Intermountain West

Waterbird Conservation Plan

Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan

Version 1.2

February 2006

Plan Compilers:

Gary L. Ivey

Caroline P. Herziger

Printing of this document was supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(All of the information provided in this partnership-based plan is not necessarily endorsed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Note: Because of the complexity of the region covered by this plan (11 states and 4 Bird Conservation 

Regions [BCRs]) there are likely some errors in the data reported here and additional information which 

should be considered in future versions of this plan. If you notice errors or omissions or have ideas or 

comments, please send them to Gary Ivey (ivey@oregonvos.net), so they can be captured in future updates.

Suggested Citation: Ivey, 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. Published by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. 

Cover Photo by Don Paul
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This plan was developed with input from dozens of individuals in the U.S. and Canada; we thank everyone 

for their help. Plan participants are listed in Appendix A. The Intermountain West Shorebird Conservation 

Plan (Oring et al. 2001) provided some of the background material from which the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan was developed. Funding for development of this plan was provided by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management, 

and the Bureau of Reclamation. Dan Casey of the American Bird Conservancy provided Figure 1. The 

Waterbird Conservation Council endorsed this plan in March 2005. Gary Cox of Cox and Company, Black 

Earth, Wisconsin provided the cover design. Nanette Seto, Tara Zimmerman, and Suzanne Fellows of 

USFWS provided reviews and edits on the document. Michelle Whalen (USFWS) and Laurie Litman 

(InfoWright) edited and formatted the document for publication. 
 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Description of the Intermountain West ................................................................................... 13

Waterbird Habitat Types................................................................................................................................ 13

Bird Conservation Regions ............................................................................................................................ 14

Important Waterbird Sites............................................................................................................................. 14

Waterbird Species in the Intermountain West............................................................................................ 16

Waterbird conservation issues and threats.......................................................................... 18

Wetland Loss, Water Supplies, and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 18

Wetland Habitat Management....................................................................................................................... 19

Exotic Species .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Water Quality and Contaminants .................................................................................................................. 20

Waterbird Conflicts ......................................................................................................................................... 21

Disturbance ...................................................................................................................................................... 22

Agricultural Activities..................................................................................................................................... 23

Riparian Forests and Associated Habitats................................................................................................... 23

Mortality Factors............................................................................................................................................. 23

Interspecific Conflicts..................................................................................................................................... 24

Beavers ............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Threats Outside the Region ........................................................................................................................... 25

Conservation Status Assessment...................................................................................................... 26

Species Rankings............................................................................................................................................. 26

population and habitat objectives ............................................................................................... 28

Population Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 28

Habitat Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 28

Conservation Strategies ................................................................................................................................. 33

Critical Conservation Needs and Recommendations at Major Waterbird Sites .................................... 33

Population monitoring activities and needs........................................................................ 35

Goal and Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 35

Elements of a Monitoring Plan...................................................................................................................... 36

Monitoring Committee.................................................................................................................................... 36

Management of Monitoring Data .................................................................................................................. 36

Monitoring Priorities and General Approaches .......................................................................................... 37

Research and information needs ................................................................................................... 40

Setting Research Priorities............................................................................................................................ 40

Funding Needs................................................................................................................................................. 40

Education and Outreach Needs..................................................................................................................... 40

Outreach Committee ....................................................................................................................................... 40

An Outreach Strategy..................................................................................................................................... 41

Implementation and communication ............................................................................................ 44

Implementation Process and Adaptive Planning........................................................................................ 44

Communications Among Partners ................................................................................................................ 44

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 45

Sources Cited................................................................................................................................................... 46
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 

List of Appendices

Appendix A. List of Contacts for Development of the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix B. Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in the Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan............................................................................................................................. 62

Appendix C. Acronyms Used in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. ............................ 64

Appendix D. Waterbird Species Prioritization for Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 9, 10, 15, and 16 

in the Intermountain West............................................................................................................... 65

Appendix E. Species Accounts for Priority Waterbirds in the Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan........................................................................................................................... 102

Sandhill Crane (Greater) (Grus canadensis tabida).................................................................. 102

Sandhill Crane (Lesser) (Grus canadensis canadensis)........................................................... 106

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) .................................................................................. 107

Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola)...................................................................................................... 109

Sora (Porzana carolina) ................................................................................................................ 111

California Gull (Larus californicus)............................................................................................ 113

Franklin’s Gull (Larus pipixcan).................................................................................................. 116

Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri).................................................................................................... 118

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) ...................................................................................................... 120

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) ................................................................................... 125

Eared Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis).............................................................................................. 126

Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis)............................................................................ 128

Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii)........................................................................................ 131

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)......................................................................................................... 134

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)............................................................................................. 136

Green Heron (Butorides virescens).............................................................................................. 139

Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax).............................................................. 140

Least Bittern (Western) (Ixobrychus exilis hesperis)............................................................... 143

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosis).................................................................................. 145

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)................................................................................................. 148

American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorynchos)............................................................... 152

Common Loon (Gavia immer)...................................................................................................... 156

Appendix F. Intermountain West Waterbird Population Objectives.............................................................. 160

Appendix G. Intermountain West Waterbird Habitat Objectives................................................................... 179

Appendix H. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Strategies. ........................................................ 182

Appendix I. List of Potential Sources of Funding for Habitat Initiatives Which Could be Applicable 

to the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. ....................................................... 194

Appendix J. Monitoring Committee of the Intermountain West Joint Venture and a Summary of Past

 and Ongoing Monitoring Projects in the Intermountain West Region................................... 197

Appendix K. Research Committee Makeup, a Preliminary List of Waterbird Research Needs in the 

Intermountain West, and a Summary of Current and Recent Waterbird Research 

Conducted in the Region................................................................................................................ 199

Appendix L. A Summary of Outreach Recommendations of Waterbirds in the Intermountain West 

Region from Various Sources. ....................................................................................................... 204
 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

List of Tables

Table 1. Bird families included in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan................... 16

Table 2. The U.S. Intermountain West waterbird species list with occurrence codes by Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR). .......................................................................................................... 17

Table 3. Concern matrix for priority waterbird species in each Bird Conservation Region (BCR)

 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan ......................................................... 27

Table 4. Definitions of Population Trend (PT) indices for priority waterbird species and 

population objective goal for the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan............ 29

Table 5. Population objectives for priority waterbird species by Bird Conservation Regions 

(BCRs) in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan region. .............................. 30

Table 6. Population objectives for priority waterbird species by state in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan region.............................................................................................. 31

Table 7. Waterbird habitat objectives (in acres) for the Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, by state. ........................................................................................................... 32

Table 8. Focal species list for waterbird monitoring efforts in the Intermountain West. ..................... 37

Table 9. Potential strategies for monitoring individual species or guilds of waterbirds in the 

Intermountain West.......................................................................................................................... 38

Table 10. Proposed schedule of accomplishments for regional waterbird monitoring in the 

Intermountain West, through 2010................................................................................................. 39

Table A-1. List of contacts in alphabetical order ............................................................................................. 56

Table A-2. List of contacts in state order.......................................................................................................... 59

Table D-1. Indices used to designate data quality (DQ) of population data for waterbird species 

covered by the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan........................................... 67

Table D-2. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan..... 68

Table D-3. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan... 77

Table D-4. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan... 81

Table D-5. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ indices for Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan... 83

Table D-6. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. ............................ 86

Table D-7. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .......................... 88

Table D-8. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .......................... 89

Table D-9. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .......................... 90

Table D-10. Breeding population estimates for selected waterbird species, percentage of the North 

American population, and Area Importance (AI) score in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan.......................................................................................................... 91

Table D-11. Waterbird species on lists of USFWS’ Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC); state 

Endangered (SE), Threatened (ST), or Sensitive Species/Species of Concern (SC); 

or Focal priority species (F) in Partners In Flight (PIF) state and regional Bird 

Conservation Plans and Physiographic Area Plans, by Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 

in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. ......................................................... 95

Table D-12. Preliminary concern matrix for breeding colonial waterbirds in the Intermountain 

West based on NAWCP..................................................................................................................... 96

Table D-13. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .................................................................... 97
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 

Table D-14. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10 in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .................................................................... 98

Table D-15. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 15 in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .................................................................... 99

Table D-16. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. .................................................................. 100

Table D-17. Concern matrix for priority waterbird species in each Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 

in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. ...................................................... 101

Table F-1. Definitions of Population Trend (PT) indices for priority waterbird species and 

opulation objective goal for the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. ........... 161

Table F-2. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for High and Moderate concern 

waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan........................................................................................................ 162

Table F-3. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for High and Moderate concern 

waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan........................................................................................................ 165

Table F-4. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for High and Moderate concern 

waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan........................................................................................................ 166

Table F-5. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for High and Moderate concern 

waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan........................................................................................................ 167

Table F-6. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan by state......................................................................................... 168

Table F-7. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region 

(BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan......................................... 176

Table F-8. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region 

(BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan....................................... 177

Table F-9. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region 

(BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan....................................... 177

Table F-10. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region 

(BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan....................................... 178

Table G-1. Description of waterbird guilds in the Intermountain West, based on breeding habitats 

used. .................................................................................................................................................. 180

Table G-2. Description of potential criteria for setting habitat objectives using a guild approach. ....... 181

Table H-1. Waterbird conservation strategies for priority species in Bird Conservation Regions 

(BCRs) of the Intermountain West, by state. ............................................................................. 182

Table K-1. A summary of current and recent waterbird research in the Intermountain West 

Region............................................................................................................................................... 202

List of Figures

Figure 1. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan planning area................................................... 12

Figure 2. Approximate locations of notable waterbird sites in the Intermountain West Region.................. 15
 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

This Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (IWWCP) is one of several regional step-down 

plans designed to implement the North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP, Kushlan 

et al. 2002, www.waterbirdconservation.org). As 

defined by these hierarchical plans, waterbirds 

are wetland-dependent species including both 

colonial breeders (e.g., gulls, terns, most grebes, 

cormorants, herons, egrets, ibis and pelicans), 

and solitary nesting marshbirds (e.g., cranes, 

rails, coots, bitterns and loons). Shorebirds and 

waterfowl are covered by other bird conservation 

initiatives and, thus, are excluded from this plan. 

Bird families represented here include: Gruidae, 

Rallidae, Laridae, Podicipedidae, Phalacrocoracidae, 

Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, Pelecanidae, and 

Gaviidae. The goal of the IWWCP is to maintain 

healthy populations, distributions, and habitats 

of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain 

West region. The regional planning area includes 

the U.S. portions of 11 western states and four 

Bird Conservation Regions that are defined as 

geographic regions with similar habitat conditions 

delineated to facilitate bird conservation efforts 

(U.S. NABCI Committee 2000a).

 

This IWWCP was developed with the assistance 

of the Intermountain West Waterbird Working 

Group (hereafter, Group). This group is an informal 

association of biologists, wildlife managers, and 

interested citizens who provided input on the status 

and conservation needs of waterbirds and waterbird 

habitat throughout the planning process. The plan 

is intended to fill knowledge gaps and facilitate 

coordinated waterbird conservation efforts among 

the many public and private partners associated 

with all-bird conservation in the Intermountain 

West region. Included are a description of 

waterbird populations and habitats; a review of 

threats and management issues; the development 

of population and habitat objectives for priority 

species and habitats; monitoring and research 

recommendations; and conservation strategies for 

management, monitoring, and outreach. 

The Intermountain West’s dispersed high mountain 

lakes, large terminal hyper-saline lakes, marshes, 

playas, rivers, streams, riparian zones, and fresh 

and brackish wetlands host about 40 waterbird 

species, including many or most of the world’s 

California Gulls, Eared Grebes, White-faced 

Ibises, and American White Pelicans. Breeding 

and migrant waterbird species are ranked and 

prioritized for the Intermountain West region based 

on modified national NAWCP rankings (colonial 

species) and national, state, and Partners In Flight 

(PIF) listings (marshbirds) in each of the four Bird 

Conservation Regions within the planning area. 

No waterbirds in the Intermountain West merited 

a ranking of highly imperiled at this regional 

scale. Eleven waterbirds are identified as species 

of high concern in one or more of the four Bird 

Conservation Regions within the planning area: 

Yellow Rail, Franklin’s Gull, Black Tern, Eared 

Grebe, Western Grebe, Clark’s Grebe, Snowy 

Egret, American White Pelican, Common Loon, 

American Bittern, and certain managed populations 

of the Greater and Lesser Sandhill Crane. An 

additional 10 species were identified as species of 

moderate conservation concern. For the purpose of 

this plan, waterbirds ranked as high or moderate 

conservation concern are considered priorities for 

conservation action in the Intermountain West 

region. Brief species profiles summarize the status 

and conservation needs of each of these 21 priority 

waterbirds. 

Waterbirds using this region are highly adaptable 

to constantly changing wetland conditions and 

depend on a regional-scale association of wetlands 

to meet their habitat and forage requirements 

during various stages of their annual life cycle. 

The competing demands for water in support of 

human uses such as agriculture, development, and 

recreation pose the greatest threats to regional 

waterbird populations. Contaminants (e.g., 

mercury, DDT and its breakdown products) are 

also a significant threat to the region’s waterbirds. 

Because of the West’s feast-or-famine water regime, 

the IWWCP stresses the necessity of conserving 

a network of high-quality wetland habitats with 

secure water sources in order to provide options for 

waterbirds during drought and flood cycles. Based 

on the review of waterbird populations, habitats, 

threats, and issues, the following are some of the 

key conservation actions identified in the plan: 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 

• Develop and implement a monitoring strategy 

to acquire sufficient information about the 

population dynamics; population trends; breeding, 

migration, and staging requirements; and habitat 

preferences of the region’s waterbirds to make 

knowledgeable management recommendations.

• Preserve and enhance sufficient high-quality 

habitat to support healthy populations in the 

region. Specific strategies are recommended for 

nine critically important waterbird sites.

• Inform the public, decision-makers, and land 

managers about the importance of the region to 

waterbirds and about the biology, trends, and 

management of these species.

• Ensure that coordinated conservation efforts 

(regional, national, and international) are in place 

to address the key conservation priorities of 

waterbirds.

• Develop partnerships to facilitate coordinated 

waterbird conservation, including funding and 

implementation of management strategies.

Success of the activities outlined in this plan will be 

measured by both habitat and species monitoring. 

These include a monitoring strategy for focal 

species and important habitats, and identification 

of monitoring and research needed to develop 

population size and trend data for inadequately 

monitored species. 

In the spirit of all-bird conservation, this plan 

is intended to facilitate waterbird conservation 

through on-the-ground projects and the 

incorporation of waterbird population and habitat 

objectives into joint venture projects, land use 

planning documents, and the conservation efforts 

of a diverse array of partners found throughout the 

Intermountain West region. Analogous regional 

waterbird plans are under development for states 

and Bird Conservation Regions adjacent to the 

Intermountain West, and the Canadian Wildlife 

Service has developed a Waterbird Conservation 

Plan for the Pacific and Yukon Regions (Gebauer 

2003). The Intermountain West Waterbird Working 

Group and many public and private conservation 

partners will strive to integrate and coordinate 

waterbird conservation efforts with those underway 

in adjacent areas in the United States and Canada. 
10 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

INTRODUCTION

Waterbirds are a diverse group of species dependent 

on aquatic habitats to complete portions of their 

life cycles. Defined here, the group encompasses 

cranes, rails, coots, gulls, terns, grebes, cormorants, 

herons, egrets, bitterns, ibises, pelicans, loons, 

and others; essentially, all aquatic bird species 

except waterfowl (i.e., ducks, geese, and swans) 

and shorebirds (e.g., sandpipers and plovers). It 

is often helpful to categorize waterbirds by their 

social behaviors. Many are colonial breeders, a 

strategy that increases population vulnerability by 

concentrating populations in a limited area. Of the 

solitary-nesting species, many are very secretive in 

their habits and, therefore, their population status is 

unknown. Threats to waterbirds and their habitats 

have stimulated a significant response by those 

concerned with their conservation.

In the arid Intermountain West, waterbirds rely on 

wetlands that are susceptible to natural cycles of 

droughts and floods, and are very dynamic in nature 

as precipitation patterns shift from wet to dry 

extremes. Many of the area’s wetland systems have 

a low gradient bottom, which causes shorelines to be 

transitory through seasons and weather cycles. This 

condition induces intermittent waterbird nesting 

and use because of extreme changes in habitats. 

Emergent wetland habitat develops during periodic 

shoreline stability and provides nesting habitat 

for waterbirds. Nesting colonies generally persist 

until the emergent wetlands become desiccated 

or are deeply flooded as water levels fluctuate. 

Droughts strand emergent nesting cover and 

allow access by mammalian predators. Droughts 

also reduce the availability of food by limiting 

moist feeding areas. Conversely, floods inundate 

emergent nesting areas and nests, and sometimes 

kill stands of emergent vegetation, eliminating 

suitable nesting habitat. Although feeding areas 

are generally bountiful during flood cycles, suitable 

nesting habitat is typically scarce. Because of this 

shifting of water levels and habitats, individual 

wetlands are not consistently reliable as habitat 

for waterbirds. Local population variations and 

nesting colony abandonment reflect this instability. 

Many waterbird species are nomadic, apparently 

compensating for diverse wetland dynamics by 

moving among wetlands at a regional scale within 

and between years (e.g., Ryder 1967, Ivey et al. 

1988, Henny and Herron 1989). Consequently, a 

large and widely distributed, diverse wetland base 

within the Intermountain West landscape is needed 

to maintain healthy waterbird populations (Haig et 

al. 1998).

The North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan (NAWCP) is the product of the Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas Initiative, an 

independent partnership of individuals and 

institutions having interest and responsibility 

for conservation of waterbirds and their habitats 

in the Americas (Kushlan et al. 2002, www.

waterbirdconservation.org). The NAWCP provides 

a continental perspective on conservation needs 

for waterbirds, and complements plans developed 

by the other bird conservation initiatives linked 

through the North American Bird Conservation 

Initiative (U.S. NABCI Committee 2000a). NAWCP 

is being implemented through a series of regional 

plans such as this Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan (IWWCP). The IWWCP is 

focused on regional waterbird populations, habitats, 

and associated conservation issues. It represents 

the next steps in waterbird conservation called for 

in the NAWCP. 

This plan was developed with the assistance of the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Working Group, an 

informal association of biologists, wildlife managers 

and interested citizens who provided input into the 

planning process (see Appendix A). The planning 

area includes Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 

9, 10, 15, and 16, and encompasses portions of 

11 western states and two Canadian Provinces 

(Figure 1). BCRs are geographic regions with 

similar habitat conditions delineated by the North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) to 

facilitate coordinated bird conservation efforts (U.S. 

NABCI Committee 2000b). This plan focuses on the 

U.S. portions of the region while a complementary 

plan is being developed for Canada. 

The Intermountain West region includes a vast 

inland area from the Rocky Mountains on the east 

to the Sierra Nevada and Cascades mountains 

on the west, and from southern Canada on the 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 11

north to northern New Mexico and Arizona 

on the south. It includes the extensive Great 

Basin, Columbia Basin, Colorado Plateau, and 

Wyoming Basin physiographic regions and their 

associated mountain ranges (Partners In Flight 

2004). Characterized by diverse basin and range 

topography, the region provides a variety of habitats 

for waterbirds, including high mountain lakes, 

rivers and streams, fresh and brackish wetlands, 

and large terminal hyper-saline lakes. Due to the 

arid climate—a result of the rain shadow cast by 

the mountains to the west—Intermountain West 

wetlands serve as life-giving, yet inconsistent, oases 

for aquatic birds.

The overall goal of the IWWCP is the maintenance 

of healthy populations, distributions, and habitats 

of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West 

region. This document:

• Assesses the importance of the Intermountain 

West to waterbirds.

• Describes current knowledge on population sizes 

and trends, habitat requirements, and distribution 

of individual species.

• Describes key sites for waterbirds in the region.

• Assesses status, vulnerability, and management 

priority rankings for each species on the basis 

of regional biological information, regional 

conservation issues, and continental ranking 

schemes.

• Identifies threats to waterbirds in the region.

• Provides guidance on conservation and 

management strategies applicable to waterbirds.

• Provides direction for integrated landscapelevel waterbird conservation that considers and 

incorporates conservation planning for other 

species.

• Identifies high priority information gaps 

that must be filled to increase our ability to 

successfully manage waterbird species, and 

identifies related research questions needing to 

be addressed.

• Provides regionally-based waterbird conservation 

guidance that will step down the goals of the 

continental plan within the Intermountain West 

while simultaneously assisting in the rolling-up of 

population and habitat objectives for range-wide 

species conservation.

A number of actions will be required to successfully 

achieve the goals of the IWWCP, including: 

• Acquiring sufficient information about the 

population dynamics, population trends, breeding, 

migration and staging strategies, and habitat 

preferences of the region’s waterbirds to make 

knowledgeable management recommendations.

• Preserving and enhancing sufficient high-quality 

habitat to support healthy populations in the 

region. 

• Informing the public, decision-makers, and land 

managers in the region about the importance of 

the region to waterbirds and about the biology, 

trends, and management of these species.

• Ensuring that coordinated conservation efforts 

(regional, national, and international) are in place 

to address the key conservation priorities of 

waterbirds. 

• Developing partnerships that facilitate needed 

conservation including funding and management 

strategies. 
12 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Figure 1. Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan planning area. 

Planning Area
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 13

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN WEST

Waterbird Habitat Types

The Intermountain West provides waterbirds with a 

diversity of habitats:

• Freshwater marsh complexes of great importance 

to breeding and migrating waterbirds; these 

areas often include numerous man-made managed 

wetlands on Wildlife Areas (WAs) and National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs).

• Freshwater lakes and reservoirs that provide 

nesting habitat for grebes and loons and foraging 

habitat for a variety of fish-eating waterbirds.

• Large saline lakes of importance to post-breeding 

and migrant Eared Grebes and gulls.

• Rivers, streams, and riparian areas that provide 

nesting and foraging habitats.

• Irrigated agricultural fields that serve as nesting 

and foraging sites for some species (e.g., rails, 

cranes, gulls, ibises).

• Various man-made structures that are used 

by nesting birds, especially dikes, berms, and 

roadways.

Freshwater marsh complexes. These are large 

wetland systems that include a variety of wetland 

types such as wet meadows, seasonal wetlands, 

emergent marshes and, in many cases, managed 

wetland impoundments. The region includes several 

large freshwater marsh complexes of critical 

importance to a variety of breeding waterbirds 

and numerous migrant species. Most notable are 

the marshes associated with the Great Salt Lake 

in Utah, Klamath Basin in Oregon and California, 

Lahontan Valley wetlands in Nevada, MalheurHarney Lakes Basin in Oregon, and Centennial 

Valley and Freezeout Lake in Montana. There are 

many other important freshwater marsh complexes 

in the region and most of them have been identified 

as Important Bird Areas (IBAs).

Freshwater lakes and reservoirs. There are 

numerous lakes and reservoirs in the region. Their 

value to waterbirds generally depends on the level 

of recreational use they receive. The direct (e.g., 

disturbance) and indirect (e.g., erosion) effects of 

human activities decrease the quality of lakes and 

reservoirs as waterbird habitat. Additionally, rapid 

changes in water levels make many of these sites 

unsuitable for breeding waterbirds. Some notable 

examples of important lakes and reservoirs include 

Eagle Lake, Goose Lake, and Lake Almanor in 

California; Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon; and 

Blackfoot Reservoir and Lake Cascade in Idaho. 

These habitats are particularly important to nesting 

and staging Common Loons and grebes, and as 

foraging sites for fish-eating waterbirds. Staging is 

a term used to describe the congregation of birds in 

an area in preparation for migration.

Large saline lakes. Saline lakes provide an 

abundance of food in the form of brine flies and 

brine shrimp for a variety of birds. Brine shrimp 

are a critical food resource to migrating and molting 

Eared Grebes. Most of the world’s population 

of Eared Grebes congregate at Great Salt and 

Mono lakes in the summer prior to migrating 

south. California, Franklin’s, and Ring-billed gulls 

also stage at these lakes in large numbers. Other 

important saline lakes include Lake Abert, Harney, 

and Summer lakes in Oregon.

Rivers, streams and riparian areas. Modest 

numbers of waterbirds of many species migrate 

along and/or breed in association with riparian 

areas. These habitats are particularly valuable 

for fish-eating waterbirds such as Double-crested 

Cormorants and Great Blue Herons; both of these 

species sometimes nest in streamside cottonwoods. 

Adjacent wet meadows often provide habitat for 

rails, cranes, gulls, and ibises.

Irrigated agricultural fields. Cranes and rails 

utilize flood-irrigated hay fields for nesting, and 

many other waterbird species forage in these 

areas. Egrets and herons sometimes forage in dry 

pastures for mice and grasshoppers. Irrigated 

crops are also used for foraging in some cases (e.g., 

White-faced Ibises use irrigated alfalfa fields in 

the Lahontan Valley, Nevada, and around Great 

Salt Lake, Utah), and grain fields are important 
14 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

for Sandhill Cranes during migration and winter. 

Where these habitats are associated with wetland 

complexes, they provide very important foraging 

options for many waterbird species.

Facilities and structures. Some waterbirds utilize 

structures built for other purposes. Examples 

include nesting and loafing on dikes, berms, power 

poles, and roadways. In some cases, birds have 

established nests on flooded buildings (e.g., flooded 

ranch houses, barns, and haystacks, G. Ivey pers. 

observ.). These facilities and structures sometimes 

provide important sites for colonial nesting 

waterbirds. 

Bird Conservation Regions

BCRs are geographic areas with similar habitats 

that were developed to provide a consistent spatial 

framework for NABCI’s bird conservation strategy. 

The BCRs comprising the Intermountain West are 

described below in terms of waterbird habitats.

Great Basin (BCR 9). This region is very dry due 

to its position in the rain shadow of the Cascade 

and Sierra Nevada ranges, and its wetlands are 

very dynamic due to extreme fluctuations in water 

supplies. The portion of this BCR within the true 

Great Basin is internally drained, while the other 

areas eventually drain into the Columbia River. 

There are several large wetland complexes, a 

number of which are among the most important 

on the continent for a variety of waterbirds. Most 

notable are the wetlands associated with the 

Great Salt Lake in Utah (particularly Bear River 

Migratory Bird Refuge and seven State WAs), 

Klamath Basin in Oregon and California, MalheurHarney Lakes Basin in Oregon, and Lahontan 

Valley in Nevada. Many other wetlands in the area 

are heavily used by certain waterbird species (e.g., 

Walker Lake, Nevada [migrant Common Loons]). 

Large saline lakes created by internal drainage, 

such as Great Salt Lake and Mono Lake, are very 

important to most of the world’s population of 

Eared Grebes and California Gulls. A myriad of 

areas are of moderate importance to breeding and 

migrant waterbirds, and thousands of ephemeral 

wetlands, streams, and man-made lakes in the 

region support various species of waterbirds.

Northern Rockies (BCR 10). Major wetland 

complexes important to waterbirds in this BCR 

include the Centennial Valley and Freezeout Lake 

in Montana, and Teton Basin and Grays and Bear 

lakes in Idaho. Many small mountain lakes in this 

region provide nesting sites for Common Loons. 

Additionally, numerous small wetlands occur in 

the mountains and the Wyoming Basin, as well as 

thousands of stream/river valleys and natural and 

man-made lakes.

Sierra Nevada (BCR 15). Important wetland 

habitats in this BCR are primarily mountain lakes, 

most significantly habitat at Eagle Lake and Lake 

Almanor. Many wet meadow systems provide 

habitat for breeding rails, and in larger meadows, 

Sandhill Cranes. Sierra Valley is the most important 

meadow/wetland complex in this BCR, however, 

there are numerous smaller wetland sites associated 

with streams and small lakes.

Southern Rockies - Colorado Plateau (BCR 16). 

The most significant waterbird area in this region is 

the San Luis Valley, where wetlands provide habitat 

for breeding waterbirds such as White-faced Ibises 

as well as staging habitat for Sandhill Cranes. 

Stinking Lake is New Mexico’s largest natural 

freshwater wetland, and is important for breeding 

waterbirds. Other wetlands are widely scattered 

in this BCR, many of which are small, occurring 

in the form of montane streams and man-made 

impoundments. There is modest breeding waterbird 

diversity and usage by migrants.

Important Waterbird Sites

Figure 2 displays approximate locations of some 

important waterbird sites in the Intermountain 

West Region. 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 15

6

21

31

26

28

18

25

2

9

20

14

35

33

4

34

41

19

7

42

16

1

12

36

24

5

27

15

3 10

23

11

13

17 22

29

30

32

37

38

39

40

43

44

1. Ash Creek WA, CA 2. Bear Lake NWR, ID 3. Blackfoot Reservoir, ID 4. Camas NWR, ID 5. Centennial Valley, MT 6. Cokeville Meadows, WY 7. Columbia NWR, WA 8. Conboy Lake NWR, WA 9. Deer Flat NWR, ID 10. Duck Valley, ID and NV 11. Eagle Lake, CA 12. Fish Springs NWR, UT 13. Freezeout Lake, MT 14. Goose Lake, CA and OR 15. Grays Lake, ID 16. Great Salt Lake, UT 17. Honey Lake WA, CA 18. Klamath Basin, CA and OR 19. Kootenai NWR, ID 20. Lahontan Valley, NV 21. Lake Abert, OR 22. Lake Almanor, CA 23. Lake Cascade, ID 24. Las Vegas/Maxwell NWRs, NM 25. Lee Metcalf NWR, MT 26. Harney Basin, OR 27. Market Lake/Mud Lake WMAs, ID 28. Modoc NWR, CA 29. Mono Lake, CA 30. Minidoka NWR, ID 31. Ouray NWR, UT 32. Oxford Slough WPA, ID 33. Pharanaget NWR, NV 34. Pyramid Lake, NV 35. Ruby Valley, NV 36. San Luis Valley, CO 37. Seedskadee NWR, WY 38. Sierra Valley, CA 39. Stinking Lake (Burford), NM 40. Summer Lake – Chewaucan Basins, OR 41. Turnbull NWR, WA 42. Umatilla NWR Complex, OR, WA 43. Walker Lake, NV 

Figure 2. Approximate locations of notable waterbird sites in the Intermountain West Region. 
16 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Waterbird species in the 

Intermountain West

The region’s dispersed lakes, marshes, and riparian 

zones host 41 waterbird species (33 breeding species 

and eight additional migrants or vagrants). This 

group includes nine families of birds (Table 1). In 

this plan, species are listed in Sibley-Monroe order 

(Sibley and Monroe 1990), as this is standard for 

NAWCPs. The region supports approximately 

500,000 breeding waterbirds and a few million 

migrants, including many or most of the world’s 

Table 1. Bird families included in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Family Common name Species/Subspecies

Gruidae Cranes 2 subspecies

Rallidae Rails

Coots

Moorhens

3 species

1 species

1 species

Laridae Gulls

Terns

8 species

4 species

Podicipedidae Grebes 6 species

Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants 2 species

Ardeidae Egrets

Herons

Bitterns

3 species

4 species

2 species

Threskiornithidae Ibises 1 species

Pelecanidae Pelicans 1 species

Gaviidae Loons 3 species

California Gulls (Paul et al. 1990), Eared Grebes 

(Jehl 2001), White-faced Ibises (Ivey et al. in 

prep b), and American White Pelicans (D. Paul 

pers. comm.). Waterbird species using this region 

must be highly adaptable to constantly changing 

wetland conditions and depend on a landscape-scale 

association of wetlands. A list of waterbird species 

and their occurrence status for each BCR in the 

region is presented in Table 2. Scientific names 

of species mentioned in the plan are presented in 

Appendix B and acronyms defined in Appendix C.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 17

Table 2. Intermountain West waterbird species and their occurrence in Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 

9, 10, 15, and 16 (b=breeding, m=migrant, and w=winter).

SPECIES BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

Greater Sandhill Crane b, m b, m b, m b, m, w

Lesser Sandhill Crane m, w m m m, w (rare)

Yellow Rail b, w b

Virginia Rail b, m, w b, m, w (rare) b, m, w b, m, w

Sora b, m, w b, m, w (rare) b, m, w b, m, w

Common Moorhen b, m, w (all rare) b, m

American Coot b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w

Mew Gull m (rare) m (rare), w (rare)

Ring-billed Gull b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w m, w 

California Gull b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w

Glaucous-winged Gull b, m (rare), w w (rare)

Thayer’s Gull m (rare), w (rare) m, w (rare) m, w (both rare) 

Herring Gull m, w m, w m, w (both rare) m, w (rare)

Bonaparte’s Gull m, w m m m

Franklin’s Gull b, m b, m b, m

Caspian Tern b, m b, m m m (rare)

Common Tern b (rare), m b, m m (rare)

Forster’s Tern b, m b, m b, m b, m, w

Black Tern b, m b, m b, m b, m

Pied-billed Grebe b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w

Red-necked Grebe b, m (rare), w (rare) b, m - m, w (both rare)

Horned Grebe b, m, w (rare) b, m, w m, w m, w

Eared Grebe b, m, w b, m b, m b, m, w

Western /Clark’s Grebe b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w (rare)

Neotropic Cormorant - - - m (rare)

Double-crested Cormorant b, m, w b, m b, m, w (rare) b, m, w 

Little Blue Heron - - - m (rare)

Snowy Egret b, m, w (rare) b, m b, m, w b, m

Great Blue Heron b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w b, m, w

Great Egret b, m, w - b, m m

Cattle Egret b, m, w (rare) b (rare), m b, m b (rare), m

Green Heron b, m, w (rare) - b, m b, m

Black-crowned Night-Heron b, m, w (rare) b, m b, m, w b, m, w

Least Bittern b, m (rare) - b, m b (rare), m

American Bittern b, m, w b, m b, m, w b, m, w

White-faced Ibis b, m, w (rare) b, m b, m b, m 

American White Pelican b, m, w (rare) b, m m, w b, m

Red-throated Loon m (rare) m (rare) - m (rare), w (rare)

Pacific Loon m (rare) m (rare) - m (rare), w (rare)

Common Loon b, m, w b, m, w (rare) m, w (b: extirpated) m, w (rare)

 
18 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

WATERBIRD CONSERVATION ISSUES 

AND THREATS

In this section, habitat alterations, mortality factors, 

conflicts between humans and waterbirds, and other 

issues pertaining to waterbird conservation are 

discussed. Though impacts to populations associated 

with each issue cannot be precisely quantified, 

these issues are generally ordered by degree of 

conservation concern.

Wetland Loss, Water Supplies, and 

Water Quality

Historically, reclamation projects drained wetlands 

and reduced options for breeding waterbirds. 

Ratti and Kadlec (1992) estimated that 57% of this 

region’s historic wetlands have been lost. Loss of 

wetlands continues. Because of a 2000 Supreme 

Court decision, fill of many isolated wetlands is 

no longer regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (U.S. Supreme Court 2000). Such areas 

include playas, wet meadows, and marshes that 

are not navigable and do not have an interstate 

commerce connection. Therefore, these areas are 

more vulnerable to development and loss. 

Human demand for both agricultural and municipal 

water continue to threaten wetland habitats. 

