Chain Lakes (Coeur d’Alene River) and Hepton Lake (St. Joe River) areas. Average pelican count in the Clearwater Region was just 5 birds (range 0–8). Pelicans are rarely observed in the Salmon Region. Each of these regions will continue to participate in coordinated monitoring to document abundance and distribution trends for pelicans, but no additional data collection or management actions are anticipated for the duration of this plan.
Management Objectives and Actions
Objective 1: In coordination with statewide efforts, monitor pelican abundance and distribution every three years beginning in 2017. Action: Use ground, boat and aerial survey techniques to census pelican populations.
Southwest Region
Pelican Populations and Trends
There is currently no nesting colony in the Southwest Region. Pelican eggs have occasionally been cast on islands within C.J. Strike Reservoir, but no nest structures have been built and no incubation has been observed. Surveys conducted on regional waters during the breeding season (late May/early June) in 2010 through 2014 documented a regional average of 807 pelicans (range 415–1,247). Pelicans are most commonly observed along the Snake River, at C.J. Strike and Cascade reservoirs, and in Lake Lowell, with other small groups observed throughout the region.
Management Issues
Pelicans are locally/seasonally abundant on some regional waters, but predation impacts to fisheries resources are not known in most locations. C.J. Strike and Cascade reservoirs were the only regional waters included in the southern Idaho pelican predation study (Meyer et al. 2016; Appendix I). In C.J. Strike, estimated predation rates on hatchery rainbow ranged from 4% to 48%, suggesting that in some years pelican predation can significantly impact angler harvest opportunity. At C.J. Strike, years with higher predation rates coincided with lower angler catch.
Strategies Implemented
Regional staff have monitored potential nesting habitat on C.J. Strike annually to determine whether the presence of pelicans and some eggs has resulted in the production of fledglings. Based on recent research, staff have also altered the timing of rainbow trout stocking in C.J. Strike Reservoir. Now, the majority of catchables are stocked during the fall to minimize the time that relatively naïve, recently stocked rainbow trout are available to pelicans.
Management Objectives and Actions
Objective 1: In coordination with statewide efforts, monitor pelican abundance and distribution in the Southwest Region every three years beginning in 2017.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 13
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions
Action: Use ground, boat and aerial survey techniques to census pelican populations in the Southwest Region.
Objective 2: Identify conflicts, prioritize locations, and implement actions where pelican predation prevents the achievement of fish management goals. Action: As available, allocate resources to minimize predation at highest priority conflict locations.Action: Continue to modify stocking strategies as feasible where conflicts arise to minimize pelican predation.
Objective 3: Monitor regional waters for establishment of new colonies.Action: Survey potential nesting islands within regional waters at least once per breeding season to determine if pelicans are attempting to nest.
Objective 4: If successful nesting occurs, and total statewide abundance of breeding birds exceeds the 2,800 objective, preclude future nesting attempts.Action: Employ physical barriers and/or hazing prior to nesting season to prevent establishment of a new colony.
Magic Valley Region
Pelican Population and Trends
Pelicans are found seasonally throughout the Magic Valley Region. The abundance of suitable breeding, feeding, and loafing habitat combined with abundant forage make this region suitable for pelican persistence. The greatest concentration of pelicans is associated with the Minidoka NWR nesting colony located on Lake Walcott. Minidoka NWR was established in 1909 as a “preserve and breeding ground for
Figure 6. Number of breeding pelicans at Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge, 1989–2015, and the population objective for 2016-2025.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game14
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
native birds”. The majority of pelicans generally concentrate along the Snake River corridor; however, birds have been observed in large groups (50-200+ birds) as far north as Anderson Ranch Reservoir and as far south as Salmon Falls Creek and Oakley reservoirs near the Nevada border. It is common to observe large flocks of pelicans thought to be foraging birds associated with the Minidoka NWR colony; however, it is also possible they may originate from other colonies or be non-nesting birds.
The majority of Idaho pelicans are found in the Magic Valley Region during annual spring counts. Both breeding and presumed non-breeding pelicans increased dramatically from 2002 to 2008 and now appear relatively stable. An average of 3,200 pelicans was observed in the region from 2010 through 2014. The breeding bird population objective established in 2009 (2,100 breeding birds) has been exceeded in five of the previous six years (Fig. 6). Despite pelicans exceeding abundance objectives, no specific colony management strategies were developed or implemented from 2009 to present. This was due in part to a lack of data on specific predation impacts, which has since been collected on several regional waters (Meyer et al. 2016).
Management Issues
Increases in pelican abundance over the last two decades have resulted in increasing conflicts at local fisheries. The Magic Valley Region fisheries program includes approximately 60 waters managed with supplemental stocking of hatchery trout. At six of these fisheries included in the Meyer et al. (2016) study, pelican predation rates ranged from 7% to 34% of all stocked trout. In some waters (Lake Walcott, Freedom Park Pond, Magic Reservoir) pelicans were estimated to consume more stocked trout than anglers caught. In general, peak stocking and angling effort in spring and early summer coincides with peak pelican foraging. Impacts to wild fishes are suspected at Anderson Ranch Reservoir (kokanee) and Silver Creek (wild trout). These conflicts are most prevalent near the Minidoka NWR Colony, but are increasing across the region and are a high management priority.
This region has many commercial, State, and Federal aquaculture facilities, most of which are located along the Snake River within 70 miles of the Minidoka colony. Some facilities utilize open mortality pits for daily disposal of dead fish (Fig. 7). This management practice has resulted in pelican scavenging and artificially-high
Figure 7. Pelican response to mortality disposal at private hatcheries.VIDEO STILL CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 15
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions
Fishery Speciesa Conflict Action(s)Fish mgmt. goals met? (Y/N/Unk.)
Oster Lakes 1–4 Hrbt Hatchery returns Increased stocking, hazing N
Riley Pond Hrbt/CC Hatchery returns Increased stocking, hazing N
Settling Pond Hrbt Hatchery returns Increased stocking, hazing N
Filer Ponds Hrbt Hatchery returns Limited hazing N
Crystal Lake Hrbt Hatchery returns Stopped stocking N
Anderson Ponds CC Hatchery returns Curtailed catfish stocking N
Connor Pond Hrbt Hatchery returns
Nighttime stocking, reduced stocking, changed stocking season, established warmwater fishery
N
Emerald Lake Hrbt Hatchery returns
Nighttime stocking, reduced stocking, changed stocking season, reestablished warmwater fishery
N
Rupert Gun Club Pond Hrbt Hatchery returns Curtailed stocking N
Freedom Park Pond Hrbt Hatchery returns Reduced stocking N
Lake Walcott Hrbt Hatchery returns Eliminated fingerlings, changed stocking season Y
Snake River Hrbt Hatchery returns Increased stocking Unk.
Magic Res. Hrbt Hatchery returns Changed stocking season Unk.
Mormon Res. Hrbt Hatchery returns Altered stocking timing, reduced fingerlings Y
Silver Creekb Nat Premier wild trout fishery Limited hazing Unk.
Salmon Falls Cr. Res. Hrbt Hatchery returns Altered stocking location Unk.
Anderson Ranch Res.c KoK Spawner escapement Limited hazing Unk.
a Hrbt=Hatchery rainbow trout; Kok=Kokanee; CC=Channel catfish; Nat=Other wild or native fish species.b Recent increase in number of pelicans on the fishery (past 5 years).c Pelican predation on spawning kokanee mainly occurs in drought years when kokanee are staged at the mouth of the
South Fork Boise River but are unable to ascend the river to spawn. Actual impacts are unknown.
Table 1. Magic Valley Region fisheries where pelican predation has resulted in management changes and/or has impacted angler opportunity or ability to meet fish management goals.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game16
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
concentrations of birds habituated to this food source. The impacts of these concentrations are not well understood but local conflicts are likely.
Strategies Implemented
There are approximately 17 fisheries in the Magic Valley where fisheries management has been adjusted (mainly stocking) in an effort to avoid or reduce pelican predation (Table 1). When pelicans are present, hatchery personnel haze prior to fish stocking events. On small fishing ponds adjacent to the Hagerman State Fish Hatchery and Wildlife Management Area (WMA), hatchery personnel regularly haze avian predators, including pelicans. In Lake Walcott, stocking of fingerling rainbow trout was discontinued due to poor returns likely associated with avian predation. Lake Walcott is now stocked with fewer catchable-sized rainbow trout late in the season in an attempt to avoid predation. Hatchery trout stocking was discontinued at Emerald Lake and Connor Pond, resulting in a loss of harvest opportunity for anglers in these small ponds. Additionally, channel catfish stocking in Riley Pond was discontinued due to a near complete loss of stocked fish to pelican predation.
Management Objectives and Actions
Objective 1: In coordination with statewide efforts, monitor pelican abundance and distribution in the Magic Valley Region every three years beginning in 2017. Action: Use ground, boat and aerial survey techniques to census pelican populations in the Magic Valley Region.
Objective 2: Identify conflicts, prioritize locations, and implement actions where pelican predation prevents the achievement of fish management goals. Action: At high priority waters, implement fish monitoring strategies (Meyer et al. 2016) to assess the predation impacts of foraging pelicans on native fishes and sport fisheries.
Action: As available, allocate resources to intensively haze at highest priority conflict locations (e.g. Silver Creek, Crystal Lake, and Filer Ponds). Action: Continue to modify stocking strategies as feasible where conflicts arise to minimize pelican predation.
Objective 3: Manage for 1,800 breeding birds at the Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge colony. Action: Use available data to determine viability of the Minidoka NWR colony under current breeding bird abundance objectives. Action: Present predation impact data, pelican breeding colony objectives, and management strategies required to meet objectives to USFWS Minidoka Wildlife Refuge staff. Action: Request and obtain, if possible, authorization from USFWS to implement measures to meet the 1,800 breeding bird objective. Action: Develop monitoring techniques that are both non-intrusive and effective at monitoring breeding and productivity at the Minidoka NWR colony.
Objective 4: Monitor other regional waters for establishment of new colonies.Action: Survey potential nesting islands within regional waters at least once per breeding season to determine if pelicans are attempting to nest.
Objective 5: If successful nesting occurs, and total statewide abundance of breeding birds exceeds the 2,800 objective, preclude future nesting attempts.Action: Employ physical barriers and/or hazing prior to nesting season to prevent establishment of a new colony.
Objective 6: Minimize artificially-high concentrations of scavenging
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 17
pelicans which result from open disposal of hatchery mortalities.Action: Work with private aquaculture facilities to develop best practices for mortality disposal to reduce concentrations of scavenging pelicans. Action: Assess impacts of implementation on pelican distribution.
Southeast Region
Pelican Populations and Trends
The Southeast Region has one pelican nesting colony, located on Blackfoot Reservoir. Burleigh (1972) reported a nesting attempt in the early 1960s which ended in nest destruction by local anglers. Trost (1985) documented adult birds on Gull Island in the mid-1980s with no evidence of nesting. In 1993, 80–100 nearly-fledged young
were observed (Trost and Gerstell 1994). IDFG began annual surveys of the colony in 2002. The number of breeding pelicans increased annually through 2007 when it peaked at 3,418 birds (Fig. 8). Since 2007 the number of breeding birds has fluctuated annually, but with a downward trend.
Management actions to reduce the number of breeding pelicans appear to be having the desired effect on the colony’s abundance and the associated potential for predation impacts. In 2010, IDFG began installing nest exclusion fences and flagging to reduce nesting pelican abundance at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony and to restrict nesting to a portion of Gull Island that would accommodate 350 nests. In 2012, IDFG began managing the productivity of nesting pelicans using USFWS-permitted nest destruction. Because pelicans also have attempted to nest on nearby Willow Island and Long Island, IDFG staff have used a variety of dissuasion techniques and nest destruction to restrict use of these islands.
Figure 8. Number of breeding pelicans at Blackfoot Reservoir, 1993 and 2002–2015, and number of spawning cutthroat trout in the Blackfoot River above the Reservoir, 2001–2015.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game18
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Pelican production (number of pre-fledglings) and productivity (number of pre-fledglings/nest attempt) has been estimated annually at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony since 2007 (Fig. 9). Productivity averaged 0.39 pre-fledglings/nest through 2015 but is highly variable from year to year. The highest productivity (0.68) was recorded in 2007 and coincided with the peak number of breeding pelicans. The lowest recorded productivity was 0.13 in 2014, when colony management activities on Long Island resulted in abandonment by other pelicans nesting on that island. Management activities since 2012 to reduce the number of chicks produced at the colony have created some bias in productivity rates estimated by simply dividing number of fledglings by the number of nests initiated. Nest destruction presumably decreases total production compared to an unmanaged colony. Productivity of untreated nests (not oiled nor eggs removed) is substantially higher. For example, since 2012, productivity for untreated nests at Blackfoot averaged 0.60 (range 0.23 to 0.83).
Management Issues
Historically, the upper Blackfoot River Drainage supported angler harvest of tens of thousands of wild YCT. For example, Cuplin (1963) reported harvest of 17,000 and 11,000 cutthroat trout in the upper Blackfoot River in 1959 and 1960, respectively. As the popularity of the fishery increased, angler exploitation became a limiting factor for the population (Labolle and Schill 1988). In 1990, a management plan was implemented to reduce harvest and bolster the wild stock. The first step of that plan was to close harvest on cutthroat trout in the reservoir. In 1998, further protection was afforded by closing harvest of cutthroat trout in the spawning and rearing environments upstream of the reservoir in the Blackfoot River and its tributaries. Over the ensuing decade, the cutthroat trout population responded dramatically. Adult escapement estimates increased from a few hundred spawning fish to an estimated run size of 4,747 in 2001. Despite the early success of harvest closures, the run collapsed to a low of only 16 fish in 2005. Since then, the population has remained low with an average run size of about 650 (range 19 to 1,843). This more recent cutthroat trout
Figure 9. Estimated productivity (pre-fledglings / nest) and production (number of pre-fledglings) at Blackfoot Reservoir, 2007 – 2015. The triangle symbol represents productivity of remaining nests after colony management actions.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 19
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions
collapse coincided with a rapidly expanding pelican breeding colony on Blackfoot Reservoir and increases in pelican use of the Blackfoot River to forage (Teuscher and Schill 2010). Fisheries biologists also began noticing bird scars on migrating adult cutthroat trout. In 2004, 70% of adult cutthroat trout migrants exhibited wounds consistent with pelican attacks (Teuscher and Schill 2010).
In 2010, IDFG began a focused research project to directly quantify the level of pelican predation on Blackfoot River cutthroat trout. During a 4-year study, 4,653 wild cutthroat trout were tagged using a combination of radio-telemetry and PIT tags. Annual predation rate estimates were made by recovering cutthroat trout tags from pelican nesting islands. On-island tag recovery rates were corrected for ingested tags that went undetected during island searches and for tags that were deposited away from the nesting islands. Pelicans consumed tagged cutthroat trout ranging from 150 mm to 580 mm in length and showed no size-selection within that range for their prey. Annual pelican predation rates averaged about 30% for adult and juvenile cutthroat trout, with the highest values above 60% (Teuscher et al. 2015).
Pelicans have been observed foraging on other cutthroat trout runs in southeast Idaho. Since 2002, pelicans have been observed foraging at the mouth of St. Charles Creek, which is the most important spawning tributary for BCT in Bear Lake (IDFG and USFS 2007). Pelicans have also been observed foraging at the mouth of Swan Creek, a Utah tributary to Bear Lake. In 2005, pelicans concentrated at the mouth of Swan Creek below the Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR) spawning and egg take trap. To reduce predation losses, UDNR installed bird lines, set up a human effigy, and regularly shot cracker shells at the birds (S. Tolentino, UDNR, pers. comm.).
Pelican predation has also been measured on important sport fisheries in the region. During a repeated study, pelican predation on hatchery rainbow trout stocked in American Falls Reservoir was 30% (Meyer et al. 2016). There were several other waters included in the pelican predation
study from the southeast region, but impacts were much lower (Meyer et al. 2016).
Strategies Implemented
Past actions to reduce impacts of foraging pelicans on native YCT in the Blackfoot River include hazing with zon guns, cracker shells and other pyrotechnics, airboat, and installing flagged lines across the river to exclude pelican foraging activity, as well as taking adult birds in conjunction with hazing. At nest islands, attempts have been made to limit the number of nesting birds to achieve the state’s population objective of 700 breeding adults. Actions have included installing fencing and fladry on nesting islands to exclude nesting, destroying nests, and hazing adults from nesting islands. As a result, after several years of adaptive approaches using non-lethal methods and implementation of lethal take authority from USFWS, the abundance objective for the Blackfoot colony has been achieved three of the last five years (Fig. 10). Reaching that objective through implementation of non-lethal methods and take authority was a result of extensive coordination and communication between IDFG and USFWS. One product from that coordination was the Bird Conservation Strategy: reducing American white pelican/Yellowstone cutthroat trout conflicts (IDFG 2013). This strategy outlines practicable measures to avoid and minimize pelican take and courses of action to determine when and how take will be employed. The document provides a detailed overview of the conflict, past and ongoing IDFG management practices, and future plans to reduce pelican/YCT conflicts in the Blackfoot River and reservoir while ensuring long-term conservation of pelicans at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony. Management activities, by year, are summarized in Appendix III. Actions to reduce both pelican impacts on migrating adult and juvenile YCT will likely require annual, intensive management efforts.
Hazing and Lethal Reinforcement
IDFG has employed various actions to discourage pelican foraging along sections of the Blackfoot River and its mouth at the Blackfoot Reservoir
Idaho Department of Fish & Game20
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
during the YCT migration to and from spawning areas. Zon guns, pyrotechnics, boats, ATVs, volunteer and IDFG personnel hazers have been used to varying degrees since 2003. Generally, hazing is conducted twice daily, at peak foraging times, in May and June, with timing depending on the fish spawning run. To enhance effectiveness of hazing the USFWS has issued IDFG scientific collection or depredation permits annually since 2006 for limited take of adult pelicans foraging on the Blackfoot River. IDFG has improved and intensified hazing and take in subsequent years and monitoring information, where a hiatus in hazing results in a subsequent increase in birds observed on the river, suggests we have been able to influence behavior using hazing accompanied by periodic take of foraging birds. The take of pelicans is spread over the spawning run. Generally, 1-6 birds are taken daily depending on the number of birds present. Although hazing does not eliminate pelican presence on the river long-term, even short-term reduction in pelican foraging may have benefits for migrating trout.
Night foraging by pelicans has been reported (McMahon and Evans 1992) and has been documented on the Blackfoot River using remote cameras. It is unknown to what degree if any the daytime hazing efforts affect night foraging by pelicans.
Bird Lines on River
In 2005, monofilament line with flagging attached was installed across portions of the Blackfoot River between the mouth of the Blackfoot Reservoir and the fish trap at Caribou County Sportsman Park. This technique was effective at eliminating pelican foraging within the lined section of the river. However, fluctuating water levels, and the associated hazards and maintenance, makes this technique inappropriate on this portion of the Blackfoot River.
Nesting Island Exclusion and Hazing
Following Commission approval of the 2009 Pelican Management Plan, in 2010, IDFG began the implementation of actions to limit the number of nesting pelicans at Blackfoot Reservoir. These efforts include attempting to exclude nesting from portions of the nesting islands by installing fencing and a network of fladry attached to t-posts in the exclosure. Fencing and flagging techniques have been adapted to reduce impacts to nesting gull, tern, and waterfowl species. Fencing allows for the movement of unflighted nestlings in and out of the exclosure. The lines with flagging are installed at a height and spacing that limits the risk of entanglement of flighted birds. In 2015, IDFG began hazing birds from nesting islands prior to and during nest establishment. The timing, location, and intensity of hazing activities are adjusted annually to
Figure 10. Number of breeding pelicans during nest count in late May/early June and after egg oiling and nest removal actions at Blackfoot Reservoir. A depredation permit was secured for nest destruction in 2012-2015.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 21
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions
improve effectiveness and minimize disturbance to other species nesting within and near the pelican colony.
Techniques and materials have been modified over time as staff have adapted to conditions and bird behavior. In 2013, a ‘conservation area’ was established on the east side of Gull Island with the remainder of the island fenced and flagged to exclude nesting. The ‘conservation area’ was selected to include that portion of Gull Island with nesting snowy egrets (Egretta thula), black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), in order to provide additional protection from disturbance to non-target species. Pelicans nested in the ‘conservation area’ and initially avoided the exclosure on both Gull and Willow islands. However, in 2014, the majority of pelicans attempted to nest on Long Island, an island they had not previously used for nesting. When nests were destroyed on Long Island, nests became established within the enclosure portion of Gull Island shortly thereafter.
The number of pelicans initiating nesting at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony has generally declined since the initiation of fencing and flagging to reduce the availability of nesting habitat. The average number of breeding pelicans at the colony from 2005-2009 was 2,867. Since fencing and flagging has been used, from 2010-2015, the average number of breeding pelicans has been 1,842. This represents a 36% decrease in the average number of pelicans initiating nesting for the 6 years following fencing and flagging as compared to the 5 years prior.
It also should be noted that while the reduction of the number of nesting birds at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony may reduce foraging on YCT on the Blackfoot River, it may not be a proportional relationship. The use of the river by pelicans that are not nesting on the Blackfoot Reservoir is not well understood. A limited radio telemetry study conducted in 2010, found that not all birds captured foraging on the Blackfoot River appeared to be associated with the Blackfoot Reservoir colony.
Nest Destruction
Beginning in 2012, the USFWS issued permits for the destruction of up to 500 pelican nests, to be implemented only if the total number of nests exceeded the IDFG goal of 350 (Fig. 10). IDFG implemented this permit by oiling eggs in 2012 and 2013. Vegetable oil was sprayed onto eggs using a backpack sprayer. Regional staff opted to oil eggs to reduce the potential for possible renesting attempts. We monitored oiled nests to determine effectiveness of this technique. In 2013, a sample of treatment and control eggs was monitored, and no successful hatching was observed for oiled eggs.
In 2014, in coordination with USFWS, nests were destroyed by removing eggs to increase the likelihood pelicans would disperse and leave the conflict area. On Long Island, 474 of 906 nests were destroyed by removing the eggs. Following this action all nests were abandoned on this island, with the exception of fewer than 20 where chicks had already hatched. Immediately following the abandonment of Long Island, almost 200 pelicans began nesting in the exclosure area of Gull Island. It is assumed these were birds moved from Long Island that were attempting to renest.
In 2015, hazing was used to prevent pelican nesting on any island except within the ‘conservation area’ on Gull Island. This was the first year human disturbance was used as the primary action to dissuade nesting. The island hazing appeared to be successful. No nests were established on Willow or Long islands, and total egg take required to meet objectives was less than the number allowable under USFWS authority.
Management Objectives and Actions
Objective 1: In coordination with statewide efforts, monitor pelican abundance and distribution in the Southeast Region every three years beginning in 2017.Action: Use ground, boat and aerial survey techniques to census pelican populations in the Southeast Region.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game22
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Objective 2: Identify conflicts, prioritize locations, and implement actions where pelican predation prevents the achievement of fish management goals. Action: Implement fish monitoring strategies (Meyer et al. 2016) to assess the predation impacts of foraging pelicans on native fishes and sport fisheries. Action: Monitor adult YCT escapement to Blackfoot River fish trap annually. Action: As available, allocate resources to minimize predation at highest priority conflict locations.Action: Continue to modify stocking strategies as feasible where conflicts arise to minimize pelican predation.Action: Document pelican use and intensively haze birds from foraging areas where there is conflict. Action: Seek annual renewal of USFWS authority as needed to lethally remove foraging pelicans from the Blackfoot River to reinforce non-lethal hazing activities. Action: Seek additional authority from the USFWS to lethally remove pelicans foraging on specific high-quality, intensively-managed fisheries where deemed necessary.
Objective 3: Manage for 700 breeding birds at the Blackfoot Reservoir colony.Action: Establish and maintain a ‘conservation area’ on Blackfoot Reservoir’s Gull Island where 700 pelicans (350 nests) are allowed to nest undisturbed by fencing, flagging, and hazing efforts. Action: Maintain fencing and flagging on Gull Island to restrict nesting area available to breeding pelicans to the ‘conservation area’. Action: Haze pelicans from nesting islands on Blackfoot Reservoir (except within Gull Island ‘conservation area’) prior to nest establishment. Action: Seek annual renewal of
USFWS authority to remove or oil eggs to meet colony objectives. Action: Conduct pre-fledgling count to document productivity (fledgling/nest) for the colony.
Objective 4: Monitor other regional waters for establishment of new colonies.Action: Survey potential nesting islands within regional waters at least once per breeding season to determine if pelicans are attempting to nest.
Objective 5: If successful nesting occurs, and total statewide abundance of breeding birds exceeds the 2,800 objective, preclude future nesting attempts.Action: Employ physical barriers and/or hazing prior to nesting season to prevent establishment of a new colony.
Upper Snake Region
Pelican Populations and Trends
American white pelican occurrence in the Upper Snake watershed was documented by early European American naturalists and a nesting colony was confirmed at Yellowstone Lake (60 miles from Henrys Lake, Idaho) in 1890 (Schaller 1964). It is likely that pelicans periodically foraged in the Upper Snake Region of Idaho since at least European American settlement. Pelicans were known to use Island Park Reservoir since the 1950s. In the 1990s, pelicans in the Upper Snake Region expanded from scattered, infrequent occurrences to larger, consistently occurring foraging flocks. Since the mid-2000s, pelicans have been commonly observed on most major waters within the Upper Snake Region. From 2010-2014, IDFG staff completed spring aerial pelican surveys to monitor abundance and distribution (Table 2). The total pelican abundance averaged 819, and ranged from 998 in 2011 to 467 in 2012.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 23
Management Goals, Objectives and Actions
Management Issues
IDFG staff have detected concentrated pelican activity on Trude Island in Island Park Reservoir annually since 2010. Nesting was first observed in 2012. Pelicans have nested on Trude Island annually since establishment, although the colony failed to produce fledglings until 2014 (Table 2).
One area of high concern for anglers and the IDFG in the Upper Snake Region is increasing pelican abundance and predation on native fishes and important sport fisheries in the Henrys Fork River, including Henrys Lake and tributaries. Henrys Lake and the Henrys Fork River fisheries collectively support 851 jobs and a total economic output of over fifty million dollars (Loomis 2005).
Henrys Lake is managed as a quality fishery and is supported by IDFG stocking and natural recruitment. For the last fifteen years, IDFG has stocked Henrys Lake with more than 1 million fingerling trout annually. Native YCT spawn in several tributaries to Henrys Lake including Targhee, Duck, Howard and Timber creeks. Pelicans concentrate foraging efforts at tributary mouths during the YCT spring spawning period and also during the summer when trout seek thermal refuge (Buelow 2012 and 2013). Currently, pelican predation does not appear to be limiting
this fishery, but continued monitoring of pelican predation is necessary.
The Henrys Fork River is a world-renowned sport fishery comprised of nonnative rainbow and brown trout and limited numbers of native YCT. The majority of this river is managed for wild or native trout while other portions receive supplemental stocking. Impoundments (Island Park and Ashton reservoirs) are supported largely by stocked fish. Since the mid-2000s, pelican predation has been a fish management concern along the upper Henrys Fork River and Henrys Lake. More recently, observations and reports of congregations of foraging pelicans have been associated with spawning runs or concentrations of fish in many parts of the region, prompting additional concerns from managers. The magnitude of pelican predation on native or sportfish populations is unknown. However, fisheries managers and the public have concerns about population-level impacts to fisheries resources at current pelican abundances. Expansion of the existing pelican colony or creation of additional colonies will exacerbate these concerns.
Year Pelicans Counted in Upper Snake Region Aerial Survey (2010-2014)
Pelican Nests on Trude Island, Island Park Reservoir
2010 859
2011 998
2012 467 150*
2013 785 232**
2014 988 163
2015 N/A 316***
Table 2. American White Pelicans counted during spring aerial surveys in the Upper Snake Region from 2010-2014; and pelican nests counted on Trude Island in Island Park Reservoir since 2012.