For example, Lower Klamath NWR, the most 

significant waterbird nesting site in California, is 

threatened with loss of water as water rights are 

adjudicated in the Klamath Basin. Additionally, until 

the adjudication occurs, water for Lower Klamath 

is being directed to higher priority users within the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Klamath Irrigation 

Project (i.e., endangered species needs [salmon 

and suckers], tribal subsistence [lake levels and 

river flows], and agricultural irrigation). Within 

the Federal list of responsibilities for the Klamath 

Irrigation Project, refuge water is fourth (Mauser 

2001). In Idaho, Camas NWR is spending a great 

deal of money to pump water since ground water 

levels are dropping due to increased irrigation from 

wells and in-steam flows in Camas Creek are no 

longer sufficient to fill refuge wetlands. At Grays 

Lake, long-standing water rights and withdrawals 

result in very low water conditions in most 

summers and, in turn, insufficient habitat for broodrearing or molting birds. In Utah, urbanization is 

altering hydrology of Great Salt Lake wetlands, 

causing changes in volume, timing, and location of 

discharge. At Stillwater NWR in Nevada, public 

support rallied to begin purchasing water rights, 

primarily because of concerns about concentrations 

of contaminants (USFWS 1996, Neel and Henry 

1997).

Existing wetlands are also impacted by a variety of 

human-caused perturbations. Upslope development 

for housing and industrial use can alter water 

supplies and hydrology. Sedimentation from 

croplands can degrade existing wetlands.

Adequate water supplies need to be secured for 

important wetland areas. Because of the erratic 

water regime in the arid Intermountain West, 

wetland habitats are often insufficient to support 

waterbirds during drought periods. Water of high 

quality, which can be moved by gravity, will provide 

habitat for waterbirds wherever it is placed. 

Meeting the water needs for waterbirds will require 

planning on a large scale. Water rights purchases 

are underway at Stillwater NWR to ensure a more 

secure water supply for this refuge, resulting in 

increased wetland areas and improved habitat for 

waterbird feeding and nesting. Waterbirds at many 

other wetlands in the region would also benefit 

from water rights acquisition. The 2002 Farm Bill 

included provisions for improving water supplies 

for terminal lakes (At-Risk Desert Terminal Lakes 

Program), although these funds are targeted to be 

used to improve water conditions at Walker and 

Pyramid lakes in Nevada. Even though the Farm 

Bill appropriated an impressive sum of money to 

help conserve terminal lakes, the bill prohibits the 

use of this money for water acquisition. The BOR 

is attempting to determine how they can spend the 

money to benefit the lake and yet comply with this 

limitation.

Water supply has been an important concern at 

Mono Lake in California. Starting in 1941, water 

diversion to Los Angeles diminished Mono Lake’s 

tributary streams, and eventually threatened the 

lake’s value for countless birds. Birds became 

a rallying point for the lake’s protection and a 

legal case that resulted in a mandate to manage 

the lake’s water level between its pre-diversion 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 19

level of 1941 and its historic low in 1982 (State of 

California Water Resources Control Board 1994). 

This decision will help maintain the health of the 

lake’s ecosystem, maintain minimum stream flows, 

and allow for continued managed diversions to 

Los Angeles. Implementation of the decision and 

the Water Board’s 1998 restoration order will help 

restore lake levels and Mono Lake’s damaged 

tributary streams. However, as the lake’s water 

level rises, the decreased salinity may impact the 

lake’s brine flies and brine shrimp populations, and 

the Eared Grebes, gulls, and other species that 

depend on them.

Competing demands for water supplies affect water 

quality. Reduced flows can exacerbate contaminant 

problems (e.g., mercury concentration in Lahontan 

Valley wetlands) and threaten wildlife values of 

important areas. Salinity level in large Great Basin 

hypersaline lakes is also a major issue. The natural 

hydrology of these lakes supports large populations 

of brine shrimp and brine flies, an important 

food source for staging and breeding waterbirds. 

Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert, and Mono Lake are 

crucial to Eared Grebes and California and Ringbilled gulls. Each of these large hypersaline lakes 

are subject to water level manipulations that can 

result in reduced or increased salinity, beyond the 

tolerance of brine flies and brine shrimp. 

Conversions in agricultural irrigation practices 

from flood irrigation to mechanized pivot irrigation 

systems conserve water, but reduce breeding 

habitat and limit feeding options for many 

waterbird species. Private flood-irrigated meadows 

and hayfields provide breeding and foraging habitat 

for several waterbird species (e.g., rails, cranes, 

Black Terns, ibises). Flood-irrigated croplands 

are also important foraging areas for some species 

(particularly ibises). Loss of these habitats due to 

water conservation measures is a significant threat 

to associated waterbird species and should be 

mitigated by providing additional seasonal wetland 

habitats.

Wetland Habitat Management

The dynamic wetland conditions of this region 

dictate holistic, integrated wetland management 

approaches. Enhancing habitat diversity should be 

a component of on-the-ground wetland projects, 

providing variable water depths in wetlands with 

waterbird nesting, roosting, and foraging needs in 

mind. Project planners should consider wetlands 

at a landscape level to determine the most critical 

waterbird requisites at a particular location. Many 

waterbird needs overlap with those of waterfowl 

and shorebirds. Therefore, wetland management for 

these species lends itself to a guild approach. Both 

spatial and temporal diversity is important, and 

wetland managers need to understand waterbird 

needs as well as natural hydrologic cycles. For 

example, managers could maintain stable water 

levels within wetlands during the nesting period 

and provide lower water depths in late summer 

that provide enhanced foraging conditions for 

waterbirds. Another consideration is maintenance of 

ideal habitat conditions at select key sites to provide 

alternatives for waterbirds during extreme drought 

and flood years.

The challenge to effective comprehensive wetland 

management for all birds is to think in terms of 

landscape-level habitat conditions and focus on 

maintaining productive wetlands through time. 

Most waterbird species are relatively long-lived 

and can maintain their populations through a few 

bad years. For example, some species (e.g., cranes) 

thrive reproductively during years when conditions 

are very good, and can maintain their populations 

despite several years of very low recruitment. 

Droughts and floods are very important ecological 

processes that enhance wetland productivity and 

habitat value to birds. Fish populations may crash 

during droughts, yet they rapidly recover when 

water conditions improve, and for a few years after 

a drought size-classes of fishes are ideal for various 

fish-eating birds. Grebe numbers generally increase 

when fish are very small, but decline as their prey 

becomes larger, benefiting increasing numbers 

of cormorants and pelicans. Eventually some 

species of fish become so large that even pelican 

and cormorant use decreases (Ivey et al. in prep

a). Aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants also 

go through cycles as wetlands change and various 

waterbird populations respond positively to them 

when foraging conditions are optimal.

An issue at several reservoir sites in the region is 

the problem of water-level manipulations during 

the nesting period for irrigation or power needs. 

This management practice can cause productivity 

problems for waterbirds as a result of the loss or 

abandonment of eggs or young due to flooding 

or stranding. Where water level manipulations 

negatively impact waterbirds, measures to minimize 

impacts should be developed on a site-by-site basis. 

Likewise, on both public and private managed 
20 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

wetlands, objectives that favor the aggregation 

of waterfowl during the fall hunting season may 

divert or delay the delivery of water which might 

otherwise have been available for waterbirds, 

waterfowl, and shorebirds during the nesting season 

(Neel 1994).

Exotic Species

Invasive exotic plants pose a threat to many 

waterbird habitats in the region. Some of the most 

significant problem species include salt cedar, 

Russian olive, and purple loosestrife, each of 

which is capable of replacing native vegetation and 

reducing wetland habitat quality for waterbirds. 

Although salt cedar and Russian olive provide 

some benefit to birds, both species compete with 

native riparian vegetation that better serves native 

avifauna. In some cases, although salt cedar and 

Russian olive have replaced important riparian 

gallery forests, both still provide habitat for some 

species. Alternative habitat restoration using native 

trees should be a component of a pest management 

program for these two exotic plant species. Purple 

loosestrife is a major problem in the Snake and 

Columbia River basins. Eurasian water milfoil, 

a submersed aquatic plant, is a problem in some 

wetlands and lakes (e.g., Lake Tahoe). Common 

reed is primarily a local problem in some wetlands 

(e.g., Great Salt Lake) as it replaces more suitable 

emergent plant species. Perennial pepperweed 

(tall whitetop) has invaded grasslands, riparian 

areas, and shallow wetland habitats at many sites, 

displacing native vegetation and limiting foraging 

habitats. Giant river cane is a problem in California 

and may eventually spread to Nevada via the 

Truckee River. Biological controls for some exotic 

species are available. Even more extensive habitat 

conversions are on the horizon unless all forces are 

brought to bear on exotic vegetation and there are 

some significant breakthroughs in control.

Exotic fishes have been introduced in many of 

the region’s aquatic systems and, in many cases, 

these exotics have significantly compromised 

the natural values of these systems. The carp 

has severe impacts on North American aquatic 

systems, disrupting food chains, causing turbidity, 

eliminating beneficial aquatic plants, and outcompeting native fish and wildlife (Ivey et al. 1998). 

While carp are a major food source for pelicans, 

they can get too large for pelicans to consume 

and can out-compete native fishes (Ivey et al. in 

prep a). Fisheries management should be geared 

towards eliminating carp where possible, otherwise 

populations should be managed to maintain younger 

age classes. This is a difficult issue, but an important 

one, particularly at Malheur-Harney Lakes Basin, 

Great Salt Lake, Bear Lake, and Lahontan Valley 

wetlands. Additionally, many species of exotic game 

fish (e.g., catfish, bass, sunfish, and trout) have been 

introduced and, in many instances, may directly 

compete with waterbirds for available wetland 

foods. Direct competition for forage occurs when 

larger sport fish like introduced trout eat smaller 

forage fish that piscivorous waterbirds depend 

on. Coordination between waterbird and fisheries 

managers is essential in order to eliminate or 

minimize these conflicts.

Water Quality and Contaminants

Contaminants have been identified as a problem 

to waterbirds at several sites in the region. The 

Carson River below Dayton, Nevada, is mercury 

laden, and birds using the Lahontan Valley and 

Carson Lake are exposed locally and/or remotely to 

elevated levels of mercury, selenium, and DDT and 

its metabolites (DDE). Evidence of mercury-related 

toxicity was found to affect the immune (spleen, 

thymus, bursa), detoxicating (liver, kidneys), and 

nervous systems of young Black-crowned NightHerons, Snowy Egrets, and/or Double-crested 

Cormorants nesting along the Carson River (Henny 

et al. 2002). A study is now underway to determine if 

post-fledging survival (via radio-telemetry) of young 

snowy egrets is reduced due to these contaminants. 

Migrant Common Loons staging at Walker Lake, 

Nevada have the highest blood mercury levels 

documented in the U.S. (M. Yates pers. comm.), and 

sources of contamination within the watershed have 

been identified (Seiler et al. 2004). DDE may have 

played a role in the historic decline of White-faced 

Ibises, as DDT-DDE contamination causes eggshell 

thinning and lowered hatching success (e.g., Henny 

and Herron 1989, Henny and Bennett 1990). DDE 

levels have remained high among ibises in Carson 

Lake in recent years (Henny 1997). PCP residues 

were found in Double-crested Cormorant eggs from 

American Falls Reservoir in Idaho (U. S. Geological 

Survey 1988-89).

The use of pesticides and herbicides for agriculture, 

mosquito control, and other purposes also poses 

a threat to waterbirds (Henny et al. 1985). These 

chemicals often enter wetlands via runoff from 

adjacent areas. Oil fields can also contribute 

contaminants to wetlands. There are direct and 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 21

indirect effects of the use of pesticides; overdoses 

of organochlorine chemicals (e.g., Malathion) can 

kill birds, and the loss of invertebrate foods from 

spraying can limit foraging opportunities. Spraying 

for mosquito control has increased in some areas 

because of the appearance of encephalitis and 

West Nile virus. The disturbance associated with 

spraying can also be a problem, especially around 

active nesting sites. Outreach is needed to better 

educate the public about environmentally sound 

options for mosquito problems. National concern 

for West Nile virus could trigger a massive effort 

toward mosquito control on wetlands in coming 

years. The problems with mosquito control could 

be far-reaching and impacts are little known, even 

for biological controls such as Bti (a bacterium used 

for mosquito control). Land managers and citizens 

need to integrate vector control with other wetland 

management objectives. Indiscriminate application 

of vector control without consideration of other 

wetland values could potentially have far-reaching 

negative effects on wildlife.

Waterbird Conflicts

There are several cases of waterbirds causing 

perceived damage to agricultural crops and fish 

stocks, and of colonies becoming established in 

urban areas and causing aesthetic problems. 

These are generally very local but important 

issues. Demands for control (i.e., bird removal or 

destruction) can be intense and the consequences of 

negative public perception far-reaching.

Crop Depredation. USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) is the 

Federal agency mandated by Congress to manage 

programs to reduce human/wildlife conflicts. This 

includes the management of waterbirds to reduce 

agricultural crop damages, conflicts in urban areas, 

and management to reduce conflicts with threatened 

or endangered species. Under the authorities of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the USFWS can 

authorize lethal control of depredating migratory 

birds through permits on a case-by-case basis, 

by designating special hunting seasons in some 

cases, or permit lethal control through depredation 

orders that allow the take of specific species without 

individual permits to alleviate depredations. For 

example, staging Sandhill Cranes sometimes 

depredate grain crops, seed potatoes, and newlyplanted alfalfa (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain 

Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes 1997, 

Launhan and Gammonley 2002). These problems 

have been addressed through authorization of 

special hunting seasons in some areas (e.g., in 

southeast Idaho and northwest Utah). However, 

there is no evidence that hunting is reduces 

crane depredation. Rather, the hunting program 

encourages the perception that something is being 

done about a problem that is actually minor in scope 

(e.g., McIvor and Conover 1994a, 1994b). Feeding 

White-faced Ibises have also caused crop damage in 

alfalfa fields near Stillwater NWR.

Fishery predation and depredation. There are 

several examples of birds consuming fish that are 

perceived as impacting sensitive fish populations or 

desirable game species. These include cormorants 

and pelicans consuming cui-ui, a threatened species 

in Pyramid Lake, Nevada; pelicans consuming 

endangered Yellowstone cutthroat trout at 

Blackfoot Reservoir, Idaho; cormorants consuming 

rare endemic fish at White River Valley, south 

of Ely, Nevada; and pelicans eating game fish at 

Canyon Ferry Reservoir, Montana. In some areas 

of the United States Double-crested Cormorant 

populations have greatly increased, creating 

fishery conflicts with both commercial aquaculture 

and warmwater fish management. This issue is 

addressed in an environmental impact statement 

(USFWS and WS 2003). 

In the Intermountain West, fishery conflicts with 

waterbirds are typically site-specific problems 

such as waterbirds consuming fish at privately 

owned aquaculture facilities. The USFWS has 

issued depredation permits to control losses 

of commercially raised fish at privately owned 

aquaculture facilities when non-lethal measures 

(e.g., hazing with cracker shells, netting, or wire 

grids over rearing ponds) have failed to alleviate 

depredation. Lethal control is not authorized 

at federally owned or operated hatcheries as 

these facilities serve to demonstrate the array 

and efficacy of non-lethal measures to control 

depredation. 

Commercial harvest of brine shrimp. This activity 

is occurring at Great Salt Lake and Lake Abert; the 

concern is that over-harvest of brine shrimp could 

have negative impacts on birds that depend on them 

(especially Eared Grebes). This issue is currently 

being studied at Great Salt Lake where the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources has regulatory and 

stewardship responsibility for brine shrimp under 

the guidance of the Great Salt Lake Ecosystem 

Project assisted by an advisory team. The primary 
22 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

goal is to sustain long-term populations of brine 

shrimp for their ecological values and commercial 

harvest. This is accomplished this through a model 

for brine shrimp sustainability that considers 

waterbird food needs as well as harvest interests. 

For example, the brine shrimp density requirements 

for staging Eared Grebes at the Great Salt Lake 

was recently investigated through a PhD program 

in association with Utah State University (Caudell 

2001). 

Urban colonies. In some areas, particularly BCR 

16, urban waterbird colonies (usually Black-crowned 

Night-Herons) have created concerns about public 

health and sanitation as birds defecate on dwellings. 

A standard programmatic approach is needed to 

address this issue. These situations are typically 

addressed by WS in coordination with USFWS 

(when lethal control measures are necessary). 

Golf courses. American Coots sometimes cause 

problems on golf courses by consuming grasses 

and defecating on the greens. This issue could 

be incorporated into the initiative for all-bird 

conservation on golf courses by developing 

recommendations that reduce coot use.

Use of artificial nesting sites. Waterbirds 

sometimes nest on artificial substrates, which 

can conflict with human activities. For example, 

a gull colony appeared on dikes at a sewage pond 

facility in Hines, Oregon, blocking a maintenance 

road. Gull colonies sometimes appear in landfills, 

interfering with refuse burial, and cormorants have 

nested on bridges and in shipyards interfering with 

operational and maintenance needs. 

Aircraft strikes. Larger species, such as cranes 

and pelicans, can threaten human safety through 

aircraft strikes. Low-level military training routes 

pose the greatest aircraft strike risk. It is important 

to work with the military to integrate consideration 

for the timing of migration and movements of larger 

waterbird species into training activities to minimize 

risk of strikes.

Disturbance

Human intrusion into waterbird nest sites can cause 

abandonment, especially early in the breeding 

season during nest-site selection, nest building, 

and incubation (e.g., Ryder and Manry 1994). 

Disturbance keeps adults away from nests and can 

lead to hypothermia or hyperthermia of eggs and 

young, increased predation, and ultimately reduced 

production. Disturbance during the late portion of 

the nesting season is particularly harmful because 

late nesting birds will not have another chance to 

nest. The effects of recreation on wildlife have been 

reviewed (York 1994, DeLong 2002). Bunnel et al. 

(1981) describe the effects of disturbance on nesting 

pelicans.

Disturbance caused primarily by recreational 

boating on lakes is a problem for nesting Common 

Loons and grebes in particular because of the low 

profile of their floating nests. Boat wakes often wash 

eggs from nests, and excess disturbance reduces 

productivity, precludes loon nesting (Richardson 

et al. 2000), or causes abandonment of loon (Casey 

2000) and Western and Clark’s grebe nests (D. 

Anderson pers. comm., Ivey 2004). Boat recreation 

is increasing on many lakes as lakeside cottages 

expand, and some lakes are used for jet skiing and 

snowmobile surfing (driving snowmobiles across 

water). Public education is an important element 

in the protection of nesting security. For instance, 

in Montana 75 percent of loon nesting lakes are 

bordered by private land; it will take awareness 

by landowners to ensure continued nesting (Casey 

2000). In addition to outreach and education (in 

some cases hiring Loon Rangers to educate the 

public at selected sites), managers in Montana and 

Wyoming are signing territories and establishing 

wake zones for boating (wakeless designation areas 

with 200 m wakeless buffers). Wildlife officials in 

British Columbia are not as concerned about loon 

disturbance issues as loons are more abundant 

there. 

Recreational boating disturbance likely prevents 

colonial nesting waterbirds from using otherwise 

suitable islands and in some cases has caused 

abandonment of colonies. For example, 800 pelican 

nests were abandoned on an island in Malheur Lake 

when artifact hunters illegally visited the island in 

1988 (Ivey et al. in prep a).

Surveys of nesting colonies can also cause problems 

if not thoughtfully conducted. For example, the 

pelican colony on an island at a National Wildlife 

Refuge re-established in the mid 1980s after survey 

methods were converted from an invasive off-shore 

boat survey to a non-invasive ground count from a 

nearby shore. 

Biologists typically use airboats to survey marsh 

colonies. This method allows collection of data 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 23

on Global Position System coordinates, colony 

configuration, nest density, and nesting chronology, 

and may be most effective in remote sites as nests 

and/or attending adults are often visible. Airboats 

can be a useful and often necessary tool in the 

assessment of colonies, however, caution should be 

taken to reduce disturbance as much as possible. 

Occasional use near ibis colonies does not appear to 

adversely effect nesting success or nesting effort (G. 

Ivey and D. Paul pers. observ.). However, prolonged 

use in close proximity to nesting ibis colonies can 

result in nest abandonment (Kelchlin 2000), and 

short-term airboat use within colonies has resulted 

in destroyed nests and wakes that wash eggs from 

nests (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Some waterbirds 

construct nests of emergent vegetation that are 

often unattached to other vegetative structures 

and are low to the water (e.g., Eared and Western 

Grebes), thus, are highly susceptible to boat wash. 

Pelicans seem particularly sensitive to airboat 

surveys which have caused nest abandonment in 

some cases.

Agricultural Activities

In some areas, flood-irrigated private lands 

(especially hay meadows and pastures) provide 

very important habitats to nesting and foraging 

waterbirds. These habitats are being lost in some 

cases to development (e.g., Great Salt Lake, Utah, 

and Carson Sink, Nevada). In some areas there 

is a movement to conserve water by replacing 

the wildlife-beneficial practice of flood-irrigation 

with sprinkler or drip irrigation. If this conversion 

continues on a large scale, significant wetland area 

will be lost.

Timing of irrigation, farming, and ranching 

activities can affect the success of nesting 

waterbirds. In Oregon, wetlands in private 

ownership which support nesting waterbirds have 

been dewatered to facilitate haying and livestock 

grazing, resulting in nest abandonment and 

production failures (G. Ivey and M. St. Louis pers. 

comm.). Water is drained from hayfields about three 

weeks before mowing commences. This reduces 

food supplies and tends to concentrate young birds 

near remaining water, increasing their vulnerability 

to predators (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Early cutting 

of hay, as early as mid-June on some native hay 

meadows in the region, results in mortality of 

unfledged waterbirds. Young rails and cranes 

are particularly vulnerable to haying mortality. 

Overgrazing by livestock and inappropriate or 

unmanaged livestock grazing systems can degrade 

wetland habitats, making them less suitable for 

waterbirds. For example, nests are sometimes 

trampled by cattle on private lands grazed during 

the nesting season (Capen 1977, Herron and Lucas 

1978). Nesting trees of Great Blue Herons have 

been bulldozed on private land in southern Idaho 

(Trost and Gerstell 1994).

Riparian Forests and Associated 

Habitats

Riparian gallery forests and associated wetlands or 

wet meadows provide nesting sites for some species 

(e.g., Great Blue Heron, Green Heron). Species such 

as Virginia Rail, Sora, American Bittern, American 

Coot, and Black-crowned Night-Heron will use 

the cottonwood-willow association. Cottonwoods 

and willows are sometimes damaged by colonial 

nesting birds as they become over-fertilized by the 

urea excreted by the birds. Riparian wetlands and 

meadows have, in many cases, been degraded by 

improper livestock use. The need to restore and 

maintain these habitats overlaps with needs of 

certain landbird species. 

Mortality Factors 

Because waterbird species are generally long-lived, 

adult mortality is a key determinant in population 

trends. Thus, threat management aimed at 

reducing adult mortality can help maintain regional 

populations.

Disease. In some areas of this region, chronic 

outbreaks of avian botulism and avian cholera occur 

almost annually. Erysipelas, a bacterial disease, 

killed several thousand Eared Grebes at Great 

Salt Lake in 2001, and avian cholera killed about 

30,000 Eared Grebes in 2004 (F. Howe pers. comm.). 

Salmonellosis was a cause of severe gull mortality 

in Idaho (Winkler 1996). Newcastle disease, 

encephalitis, and West Nile virus are potential 

future threats. Further research is needed to 

identify causes and remedies (e.g., are contaminants 

exacerbating disease outbreaks). One consideration 

is the ability to control water to rapidly drain 

or deep flood managed wetlands where disease 

outbreaks occur, especially for avian botulism.

Lead poisoning. Hunting shot and fishing 

weights containing lead cause mortality in some 

waterbirds when ingested for grit or incidentally 

while feeding. Common Loons are particularly 
24 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

susceptible to consuming fishing weights. Sandhill 

Cranes occasionally succumb to lead poisoning from 

consumption of lead shot. While lead shot is now 

illegal for hunting waterfowl, some areas still allow 

its use for upland species which are hunted near 

wetlands (e.g., pheasants), prolonging the problem 

of lead poisoning in wetland birds. Changes in 

policies should be considered regarding where lead 

shot can be used. The use of lead weights should be 

prohibited on lakes used by loons.

Powerlines and fences. Powerline strikes are among 

the major mortality factors for adult cranes and 

pelicans, as well as some other waterbirds. Options 

for reducing powerline strikes include removing 

unnecessary lines, burying lines (though this is very 

expensive), or installing line markers to increase 

their visibility to birds (Brown and Drewien 1995, 

Morkill and Anderson 1991). Barbed-wire fences 

have killed cranes and other waterbirds, and are 

particularly problematic where they cross streams 

and wetlands. Fences should be removed where 

possible or marked to increase visibility near 

wetlands. These are very local issues; sites with a 

history of mortalities should be addressed on a caseby-case basis.

Predators. For some species, predators have 

had significant impacts on populations, primarily 

through depredation of eggs and young. Sandhill 

Cranes and other solitary-nesting species are 

particularly vulnerable to predators. Humaninduced changes have led to increases in predation 

in some areas. For example, the Common Raven, 

an aggressive egg predator, has generally 

increased in the region, likely because of increases 

in available forage from agriculture, highway 

systems (providing roadkills), and garbage dumps. 

Powerlines and other human structures have 

increased options for raven nest sites. Elimination 

of wolves from the landscape has allowed coyote 

populations to increase, and introduced red foxes 

have become problem predators in some areas. 

Red foxes are particularly adept at hunting 

ground-nesting birds. Mink and raccoons are a 

significant problem at some sites since they are 

more aquatic and sometimes swim to colonies. 

Feral cats can also pose a problem for young 

waterbirds in some situations. Future research on 

this issue should focus on the primary predators 

and their interactions with breeding waterbirds. 

There are some means to protect nesting sites 

from predators, such as keeping water levels high 

so that nesting islands do not become peninsulas 

or installing electric fencing to protect peninsulanesting waterbirds. However, in many cases, our 

understanding of the causes of predation and the 

means to ameliorate the problems (i.e., management 

to reduce predation) is poor. Changing predator 

communities have resulted in both favorable and 

unfavorable situations for waterbirds, depending on 

local conditions. Interactions between predators and 

prey are complex and dynamic. 

Interspecific Conflicts

Conflicts sometimes arise between waterbirds 

and other wildlife species. An example includes a 

common waterbird species out-competing a rare 

or sensitive species. These should be taken into 

account when planning for waterbird conservation. 

To help resolve conflicts, there is a need to prioritize 

management objectives and understand species 

behavior, biology, and ecology. 

Nest site competition. There are local incidents of 

competition for nest sites. For example, Canada 

Geese sometimes compete with Double-crested 

Cormorants and Great Blue Herons for nest sites 

and also sometimes take over loon nests in Canada. 

The increasing population of cormorants may 

impact nest site availability to other waterbird 

species. In Utah, artificial islands constructed 

for waterfowl and shorebird nesting have been 

colonized by California Gulls to the exclusion of 

other species.

Waterbirds as predators on other birds. Some 

species of waterbirds prey on other wetland birds. 

California Gulls and Black-crowned Night-Herons 

are particularly adept at eating ducklings and 

young shorebirds. To minimize conflicts, guidelines 

for establishing artificial colony sites should be 

developed (e.g., it would be unwise to build a bare 

nesting island in a marsh that is important for duck 

broods or an important shorebird breeding site). 

However, duck nesting near gull colonies can be 

highly successful, and if good brood cover is nearby, 

the broods may have good survival after hatching 

as well. Careful planning and an understanding of 

ecological relationships are needed to effectively 

manage or avoid conflicts arising from waterbird 

predation on other birds.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 25

Beavers

Beavers often provide habitat for a variety of 

waterbirds, such as cranes, bitterns, and rails, 

through their dam-building activities. Their 

distribution and abundance is critical as they 

generally benefit smaller wetlands in forest 

environments. Beavers can cause water control 

problems on managed wetlands. There are nonlethal 

ways to minimize beaver conflicts, such as modifying 

water control structures and by using electric 

fences. Wetland managers should be informed about 

these beaver-friendly methods of solving water 

control problems.

Threats Outside the Region

Waterbirds using the Intermountain West also 

face threats outside the region, often at wintering 

or staging sites. Large numbers of waterbirds are 

occasionally killed by oil spills on the Pacific Coast 

(especially loons, grebes, gulls, and terns), and by 

disease outbreaks at wintering areas such as the 

Salton Sea (grebes, pelicans). Some waterbirds 

are exposed to pesticides in the Imperial Valley, 

California, and in Mexico and Central America. 

Also, some birds staging in the region primarily 

breed in BCRs outside of the region (e.g., Eared 

Grebes, Common Loons); degrading habitat 

conditions in those regions may reduce the 

numbers using the Intermountain West. These 

external threats may affect the status of waterbird 

populations and should be addressed by establishing 

a network for coordination between BCRs using an 

international/flyway approach.
26 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Species Rankings

In order to determine which waterbird species 

should receive greater conservation efforts and 

population objectives, we assessed their status in 

each of the four BCRs in the Intermountain West. 

This involved several steps:

1. Estimating BCR waterbird populations and 

assessing data quality.

2. Determining Area Importance (AI) scores.

3. Reviewing species’ status on Federal, state, and 

PIF plan lists.

4. Reviewing the NAWCP rankings for colonial 

waterbird species.

Conservation Status Assessment

5. Developing criteria for colonial and marshbird 

species’ regional rankings.

6. Developing a concern matrix for each BCR to 

identify priority waterbird species.

7. Developing a waterbird species priority list for 

the Intermountain West.

Details of this species ranking process are described 

in Appendix D. Final priority rankings for species 

are detailed in Table 3. Species accounts for 

these priority waterbirds appear in Appendix E. 

Waterbirds ranked as High or Moderate concern 

are considered Priority species, and will serve 

as the focus for implementing the conservation 

measures identified in this plan.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

27

Table 3. Concern matrix for priority waterbird species in each Bir d Conservation Region (BCR ) in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (breeding species are reported here unless noted as migrant; b = breeding, m = migrant).

Concern Category BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

HighConcern

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b, m)Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m)Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m)Yellow RailFranklin’s Gull (b)Black TernEared Grebe (m)Western GrebeClark’s GrebeSnowy EgretAmerican White Pelican (b, m)Common Loon (b)

Franklin’s GullAmerican White PelicanCommon Loon

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP)Western Grebe Clark’s Grebe Common Loon

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m)American Bittern 

Moderate Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) Virginia RailSoraCalifornia GullFranklin’s Gull (m)Forster’s TernPied-billed GrebeGreat Blue HeronBlack-crowned Night-HeronLeast BitternAmerican BitternWhite-faced IbisCommon Loon (m)

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) Virginia RailSoraCalifornia GullForster’s Tern Black TernPied-billed GrebeWestern GrebeClark’s Grebe Snowy EgretGreat Blue HeronBlack-crowned Night-HeronAmerican Bittern White-faced Ibis

Virginia RailSora Black TernPied-billed GrebeAmerican Bittern

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b)Virginia Rail SoraBlack TernPied-billed Grebe Western Grebe Clark’s GrebeSnowy EgretGreen Heron Black-crowned Night-HeronLeast Bittern 

LowConcern

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP)Caspian Tern Red-necked GrebeHorned GrebeEared Grebe (b)

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP)Caspian Tern Red-necked Grebe Horned GrebeEared Grebe

Forster’s TernEared GrebeBlack-crowned Night-HeronWhite-faced Ibis

California GullFranklin’s GullForster’s TernEared Grebe White-faced Ibis American White Pelican
28 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

POPULATION AND HABITAT OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive wetland bird management requires 

conscious balancing of objectives. Waterbird 

objectives must be integrated into wetland 

management strategies that consider annual needs 

in a context of long-term population maintenance. 

An understanding of the ecology and biology of 

the various species being managed is necessary to 

set appropriate habitat management objectives. 

Establishing explicit management objectives from 

a sound biological basis will best serve waterbird 

conservation. Appendix E reviews basic ecology of 

priority species and Appendices G and H review 

habitat objectives and conservation strategies that 

can be used to form management objectives for 

waterbirds.

Population Objectives

Population objectives are scientifically-based targets 

that will function as a basis for setting habitat 

objectives and as performance indicators. We 

derived numerical population objectives for priority 

(High or Moderate Concern) waterbird species 

by each state and BCR (Appendix F). Habitat 

objectives are detailed in Appendix G. For priority 

migrant species, population objectives are set for 

individual sites that support high numbers and 

were derived from estimates of peak numbers of 

staging birds using those sites. The focus for species 

in this category will be based on maintenance of 

habitat at those key staging sites (see Appendix H, 

Conservation Strategies). For breeding waterbirds, 

population objectives were derived using the 

methodology described below. These numbers 

are, as possible, consistent with other plans (e.g., 

recovery plan goals for endangered species, Flyway 

plans). Two steps were involved in this process: 

1. Determine population trend (PT) index. A 

consensus was reached by the planning team to use 

the PIF approach as a foundation for determining 

Population Trend (PT), with some necessary 

modifications. In PIF documents, PT scores were 

based on the degree of population change or trend, 

indicated by Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data 

since 1966, with objectives defined for different PT 

levels. The overall objective for PIF is to return 

populations toward historic levels in the early BBS 

years (1966-68). Because BBS data often does not 

well represent waterbird trends, our approach 

relies less on BBS and uses other sources of 

trend information (sometimes anecdotal). Table 

4 summarizes the criteria used here to establish 

objectives.

2. Derive State and BCR numerical population 

objectives. Using criteria from Table 4 and species 

population estimates on a state-by-state-byBCR level (Tables D-2 to D-5 in Appendix D), we 

derived population objectives. Table 5 summarizes 

objectives for each BCR, while Table 6 summarizes 

objectives for each state. Appendix F details the 

objectives derivation process and the distribution of 

objectives among states and BCRs.

Habitat Objectives

Establishing habitat objectives is a difficult task at 

this time, as existing information is not adequate 

to translate population objectives into habitat 

objectives. Defining relationships of population 

numbers to habitat is an important research need. 

An inventory of existing wetland habitats is also 

needed to further this task. National Wetland 

Inventory coverage is incomplete in this region and 

we should advocate for completion of this survey for 

future habitat assessments.

While more detailed habitat objectives should be 

identified in the future, we decided to use objectives 

developed by the 11 western states in their 

Coordinated Bird Conservation Implementation 

Plans (Arizona Steering Committee 2005, California 

Steering Committee 2005, Colorado Steering 

Committee 2005, Idaho Steering Committee 

2005, Montana Steering Committee 2005, Nevada 

Steering Committee 2005, New Mexico Steering 

Committee 2005, Eastern Oregon Working Group 

2005, Utah Steering Committee 2005, Washington 

Steering Committee 2005, Wyoming Steering 

Committee 2005). These plans identify priority 

habitat types for all birds (including waterbirds), 

Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCAs), and 

habitat goals and objectives. These BHCAs are 

designated geographic areas that were selected by 

state committees at focus meetings that choose sites 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 29

Table 4. Definitions of Population Trend (PT) indices for priority waterbird species and population 

objective goal for the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan.