*Number of nests is based on a field estimate; Colony failed sometime after nest establishment ** Colony failed sometime after nest establishment***Pelicans fledged young but no accurate count of fledglings was obtained
Idaho Department of Fish & Game24
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Strategies Implemented
The Upper Snake regional staff has employed several strategies to better understand pelican use of regional habitats and its potential impacts on fish populations and recreation.
Outreach to Private Landowners–IDFG staff has engaged Trude Island landowners about pelican management.
Monitoring the Island Park Reservoir pelican colony on Trude Island–Since 2010, IDFG staff has monitored the status of nesting birds on the island. IDFG staff estimates pelican nest success when feasible.
Management Objectives and Actions
Objective 1: In coordination with statewide efforts, monitor pelican abundance and distribution in the Upper Snake Region every three years beginning in 2017. Action: Use ground, boat and aerial survey techniques to census pelican populations in the Upper Snake Region.
Objective 2: Identify conflicts, prioritize locations, and implement actions where pelican predation prevents the achievement of fish management goals.
Action: Implement fish monitoring strategies (Meyer et al. 2016) to assess the predation impacts of foraging pelicans on native fishes and sport fisheries. Action: As available, allocate resources to minimize predation at highest priority conflict locations.Action: Continue to modify stocking strategies as feasible where conflicts arise to minimize pelican predation.
Objective 3: Manage for no more than 300 breeding pelicans at the Island Park colony (Trude Island). Action: Work collaboratively with landowners to maintain the nesting colony on Island Park Reservoir at an appropriate level. Action: Install fencing and fladry to reduce colony size and discourage pelican colony expansion. Action: Monitor pelican occupancy and nesting phenology to aid in management decisions. Action: Haze pelicans attempting to nest outside of the enclosure.Action: Conduct pre-fledgling count to document productivity (fledgling/nest) for the colony. Action: Monitor other colonial nesting birds on Trude Island to gauge impacts from pelicans and related management activities.
Objective 4: Monitor other regional waters for establishment of new colonies.Action: Survey potential nesting islands within regional waters at least once per breeding season to determine if pelicans are attempting to nest.
Objective 5: If successful nesting occurs, and total statewide abundance of breeding birds exceeds the 2,800 objective, preclude future nesting attempts. Action: Employ physical barriers and/or hazing prior to nesting season to prevent establishment of a new colony.ADULT PELICAN CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 25
Statewide Coordination
The actions described before
will be implemented largely by regional staff along with partner agencies in accordance with this plan. The Wildlife Bureau will coordinate activities such as
statewide pelican counts and nesting colony surveys, pelican banding or tagging studies, and compiling and analyzing data to assess trends in pelican abundance, distribution, and productivity at the state and flyway scale. Annually both the Fisheries Bureau and Wildlife Bureau will work with regional staff and USFWS staff as needed to secure depredation permit authority where necessary to alleviate specific predation impacts. Wildlife Bureau staff will work with regional staff to meet reporting requirements associated with any take authority issued by USFWS.
Pelican Monitoring
IDFG will continue monitoring pelican populations in Idaho, including annual surveys of nesting colonies to estimate breeding bird abundance and productivity, and periodic comprehensive surveys to describe statewide distribution and abundance. Focused studies using marked birds or birds fitted with GPS transmitters will be implemented when feasible to increase understanding of movement and life-history characteristics of Idaho’s birds.
Breeding Population Estimates
Estimates of the state breeding pelican population will be necessary to assess the effects of control actions, direct future control efforts, and monitor statewide population viability. The estimated number of breeding birds will be used each year to reassess a five-year average, predict the current trajectory of the breeding population,
and help determine the actions required to reach established population objectives.
Methods: Monitoring of the breeding pelican population will be aligned with protocols outlined by the Western Colonial Waterbird Survey (Seto 2008). This survey entails an annual ground-based nest count of each island used by nesting pelicans and occurs in the late incubation/early nestling stage of most of the nesting birds; typically late May–early June. Estimates are typically done with a single walk through the colony to minimize disturbance. This survey has been conducted annually at the Blackfoot colony since 2002, at the Minidoka colony since 2006, and at the Island Park colony since 2012. These surveys are expected to be continued indefinitely; however, annual ground-based counts at Minidoka are contingent upon USFWS approval. The use of aerial photograph counts, perhaps using drones, will be evaluated as a less intrusive alternative. IDFG staff will refine survey timing and methodologies as needed to ensure valid representation of breeding bird abundance and trends.
Statewide Distribution and Abundance
Documenting pelican distribution and abundance across Idaho will help managers assess effects of management actions on pelican populations, and may also help identify and prioritize waters where site-specific predation impacts may be significant or merit further investigation. Previous statewide surveys (2010 and 2012-14) included coordinated aerial counts and ground/boat counts generally conducted over 1-2 days. Counts were summarized by water body and include both breeding and non-breeding birds. Due to variations in weather and other factors, year-to-year variability in counts is high for individual waters and for the statewide total.
Methods: Statewide pelican counts will be conducted during the breeding season (late May/early June) every three years beginning in 2017. This schedule aligns with that proposed
Idaho Department of Fish & Game26
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
by the Pacific Flyway Council to monitor all breeding colonies in the western population (Pacific Flyway Council 2013). As in previous surveys, counts will be conducted with consistent methods over the same geographic area, primarily by fixed-wing aircraft and supplemented with ground/boat counts in additional waters. The Wildlife and Fisheries bureaus will plan and coordinate this activity with regional staff, and the Wildlife Bureau will compile and report statewide results.
Production and Productivity
Estimates of pelican production and productivity at Idaho’s nesting colonies are important to document continued pelican recruitment in Idaho, and also serve as the primary tool to assess effectiveness of colony management actions, such as physical barriers, hazing, and nest destruction where such actions occur. Productivity monitoring can also help assess other mortality concerns, such as disturbance and disease. While true productivity will be difficult to obtain, an estimate of maximum productivity can be obtained by estimating the number of chicks at the colony just prior to fledging.
Methods: The number of juveniles at breeding colonies will be estimated in late July or early August, just prior to fledging. Juvenile counts can be made during the late summer banding and tagging activities during years that the banding project is conducted. IDFG staff will also explore aerial imagery (e.g. drones) as an option to count fledglings in less intrusive ways.
Marking
The trapping and marking of juvenile birds with patagial tags from Idaho’s breeding colonies can provide insight into the post-fledging dispersal, habitat preferences, migration routes, over-wintering habitats, survival rates, age at first reproduction, and fidelity to natal and breeding sites. Understanding these fundamental life-history characteristics will be valuable in assessing the long-term effects of control actions on the pelican population and on reducing the predation pressure imposed by pelicans on Idaho waters. Collection of these data conforms to Strategy 2 under the Population Assessment Objective of the Pacific Flyway framework for white pelican management (Pacific Flyway Council 2012). These data could be combined with similar data from other states and partners in the Pacific Flyway and used to construct a population model that predicts broader flyway-level effects based on state population objectives. From 2007 through 2014, approximately 600
TAGGED PELICAN CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Figure 11. Detections of banded pelicans from the Blackfoot (black dots) and Minidoka (red dots) colonies, 2007-2015.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 27
Statewide Coordination
pre-fledging juvenile pelicans (300 each from the Minidoka and Blackfoot breeding colonies Fig. 11) were trapped and marked each year. Each bird received a USFWS metal leg band and a unique alpha-number cattle ear-tag placed in the patagium of the wing. The tag colors were specific to the breeding colony, with red tags for Minidoka birds and black tags for Blackfoot birds. Analysis of band recoveries and re-sighting records resulting from this effort is ongoing and will be completed before this plan lapses in 2025. The need for additional tagging/banding studies will be determined based on information gaps remaining after this analysis.
Fisheries
Pelican Predation Estimates
During this planning period, additional waters may be identified where pelican predation is
suspected to significantly impact native fish populations or sport fisheries. Regional and HQ staff will evaluate whether direct estimates of pelican predation rate are necessary to develop specific management strategies or to evaluate effectiveness of those strategies. Where deemed necessary, staff will use the methods of Meyer et al. (2016) to quantify impacts, and will coordinate
this work with HQ staff and other partners.
Catch Rates and Return to Creel of Hatchery Trout
IDFG will employ standardized creel surveys and tagging studies at important recreational sport fisheries to assess catch composition, catch rates, and return to the creel of hatchery trout.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game28
Statewide Information Needs
Public Outreach
a. Analyze pelican population data and 2007-2014 banding data; determine trends in population size and productivity for Idaho and the western population; summarize movement data and update survivorship estimates; develop a model for pelican population viability to validate or adjust current statewide abundance objectives.
There are two aspects of public outreach associated with the implementation of this plan. First, public input on a draft plan was sought from a variety of user groups and state and federal
agencies during a formal 30–day public comment period. Comments were solicited through a variety of avenues including press releases, public meetings, social media, and the IDFG website. Input was compiled and reviewed by staff, and was incorporated as appropriate into the final draft. Lastly, staff requested IDFG Commission approval on May 17, 2016 before the plan took effect.
A second aspect of public outreach associated with this plan includes communicating objectives and actions to stakeholders, and developing educational materials on pelican conservation and pelican-fish conflicts. Where appropriate, staff will engage other agencies and citizen volunteers in pelican monitoring, banding or tagging, and other conflict management actions such as hazing.
b. Determine breeding status and nesting location of pelicans foraging on YCT in the Blackfoot River system through satellite telemetry.
c. Obtain better information on the biology of Idaho’s pelicans with specific emphasis on loafing, foraging behavior, home range size, habitat use, and the percent of the overall population that are adult breeders.
JUVENILE PELICANS CCBY IDAHO FISH AND GAME
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 29
Literature CitedA nderson, D.W. and D.T. King. 2005. Introduction:
Biology and conservation of the American white pelican. Waterbirds 28:1–8.
B urleigh T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.
C hapman, B.R. 1988. History of the white pelican colonies in south Texas and northern Tamaulipas. Colonial Waterbirds 11:275–283.
C lapp, R.B., M.K. Klimkiewicz, and J.H. Kennard. 1982. Longevity records of North American birds: Gaviidae through Alcidae. Journal of Field Ornithology 53:81–124.
F indholt, S.L. and S.H. Anderson. 1995. Diet and prey use patterns of the American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) nesting at Pathfinder Reservoir, Wyoming. Colonial Waterbirds 18:58–68.
F lannery, A.W. 1988. Foraging habitat of white pelicans on Great Salt Lake marshes. Masters Thesis, Utah State Univ.
H all, E.R. 1925. Pelicans versus fishes in Pyramid Lake. The Condor 27:147–160.
Id aho Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Management plan for conservation of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Idaho. Boise, Idaho.
Id aho Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Management of American white pelicans in Idaho. Boise, Idaho.
Id aho Department of Fish and Game. 2013. Bird conservation strategy: reducing American white pelican / Yellowstone cutthroat trout conflicts. Boise, Idaho.
Id aho Department of Fish and Game. 2013. Fisheries Management Plan 2013-2018. Boise, Idaho.
Id aho Department of Fish and Game. 2016. Draft State Wildlife Action Plan. Boise, Idaho.
Id aho Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Management plan for conservation of Bonneville cutthroat trout in Idaho. Boise, Idaho.
Iv ey, G.L. and C.P. Herziger. 2006. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1.2. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. Portland, Oregon.
K eith, J.O. 2005. An overview of the American white pelican. Waterbirds 28:9–17.
K ing, D.T. and D.W. Anderson. 2005. Recent population status of the American white pelican: a continental perspective. Waterbirds 28:48–54.
K nopf, F.L. and R.M. Evans. 2004. American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.) Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/057
K nopf, F.L. and J.L. Kennedy. 1980. Foraging sites of white pelicans nesting at Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Western Birds 11:175–180.
K nopf, F.L. and J.L. Kennedy. 1981. Differential predation by two species of piscivorous birds. Wilson Bulletin 93:554–556.
L aBolle, L. and D.J. Schill. 1988. Upper Blackfoot River Fishery Management Plan. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho.
L ingle, G.R. and N.R. Sloan. 1980. Food habits of white pelicans during 1976 and 1977 at Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. Wilson Bulletin 92:123–125.
M cEneaney, T. 2006. Yellowstone Bird Report 2006. Yellowstone Center for Resources, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. YCT-2007-01.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game30
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
M cMahon, B.F. and R.M. Evans. 1992. Nocturnal foraging in the American white pelican. The Condor 94:101–109.
M eyer, K.A., C.L. Sullivan, P. Kennedy, D.J. Schill, D.M. Teuscher, A.F Brimmer, and D.T. King. 2016. Predation by American white pelicans and double-crested cormorants on catchable-sized hatchery rainbow trout in select Idaho lentic waters. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 36:294-308.
M oulton, C.E., S.B. Roberts, J.S. Horne, and M. Wackenhut. In Review. Changes in abundance, productivity, and distribution of western American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), 1981-2014.
M urphy, E.C and J.C. Tracy. 2005. Century-long impacts of increasing human water use on numbers and production of the American white pelican at Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Waterbirds 28:61-72.
N atureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: May 4, 2015).
O ’Malley, J.B.E. and R.M. Evans. 1982. Flock formation in white pelicans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 60:1024–1031.
P acific Flyway Council. 2012. Pacific Flyway Plan: A framework for the management of American white pelican depredation on fish resources in the Pacific Flyway. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
P acific Flyway Council. 2013. A monitoring strategy for the western population of American white pelicans within the Pacific Flyway. Pacific Flyway Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 18pg.
P acific Flyway Council 2015. Pacific Flyway Council recommendations, informational notes, and subcommittee reports, July 2015. http://www.pacificflyway.gov/Documents/Recs_jul.pdf. Accessed 9/28/15/
R ocke, T., K. Converse, C. Meteyer, and B. McLean. 2005. The impact of disease in the American white pelican in North America. Waterbirds 28:87-94.
R oot, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
S challer, G.B. 1964. Breeding behavior of the white pelican at Yellowstone Lake, Wyoming. The Condor 66:3–23.
S huford. W.D. 2005. Historic and current status of the American white pelican breeding in California. Waterbirds 28:35–47.
S loan, N.F. 1982. Status of breeding colonies of white pelicans in the United States through 1979. American Birds 36:250–254.