PT Index PT Definition Population Objective Goal

PT = 5 Species with a biologically significant (estimated 50%) historic 

population decline or range contraction. This includes species 

that were severely impacted by market hunting, habitat loss, and 

contaminants (primarily DDT-DDE). Also species with evidence 

of recent major declines and those that have been extirpated or 

nearly extirpated in a state.

Double the current population 

over the next 50 years or restore 

breeding populations of extirpated 

species.

PT = 4 Species that experienced significant historic declines and have 

shown an increasing trend, but have not recovered to their 

potential. Also species with recent moderate population decline.

Increase the current population by 

50% over the next 50 years.

PT = 3 Species that historically declined and have apparently recovered. 

Also species with recent unknown trends. Priority migrant 

species are also included, but did not receive numerical objectives 

(only habitat objectives).

Maintain or increase the current 

population over the next 50 years.

PT = 2 Species with recent suspected or moderate increase. Maintain the current population 

over the next 50 years.

PT = 1 Species with recent large population increase. Maintain the current population 

over the next 50 years.

from regions of each state. The selection criteria 

were relatively similar within each state and were 

driven by these criteria:

• Areas rich in priority birds and habitats

• Opportunities for conservation and partnerships

• Threats to priority species and habitats

• Areas large enough in scale to achieve meaningful 

conservation and small enough to capture local 

working groups

The Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) 

is encouraging Coordinated Bird Conservation 

Implementation Plan Committees to stay organized 

and use the BHCAs as work areas within their 

shared bird habitat conservation efforts. Each 

State Committee has or is encouraged to have 

individuals interested and involved with the 

IWWCP as committee members. This will provide 

some potential brokering for waterbird habitat 

conservation within the BHCAs. The IWJV is 

focusing cost-share funding opportunities within 

these BHCAs to assist in waterbird and other 

bird habitat conservation. The IWJV Technical 

Committee also has a waterbird biologist as a 

committee member. Digital maps of BHCAs were 

produced to calculate acreages of all habitats which 

include the priority habitat targets of the BHCA 

by state. These priority acreage numbers are the 

measurable habitat objectives in the BHCA that will 

be targeted for specific conservation work. Partners 

will use these acreage targets as focal points to 

develop specific conservation actions (e.g., improve 

colonial nesting habitat for x number of pairs of 

White-faced Ibis and other species in the marsh 

nesting guild—see Conservation Strategies below). 

The mapping will also identify land ownership 

to assist in partnership development and on-theground planning. Habitat objectives that relate to 

waterbirds are listed in Table 7. Additional details 

on these objectives and habitat type definitions 

can be found in each state’s Coordinated Bird 

Conservation Implementation Plans.
30 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table 5. Population objectives for priority waterbird species by Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in 

the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan region (b = breeding, m = migrant, TBD = To Be 

Determined after data become available or species resumes nesting).

Species BCR 9 

objective #

BCR 10 

objective #

BCR 15 

objective #

BCR 16 

objective #

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 3,630 190

 Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) >8,000

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) TBD

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) >2,000

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) TBD 450

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) >18,000

Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) >2,000

Yellow Rail (b) 1,220

Virginia Rail (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD

Sora (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD

California Gull (b) 314,400 9,470

Franklin’s Gull (b) 42,580 21,100

Franklin’s Gull (m) >85,000

Forster’s Tern (b) 7,340 230

Black Tern (b) 9,780 >670 270 40

Pied-billed Grebe (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD

Eared Grebe (m) >3 million

Western Grebe (b) 17,280 >5,030 1,930 380

Clark’s Grebe (b) 5,130 >110 20 210

Snowy Egret (b) 3,400 50 940

Green Heron 220

Great Blue Heron (b) 4,560 >1,800

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 5,590 >320 660

Least Bittern (b) TBD TBD

American Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD

White-faced Ibis (b) 57,980 1,710

American White Pelican (b) 34,110 10,500

American White Pelican (m) >55,000

Common Loon (b) >10 270 TBD

Common Loon (m) >1,000
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

31

Table 6. Population objectives for priority waterbird species by state in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan region (b = breeding, m = migrant, TBD = To Be Determined after data become available or species resumes nesting).Species AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM OR UT WA WYGreater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 1,390 30 2,140 260 Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) >8,000 >6,000 >2,000Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) TBD TBD TBDGreater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) >2,000Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) 450 TBD TBD TBDGreater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) >18,000Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) >20,000 >1,000 >20,000 >20,000Yellow Rail (b) 20 1,200Virginia Rail (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDSora (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDCalifornia Gull (b) 62,470 72,640 920 4,200 11,330 150,000 14,000 8,310Franklin’s Gull (b) 150 23,500 6,000 10 3,270 30,650 100Franklin’s Gull (m) >85,000Forster’s Tern (b) 3,510 40 130 190 1,610 1,590 400 100Black Tern (b) 5,820 30 200 200 550 >3,180 130 300 100Pied-billed Grebe (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDEared Grebe (m) >2 million >20,000 >1.6 millionWestern Grebe (b) 200 7,390 150 6,140 250 80 >5,800 730 1,000 430Clark’s Grebe (b) 50 1,030 150 >710 30 450 10 2,560 300 100 80Snowy Egret (b) 400 650 600 500 250 1,980 10Green Heron 20 200Great Blue Heron (b) 110 1,970 900 660 >320 470 1,530 400Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 310 600 1,610 50 910 40 >1,380 470 1,000 200Least Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDAmerican Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBDWhite-faced Ibis (b) 2,310 6,760 20 12,230 18,100 20,000 270American White Pelican (b) 5,880 2,770 8,000 12,620 2,360 10,120 360 2,500American White Pelican (m) >55,000Common Loon (b) TBD >10 200 TBD 20 50Common Loon (m) >1,000
32 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table 7. Waterbird habitat objectives (in acres) for the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan, by state. State: Playa/ vernal pool Agriculture Alkaline wetlands Open Water Lacustrine Emergent Marsh Palustrine Wet Meadow Grassland Riparian Woodland Riparian Shrub Aspen Arizona 28,000 maintain existing 19,000 513,000 17,200 (690 miles) 10,000 California 36,733 25,871 12,069 30,521 6,397 1,404 Colorado 880,000 30,000 100,000 400,000 (6,500 km) Idaho 1,780,000 270,5371 1,300,000 289,705 432,161 Montana 972,773 292,6581 3,400,000 199,547 175,442 252,237 Nevada 13,000 25,0001 (450 miles) 40,000 New Mexico no net loss no net loss protect no net loss no net loss Oregon 55,500 215,000 95,000 176,100 175,000 185,000 365,000 7,000 40,000 25,000 Utah 126,200 440,4501 36,000 55,808 Washington 15,000 200,000 80,000 2,000,000 45,000 3,500 Wyoming 430,000 27,000 270,000 282,000 317,000 176,000
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 33

Conservation Strategies

A variety of conservation strategies will be used 

to implement the IWWCP and achieve population 

and habitat objectives (Appendices F and G). 

Because wetlands are generally isolated oases in 

the Intermountain West landscape, most waterbird 

habitat conservation will be focused on important 

wetland sites in the region, within BHCAs and 

IBAs. Descriptions of IBAs provide an additional 

source of conservation strategies which should 

be consulted when developing conservation plans 

(Audubon Society 2004). Additionally, waterbirdfocused habitat management practices need to be 

implemented at a broad scale in wetlands around 

the region. A regional assessment of waterbird 

habitat enhancement opportunities, restoration 

projects, and local management issues should be 

conducted. Site-specific habitat conservation should 

be addressed using the strategies in Appendix H 

and IBA descriptions as guidelines. Appendix I 

summarizes some potential sources of funds for 

conservation projects.

Critical Conservation Needs 

and Recommendations at Major 

Waterbird Sites

Several important waterbird sites need support 

and attention to resolve outstanding issues that are 

limiting waterbird values, including:

Mono Lake protection. Issues that need to be 

resolved at Mono Lake include monitoring of the 

effects of meromixis (a condition in which lighter, 

less saline water overlies heavier, more saline 

water) on staging grebes and breeding gulls, and 

controlling human disturbance. State Water Boardmandated water levels may affect brine shrimp and 

brine fly abundance, and unregulated recreational 

boating disturbance could impact grebe use and 

gull nesting colonies (J. Jehl pers. comm.). We 

recommend inclusion of Mono Lake in the USFWS 

National Wildlife Refuge System or as a State 

Wildlife Area to help ensure protection of its high 

wildlife values.

Lower Klamath NWR water supplies. This most 

significant waterbird nesting site in California is 

currently at risk of insufficient water supplies to 

maintain refuge wetlands. Due to a multitude of 

competing demands (endangered fish, tribal treaty 

rights, agriculture, and power generation), water 

supplies for wetland management are extremely 

limited in the Klamath River Basin (Basin). Lower 

Klamath NWR lies within the Klamath Reclamation 

Project (Project), which has no legislated fish or 

wildlife purpose. As a result, refuge wetlands are 

the lowest priority for water delivery in the Project. 

Ultimately, some of the water priority issue will be 

resolved by the ongoing State of Oregon Klamath 

River Adjudication. In filing for both irrigation and 

Federal reserved water rights in the Adjudication, 

the USFWS may achieve some certainty for 

refuge wetlands. However, a long-term solution in 

the Basin will require that individuals, agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and others 

interested in waterbird conservation and other 

natural and social resource issues become involved 

in negotiations and discussions to achieve a balanced 

solution to the Basin’s water issues.

Grays Lake NWR water levels. Grays Lake has 

chronic water problems, as water levels typically 

decline during the spring and summer due to 

water withdrawals by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) for the Fort Hall Irrigation District. This 

has resulted in regular failures of nesting colonies 

of waterbirds using the marsh (S. Bouffard pers. 

comm.). Annual drawdown results in declining 

water levels during the nesting season, which 

may limit nest success for some species, and 

low water levels each summer seriously limit 

the availability and quality of habitat for broodrearing and molting. Also, the artificially-managed 

hydroperiod, which remains static across most wet 

and dry years, provides no opportunity for high 

water—a necessary component of natural flooddrought variations for healthy wetland ecosystems. 

Water levels cannot be manipulated because of 

long-standing agreements with local landowners 

and the Fort Hall Irrigation District. The 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe owns the water rights. A 

modification of the water management agreement 

between the USFWS, BIA, and private landowners 

is needed to allow higher water levels during most 

summer and fall seasons, and to allow greater 

natural annual variability in water levels. These 

changes are needed to provide enhanced conditions 

for nesting birds, enhanced habitat for broodrearing and molting, and allow the Grays Lake 

NWR to fulfill its mission.

Lake Abert conservation. Lake Abert, Oregon, 

is currently designated as a Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Area of Critical Environmental 
34 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Concern. However, this designation does not 

necessarily offer long-term protection of the site, 

which has been threatened in the past by water 

development proposals. Commercial harvest of 

brine shrimp is another concern. We recommend 

inclusion of Abert Lake in the NWR System to 

ensure protection of its high wildlife values. 

Lahontan Valley Wetlands water supplies. 

Stillwater NWR and Management Area and the 

Lahontan Valley Wetlands represent the most vital 

wetland ecosystem in Nevada. It is important that 

support continue for efforts currently underway 

to increase the quantity and quality of water 

entering the Lahontan Valley Wetlands by acquiring 

sufficient water and water rights to sustain, on a 

long-term average, approximately 25,000 acres of 

primary wetland habitat within Lahontan Valley. 

The three primary wetland areas have been 

identified as the Stillwater NWR and Management 

Area, Carson Lake and Pasture, and Fallon tribal 

land wetlands. 

Great Salt Lake foraging habitat loss. Foraging 

habitat losses on flood-irrigated farm lands, 

particularly within the Great Salt Basin in 

Utah, are a threat to some species of waterbirds 

(e.g., ibises). At Great Salt Lake, ibis-colonized 

wetlands are closely associated with feeding sites 

dominated by flood-irrigated pastures. During 

the last 20 years, there has been a steady loss of 

these farmland habitats to urbanization, as well 

as the conversion of flood-irrigated agriculture 

to sprinkler irrigation. Flood irrigation has been 

converted to pressurized water-delivery systems as 

the landscape has changed from farms to houses. 

There are now 1.5 million people living between 

Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch Mountains, and 

the loss of quality foraging habitat has emerged 

as a limiting factor for ibises (Ivey et al. in prep 

b). Losses of flood-irrigated agriculture on private 

lands should be mitigated through development of 

additional seasonal wetland foraging sites on NWRs 

and WAs. Due to the significant human population 

and projected growth, there is a significant threat 

to a stable water supply for wetlands and the Great 

Salt Lake proper. This threat will impact water 

volume, distribution, distribution type and points, 

and quality. 

Walker Lake water supplies and mercury 

contamination. Diminishing water supplies here 

will impact migrant Common Loons. Walker 

Lake, Nevada, a remnant of the ancient Lake 

Lahontan at the terminus of Walker River, is rapidly 

declining in both water volume and water quality. 

Since 1920, the surface elevation of Walker Lake 

has dropped by over 110 feet, and the alkalinity 

of the water is increasing. If the current trend 

continues, fish habitat in the lake will no longer 

exist, resulting in the loss of prey for loons and 

other piscivorous waterbirds. Lake water levels are 

expected to decline for several more decades due 

to its deficit water balance, and will likely reach 

equilibrium (evaporation losses = lake inflow) in 

about 50 to 100 years. At that time, the total water 

volume of the lake will be about one-fourth of the 

current volume and the lake will cease to exist as 

a viable fishery. While significant money has been 

appropriated by Congress to address the problem, 

an effective conservation strategy acceptable to all 

local interests has yet to be devised. Negotiations 

among stakeholders must continue, and discussions 

must address the stickiest political issues if Walker 

Lake’s current wildlife values are to be preserved. 

Time will run out for Walker Lake if it cannot gain 

the status of a regional resource treasure valued by 

the entire community with stake in its future.

Cokeville Meadows NWR acquisition. Cokeville 

Meadows is the most extensive waterbird nesting 

and foraging site in Wyoming (A. Cerovski pers. 

comm.), however, much of the land within the 

approved refuge boundary has not yet been 

acquired. The USFWS is acquiring additional 

private parcels along with water rights as willing 

sellers come forward. Fluctuating water levels and 

water management are also issues to be addressed 

here.

Conboy Lake NWR acquisition. Conboy Lake 

NWR is an important nesting site for Greater 

Sandhill Cranes in Washington, where the species 

is listed as endangered. Only about half of the 

land within the approved refuge boundary in 

the historic Camas Prairie has been acquired by 

USFWS. The private ownership of the south half of 

the lake bed has made refuge water management 

very difficult, as water levels cannot be maintained 

while the neighbors drain water from their land for 

early haying. This situation has resulted in lower 

productivity and wetland degradation there. This 

issue is discussed in the state’s crane recovery plan 

(Littlefield and Ivey 2002) and the USFWS and 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should 

pursue resolution to the water and land ownership 

issues through easements, land use agreements, or 

acquisition as willing sellers emerge.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 35

POPULATION MONITORING ACTIVITIES 

AND NEEDS

The most important information needed to further 

waterbird conservation in the Intermountain 

West is improved estimates of waterbird 

population status, distribution, and trends. These 

estimates will be facilitated by the development 

and implementation of a regional waterbird 

monitoring program. This comprehensive multispecies monitoring program will refine planning 

and evaluate management actions to achieve the 

IWWCP’s overall goal of maintaining healthy 

waterbird populations. Although some monitoring 

has been, and is being, conducted in the region 

(Appendix J), existing information is inadequate to 

estimate population numbers and trends for most 

waterbird species. Because few sites have good 

historic data, many current population estimates 

and trend information are imprecise. A well-planned 

monitoring program will help avoid waterbird crises 

and will reduce the need for future Threatened and 

Endangered (T&E) listings.

For efficiency, waterbird monitoring should be 

integrated with other bird monitoring programs 

(i.e., landbird, shorebird and waterfowl programs) 

and Coordinated Bird Monitoring Plans (CBM, 

see Bart 2003a) for states, BCRs, and the region. 

Because most waterbird colonies are on State 

or Federal lands, region-wide monitoring is a 

feasible goal. Similarly, because several refuges 

and State agencies already conduct local surveys, 

region-wide monitoring need not be an economic 

burden to any single agency and will be conducted 

through a partnership of State, Federal, Tribes, and 

NGOs. State wildlife agencies and tribes will soon 

have additional funding resources to implement 

monitoring programs from USFWS’s State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (http://federalaid.

fws.gov/swg/swg.html). Some western states have 

prepared coordinated aquatic bird monitoring 

plans or are near their completion (e.g., Idaho Bird 

Inventory and Survey [IBIS]). These plans will 

be advantageous to region-wide monitoring. They 

follow similar protocols and design that complement 

the process recommended here.

Goal and Objectives

One goal of this plan is to facilitate a coordinated, 

meaningful approach to waterbird monitoring in 

the Intermountain West by developing reliable, 

comparable estimates of populations and trends 

of priority waterbird species. The IWWCP will 

also provide recommendations for assessing the 

effect of habitat and management projects on 

local waterbird populations. A formal monitoring 

plan will be developed for the entire region. This 

plan will be linked with national and international 

monitoring schemes to facilitate evaluation of 

continental trends. A regional monitoring plan will 

complement existing local monitoring programs 

while providing the added value of a regional 

context of waterbird population estimates and 

trends. Existing long-term monitoring efforts (e.g., 

state, NWR, WA programs) should continue at key 

waterbird concentration sites, where annual surveys 

allow interpretation of local long-term trends. 

Because of our lack of precise trend and population 

numbers, we should strive to derive improved 

population and trend estimates for all priority 

waterbird species. Ideally, they should be monitored 

annually until we have a better understanding of 

their status. However, comprehensive regionally 

coordinated annual surveys may not be practical. 

As a second-best option, we may invoke efforts 

to survey a particular species or nesting guild in 

a given year. For example, while some NWRs or 

states may count local colonies of White-faced Ibises 

annually, a coordinated survey of all ibis colonies 

in the Intermountain West might be conducted 

every third year. The following objectives should be 

accomplished over the next five years:

1. Develop a regional waterbird monitoring plan.

2. Develop regional standardized protocols for 

monitoring priority species.

3. Implement regional waterbird monitoring.
36 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

4. Develop atlases of current and historical 

waterbird breeding colony locations and 

important waterbird congregation sites within 

each state and BCR in the Intermountain West. 

Periodic, rather than annual, surveys focused on 

a particular species or nesting guild will be more 

practical to implement and yield reliable data on 

population size and trends over time.

• Write site descriptions for these sites (Bart 

2003a). 

• Conduct an inventory to determine the 

distribution and species composition of 

colonies within each area of interest.

5. Derive population estimates and trends for 

priority species.

6. Update waterbird distributional information as 

new information is developed.

Justification. The status and trends of waterbird 

populations must be understood at various 

geographic scales in order to make informed 

management decisions. Collection of site-specific 

data using different methodologies confounds 

interpretation of population trends at larger 

geographic scales; therefore, it is important to 

standardize waterbird survey methodologies and 

coordinate survey efforts regionally in order to 

identify problems with species and evaluate their 

responses to management actions.

Elements of a Monitoring Plan

Several sources provide useful guidance for 

designing a monitoring program. A draft 

Waterbird Monitoring Manual, focused on colony 

monitoring, is available (Steinkamp et al. 2003a), 

and this information is supplemented by a paper 

on waterbird sampling designs (Steinkamp et al. 

2003b). A standardized monitoring protocol aimed 

at secretive marsh bird species is also available 

(Conway 2004). A plan for regional monitoring 

has been proposed by Jon Bart, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center (Bart 2003a, 2003b). Such a plan should 

define standard monitoring protocols to ensure 

that data collected are meaningful and comparable, 

coordinated regionally, and have enough statistical 

power to determine waterbird trends. The North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan sets as a 

target the ability to detect a 50 percent change in 

population over 10 years or three generations. To 

derive population estimates and trends for some 

species, surveys should be stratified to sample 

numerous wetlands of all sizes and types found 

in the region. To document regional changes in 

distribution, surveys should be geographically 

extensive and should be referenced to allow 

development of habitat models. Survey data should 

be linked to local indices of water conditions to 

further our understanding of waterbird dynamics in 

relation to wetland conditions at local and regional 

scales. The monitoring program should also address 

other considerations such as costs, frequency, 

timing, and techniques, including measures of 

detectability. Monitoring efforts should focus on 

priority waterbird species, however, for some 

surveys, it would be prudent to count all associated 

species (e.g., colony censuses). Different species 

require different survey methodology; for some 

species, complete censuses are appropriate (e.g., 

breeding colonies), while for others (e.g., secretive 

marshbirds), a sampling strategy may be more 

useful for estimating populations and trends. The 

BBS survey may adequately serve for monitoring 

trends of some species, and might be used to derive 

population estimates. Monitoring priorities should 

be based on species priorities (and/or guilds) in this 

plan, and should be designed to test management 

prescriptions and fill important information gaps. 

Monitoring Committee

A monitoring committee to develop and coordinate 

regional waterbird monitoring was commissioned 

by the Regional Working Group in 2002. The 

committee will integrate waterbird monitoring with 

CBM efforts in states, BCRs, and the region. Also, 

the committee should participate in a continental 

alliance (a waterbird monitoring partnership to use 

comparable techniques and share data; e.g., keep 

in communication with the monitoring coordinator 

at Patuxent). The committee will use the Western 

Working Group meetings as an opportunity to share 

recommendations with the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Working Group.

Management of Monitoring Data

The National Bird Population Data Center at U.S. 

Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center, has developed a data repository to archive 

data on waterbirds throughout their ranges, 

regardless of survey locality or survey method. 

This centralized database is publicly accessible via 

the World Wide Web (Patuxent Wildlife Research 

Center 2004), and all monitoring data should be 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 37

sent to this repository. This will help facilitate 

information exchange and species status reviews in 

the future.

Monitoring Priorities and General 

Approaches

Priority species will be the primary focus of regionwide waterbird monitoring (Table 8). However, other 

bird species should be counted in conjunction with 

surveys for these priority species, when practical. 

Because of the varied life histories of waterbirds, a 

mix of monitoring strategies for different species 

and guilds is necessary to accomplish objectives. 

Table 9 summarizes recommended methods and 

frequencies of surveys for priority waterbird 

species. Detailed standardized protocols need to be 

developed for each regionally coordinated survey. 

Table 10 summarizes proposed annual regional 

accomplishments over the next 5 years. While 

recommendations for frequencies of surveys are 

provided in Table 10, it would be ideal to conduct 

annual regionally-coordinated surveys for all 

priority species, and this annual surveying option 

should be evaluated during the development of the 

regional waterbird monitoring plan.

Table 8. Focal species list for waterbird monitoring efforts in the Intermountain West. 

Priority Species:

Greater Sandhill Crane (breeding, migrants)

Lesser Sandhill Crane (migrants)

Yellow Rail (breeding)

Virginia Rail (breeding)

Sora (breeding)

California Gull (breeding)

Franklin’s Gull (breeding, migrant in UT)

Forster’s Tern (breeding)

Black Tern (breeding)

Pied-billed Grebe (breeding)

Eared Grebe (migrants) 

Western Grebe (breeding)

Clark’s Grebe (breeding)

Snowy Egret (breeding)

Great Blue Heron (breeding)

Green Heron (breeding—BCR 16)

Black-crowned Night-Heron (breeding)

Least Bittern (breeding)

American Bittern (breeding)

White-faced Ibis (breeding)

American White Pelican (breeding, migrants in UT)

Common Loon (breeding, migrants in NV)
38 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table 9. Potential strategies for monitoring individual species or guilds of waterbirds in the 

Intermountain West.

Monitoring Strategies Species Minimum 

frequency

Count and map breeding territories (all 

populations)

Sandhill Crane

Common Loon

Every 10 years

Annually

Complete census at important staging sites 

for priority migrant species

Sandhill Crane

Franklin’s Gull (Great Salt Lake)

Eared Grebe (Great Salt Lake, Mono, Abert Lake)

American White Pelican (Great Salt Lake)

Common Loon (Walker Lake)

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Develop a sampling strategy to estimate 

breeding population trends

Sandhill Crane

Black and Forster’s Tern

Green Heron

Annually

Every 5th year

Every 5th year 

N.A. Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol for 

secretive marsh birds—develop a regional 

sampling strategy, stratified by state and 

BCR

Yellow Rail, Virginia Rail, Sora, Pied-billed Grebe, 

Least Bittern, American Bittern

Annually at 

official survey 

stations

Comprehensive survey of all island-nesting 

colonial waterbirds

American White Pelican, California Gull, Forster’s 

Tern, Great Blue Heron

Every 3rd year

Comprehensive survey of all marsh-nesting 

colonial waterbirds

Franklin’s Gull, Forster’s Tern, Black Tern, Snowy 

Egret, Great Blue Heron, Black-crowned NightHeron, White-faced Ibis

Every 3rd year

Tree-nesting colonial waterbirds Great Blue Heron Every 3rd year

Lake-nesting colonial waterbird Clark’s Grebe

Western Grebe

Every 3rd year
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 39

Table 10. Proposed schedule of accomplishments for regional waterbird monitoring in the Intermountain 

West, through 2010.

Year Activities

2005 • Develop a draft regional monitoring plan.

• Develop an atlas of all known and historical colony locations in each state, by BCR. 

• Develop site descriptions for important waterbird congregation sites in each state, by BCR.

• Design a protocol for conducting secretive marsh bird species surveys during the breeding 

season on an annual basis for each state, by BCR. Select an adequate sample size of survey sites 

and define the protocols for each site.

• Conduct surveys of priority staging species (annually).

• Enter all available waterbird data into state and national databases.

2006 • Finalize Intermountain West waterbird monitoring plan.

• Finalize an atlas with site descriptions of all known colony locations and important waterbird 

congregation sites in each state, by BCR.

• Conduct region-wide coordinated survey of all American White Pelican colonies and other island 

nesting guild species; repeat this survey every third year (i.e., 2009, 2012, etc.).

• Conduct pilot secretive marsh bird surveys to test methodologies and identify problems with 

survey routes.

• Conduct annual surveys of priority staging species.

• Enter all available colony data into the Waterbird Database.

2007 • Conduct region-wide coordinated survey of marsh-nesting colonial waterbird guild, Black Tern, 

Forster’s Tern; repeat this survey every third year (i.e., 2010, 2013, etc.).

• Implement annual secretive marsh bird surveys at selected sites.

• Conduct annual surveys of priority staging species.

• Enter all available colony data into the Waterbird Database.

2008 • Conduct region-wide coordinated survey of tree-nesting colonial waterbird guild; repeat this 

survey every third year (i.e., 2011, 2014, etc.).

• Conduct region-wide coordinated survey of lake-nesting colonial waterbird guild (grebes); 

repeat this survey every third year (i.e., 2011, 2014, etc.).

• Conduct annual secretive marsh bird surveys at selected sites.

• Conduct surveys of priority staging species (annually).

• Enter all available colony data into the Waterbird Database.

2009 • Conduct region-wide coordinated survey of all American White Pelican colonies and other 

island-nesting guild species; repeat this survey every third year (i.e., 2012, etc.).

• Conduct surveys of priority staging species (annually).

• Enter all available colony data into the Waterbird Database.

2010 • Conduct region-wide coordinated survey of marsh-nesting colonial waterbird guild, Black Tern, 

Forster’s Tern; repeat this survey every third year (i.e., 2013, 2016, etc.).

• Implement annual secretive marsh bird surveys at selected sites.

• Conduct annual surveys of priority staging species.

• Enter all available colony data into the Waterbird Database.
40 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDS

This plan provides an opportunity to encourage 

research on waterbirds and related conservation 

issues that will influence future research funding. 

Our goals for research include increasing funding 

opportunities for research, addressing important 

waterbird issues, facilitating regionally coordinated 

research, and increasing funding opportunities for 

research. Members of the Research Committee, 

as well as research needs and recent and current 

research programs, are summarized in Appendix K.

Setting Research Priorities

Applied research that results in the beneficial 

management of waterbird populations and their 

habitats through the determination of causes 

of population declines, and the engagement of 

important waterbird issues, should be encouraged. 

Considerations for assigning research priorities 

include:

1. Determines causes of population decline.

2. Addresses priority species.

3. Refines links between population and habitat 

objectives.

4. Fills an important information gap relating to 

waterbird issues.

5. Considers multiple waterbird species.

6. Results applicable at regional and continental 

scales.

Funding Needs

Currently, there are few direct funding 

opportunities for waterbird research. The USFWS’ 

Webless Migratory Game Bird Research Grants 

Program provides some research funding for 

cranes, coots, moorhens, and gallinules (hunted 

waterbird species). Partners should support full 

funding for this program. Additional funding 

dedicated to waterbird research is needed at the 

Federal and State level and waterbird partners 

should seek such funding. Research projects would 

best be funded by multiple partnerships between 

agencies and the private sector, possibly through 

the IWJV.

Education and Outreach Needs

There is a need to increase public understanding of 

the Intermountain West’s importance to waterbird 

populations. Much wetland habitat has been lost 

historically, as some of the most important habitats 

for waterbirds were perceived as wastelands to 

be “reclaimed” for human use. With the current 

over-allocation of water resources in the west, 

political decisions about water use rarely take 

waterbird needs into account. Agencies often 

identify waterbird conservation as a secondary 

target in management schemes and, frequently, 

land managers are not trained in waterbird habitat 

management practices. There is also need for 

environmental education materials about waterbird 

ecology, management, and the value of these birds 

to our quality of life. Without the availability of this 

information, funding for waterbird management 

and research often remains low on the priority 

list of organizations responsible for wildlife 

conservation. An informed and engaged public can 

assist with monitoring of colonies, work to improve 

management of colonies and wetland habitats, 

and seek adoption of appropriate legislation to 

protect waterbirds and their habitats. Appendix 

L summarizes outreach recommendations for 

waterbirds in the region from various sources.

Outreach Committee

An outreach committee should be established 

to coordinate and facilitate important aspects of 

outreach related to the IWWCP. This would best 

be accomplished through a partnership approach 

with multiple agency and private sector partners. 

The committee should recruit a volunteer who is 

a professional information management specialist 

to lead this group. Efforts should be coordinated 

among the many agencies, organizations, and 

groups involved with communication of wetland 

issues to maximize communication efficiency 

and encourage frequent communication through 

relevant media. Media releases involving other 

partners should be reviewed by them in advance. 

Articles should be shared with the committee in a 

timely fashion.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 41

An Outreach Strategy

An outreach strategy should be developed to 

help further the goals of the IWWCP. A well 

planned outreach strategy will greatly further the 

waterbird conservation goals and objectives in this 

plan. Outreach is needed on many levels—from 

informing land managers and agencies about 

waterbird management techniques and educating 

anglers and boaters about disturbance issues, to 

teaching children about their wildlife heritage. 

Waterbird education and public awareness should 

be incorporated into the many existing outreach 

programs, with emphasis on local programs to 

provide personal experiences with waterbirds. Steps 

for developing an outreach program and many ideas 

for outreach programs are identified in the NAWCP, 

including internet sites, training workshops, school 

programs, interpretive programs and signs, public 

monitoring programs, and waterbird merchandise 

(Kushlan et al. 2002). There are several important 

steps to develop an outreach strategy. Following 

is a summary of a draft outreach approach for 

consideration by the Outreach Committee:

Identify audiences. This task involves assessing 

groups of people who can make a difference for 

waterbird conservation. Following is a list of current 

and potential partners to engage in implementation 

of the IWWCP through habitat delivery and 

management:

International Partners:

• Tribes

• British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Recreation 

and Allocation Branch

• Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Fish 

and Wildlife Division

• Canadian Wildlife Service

• Waterbird Conservation Council of the Americas

Governmental agencies:

• State fish and wildlife agencies

• State land management agencies

• U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U. S. Forest Service

• Bureau of Land Management

• Natural Resource Conservation Service

• Bureau of Indian Affairs

• Agricultural Experiment Stations

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• Department of Defense 

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Municipalities

• Universities

Non-governmental conservation organizations:

• Intermountain West Joint Venture

• Partners In Flight

• Intermountain West Shorebird Group

• Audubon Society 

• Bird observatories

• Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

• The Nature Conservancy

• Trust for Public Lands

• Land trusts 

• Waterfowl conservation organizations (e.g., 

California Waterfowl Association)

• Wetland conservation organizations 

• Water resources agencies

Private interests:

• Private landowners, especially farmers and 

ranchers 

• Outdoor recreation groups: hunting, fishing, offroad vehicle groups, birdwatchers

• Power industries, utilities

• Water related industries, irrigation districts, 

irrigators

• Aquaculture industry

• Birding/ecotourism industry

The following groups should be informed about 

waterbird issues and to seek funding and legislation 

to support waterbird conservation:

Political affiliates:

• State and national legislators

• County governments 

• Fish and Game Commissions 

• Policy makers - State and Federal levels 

• Universities and community colleges

• Public and private elementary and secondary 

schools 

• Non-government conservation organizations

• General public

Identify key outreach messages and strategies. The 

following important messages and strategies have 

been identified for outreach to IWWCP partners 

and appropriate audiences:

General public, partners and legislators

• Importance of water for wildlife; especially 

aquatic birds in the west, including seasonal 

availability, quality, and amount.

• Benefits of wetlands to ecosystem functions, 

the importance of wetland complexes, and the 

dynamic and ephemeral nature of wetlands. 

• The importance of upland management to 

wetland ecosystems and waterbird populations.
42 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

• Importance of the Intermountain West to 

continental waterbird populations.

• Waterbird conservation issues and funding needs 

and, where possible, integrate IWWCP and IBA 

goals into State laws and ordinances for zoning 

and planning. 

– Develop field trips to educate legislators.

• Educate the public and legislators about the 

effects of mosquito control on waterbirds and 

about bird-borne diseases (e.g., West Nile virus). 

Resource users

• Facts behind fisheries issues. 

– Educate public to the importance of roughfish fisheries to pelicans and other piscivorous 

birds.

• The impacts of disturbance on Common 

Loons (e.g., Loon Ranger Program) and other 

waterbirds. Develop guidelines for public lands 

to minimize human disturbance to colonial 

waterbirds on public lands (see Erwin 1989).

– The successful Loon Ranger programs in 

Idaho and Montana could be expanded to 

other species. This is a great outreach tool 

requiring small funding levels to hire seasonal 

people to administer the program. 

• The negative effects of lead fishing sinkers and 

lead shot on waterbirds. 

– Availability of lead-free alternatives. 

• Inform educational organizations associated 

with waterbird areas. Work to incorporate the 

Shorebird Sister Schools Program, Project 

WILD, Flying WILD, or other programs of 

importance to waterbirds into the curriculum or 

activities of these organizations. 

• Develop Watchable Wildlife Programs with some 

focus on outreach about waterbirds (Washington 

is proposing to develop a program on a heron 

rookery if it can be accomplished without causing 

disturbance). 

• Involve schools in local wetland/habitat projects.

• Utilize NWRs, State WAs, birding trails, and 

Important Bird Areas as opportunities for 

outreach. 

Federal, State, Tribal and private land managers:

• Integrate IWWCP goals and objectives into 

agency land management plans.

• Educate the public, policy makers, and ranchers 

about the wildlife values and best management 

practices for flood-irrigated haylands. 

– Provide information on how to grow good hay 

and provide quality waterbird habitat. 

– Engage agricultural extension offices to help 

get the messages across. 

– Use NWRs that manage haylands as 

demonstration sites for good examples. 

• Availability of key resources, such as the 

USFWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service programs.

• Management needs for waterbirds on private 

lands.

Private volunteers:

• Recruitment through outreach programs: local 

naturalists, bird enthusiasts and conservation 

groups who can assist in monitoring of 

waterbirds (e.g., Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory’s Project Colony Watch).

• Develop user-friendly citizen scientist protocols, 

including surveys, IBA designation forms, 

wetland enhancement and habitat preservation 

how-to materials, and ecotourism development 

plans.

• Involve volunteers in noxious weed control 

programs.

• Utilize sportsmen, scout groups, and wildlife 

enthusiasts to help clean up wildlife areas and 

develop habitat enhancement projects.

Identify outreach products. Outreach media (fliers, 

videos, brochures, signs, websites, etc.) should be 

tailored in formats for specific users (e.g., provide 

waterbird objectives on website for North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act [NAWCA] proposals), 

and written in layman’s terms. Determine what 

sorts of outreach materials are important. Following 

is our preliminary list of potential products:

• Develop Best Management Practices for 

waterbird management for land managers.

• Develop a manual for wetland managers specific 

to the management of colonial waterbird habitats 

in the Great Basin. The document should 

describe management of ephemeral wetlands, 

playa lakes, salt marshes, flood-irrigated 

agricultural lands, water distribution needs, and 

food and foraging habitats for waterbirds.

• Develop landowner incentive programs that 

encourage wildlife-friendly management 

programs in coordination with extension 

programs for farmers and ranchers.

• Develop an Intermountain West Bird 

Conservation page on the IWJV website.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 43

• Develop classroom materials for children.

• Develop user-friendly packages with map layers 

to address conservation needs for public use (e.g., 

acquisition planning by land trusts).

• Work with the media to develop a TV 

documentary on Intermountain West waterbirds.

• Develop articles and submit to outdoor 

magazines.

• Develop fliers on specific topics for distribution at 

agency public use areas and other locations.

• Develop wetland/waterbird information kits.

• Host workshops to promote and advance 

waterbird monitoring.
44 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Implementation and Communication

Implementation of the IWWCP will require 

the cooperation of partners from private and 

governmental sectors and strong public support. 

Communication among the various public and 

private partners who will implement the IWWCP 

will be critical to successful plan implementation. 

Implementation Process and 

Adaptive Planning

Implementation of the IWWCP provides the 

opportunity for many groups and individuals to 

partner and develop an integrated landscape 

approach to waterbird conservation. While the 

IWWCP will serve as a guiding document for 

regional waterbird conservation, implementation 

will require communication among partners 

to coordinate and facilitate projects, track 

accomplishments, measure and celebrate successes, 

and facilitate future updates of the plan. The IWJV 

is committed to integrated bird conservation and 

will assist in the implementation of this plan. Under 

the leadership of an IWWCP Coordinator, the 

committees that have been mentioned throughout 

this document will promote the implementation of 

the IWWCP. It is proposed that the Coordinator 

serve a term of time to be determined and that the 

coordinator position be shared through time by 

Federal, State, and conservation organizations on a 

rotating basis.

The purpose of this plan was to synthesize 

available information, identify information 

needs, and prioritize conservation issues with 

the goal of guiding waterbird conservation in 

the Intermountain West. Actual implementation 

of the plan is an additional step that will need 

to be undertaken by partners within the region. 

An excellent conservation base and partnership 

network exists in the IWJV, which is committed to 

the conservation of waterbirds as well as the species 

covered by other bird initiatives. For funding, 

programs such as NAWCA grants, as well as some 

Federal and state-level habitat grant programs, 

are available to support conservation efforts. The 

IWWCP was developed with limited information, 

and objectives and expectations will change as new 

information becomes available. It is imperative that 

the IWWCP be flexible and updated periodically, 

using an adaptive management approach. 

Communications Among Partners

To maintain a viable plan and facilitate 

communication, IWWCP implementers need to 

take advantage of opportunities to meet and discuss 

current waterbird issues. Partners In Flight’s 

Western Working Group’s biannual meetings 

will provide a primary opportunity for such 

communication. IWWCP implementers will also 

take advantage of other meeting opportunities to 

discuss IWWCP implementation, such as Flyway 

meetings, professional meetings, and agency 

meetings. BCR coordinators and the IWJV will help 

communicate and facilitate the IWWCP goals and 

objectives to further implementation of the plan. 

BCR coordinators will work to integrate waterbird 

objectives and priorities into agency plans and State 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies. 

Flyway Council involvement is also anticipated. 

Committees will work to further monitoring, 

research, outreach, and other elements of the plan, 

as needs arise. The IWWCP, our accomplishments, 

and current events will be posted on NAWCP’s 

and IWJV’s web pages and periodically reported in 

newsletters of the various partners.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 45

Conclusion

The ultimate measure of success of the IWWCP will 

be how well it meets the stated goal of “maintenance 

of healthy populations, distributions, and habitats 

of waterbirds throughout the Intermountain West 

region.” A number of actions will be required to 

successfully achieve this goal and further waterbird 

conservation in the Intermountain West, including:

• Acquire sufficient information about the 

population dynamics, population trends, 

breeding, migration and staging strategies, 

and habitat preferences of waterbirds in the 

region to make knowledgeable management 

recommendations.

• Preserve and enhance sufficient high-quality 

habitat to support healthy populations in the 

region, and securing the water needed to support 

these habitat values.

• Ensure that coordinated conservation efforts 

(regional, national, and international) are in place 

to address the key conservation priorities of 

waterbirds. Collaboration should occur between 

partners within and between states, BCRs, 

and other regions, as well as internationally, to 

achieve conservation objectives. 

• Facilitate communication by informing the public, 

decision-makers, and all those involved in land 

management in the region about the importance 

of the region to waterbirds, and about the biology, 

trends, and management of waterbird species.

Lobby for legislation and funding to further 

aquatic bird conservation.

• Implement regional monitoring, coordinated at 

all levels, and support priority research projects. 

Develop statistically sound, defensible estimates 

of abundance and population trends for key 

waterbird species in the Intermountain West.

• Resolve conservation issues at important sites.

• Update the IWWCP and refine population and 

habitat objectives and conservation strategies.

• Advocate for a complete inventory of existing 

wetland habitats to further this plan. Partners 

should lobby for complete National Wetland 

Inventory coverage in this region.

• Track accomplishments and celebrate successes.
46 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Sources Cited

Adamus, P. R., K. Larsen, G. Gillson, and C. R. 

Miller. 2001. Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas. 

Oregon Field Ornithologists, P.O. Box 10373, 

Eugene, OR 97440. CD-ROM.

AGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department). 1996. 

Wildlife of special concern in Arizona. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department­. Phoenix, AZ.

Alexander, J. D., T. J. Stauff, S. L. Kies and C. J. 

Ralph. 2004. Black Tern Surveys in the Upper 

Klamath Basin, Oregon: 1997-2003. Klamath 

Bird Observatory, Ashland, OR. 

Arizona Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

Northern Arizona. Intermountain West Joint 

Venture, 2369 West Orton Circle, West Valley 

City, UT 84119. http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Audubon Society. 2004. Important Bird Areas 

Program: A Global Currency for Bird 

Conservation. http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba/

Bart, J. 2003a. Development of a Coordinated 

Bird Monitoring Plan for Canada and the 

United States. Unpublished report. U.S. 

NABCI Monitoring Committee. Arlington, 

VA, USA. http://amap.wr.usgs.gov/data/CBMProject%20Description-6Nov03.doc

Bart, J. 2003b. Design of Surveys for Aquatic Birds. 

Unpublished report. U.S. NABCI Monitoring 

Committee. Arlington, VA, USA. http://amap.

wr.usgs.gov/data/CBM-AquaticSiteProtocols24Nov03.doc

Bjorling, D.E. 2004. Migratory bird mortality in 

trona mines wastewater ponds, southwestern 

Wyoming. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Blus, L. J., B. A. Rattner, M. J. Melancon and 

C. J. Henny. 1997. Reproduction of blackcrowned night-herons related to predation and 

contaminants in Oregon and Washington, USA. 

Colonial Waterbirds 20:185-197.

Bookhout, T. A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops 

noveboracensis). No. 139 in The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Boyd, W. S., and J. R. Jehl, Jr. 1998. Estimating the 

Abundance of Eared Grebes on Mono Lake, 

California, by Aerial Photography. Colonial 

Waterbirds 21:236-241.

Bradley, P. V., C. R. Tomlinson, and L. A. Neel 2001. 

Water and Shorebird Investigations. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Reno, NV.

Brown, M. and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications 

of marsh size and isolation of marsh bird 

management. Journal of Wildlife Management 

50:392-397.

Brown, W. M., and R. C. Drewien. 1995. Marking 

powerlines to reduce crane and waterfowl 

collision mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

23:217-227.

Bunnel, F. L., D. Dunbar, L. Koza, and G. Ryder. 

1981. Effects of disturbance on the productivity 

and numbers of White Pelicans in British 

Columbia-Observations and Models. Colonial 

Waterbirds 4:2-11.

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1994. Franklin’s Gull 

(Larus pipixcan). No. 116 in The Birds of 

North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA.

Butler, R. W. 1992. Great Blue Heron (Ardea 

herodias). No. 25 in The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Butler, C. 2003a. Ring-billed Gull. in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, 

M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors) 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Butler, C. 2003b. California Gull. in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, 

M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors) 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and 

Game). In prep. Draft Greater Sandhill Crane 

Recovery Plan. Unpublished Report. Calif. 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 

CA.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 47

California Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

California (BCRs 9, 15 and 33). Intermountain 

West Joint Venture, 2369 West Orton Circle, 

West Valley City, UT 84119. http://iwjv.org/

plans.htm

Capen, D. E. 1977. The impact of pesticides on the 

White-faced Ibis. Ph.D. dissertation. Utah State 

University, Logan, UT.

Casey, D. 2000. Partners In Flight Draft Bird 

Conservation Plan, Montana. American Bird 

Conservancy, Kalispell, MT.

Caudell, J. N. 2001. Biology and management of 

Eared Grebes (Podiceps nigricollis) on the 

Great Salt Lake, Utah. PhD Dissertation, Utah 

State University, Logan.

Central Flyway Waterfowl Technical Committee 

and Central Flyway Webless Migratory Game 

Bird Technical Committee. 2001. Prioritized 

Central Flyway Research and Management 

Needs. Unpubl. rep. Div. Migratory Bird 

Management, Denver, CO.

Central and Pacific Flyway Councils. 1993. 

Management plan for the Mid-continent 

population of Sandhill Cranes. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Denver, CO.

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and 

D. Felley, editors. 2001. Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1.0. Wyoming 

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Lander, WY.

Cerovski, A. O., M. Grenier, B. Oakleaf, L. Van 

Fleet, and S. Patla. 2004. Atlas of Birds, 

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles 

in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department Nongame Program. Lander, WY.

Colorado Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

Western Colorado (BCR 16). Intermountain 

West Joint Venture, 2369 West Orton Circle, 

West Valley City, UT 84119. http://iwjv.org/

plans.htm

Conway, C. J. 1995. Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola). 

No. 173 in The Birds of North America (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Conway, C. J. 2004. Standardized North American 

Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols. Wildlife 

Research Report #2004-07. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, Tucson, AZ.

Cooper, D. S. 2004. Important Bird Areas of 

California. Audubon California, Los Angeles.

Cornely, J. E, S. P. Thompson, C. J. Henny, and C. 

D. Littlefield. 1993. Nests and eggs of colonial 

birds nesting in Malheur Lake, Oregon, with 

notes on DDE. Northwestern Naturalist 74:41-

48.

Cullen, S. A., J. R. Jehl, and G. L. Nuechterlein. 

1999. Eared Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis). 

No. 433 in The Birds of North America (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Cullinan, T. 2001. Important Bird Areas of 

Washington. Audubon Washington, Olympia, 

WA.

Davis, W. E. 1993. Black-crowned Night-Heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax). No. 74 in The Birds of 

North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, Editors). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA.

Davis, W. E., and J. A. Kushlan. 1994. Green Heron 

(Butorides virescens). No. 129 in The Birds of 

North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA.

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and 

disturbance of waterbirds—a literature review 

of impacts and mitigation measures—prepared 

for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. 

Appendix L (114 pp.) in Stillwater National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental 

impact statement for the comprehensive 

conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. 

II). Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Denny, M. 2002. White-faced Ibis try to call Eastern 

Washington home. Washington Ornithological 

Society News 76:1, 6.

Doran, P. J., M. Whalen, K. Riener, and L. 

Fitzner. 2004. American white pelican 

(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) in Management 

Recommendation for Washington’s Priority 

Species, Volume IV: Birds (E. M. Larsen, J. M. 

Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors). [Online]. 

Available http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/vo14/

amwpelic.htm

Drewien, R. C. 1973. Ecology of Rocky Mountain 

greater sandhill cranes. PhD Dissertation, 

University of Idaho, Moscow. 
48 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Drewien, R. C., W. M. Brown, K. R. Clegg, D. C. 

Lockman, W. L. Kendall, V. K. Graham, and S. 

S. Manes. In prep. Band recoveries, mortality 

factors, and survival of Rocky Mountain greater 

sandhill cranes, 1969-1999. Unpublished 

report. USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management. Denver, CO.

Drewien, R. C., W. M. Brown, and W. L. Kendall. 

1995. Recruitment in Rocky Mountain 

greater sandhill cranes and comparison with 

other crane populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 59:339-356.

Dunn, E. H., and D. J. Agro. 1995. Black Tern 

(Chlidonias niger). No. 147 in The Birds of 

North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA.

Eastern Oregon Working Group. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

eastern Oregon. Intermountain West Joint 

Venture, 2369 West Orton Circle, West Valley 

City, UT 84119. http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Elbert, R. A., and D. W. Anderson. 1998. Mercury 

levels, production, and hematology in western 

grebes from three California lakes, USA. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

17:210-219.

Engler, J. D., and J. E. Brady. 2000. Final report 

2000 greater sandhill crane nesting season at 

Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Unpubl. 

report, USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ridgefield NWR, Ridgefield, WA.

Erwin, R. M. 1989. Responses to Human Intruders 

by Birds Nesting in Colonies: Experimental 

Results and Management Guidelines. Colonial 

Waterbirds 4:91-95.

Evanich, J. E. 1990. Birder’s Guide to Oregon. 

Audubon Society of Portland. 

Evans, R. M., and Knopf, F. L. 1993. American 

White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). No. 

57 in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, 

Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Fertig, W., and G. Beauvais. 1999. Wyoming Plant 

and Animal Species of Special Concern. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, 

Wyoming. Unpublished report.

Findholt, 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.

Fitzner, R. E., L. J. Blus, C. J. Henny, and D. W. 

Carlile. 1988. Organochlorine Residues in Great 

Blue Herons from the Northwestern United 

States. Colonial Waterbirds 11:293-300.

Gabrielson, I. N., and S. G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of 

Oregon. Oregon State College, Corvallis, OR.

Gebauer, M. 2003. Canadian Wildlife Service 

Environment Canada Pacific and Yukon 

Region Migratory Bird Conservation Plans: 

Compendium Report. Gebauer & Associates 

Ltd., 13135 13th Avenue, Surrey, BC V4A 1C1.

Gibbs, J. P., S. Melvin, and F. A. Reid. 1992a. 

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus). No. 

18 in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and 

F. Gill, editors.). The Birds of North America, 

Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Gibbs, J. P., F. A. Reid, and S. M. Melvin. 1992b. 

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis). No. 116 in

The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Gilligan, J., M. Smith, D. Rogers, and A. Contreras. 

1994. Birds of Oregon: Status and Distribution. 

Cinclus Pubs., McMinnville, OR.

Gould, G. I., Jr. 1974. Breeding success of 

piscivorous birds at Eagle Lake, California. 

Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, 

California.

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution 

of the Birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna 

No. 27.

Haig, S. M., D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring. 

1998. Avian Movements and Wetland 

Connectivity in Landscape Conservation. 

Conservation Biology 12:749-758.

Henny, C. J. 1997. DDE still high in White-faced 

Ibis eggs from Carson Lake, Nevada. Colonial 

Waterbirds 20: 478-484.

Henny, C. J., and J. K. Bennett. 1990. Comparison 

of breaking strength and shell thickness as 

evaluators of white-faced ibis eggshell quality. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9: 

797-805.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 49

Henny, C. J., L. J. Blus, A. J. Krynitsy, and C. M. 

Bunk. 1984. Current impact of DDE on Blackcrowned Night-Herons in the Intermountain 

West. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1-13.

Henny, C. J., L. J. Blus, and C. S. Hulse. 1985. 

Trends and Effects of Organochlorine Residues 

on Oregon and Nevada Wading Birds, 1979-83. 

Colonial Waterbirds 8:117-128.

Henny, C. J., and G. B. Herron. 1989. DDE, 

selenium, mercury, and White-faced Ibis 

reproduction at Carson Lake, Nevada. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 53:1032-1045.

Henny, C. J., E. F. Hill, D. J. Hoffman, M. G. 

Spalding and R. A. Grove. 2002. Nineteenth 

Century Mercury: Hazard to Wading Birds 

and Cormorants of the Carson River, Nevada. 

Ecotoxicology 11:213-231.

Herron, G. B., and P. A. Lucas. 1978. Population 

surveys, species distribution, and key 

habitats of selected nongame species. P-R 

Report, Federal Aid Project W-53-R, Nevada 

Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV.

Herziger, C. P., and G. L. Ivey. 2003a. American 

Bittern in Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference (D. B. Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. 

C. Contreras, editors). Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis, OR.

Herziger, C. P., and G. L. Ivey. 2003b. American 

White Pelican in Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference (D. B. Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. 

C. Contreras, editors). Oregon State University 

Press, Corvallis, OR.

Herziger, C. P., and G. L. Ivey. 2003c. Franklin’s Gull 

in Birds of Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. 

Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, 

editors). Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, OR. 

Herziger, C. P., and G. L. Ivey. 2003d. Snowy Egret 

in Birds of Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. 

Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, 

editors). Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, OR.

Hoffman, D. J., C. J. Hienz, and C. J. Henny. In 

prep. Physiological and tetratogenic effects 

of mercury on aquatic birds nesting along the 

mid-to lower Carson River and vicinity, Nevada. 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, 

ND.

Hodder, J. 2003. Glaucous-winged Gull. in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, 

M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors). 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Idaho PIF (Partners In Flight). 2000. Idaho Bird 

Conservation Plan (Sharon Ritter, editor). 

Idaho Partners In Flight, Boise, ID.

Idaho Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

Idaho. Intermountain West Joint Venture, 2369 

West Orton Circle, West Valley City, UT 84119. 

http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Ivey, G. L. 2004. Conservation Assessment and 

Management Plan for Breeding Western and 

Clark’s Grebes in California. American Trader 

Trustee Council, c/o California Department 

of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention 

and Response, P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, 

CA 95814. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/Ospr/

organizational/scientific/nrda/final grebe report.

pdf

Ivey, G. L., J. E. Cornely, and B. D. Ehlers. 

1998. Carp impacts on waterfowl at Malheur 

National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Transactions 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resource 

Conference 63:66-74.

Ivey, G. L., J. E. Cornely, D. G. Paullin, and S. P. 

Thompson. In prep a. An evaluation of factors 

influencing colonial nesting waterbirds in the 

Harney Basin, Oregon, 1980-1998.

Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2000. Distribution 

of greater sandhill crane pairs in Oregon, 

1999/00. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Nongame Technical Report #03-01-00. 

Portland, OR.

Ivey, G. L., and C. P. Herziger. 2001. Distribution of 

greater sandhill crane pairs in California, 2000. 

California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, 

CA. 

Ivey, G. L., M. A. Stern, and C. G. Carey. 1988. 

An increasing White-faced Ibis population in 

Oregon. Western Birds 19: 105–108.

Ivey, G. L., T. Zimmerman, S. L. Earnst, E. P. 

Kelchlin, L. Neel, and D. S. Paul. In prep 

b. Status assessment and conservation 

recommendations for the White-faced Ibis 

Great Basin population. U.S. Department 

of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Biological Technical Publication.
50 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Jehl, J. R., Jr. 2001. The abundance of the Eared 

Grebe (Black-necked) Grebe as a recent 

phenomenon. Colonial Waterbirds 24:245-249.

Keith, J. O. 2005. An overview of the American 

White Pelican. in Biology and Conservation of 

American White Pelicans. D. W. Anderson, D. 

T. King, and J. C. Coulson, editors). Waterbirds 

28(Special Publ. 1):9-17.

Kelchlin, E. P. 2000. The breeding ecology of 

White-faced Ibis in the Lower Carson River 

Basin, Nevada, from 1995–1997. M.S. Thesis, 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

King, D. T., and D. W. Anderson. 2005. Recent 

population status of the American White 

Pelican: A continental perspective. in Biology 

and Conservation of American White Pelicans. 

D. W. Anderson, D. T. King, and J. C. Coulson, 

editors). Waterbirds 28(Special Publ. 1):48-54.

Kushlan, J. A., M. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, 

M. A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, 

N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, 

S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, 

R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Syderman, J. Trapp, 

J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas: The North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the 

Americas, Washington, DC, USA., 78 pp.

Launhan, M. K., and J. H. Gammonley. 2002. Spring 

stopover food resources and land use patterns 

of Rocky Mountain Population Sandhill Cranes 

in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. Final Report 

Quick Response Project 82027.1104. 8 pp.

Latta, M. J., C. J. Beardmore, and T. E. Corman. 

1999. Arizona Partners In Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan. Technical Report 142, 

Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, 

AZ.

Leukering, T., D. Faulkner, R. Levad, and A. 

Panjabi. 2000. Monitoring Colorado’s Birds: The 

Year 2000 Final Report. Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory, Brighton, CO.

Littlefield, C. D. 1968. Breeding Biology of the 

Greater Sandhill Crane on Malheur National 

Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Colorado 

State Univ., Ft. Collins. 78 pp. 

Littlefield, C. D. 1989. Status of greater sandhill 

crane breeding populations in California, 1988. 

California Department of Fish and Game, 

Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird 

and Mammal Section, Sacramento, CA.

Littlefield, C. D., and G. L. Ivey. 2002. Washington 

State Recovery Plan for the Sandhill Crane. 

Olympia, WA.

Littlefield, C.D., and S. M. Lindstedt. 1992. Survival 

of juvenile greater sandhill cranes at Malheur 

National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Pages 21-31 

in Proceedings 1988 North American crane 

workshop, (D.A. Wood, editor). Florida Game 

and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame 

Wildlife Program Technical Report #12.

Littlefield, C. D., M. A. Stern, and R.W. Schlorff. 

1994. Summer distribution, status, and trends 

of greater sandhill crane populations in Oregon 

and California. Northwestern Naturalist 75:1-

10.

Lundsten, S., and K. J. Popper. 2001. Breeding 

ecology of yellow rails at Fourmile Creek, 

Wood River Wetland, Mares Egg Spring, and 

additional areas in southern Oregon, 2001. 

Unpublished Report to Lakeview District 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls, and Chiloquin 

Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service.

Matthews, S.E., D.P. Craig, K. Collis, and D.D. 

Roby. 2003. Double-crested Cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus). Pp. 56-58 in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference. (D.B. Marshall, 

M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, editors.) 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Mauser, D. 2001. Severe Water Shortages Expected 

for Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge—

“Making the best of a bad situation.” words 

from the Wetlands Newsletter. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin NWR, CA.

McIntyre, J. W., and J. F. Barr. 1997. Common Loon 

(Gavia immer). No. 313 in The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

McIvor, D. E. 2005. Important Bird Areas of 

Nevada. Lahontan Audubon Society, Reno, 

Nevada.

McIvor, D. E., and M. R. Conover. 1994a. Impact 

of sandhill cranes foraging on corn and barley 

crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment 

49:233-237. 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 51

McIvor, D. E., and M. R. Conover. 1994b. 

Perceptions of farmers and non-farmers 

towards problem wildlife management. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 22:212-219.

McNicholl, M. K., P. E. Lowther, and J. A. Hall. 

2001. Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri). No. 595 

in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, editors.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Melvin, S. M., and J. P. Gibbs. 1996. Sora (Porzana 

carolina). No. 250 in The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Montana PIF (Partners In Flight). 2000. Partners 

In Flight Draft Bird Conservation Plan: 

Montana (Daniel Casey, editor). Montana 

Partners In Flight, Missoula, MT. 

Montana Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

western Montana. Intermountain West Joint 

Venture, 2369 West Orton Circle, West Valley 

City, UT 84119. http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Morkill, A. E., and S. H. Anderson. 1991. 

Effectiveness of marking powerlines to reduce 

sandhill crane collisions. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 19:442-449.

Murphy, E. C., and T. C. Tracy. 2005. Centurylong impact of increasing human water use on 

numbers and productivity of American White 

Pelicans at Pyramid Lake, Nevada. in Biology 

and Conservation of American White Pelicans. 

(D. W. Anderson, D. T. King, and J. C. Coulson, 

editors). Waterbirds 28(Special Publ. 1):61-72.

National Geographic Society. 1999. Field Guide to 

the Birds of North America. Third Edition. 

National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

Neel, L. 1994. Waterbird and shorebird 

investigations. Pages 14-17 in Population 

surveys, species distribution, and key habitats 

of selected nongame species. (G. B. Herron, 

editor.) P-R Report, Federal Aid Project W-53-

R-20, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, 

NV.

Neel, L. A., and W. G. Henry. 1997. Shorebirds 

in the Lahontan Valley, Nevada, USA: a case 

history of western Great Basin shorebirds. 

International Wader Studies 9:15-19.

Neil, J. 2002. 2002 Gunnison Island American White 

Pelican Report. Unpublished Report. Utah 

Division of Wildlife. Salt Lake City, UT.

Nevada Division of Wildlife. 1999. Birds of 

Northwestern Nevada Checklist. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife, Reno, NV. 

Nevada PIF (Partners In Flight). 1999. Partners In 

Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Nevada (L. A. 

Neel, editor). Nevada Partners In Flight, Reno, 

NV.

Nevada Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

Nevada. Intermountain West Joint Venture, 

2369 West Orton Circle, West Valley City, UT 

84119. http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

New Mexico Steering Committee. 2005. 

Coordinated implementation plan for bird 

conservation in western New Mexico. 

Intermountain West Joint Venture, 2369 West 

Orton Circle, West Valley City, UT 84119. http://

iwjv.org/plans.htm

Nicholoff, S. H. Compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Lander, WY.

Oakleaf, B., A. O. Cerovski, and B. Luce. 1996. 

Nongame Bird and Mammal Plan. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY. 

183 pp.

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Rare, 

Threatened, and Endangered Species of 

Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 

Portland, OR.

Oring, L. W., L. Neel, and K. E. Oring. 2001. 

Intermountain West Shorebird Plan. 

Version 1.0. http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/

RegionalShorebird/downloads/IMWEST4.doc

Pacific and Central Flyway Councils. 2001. 

Management plan for the Rocky Mountain 

population of greater sandhill cranes. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Div. of Migratory Bird 

Management, Portland, OR. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1983. Pacific Flyway 

Management Plan: Pacific Population of 

Lesser Sandhill Cranes. Pacific Flyway Study 

Committee (c/o Pacific Flyway Representative 

USFWS), Portland, OR 97232-4181. 

Pacific Flyway Council. 1995. Pacific Flyway 

Management Plan: Lower Colorado River 

Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. 

Pacific Flyway Study Committee (c/o Pacific 

Flyway Representative USFWS), Portland, OR 

97232-4181.
52 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Pacific Flyway Council. 1997. Pacific Flyway 

management plan for the Central Valley 

Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. Pacific 

Flyway Study Committee (c/o Pacific Flyway 

Representative USFWS), Portland, OR 97232-

4181.

Parrish, J. R., F. P. Howe, and R. E. Norvell. 2002. 

Utah Partners In Flight Avian Conservation 

Strategy Version 2.0. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources Publication Number 02-27. Salt Lake 

City, UT.

Parsons, K. C., and T. L. Master. 2000. Snowy Egret 

(Egretta thula). No. 489 in The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Partners In Flight. 2002. Partners In Flight 

Database. http://www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html

Partners In Flight. 2004. Bird conservation plans. 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2004. Waterbird 

Monitoring Partnership of the Waterbird for 

the Americas Initiative. http://www.pwrc.usgs.

gov/cwb/database/

Paul, D. S., J. R. Jehl Jr., and P. K. Yochem. 1990. 

California Gull populations nesting at Great 

Salt Lake Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 50:299-

302.

Paul, D.S., A.E. Ellison and E.M. Annand. 2000. 

Great Salt Lake Waterbird Nesting Colonies, 

1998 & 1999. Unpublished report, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Great Salt Lake 

Ecosystem Project, Salt Lake City, UT.

Paul, D. S., A. E. Manning, and J. Neill. 2001. Draft 

Great Salt Lake Waterbird Survey Five-Year 

Report (1997-2001). Unpublished report, Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Great Salt Lake 

Ecosystem Project, Salt Lake City, UT.

Point Reyes Bird Observatory. 2003. Draft (10/03) 

California Bird Species of Special Concern List 

http://www.prbo.org/cms/index.php?mid’252&m

odule’browse (accessed 3/26/04). 

Popper, K. J. 2004. Yellow Rail Surveys in 

Southcentral Oregon, 2003 and 2004. The 

Nature Conservancy, 821 SE 14th Avenue, 

Portland, OR.

Raptor Research Center. 2004a. Definition and 

characterization of the sources of DDT 

contamination currently impacting White-faced 

Ibis populations. Boise State University. http://

rrc.boisestate.edu/Current%20projects/Ibis/

Ibis.htm

Raptor Research Center. 2004b. Common Loons: 

threats and migration. Boise State University. 

http://rrc.boisestate.edu/Current%20projects/

Loon/Loon.htm

Ratti, J. T. 1977. Reproductive separation and 

isolating mechanisms between sympatric dark 

and light-phase Western Grebes. Dissertation, 

Utah State University, Logan, UT.

Ratti, J. T., and J. A. Kadlec. 1992. Concept Plan 

for the Preservation of Wetland Habitat in the 

Intermountain West. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Richardson, S., D. Hays, R. Spencer, and J. Stofel. 

2000. Washington State Status Report for the 

Common Loon. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia.

Rosenberg, K., D. Demarest, C. Beardmore, and 

G. Butcher. 2001. Marshbirds and Partners In 

Flight: A Summary of Marsh and Associated 

Wetland Species in PIF Bird Conservation 

Plans. Partners In Flight, Denver, CO.

Rustay, C. 2000. First Final Draft Bird 

Conservation Plan—Partners In Flight 

New Mexico State Plan. Hawks Aloft, Inc. 

Albuquerque, NM.

Ryder, R. A. 1967. Distribution, migration and 

mortality of the white-faced ibis (Plegadis 

chihi) in North America. Bird Banding 38:257–

277.

Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced 

Ibis (Plegadis chihi). No. 130 in The Birds of 

North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). 

The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, 

PA.

Sardella, B. 2002. The effect of human disturbance 

on Aechmophorus grebe nest success at Eagle 

Lake, Lassen County, California. Thesis, 

California State University, Chico, CA.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results 

and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 

MD. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.

html

Seiler, R.L., M.S. Lico, S.N. Wiemeyer, and D.C. 

Evers. 2004. Mercury in the Walker River 

Basin, Nevada and California—Sources, 

Distribution, and Potential Effects on the 

Ecosystem. U.S. Geological Survey-Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004-5147.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 53

Shannon, H. D., G. S. Young, M. A. Yates, M. R. 

Fuller, and W. S. Seegar. 2002a. American 

white pelican soaring flight times and altitudes 

relative to changes in thermal depth and 

intensity. Condor 104:679-683.

Shannon, H. D., G. S. Young, M.A. Yates, M. R. 

Fuller, and W. S. Seegar. 2002b. Measurement 

of thermal intensity over complex terrain using 

American white pelicans and a simple boundary 

layer forecast model. Boundary Layer 

Meteorology 104: 167-199. 

Sharp, D. E., J. A. Dubovski, and K. L. Kruse. 2002. 

Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes: MidContinent and Rocky Mountain Populations, 

2002. 

Shaw, D. W. H. 1998. Changes in population size and 

colony location of breeding waterbirds at Eagle 

Lake, California between 1970 and 1997. Thesis, 

California State University, Chico, CA.

Shuford, W. D. 1998. Surveys of black terns and 

other inland-breeding seabirds in northeastern 

California in 1997. Report 98-03, Bird and 

Mammal Conservation Program, California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 

CA.

Shuford, W. D. 1999. Status assessment and 

conservation plan for the black tern (Chlidonias 

niger) in North America. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

Shuford, W. D., J. M. Humphrey, and N. Nur. 2001. 

Breeding status of the Black Tern in California. 

Western Birds 32:189-217.

Shuford, W.D. and P.J. Metropulos. 1996. The 

Glass Mountain breeding bird atlas project 

preliminary results, 1991 to 1995. Point Reyes 

Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

Shuford, W. D., and T. P. Ryan. 2000. Nesting 

populations of California and Ring-billed gulls 

in California: recent surveys and historical 

status. Western Birds 31:133-164.

Shuford, W. D., D. L. Thomson, D. M. Mauser, and 

J. Beckstrand. 2004. Abundance, distribution, 

and phenology of nongame waterbirds in 

the Klamath Basin of Oregon and California 

in 2003. PRBO Conservation Science, 4990 

Shoreline Highway 1, Stinson Beach, CA.

Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society The 

Sibley Guide to Birds. Chanticleer Press, New 

York, NY.

Sibley, C. G., and B. L. Monroe, Jr. 1990. 

Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the 

World. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Sladky, K. K., P. Ramirez, C. F. Quist, and F. J. Dein. 

2004. Investigation of migratory bird mortality 

associated with exposure to soda ash mine 

tailings water in southwestern Wyoming. USGS 

Final Report. U. S. Geological Survey, National 

Wildlife Health Center, Madison, WI.

Smith, M. R., P. W. Mattocks, Jr., and K. M. Cassidy. 

1997. Breeding Birds of Washington State. 

Volume 4 in Washington State Gap Analysis—

Final Report (K. M. Cassidy, C. E. Grue, M. R. 

Smith, and K. M. Dvornich, editors). Seattle 

Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. 1.

Spencer, K. 2003a. Clark’s Grebe in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, 

M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors). 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Spencer, K. 2003b. Eared Grebe in Birds of Oregon: 

A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, M. G. 

Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors). Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Spencer, K. 2003c. Least Bittern in Birds of Oregon: 

A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, M. G. 

Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors). Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Spencer, K. 2003d. Red-necked Grebe in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, 

M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors). 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Spencer, K. 2003e. Western Grebe in Birds of 

Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. Marshall, 

M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, editors). 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Stahlecker, D. 1996. A ten year study of over-water 

nesting birds at Stinking Lake, New Mexico: 

1987-1996. Prepared for New Mexico Dept. 

Game and Fish by Eagle Ecological Services, 

Santa Fe, NM.

Stahlecker, D. 1997. A summary of waterbird 

studies at Stinking Lake, New Mexico, 1997. 