S trait, L.E. and N.R. Sloan. 1974. Life table analysis for the white pelican. Inland Bird Banding News 46:20–28.
T euscher, D. 2004. Regional Fishery Management Investigations. Job performance report. Report F-71-R-28. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
T euscher, D., R. Hillyard, and R. Scully. 2005. Regional Fishery Management Investigations. Southeast Region. Job performance report. Project F-71-R-28. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
T euscher, D. and D.J. Schill. American white pelican predation on Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Blackfoot River system, Idaho. Pp 242-249 in Carline, R.F. and C LoSapio, editors. 2010. Conserving Wild Trout. Proceedings of the Wild Trout X Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
T euscher, D.M., M.T. Green, D.J. Schill, A.F. Brimmer, and R.W. Hillyard. 2015. Predation by American white pelicans on Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Blackfoot River drainage, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 35: 454-463.
T rost, C.H. 1985. Status and distribution of colonial nesting waterbirds in Idaho. Nongame Wildlife Program, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 31
Statewide Information Needs
T rost, C.H. and A. Gerstell. 1994. Status and distribution of colonial nesting waterbirds in southern Idaho, 1993. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management Technical Bulletin No. 94-6. Boise, Idaho.
U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Guidelines for the management of the American white pelican western population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game32
AppendicesA
pp
end
ix I.
Sum
mar
y o
f p
elic
an p
red
atio
n im
pac
ts o
n ha
tche
ry r
ainb
ow t
rout
fish
erie
s in
so
uthe
rn Id
aho
(fr
om
Mey
er e
t al
. 20
16)
Tab
le A
. Dis
tanc
e (k
m)
fro
m s
tud
y w
ater
s w
here
hat
cher
y tr
out
wer
e st
ock
ed a
nd (
or)
fed
to
Am
eric
an w
hite
pel
ican
s, t
o n
earb
y p
elic
an
nest
ing
co
loni
es (
fro
m M
eyer
et
al. 2
016
).
a P
elic
an n
esti
ng
was
att
emp
ted
bu
t n
o o
ffsp
rin
g w
ere
pro
du
ced
at
this
loca
tio
n d
uri
ng
th
e st
ud
y.
Stud
y W
ater
sW
ater
siz
e (h
a)M
olly
Isla
nd
(Yel
low
sto
ne
Nat
iona
l Par
k)
Isla
nd P
ark
Res
ervo
ira
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
irM
inid
oka
N
WR
Gun
niso
n Is
land
Cas
cad
e R
eser
voir
10,9
94
459
36
34
123
04
44
8
CJ
Str
ike
Res
ervo
ir3
,035
48
33
85
354
201
313
Rile
y C
reek
Po
nd
74
153
2327
411
823
1
File
r P
on
d1
40
33
1425
29
520
2
Mag
ic R
eser
voir
1,56
93
66
268
231
111
230
Fre
edo
m P
ark
Po
nd
13
46
272
181
32
154
Ru
per
t G
un
Clu
b
Po
nd
43
47
271
181
32
156
Lak
e W
alco
tt3
,335
315
248
148
015
2
Am
eric
an F
alls
R
eser
voir
22,3
69
259
199
95
5617
0
Ch
este
rfiel
d
Res
ervo
ir50
421
317
427
119
187
Fo
ster
Res
ervo
ir52
275
252
84
140
111
Gle
nd
ale
Res
ervo
ir8
227
525
38
314
111
3
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 33
Appendices
Wat
erYe
ar
Dis
tanc
e to
N
eare
st
Co
lony
Fed
Sto
cked
Fed
Sto
cked
Fed
Sto
cked
Oth
er
Co
rmo
rant
R
ecov
erie
sE
stim
ate
90
%
CI
Pre
dic
ted
P
elic
an
Pre
dat
ion
Est
imat
e9
0%
C
I
Cas
cad
e R
eser
voir
2012
30
410
439
30
0-
0-
0.0
0-
0.0
20
.02
Cas
cad
e R
eser
voir
2013
30
412
54
500
0-
0-
0.0
0-
0.0
90
.03
CJ
Str
ike
Res
ervo
ir20
1220
110
039
96
1-
0-
0.0
40
.07
.32
0.0
7
CJ
Str
ike
Res
ervo
ir20
1320
110
04
00
22
-0
-0
.25
0.3
20
.09
0.0
5
CJ
Str
ike
Res
ervo
ir20
1420
19
54
00
24
-0
-0
.48
0.6
70
.100
.10
Rile
y C
reek
Po
nd
2012
118
64
100
162
-0
-0
.08
0.0
90
.82
0.2
0
Rile
y C
reek
Po
nd
2013
118
3910
024
4-
0-
0.0
70
.05
0.0
60
.07
Rile
y C
reek
Po
nd
2014
118
109
92
3-
0-
0.15
0.16
0.6
90
.69
File
r P
on
d20
129
50
100
-3
-0
-0
.26
0.6
80
.18
Mag
ic R
eser
voir
2014
111
04
49
-4
-0
-0
.120
.04
0.0
4
Fre
edo
m P
ark
Po
nd
2013
32
010
0-
16-
3-
0.2
90
.31
0.16
Ru
per
t G
un
Clu
b
Po
nd
2013
32
09
9-
16-
2-
0.2
90
.00
-
Lak
e W
alco
tt20
130
91
397
44
65
-17
-0
.34
0.0
90
.00
-
Lak
e W
alco
tt20
140
81
208
534
1-
22-
0.3
00
.09
0.0
40
.04
Am
eric
an F
alls
R
eser
voir
2013
5610
139
69
11-
0-
0.3
10
.22
0.0
0-
Am
eric
an F
alls
R
eser
voir
2014
568
339
812
17-
0-
0.3
00
.170
.03
0.0
3
Ch
este
rfiel
d R
eser
voir
2013
278
03
85
195
-9
652
0.0
50
.04
0,0
20
,02
Fo
ster
Res
ervo
ir20
138
40
293
-0
-0
99
0.0
00
.03
0.0
7
Gle
nd
ale
Res
ervo
ir20
138
30
399
-0
-0
200
.00
0.3
00
.07
Tota
l1,0
735,
565
189
194
-14
017
1
Tab
le B
. Ini
tial
num
ber
s o
f ha
tche
ry R
ainb
ow T
rout
(w
ith
PIT
tag
s an
d a
ncho
r ta
gs)
fed
to
pel
ican
s o
r st
ock
ed in
stu
dy
wat
ers
and
sub
seq
uent
ly r
ecov
ered
fro
m A
mer
ican
w
hite
pel
ican
nes
ting
co
loni
es o
r o
ther
loafi
ng a
reas
in Id
aho,
as
wel
l as
esti
mat
es o
f p
elic
an p
red
atio
n an
d a
ngle
r ca
tch
(fro
m M
eyer
et
al. 2
016
).
Init
ial P
IT
tag
s at
larg
eP
elic
an P
red
atio
nA
ngle
r C
atch
Rec
over
ed t
ags
assi
gne
d t
o:
Pel
ican
s
C
orm
ora
nt
Ap
pen
dix
I. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game34
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Figure A. Relationship between a study waters’ distance from the nearest American white pelican colony and the recovery efficiency (at the nearest colony) of PIT tags implanted in hatchery Rainbow Trout and fed directly to pelicans at that study water. The line and equation depict an exponential relationship fit to the data.
Figure B. Relationship between a study waters’ distance to the nearest American white pelican nesting colony and the pelican predation rate on hatchery Rainbow Trout stocked at that water. Predation rates for the waters labeled with an “x” were predicted based on the relationship in Figure A. The line and equation depict an exponential relationship fit tothe data.
Appendix I. Continued.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 35
Appendices
Figure C. Relationship between estimates of American white pelican predation and angler harvest in select Idaho waters where pelicans have been known to congregate. Predation rates for the waters labeled with an “x” were predicted based on the relationship in Figure A.
Appendix I. Continued.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game36
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Incr
ease
R
eser
voir
W
ater
Lev
els
Mai
nta
in
rese
rvo
ir
wat
er a
t le
vels
th
at p
rovi
de
adeq
uat
e re
fug
ia f
or
fish
at
tim
es a
nd
/o
r lo
cati
on
s n
eed
ed
Wo
uld
req
uir
e co
op
erat
ion
w
ith
wat
er
use
rs a
nd
as
soci
ated
w
ater
m
anag
emen
t ag
enci
es
Dec
reas
e fo
rag
e o
pp
ort
un
ity
by
red
uci
ng
sh
allo
w w
ater
fo
rag
ing
hab
itat
Dec
reas
e n
esti
ng
hab
itat
b
y re
du
cin
g
surf
ace
area
of
isla
nd
(s)
Co
uld
dis
pla
ce
fora
gin
g
pel
ican
s to
o
ther
bo
die
s o
f w
ater
Incr
ease
d lo
ss o
f p
rey
spec
ies
at
oth
er fi
sher
ies
fro
m
dis
pla
ced
pel
ican
s
Red
uce
d lo
ss o
f p
rey
spec
ies
at t
reat
men
t w
ater
s d
ue
to a
n
incr
ease
in r
efu
gia
Po
ten
tial
incr
ease
in
the
surv
ival
an
d/o
r re
cru
itm
ent
of
pre
y sp
ecie
s b
ecau
se o
f st
able
wat
er le
vels
Fis
h im
pac
ts
un
kno
wn
– d
epen
ds
on
tim
ing
an
d
du
rati
on
of
flo
w
chan
ges
No
t p
ract
ical
b
ecau
se t
he
dem
and
fo
r w
ater
res
ou
rces
is
to
o h
igh
(i
.e.,
ener
gy,
ag
ricu
ltu
re,
com
mer
cial
, an
d r
esid
enti
al
nee
ds)
Mu
ltip
le u
sers
an
d d
iver
se
dem
and
s fo
r w
ater
w
ou
ld m
ake
coo
rdin
atio
n
com
plic
ated
Th
ere
wo
uld
lik
ely
be
a d
ivid
ed p
ub
lic
reac
tio
n
Alt
ho
ug
h
dir
ect
cost
s o
f w
ith
ho
ldin
g w
ater
m
igh
t b
e lo
w, t
he
ind
irec
t co
sts
to
wat
er u
sers
an
d
the
po
ten
tial
co
st
of
mit
igat
ion
may
b
e h
igh
Cu
rren
tly
in-
stre
am fl
ow
or
in-r
eser
voir
use
ar
e n
ot
curr
entl
y re
cog
niz
ed u
nd
er
wat
er r
enta
l ru
les
and
fu
rth
er
dis
cuss
ion
wo
uld
n
eed
to
occ
ur
wit
h t
he
Idah
o
Wat
er R
eso
urc
e B
oar
d
No
co
st e
stim
ate
po
ssib
le a
t th
is
tim
e
Po
ten
tial
fed
eral
, st
ate,
an
d t
rib
al
con
stra
ints
Un
pre
dic
tab
le
leve
l of
succ
ess
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
tr
eatm
ent
wat
ers
on
ly
Ap
pen
dix
II. D
escr
ipti
on
and
ana
lysi
s o
f 12
po
tent
ial m
anag
emen
t ac
tio
ns c
ons
ider
ed t
o a
dd
ress
imp
acts
of
pel
ican
s o
n fi
sh in
Idah
o.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 37
Appendices
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Mo
dif
y P
rey
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
Sto
ck g
ame
and
/or
no
ng
ame
fish
sp
ecie
s to
div
ersi
fy
pel
ican
pre
y b
ase
Ad
dit
ion
al
sto
cked
pre
y sp
ecie
s m
ay
incr
ease
fo
rag
ing
o
pp
ort
un
ity
in t
reat
men
t w
ater
s
Po
ten
tial
in
crea
se in
fe
cun
dit
y /
surv
ival
of
pis
civo
rou
s b
ird
s as
soci
ated
w
ith
tre
atm
ent
wat
ers
May
att
ract
p
isci
voro
us
bir
ds
to
trea
tmen
t w
ater
s
Po
ten
tial
ly r
edu
ce
pre
dat
ion
imp
acts
to
a s
ing
le s
pec
ies,
b
ut
cou
ld in
crea
se
imp
acts
if p
elic
ans
are
dra
wn
to
in
crea
sed
fo
rag
ing
o
pp
ort
un
itie
s
Po
ten
tial
neg
ativ
e eff
ect
on
oth
er fi
sh
spec
ies
thro
ug
h
inte
rsp
ecifi
c co
mp
etit
ion
So
urc
es o
f ad
dit
ion
al fi
sh
spec
ies
may
b
e d
ifficu
lt t
o
acq
uir
e d
ue
to
stat
e h
atch
ery
Via
bili
ty o
f st
ock
ed fi
sh
un
cert
ain
an
d
may
req
uir
e co
nti
nu
ed
sup
ple
men
tati
on
Div
ided
pu
blic
if
fish
ery
qu
alit
y is
co
mp
rom
ised
Th
e es
tim
ated
co
st o
f st
ock
ing
h
atch
ery-
rear
ed
rain
bo
w t
rou
t to
fe
ed o
ne
adu
lt
pel
ican
co
nsu
min
g
on
ly r
ain
bo
w t
rou
t w
ou
ld b
e b
etw
een
$
15–5
0 /
day
Th
e es
tim
ated
co
st o
f m
od
ifyi
ng
p
rey
com
po
siti
on
b
y in
tro
du
cin
g
no
n-n
ativ
e fi
shes
o
r “r
ou
gh
fish
” (i
.e.,
carp
) w
ou
ld
be
app
roxi
mat
ely
$50
0 /
day
Th
e d
elay
ed
cost
rea
lized
th
rou
gh
loss
of
a q
ual
ity
fish
ery
or
trea
tmen
t to
re
cove
r a
qu
alit
y fi
sher
y (b
oth
co
mm
on
sce
nar
ios
occ
urr
ing
fo
llow
ing
in
tro
du
ctio
n
of
no
n-n
ativ
e /
un
des
ired
sp
ecie
s) c
ou
ld
be
tho
usa
nd
s to
m
illio
ns
of
do
llars
IDF
G –
sev
en
step
pro
cess
fo
r n
ew s
pec
ies
intr
od
uct
ion
s
Un
pre
dic
tab
le
leve
l of
succ
ess
Dep
end
ant
on
cu
rren
t fi
sher
y d
iver
sity
, bir
d
beh
avio
r, an
d
sto
ckin
g v
iab
ility
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game38
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025A
pp
end
ix II
. Co
ntin
ued
.