Prepared for New Mexico Dept. Game and Fish 

by Eagle Ecological Services, Santa Fe, NM.
54 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

State of California Water Resources Control 

Board. 1994. Decision 1631: Decision and order 

amending water rights licenses to establish 

fishery protection flows in streams tributary 

to Mono Lake and to protect public trust 

resources at Mono Lake and in the Mono Lake 

basin. Water Rights Division, Sacramento, 

CA. http://www.waterrights.ca.gov/hearings/

decisions/WRD1631.pdf.

Steinkamp, M., B. Peterjohn, V. Byrd, H. Carter, 

and R. Lowe. 2003a. Breeding Season 

Survey Techniques for Seabirds and Colonial 

Waterbirds throughout North America. 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. http://www.

waterbirdconservation.org/pubs/PSGManual03.

PDF

Steinkamp, M. J., B. G. Peterjohn and J. L. 

Keisman. 2003b. Incorporating precision, 

accuracy and alternative sampling designs into 

a continental monitoring program for colonial 

waterbirds. Ornis Hungarica 12-13: 209-216.

Stern, M. A. 1987. Site tenacity, mate retention, and 

sexual dimorphism in Black Terns. M.S. thesis. 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Stern, M. A. 1988. Waterbirds of the Warner Basin, 

Lake County, Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage 

Data Base Program, The Nature Conservancy, 

Portland, OR.

Stern, M. A., and R. L. Jarvis. 1991. Sexual 

dimorphism and assortative mating in Black 

Terns. Wilson Bulletin 103:266-271.

Stern, M. A., J. F. Morawski, and G. A. Rosenberg. 

1993. Rediscovery and status of a disjunct 

population of breeding yellow rails in southern 

Oregon. Condor 95:1024-1027.

Stern, M., and K. Popper. 2003. Yellow Rail in

Birds of Oregon: A General Reference (D. B. 

Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. C. Contreras, 

editors). Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, OR.

Storer, R. W., and G. L. Nuechterlein. 1992. Western 

Grebe and Clark’s Grebe (Aechmophorus 

occidentalis and Aechmophorus clarkii). No. 26 

in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Svingen, D., and Dumroese, K. 1997. A birder’s 

guide to Idaho. American Birding Association.

Tacha, T. C., S. A. Nesbitt, and P. A. Vohs. 1992. 

Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis). No. 113 in

The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Trost, C. H., and A. Gerstell. 1994. Status and 

distribution of colonial nesting waterbirds in 

southern Idaho, 1993. Technical Bulletin No. 94-

6, Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Boise, 

ID. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment 

Canada, and Secretaria de Desarrollo Social. 

2004. 2004 Update to the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan: Strengthening 

the Biological Foundations. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Washington, D.C., USA.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. 

Migratory nongame birds of management 

concern in the United States: The 1995 list. 

Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Water Rights Acquisition for Lahontan Valley 

Wetlands. Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, 

Fallon, NV.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. 

Birds of Conservation Concern. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. 

Caspian Tern Management to Reduce 

Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the 

Columbia River Estuary, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Portland, OR.

USFWS and WS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service). 2003. Environmental Impact 

Statement: Double-crested Cormorant 

Management. USFWS, Washington, D.C.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2001. Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region, 

San Francisco, CA.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1988-89, Reconnaissance 

investigation of Water Quality, Bottom 

Sediment, and Biota Associated with Irrigation 

Drainage in the American Falls Reservoir Area, 

Idaho: Water-Resources Investigations Report 

90-4120.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 55

U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000a. The North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative: Bird 

Conservation Region Descriptions. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA.

U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000b. The North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative in 

the United States: A vision of American Bird 

Conservation. http://www.nabci-us.org/nabci.

html

U.S. Supreme Court. 2000. United States Report 

2000: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook 

County v. United States Army Corp of 

Engineers et al. 531:159-197.

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 1998. Utah 

Sensitive Species List. Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, UT. 

Utah Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

Utah. Intermountain West Joint Venture, 2369 

West Orton Circle, West Valley City, UT 84119. 

http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Washington Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

eastern Washington. Intermountain West Joint 

Venture, 2369 West Orton Circle, West Valley 

City, UT 84119. http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Winkler, D. W. 1996. California Gull (Larus 

californicus). No. 489 in The Birds of North 

America (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The 

Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1997. 

Wyoming piscivorous bird management 

plan. Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Nongame Program. Lander, WY.

Wyoming Steering Committee. 2005. Coordinated 

implementation plan for bird conservation in 

central and western Wyoming (BCRs 10, 16, 

18). Intermountain West Joint Venture, 2369 

West Orton Circle, West Valley City, UT 84119. 

http://iwjv.org/plans.htm

Yates, M. 1999. Satellite and Conventional 

Telemetry Study of American White Pelicans in 

Northern Nevada. Great Basin Birds 2:4-9.

York, D. 1994. Recreational-boating Disturbance 

of Natural Communities and Wildlife: An 

Annotated Bibliography. NBS Biological Report 

22.
56 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

APPENDIX A. List of Contacts for Development of the Intermountain 

West Waterbird Conservation Plan.

Name State/Region Association

Jackee Alston UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Bob Altman OR BCR 5 Coordinator

Daniel Anderson CA Univ. of California, Davis

Jane Austin ND USGS-BRD, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Alison Banks Cariveau CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Jay Banta UT USFWS, Fish Springs NWR

Jon Bart ID USGS-BRD

Carol Beardmore AZ USFWS, Sonoran Joint Venture

André Berault B.C., Canada Canadian Wildlife Service

Gael Bissel MT MT Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Sam Blankenship CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento

Steve Bouffard ID USFWS, Minidoka NWR

Sean Boyd B.C., Canada Canadian Wildlife Service

Howard Browers OR USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Refuge Complex

Heidi Brunkal WA USFWS, Saddle Mountain NWR

Kris Cafaro CO CO Audubon IBA Coordinator

Richard Callus CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Redding

Erick Campbell NV BLM, Reno

Dick Cannings B.C., Canada B.C. Waterbird Plan Coordinator

Chris Carey OR OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Bend

John Carlson MT MT Natural Heritage Program

Dan Casey MT Northern Rockies BCR Coordinator

John Cecil PA National Audubon IBA Coordinator

Andrea Cerovski WY WY Game and Fish

Pam Cherny CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Honey Lake WA

Dan Christopherson ID Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Myke Chutter B.C., Canada B. C. Wildlife Branch

Greg Clark AZ Independent

Jim Cole UT Intermountain West JV Coordinator

Ken Collis OR Real Time Research

Shilo Comeau MT USFWS, Red Rock Lakes NWR

Dan Cooper CA CA Audubon IBA Coordinator

Troy Corman AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Diana Craig CA USFS, San Francisco 

Eve Davis UT PacifiCorp

Bruce Deuel CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Redding

Walt DeVaurs NV BLM, Carson City

Rita Dixon ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Rod Drewien ID Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Moscow

Bruce Dugger OR Oregon State Univ., Corvallis

Susan Earnst ID USGS-BRD

Jim Eidel NV Great Basin Bird Observatory

Table A-1. List of Contacts in alphabetical order.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 57

Name State/Region Association

Mary Jo Elpers NV USFWS, Reno Field Office (retired)

Joe Engler WA USFWS, Conboy Lake NWR

Suzanne Fellows CO USFWS, Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Bob Flores WA USFWS, Columbia NWR

Todd Forbes OR BLM, Lakeview

Craig Foster OR OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview

Brent Frazier OR USFS, Winema NF

Ron Friesz WA WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife

Lindy Garner MT USFWS, National Bison Range

Steve Gniadak MT NPS, Glacier NP

Val Grant UT UT Audubon IBA Coordinator

Mike Green OR USFWS, Region 1 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Lauri Hanauska-Brown ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game

Jan Hanf OR BLM, Prineville

Homer Hansen AZ Aplomado Environmental LLC

Charles Henny OR USGS, Corvallis

Bill Henry NV USFWS, Stillwater NWR

Caroline Herziger OR IWWCP compiler

Randy Hill WA USFWS, Columbia NWR

Bill Howe NM USFWS, Region 2 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Matt Hunter OR Oregon Important Bird Area Coordinator

Gary Ivey OR IWWCP compiler

Joe Jehl CA Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

Stephanie Jones CO USFWS, Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Eric Kelchlin WA USFWS, Columbia NWR

Dave Krueper NM USFWS, Region 2 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Chuck LaRue AZ Private

Susan Lenard MT MT Audubon IBA Coordinator

Tony Leukering CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Rich Levad CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

John Luft UT UT Division of Wildlife Resources

Alison Lyon WY Audubon WY IBA Coordinator

Jeff Mackay NV USFWS, Ruby Lake NWR

Robert Magill AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Ann Manning UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Meg Marriot NV USFWS, Ruby Lake NWR

David Marshall OR Portland Audubon

Jennifer Martin AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Bob Martinka MT MT Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Dave Mauser CA USFWS, Klamath NWRs

Cal McCluskey ID BLM, Boise

Don McIvor NV NV Audubon IBA Coordinator

Wayne Melquist ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game (retired)

Carl Mitchell ID USFWS, Grays Lake NWR

Emily Miwa-Vogan MT USFWS, Lee Metcalf NWR

Colleen Moulton ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Table A-1. Continued.
58 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Name State/Region Association

Larry Neel NV NV Division of Wildlife, Nongame

John Neill UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Terry Nelson CA USFS, Lassen NF

Heidi Newsome WA USFWS, Saddle Mountain NWR

Kit Novick CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Butte Valley WA

Bridget Olson UT USFWS, Bear River MBR

Lewis Oring NV Univ. of Nevada, Reno

Jim Parrish UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Don Paul UT Great Basin BCR Coordinator

Ken Popper OR The Nature Conservancy

Mary Powell-McConnell AZ Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson

Tom Ratcliff CA USFS, Modoc NF (retired)

Earl Reinerston OR OR Duck Hunters Association

Tom Rickman CA USFS, Lassen NF

John Robinson CA USFS, Vallejo

Dan Roby OR Oregon State Univ., Corvallis

Rick Roy OR USFWS, Malheur NWR

Mike Rule WA USFWS, Turnbull NWR

Rex Sallabanks ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Trent Seager CA USFWS, Yreka

Saul Schneider B.C., Canada Environment Canada

Dave Shuford CA PRBO Conservation Science

Kris Shull OR USFS, Malheur NF

Gary Skiba CO CO Division of Wildlife

Robert Smith CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Shasta Valley WA

Martin St. Louis OR OR Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Summer Lake WA

Dale Stahlecker NM Eagle Environmental, Inc.

Vernon Stofleth OR BLM, Lakeview

Kelli Stone CO USFWS, Alamosa –Monte Vista NWR Complex

George Studinski CA USFS, Modoc NF (retired)

Tice Supplee AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Bruce Taylor OR OR Joint Venture Coordinator

Jenny Taylor ID USFS, Coeur d’Alene

Sue Thomas OR USFWS, Region 1 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Brett Tiller WA Batelle PNNL

Lauri Turner OR USFS, Deschutes NF

Martha Wackenhut ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game

George E. Wallace CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Jennifer Wheeler VA Regional Waterbird Plans Coordinator

Scott Wilbor AZ AZ Audubon IBA Coordinator

Sandy Williams NM NM Game and Fish

Donna Withers NV USFWS, Stillwater NWR

Mike Yates NV Boise State University

Steve Zender WA WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife

Tara Zimmerman OR USFWS, Region 1 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Table A-1. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 59

Name State/Region Association

Carol Beardmore AZ USFWS, Sonoran Joint Venture

Greg Clark AZ Independent

Troy Corman AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Homer Hansen AZ Aplomado Environmental LLC

Chuck LaRue AZ Private

Robert Magill AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Jennifer Martin AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Mary Powell-McConnell AZ Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson

Tice Supplee AZ AZ Game and Fish 

Scott Wilbor AZ AZ Audubon IBA Coordinator

Daniel Anderson CA Univ. of California, Davis

Sam Blankenship CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento

Richard Callus CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Redding

Pam Cherny CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Honey Lake WA

Dan Cooper CA CA Audubon IBA Coordinator

Diana Craig CA USFS, San Francisco 

Bruce Deuel CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Redding

Joe Jehl CA Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

Dave Mauser CA USFWS, Klamath NWRs

Terry Nelson CA USFS, Lassen NF

Kit Novick CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Butte Valley WA

Tom Ratcliff CA USFS, Modoc NF (retired)

Tom Rickman CA USFS, Lassen NF

John Robinson CA USFS, Vallejo

Trent Seager CA USFWS, Yreka

Dave Shuford CA PRBO Conservation Science

Robert Smith CA CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Shasta Valley WA

George Studinski CA USFS, Modoc NF (retired)

Alison Banks Cariveau CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Kris Cafaro CO CO Audubon IBA Coordinator

Suzanne Fellows CO USFWS, Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Stephanie Jones CO USFWS, Region 6 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Tony Leukering CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Rich Levad CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Gary Skiba CO CO Division of Wildlife

Kelli Stone CO USFWS, Alamosa –Monte Vista NWR Complex

George Wallace CO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory

Jon Bart ID USGS-BRD

Steve Bouffard ID USFWS, Minidoka NWR

Dan Christopherson ID Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Rita Dixon ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Rod Drewien ID Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Moscow

Susan Earnst ID USGS-BRD

Lauri Hanauska-Brown ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game

Cal McCluskey ID BLM, Boise

Wayne Melquist ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game (retired)

Table A-2. List of contacts in state order.
60 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Name State/Region Association

Carl Mitchell ID USFWS, Grays Lake NWR

Colleen Moulton ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Rex Sallabanks ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Martha Wackenhut ID ID Dept. of Fish and Game, Nongame

Jenny Taylor ID USFS, Coeur d’Alene

Gael Bissel MT MT Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

John Carlson MT MT Natural Heritage Program

Dan Casey MT Northern Rockies BCR Coordinator

Shilo Comeau MT USFWS, Red Rock Lakes NWR

Lindy Garner MT USFWS, National Bison Range

Steve Gniadak MT NPS, Glacier NP

Susan Lenard MT MT Audubon IBA Coordinator

Bob Martinka MT MT Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Emily Miwa-Vogan MT USFWS, Lee Metcalf NWR

Jane Austin ND USGS-BRD, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Bill Howe NM USFWS, Region 2 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Dave Krueper NM USFWS, Region 2 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Dale Stahlecker NM Eagle Environmental, Inc.

Sandy Williams NM NM Game and Fish

Erick Campbell NV BLM, Reno

Walt DeVaurs NV BLM, Carson City

Jim Eidel NV Great Basin Bird Observatory

Mary Jo Elpers NV USFWS, Reno Field Office (retired)

Bill Henry NV USFWS, Stillwater NWR

Jeff Mackay NV USFWS, Ruby Lake NWR

Meg Marriot NV USFWS, Ruby Lake NWR

Don McIvor NV NV Audubon IBA Coordinator

Larry Neel NV NV Division of Wildlife, Nongame

Lewis Oring NV Univ. of Nevada, Reno

Donna Withers NV USFWS, Stillwater NWR

Mike Yates NV Boise State University

Bob Altman OR BCR 5 Coordinator

Howard Browers WA USFWS, Mid-Columbia River Refuge Complex

Chris Carey OR OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Bend

Ken Collis OR Real Time Research

Bruce Dugger OR Oregon State Univ., Corvallis

Todd Forbes OR BLM, Lakeview

Craig Foster OR OR Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview

Brent Frazier OR USFS, Winema NF

Mike Green OR USFWS, Region 1 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Jan Hanf OR BLM, Prineville

Charles Henny OR USGS, Corvallis

Caroline Herziger OR IWWCP compiler

Matt Hunter OR Oregon Important Bird Area Coordinator

Gary Ivey OR IWWCP compiler

David Marshall OR Portland Audubon

Table A-2. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 61

Name State/Region Association

Ken Popper OR The Nature Conservancy

Earl Reinerston OR OR Duck Hunters Association

Dan Roby OR Oregon State Univ., Corvallis

Rick Roy OR USFWS, Malheur NWR

Kris Shull OR USFS, Malheur NF

Martin St. Louis OR OR Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Summer Lake WA

Vernon Stofleth OR BLM, Lakeview

Sue Thomas OR USFWS, Region 1 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

Bruce Taylor OR OR Joint Venture Coordinator

Lauri Turner OR USFS, Deschutes NF

Tara Zimmerman OR USFWS, Region 1 Nongame Migratory Bird Program

John Cecil PA National Audubon IBA Coordinator

Jackee Alston UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Jay Banta UT USFWS, Fish Springs NWR

Jim Cole UT Intermountain West JV Coordinator

Val Grant UT UT Audubon IBA Coordinator

Eve Davis UT PacifiCorp

John Luft UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Ann Manning UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

John Neill UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Bridget Olson UT USFWS, Bear River MBR

Jim Parrish UT UT Div. of Wildlife Resources

Don Paul UT Great Basin BCR Coordinator

Jennifer Wheeler VA Regional Waterbird Plans Coordinator

Heidi Brunkal WA USFWS, Saddle Mountain NWR

Joe Engler WA USFWS, Conboy Lake NWR

Bob Flores WA USFWS, Columbia NWR

Ron Friesz WA WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife

Brett Tiller WA Batelle PNNL

Randy Hill WA USFWS, Columbia NWR

Eric Kelchlin WA USFWS, Columbia NWR

Heidi Newsome WA USFWS, Saddle Mountain NWR

Mike Rule WA USFWS, Turnbull NWR

Steve Zender WA WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife

Andrea Cerovski WY WY Game and Fish

Alison Lyon WY Audubon WY IBA Coordinator

André Berault B.C., Canada Canadian Wildlife Service

Sean Boyd B.C., Canada Canadian Wildlife Service

Dick Cannings B.C., Canada B.C. Waterbird Plan Coordinator

Myke Chutter B.C., Canada B. C. Wildlife Branch

Saul Schneider B.C., Canada Environment Canada

Table A-2. Continued.
62 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

APPENDIX B. Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan.

BIRDS

Common name Scientific name 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis

Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida

Lesser Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis canadensis

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola

Sora Porzana carolina

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus

American Coot Fulica americana

Mew Gull Larus canus

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

California Gull Larus californicus

Glaucous-winged Gull Larus glaucescens

Thayer’s Gull Larus thayeri

Herring Gull Larus argentatus

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

Common Tern Sterna hirundo

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii

Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea

Snowy Egret Egretta thula

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias

Great Egret Ardea alba

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax

Least Bittern (Western) Ixobrychus exilis hesperis

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosis

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorynchos

Common Loon Gavia immer

Common Raven Corvus corax
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 63

PLANTS

Common name Scientific name 

Common reed Phragmites australis

Cottonwood Populus spp.

Eurasian water milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Giant river cane Arundo donax

Perennial pepperweed/ tall white top Lepidium latifolium

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Salt cedar/tamarisk Tamarix spp.

Willow Salix spp.

MAMMALS

Common name Scientific name 

Beaver Castor canadensis

Cat (feral) Felis silvestris

Coyote Canis latrans

Mink Mustela vison

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Wolf Canis lupus

FISH

Common name Scientific name 

Bass Micropterus spp.

Carp Cyprinus carpio 

Catfish Ameiurus spp., Ictalurus spp. 

Cui-ui Chasmistes cujus 

Lahontan tui chub Gila bicolor obesus

Sunfish Lepomis spp.

Trout Salmo spp., Salvelinus spp., Oncorhynchus spp.

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri

INVERTEBRATES

Common name Scientific name 

Brine flies Ephydra spp.

Brine shrimp Artemia spp.

Mosquitoes Aedes spp., Culex spp., Anopheles spp. 

BACTERIA

Common name Scientific name 

Bti Bacillius thuringiensis israelensis 
64 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

APPENDIX C. Acronyms Used in the Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan.

Acronym Definition

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department

AI Area Importance

BBS Breeding Bird Survey

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BHCA Bird Habitat Conservation Area

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CBC Christmas Bird Count

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CS Candidate Species 

CVP Central Valley Pop. of Greater Sandhill Cranes

DU Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

ESA Endangered Species Act

IBA Important Bird Area

IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game

IWCP Inland Wetland Conservation Program

IWJV Intermountain West Joint Venture

IWWCP Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

LCRVP Lower Colorado River Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes

LKNWR Lower Klamath NWR, California

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act

NAWCP North American Waterbird Conservation Plan

NDOW Nevada Division of Wildlife

NMGF New Mexico Game and Fish

NP National Park 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ONHP Oregon Natural Heritage Program

PIF Partners In Flight

RMP Rocky Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes

SC Species of Concern

T&E Threatened and Endangered

TNC The Nature Conservancy

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WA Wildlife Area

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WG&F Wyoming Game and Fish

WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program

WRP Wetland Reserve Program

WS Wildlife Services
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 65

This appendix describes the methods used to 

rank breeding and migrant waterbird species in 

the Intermountain West and assign numerical 

population objectives to priority species.

Determining Species Prioritization

In order to determine which waterbird species 

should receive greater conservation efforts and 

population objectives, we assessed their status in 

each of the four Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 

in the Intermountain West: Great Basin (BCR 9), 

Northern Rockies (BCR 10), Sierra Nevada (BCR 

15), and Southern Rockies-Colorado Plateau (BCR 

16). This involved several steps:

1. Estimating BCR waterbird populations and data 

quality (DQ).

2. Determining Area Importance (AI) scores. 

3. Reviewing species’ status on Federal, state, and 

Partners In Flight (PIF) plan lists.

4. Reviewing the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan (NAWCP) rankings for 

colonial waterbird species.

5. Developing criteria for colonial and marshbird 

species’ regional rankings.

6. Developing a concern matrix for each BCR to 

identify priority waterbird species.

7. Developing a waterbird species priority list for 

the Intermountain West.

Step 1. Estimating BCR waterbird populations 

and data quality (DQ)

Breeding populations of waterbirds that have been 

historically of management concern are generally 

well known (e.g., Sandhill Crane), and status 

assessments have been completed for others in 

some parts of the Intermountain West (e.g., Caspian 

Tern). However, for many species, population data 

were incomplete, and for others, there were no 

data available (e.g., most marshbirds). Table D-1 

details the indices used to classify data quality 

(DQ) on a 1-3 scale, based on professional judgment 

and reviewed by the Regional Waterbird Working 

Group.

Tables D-2, D-3, D-4, and D-5 summarize the most 

recent available waterbird population data for each 

BCR and their associated DQ score. All data are 

from the 1990s-2004, except for the Warner Basin 

in Oregon, a potentially major waterbird breeding 

area in BCR 9, which has not been thoroughly 

surveyed since the late 1980s. The numbers in 

these tables undoubtedly represent minimum 

population sizes, as many areas are not surveyed 

specifically for waterbirds; lack of data in the tables 

does not mean a certain species does not breed or 

is not a migrant in that state or BCR. It also was 

problematic to combine data for a total population 

estimate, as surveys were conducted in different 

years, in different climatic periods, by different 

methods, at different times within the nesting 

season, and shifts between breeding sites may have 

occurred as conditions changed. These data will be 

updated in future versions of the IWWCP as they 

become available through concurrent monitoring, 

and the DQ index will likely increase.

Breeding species are the focus of this plan, but 

some species occur only as migrants in some BCRs. 

Although breeding species also occur as migrants, 

only some were selected to have a separate category 

as a migrant if they met one of the following 

criteria: 1) a specific site in a BCR supported 10% of 

the North American population in migration (e.g., 

Eared Grebe at Mono Lake in BCR 9); or 2) specific 

threats were identified at staging sites for migrant 

populations (e.g., mercury contaminant issues for 

Common Loons at Walker Lake in BCR 9). 

Note that the species are listed in Sibley-Monroe 

order (Sibley and Monroe 1990), as this is the 

standard for NAWCP. Scientific names are in 

Appendix B. Only Sandhill Cranes were addressed 

separately by subspecies and populations because 

there are existing Flyway Management Plans for 

them. They include Central Valley Population of 

Greater Sandhill Cranes (CVP), Lower Colorado 

River Valley Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes 

(LCRVP), Mid-Continent Population of Sandhill 

Cranes (MCP), Rocky Mountain Population of 

Greater Sandhill Cranes (RMP), and Pacific Flyway 

Population of Lesser Sandhill Cranes (PFP; Central 

and Pacific Flyway Councils 2001; Pacific Flyway 

Council 1983, 1995, 1997).

APPENDIX D. Waterbird Species Prioritization for Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCRs) 9, 10, 15, and 16 in the Intermountain West.
66 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Step 2. Determining Area Importance (AI) scores

Based on the population data in Tables D-2 to D-5, 

Area Importance (AI) scores were derived for each 

species in each BCR using a 1-5 scale based on PIF 

protocols, where 5 represented at least 50% of the 

North America population (Tables D-6, D-7, D-8, 

and D-9). For breeding species with unknown total 

populations for North American or BCR, scores 

were based on professional judgment and reviewed 

by the Group.

For those breeding waterbird species with a North 

American population estimate (Tables D-6 to D9), we summarized the population data for each 

BCR and the percentage of the North American 

population and AI score, and combined all BCRs 

to derive a total for the Intermountain West (Table 

D-10). The species with more than 25% of the North 

American population were Greater Sandhill Crane 

(CVP, LCRVP and RMP), California Gull, Clark’s 

Grebe, and White-faced Ibis.

Step 3. Reviewing species’ status on Federal, 

State, and PIF plan lists

Some waterbird species are listed as a Federal Bird 

of Conservation Concern (BCC), State Threatened 

and Endangered (T&E) or Sensitive Species/

Species of Concern (SC), or as a Focal (priority) 

species in PIF Bird Conservation Plans (states) and 

Physiographic Area Plans (regional, Table D-11). 

While listings apply to entire states, the Group 

reviewed them, and believed they were appropriate 

for the BCRs.

Step 4. Reviewing the NAWCP rankings for 

colonial waterbird species

The planning team for NAWCP provided 

preliminary rankings for colonial waterbird species 

only (Kushlan et al. 2002, Table D-12). For the 

Intermountain West, they fell into four categories: 

High, Moderate, Low, and Not at Risk; we have no 

Highly Imperiled species. If a species was ranked 

as High Concern and bred and wintered only in 

North America, it was placed near the upper, lefthand corner of the matrix. Conservation efforts 

should be focused on these species, as they are 

among the most vulnerable to further decline and 

for which North American managers have the 

greatest responsibility. If a species was ranked 

Not at Risk and occurred only peripherally within 

North America with a much larger distribution 

elsewhere, it fell in the lower, right-hand corner of 

the matrix, and is considered of the least concern. 

The Group was challenged with identifying criteria 

for adjusting the NAWCP rankings for colonial 

species and adding marshbirds (see Step 5). It 

was recommended that regional planners should 

first disregard any colonial species occurring only 

peripherally in a BCR; species in parentheses were 

removed from consideration because of their rarity 

in all four BCRs.

Step 5. Developing criteria for colonial and 

marshbird species’ regional rankings

Both AI scores and concern listings were used to 

either demote or promote each colonial species in 

each BCR from the national ranking in Table D-12. 

Marshbirds were placed in the concern matrix 

using similar criteria developed with input from 

the Group. The methodology for rankings was as 

follows:

Breeding colonial species

• Species were promoted one concern category if 

AI score = 5, and demoted one category if AI 

score = 1 (per NAWCP methodology).

• State and PIF listings were also used to adjust 

rankings to account for regional concerns, as 

requested by NAWCP (no colonial species were 

federally listed). Those species on state T&E 

lists were ranked High Concern, regardless of 

AI score. Species were promoted one concern 

category if they were on more than one state SC 

list, and/or listed as Focal on more than one state 

or regional PIF plan, but not above Moderate 

unless they were on three or more lists in 

different states.

Breeding marshbird species

• Marshbirds were not assigned a national ranking 

by NAWCP; therefore, rankings could not be 

adjusted by an AI score. Instead, the Group 

decided to use national, state and PIF listings as 

a base to rank these species.

• Species were listed as High Concern if they 

appeared on the USFWS’ BCC list or on a state 

T&E list. Species could also be listed as High 

Concern if they were on three or more SC or 

PIF Focal species lists in different states.

• Species were listed as Moderate Concern if they 

appeared on more than one state SC list and/or 

as a Focal species in one or more PIF plans.

• Species were listed as Low Concern if they 

appeared on only one state SC list or as a Focal 

species in one PIF plan.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 67

• For species not covered by concern lists, AI 

scores were used to assign rankings. Those with 

an AI score of 5 were placed in High Concern, 4 

to 3 to Moderate, 2 to Low, and 1 to Not at Risk.

• Since status and trend data were unavailable for 

most marshbirds, several widespread breeding 

species were elevated to Moderate Concern (if 

they were below that level; Virginia Rail, Sora, 

Pied-billed Grebe, Least Bittern [BCRs 9 and 16 

only], and American Bittern). 

Migrants (colonial and marshbird species)

• All migrant species were dropped to Not At 

Risk except those breeding species that had 

been identified as needing a separate migrant 

category (see Step 1). For these species, those 

with an AI score of 5 were elevated to High 

Concern, and those with a score of 4 or 3 to 

Moderate.

Species with specific threats

• Breeding and migrant species that were 

identified as needing additional conservation 

priority because of species-specific or sitespecific threats were adjusted in rankings as 

decided by the Group.

BCR 15: Since California is the only state in BCR 

15 (a small portion of Nevada is within the BCR but 

contains no waterbird habitat), different but similar 

rules were applied.

Breeding colonial species

• As for other BCRs, these species were promoted 

one concern category if AI score = 5, and 

demoted one category if AI score = 1.

• Species on the state’s T&E list were rated as 

High Concern, regardless of AI score. Rankings 

were promoted one category if a species was on 

the state’s draft SC list.

Breeding marshbird species

• Species on the state’s T&E list were rated 

High Concern. Those on the state’s SC list in 

the extirpated or first priority list were also 

rated High, species on the second priority list to 

Moderate, and those on the third priority list to 

Low.

• As for other BCRs, for species not covered by 

concern lists, AI scores were used to assign 

rankings using the same protocol. 

• Also as for other BCRs, Virginia Rail, Sora, 

Pied-billed Grebe, and American Bittern were 

elevated to Moderate Concern (if they were 

below that level). 

Migrants and species with specific threats

• Species were ranked as for other BCRs.

Step 6. Developing a concern matrix for each 

BCR to identify priority waterbird species

Using the criteria in Step 5, national rankings 

were adjusted for colonial species and added for 

marshbirds for each BCR (Tables D-13, D-14, D-15 

and D-16).

Step 7. Developing a waterbird species priority 

list for the Intermountain West 

A list of the priority waterbird species for each BCR 

in the Intermountain West was developed (Table 

D-17), based on the information from the previous 

tables (Tables D-13 to D-16). For the purpose of 

this Plan, breeding species ranked as High and 

Moderate concern are considered Priority Species 

and these received a numerical population objective. 

Priority migrant species received habitat objectives 

only in the state that met the criteria in Step 1. All 

Priority Species are discussed in the Monitoring 

section and should be considered in management 

plans and project proposals.

Table D-1. Indices used to designate data quality (DQ) of population data for waterbird species covered 

by the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

DQ index Data description

3 Recent comprehensive breeding surveys or recent status reviews were available. Relatively high 

degree of data accuracy. Population estimates were the best available and are likely closest to the 

actual populations in the region.

2 Moderate degree of data accuracy. Population estimates were likely lower than actual populations in 

the region.

1 Available data were insufficient for a reasonable population estimate.
68 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-2. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant). Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 3,002 3 CA 2,000: 401 pairs 802 Ivey and Herziger 2001 NV 1999: 11 pairs 22 Ivey and Herziger 2000 OR 1999-00: 1,069 pairs 2,138 Ivey and Herziger 2000 WA 2004: 20 pairs 40 J. Engler pers. comm. Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m)1 Entire pop. likely through CA, OR, WA >90% of NA pop. 2 Pacific Flyway Council 1997 Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) Est. 95% of breeding pop. in this BCR 1,900 22 R. Drewien pers. comm. ID Unknown unknown NV Unknown unknown UT Unknown unknown Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m)1 Entire pop. likely through NV >90% of NA pop. 2 Pacific Flyway Council 1983 Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) Est. 10% of breeding pop. in this BCR 1,868 23 R. Drewien pers. comm. ID unknown unknown UT Unknown unknown Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m)2 Entire pop. likely through CA, ID, OR, WA >90% of NA pop. 2 Littlefield and Ivey 2002 Yellow Rail (b) 608 2 CA near Shasta 2001-04: 1 male calling 2 Popper/Shuford pers. comm. CA Surprise Valley 2002-03: 1-3 males calling 6 Popper/Shuford pers. comm. OR South-central OR 2002: 300 males calling 600 K. Popper pers. comm. Virginia Rail (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Sora (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Common Moorhen (b) NV unknown, insufficient data unknown 1 L. Neel pers. comm. American Coot (b) insufficient data unknown 1
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 69 Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Ring-billed Gull (b) 70,116 2 CA NE CA avg. 1994-97: 11,448 pairs 22,896 Shuford and Ryan 2000 ID S. ID 1993: 7,000 nests 14,000 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 700 breeding pop. 700 L. Neel pers. comm. OR E. Columbia R. early 1990s: 5,000 pairs 10,000 Butler 2003a OR Gerber Reservoir 2003: 1,024 pairs 2,048 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 150 nests 300 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Warner Basin 1987: 586 pairs 1,172 Stern 1988 UT Est. 5,000 breeding pop. 5,000 D. Paul pers. comm. WA 1996: 7,000 pairs 14,000 Smith et al. 1997 California Gull (b) 314,398 2 CA NE CA avg. 1994-97: 31,236 pairs 62,472 Shuford and Ryan 2000 ID S. ID 1993: 36,200 nests 72,400 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 4,200 breeding pop. 4,200 L. Neel pers. comm. OR E. Columbia R. early 1990s: 5,000 pairs 10,000 Butler 2003b OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 560 nests 1,120 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Warner Basin 1987: 301 pairs 206 Stern 1988 UT Est. 150,000 breeding pop. 150,000 D. Paul unpubl. data WA 1996: 7,000 pairs 14,000 Smith et al. 1997 Glaucous-winged Gull (b) OR/WA Columbia River (east): occasionally nest 0 0 1 Hodder 2003 Herring Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1 Bonaparte’s Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1 Occasionally hundreds in fall at Great Salt Lake D. Paul pers. comm. Franklin’s Gull (b) 42,588 2 CA Lower Klamath NWR 2003: 154 pop. 154 Shuford et al. 2004 ID Camas NWR, Mud/Market lks.: 3,500 pop. 3,500 S. Bouffard pers. comm. Table D-2. Continued.
70 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-2. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source ID Oxford Slough WMA:5,000 breeding 5,000 S. Bouffard pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 2003-04 avg.: 6 pairs 12 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 1,635 nests 3,270 G. Ivey unpubl. data UT Est. 30,652 breeding pop. 30,652 D. Paul pers. comm. Franklin’s Gull (m)4 > 13% of NA pop. 2 UT Great Salt Lake: up to 86,000 86,000 Paul et al. 2001 Caspian Tern (b) 3,940 3 CA Avg. 1997-03: 469 pairs 938 USFWS 2005 ID Avg. 1997-2003: 60 pairs 120 USFWS 2005 NV Avg. 1997-03: 118 pairs 236 USFWS 2005 OR Avg. 1997-03: 457 pairs 914 USFWS 2005 UT Est. 100 breeding pop. 100 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Avg. 1997-03: 816 pairs 1,632 USFWS 2005 Common Tern (b) insufficient data (former breeder in ID) 0 0 1 Trost and Gerstell 1994 Forster’s Tern (b) 7,342 2 CA NE CA 1997: 1,756 pairs 3,512 Shuford 1998 ID S. ID 1993: 20 nests 40 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 150 breeding pop. 150 L. Neel pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 1990-02 avg.: 42 breeding 42 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Klamath Basin (OR) 2003: 1,412 pop. 1,412 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 100 nests 200 G. Ivey unpubl. data UT Est. 1,586 breeding pop. 1,586 Paul et al. 2001 WA Est. 400 breeding pop. 400 R. Friesz pers. comm. Black Tern (b) 7,925 2 CA NE CA 1997: 1,849 nests 3,698 Shuford 1998 ID Est. 78 breeding pop. 78 C. Moulton pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR avg.: 275 nests 550 Shuford 1999
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

71

Table D-2. Continued.

Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source

 OR Klamath Basin (OR) 2003: 2,089 pop. 2,089 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 est. avg. 150 nests 300 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Sycan Marsh avg: 300 nests 600 Shuford 1999 OR Warner Basin 1987: 95 pairs 190 Stern 1988 UT Est. 120 breeding pop. 120 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 300 breeding pop. 300 R. Friesz pers. comm.

Pied-billed Grebe (b) insufficient data unknown 1Red-necked Grebe (b) 32 1

 OR Upper Klamath L. 1989: 28 28 Spencer 2003d WA 2 pairs 4 R. Hill pers. comm.

Horned Grebe (b) insufficient data unknown 1Eared Grebe (b)3 27,318 2

 CA Black Lake 1993: 268 breeding adults 268 Shuford and Metropulos 1996 CA Crowley Lake 1990-95 avg.: 626 pairs 1,252 Shuford and Metropulos 1996 CA Eagle Lake 1996-97 avg.: 2,715 nests 5,430 Shaw 1998 CA Klamath Basin (CA) 2003: 13,074 pop. 13,074 Shuford et al. 2004 CA Shasta Valley WA est. avg.: 50 nests 100 R. Smith pers. comm. ID S. ID 1993: 324 nests 648 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 226 breeding pop. 226 L. Neel pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 1990-02 avg.: 164 breeding 164 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Copeland Res. 1998: 22 pairs 44 Spencer 2003b OR Difficulty Res. 2000: 50 pairs 100 Spencer 2003b OR Klamath Basin (OR) 2003: 2,200 pop. 2,200 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 556 nests 1,112 G. Ivey unpubl. data UT Est. 1,200 breeding pop. 1,200 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 1,500 breeding pop. 1,500 R. Friesz pers. comm.
72 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-2. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Eared Grebe (m)5 >90% of NA pop. 2 CA Mono L.: 2,000,000 2,000,000 Boyd and Jehl 1998 OR Lake Abert avg.: 21,500 21,500 W. DeVaurs pers. comm. UT Great Salt Lake est.: 1,600,000 1,600,000 D. Paul unpubl. data Western Grebe (b) 12,088 2 CA Bridgeport Reservoir 2003: 80 nests 160 Ivey 2004 CA Crowley Lake 1990-95 avg.: 64 pairs 128 Shuford and Metropulos 1996 CA Eagle Lake 1996-03 avg. : 1,626 nests 3,252 Ivey 2004 CA Klamath Basin (CA) 2003: 1,705 1,706 Shuford et al. 2004 CA Shasta Valley WA avg.: 13 nests 26 R. Smith pers. comm. ID Minidoka NWR: 267 nests 534 S. Bouffard pers. comm. ID Other sites S. ID 1993: 330 nests 660 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 50 breeding pop. 50 L. Neel pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 1990-02 avg.: 6 breeding 6 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Klamath Basin (OR) 2003: 3,164 3,164 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 est.: 300 nests 600 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Summer Lake WA avg.: 30 nests 60 M. St. Louis pers. comm. OR Warner Basin 1987: 21 pairs 42 Stern 1988 UT Est. 700 breeding pop. 700 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 1,000 breeding pop. 1,000 R. Friesz pers. comm. Clark’s Grebe (b) 3,546 2 CA Crowley Lake 1990-95 avg.: 10 pairs 20 Shuford and Metropolis 1996 CA Eagle Lake 1996-03 avg.: 181 nests 362 Ivey 2004 CA Goose L. 2003: 60 nests 120 Ivey 2004 CA Klamath Basin (CA) 2003: 168 168 Shuford et al. 2004 ID S. ID 1993: 103 nests 206 Trost and Gerstell 1994
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 73 Table D-2. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source ID Minidoka NWR: 133 nests 266 S. Bouffard pers. comm. NV Est. 300 breeding pop. 300 L. Neel pers. comm. OR Klamath Basin (OR): 1,504 1,504 Shuford et al.2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 est.: 100 nests 200 G. Ivey unpubl. data UT Est. 300 breeding pop. 300 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 100 breeding pop. 100 R. Friesz pers. comm. Double-crested Cormorant (b) 10,556 2 CA NE CA 1997: 1,394 nests 2,788 Shuford 1998 ID S. ID 1993: 1,366 nests 2,732 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 400 breeding pop. 400 L. Neel pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 1990-02 avg.: 54 breeding 54 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Crane Prairie Res. 1998-99 avg.: 57 pairs 114 Matthews et al. 2003 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 308 nests 616 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Summer Lake WA 1998-00 avg.: 27 pairs 54 M. St. Louis pers. comm. OR Swan Lake 2003: 43 pairs 86 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Up. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg: 646 nests 1,292 USFWS data OR Warner Basin 2002: 60 nests 120 C. Foster pers. comm. UT Est. 800 breeding pop. 800 Paul et al. 2001 WA Est. 1,500 breeding pop. 1,500 R. Friesz pers. comm. Snowy Egret (b) 3,322 2 ID S. ID 1993: 306 nests 612 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. up to 300 nesting pairs 600 C. Henny pers. comm. OR Chewaucan/Rivers End: 40 nests 80 M. St. Louis pers. comm. OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 33 nests 66 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Warner Basin 1987: 10 pairs 20 Stern 1988 UT Fish Springs NWR: 594 breeding pop. 594 J. Banta pers. comm. UT Great Salt Lake avg.: 1,350 breeding pop. 1,350 Paul et al. 2001
74 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-2. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Great Blue Heron (b) 4,560 2 CA Clear Lake NWR 1997-99 avg.: 35 nests 70 USFWS data CA L. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 20 nests 40 USFWS data ID S. ID 1993: 898 nests 1,796 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 600 breeding pop. 600 L. Neel pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 1990-02 avg.: 58 breeding 58 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Klamath Game Mgmt. Area 2003: 35 pairs 70 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 88 nests 176 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Up. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 14 nests 28 USFWS data OR Warner Basin 2002: 25 nests 50 C. Foster/M. St. Louis, p. c. UT Fish Springs NWR: 12 breeding pop. 12 J. Banta pers. comm. UT Great Salt Lake avg.: 460 breeding pop. 460 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 1,200 breeding pop. 1,200 R. Friesz pers. comm. Great Egret (b) 2,238 2 CA Clear Lake NWR 1997-01 avg.: 39 nests 78 USFWS data CA L. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 282 nests 564 USFWS data CA Tule Lake NWR 1997-01 avg.: 41 nests 82 USFWS data ID S. ID 1993: 26 nests 52 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 226 breeding pop. 226 L. Neel pers. comm. OR Klamath Game Mgmt. Area 2003: 5 pairs 10 Shuford et al. 2004 OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg. 247 nests 494 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Up Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 136 nests 272 USFWS data OR Warner Basin 2002: 126 nests 252 C. Foster/M. St. Louis, p. c. UT Fish Springs NWR: 2 breeding pop. 2 J. Banta pers. comm. UT Great Salt Lake avg.: 6 breeding pop. 6 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 200 breeding pop. 200 R. Friesz pers. comm.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 75 Table D-2. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Cattle Egret (b) 916 2 ID S. ID 1993: avg. 33 nests 66 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 250 breeding pop. 250 L. Neel pers. comm. OR Malheur NWR: nests occasionally 0 G. Ivey unpubl. data UT Est. 600 breeding pop. 600 Paul et al. 2001 Green Heron (b) insufficient data–peripheral species unknown 1 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 5,586 2 CA Clear Lake NWR 1997-00 avg.: 6 nests 12 USFWS data CA L. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 140 nests 280 USFWS data CA Tule Lake NWR 1997-01: 8 nests 16 USFWS data ID S. ID 1993: 769 nests 1,538 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV Est. 800 breeding pop. 800 L. Neel pers. comm. NV Ruby L. NWR 1990-02 avg.: 106 breeding 106 J. Mackay pers. comm. OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg. 178 nests 356 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Three Mile Is. 1991: 54 nests 108 Blus et al. 1997 OR Up. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 30 nests 60 USFWS data OR Warner Basin 1987: 430 nests 860 Stern 1988 UT Fish Springs NWR: 250 breeding pop. 250 J. Banta pers. comm. UT Great Salt Lake avg.: 200 breeding pop. 200 D. Paul pers. comm. WA Est. 1,000 breeding pop. 1,000 R. Friesz pers. comm. Least Bittern (b) insufficient data unknown 1 American Bittern (b) insufficient data unknown 1 White-faced Ibis (b) CA 1997-99 avg.: 1,157 nests 2,314 57,978 3 Ivey et. al. in prep b ID S. ID 1993: 2,670 nests 5,340 Trost and Gerstell 1994 NV 1997-99 avg.: 6,116 nests 12,232 Ivey et. al. in prep b
76 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-2. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source OR 1997-99 avg.: 9,048 nests 18,096 Ivey et. al. 2005 UT 1997-99 avg.: 9,983 nests 19,996 Ivey et. al. 2005 American White Pelican (b) CA Clear Lake NWR 1997-01 avg.: 1,831 nests 3,662 26,924 2 USFWS data CA L. Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 114 nests 228 USFWS data CA Meiss Lake 1999-00: 15 nests 30 K. Novick pers. comm. ID Blackfoot Res. 2003: 837 nests 1,674 M. Wackenhut pers. comm. ID Minidoka NWR: 550 nests 1,100 S. Bouffard pers. comm. NV Anaho Is. 2000-04 avg: 4,207 nests 8,414 USFWS data OR Malheur NWR 1990-98 avg.: 273 nests 546 G. Ivey unpubl. data OR Up Klamath NWR 1997-01 avg.: 309 nests 618 USFWS data OR Warner Basin 2002: 206 nests 412 M. St. Louis/C. Foster, p. c. UT Est. 10,000 breeding pop. 10,000 Paul et al. 2001 WA Columbia River: 120 nests 240 H. Browers pers. comm. American White Pelican (m)6 UT Great Salt Lake: exceeds 55,000 frequently 55,000 > 46% of NA pop. 2 D. Paul pers. comm. Common Loon (b) CA Extirpated 0 8 1 PRBO 2003 ID 0 OR Cascades early 1990s only: 1 nest 0 C. Carey pers. comm. WA 4 nests 8 Richardson et. al. 2000 Common Loon (m)6 NV Walker Lake avg.: 1,050 1,050 >1,050 3 L. Neel pers. comm. 1 Listed as separate migrant species because entire North American population likely migrates through this BCR. 2 Total population estimate counted at wintering areas = 3, but breeding distribution not available by state. 3 Total population estimate counted at staging areas = 3, but breeding distribution not available by state. 4 Listed as separate migrant species because 10% of North American population uses this site in migration. 5 Listed as separate migrant species because >90% of North American population stages at Mono Lake and Great Salt Lake. 6 Listed as separate migrant species because contaminants issues for migrants at Walker Lake, Nevada.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 77 Table D-3. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant). Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (b) 164 3 OR 1999-00: 82 pairs 164 Ivey and Herziger 2000 Greater Sandhill Crane LCRVP (b)1 100 21 ID Est. 50-100 breeding pop. 100 estimate Greater Sandhill Crane RMP (b)2 Est. 88% of breeding pop. in this BCR 16,515 22 R. Drewien pers. comm. ID Unknown unknown MT Unknown unknown WY Unknown Virginia Rail (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Sora (b) insufficient data unknown 1 American Coot (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Ring-billed Gull (b) 9,350 2 ID Zero 0 C. Moulton pers. comm. MT Est. 9,300 breeding pop. 9,300 D. Casey pers. comm. OR Confirmed breeding bird atlas 1995-99 unknown Adamus et al. 2001 WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 50 breeding pop. 50 A. Cerovski pers. comm. California Gull (b) 9,474 2 ID Bear Lake NWR: 120 nests 240 C. Moulton pers. comm. MT Est. 920 breeding pop. 920 D. Casey pers. comm. WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 8,314 breeding pop. 8,314 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Herring Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1 Bonaparte’s Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1 Franklin’s Gull (b) 19,050 2 ID Bear Lake NWR: >5,000 breeding pop. 5,000 S. Bouffard pers. comm. ID Grays Lake NWR: >10,000 breeding pop. 10,000 S. Bouffard pers. comm.
78 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-3. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source MT Est. 4,000 breeding pop. 4,000 D. Casey pers. comm. WY Est. 100 breeding pop. 100 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Caspian Tern (b) 180 2 MT Avg. 1997-03: 40 pairs 80 USFWS 2005 WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 50 breeding pop. 50 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Forster’s Tern (b) 176 2 MT Est. 126 breeding pop. 126 D. Casey pers. comm. WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 100 breeding pop. 100 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Black Tern (b) 674 2 ID Est. 124 breeding pop. 124 C. Moulton pers. comm. MT Est. 200 breeding pop. 200 D. Casey pers. comm. OR Confirmed breeding bird atlas 1995-99 unknown Adamus et al. 2001 WA Est. 250 breeding pop. 250 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 100 breeding pop. 100 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Pied-billed Grebe (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Red-necked Grebe (b) 500 1 ID Est. 50 pairs 100 C. Moulton pers. comm. WA Up to 400 breeding pop. 400 R. Friesz pers. comm. Horned Grebe (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Eared Grebe (b) 2,412 2 ID S. ID 1993: 40 nests 80 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Est. 700 breeding pop. 700 D. Casey pers. comm. OR Rabbit Valley Res. 2000: 250 nests 500 Spencer 2003b WA Est. 200 breeding pop. 200 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 932 breeding pop. 932 A. Cerovski pers. comm.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 79 Table D-3. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Western Grebe (b) 3,580 2 ID Cascade Reservoir 2004: 1,350 nests 2,700 C. Moulton pers. comm. ID Other N. ID sites: 200 breeding pop. 200 Moulton/Taylor pers. comm. MT Est. 250 breeding pop. 250 D. Casey pers. comm. OR Confirmed breeding bird atlas 1995-99 unknown Adamus et al. 2001 WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 430 breeding pop. 430 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Clark’s Grebe (b) 106 2 ID Cascade Res./Lk. Pend Oreille: unknown unknown Moulton/Taylor pers. comm. MT Est. 26 breeding pop. 26 D. Casey pers. comm. WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 80 breeding pop. 80 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Double-crested Cormorant (b) ID N. ID: unknown unknown 1,976 2 Moulton/Taylor pers. comm. ID S. ID 1993: 35 nests 70 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Est. 1,150 breeding pop. 1,150 D. Casey pers. comm. OR Confirmed breeding bird atlas 1995-99 unknown Adamus et al. 2001 WA Est. >100 nests 200 S. Zender pers. comm. WY Est. 556 breeding pop. 556 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Snowy Egret (b) ID S. ID 1993: 20 nests 40 70 2 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Zero 0 D. Casey pers. comm. WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 10 breeding pop. 10 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Great Blue Heron (b) 1,600 2 ID N. ID: unknown unknown Moulton/Taylor pers. comm. ID S. ID 1993: 85 nests 170 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Est. 900 breeding pop. 900 D. Casey pers. comm.
80 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-3. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source OR Confirmed breeding bird atlas 1995-99 unknown Adamus et al. 2001 WA Est. 165 nests 330 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 400 breeding pop. 400 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Cattle Egret (b) 20 1 ID S. ID 1993: 10 nests 20 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Zero 0 D. Casey pers. comm. WY Zero 0 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 520 2 ID S. ID 1993: 35 nests 70 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Est. 50 breeding pop. 50 D. Casey pers. comm. OR Confirmed breeding bird atlas 1995-99 unknown Adamus et al. 2001 WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 200 breeding pop. 200 A. Cerovski pers. comm. American Bittern (b) insufficient data unknown 1 White-faced Ibis (b) 1,708 2 ID S. ID 1993: 710 nests 1,420 Trost and Gerstell 1994 MT Est. 20 breeding pop. 20 D. Casey pers. comm. WY Est. 268 breeding pop. 268 A. Cerovski pers. comm. American White Pelican (b) 10,500 2 MT Est. 8,000 breeding pop. 8,000 D. Casey pers. comm. WA Zero 0 R. Friesz pers. comm. WY Est. 2,500 breeding pop. 2,500 A. Cerovski pers. comm. Common Loon (b) 270 3 ID Est. 2004: up to 14 breeding pop. 14 C. Moulton pers. comm. MT Est. 200 breeding pop. 200 D. Casey pers. comm. WA 3 nests 6 Richardson et al. 2000 WY Est. 50 breeding pop. 50 A. Cerovski pers. comm. 1 Total population estimate counted at wintering areas = 3, but breeding distribution not available by state.

2 Total population estimate counted at staging areas = 3, but breeding distribution not available by state.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

81

Table D-4. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant).Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data sourceGreater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 128 3

2000: 64 pairs 128 Ivey and Herziger 2000

Virginia Rail (b) insufficient data unknown 1Sora (b) insufficient data unknown 1American Coot (b) insufficient data unknown 1Ring-billed Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1California Gull (b) Occasionally nest L. Almanor, not recently 0 0 2 Shuford and Ryan 2000Bonaparte’s Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1Caspian Tern (m) insufficient data unknown 1Forster’s Tern (b) 108 2

Pope Marsh, Lake Tahoe 1998: 16 nests 32 PRBO unpubl. dataMountain Meadows Res. 1997: 38 pairs 76 Shuford 1998

Black Tern (b) 182 3

1997: 91 pairs 182 Shuford 1998

Pied-billed Grebe (b) insufficient data unknown 1Eared Grebe (b) 600 2

Mountain Meadows Res. 1999: 300 nests 600 Cooper 2004

Western Grebe (b) 1,286 2

Lake Almanor 2002-03 avg.: 633 nests 1,266 Ivey 2004Mountain Meadows 2003: 10 nests 20 Ivey 2004

Clark’s Grebe (b) 12 2

Lake Almanor 2003: 12 adults with young 12 Ivey 2004

Double-crested Cormorant (b) 42 2

Butt Valley Res. 1997: 21 nests 42 Shuford 1998

Snowy Egret (m) insufficient data unknown 1Great Blue Heron (b) insufficient data unknown 1
82 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-4. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Great Egret (m) insufficient data unknown 1 Green Heron (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) insufficient data unknown 1 American Bittern (b) insufficient data unknown 1 White-faced Ibis (b) 2,854 2 Sierra Valley 2000: 1,427 pairs 2,854 D. Shuford pers. comm. Common Loon (b) Extirpated 0 1 PRBO 2003
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 83 Table D-5. Waterbird population estimates and their associated data quality (DQ) indices for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant). Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) CO 300 300 300 2 R. Levad pers. comm. Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m)1 CO Entire pop. likely stages at San Luis Valley 18,680 >90% of NA pop. 3 Sharp et al. 2002 Sandhill Crane (MCP) (m) CO Est. 6,700 6,700 >3% of NA pop. 2 Sharp et al. 2002 NM Est. 12,500 12,500 Sharp et al. 2002 Virginia Rail (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Sora (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Common Moorhen (b) NM <10 pairs 20 20 1 B. Howe pers. comm. American Coot (b) insufficient data unknown 1 Ring-billed Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1 California Gull (b) CO 500 nests 1,000 1,000 3 R. Levad pers. comm. Bonaparte’s Gull (m) insufficient data unknown 1 Franklin’s Gull (b) CO Est. 100 breeding pop. 100 100 3 R. Levad pers. comm. Forster’s Tern (b) CO 1994-2004 avg.: 29 pairs 58 72 2 R. Levad pers. comm. UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 14 breed. pop. 14 USFWS data Black Tern (b) CO 1994-2004 avg.: 7 nests 14 24 2 R. Levad pers. comm. UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 10 breed. pop. 10 USFWS data Pied-billed Grebe (b) unknown 1 NM <100 100 B. Howe pers. comm. Eared Grebe (b) 6,704 2 AZ Est. avg. 400 nests 800 T. Supplee pers. comm.
84 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-5. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source CO Est. avg. 2,000 nests 4,000 R. Levad pers. comm. NM Stinking Lake 1993-97 avg.: 950 nests 1,900 Stahlecker 1996, 1997 UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 4 breed. pop. 4 USFWS data Western Grebe (b) 382 2 AZ Est. avg. 100 nests 200 T. Supplee pers. comm. CO Est. avg. 75 nests 150 R. Levad pers. comm. UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 32 breed. pop. 32 USFWS data Clark’s Grebe (b) 210 2 AZ Est. avg. 25 nests 50 T. Supplee pers. comm. CO Est. avg. 75 nests 150 R. Levad pers. comm. NM <5 nests 10 B. Howe pers. comm. Double-crested Cormorant (b) 722 2 AZ Est. avg. 65 pairs 130 T. Supplee pers. comm. CO Est. 500 breeding pop. 500 R. Levad pers. comm. UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 92 breed. pop. 92 USFWS data Little Blue Heron (b) unknown 1 NM 1-2 nests, occasionally 4 B. Howe pers. comm. Snowy Egret (b) 940 2 CO Est. avg. 200 nests 400 R. Levad pers. comm. NM Est. avg. 250 nests 500 B. Howe pers. comm. UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 40 breed. pop. 40 USFWS data Great Blue Heron (b) 2,082 2 AZ Est. avg. 75 nests 150 T. Supplee pers. comm. CO Est. 900 breeding pop. 900 R. Levad pers. comm. NM 2001: 486 nests 972 B. Howe pers. comm. UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 60 breed. pop. 60 USFWS data Great Egret (m) insufficient data unknown 1
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 85 Table D-5. Continued. Species Population data Area pop. estimate Total BCR pop. DQ index Population data source Cattle Egret (b) 226 2 CO Est. avg. 100 nests 200 R. Levad pers. comm. NM Avg. 26 breeding pop. 26 B. Howe pers. comm. Green Heron (b) 220 1 CO >10 nests 20 R. Levad pers. comm. NM ~ 100 nests 200 B. Howe pers. comm. Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 656 2 CO Est. avg. 300 nests 600 R. Levad pers. comm. NM Stinking Lake 1990-97 avg.: 20 nests 40 Stahlecker 1996, 1997 UT Ouray NWR 1990-99 avg.: 16 breed. pop. 16 USFWS data Least Bittern (b) insufficient data unknown 1 American Bittern (b) insufficient data unknown 1 White-faced Ibis (b) 10,124 2 AZ Zero 0 T. Supplee pers. comm. CO Est. avg. 5,000 nests 10,000 R. Levad pers. comm. NM Stinking Lake 1990-97 avg.: 14 nests 28 Stahlecker 1996, 1997 UT Ouray NWR 1997-99 avg.: 48 nests 96 Ivey et al. in prep b American White Pelican (b) 400 3 CO Est. avg. 200 nests 400 R. Levad pers. comm. AZ, NM, UT No breeding 0 Common Loon (m) insufficient data unknown 1 1 Listed as separate migrant species because entire North American population likely stages at this site.
86 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-6. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant). Species N. American pop. estimate Source of N. American pop. estimate BCR pop. estimate % of N. American pop. in BCR BCR AI score1 Comments on AI score Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 8,000 G. Ivey pers. observ. 3,002 38% 4 Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) 8,000 G. Ivey pers. observ. unknown >90% 5 entire pop. Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) 2,000 Pacific Flyway Council 1995 1,900 95% 5 Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) 2,000 Pacific Flyway Council 1995 unknown >90% 5 entire pop. Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) 18,680 Sharp et al. 2002 1,868 10% 3 entire pop. Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) 25,000 Pacific Flyway Council 1983 unknown >90% 5 Yellow Rail (b) unknown 608 unknown 5 entire western pop. Virginia Rail (b) unknown unknown unknown 3 prof. judgment Sora (b) unknown unknown unknown 3 prof. judgment Common Moorhen (b) unknown unknown unknown 1 prof. judgment American Coot (b) 2,000,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 unknown unknown 3 prof. judgment Ring-billed Gull (b) 1,700,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 70,116 4% 2 California Gull (b) 414,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 314,398 76% 5 Glaucous-winged Gull (b) 380,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 0 <1% 1 nests occasionally Herring Gull (m) 246,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 unknown unknown 1 prof. judgment Bonaparte’s Gull (m) unknown Kushlan et al. 2002 unknown unknown 2 prof. judgment Franklin’s Gull (b) 653,236 Kushlan et al. 2002 42,588 7% 2 Franklin’s Gull (m) 653,236 Kushlan et al. 2002 unknown >13% 3 Caspian Tern (b) 68,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 3,940 6% 2 Common Tern (b) 300,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 0 <1% 1 may breed in ID Forster’s Tern (b) 49,500 Kushlan et al. 2002 7,342 15% 3 Black Tern (b) 300,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 7,925 3% 2 Pied-billed Grebe (b) unknown unknown unknown 3 prof. judgment Red-necked Grebe (b) unknown 32 <1% 1 prof. judgment Horned Grebe (b) unknown unknown unknown 2 prof. judgment Eared Grebe (b) 3,800,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 27,318 <1% 1
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 87 Species N. American pop. estimate Source of N. American pop. estimate BCR pop. estimate % of N. American pop. in BCR BCR AI score1 Comments on AI score Eared Grebe (m) 3,800,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 unknown >90% 5 Western Grebe (b) 110,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 12,088 11% 3 Clark’s Grebe (b) 15,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 3,546 24% 3 Double-crested Cormorant (b) 740,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 10,556 1% 2 Snowy Egret (b) 143,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 3,322 2% 2 Great Blue Heron (b) 83,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 4,560 5% 2 Great Egret (b) 180,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 2,238 1% 2 Cattle Egret (b) unknown 916 <1% 1 prof. judgment Green Heron (b) unknown unknown unknown 1 prof. judgment Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 50,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 5,586 11% 3 Least Bittern (b) unknown unknown unknown 1 prof. judgment American Bittern (b) unknown unknown unknown 3 prof. judgment White-faced Ibis (b) 100,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 57,978 58% 5 American White Pelican (b) 218,000-breeders Kushlan et al. 2002 26,924 22% 3 American White Pelican (m) 120,000 Kushlan et al. 2002 unknown >46% 4 Common Loon (b) unknown 8 unknown 1 prof. judgment Common Loon (m) unknown >1,050 unknown 2 prof. judgment 1Table D-6. Continued. Based on percentage of North American population in a BCR: 50%=5, 25-49%=4, 10-24%=3, 1-9%=2, <1%=1.
88 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-7. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant). Species

N. American

pop. estimate

Source ofN. American pop. estimate

BCR pop.

estimate

% of 

N. 

American pop. 

in BCR

BCR

AI score1

Comments on AI score

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b)Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b)Virginia Rail (b)Sora (b)American Coot (b)Ring-billed Gull (b)California Gull (b)Herring Gull (m)Bonaparte’s Gull (m)Franklin’s Gull (b)Caspian Tern (b)Forster’s Tern (b)Black Tern (b)Pied-billed Grebe (b)Red-necked Grebe (b)Horned Grebe (b)Eared Grebe (b)Western Grebe (b)Clark’s Grebe (b)Double-crested Cormorant (b)Snowy Egret (b)Great Blue Heron (b)Cattle Egret (b)Black-crowned Night-Heron (b)American Bittern (b)White-faced Ibis (b)American White Pelican (b)Common Loon (b)

8,0002,000

18,680

unknownunknown

2,000,0001,700,000

414,000246,000

unknown

653,236

68,00049,500

300,000

unknownunknownunknown

3,800,000

110,000

15,000

740,000143,000

83,000

unknown

50,000

unknown

100,000

218,000 breeders

unknown

G. Ivey pers. observ.Pacific Flyway Council 1995Sharp et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002King and Anderson 2005

164100

16,512

unknownunknownunknown

9,3509,474

unknownunknown

19,050

180176674

unknown

500

unknown

2,4123,580

106

1,976

70

1,600

20

520

unknown

1,708

10,500

270

2%5%

88%

unknownunknownunknown

1%2%

unknownunknown

3%

<1%<1%<1%

unknownunknownunknown

<1%

3%

<1%<1%<1%

2%

<1%

1%

unknown

2%5%

unknown

22522222112111222121112122222

prof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgment

1 Based on percentage of North American population in a BCR: 50%=5, 25-49%=4, 10-24%=3, 1-9%=2, <1=1.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 89

Table D-8. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m =migrant).

Species N. American pop. estimate Source of N. American pop. estimate BCR pop. estimate % of N. American pop. in BCR BCR AI score1 Comments on AI scoreGreater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b)Virginia Rail (b)Sora (b)American Coot (b)Ring-billed Gull (m)California Gull (b)Bonaparte’s Gull (m)Caspian Tern (m)Forster’s Tern (b)Black Tern (b)Pied-billed Grebe (b)Eared Grebe (b)Western Grebe (b)Clark’s Grebe (b)Double-crested Cormorant (b)Snowy Egret (m)Great Blue Heron (b)Great Egret (m)Green Heron (b)Black-crowned Night-Heron (b)American Bittern (b)White-faced Ibis (b)Common Loon (b)

8,000

unknownunknown

2,000,0001,700,000

414,000

unknown

68,00049,500

300,000

unknown

3,800,000

110,000

15,000

740,000143,000

83,000

180,000

unknown

50,000

unknown

100,000

unknown

G. Ivey pers. observ.Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002

128

unknownunknownunknownunknown

0

unknownunknown

108182

unknown

600

1,286

1242

unknownunknownunknownunknownunknownunknown

2,854

0

2%

unknownunknownunknownunknown

<1%

unknownunknown

<1%<1%

unknown

<1%

1%

<1%<1%

unknownunknownunknownunknownunknownunknown

3%

0

2111111111112111111112

NA

prof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentnests occasionallyprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentextirpated

1 Based on percentage of North American population in a BCR: 50%=5, 25-49%=4, 10-24%=3, 1-9%=2, <1=1.
90 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-9. Waterbird population estimates and Area Importance (AI) scores in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m =migrant). Species

N. American

pop. estimate

Source ofN. American pop. estimate

BCR pop.

estimate

% of 

N. 

American 

pop. in BCR

BCR

AI score1 Comments on 

AI score

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b)Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m)Sandhill Crane (MCP) (m)Virginia Rail (b)Sora (b) Common Moorhen (b)American Coot (b)Ring-billed Gull (m)California Gull (b)Bonaparte’s Gull (m)Franklin’s Gull (b) Forster’s Tern (b)Black Tern (b)Pied-billed Grebe (b)Eared Grebe (b)Western Grebe (b)Clark’s Grebe (b)Double-crested Cormorant (b)Little Blue Heron (b)Snowy Egret (b)Great Blue Heron (b)Great Egret (m)Cattle Egret (b)Green Heron (b)Black-crowned Night-Heron (b)Least Bittern (b)American Bittern (b)White-faced Ibis (b)American White Pelican (b)Common Loon (m)

18,68018,680

464,000

unknownunknownunknown

2,000,0001,700,000

414,000

unknown 

653,236

49,500

300,000

unknown

3,800,000

110,000

15,000

740,000

unknown

143,000

83,000

180,000

unknownunknown

50,000

unknownunknown

100,000218,000

unknown

Sharp et al. 2002Sharp et al. 2002Sharp et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002Kushlan et al. 2002King and Anderson 2005

300

unknownunknownunknownunknown

20

unknownunknown

1,000

unknown

100

7224

unknown

6,704

382210722

unknown

940

2,082

unknown

226220656

unknownunknown

10,124

400

unknown

2%

>90%

>3%

unknownunknownunknownunknownunknown

<1%

unknown

<1%<1%<1%

unknown

<1%<1%

1%

<1%

unknown

<1%

3%

unknownunknownunknown

1%

unknownunknown

10%

<1%

unknown

252111111111111121112111211311

entire pop.prof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgmentprof. judgment

1 Based on percentage of North American population in a BCR: 50%=5, 25-49%=4, 10-24%=3, 1-9%=2, <1=1.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 91

Table D-10. Breeding population estimates for selected waterbird species, percentage of the North 

American population, and Area Importance (AI) score in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation 

Plan.

Species Area

Estimated 

breeding 

population

% of 

N. American 

breeding pop.

AI

score1

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) North America 8,000

BCR 9 3,002 38% 4

BCR 10 164 2% 2

BCR 15 128 2% 2

BCR 16 0 0 NA

Intermountain West total 3,294 42% 4

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) 

(b)

North America 2,000

BCR 9 1,900 95% 5

BCR 10 100 5% 2

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 0 0 NA

Intermountain West total 2,000 100% 5

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) North America 18,680

BCR 9 1,868 10% 3

BCR 10 16,512 88% 5

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 300 2% 2

Intermountain West total 18,680 100% 5

Ring-billed Gull (b) North America 1,700,000

BCR 9 70,116 4% 2

BCR 10 9,350 1% 2

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 0 0 NA

Intermountain West total 79,466 5% 2

California Gull (b) North America 414,000

BCR 9 314,398 77% 5

BCR 10 9,474 2% 2

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 1,000 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 324,872 78% 5

Franklin’s Gull (b) North America 653,236

BCR 9 42,588 7% 2

BCR 10 19,050 3% 2

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 100 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 61,738 10% 3
92 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Species Area

Estimated 

breeding 

population

% of 

N. American 

breeding pop.

AI

score1

Caspian Tern (b) North America 68,000

BCR 9 3,940 6% 2

BCR 10 180 <1% 1

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 0 0 NA

Intermountain West total 4,120 6% 2

Forster’s Tern (b) North America 49,500

BCR 9 7,342 15% 3

BCR 10 176 <1% 1

BCR 15 108 <1% 1

BCR 16 72 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 7,698 16% 3

Black Tern (b) North America 300,000

BCR 9 7,925 3% 2

BCR 10 674 <1% 1

BCR 15 182 <1% 1

BCR 16 24 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 8,805 3% 2

Eared Grebe (b) North America 3,800,000

BCR 9 27,318 <1% 1

BCR 10 2,412 <1% 1

BCR 15 600 <1% 1

BCR 16 6,704 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 37,034 1% 2

Western Grebe (b) North America 110,000

BCR 9 12,088 11% 3

BCR 10 3,580 3% 2

BCR 15 1,286 1% 2

BCR 16 382 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 17,336 16% 3

Clark’s Grebe (b) North America 15,000

BCR 9 3,546 24% 3

BCR 10 106 <1% 1

BCR 15 12 <1% 1

BCR 16 210 1% 2

Intermountain West total 3,874 26% 3

Table D-10. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 93

Species Area

Estimated 

breeding 

population

% of 

N. American 

breeding pop.