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Mo
dif
y F
ish
S
tock
ing
S
trat
egie
s
Dis
trib
ute
sto
ckin
g
loca
tio
n(s
) in
tim
e (s
easo
nal
/ d
aily
) an
d s
pac
e
- A
lter
tim
e o
f st
ock
ing
fro
m
spri
ng
to
fal
l (af
ter
pel
ican
s h
ave
mig
rate
d)
- In
crea
se t
he
nu
mb
er o
f st
ock
ing
lo
cati
on
s to
red
uce
p
red
atio
n r
isk
- C
han
ge
sto
ckin
g
tim
e fr
om
day
to
d
usk
Red
uce
fish
st
ock
ing
at
som
e lo
cati
on
s -
May
b
e ap
plic
able
in
som
e ca
ses,
eit
her
te
mp
ora
rily
or
per
man
entl
y
May
aff
ect
sho
rt-t
erm
fo
rag
ing
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
bir
ds
by
red
uci
ng
av
aila
bili
ty o
f h
atch
ery
fish
May
ch
ang
e lo
cati
on
an
d/o
r ti
me
of
pel
ican
fo
rag
ing
May
red
uce
p
red
atio
n
mo
rtal
ity
of
hat
cher
y fi
sh
May
incr
ease
m
ort
alit
y o
f h
atch
ery
fish
fr
om
oth
er
cau
ses
- C
han
gin
g
sto
ckin
g t
ime
fro
m s
pri
ng
to
fa
ll co
uld
aff
ect
ove
rwin
ter
surv
ival
of
hat
cher
y fi
sh
- L
on
ger
re
ten
tio
n o
f h
atch
ery
fish
in
tru
cks
cou
ld
affec
t su
rviv
al
- In
crea
sed
h
and
ling
m
ort
alit
y p
oss
ible
Fal
l rel
ease
mo
re
diffi
cult
du
e to
low
er w
ater
le
vels
Hat
cher
y co
nst
rain
ts d
ue
to p
rod
uct
ion
ti
min
g a
nd
nee
ds
Mix
ed p
ub
lic
op
inio
n b
ecau
se
this
act
ion
co
uld
ch
ang
e q
ual
ity
of
fish
ery
Exp
ensi
ve d
ue
to c
han
ges
in
hat
cher
y p
rod
uct
ion
on
ly if
sp
ecie
s, s
ize,
an
d
nu
mb
ers
chan
ge
Ch
ang
es in
an
gle
r u
se c
ou
ld a
ffec
t lo
cal e
con
om
ies
(up
or
do
wn
)
No
sig
nifi
can
t ch
ang
e in
co
sts
if
spec
ies,
siz
e, a
nd
n
um
ber
s si
mila
r
No
ne
Dep
end
s o
n
acti
on
tak
en,
char
acte
rist
ics
of
sto
ckin
g lo
cati
on
, an
d a
dap
tab
ility
o
f p
elic
ans
to
chan
ges
in f
ora
gin
g
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
- C
han
gin
g s
tock
ing
ti
me
fro
m s
pri
ng
to
fa
ll m
ore
like
ly t
o
be
succ
essf
ul t
han
si
mp
ly c
han
gin
g
tim
e o
f d
ay o
r n
um
ber
of
rele
ase
site
s
- F
all s
tock
ing
m
ore
like
ly t
o b
e su
cces
sfu
l in
larg
er
lake
s /
rese
rvo
irs
- M
ore
like
ly t
o
be
succ
essf
ul i
f p
elic
ans
slo
w t
o
adap
t fo
rag
ing
b
ehav
ior
in
resp
on
se t
o r
elea
se
of
fish
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 39
Appendices
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Pro
vid
e R
efu
gia
fo
r F
ish
Cre
ate
phy
sica
l b
arri
ers
to
sep
arat
e p
elic
ans
and
fi
sh:
-Flo
atin
g r
op
e
-An
cho
red
w
oo
d o
r p
last
ic
pla
tfo
rms
Lit
tle
to n
o
phy
sica
l im
pac
t to
bir
ds
Ris
k o
f b
ird
en
tan
gle
men
t
Pla
tfo
rms
cou
ld
pro
vid
e p
erch
es
for
bir
ds
IRed
uce
d fi
sh lo
ss
un
der
bar
rier
s
Fis
h r
esti
ng
are
as
un
der
bar
rier
s
Co
uld
red
uce
fo
rag
ing
in r
efu
gia
ar
eas
Co
uld
co
nce
ntr
ate
and
incr
ease
fo
rag
ing
in
no
n-r
efu
gia
are
as
Co
uld
red
uce
loss
in
are
as o
f fi
sh
con
cen
trat
ion
, i.e
., sp
awn
ing
str
eam
s,
mo
uth
s o
f tr
ibu
tari
es,
etc.
Diffi
cult
an
d
lab
or
inte
nsi
ve t
o
mai
nta
in
Red
uce
d fi
shin
g
op
po
rtu
nit
y fo
r an
gle
rs, i
.e.,
area
s u
nd
er t
he
bar
rier
s w
ou
ld
be
un
avai
lab
le t
o
ang
lers
Hin
dra
nce
to
n
avig
atio
n
(bo
atin
g h
azar
d)
Po
ten
tial
en
tan
gle
men
t lia
bili
ty
May
be
un
po
pu
lar
wit
h
pu
blic
du
e to
cr
eati
ng
are
as
un
avai
lab
le t
o
ang
lers
Un
sig
htl
y
Po
ten
tial
ly
exp
ensi
ve t
o in
stal
l an
d m
ain
tain
d
epen
den
t o
n
met
ho
d
-Flo
atin
g r
op
e-$
1,00
0 f
or
mat
eria
ls t
o
pro
tect
10
0 x
50
ft
are
a; $
1,40
0
in m
anp
ow
er t
o
imp
lem
ent
thro
ug
h
spaw
nin
g r
un
; $
2,4
00
to
tal c
ost
-Flo
atin
g p
latf
orm
s
$10
0 in
mat
eria
ls;
$1,7
50 in
m
anp
ow
er d
uri
ng
sp
awn
ing
ru
n;
$1,8
50 t
ota
l co
st
Un
kno
wn
; P
erm
itti
ng
may
b
e re
qu
ired
b
y C
orp
s o
f E
ng
inee
rs
May
pro
ve
effec
tive
in
loca
lized
are
as
(e.g
., im
med
iate
ly
bel
ow
wei
rs
or
oth
er fi
sh
pas
sag
e b
arri
ers)
Diffi
cult
y o
f m
ain
ten
ance
may
lim
it lo
ng
-ter
m
effec
tive
nes
s o
n
a la
rge
scal
e
Ove
rall
likel
iho
od
o
f su
cces
s lo
w
Po
ten
tial
ly
mo
der
ate
to
hig
h li
kelih
oo
d
of
succ
ess
in
very
loca
lized
ar
ea d
epen
din
g
on
phy
sica
l co
nst
rain
ts o
f si
te
Inst
all B
ird
L
ines
Inst
all l
ines
ac
ross
w
ater
way
s w
her
e b
ird
s co
nce
ntr
ate
to
fora
ge
Use
flag
gin
g
for
incr
ease
d
visi
bili
ty, w
ith
lin
e sp
aced
at
20
yar
d
inte
rval
s
Str
ing
lin
es 2
–3
ft a
bo
ve w
ater
May
red
uce
fo
rag
ing
o
pp
ort
un
itie
s
May
cau
se
mo
rtal
ity
by
enta
ng
lem
ent
in li
nes
. F
luct
uat
ing
w
ater
leve
ls
can
inu
nd
ate
lines
an
d
incr
ease
ris
k o
f en
tan
gle
men
t
May
red
uce
bir
d
pre
dat
ion
on
m
igra
tin
g c
utt
hro
at
tro
ut
and
oth
er
con
cen
trat
ed fi
sh
spec
ies
Lim
ited
by
area
co
vere
d a
nd
w
ater
leve
ls.
If r
eser
voir
s ar
e fi
llin
g,
lines
bec
om
e in
un
dat
ed a
nd
re
qu
ire
incr
ease
d
mai
nte
nan
ce
So
cial
ly
acce
pta
ble
Mat
eria
ls a
re
rela
tive
ly
inex
pen
sive
(~$
60
0
/ m
ile)
Lab
or
inte
nsi
ve
to s
et u
p a
nd
m
ain
tain
(d
aily
m
ain
ten
ance
) es
tim
ated
at
abo
ut
$8
,60
0 /
mile
Est
imat
ed t
ota
l co
st a
bo
ut
$9
,20
0
/ m
ile
May
cau
se
nav
igab
le w
ater
co
nfl
icts
if
imp
lem
ente
d in
p
op
ula
r b
oat
ing
ar
eas
Ver
y eff
ecti
ve
for
sho
rt-r
iver
re
ach
es w
ith
hig
h
con
cen
trat
ion
s o
f b
ird
s, b
ut
may
n
ot
wo
rk f
or
lon
g
rive
r re
ach
es a
nd
w
ide
rive
rs
Flu
ctu
atin
g
wat
er le
vels
can
in
un
dat
e b
ird
lin
es m
akin
g
them
ineff
ecti
ve
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game40
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Haz
e B
ird
s
Haz
e o
nly
fo
rag
ing
o
r lo
afin
g b
ird
s (n
o
haz
ing
on
nes
tin
g
isla
nd
s)
Met
ho
ds
cou
ld
incl
ud
e:
-Har
assm
ent
by
air
bo
at, m
oto
r b
oat
or
airc
raft
-Har
assm
ent
by
hu
man
pre
sen
ce
and
/or
do
gs
-Har
assm
ent
by
crac
kers
sh
ells
, zo
n g
un
s, o
r p
yro
tech
nic
s -D
istu
rban
ce b
y la
sers
or
stro
be
ligh
ts
-Dis
turb
ance
by
hu
man
pre
sen
ce o
r effi
gie
s
Dis
pla
cem
ent
Lo
st f
ora
gin
g
op
po
rtu
nit
y at
haz
ing
si
te
May
cau
se
reg
urg
itat
ion
of
sto
mac
h c
on
ten
ts,
req
uir
ing
ad
dit
ion
al
pre
dat
ion
to
mee
t d
ieta
ry d
eman
ds
Red
uce
d
pre
dat
ion
at
haz
ing
sit
e
May
mo
ve b
ird
s an
d p
red
atio
n
issu
es t
o a
reas
of
gre
ater
bio
log
ical
si
gn
ifica
nce
to
nat
ive
fish
p
op
ula
tio
ns
May
mo
ve b
ird
s an
d p
red
atio
n
issu
es t
o a
reas
of
gre
ater
eco
no
mic
im
po
rtan
ce (
see
Tab
le 4
)
Lab
or
inte
nsi
ve
dep
end
ing
on
m
eth
od
an
d
scal
e
Hu
man
saf
ety
issu
es if
bo
ats
or
airc
raft
are
use
d
Div
ided
pu
blic
Exp
ensi
ve
dep
end
ing
on
m
eth
od
, in
ten
sity
, an
d s
cale
Vo
lun
teer
s sh
ou
ld
be
con
sid
ered
to
im
ple
men
t h
azin
g
Lab
or
cost
s $
20 /
h
ou
r; h
aze
twic
e p
er d
ay f
or
3-h
r ti
me
per
iod
s to
talin
g 6
hrs
/
day
; $12
0 /
day
@
45
day
s =
$5,
40
0
Co
sts
abo
ut
$2,
700
/ m
ile
No
ne
– as
lo
ng
as
inju
ry o
r ta
ke d
oes
n
ot
occ
ur
Var
iab
le d
epen
din
g
on
sca
le
Hig
h li
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s if
haz
ing
is
inte
nse
an
d a
t an
ap
pro
pri
ate
scal
e
May
be
mo
re
effec
tive
in a
reas
ar
ou
nd
wei
rs o
r tr
ibu
tary
mo
uth
s
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 41
Appendices
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Tran
slo
cati
on
s (E
stab
lish
N
ew N
esti
ng
C
olo
nie
s)
Cap
ture
ad
ult
b
ird
s o
n n
esti
ng
is
lan
ds
Tran
slo
cate
ad
ult
b
ird
s to
alt
ern
ate
nes
tin
g lo
cati
on
s to
red
uce
bir
d
nu
mb
ers
at
ori
gin
al c
olo
ny
wh
ile e
stab
lish
ing
n
ew c
olo
nie
s o
r su
pp
lem
enti
ng
b
ird
nu
mb
ers
at
exis
tin
g c
olo
nie
s
Co
uld
req
uir
e w
ing
clip
pin
g
of
tran
slo
cate
d
adu
lts
to p
reve
nt
thei
r re
turn
to
th
e ca
ptu
re s
ite
Co
uld
req
uir
e u
se
of
win
g-c
lipp
ed
dec
oy
bir
ds
at
new
sit
e
May
bre
ak p
air
bo
nd
s
Un
kno
wn
su
rviv
al
pre
dic
tio
n f
or
tran
slo
cate
d b
ird
s
Rel
ease
sit
es m
ay
hav
e u
nkn
ow
n
fact
ors
su
ch a
s h
igh
leve
ls o
f p
red
atio
n o
r h
um
an d
istu
rban
ce
that
lim
its
adu
lt
surv
ival
Tran
spo
rt m
ay
stre
ss b
ird
s to
th
e p
oin
t o
f re
du
ced
su
rviv
al
Red
uce
d c
hic
k su
rviv
al if
bre
edin
g
adu
lts
mo
ved
d
uri
ng
incu
bat
ion
, n
estl
ing
or
fled
glin
g p
erio
d
Un
kno
wn
lon
g-
term
imp
act
Imm
edia
te
imp
act
on
fish
if
bir
d c
aptu
re
and
rem
ova
l o
ccu
rred
at
targ
eted
pro
ble
m
area
s (h
azin
g
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
b
ird
rem
ova
l, an
d t
he
actu
al
rem
ova
l of
bir
ds
will
red
uce
im
med
iate
fo
rag
ing
)
Red
uct
ion
in
loca
l pel
ican
p
op
ula
tio
n
may
red
uce
fi
sh p
red
atio
n
bu
t m
ay n
ot
imp
rove
ove
rall
tro
ut
nu
mb
ers
if p
red
atio