AI

score1

Double-crested Cormorant (b) North America 740,000

BCR 9 10,556 1% 2

BCR 10 1,976 <1% 1

BCR 15 42 <1% 1

BCR 16 722 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 13,296 2% 2

Snowy Egret (b) North America 143,000

BCR 9 3,322 2% 2

BCR 10 70 <1% 1

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 940 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 4,332 3% 2

Great Blue Heron (b) North America 83,000

BCR 9 4,560 5% 2

BCR 10 1,600 2% 2

BCR 15 unknown unknown 1

BCR 16 2,082 3% 2

Intermountain West total 8,242 10% 3

Great Egret (b) North America 180,000

BCR 9 2,238 1% 2

BCR 10 0 0 NA

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 0 0 NA

Intermountain West total 2,238 1% 2

Black-crowned North America 50,000

Night-Heron (b) BCR 9 5,586 11% 3

BCR 10 520 1% 2

BCR 15 unknown unknown 1

BCR 16 656 1% 2

Intermountain West total 6,762 13% 3

White-faced Ibis (b) North America 100,000

BCR 9 57,978 58% 5

BCR 10 1,708 2% 2

BCR 15 2,854 3% 2

BCR 16 10,124 10% 3

Intermountain West total 72,664 73% 5

Table D-10. Continued.
94 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Species Area

Estimated 

breeding 

population

% of 

N. American 

breeding pop.

AI

score1

American White Pelican (b) North America 120,000

BCR 9 26,924 22% 3

BCR 10 10,500 9% 2

BCR 15 0 0 NA

BCR 16 400 <1% 1

Intermountain West total 37,824 32% 4

1

 Based on percentage of North American population in a BCR: 50%=5, 25-49%=4, 10-24%=3, 1-9%=2, <1=1.

Table D-10. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 95

Table D-11. Waterbird species on lists of USFWS’ Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC); state Endangered 

(SE), Threatened (ST), or Sensitive Species/Species of Concern (SC)1; or Focal priority species (F) in 

Partners In Flight (PIF) state and regional Bird Conservation Plans and Physiographic Area Plans2, by 

Bird Conservation Region (BCR) in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan.

Species3 BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 154 BCR 16

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(CVP)

SE: WA5 ST: CA 

SC: OR F: NV, 

Columbia Plateau5

SC: OR ST: CA

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(LCRVP)

F: ID5, NV F: ID5

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(RMP)

F: ID5 SC: WY5 F: ID5 SC: CO5

Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) SE: WA5 SC: CA

Yellow Rail BCC: National, USFWS 

Reg. 1 SC: CA, OR

Ring-billed Gull F: ID

California Gull F: ID F: ID

Franklin’s Gull SC: OR F: ID, Basin 

& Range, Columbia 

Plateau

SC: MT, WY F: ID, 

MT, WY, Central Rocky 

Mountains

Caspian Tern F: ID SC: MT, WY F: MT

Forster’s Tern F: ID SC: MT, WY F: MT, WY

Black Tern SC: CA, ID F: ID, NV SC: ID, MT, WY 

F: ID, MT, WY

SC3: CA

Red-necked Grebe SC: OR F: ID

Horned Grebe F: MT

Eared Grebe F: ID F: ID

Western Grebe SC: WA F: ID, 

Columbia Plateau

SC: WY F: ID, WY

Clark’s Grebe F: ID, NV SC: WY F: ID, MT, WY SC: AZ F: NM

Snowy Egret SC: OR F: ID SC: WY F: ID

Great Egret SC: ID

Black-crowned Night-Heron SC: MT, WY F: MT

Least Bittern SC: CA SC: AZ

American Bittern F: ID SC: WY F: ID, MT, WY SC: AZ F: AZ, NM

White-faced Ibis F: ID, NV SC: MT, WY F: ID, MT F: NM

American White Pelican SE: WA SC: CA, ID, 

OR, UT F: ID, NV, UT, 

Basin & Range

SC: MT, WY F: MT, WY, 

Central Rocky Mountains, 

Wyoming Basin

Common Loon SC: CA, ID, WA SC: ID, MT, WA, WY

F: MT, WY 

SCe: CA 

1

 SM (State Monitor) species for Washington and Species on Review for Montana were not included.

2 Latta et al. 1999, Neel 1999, Idaho PIF 2000, Montana PIF 2000, Rustay 2000, Parrish et al. 2002 and Nicholoff 2003.

3 No SC lists for NV or NM, and CA list is in review, so adjustments may be needed after final list is sanctioned. No waterbirds 

were listed in PIF plans for California, Colorado, Oregon/Washington, or the Sierra Nevada, Colorado Plateau, Utah Mountains or 

Southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Area plans.

4 The draft California Bird Species of Concern List (PRBO 2003) details are listed for this BCR because priorities were used for 

ranking species here because only one state (see Step 5). SC3: Third priority. SCe: Extirpated status.

5 Status does not specify subspecies of Sandhill Crane.
96 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-12. Preliminary concern matrix for breeding colonial waterbirds in the Intermountain West based on NAWCP1. Global Distribution Concern Category North America Western Hemisphere Northern Hemisphere Cosmopolitan Peripheral Highly Imperiled High Little Blue Heron Snowy Egret Moderate American White Pelican California Gull Forster’s Tern Western Grebe Bonaparte’s Gull Franklin’s Gull (Thayer’s Gull) Black-crowned Night-Heron Black Tern Eared Grebe Low Clark’s Grebe Green Heron White-faced Ibis Glaucous-winged Gull Caspian Tern Common Tern Herring Gull Not at Risk Double-crested Cormorant Ring-billed Gull Great Blue Heron Cattle Egret Great Egret (Mew Gull) 1 Global distribution categories were broadly defined as: · North America: Species that breed and winter only in North America and associated oceanic regions. · Western Hemisphere: Species that breed and winter in North and South America and associated oceanic regions. · Northern Hemisphere: All species, except those included in the above categories, that breed and winter in the Northern Hemisphere and associated oceanic regions. · Cosmopolitan: Species that breed and winter in most hemispheres including North America and associated oceanic regions. · Peripheral: Species that occur largely outside of North America but with breeding and/or non-breeding ranges that overlap peripherally with North America and associated oceanic regions. 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 97

Table D-13. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region 9 in the Intermountain West 

Waterbird Conservation Plan (breeding species unless noted as migrant; b = breeding, m = migrant)1.

Global Distribution

Concern

Category North America

Western

Hemisphere

Northern

Hemisphere Cosmopolitan Peripheral

High 

Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(CVP) (b, m)

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(LCRVP) (m)

Yellow Rail

Western Grebe

Clark’s Grebe

American White Pelican

 (b, m)

Franklin’s Gull (b)

Snowy Egret

Lesser Sandhill 

Crane (PFP) (m)

Common Loon (b)

Black Tern 

Eared Grebe (m)

Moderate 

Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(LCRVP) (b)

Sora

California Gull

Forster’s Tern

American Bittern 

Virginia Rail 

Franklin’s Gull (m)

Pied-billed Grebe

Great Blue Heron 

Least Bittern 

White-faced Ibis

Common Loon (m) Black-crowned 

Night-Heron

Low 

Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(RMP)

Red-necked Grebe 

Horned Grebe

Caspian Tern

Eared Grebe (b)

Not at 

Risk

American Coot

Ring-billed Gull

Bonaparte’s Gull (m)

Green Heron

Double-crested Cormorant

Common Moorhen Glaucous-winged 

Gull

Great Egret 

Cattle Egret 

Herring Gull (m)

Common Tern

1

 Changes in rankings for colonial species (all species not noted below remained at the national ranking level):

· California Gull kept at Moderate because although AI = 5, healthy populations, lack of threats, and increasing trend.

· Glaucous-winged Gull to Not at Risk because AI = 1.

· Herring Gull and Bonaparte’s Gull to Not at Risk because migrant, Herring Gull also to Peripheral because of rarity.

· Franklin’s Gull (b) to High because SC in OR, Focal in ID and Basin & Range and Columbia Plateau PIF plans. 

· Franklin’s Gull (m) to Moderate (UT only) because AI = 3 and reliance on specific food source at Great Salt Lake (brine flies).

· Common Tern to Not at Risk because AI = 1 and breeding status unknown, and Peripheral because of rarity.

· Black Tern to High because SC in ID and on draft CA SC list, and Focal in ID and NV.

· Eared Grebe (b) to Low because AI = 1.

· Eared Grebe (m) to High (CA and UT) because AI = 5 and threat of water diversion and development at Lake Abert staging site (OR).

· Western Grebe to High because SC in WA, Focal in ID and Columbia Plateau PIF plan, and threats (disturbance and water drawdown in CA and ID). 

Clark’s Grebe also to High because shares issues, managed together (Focal ID and NV).

· Great Blue Heron to Moderate because of moderate threat of potential loss of riparian forests.

· Green Heron to Not at Risk because AI = 1.

· White-faced Ibis to Moderate because Focal in ID and NV and AI = 5.

· American White Pelican (b) to High because SE in WA; SC in ID, OR, UT, and on draft CA SC list; and Focal in ID, NV, UT, and Basin and Range PIF 

plan.

· American White Pelican (m) to High (UT only) because AI = 5.

Rankings for marshbirds:

· Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) to High because SE in WA, ST in CA, SC in OR, and Focal in NV and Columbia Plateau PIF plan.

· Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) to High (CA, OR, WA only) because AI = 5.

· Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) to Moderate because Focal in ID and NV. 

· Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) (NV only) to High because AI = 5.

· Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) to Low because Focal in ID. 

· Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) to High (CA, ID, OR, WA only) because AI = 5. 

· Yellow Rail to High because on National and Region 1 BCC lists, SC in CA and OR.

· Virginia Rail, Sora, Pied-billed Grebe, Least Bittern (on draft CA SC list), and American Bittern (Focal in ID) to Moderate per Regional Waterbird 

Working Group. 

· Common Moorhen to Not at Risk because AI = 1. 

· American Coot to Moderate because AI = 3, but to Not at Risk per Regional Waterbird Working Group.

· Red-necked Grebe to Low because SC in OR. 

· Horned Grebe to Low because AI = 2.

· Common Loon (b) to High because SC in ID and WA, on draft CA SC list (extirpated), and likely extirpated in OR. 

· Common Loon (m) to Moderate (NV only) because of mercury contamination threat at Walker Lake, NV.
98 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-14. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (breeding species unless noted as migrant; b = breeding, m = migrant)1. Global Distribution Concern Category North America Western Hemisphere Northern Hemisphere Cosmopolitan Peripheral High Concern American White Pelican Franklin’s Gull Common Loon Moderate Concern Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) Sora California Gull Forster’s Tern Western Grebe Clark’s Grebe American Bittern Virginia Rail Pied-billed Grebe Snowy Egret Great Blue Heron White-faced Ibis Black Tern Black-crowned Night-Heron Low Concern Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) Red-necked Grebe Horned Grebe Caspian Tern Eared Grebe Not at Risk American Coot Ring-billed Gull Bonaparte’s Gull (m) Double-crested Cormorant Cattle Egret Herring Gull (m) 1 Changes in rankings for colonial species (all species not noted below remained at the national ranking level): · Herring Gull to Not at Risk because migrant and Peripheral because of rarity. · Bonaparte’s Gull to Not at Risk because migrant. · Franklin’s Gull to High because SC in MT and WY; and Focal in ID, MT, WY, and Central Rocky Mountains PIF plans. · Caspian Tern to Not at Risk because AI = 1, but to Low because SC in MT and WY and Focal for MT. · Forster’s Tern to Low because AI = 1, but to Moderate because SC and Focal in MT and WY. · Black Tern to Low because AI = 1, but to Moderate because SC and Focal in ID, MT, WY. · Eared Grebe to Low because AI = 1, Focal only in ID. · Western Grebe to Low because AI = 1, but to Moderate because SC in WY, Focal in ID and WY, and water drawdown and disturbance issues in ID (C. Moulton pers. comm.). Clark’s Grebe also to Moderate because shares issues and managed together (SC in WY; Focal in ID, MT, and WY). · Snowy Egret to Moderate because AI = 1, remains there because only SC in WY and Focal in ID. · Great Blue Heron to Moderate because of moderate threat of potential loss of riparian forests. · White-faced Ibis to Moderate because SC in MT and WY and Focal in ID and MT. · American White Pelican to High because SC in MT and WY, and Focal in MT, WY and Central Rocky Mountains and Wyoming Basin PIF plans. Rankings for marshbirds: · Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) to Low because SC in OR. · Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) to Low because Focal in ID. · Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) to Moderate because SC in WY and Focal in ID. · Virginia Rail, Sora, and Pied-billed Grebe to Moderate per Regional Waterbird Working Group (see below for American Bittern). · American Coot to Low because AI = 2, but to Not at Risk per Regional Waterbird Working Group. · Red-necked Grebe to Low because Focal in ID. · Horned Grebe to Low because Focal in MT.

· American Bittern to Moderate because SC in WY and Focal in ID, MT, and WY.· Common Loon to High because SC in ID, MT, WA, and WY; Focal in MT and WY; and because of disturbance threats.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 99

Table D-15. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (breeding species unless noted as migrant; b = breeding, m = migrant)1.

Global Distribution

ConcernCategory North America

WesternHemisphere

NorthernHemisphere Cosmopolitan Peripheral

High Concern Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP)

Western GrebeClark’s Grebe

Common Loon

Moderate Concern Sora 

American Bittern

Virginia Rail Pied-billed Grebe

Black Tern

Low Concern Forster’s Tern White-faced Ibis Eared Grebe

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Not at Risk American Coot

Ring-billed Gull (m)California GullBonaparte’s Gull (m)Double-crested CormorantGreen Heron

Snowy Egret (m)Great Blue Heron

Caspian Tern (m)Great Egret (m)

1 Changes in rankings for colonial species (all species not noted below remained at the national ranking level):

· California Gull to Low because AI = 1, but to Not at Risk fide D. Shuford.· Forster’s Tern, Eared Grebe, and Black-crowned Night-Heron to Low because AI = 1. · Bonaparte’s Gull, Caspian Tern, and Snowy Egret to Not at Risk because migrants.· Black Tern to Low because AI = 1, but to Moderate because 3rd priority on draft CA SC list.· Western and Clark’s Grebe to High because of water level fluctuation and disturbance issues (Ivey 2004; L. Oring pers. comm.).· Green Heron to Not at Risk because AI =1.

Rankings for marshbirds:

· Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) to High because ST in CA. · Virginia Rail, Sora, Pied-billed Grebe, and American Bittern to Moderate per Regional Waterbird Working Group.· American Coot to Not at Risk because AI = 1. · Common Loon to High because on extirpated category on draft CA SC list.
100 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table D-16. Concern matrix for waterbirds in Bird Conservation Region 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (breeding species unless noted as migrant; b = breeding, m = migrant)1. Global Distribution Concern Category North America Western Hemisphere Northern Hemisphere Cosmopolitan Peripheral High Concern American Bittern Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) Moderate Concern Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) Sora Western Grebe Clark’s Grebe Green Heron Virginia Rail Pied-billed Grebe Snowy Egret Least Bittern Black Tern Black-crowned Night-Heron Little Blue Heron Low Concern California Gull Forster’s Tern American White Pelican Franklin’s Gull White-faced Ibis Common Loon (m) Eared Grebe Not at Risk American Coot Ring-billed Gull (m) Double-crested Cormorant Common Moorhen Great Blue Heron Sandhill Crane (MCP) (m) Cattle Egret Bonaparte’s Gull (m) Great Egret (m) 1 Changes in rankings for colonial species (all species not noted below remained at the national ranking level): · California Gull, Franklin’s Gull, Forster’s Tern, and Eared Grebe to Low because AI = 1. · Bonaparte’s Gull to Not at Risk because migrant, and Peripheral because of rarity. · Black Tern to Low because AI =1, but to Moderate because nearly extirpated as a breeder from CO and considered high concern in the state (T. Leukering pers. comm.). · Clark’s Grebe to Moderate because SC in AZ and Focal in NM. Western Grebe also to Moderate because shares issues and managed together. · Little Blue Heron to Moderate because AI = 1, but Peripheral because of rarity. · Snowy Egret to Moderate because AI =1. · Great Egret to Not at Risk because migrant, but to Peripheral fide D. Krueper. · Green Heron to Low because AI = 1, but to Moderate fide D. Krueper. · American White Pelican to Low because AI = 1. Rankings for marshbirds: · Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) to Moderate because SC in CO and extirpated from NM. · Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) to High (CO only) because AI = 5. · Sandhill Crane (MCP) (m) to Not at Risk because migrant. · Virginia Rail, Sora, Pied-billed Grebe, and Least Bittern (SC in AZ) to Moderate per Regional Waterbird Working Group (see below for American Bittern). · Common Moorhen and American Coot to Not at Risk because AI = 1. · American Bittern to Moderate because SC in AZ and Focal in AZ and NM, but extirpated in AZ, to High fide D. Krueper. · Common Loon (m) to Not at Risk because migrant, but to Low fide D. Krueper.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 101

Table D-17. Concern matrix for priority waterbird species in each Bird Conservation Region (BCR) in 

the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (breeding species unless noted as migrant; b = 

breeding, m = migrant).

Concern 

Category BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

High

Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(CVP) (b, m1)

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(LCRVP) (m)1

Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) 

(m)1

Yellow Rail

Franklin’s Gull (b)

Black Tern

Eared Grebe (m)1

Western Grebe

Clark’s Grebe

Snowy Egret

American White Pelican (b, 

m1)

Common Loon (b)

Franklin’s Gull

American White Pelican

Common Loon

Greater Sandhill 

Crane (CVP)

Western Grebe 

Clark’s Grebe 

Common Loon

Greater Sandhill 

Crane (RMP) (m)1

American Bittern 

Moderate 

Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(LCRVP) (b) 

Virginia Rail

Sora

California Gull

Franklin’s Gull (m)1

Forster’s Tern

Pied-billed Grebe

Great Blue Heron

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Least Bittern

American Bittern

White-faced Ibis

Common Loon (m)1

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) 

Virginia Rail

Sora

California Gull

Forster’s Tern 

Black Tern

Pied-billed Grebe

Western Grebe

Clark’s Grebe 

Snowy Egret

Great Blue Heron

Black-crowned Night-Heron

American Bittern 

White-faced Ibis

Virginia Rail

Sora 

Black Tern

Pied-billed Grebe

American Bittern

Greater Sandhill 

Crane (RMP) (b)

Virginia Rail 

Sora

Black Tern

Pied-billed Grebe 

Western Grebe 

Clark’s Grebe

Snowy Egret

Green Heron 

Black-crowned 

Night-Heron

Least Bittern 

Low

Concern

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(RMP) Caspian Tern 

Red-necked Grebe

Horned Grebe

Eared Grebe (b)

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) 

Greater Sandhill Crane 

(LCRVP)

Caspian Tern 

Red-necked Grebe 

Horned Grebe

Eared Grebe

Forster’s Tern

Eared Grebe

Black-crowned NightHeron

White-faced Ibis

California Gull

Franklin’s Gull

Forster’s Tern

Eared Grebe 

White-faced Ibis 

American White 

Pelican

1

 Priority migrant species and states that received a habitat objective:

BCR 9

· Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP): CA, OR, WA

· Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP): NV

· Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP): CA, ID, OR, WA

· Franklin’s Gull: UT

· Eared Grebe: CA, OR, UT

· American White Pelican: UT

· Common Loon: NV

BCR 16

· Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP): CO
102 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

APPENDIX E. Species Accounts for Priority Waterbirds in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan.

 Sandhill Crane (Greater) - Grus canadensis tabida

Grue Canadienne, Grue de Canada - Grulla, Grulla Cenicienta, Grulla del Canada

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined

Global and BCR populations: Global: For the greater subspecies: 65-75,000 (NPWRC website).

Recognized populations: Central Valley Population (CVP), Lower Colorado River Valley Population 

(LCRVP), and Rocky Mountain Population (RMP)

BCR 9: 3,002 CVP breeders, 1,900 LCRVP breeders, 1,868 breeders (RMP); entire CVP, LCRVP 

migrant

BCR 10: 164 CVP breeders, 100 LCRVP breeders, 16,512 breeders (RMP)

BCR 15: 128 CVP breeders

BCR 16: 300 RMP breeders; entire RMP migrant

Population trend in BCR 9: CVP increasing, but may be due to lack of drought or greater survey coverage 

(Ivey and Herziger 2000). LCRVP stable (CDFG in prep). In Nevada, population declined from 1983-1993, 

then slow rebound in mid 1990s (Nevada PIF 1999). RMP stable to slightly declining (NPWRC website), 

stable to increasing (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

Population trend in BCR 10: CVP increasing, but may be due to lack of drought or greater survey 

coverage (Ivey and Herziger 2000). RMP stable to slightly declining (NPWRC website), stable to increasing 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

Population trend in BCR 15: Increasing but may be due to lack of drought or greater survey coverage 

(Ivey and Herziger 2001).

Population trend in BCR 16: RMP stable to slightly declining (NPWRC website), stable to increasing 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

Population trend in North America: Greaters increasing rapidly in eastern portion, generally stable 

elsewhere, some western populations may be declining (NPWRC website). BBS data not well applicable to 

this species due to remote breeding locations and inconspicuous behavior while nesting.

Abundance status in BCR 9: Locally common breeder, locally common to abundant migrant.

Abundance status in BCR 10: Locally abundant.

Abundance status in BCR 15: Locally abundant.

Abundance status in BCR 16: Locally abundant.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 38% of CVP, 95% of LCRVP, 10% of RMP (breeding),

 100% CVP, LCRVP migrant

BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern: CVP (breeding), CVP, LCRVP (migrant)

 Moderate concern: LCRVP (breeding)

BCR 10 % of Global population: 2% of CVP, 5% of LCRVP, 88% of RMP (breeding)

BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern: RMP (breeding) 

BCR 15 % of Global population: 2% of CVP (breeding)

BCR 15 conservation priority: High concern: CVP (breeding)

BCR 16 % of Global population: 2% of RMP (breeding)

BCR 16 conservation priority: High concern: RMP (migrant), Moderate concern: RMP (breeding)
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 103

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. CVP breeds in south-central Washington, eastern 

Oregon, northeast California, and northwest Nevada; LCRVP breeds in southwest Idaho, northeast 

Nevada, northwest Utah, and likely northwest Idaho; RMP breeds in southeast Idaho, and northern Utah 

(Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Largest breeding populations of CVP at Malheur NWR, Oregon, with 245 pairs 

in 1999 (Ivey and Herziger 2000). Elko and White Pine counties of northeast Nevada hold the greatest 

number of LCRVP birds (Pacific Flyway Council 1995). Important staging areas for CVP include Malheur 

NWR and Klamath Marsh, Oregon, and Ash Creek WA/Big Valley, California (Ivey and Herziger 2000, 

2001); for LCRVP at Lund, Nevada (Pacific Flyway Council 1995); only small numbers stage in this BCR for 

RMP (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 1997). 

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. CVP breeds in northeast Oregon; RMP breeds 

in southwest Montana, western Wyoming, and northern Colorado (Littlefield and Ivey 2002), with greatest 

concentration at Grays Lake, Idaho. The LCRVP likely breeds in northwest Idaho. Migrate through BCR, 

but no major staging sites for either population.

Occurrence in BCR 15: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. Up to 1000 in spring migration at Sierra Valley 

(Cooper 2004).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. RMP breeds in northeast Utah 

and northwest Colorado (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Major migration site at San Luis Valley Colorado 

(Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 1997). Winters in New Mexico (NMGF website, 

B. Howe pers. comm.) and Colorado (www.auduboncolorado.org/birdcon_iba.html, R. Levad, pers. comm.).

Global distribution: North America. 

Habitat requirements: Occupies breeding territories in wetlands, closed drainage basins, and mountain 

meadows, usually nests in isolated areas in shallow-flooded meadows or emergents, also open water (Tacha 

et al. 1992, Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Preferred nesting in Nevada is on islands or peninsulas adjacent to 

marsh vegetation, also river islands, river banks, and large expanses of flooded meadow and alkali playa 

(Nevada PIF 1999). Nests in Nevada in hay meadow complexes where a mosaic of native hay, hardstem 

bulrush, and willow of various age classes and structures, also in flooded greasewood, Great Basin wildrye 

(Nevada PIF 1999). Post-breeding birds roost in open water where little emergent vegetation is present. 

Feeds in wetlands or uplands within territory during breeding season, in migration in traditional areas 

free from disturbance, concentrating in agricultural regions with cereal and other small grain crops, also 

wetlands (Littlefield and Ivey 2002).

Common Issues in BCRs 9, 10, 15, and 16: Breeding and staging habitat have been lost to drainage, pivot 

irrigation, conversion to row crops, and urban development. Water rights are important to maintain quality 

of habitat. Most nesting areas and migration stopovers are in private ownership and, thus, not secure. 

Changes in farming practices such as flooding and early de-watering for haying make foods unavailable for 

cranes. Grazing may preclude breeding attempts or trample chicks. Mowing may kill chicks or encourage 

predators by providing easy access. Powerlines and fences have caused deaths. Disturbance of nesting pairs 

is detrimental to breeding success. Limited hunts of RMP at premigration sites in BCRs 9, 10, and 16 aim to 

reduce crop depredations, but needs to be cautiously managed because of delayed sexual maturity and low 

recruitment rates (Drewien et al. 1995).

Specific Issues in BCR 9: Renewed interest in mining for gold on nearby National Forest lands result 

in attendant water quality concerns at Grays Lake, Idaho (www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/

nongame/birds/iba.cfm); agricultural runoff at Franklin Lake, Nevada (McIvor 2005) and water diversion 

for irrigation (3/02 meeting) and noxious weeds at Grays Lake, Idaho (www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/

wildlife/nongame/birds/iba.cfm) threaten habitat. Recruitment is lowest in any hunted avian species in 

North America, with LCRVP at 4.8%, and CVP 5.6-6.1% (Drewien et al. 1995); low rates of <5-6% should be 

cause for concern (Drewien et al. 1995), but recruitment census can give distorted results due to presence of 

non-reproductive sub-adults (Nevada PIF 1999). Damage to unharvested small grains and seed potatoes a 

problem from migrating RMP birds in Idaho (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 

1997), and depredation complaints may be expected to increase with expanding grain production in some 

areas (Pacific Flyway Council 1995). 
104 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Specific Issues in BCR 10: Minor threat of invasive or non-native plants at Red Canyon Ranch and 

Sweetwater River Project, Wyoming (WY IBAs). Potential threat of oil pollution/degradation at Loch 

Katrine, Wyoming (www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html). Avian tuberculosis has been a significant 

disease problem in the Rocky Mountains (NMGF website).

Specific Issues in BCR 15: Development a threat at Lake Almanor and Mountain Meadows (Cooper 2004). 

Other issues include building development, lowering of water table and resulting decrease of wetlands, and 

overgrazing in Sierra Valley (Cooper 2004). Recruitment is lowest in any hunted avian species in North 

America, with CVP 5.6-6.1% (Drewien et al. 1995); low rates of <5-6% should be cause for concern (Drewien 

et al. 1995), but recruitment census can give distorted results due to presence of non-reproductive subadults (Nevada PIF 1999).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• E in Washington (2001 list), T in California (1999 list), SV in Oregon (ONHP 2001 list), SC in Colorado 

(2001 list); formerly listed as Threatened, but studies in the early 1990s by Van Graham of CDOW 

indicated a stable, slowly increasing nesting population and the major nesting areas (California Park and 

Steamboat Lake in Routt County) are well protected (R. Levad pers. comm.).

• High priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000). Management priority species in Nevada 

(Nevada PIF 1999).

• Focal species for “marsh/grasslands” habitat suite for BCR 9 (Rosenberger et al. 2001).

• Priority bird species in PIF Columbia Plateau (#89) Physiographic Area Plan.

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (large range, stable or increasing in most areas).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N. 

• Heritage Status Rank: S3N in Arizona; S2 in California; S3B, S4N in Colorado; S5B, SZN in Idaho; 

S2N, S5B in Montana; S3B in Nevada; S4N in New Mexico; S3B in Oregon; S1B in Utah; S1B, S3N in 

Washington; S4B, S4N in Wyoming.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 18.

• PIF continental concern (Rosenberger et al. 2001). 

• Management plans written by Pacific and Central Flyways (Pacific Flyway Council 1997, Pacific and 

Central Flyways 2001, Pacific Flyway Council 1995).

• Recovery plans written for Washington (Littlefield and Ivey 2002), being written for California (CDFG in 

prep).

• RMP hunted in some areas of Intermountain West. Hunting programs and harvest is monitored. 

• Annual fall surveys for annual RMP population index.

• Statewide survey of breeding population in California in 2000 (Ivey and Herziger 2001).

• Statewide survey of breeding population in Oregon in 1999-00 (Ivey and Herziger 2000).

• Annual surveys of breeding populations in Washington (J. Engler pers. comm.) and Klamath Basin (D. 

Mauser pers. comm.), Malheur NWR through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Fall counts at Lower Klamath 

NWR (D. Mauser pers. comm.).

• Color-marking of CVP and RMP birds (C. D. Littlefield, G. Ivey pers. observ., Drewien et al. in prep).

• Telemetry studies of fates of CVP colts (Littlefield and Lindstedt 1992, G. Ivey pers. observ.).

• Grain planted as supplemental feed at Bear Lake, Camas, and Grays Lake NWRs, Idaho, and Utah 

(Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 1997).

Action needed:

• Preserve and protect breeding, feeding, and roosting habitats: Increase management efforts at use 

areas on public lands and acquire habitat. Discourage water projects which would impact crane breeding 

habitat, acquire water rights where possible, and maintain water levels. Work with private landowners 

to encourage compatible land use practices and maintain breeding and migrating habitat (water, grazing, 

and hay dates). If grazing is used on breeding areas, the season should be during the fall (after 10 

August) and winter period (ending by March), and utilization should be moderate. Delay hay mowing 

until after 10 August at or near breeding sites. Place line-markers or other devices on powerlines to 

ensure high visibility, and where possible, move or bury lines transecting crane habitats. Where possible, 

remove internal fences. Monitor water quality. Monitor for exotic species. Establish objectives for 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 105

individual staging areas, modified as warranted (Drewien et al. in prep). Develop additional migration 

sites to disperse birds to avoid threat of disease and crop depredation, continue to provide grain for 

staging cranes, and encourage late plowing (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Greater Sandhill Cranes 

1997, Pacific Flyway Council 1995).

• Limit disturbance at breeding, feeding, and roosting areas.

• Monitor population: Monitor recruitment; if predators are limiting or preventing population growth at 

specific sites, predator control should be considered. Monitor hunting program. Determine subspecies 

status and distribution in Pacific Flyway (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Use satellite 

monitoring to identify breeding, migration, and wintering ranges of subspecies using Pacific Flyway 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Develop population estimates for subspecies and work on 

genetic issues (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Promote staging areas as “adventure destinations” in combination with other birding opportunities, local 

sightseeing, and historical study, promoting local restaurants and motels (Nevada PIF 1999).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
106 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Sandhill Crane (Lesser) - Grus canadensis canadensis

Grue Canadienne, Grue de Canada - Grulla, Grulla Cenicienta, Grulla del Canada

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined

Global and BCR populations: Global: For the lesser/Canadian subspecies: 450,000 (NPWRC website). 

BCR 9: entire Pacific Flyway Population stages here

Population trend in BCR 9: unknown

Population trend in North America: Probably stable (NPWRC website). Increasing (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Locally abundant.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 100% BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern (migrant)

Occurrence in BCR 9: Non-breeder, migrant. Migrates through most of BCR.

Global distribution: Northern Hemisphere.

Habitat requirements: Feeds in areas with agricultural crops, pasturelands, hayfields, and wetlands, and 

roosts in open water ponds (Littlefield and Ivey 2002).

Issues in BCR 9: Staging habitat loss to drainage and conversion. Most migration stopovers in private 

ownership and not secure. Water rights important to maintain quality of habitat. Changes in farming 

practices such as late irrigation or flooding make foods unavailable for cranes. Powerlines a threat. 

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• E in Washington (2001 list).

• Global Heritage Status Rank for Sandhill Crane: G5 (large range, stable or increasing in most areas).

• National Heritage Status Rank for Sandhill Crane: N5B, N5N. 

• Sandhill Crane Heritage Status Rank: SNRB, SNRN in California; S5B in Idaho; S3B in Nevada; S3 in 

Oregon; S3?B in Utah; S1B, S3N in Washington.

• Partners In Flight Sandhill Crane Rank: 18.

• Management plan written by Pacific Flyway (Pacific Flyway Council 1983). 

• Recovery plan for Washington (Littlefield and Ivey 2002).

Action needed:

• Preserve and protect feeding and roosting habitats: Work with private landowners to encourage 

compatible land use practices and maintain migration habitat. Place line-markers or other devices on 

powerlines to ensure high visibility, and where possible, move or bury lines transecting crane habitats. 

Establish objectives for individual staging areas, develop additional sites to disperse birds to avoid threat 

of disease and crop depredation.

• Limit disturbance at feeding and roosting areas.

• Monitor population: Determine subspecies status and distribution in Pacific Flyway (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001). Use satellite monitoring to identify breeding, migration, and wintering ranges of 

subspecies using Pacific Flyway (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Develop population estimates 

for subspecies and work on genetic issues (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Promote staging areas as “adventure destinations” in combination with other birding opportunities, local 

sightseeing, and historical study, promoting local restaurants and motels (Nevada PIF 1999).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 107

Yellow Rail - Coturnicops noveboracensis

Râle jaune - Gallineta amarilla

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unknown, likely highly under-detected during surveys (Bookhout 

1995). Distribution may be more wide ranging than currently known due to secretive nature, especially in 

the West, particularly for migrant and wintering populations (Stern and Popper 2003). 

BCR 9: 608 breeders (600 in Oregon, 8 in California)

Population trend in BCR 9: AOU listed species as extirpated from both Oregon and California as of 1983, 

however, in 1982, two were reported calling in June near Fort Klamath Historic Monument, Oregon, with 

many sightings following in the Fort Klamath and adjoining Wood River Valley area (Stern and Popper 

2003). In May 1989, breeding was documented in Oregon; first time in the western U.S. in nearly 40 

yrs (Stern et al. 1993). In a 1992 survey in south-central Oregon, 86 recorded (Stern et al. 1993), recent 

estimates of approximately 235-285 pairs (Stern and Popper 2003). From 1995-1998, 34 nests were found 

in the Wood R. Valley, the largest sampling of nests ever found in the U.S. (Stern and Popper 2003). In 

California, historically bred in the 1950s in wet meadows of Mono County, and one recent record for summer 

for California (1985) was from marsh at Mono Lake County Park (Cooper 2004). More recently, birds have 

been documented in Surprise Valley and near Mount Shasta. No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization 

Database). 

Population trend in North America: Unknown, local populations variable (Bookhout 1995). No known 

breeding in western U.S. in nearly 40 years until nest located in Oregon in 1989 (Stern et al. 1993). BBS 

data not available for this species.

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare breeder in southern Oregon and northeastern California; accidental in 

summer in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997).