n is
co
mp
ensa
tory
Sh
ou
ld q
ues
tio
n
why
bir
ds
hav
e n
ot
nat
ura
lly
colo
niz
ed t
he
area
s w
e w
ou
ld
mo
ve t
hem
to
May
giv
e th
e ap
pea
ran
ce t
hat
w
e ar
e ex
pan
din
g
dis
trib
uti
on
of
the
pel
ican
s so
we
can
use
m
ore
ag
gre
ssiv
e m
anag
emen
t al
tern
ativ
es
(e.g
., o
ilin
g e
gg
s,
sho
oti
ng
ad
ult
s)
in p
rob
lem
are
as
such
as
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir
Tran
slo
cati
on
s w
ou
ld
dem
on
stra
te
ou
r d
edic
atio
n
to m
ain
tain
ing
n
um
ber
s in
Idah
o,
par
ticu
larl
y in
lig
ht
of
agg
ress
ive
man
agem
ent
app
roac
hes
su
ch
as o
ilin
g e
gg
s
No
gu
aran
tee
of
succ
ess
and
no
ex
per
ien
ce t
o
mo
del
eff
ort
s
Co
stly
-Cap
ture
is la
bo
r in
ten
sive
-Tra
nsp
ort
is c
ost
ly
du
e to
tra
nsp
ort
ve
hic
le a
nd
p
erso
nn
el n
eed
s
Mo
nit
ori
ng
at
rele
ase
site
co
uld
b
e la
bo
r in
ten
sive
, d
ifficu
lt, a
nd
p
ote
nti
ally
ver
y in
effec
tive
Sca
le o
f re
mo
val
nec
essa
ry t
o m
ake
a m
easu
rab
le
imp
act
on
loca
l p
op
ula
tio
ns
may
be
pro
hib
itiv
e
Wo
uld
re
qu
ire
spec
ial
per
mit
fro
m
US
FW
S
May
red
uce
th
e n
um
ber
s o
f b
ird
s at
pre
dat
ion
sit
e te
mp
ora
rily
bu
t it
may
sim
ply
m
ove
th
e p
rob
lem
el
sew
her
e
Will
no
t re
du
ce
the
pro
ble
m in
any
g
iven
are
a fo
r ve
ry
lon
g u
nle
ss a
ver
y la
rge
nu
mb
er o
f b
ird
s ar
e m
ove
d
and
do
no
t re
turn
No
gu
aran
tee
the
bir
ds
wo
n’t
co
me
bac
k
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game42
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Cap
ture
of
adu
lts
wit
ho
ut
a n
est
or
you
ng
co
uld
no
t b
e g
uar
ante
ed
un
less
cap
ture
an
d
tran
slo
cati
on
was
co
nd
uct
ed p
rio
r to
n
esti
ng
If c
olo
ny is
sp
ace-
limit
ed, r
emo
val o
f ad
ult
bir
ds
at a
co
lony
m
ay o
pen
up
sp
ace
for
new
bir
ds
that
co
me
in f
rom
ou
tsid
e ar
eas
(e.g
., G
reat
S
alt
Lak
e) in
eff
ect
incr
easi
ng
sta
tew
ide
nu
mb
ers
May
est
ablis
h n
ew
bre
edin
g c
olo
nie
s,
ther
eby
incr
easi
ng
ab
un
dan
ce in
th
e fu
ture
An
gle
rs a
t re
leas
e si
tes
may
see
pel
ican
tr
ansl
oca
tio
ns
as s
imp
ly a
d
istr
ibu
tio
n o
f th
e p
rob
lem
Est
imat
ed t
ota
l co
st p
er d
ay @
$
7,4
40
incl
ud
es
bo
ats,
ho
rse
trai
lers
, ve
hic
les,
man
po
wer
, an
d f
enci
ng
su
pp
lies
Han
dlin
g 7
5 b
ird
s /
day
wo
uld
am
ou
nt
to $
100
/ b
ird
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 43
Appendices
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Man
ipu
late
N
esti
ng
H
abit
at
Red
uce
nes
tin
g
hab
itat
ava
ilab
le
for
pel
ican
s
Tech
niq
ues
in
clu
de:
-Man
ipu
late
h
abit
at (
i.e.,
add
ve
get
atio
n o
r la
rge
rock
)
-Rem
ove
hab
itat
(i
.e.,
bla
stin
g)
-Ere
ct f
ence
, p
hysi
cal b
arri
ers
to b
reak
-up
isla
nd
su
rfac
e ar
ea
Po
ten
tial
d
isp
lace
men
t o
f n
esti
ng
bir
ds
Po
ten
tial
red
uce
d
pro
du
ctiv
ity
if t
he
avai
lab
le n
esti
ng
su
bst
rate
is a
lim
itin
g f
acto
r
Po
ten
tial
neg
ativ
e eff
ects
on
oth
er
isla
nd
nes
ters
(c
orm
ora
nts
, h
ero
ns,
eg
rets
, et
c.)
May
red
uce
th
e lo
ss o
f fi
sh
to p
elic
ans
on
sh
ort
-ter
m (
less
ch
icks
to
be
fed
) an
d/o
r lo
ng
-ter
m
(red
uce
d p
elic
an
nu
mb
ers)
if f
ewer
yo
un
g p
elic
ans
resu
lt f
rom
tr
eatm
ent
Lo
gis
tica
lly
feas
ible
an
d
hig
hly
pra
ctic
al
dep
end
ent
on
tec
hn
iqu
e (e
.g.,
pla
nti
ng
ve
get
atio
n
may
be
easi
ly
acco
mp
lish
ed;
ho
wev
er,
dep
osi
tio
n o
f ro
ck o
r th
e u
se o
f h
eavy
m
ach
iner
y m
ay
be
eco
no
mic
ally
an
d lo
gis
tica
lly
diffi
cult
)
Div
ided
pu
blic
-A r
edu
ced
p
rod
uct
ivit
y an
d/
or
po
pu
lati
on
si
ze o
f p
elic
ans
wo
uld
like
ly b
e ac
cep
tab
le t
o
pu
blic
wit
h fi
sh
con
cern
s b
ut
may
no
t b
e fo
r p
ub
lic w
ith
bir
d
con
cern
s
Pla
nti
ng
will
ow
cu
ttin
gs
at 1
sh
rub
/
yd2
wo
uld
co
st
an e
stim
ated
$
4,0
00
/ a
cre
An
exc
avat
or
wo
uld
co
st a
n
esti
mat
ed $
1,20
0
/ w
eek
to m
od
ify
or
rem
ove
su
itab
le
hab
itat
or
add
ro
ck
Bla
stin
g c
ost
s ra
ng
e fr
om
$2–
6 /
ft
2 d
epen
din
g o
n
acce
ssib
ility
Th
e n
esti
ng
is
lan
ds
ran
ge
in
size
fro
m 1
3,0
00
–20
0,0
00
ft2
Wo
uld
like
ly
req
uir
e ap
pro
val a
nd
p
erm
itti
ng
b
y fe
der
al,
and
/or
stat
e en
titi
es
Dep
end
s o
n is
lan
d
ow
ner
ship
Mo
der
ate
sho
rt-
term
dep
end
ent
on
th
e eff
ects
of
pro
du
ctiv
ity
of
pel
ican
s (f
ewer
ch
icks
to
be
fed
) an
d b
ehav
ior
of
dis
pla
ced
pel
ican
s
Po
ten
tial
ly
hig
h lo
ng
-ter
m
dep
end
ant
on
p
elic
an p
op
ula
tio
n
imp
acts
Un
pre
dic
tab
le
leve
l of
succ
ess
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game44
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Intr
od
uce
P
red
ato
rs
to N
esti
ng
Is
lan
ds
Tran
slo
cate
nat
ive
mam
mal
ian
p
red
ato
rs t
o
isla
nd
s u
sed
fo
r n
esti
ng
(i.e
., b
adg
ers,
rac
coo
ns,
fo
xes,
co
yote
s)
May
red
uce
pel
ican
p
op
ula
tio
n
May
red
uce
re
pro
du
ctiv
e su
cces
s
May
red
uce
co
ho
rt
con
trib
uti
on
to
fu
ture
pro
du
ctio
n
Pel
ican
s m
ay
aban
do
n n
esti
ng
co
lony
May
cau
se
dis
turb
ance
an
d
pre
dat
ion
on
oth
er
colo
nia
l nes
tin
g
bir
d s
pec
ies
Ch
ick
mo
rtal
ity
may
red
uce
p
red
atio
n
dem
and
fo
r fi
sh
May
red
uce
lo
cal p
elic
an
po
pu
lati
on
an
d a
sso
ciat
ed
fora
gin
g d
eman
d
If o
ther
co
lony
n
este
rs d
eclin
e,
fish
pre
dat
ion
m
ay a
lso
be
red
uce
d
A p
ort
ion
or
the
enti
re c
olo
ny m
ay
relo
cate
to
an
ar
ea w
ith
sim
ilar
fish
pre
dat
ion
co
nce
rns
Fea
sib
le
Pre
dat
ors
m
ay le
ave
and
n
eed
to
be
rein
tro
du
ced
an
nu
ally
Pre
dat
ors
can
b
e re
mo
ved
if
nec
essa
ry
A p
red
ato
r m
ay
sele
ct s
mal
ler
colo
nia
l nes
tin
g
spec
ies
rath
er
than
pel
ican
May
lose
co
ntr
ol o
f ab
ility
to
m
anag
e p
elic
an
colo
ny s
ize
Mix
ed p
ub
lic
op
inio
nR
elat
ivel
y in
exp
ensi
ve
Un
kno
wn
eff
ecti
ven
ess
Trap
pin
g c
ost
s ab
ou
t $
120
/
pre
dat
or
Tran
spo
rt a
nd
re
leas
e ab
ou
t $
280
/ p
red
ato
r
Tota
l co
st a
bo
ut
$4
00
/ p
red
ato
r
Ass
um
ing
no
m
ore
th
an
10 p
red
ato
rs
rele
ased
/ y
ear
the
app
roxi
mat
e an
nu
al c
ost
w
ou
ld b
e ~$
5,0
00
/ y
ear
Inve
stig
ated
wit
h
US
FW
S t
hro
ug
h
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
the
Bir
d
Co
nse
rvat
ion
S
trat
egy
(ID
FG
20
13)
IDF
G h
as
auth
ori
ty t
o
cap
ture
an
d
rele
ase
pre
dat
ors
Un
kno
wn
an
d
hig
h p
rob
abili
ty o
f im
pac
tin
g t
he
oth
er
colo
nia
l nes
tin
g
bir
ds
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 45
Appendices
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Har
vest
S
easo
n o
n
Bir
ds
(By
the
Pu
blic
)
Let
hal
tak
e o
f b
ird
s in
pro
ble
m
area
s th
rou
gh
ID
FG
-reg
ula
ted
h
arve
st s
easo
n
Co
ntr
olle
d h
un
t o
r q
uo
ta h
un
t
Po
ten
tial
d
istu
rban
ce t
o
oth
er s
pec
ies
May
bre
ak
pai
r b
on
ds
if
bre
edin
g a
du
lts
is
har
vest
ed, i
n t
urn
re
du
cin
g o
vera
ll p
rod
uct
ivit
y
Red
uce
d c
hic
k su
rviv
al if
b
reed
ing
ad
ult
h
arve
sted
du
rin
g
incu
bat
ion
, n
estl
ing
or
fled
glin
g p
erio
d
Imm
edia
te
red
uct
ion
in
pel
ican
ab
un
dan
ce
if h
arve
st is
eff
ecti
ve
Imm
edia
te
red
uct
ion
on
p
red
atio
n o
f fi
sh if
har
vest
w
as t
arg
eted
at
pro
ble
m a
reas
Red
uct
ion
in
loca
l pel
ican
p
op
ula
tio
n
may
red
uce
fi
sh p
red
atio
n
bu
t m
ay n
ot
imp
rove
ove
rall
tro
ut
nu
mb
ers
if p
red
atio
n is
co
mp
ensa
tory
Pel
ican
s ar
e n
ot
clas
sifi
ed
as g
ame
bir
ds
by
stat
e o
r fe
der
al w
ildlif
e m
anag
emen
t ag
enci
es
Po
ssib
le c
on
flic
t b
etw
een
an
gle
rs
and
hu
nte
rs
Co
nfl
ict
bet
wee
n
con
sum
pti
ve
and
no
n-
con
sum
pti
ve
use
r g
rou
ps
Po
ten
tial
ly
dis
rup
tive
to
o
ther
use
r g
rou
ps
in
imm
edia
te a
rea
Un
kno
wn
co
st
for
amm
end
ing
M
igra
tory
Bir
d
Trea
ty A
ct
(MB
TA)
A p
ort
ion
of
the
cost
s re
late
d
to p
elic
an
man
agem
ent
cou
ld b
e su
pp
ort
ed b
y p
elic
an t
ag s
ales
En
forc
emen
t o
f h
arve
st
reg
ula
tio
ns
and
lan
d u
se
rest
rict
ion
s co
uld
be
cost
ly
to t
he
IDF
G
enfo
rcem
ent
bu
reau
Dev
elo
pm
ent
of
har
vest
pro
toco
l ~
$2,
00
0; t
ag
fees
~ 4
00
ta
gs
@ $
10.5
0
gen
erat
es
$4
,20
0; l
aw
enfo
rcem
ent
per
son
nel
tim
e @
30
day
s ~$
5,25
0; n
et
cost
s $
3,0
50
Dep
end
s o
n p
ub
lic
par
tici
pat
ion
Pel
ican
s ar
e fe
der
ally
p
rote
cted
un
der
M
BTA
, are
no
t co
nsi
der
ed
gam
e b
ird
s, a
nd
th
us
wo
uld
no
t b
e co
nsi
der
ed
for
hu
nti
ng
se
aso
ns
wit
ho
ut
mo
difi
cati
on
to
M
BTA
Mo
difi
cati
on
s to
MB
TA
wo
uld
req
uir
e am
men
dm
ents
to
inte
rnat
ion
al
trea
ties
wit
h
bo
th C
anad
a an
d
Mex
ico
Lo
w g
iven
reg
ula
tory
co
nst
rain
ts
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game46
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025A
pp
end
ix II
. Co
ntin
ued
.
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Oil
Eg
gs
to
Lim
it P
elic
an
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
and
/or
Rec
ruit
men
t
Sp
ray
veg
etab
le
oil
on
incu
bat
ing
eg
gs,
wh
ich
su
ffo
cate
s th
e em
bry
o
May
req
uir
e m
ult
iple
ap
plic
atio
n o
f ve
get
able
oil
May
red
uce
p
elic
an p
op
ula
tio
n
May
red
uce
re
pro
du
ctiv
e su
cces
s
May
red
uce
co
ho
rt
con
trib
uti
on
to
fu
ture
pro
du
ctio
n
Po
ten
tial
d
istu
rban
ce t
o
oth
er c
olo
nia
l n
esti
ng
sp
ecie
s
Pel
ican
s w
ill
con
tin
ue
to
incu
bat
e eg
gs
rath
er t
han
ren
est
May
incr
ease
th
e in
cub
atio
n p
erio
d,
wh
ich
co
uld
re
du
ce
May
red
uce
p
red
atio
n o
n fi
sh,
bec
ause
ad
ult
p
elic
ans
are
no
t fe
edin
g y
ou
ng
Pre
dat
ion
imp
acts
b
y n
esti
ng
ad
ult
s m
ay b
e m
ain
tain
ed u
nti
l ad
ult
s ab
and
on
n
ests
Oili
ng
eg
gs
may
im
pac
t th
e le
ng
th
of
tim
e ad
ult
s w
ill t
end
nes
ts
and
ho
w a
du
lts
will
dis
per
se
afte
r n
est
aban
do
nm
ent
Rel
ativ
ely
easy
to
imp
lem
ent
Can
be
sele
ctiv
e fo
r p
elic
an n
ests
an
d s
pec
ific
trea
tmen
t g
oal
s ca
n b
e id
enti
fied
Mix
ed p
ub
lic
op
inio
nR
elat
ivel
y in
exp
ensi
ve
Ver
y eff
ecti
ve
at r
edu
cin
g
pro
du
ctio
n
May
req
uir
e se
vera
l yea
rs
of
trea
tmen
t to
re
du
ce p
red
atio
n
con
flic
ts
Mat
eria
ls $
46
0;
lab
or
and
tr
ansp
ort
atio
n
$9
00
; to
tal c
ost
s ~$
1,36
0 /
yea
r
Co
nsi
der
IDF
G
po
licy
reg
ard
ing
fe
rtili
ty a
nd
p
red
ato
r co
ntr
ol
Fed
eral
per
mit
re
qu
ired
Hig
h e
xpec
tati
on
o
f re
du
cin
g
imp
acts
of
pel
ican
s o
n fi
sh
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 47
Appendices
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Rem
ove
eg
gs
to li
mit
p
elic
an c
olo
ny
exp
ansi
on
Sel
ecti
vely
re
mo
ve
incu
bat
ing
eg
gs
May
red
uce
p
elic
an p
rod
uct
ion
an
d c
olo
ny
pro
du
ctiv
ity
May
red
uce
co
ho
rt
con
trib
uti
on
to
fu
ture
pro
du
ctio
n
Incr
ease
d t
ime
req
uir
ed m
ay
cau
se c
olo
ny
aban
do
nm
ent
Po
ten
tial
d
istu
rban
ce t
o
oth
er c
olo
nia
l n
esti
ng
sp
ecie
s
Pel
ican
s m
ay
atte
mp
t to
ren
est
May
red
uce
p
red
atio
n o
n fi
sh,
bec
ause
ad
ult
p
elic
ans
are
no
t fe
edin
g y
ou
ng
Pre
dat
ion
imp
acts
b
y n
esti
ng
ad
ult
s m
ay b
e m
ain
tain
ed u
nti
l ad
ult
s ab
and
on
n
ests
Mo
re d
ifficu
lt t
o
imp
lem
ent
than
o
ilin
g; r
equ
ires
o
ff-s
ite
dis
po
sal
of
egg
s
Can
be
sele
ctiv
e fo
r p
elic
an n
ests
an
d s
pec
ific
trea
tmen
t g
oal
s ca
n b
e id
enti
fied
Mix
ed p
ub
lic
op
inio
nR
elat
ivel
y in
exp
ensi
ve
Ver
y eff
ecti
ve
at r
edu
cin
g
pro
du
ctio
n
May
req
uir
e se
vera
l yea
rs
of
trea
tmen
t to
re
du
ce p
red
atio
n
con
flic
t
Mat
eria
ls $
46
0;
lab
or
and
tr
ansp
ort
atio
n
$9
00
; to
tal c
ost
s ~$
1,36
0 /
yea
r
Co
nsi
der
IDF
G
po
licy
reg
ard
ing
fe
rtili
ty a
nd
p
red
ato
r co
ntr
ol
Fed
eral
per
mit
re
qu
ired
Hig
h e
xpec
tati
on
o
f re
du
cin
g
imp
acts
of
pel
ican
s o
n fi
sh
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game48
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Act
ion
Des
crip
tio
nB
iolo
gic
al
Imp
act–
Bir
ds
Bio
log
ical
Im
pac
t–Fi
sh
Pra
ctic
al
Log
isti
cal
Co
nsid
erat
ions
Soci
al Im
pac
tC
ost
Ana
lysi
sR
egul
ato
ry
Co
nstr
aint
sLi
kelih
oo
d o
f su
cces
s
Sit
e-sp
ecifi
c le
thal
tak
e o
f ad
ult
pel
ican
s
Use
ag
ency
st
aff t
o s
ho
ot
adu
lt b
ird
s at
h
igh
imp
act
area
s to
act
ivel
y m
anag
e p
elic
an
dep
red
atio
n,
enh
ance
haz
ing
, an
d/o
r to
tar
get
in
div
idu
als
that
h
ave
hab
itu
ated
to
sp
ecifi
c si
tes
May
red
uce
p
elic
an
rep
rod
uct
ive
succ
ess
if c
on
tro
l o
ccu
rs d
uri
ng
th
e n
esti
ng
sea
son
May
red
uce
fish
p
red
atio
nF
easi
ble
Ver
y sp
ecie
s-sp
ecifi
c an
d
loca
tio
ns
of
con
cern
can
be
targ
eted
Mix
ed p
ub
lic
op
inio
nG
iven
a s
pec
ific
dep
red
atio
n
con
flic
t, t
his
m
eth
od
can
b
e an
eff
ecti
ve
man
agem
ent
too
l
Mat
eria
ls
(am
mu
nit
ion
) $
1,00
0 /
20
0
bir
ds;
lab
or
and
tr
ansp
ort
atio
n
$3
,60
0 f
or
30
d
ays;
NE
PA w
ork
$
500
US
FW
S a
pp
rova
l re
qu
ired
Hig
h if
fin
anci
al
reso
urc
es a
re
com
mit
ted
Ap
pen
dix
II. C
ont
inue
d.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 49
Appendices
Ap
pen
dix
III.
Sum
mar
y o
f m
anag
emen
t ac
tio
ns t
o r
educ
e A
WP
E f
ora
gin
g o
n th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
and
nes
ting
at
the
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir c
olo
ny,
200
3-20
15. Ye
arH
azin
g a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Ad
ult
Take
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
erB
ird
Lin
es a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Exc
lusi
on
Fenc
ing
/Fla
dry
at
Nes
ting
Is
land
s
Nes
t/eg
g
Des
truc
tio
nH
azin
g a
t N
est
Isla
nds
200
3
Pro
pan
e ca
nn
on
s (z
on
gu
ns)
an
d p
yro
tech
nic
s w
ere
use
d
inte
rmit
ten
tly
to h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir m
ou
th a
nd
th
e C
arib
ou
Co
un
ty S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
B
ird
s q
uic
kly
hab
itu
ated
to
zo
n
gu
ns;
Wh
ile h
azin
g m
ove
d b
ird
s fr
om
th
e ar
ea t
he
affec
t w
as n
ot
lon
g-t
erm
.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
200
4
Pro
pan
e ca
nn
on
s (z
on
gu
ns)
an
d p
yro
tech
nic
s w
ere
use
d
inte
rmit
ten
tly
to h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir m
ou
th a
nd
th
e C
arib
ou
Co
un
ty S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
B
ird
s q
uic
kly
hab
itu
ated
to
zo
n
gu
ns.
Wh
ile h
azin
g m
ove
d b
ird
s fr
om
th
e ar
ea t
he
affec
t w
as n
ot
lon
g-t
erm
Use
d a
ir b
oat
to
haz
e b
ird
s fr
om
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
. Bir
ds
cou
ld
be
mo
ved
fro
m r
iver
wit
h b
oat
, h
ow
ever
th
ey r
ead
ily r
etu
rned
, so
th
is t
ech
niq
ue
was
ab
and
on
ed.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
200
5
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
Fla
gg
ed li
nes
wer
e in
stal
led
ac
ross
po
rtio
ns
of
the
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
er b
etw
een
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
eser
voir
mo
uth
an
d t
he
Car
ibo
u C
ou
nty
S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
Bir
ds
avo
ided
u
sin
g t
he
flag
ged
riv
er
seg
men
ts.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
Idaho Department of Fish & Game50
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Year
Haz
ing
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
erA
dul
t Ta
ke a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Bir
d L
ines
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
er
Exc
lusi
on
Fenc
ing
/Fl
adry
at
Nes
ting
Is
land
s
Nes
t/eg
g
Des
truc
tio
n
Haz
ing
at
Nes
t Is
land
s
Ho
wev
er w
ater
leve
l fl
uct
uat
ion
s cr
eate
d
mai
nte
nan
ce a
nd
saf
ety
pro
ble
ms.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
200
6
Pyr
ote
chn
ics
wer
e u
sed
inte
rmit
ten
tly
to h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir
mo
uth
an
d t
he
Car
ibo
u C
ou
nty
S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
Wh
ile h
azin
g m
ove
d
bir
ds
fro
m t
he
area
th
e aff
ect
was
no
t lo
ng
-ter
m
US
FW
S p
erm
it w
as u
sed
to
tak
e 13
p
elic
ans
in c
on
jun
ctio
n w
ith
no
nle
thal
h
azin
g.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
200
7
Pyr
ote
chn
ics
wer
e u
sed
inte
rmit
ten
tly
to h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir
mo
uth
an
d t
he
Car
ibo
u C
ou
nty
S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
Wh
ile h
azin
g m
ove
d
bir
ds
fro
m t
he
area
th
e aff
ect
was
no
t lo
ng
-ter
m
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
200
8
Vo
lun
teer
s u
sed
pyr
ote
chn
ics
and
AT
V
to h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir
mo
uth
an
d t
he
Car
ibo
u C
ou
nty
S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
Haz
ing
was
do
ne
twic
e d
aily
fro
m m
id-M
ay t
hro
ug
h
mid
-Ju
ne.
Wh
ile h
azin
g m
ove
d b
ird
s fr
om
th
e ar
ea t
he
affec
t w
as n
ot
lon
g-t
erm
.
US
FW
S p
erm
it w
as u
sed
to
tak
e 10
p
elic
ans
in c
on
jun
ctio
n w
ith
no
nle
thal
h
azin
g. P
elic
ans
con
tin
ued
to
use
B
lack
foo
t R
iver
.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
200
9
Vo
lun
teer
s u
sed
pyr
ote
chn
ics
and
AT
V
to h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir
mo
uth
an
d t
he
Car
ibo
u C
ou
nty
S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
Haz
ing
was
do
ne
twic
e d
aily
fro
m m
id-M
ay t
hro
ug
h
US
FW
S p
erm
it w
as u
sed
to
tak
e 50
p
elic
ans
in c
on
jun
ctio
n w
ith
no
nle
thal
h
azin
g.
Wild
life
Ser
vice
s
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
Ap
pen
dix
III.
Co
ntin
ued
.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 51
Appendices
Year
Haz
ing
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
erA
dul
t Ta
ke a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Bir
d
Line
s at
B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Exc
lusi
on
Fenc
ing
/Fl
adry
at
Nes
ting
Isla
nds
Nes
t/eg
g
Des
truc
tio
n
Haz
ing
at
Nes
t Is
land
s
mid
Ju
ne.
Wh
ile h
azin
g m
ove
d
bir
ds
fro
m t
he
area
th
e aff
ect
was
n
ot
lon
g-t
erm
.
per
son
nel
imp
lem
ente
d t
he
take
p
erm
it.
2010
No
t u
sed
– d
ue
to a
fish
erie
s re
sear
ch p
roje
ct a
nd
pel
ican
tr
app
ing
fo
r ra
dio
tag
gin
g.
No
t u
sed
- d
ue
to a
fish
erie
s re
sear
ch
pro
ject
an
d p
elic
an t
rap
pin
g f
or
rad
io
tag
gin
g.
No
t u
sed
An
exc
losu
re a
rea
was
co
nst
ruct
ed o
n t
he
no
rth
hal
f o
f W
illo
w Is
lan
d. M
ater
ials
in
clu
ded
ora
ng
e co
nst
ruct
ion
b
arri
er f
enci
ng
att
ach
ed t
o
t-p
ost
s w
ith
an
inte
rio
r fl
adry
n
etw
ork
inst
alle
d o
n t
-po
sts.
AW
PE
did
no
t n
est
wit
hin
th
e ex
clo
sure
are
a.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
2011
No
t U
sed
– d
ue
to fi
sher
ies
rese
arch
pro
ject
.N
ot
Use
d –
du
e to
fish
erie
s re
sear
ch
pro
ject
.N
ot
use
dA
n e
xclo
sure
are
a w
as
con
stru
cted
aro
un
d t
he
per
imet
er o
f W
illo
w Is
lan
d.
Mat
eria
ls in
clu
ded
ora
ng
e co
nst
ruct
ion
bar
rier
fen
cin
g
atta
ched
to
t-p
ost
s w
ith
an
in
teri
or
flad
ry n
etw
ork
inst
alle
d
on
t-p
ost
s. H
igh
wat
er le
vels
in
un
dat
ed t
he
fen
cin
g a
nd
th
e is
lan
d.
No
nes
tin
g o
ccu
rred
on
Will
ow
Is
lan
d d
ue
to fl
oo
din
g c
ause
d
by
hig
h r
eser
voir
leve
ls.
Ora
ng
e co
nst
ruct
ion
bar
rier
fe
nci
ng
an
d fl
adry
was
pla
ced
o
n a
po
rtio
n o
f G
ull
Isla
nd
, h
ow
ever
it w
as d
estr
oye
d b
y w
ind
s, s
o p
elic
ans
use
d t
he
area
fo
r n
esti
ng
.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
Ap
pen
dix
III.
Co
ntin
ued
.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game52
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Year
Haz
ing
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
erA
dul
t Ta
ke a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Bir
d L
ines
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
er
Exc
lusi
on
Fenc
ing
/Fl
adry
at
Nes
ting
Isla
nds
Nes
t/eg
g D
estr
ucti
on
Haz
ing
at
Nes
t Is
land
s
2012
Vo
lun
teer
s u
sed
pyr
ote
chn
ics
and
AT
V t
o h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir m
ou
th a
nd
th
e C
arib
ou
Co
un
ty S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
H
azin
g w
as d
on
e tw
ice
dai
ly f
rom
m
id-M
ay t
hro
ug
h m
id-J
un
e. W
hile
h
azin
g m
ove
d b
ird
s fr
om
th
e ar
ea
the
affec
t w
as n
ot
lon
g-t
erm
.
No
t u
sed
No
t u
sed
No
fen
cin
g a
nd
flag
gin
g w
as
inst
alle
d o
n W
illo
w Is
lan
d
bec
ause
it w
as a
nti
cip
ated
to
fl
oo
d a
gai
n d
uri
ng
th
e sp
rin
g
run
off
as
it h
ad t
he
pre
vio
us
year
.
An
exc
losu
re a
rea
was
co
nst
ruct
ed o
n a
po
rtio
n o
f G
ull
Isla
nd
. Mat
eria
ls in
clu
ded
sm
all m
esh
wel
ded
wir
e fe
nci
ng
at
tach
ed t
o t
-po
sts
wit
h a
n
inte
rio
r fl
adry
net
wo
rk in
stal
led
o
n t
-po
sts.
Lim
ited
nes
tin
g
occ
urr
ed w
ith
in t
he
excl
osu
re
area
.
US
FW
S p
erm
it a
llow
ed f
or
the
des
tru
ctio
n o
f u
p t
o 5
00
n
ests
wit
h e
gg
s.
A t
ota
l of
46
1 n
ests
wer
e d
estr
oye
d b
y sp
rayi
ng
eg
gs
wit
h v
eget
able
oil.
Nes
ts
wer
e d
estr
oye
d o
n b
oth
G
ull
and
Will
ow
isla
nd
s.
Gu
ll Is
lan
d e
gg
s w
ere
oile
d
on
ce a
nd
Will
ow
Isla
nd
eg
gs
rece
ived
tw
o t
reat
men
ts.
Th
ere
was
no
ob
vio
us
diff
eren
ce in
hat
ch r
ates
of
the
isla
nd
s, b
ut
nes
t m
arki
ng
w
ith
pai
nt
was
un
relia
ble
fo
r ad
equ
ate
asse
ssm
ent.
No
t u
sed
2013
Vo
lun
teer
s an
d ID
FG
per
son
nel
u
sed
pyr
ote
chn
ics
and
AT
V t
o h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
b
etw
een
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
eser
voir
m
ou
th a
nd
th
e C
arib
ou
Co
un
ty
Sp
ort
sman
Par
k. H
azin
g w
as d
on
e tw
ice
dai
ly f
rom
mid
-May
th
rou
gh
m
id-J
un
e. H
azin
g w
as m
ore
eff
ecti
ve w
hen
co
mb
ined
wit
h
leth
al t
ake.
US
FW
S p
erm
it
allo
wed
fo
r th
e ta
ke
of
50 a
du
lts
on
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
fro
m
the
Lan
es C
reek
-D
iam
on
d C
reek
co
nfl
uen
ce t
o t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir,
fro
m 1
5 A
pri
l to
1
July
.
A t
ota
l of
43
bir
ds
wer
e ta
ken
in
asso
ciat
ion
wit
h
no
nle
thal
haz
ing
eff
ort
s.
No
t u
sed
An
exc
losu
re a
rea
was
co
nst
ruct
ed a
rou
nd
th
e p
erim
eter
of
Will
ow
Isla
nd
. T
he
enti
re p
erim
eter
of
Gu
ll Is
lan
d w
as f
ence
d w
ith
th
e ex
cep
tio
n o
f a
‘co
nse
rvat
ion
ar
ea’ o
n t
he
east
sid
e o
f th
e Is
lan
d. T
he
‘co
nse
rvat
ion
are
a’
is a
n a
pp
roxi
mat
ely
1 ac
re a
rea
set
asid
e fo
r A
WP
E n
esti
ng
, so
it h
as n
o f
enci
ng
, flag
gin
g,
or
dis
turb
ance
bey
on
d a
nn
ual
n
est
cou
nts
. Mat
eria
ls in
clu
ded
ca
ttle
pan
els
to t
-po
sts
wit
h a
n
inte
rio
r fl
adry
net
wo
rk a
ttac
hed
to
t-p
ost
s.L
imit
ed n
esti
ng
o
ccu
rred
wit
hin
th
e ex
clo
sure
.
Nes
tin
g o
ccu
rred
ou
tsid
e o
f th
e ex
clo
sure
on
Will
ow
Isla
nd
, in
an
ar
ea t
ho
ug
ht
to h
ave
veg
etat
ion
to
o d
ense
fo
r n
esti
ng
or
exp
ecte
d t
o b
e in
un
dat
ed b
y re
serv
oir
wat
er le
vel.
US
FW
S p
erm
it a
llow
ed f
or
the
des
tru
ctio
n o
f u
p t
o 5
00
n
ests
wit
h e
gg
s.
A t
ota
l of
38
2 n
ests
wer
e d
estr
oye
d b
y sp
rayi
ng
eg
gs
wit
h v
eget
able
oil.
Nes
t d
estr
uct
ion
occ
urr
ed o
n b
oth
an
d G
ull
and
Will
ow
isla
nd
s.
Mo
nit
ori
ng
of
oil
trea
ted
an
d
no
n-t
reat
ed e
gg
s sh
ow
ed
on
e tr
eatm
ent
wit
h o
il w
as e
ffec
tive
at
red
uci
ng
h
atch
ing
su
cces
s. N
o
hat
chin
g o
f tr
eate
d e
gg
s w
as
ob
serv
ed.
No
t u
sed
Ap
pen
dix
III.
Co
ntin
ued
.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game 53
Appendices
Year
Haz
ing
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
erA
dul
t Ta
ke a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Bir
d L
ines
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
er
Exc
lusi
on
Fenc
ing
/Fl
adry
at
Nes
ting
Isla
nds
Nes
t/eg
g D
estr
ucti
on
Haz
ing
at
Nes
t Is
land
s
2014
IDF
G p
erso
nn
el u
sed
pyr
ote
chn
ics
and
AT
V t
o h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir m
ou
th a
nd
th
e C
arib
ou
Co
un
ty S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
H
azin
g w
as d
on
e tw
ice
dai
ly f
rom
m
id-M
ay t
hro
ug
h m
id-J
un
e. H
azin
g
was
mo
re e
ffec
tive
wh
en c
om
bin
ed
wit
h le
thal
tak
e.
US
FW
S p
erm
it
allo
wed
fo
r th
e ta
ke
of
75 a
du
lts
on
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
fro
m
the
Lan
es C
reek
-D
iam
on
d C
reek
co
nfl
uen
ce t
o t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir,
fro
m 1
5 A
pri
l to
1
July
.
A t
ota
l of
69
bir
ds
wer
e ta
ken
in
asso
ciat
ion
wit
h
no
nle
thal
haz
ing
eff
ort
s.
No
t U
sed
An
exc
losu
re a
rea
was
co
nst
ruct
ed a
rou
nd
a w
ider
p
erim
eter
of
Will
ow
Isla
nd
to
ac
cou
nt
for
low
er r
eser
voir
le
vels
. Th
e en
tire
per
imet
er o
f G
ull
Isla
nd
was
fen
ced
wit
h t
he
exce
pti
on
of
a ‘c
on
serv
atio
n
area
’ on
th
e ea
st s
ide
of
the
Isla
nd
. Th
e ‘c
on
serv
atio
n a
rea’
is
an
ap
pro
xim
atel
y 1
acre
are
a se
t as
ide
for
AW
PE
nes
tin
g,
so it
has
no
fen
cin
g, fl
agg
ing
, o
r d
istu
rban
ce b
eyo
nd
an
nu
al
nes
t co
un
ts. M
ater
ials
incl
ud
ed
catt
le p
anel
s to
t-p
ost
s w
ith
an
in
teri
or
flad
ry n
etw
ork
att
ach
ed
to t
-po
sts.
No
AW
PE
nes
tin
g o
ccu
rred
on
W
illo
w Is
lan
d.
Nes
tin
g o
ccu
rred
fo
r th
e fi
rst
tim
e o
n L
on
g Is
lan
d.
Init
ially
, AW
PE
nes
ted
on
ly in
th
e ‘c
on
serv
atio
n a
rea’
on
Gu
ll Is
lan
d. F
ollo
win
g a
ban
do
nm
ent
of
Lo
ng
Isla
nd
nes
tin
g o
ccu
rred
in
th
e ex
clo
sure
are
a o
n G
ull
Isla
nd
.
US
FW
S p
erm
it a
llow
ed f
or
des
tru
ctio
n o
f u
p t
o 5
00
n
ests
wit
h e
gg
s.
Nes
t d
estr
uct
ion
occ
urr
ed b
y re
mo
vin
g e
gg
s fr
om
nes
ts.
Eg
gs
wer
e re
mo
ved
fro
m 2
6
and
474
nes
ts o
n G
ull
and
L
on
g is
lan
ds,
res
pec
tive
ly.
Fo
llow
ing
eg
g r
emo
val,
the
bir
ds
on
Lo
ng
Isla
nd
ab
and
on
ed t
hei
r n
ests
. It
app
eare
d s
om
e o
f th
ese
bir
ds
mo
ved
to
th
e G
ull
Isla
nd
exc
lusi
on
are
a an
d
beg
an r
enes
tin
g a
ttem
pt.
No
t U
sed
Ap
pen
dix
III.
Co
ntin
ued
.
Idaho Department of Fish & Game54
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans in Idaho 2016–2025
Year
Haz
ing
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
erA
dul
t Ta
ke a
t B
lack
foo
t R
iver
Bir
d L
ines
at
Bla
ckfo
ot
Riv
er
Exc
lusi
on
Fenc
ing
/Fl
adry
at
Nes
ting
Isla
nds
Nes
t/eg
g
Des
truc
tio
nH
azin
g a
t N
est
Isla
nds
2015
IDF
G p
erso
nn
el u
sed
pyr
ote
chn
ics
and
AT
V t
o h
aze
AW
PE
alo
ng
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
bet
wee
n t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir m
ou
th a
nd
th
e C
arib
ou
Co
un
ty S
po
rtsm
an P
ark.
H
azin
g w
as d
on
e tw
ice
dai
ly f
rom
m
id-M
ay t
hro
ug
h m
id-J
un
e. H
azin
g
was
mo
re e
ffec
tive
wh
en c
om
bin
ed
wit
h le
thal
tak
e.
US
FW
S p
erm
it
allo
wed
fo
r th
e ta
ke
of
75 a
du
lts
on
th
e B
lack
foo
t R
iver
fro
m
the
Lan
es C
reek
-D
iam
on
d C
reek
co
nfl
uen
ce t
o t
he
Bla
ckfo
ot
Res
ervo
ir,
fro
m 1
5 A
pri
l to
1
July
.
No
t u
sed
An
exc
losu
re a
rea
was
co
nst
ruct
ed a
rou
nd
th
e en
tire
p
erim
eter
of
Gu
ll Is
lan
d w
ith
th
e ex
cep
tio
n o
f a
‘co
nse
rvat
ion
ar
ea’ o
n t
he
east
sid
e o
f th
e Is
lan
d. T
he
‘co
nse
rvat
ion
are
a’
is a
n a
pp
roxi
mat
ely
1acr
e ar
ea
set
asid
e fo
r A
WP
E n
esti
ng
, so
it h
as n
o f
enci
ng
, flag
gin
g,
or
dis
turb
ance
bey
on
d a
nn
ual
n
est
cou
nts
. Mat
eria
ls in
clu
ded
ca
ttle
pan
els
to t
-po
sts
wit
h a
n
inte
rio
r fl
adry
net
wo
rk a
ttac
hed
to
t p
ost
s.
Th
e ex
clu
sio
n a
rea
on
Will
ow
Is
lan
d w
as n
ot
mai
nta
ined
th
is
year
. Haz
ing
was
imp
lem
ente
d
in li
eu o
f co
nst
ruct
ing
bar
rier
s o
n W
illo
w a
nd
Lo
ng
isla
nd
s.
US
FW
S p
erm
it
for
des
tru
ctio
n o
f u
p t
o 5
00
nes
ts
wit
h e
gg
s.
No
nle
thal
haz
ing
of
adu
lt
AW
PE
beg
an o
n A
pri
l 10
. Pyr
ote
chn
ics
wer
e u
sed
to
rei
nfo
rce
haz
ing
. H
azin
g w
as c
on
du
cted
at
Will
ow
an
d L
on
g Is
lan
ds,
as
wel
l as
the
wes
t si
de
of
Gu
ll Is
lan
d. A
ll n
ests
in
itia
ted
on
bo
th L
on
g
and
Will
ow
isla
nd
s w
ere
des
tro
yed
pri
or
to e
gg
la
yin
g.
Ap
pen
dix
III.
Co
ntin
ued
.
Management Plan for the Conservation of American White Pelicans
in Idaho 2016-2025