BCR 9 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. Breeds in Klamath and Lake counties of southcentral Oregon (the only known breeding population in the western U.S.), with other unconfirmed records 

scattered through eastern Washington and Oregon (Stern and Popper 2003). Recent breeding records from 

Surprise Valley and near Mount Shasta, California. Winter records from Mono County, California (Bookhout 

1995). 

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Breeds in Oregon in wet montane meadows near a cold water spring, seep, flowing 

creek, or in a river floodplain with poorly-drained soils; vegetation usually consist of Carex sp. and water 

depth from 2-30 cm (Stern et al. 1993). Of 34 nests found 1995-1998 in Oregon, 85% were completely 

or nearly completely covered with a canopy of senescent vegetation; the remaining nest with domes of 

live vegetation (Stern and Popper 2003). In migration, found in hay and grain fields, wet meadows, and 

marshlands (Bookhout 1995).

Issues in BCR 9: Most persistent threat is loss of wetland habitat through diking, ditching and draining 

of wetlands; not only because of loss of habitat, but lowering of the water table in the adjoining wetlands 

making the site too dry (Stern and Popper 2003). This occurred during the 1980s in the Wood River Valley of 

Oregon, and led to abandonment of the sites in subsequent years. However, rails may also colonize restored 

wetlands (Stern and Popper 2003). Flood irrigation practices delivering a pulse of water to nesting meadows 

in June or July may inundate nests (Stern and Popper 2003). Nesting birds use previous year’s vegetation 

to conceal nests, and intensive livestock grazing which removes more than 50% of the cover may render 

potential nesting areas unsuitable for the following year due to the lack of adequate cover (Stern and Popper 

2003). Drought conditions may limit habitat availability (Popper 2004).
108 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Federal Species of Management Concern (Regions 1 and 6) because depends on vulnerable or restricted 

habitats (USFWS 1995), also on updated list (Birds of Conservation Concern) in 2002 on national, Region 

1, and BCR 9 lists (USFWS 2002).

• BSSC in California (2003 draft list), SC in Oregon (ONHP 2001 list).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G4 (widespread distribution centered in south-central and southeastern 

Canada, apparently rather rare in most areas, though this is partly because of difficulty in detection; 

known to be fairly common in some areas; evidently declining in some areas where habitat destruction is 

ongoing, but there are some significant areas of protected habitat).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N3B, N4N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S1S2 in California; no rank in Idaho; no rank in Nevada; S1B in Oregon; no rank 

in Utah; no rank in Washington. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 22.

• PIF continental concern (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Survey in Wood R. Valley, Klamath Marsh NWR, and Sycan Marsh, Oregon from 1988-1992 (Stern et al. 

1993).

• From 1995-2000, 242 rails were banded in Klamath County, Oregon (Lundsten and Popper 2001).

Action needed:

• Habitat management: Protect wetlands from conversion and draining. Maintain water levels. Manage 

livestock grazing. Fire is used heavily as a marsh management tool, but can have negative impacts 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

• Obtain more accurate information (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

• Increase population to pre-1970s levels and prevent range contraction (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 109

Virginia Rail - Rallus limicola

Râle de Virginie - Rascón de agua, Gallineta, Kidika

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined.

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unknown (Conway 1995). Insufficient data (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001).

BCR populations: Unknown.

Population trend in BCR 9: Breeding trend possibly increasing (PIF Prioritization Database). On 

Columbia Plateau routes, a non-significant increase of 22.9%, 26% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004). 

Greatest increase per year on BBS routes from 1966-1996 in south-central and eastern Oregon, northeast 

California, southern Idaho, northwest Nevada, and northern Utah (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: Unknown.

Population trend in BCR 15: Unknown.

Population trend in BCR 16: Unknown.

Population trend in North America: Relatively stable, but declining in many areas (Conway 1995). BBS 

data showed significant decline of 2.2%/yr 1982-1991, but problems in interpreting data for this species 

(Conway 1995). BBS data showed significant 4.1% increase from 1966-2000, and 3.1% from 1980-2000 (Sauer 

et al. 2004). 

Abundance status in BCR 9: Uncommon in spring through fall, rare to uncommon in winter in eastern 

Washington (checklists); fairly common breeder, rare in winter in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); 

uncommon in spring and fall, uncommon to common in summer, rare in winter in northern California 

(checklists); common in summer, rare in winter in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); uncommon 

in spring and fall, uncommon to common in summer, rare to occasional in winter in Nevada (checklists); rare 

to uncommon in spring, fall, and winter, and uncommon to common in summer in western Utah (checklists). 

Abundance status in BCR 10: Unknown.

Abundance status in BCR 15: Unknown.

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown.

BCR 9 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 15 % of Global population: Unknownn BCR 15 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds through most of BCR (Conway 

1995, National Geographic Society 1999). Important staging areas unknown (Conway 1995), but migrant 

through most of BCR (checklists). Winters in most of BCR (checklists).

Global distribution: Western Hemisphere. 

Habitat requirements: Nests in freshwater and brackish marshes and wetlands with robust emergents 

such as cattails and bulrush. However, dense emergents usually found in older marshes impedes movement 

(Conway 1995). Most important habitat components are shallow water, emergent cover, and substrate with 

high invertebrate abundance (Conway 1995). Uses drier marsh areas than Soras (Conway 1995). Migrants 

require variety of water depths, robust vegetative cover, and short-stemmed seed-producing plants (Conway 

1995); may occur in flooded fields. Winter habitats similar to breeding (Conway 1995). For feeding, needs 

standing water, moist soil, or mudflats, preferring shallow and intermediate water depths, but will use deep 

water if enough vegetation to walk and forage on, generally more open areas than nesting habitat, may also 

feed on uplands (Conway 1995).
110 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Issues in BCR 9: None reported.

Issues in BCR 10: None reported.

Issues in BCR 15: None reported.

Issues in BCR169: None reported.

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: SNR in California; S5B in Idaho; S3S4B in Nevada; S4 in Oregon; S3N, S4B in 

Utah; S4B, S3N in Washington. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 11.

Action needed:

• Habitat management: Increase the quality and quantity of both breeding and wintering habitat to 1900 

levels (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Obtain more accurate information (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001): Identify relatively 

important breeding areas not shown by existing data (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Identify 

migration route and stop-over areas (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Assess food resource 

availability (i.e., the timing of availability and types of food) (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

Assess complex habitat (marsh and grassland) criteria, in relation to marsh size requirements (NAWCP 

Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Increase population to pre-1970s levels and prevent range contraction (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 111

Sora - Porzana carolina

Marouette de Caroline - Gallineta de Cienaga

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unavailable since reclusive species and lack of data, but considered 

most abundant and widely-distributed rail in North America (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). Insufficient data 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

BCR populations: Unknown.

Population trend in BCR 9: Breeding trend possibly increasing (PIF Prioritization Database). On Basin 

and Range BBS routes, significant increase of 8.0% from 1966-2000, 9.2% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 15: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: Likely more localized due to wetland loss and degradation (Melvin 

and Gibbs 1996). From 1982-1991, population stable in Canada (non-significant), but declined significantly 

8.5%/yr in U.S. (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). BBS data indicated significant decline 3.3% annually from 1966-

1991 (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). BBS data showed significant 1.3% increase from 1966-2000, and 2.5% from 

1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Uncommon in spring through fall, rare to occasional in winter in eastern 

Washington (checklists); abundant to fairly common breeder (especially common in Klamath, Lake and 

Harney counties), rare in winter in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); uncommon in spring and fall, 

uncommon to common in summer, rare in winter in northern California (checklists); common in summer, 

rare in winter in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); uncommon in spring, uncommon to common 

in summer, rare to common in fall, rare to occasional in winter in Nevada (checklists); rare to uncommon in 

spring, fall, and winter, and uncommon to common in summer in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Common in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 15: Unknown.

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown.

BCR 9 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 15 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 15 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: Unknown BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds through most of BCR (Melvin and 

Gibbs 1996, National Geographic Society 1999, Sibley 2000). Migrant and winters through most of BCR 

(checklists). 

Occurrence in BCR 10 and 15: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, occasionally in winter (Melvin and Gibbs 

1996, National Geographic Society 1999, Sibley 2000).

Global distribution: North America. 

Habitat requirements: Nests primarily in freshwater wetlands with shallow and intermediate water depths 

dominated by emergents such as cattails, sedges, burreeds, and bulrushes (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). In 

migration, uses freshwater emergent wetlands or brackish marshes, also upland fields, pastures, lawns, etc.; 

uses wetter areas of marshes than Virginia Rail (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). Winters in freshwater or brackish 

marshes in emergent vegetation, also canals, ditches, fields, pastures, and small ponds and rivers (Melvin 

and Gibbs 1996). Feeds in stands of robust emergent vegetation interspersed with shorter, seed-producing 

emergents or floating and submergent vegetation and debris that provides good substrate for invertebrates 

near the surface of the water (Melvin and Gibbs 1996).
112 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Issues in BCR 9: Early de-watering of irrigated hay fields likely reduces productivity.

Issues in BCR 10: None reported.

Issues in BCR 15: None reported.

Issues in BCR 16: None reported.

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: SNRB, SNRN in California; S5B in Idaho; S3S4B in Nevada; S4 in Oregon; S3N, 

S4S5B in Utah; S4B in Washington. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 11.

Action needed:

• Habitat management: Increase the quality and quantity of both breeding and wintering habitat to 1900 

levels (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Obtain more accurate information (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001): Identify relatively 

important breeding areas not shown by existing data (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Identify 

migration route and stop-over areas (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Assess food resource 

availability (i.e., the timing of availability and types of food) (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

Assess complex habitat (marsh and grassland) criteria, in relation to marsh size requirements (NAWCP 

Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Increase population to pre-1970s levels and prevent range contraction (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 113

California Gull - Larus californicus

Goéland de Californie - Gaviota Californiana

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern.

Population trend 3

Relative abundance 2

Threats to breeding 5

Threats to non-breeding 2

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 3

Global and BCR populations: Global: Probably between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (Winkler 1996). Greater 

than 414,000 breeders in North America (NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 9: 134,398 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

BCR 10: 9,474 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

Population trend in BCR 9: Fluctuates at Malheur NWR in Oregon (range 0 to 1500 from 1988-1998, G. 

Ivey pers. observ.); likely increasing substantially in California but early data rough, no longer nest at Tule 

Lake NWR as in the early 1990s (Shuford and Ryan 2000), with second lowest nesting population in 17 years 

at Mono Lake in 1999, lowest in 1998 (34,932, Shuford et al. 2000); apparently decreasing southern Idaho (C. 

Moulton pers. comm.); Breeding trend in Utah is increasing (D. Paul pers. comm.). Breeding trend possibly 

decreasing (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 10: Breeding trend stable (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: Patchy distribution does not allow for determining trend (Winkler 

1996). BBS data showed 0.8% non-significant decline from 1966-2000, and 0.1% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 

2004), but not very accurate for abundance for this species since highly colonial (Winkler 1996). CBC data 

also not appropriate (Winkler 1996).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Mono Lake and Great Salt Lake are the largest rookeries in the world 

(Cooper 2004). Uncommon to common in spring and fall, uncommon to abundant in summer, rare to common 

in winter in eastern Washington (checklists); uncommon to locally common breeder and migrant, locally 

uncommon in winter in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); uncommon to common in spring and fall, 

common in summer, rare to uncommon in winter in northern California (checklists); abundant resident in 

southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); occasional to common in spring and summer, occasional in 

fall, rare in winter in Nevada (checklists); rare to common in spring, occasional to common in summer, rare 

to common in fall and winter in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Common in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

BCR 9 % of Global population: 77% BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern.

BCR 10 % of Global population: 2% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern.

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds through most of BCR except northern 

Washington, central and eastern Nevada, and southwest Utah (Winkler 1996, Smith et al. 1997, National 

Geographic Society 1999). Largest colonies in North America at Great Salt Lake, Utah; Mono Lake, 

California; and American Falls Reservoir, Idaho (Winkler 1996). Other major colonies in Lake, Klamath, 

and Harney counties, and on Columbia River islands, Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); Butte Valley and Honey 

Lake Wildlife Areas, Clear Lake NWR (Shuford and Ryan 2000) and Meiss Lake (Cooper 2004), California; 

Mormon Reservoir, Deer Flat NWR, and Blackfoot Reservoir, Idaho; and Utah Lake, Utah (Trost and 

Gerstell 1994, Winkler 1996). Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists). Winters in most of 

BCR (checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds through most of BCR except northeast 

Washington (Smith et al. 1997), northern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994), parts of western Montana, central 

and southeastern Wyoming, and northern Colorado (Winkler 1996). Bamforth NWR in Wyoming is one of 
114 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

largest breeding areas in state (www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html). Migrant through most of BCR 

(checklists). Winters in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994) and northern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 

1997), up to 1,000 as late as November at Flathead Lake, Montana (Winkler 1996).

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Nests nearly always on islands on natural lakes or rivers or in reservoirs of fresh 

or saline water (Winkler 1996), may use solar evaporation ponds (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest 

Regional Workshop April 2000); locations based on need to have enough water to limit predator access 

(Winkler 1996). In northeast California, nests mainly on islands and rarely on peninsulas at natural lakes, 

reservoirs, managed wetlands, and saline or alkaline lakes (Shuford and Ryan 2000). Uses habitats similar 

to breeding in migration and winter (Winkler 1996), can be found at lakes, ponds, large rivers, flooded fields, 

as well as garbage dumps (Gilligan et al. 1994). Feeds on lakes where they breed or in open areas as far as 

60 km away in fields, marshes, meadows, dumps, rivers, etc. (Winkler 1996).

Issues in BCR 9: Water levels. At Mono Lake, government-prescribed raise in lake level to isolate most 

historically-important nesting islands has created controversy over effects on gull populations (Winkler 

1996). Water levels at Great Salt Lake are changing (D. Paul pers. comm.). All nests were destroyed at 

Malheur NWR in 1998 by increased water levels (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Low water levels at some sites in 

California allowed access by coyotes with resulting decreased nesting success (Shuford and Ryan 2000). 

Low water levels likely contributed to colony failures in Idaho in 2004 (C. Moulton pers. comm.).

Other. The largest colony in the world (60,000 adults) was managed by Morton Salt, but the site was sold 

to Kennecott and the site was used for tailings and the colony was abandoned (Intermountain West/Desert 

Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000). Development, proposed highway, and a dumping site for 

toxic chemicals at Great Salt Lake could threaten gull colonies (D. Paul pers. comm.). Seasonal closure of 

nesting areas were effective at increasing nesting success at Mono Lake (Shuford and Ryan 2000). Heavy 

recreational use, with few restrictions on public access or recreational activities, and insufficient funding 

of enforcement to prevent dumping, vandalism, disturbance, and illegal hunting at Potholes Reservoir, 

Washington (Cullinan 2001). Numbers may reduce in Idaho due to covering of dumps (Trost and Gerstell 

1994). Cherry depredation problem in Utah (Winkler 1996). Salmonellosis is severe cause of mortality in 

Idaho (Winkler 1996).

Issues in BCR 10: Salmonellosis is a severe cause of mortality in Idaho (Winkler 1996). Numbers may 

reduce in Idaho due to covering of dumps (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Critical threat of water drainage and 

diversion, and potential threat of toxic pollution at Soda Lake, Wyoming (www.audubonwyoming.com/

m3item3.html). Potential threat of invasive or non-native plants at Sweetwater River Project, Wyoming 

(www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S2 in California; S4B, SZN in Colorado; S2S3B, S3N in Idaho; S5B, SZN in 

Montana; S5B in Nevada; S5 in Oregon; S5 in Utah; S4B, S5N in Washington. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 13.

• PIF regional concern (breeding) (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Annual surveys at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.), at Malheur NWR in Oregon through 1998 

(G. Ivey pers. observ.). Statewide survey in California from 1994-1997 (Shuford and Ryan 2000). Southern 

Idaho surveyed in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994).

• Numbers of nesting birds decreased at Lower Klamath NWR when nesting islands removed to reduce 

predation on waterfowl nests and young (Shuford 1998). 

• Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 115

Action needed:

• Preserve and protect wetlands: Protection of colonies best achieved by comprehensive conservation 

plans for all nesting colonial species (Shuford and Ryan 2000). Greatest need is nesting islands secure 

from predators (maintain water levels) and human disturbance (Shuford and Ryan 2000). Would benefit 

from maintenance of isolated breeding sites and enhancement of foraging habitat in northeast California 

(Shuford 1998). Solar evaporation ponds should be managed--salt works companies should take nesting 

birds needs into their site management plans (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest Regional Workshop 

April 2000).

• Protect colonies from disturbance. Restrict access to nesting areas and provide enforcement or 

interpretation, but may draw attention (Shuford and Ryan 2000). 

• Monitor the population: Should be monitored every 3-5 years in northeast California using speciesappropriate measures for accurate counts, minimizing time and expense (Shuford 1998). 

• Monitor for disease. 

• Evaluate effects of dumps.

• Cherry depredation in Utah.

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
116 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Franklin’s Gull - Larus pipixcan

Mouette de Franklin - Gaviota de Franklin; Gaviotin (Chile); Caguil, Caulle (Araucano); Fardella (Peru)

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 3

Relative abundance 1-2

Threats to breeding 4

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 2

Global and BCR populations: Global: Probably 500,000, but controversy over current numbers. No 

national colony surveys because of remote nesting habits and vulnerability to disturbance (Burger and 

Gochfeld 1994). Number of breeding birds in U.S. (not including Canada) in 1994 was 330,770 (Burger and 

Gochfeld 1994); in North America 315,608-990,864 breeders (NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 9: 42,588 breeders, >85,000 migrants (App. D)

BCR 10: 19,050 breeders (App. D)

Population trend in BCR 9: Fluctuates but generally increasing at Malheur NWR in Oregon (range 225-

4450 from 1988-1998, G. Ivey pers. observ.); stable or increasing in southern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994); 

fairly stable in Utah (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). First breeding in Utah in 1916, Oregon in 1948, Idaho in 

1950, Nevada in 1971, and California in 1990 (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). Breeding trend uncertain (PIF 

Prioritization Database). On Basin and Range BBS routes, significant increase of 23.3% from 1966-2000 

(Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: Stable to increasing at Benton Lake NWR, increasing at Freezeout Lake, and 

Red Rock Lakes NWR, Montana (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). Breeding trend uncertain (PIF Prioritization 

Database). 

Population trend in North America: Controversy over apparent recent declines; BBS data suggests 

overall 90% decline from 1968-1991, but trend not consistent with colony reports and data not appropriate 

for this species since it nests in remote marshes in shifting sites with few routes nearby; additionally, birds 

counted on this survey are failed breeders away from colonies not breeding populations (Burger and 

Gochfeld 1994). Burger and Gochfeld (1994) collected colony data and noted variance from year-to-year; 

little evidence of decline, and some range expansion.

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare in spring and summer, rare to occasional in fall in eastern Washington 

(checklists); locally common breeder, uncommon to rare in summer, uncommon to rare migrant in eastern 

Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); rare to uncommon in spring and summer, rare in fall in northern California 

(checklists); abundant in summer in southeast, uncommon migrant in southwest in Idaho (Svingen and 

Dumroese 1997); 2 small colonies in some years, fairly common migrant in Nevada (Burger and Gochfeld 

1994), rare to occasional in spring through fall (checklists); rare in spring, rare to common in summer in 

western Utah (checklists). Great Salt Lake colonial nest survey accounted for 14,500 breeding adults in 2000 

(Paul et al 2000).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Common in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

BCR 9 % of Global population: 7% BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern (breeding); 

 Moderate concern (migrant)

BCR 10 % of Global population: 3% BCR 10 conservation priority: High concern (breeding)

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in southeast Oregon, southeast Idaho, western 

Nevada, and northern Utah (Burger and Gochfeld 1994), in early 1990s in northeast California. Major 

colonies at Malheur NWR, Oregon; Oxford Slough WPA, Market Lake WMA, and Mud Lake, Idaho; and 

Harold Crane and Farmington Bay WMAs, Utah (Burger and Gochfeld 1994). Migrant through most of 

BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in western Montana and western and 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 117

southeastern Wyoming (Burger and Gochfeld 1994, National Geographic Society 1999). Grays Lake is the 

largest colony in the Intermountain West (www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/iba.cfm). 

Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists).

Global distribution: Western Hemisphere.

Habitat requirements: Only gull that nests exclusively in marshes, requires large area with emergents 

(including bulrush and burreed) and deep water to prevent predator access (Herziger and Ivey 2003c). In 

migration, roosts on lakes (Burger and Gochfeld 1994) and feeds in marshes, irrigated hay meadows, grass, 

forb, and plowed field habitats (Herziger and Ivey 2003c). 

Issues in BCR 9: No recent breeding in some locations due to drought (Camas NWR, ID, Stillwater NWR, 

NV; C. Moulton pers. comm., Burger and Gochfeld 1994). Exotic plant species and decreased water levels 

at Market Lake WMA, Idaho (www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/iba.cfm). Pesticides 

in low levels in eggs at Malheur NWR (Cornely et al. 1993). At sites with plentiful carp, number of nesting 

pairs diminish as little food is available as carp muddy the water, reducing water quality and therefore 

aquatic invertebrates (Herziger and Ivey 2003c).

Issues in BCR 10: Colonies are sensitive to disturbance and caution must be used when studying them 

or working nearby (Montana PIF 2000). Introduced carp and noxious weeds, addition of nutrients and 

sediment from water diversion for agriculture are issues at Bear Lake NWR, Idaho (www.fishandgame.

idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/iba.cfm). Noxious weeds, complicated pattern of ownership and 

conflicting interests, diversion of water for irrigation, and renewed interest in mining for gold on nearby 

National Forest lands, and attendant water quality concerns are issues at Grays Lake, Idaho (www.

fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/iba.cfm).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• SP in Oregon (ONHP 2001 list), SC in Montana (2001 list).

• High priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000).

• NSS3 in Wyoming.

• Priority bird species in PIF Basin and Range (#80) Physiographic Area Plan (highest percent population 

of any physiographic area) and PIF Columbia Plateau (#89) Physiographic Area Plan. High Priority bird 

species in PIF Central Rocky Mountains (#64) Physiographic Area Plan.

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G4G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N4B, NZN.

• Heritage Status Rank: SNA in California; S4S5N in Colorado; S2B in Idaho; S3B in Montana; S3?B in 

Nevada; S2B in Oregon; S4B in Utah; SNA in Washington; SHB in Wyoming.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 20.

• Former C-2 ESA candidate species (Montana PIF 2000).

• Annual surveys at Great Salt Lake (J. Neill pers. comm.); at Malheur NWR in Oregon through 1998 

(G. Ivey pers. observ.). Southern Idaho surveyed in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Statewide survey in 

Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Habitat: Management issues primarily concerned with providing ideal colony site conditions: vegetation 

open enough for nest construction, and water level management so that nests remain afloat and providing 

invertebrate populations (Montana PIF 2000). Wetland management at known and potential colony sites 

should include vegetation management to provide fairly open vegetative cover over water (Montana PIF 

2000). Maintain water levels. Monitor for exotic species and water quality.

• Monitoring: Size and distribution of colonies should be monitored over time throughout the range of the 

species in the state (Montana PIF 2000). 

• Minimize human disturbance to nesting colonies during the nesting season (April through August) 

(Montana PIF 2000).

 

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
118 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Forster’s Tern - Sterna forsteri

Sterne de Forster - Gaviota de Forster, Charrán de Forster

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 4

Relative abundance 3

Threats to breeding 3

Threats to non-breeding 2

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 2

Global and BCR populations: Global: 47,000-51,500 in North America (NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 9: 7,342 breeders (App. D)

BCR 10: 176 breeders (App. D)

Population trend in BCR 9: Breeding trend possibly decreasing (PIF Prioritization Database). Irregular 

breeder at Malheur NWR in Oregon (320 pairs in 1993 was last observed, G. Ivey pers. observ.); limited and 

mostly anecdotal knowledge of historic northeast California populations makes trend assessment difficult 

(Shuford 1998); and total reproductive failures in southern Idaho in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). An 

average of 1,300 breeding individuals was recorded during a five-year study at Great Salt Lake, Utah (Paul 

et al. 2001). 

Population trend in BCR 10: Breeding trend possibly decreasing (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: BBS data 1966-1999 showed no statistically significant change in 

U.S., but there was no state with a large sample size, and this method is not well suited for colonial species 

(McNicholl et al. 2001). BBS data shows significant decline of 1.9% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare to common in spring and summer, rare to occasional in fall in eastern 

Washington (checklists); locally common breeder, uncommon to rare summer resident and migrant in 

eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); common spring through fall in northern California (checklists); 

abundant in summer in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); uncommon to common in spring, 

common to abundant in summer, occasional to uncommon in fall in Nevada (checklists); rare to abundant in 

spring, common to abundant in summer, rare to occasional in fall in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Common in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

BCR 9 % of Global population: 15% BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: <1% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in most of BCR except northern Washington 

(Smith et al. 1997, Adamus et al. 2001, McNicholl et al. 2001). Sites with highest breeding numbers in North 

America include Klamath Basin (McNicholl et al. 2001); Malheur NWR (up to 3,000--Gilligan et al. 1994), 

Oregon; Goose Lake and Boles Meadow (Shuford 1998) and Bridgeport Reservoir, California (Cooper 2004). 

Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists). 

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in western Montana and Wyoming (National 

Geographic Society 1999, McNicholl et al. 2001). Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists). 

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Breeds primarily in fresh and brackish marshes, including marshy borders of lakes, 

islands, and streams; more frequently in open, deeper portions of marshes and large stands of island-like 

vegetation and/or large mats of floating vegetation (McNicholl et al. 2001). Migration habitat similar to 

breeding (McNicholl et al. 2001). Feeds in shallow and deep marshes and open water (Idaho PIF 2000). Also 

feeds in irrigation reservoirs > 640 acres, and reservoirs and stockponds < 640 acres (Montana PIF 2000). 

Found in Idaho on marshes, unlike Common Terns which are usually found on larger reservoirs (Trost and 

Gerstell 1994). 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 119

Issues in BCR 9: Winter fish kills (caused by drought followed by lingering snow and also agency control) 

is likely reason behind lack of reproduction in southern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Water levels 

determine availability of nesting sites at Bridgeport Reservoir, California; lowered water levels often force 

out nesting (Cooper 2004). Overgrazing, agricultural runoff, changing water levels are issues at Franklin 

Lake, Nevada (McIvor 2005). At Fall River Valley in California, potential conflict over allocation of water 

from Big Lake (owned by Pacific Gas and Electric)--ranchers don’t want wetlands expanded to impact 

grazing opportunities, and PG&E wants it reserved for hydropower, which often leaves relatively little for 

wildlife (Cooper 2004). Heavy grazing pressure by cattle and sheep at Bridgeport Valley, California, has 

eliminated most of the marsh habitat (Cooper 2004). Heavy recreational use (few restrictions on public 

access or recreational activities) and insufficient funding of enforcement (to prevent dumping, vandalism, 

disturbance, and illegal hunting) are issues at Potholes Reservoir, Washington (Cullinan 2001).

Issues in BCR 10: Threats include human disturbance, development of nesting areas, and loss of nests 

to flooding (Montana PIF 2000). Not adequately surveyed in Montana or the region (Montana PIF 2000). 

Secure breeding sites in Wyoming are limited in distribution and site suitability and availability can be 

unstable due to water level fluctuations and changes in land use practices (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000); SC in Montana (2001 list), NSS3 in 

Wyoming (1999 list). 

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S4 in California; ; S2B, S4N in Colorado; S2S3B in Idaho; S2B in Montana; S3B in 

Nevada; S3B in Oregon; S4B in Utah; S3B in Washington; S1B in Wyoming.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 15. 

• PIF regional responsibility (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Annual surveys at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.), Great Salt Lake (J. Neill pers. comm.); at 

Malheur NWR in Oregon through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Surveyed in northeast California in 1997 

(Shuford 1998). Statewide survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Annual surveys at important 

sites in Wyoming (A. Cerovski pers. comm.). Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 

2000). 

• Vocalizations and behavior studied in Washington by Hall (McNicholl et al. 2001).

Action needed:

• Habitat: Preserve and protect wetland habitats. Provide adequate water levels to protect nesting islands 

from mammalian predators and manage water levels on lake and river nesting areas so as not to flood 

nest sites (Montana PIF 2000); sites with more stable levels can be better managed (Oakleaf et al. 

1996). Would benefit from maintenance of isolated breeding sites and enhancement of foraging habitat 

in northeast California (Shuford 1998). Monitor grazing. Monitor water quality. Develop site specific 

management techniques and strategies if needed (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Minimize human disturbance at nesting colonies during the breeding season (Montana PIF 2000) and 

maintain minimum buffer zone of 330-590 ft (100-180 m, Oakleaf et al. 1996). Document human activity 

levels and if excessive, educational efforts should be implemented (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Minimize 

disturbance when conducting research (Oakleaf et al. 1996). 

• Should be monitored every 3-5 years in northeast California using species-appropriate measures for 

accurate counts, minimizing time and expense (Shuford 1998). Survey known nesting colonies on an 

annual basis to determine status (Montana PIF 2000), conduct statewide surveys every three years 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996). Develop a positive relationship with private landowners so that surveys can be 

conducted (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Identify factors impacting or limiting population (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
120 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Black Tern - Chlidonias niger

Guifette noire - Gaviotin negro, Charrán negro, Fumarel negro

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 3

Relative abundance 2

Threats to breeding 4

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 2

Global and BCR populations: Global: Not available, but U.S. breeding population is reasonably in the low 

hundreds of thousands (Shuford 1999). 100,000-500,000 breeders in North America (NAWCP Appendix). No 

estimates (Dunn and Agro 1995). 

BCR 9: 7,925 breeders (App. D, Table D-10).

BCR 10: 674 breeders (App. D, Table D-10). 

BCR 15: 182 breeders (App. D, Table D-10). 

BCR 16: 24 breeders (App. D, Table D-10).

Population trend in BCR 9: Declining in California (declining along Humboldt River for last 15 years); 

stable or increasing in Idaho; unknown in Nevada (declining since 1980s in Lahontan Valley with increase in 

mid-1990s); and unknown in Oregon, Utah, and Washington (was declining in Columbia Basin of Washington 

but now recovering, Shuford 1999). Breeding trend possibly decreasing (PIF Prioritization Database). On 

Columbia Plateau BBS routes, a significant decrease of 12.4% from 1966-1996 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: Declining in Colorado; stable or increasing in Idaho; unknown trend in 

Oregon, Washington (numbers in northeast increased from late 1970s to mid-1990s), Montana (largest 

colony in Montana formerly at Red Rock Lakes prior to mid-1980s), and Wyoming (Cokeville Meadows 

once hosted up to 500 pairs in the 1980s, but highest count in recent years was 50 in 2002; A. Cerovski pers. 

comm.). Breeding trend uncertain (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 15: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database). Over 100 pairs 

historically nested at Lake Tahoe but no longer do so (Shuford 1999).

Population trend in BCR 16: Declining in Colorado (Shuford 1999), with no nests found in 1999 and 2000 

(Leukering et al. 2000); unknown trend in Utah (Shuford 1999).

Population trend in North America: Declines across continent, especially since 1960s, with 61% overall 

decrease between 1966-1996, but some increases in 1990s, recently leveled off or increased slightly (Shuford 

1999). In early 1990s, one-third as many as in late 1960s (Dunn and Agro 1995). Occupies most of former 

range (Shuford 1999). BBS data is only available for trends, but is too few for trend analysis, deficient in 

surveying this species (Shuford 1999), and contradictory and inconclusive (Nevada PIF 1999).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Uncommon breeder in eastern Washington (Shuford 1999); locally fairly 

common to common breeder, uncommon migrant in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); uncommon to 

common in spring through fall in northern California (checklists); uncommon in summer in southern Idaho 

(Svingen and Dumroese 1997); occasional to common in spring and summer, rare to uncommon in fall in 

Nevada (checklists); common to uncommon in summer in Utah (Shuford 1999). 

Abundance status in BCR 10: Uncommon breeder in eastern Washington (Shuford 1999) and common in 

Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 15: Common (L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.)

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 3% BCR 9 conservation priority.: High concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: <1% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern 

BCR 15 % of Global population: <1% BCR 15 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: <1% BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 121

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in most of BCR except north-central and 

southeast Washington, northern Oregon, eastern California, and parts of southeast Idaho (Shuford 1999). 

Most abundant on western edge of Great Basin in northeast California and Ruby Lakes NWR (Nevada 

PIF 1999). Most common at Turnbull NWR in Washington; Sycan Marsh, Klamath Basin, Malheur NWR, 

Chewaucan marshes, and Warner Valley, Oregon; Modoc County in California (not Klamath Basin as 

reported by Small in 1994, Shuford 1999); small, scattered colonies in southeast Idaho; Ruby Lake, Nevada; 

and Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, and Uinta Basin in Utah (Shuford 1999). Migrant through most of BCR 

(Sibley 2000, checklists). Crucial staging areas include Malheur NWR, Oregon, and Tule Lake NWR, and 

Siskiyou and Modoc counties, California; Bear River MBR may be important (1,000 in 1996, Shuford 1999).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds through most of BCR except northeast 

Oregon, and central Idaho and Wyoming (Shuford 1999). Northeast Washington is most important area in 

state; most in Montana at Benton Lake NWR, Freezeout WMA, and Blackfoot WPA; Laramie Plains and 

Cokeville Meadows in Wyoming (Shuford 1999, A. Cerovski pers. comm.). Migrant through most of BCR 

(Sibley 2000, checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 15: Breeder (colonial, Shuford 1999, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.), migrant (L. 

Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in northeast Utah and western Colorado 

(Shuford 1999). Largest numbers in Colorado formerly at San Luis Valley (Shuford 1999). Migrant through 

most of BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists).

Global distribution: Cosmopolitan.

Habitat requirements: Breeds in freshwater ponds, lakes, sloughs, and marshes in Washington (Shuford 

1999); in marshes and marsh-bordered lakes and rivers in Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); in freshwater 

marshes, ponds, lake borders, and flooded fallow fields in northeast California (Shuford 1999); on shallow 

lakes and wetlands, usually in cattail and/or spikerush, but also more saline typified by bulrush and 

submergent pondweeds in Nevada (Nevada PIF 1999); in wetlands associated with northern lakes in 

Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1998). In migration, feeds in and over freshwater lakes, rivers, 

wetlands, and plowed fields. Ideal habitat is emergent marshes with 50:50 vegetation to open water ratio, 

prefers more open water in California (Shuford 1999). Feeds on or over lakes, rivers, wetlands, or plowed 

fields (Dunn and Agro 1995) in Montana, feeding and migration at Prairie Intermountain West wetlands, 

irrigation reservoirs > 640 acres, and reservoirs and stockponds < 640 acres in Montana (Montana PIF 

2000).

Issues in BCR 9: Habitat. Habitat loss and degradation on breeding grounds are main cause of population 

declines, may also include introduced species, human disturbance, and contaminants (Shuford 1999). In 

Washington, spread of purple loosestrife and phragmites may reduce habitat (Shuford 1999); noxious weeds 

a problem at Boyd Ranch, Nevada (McIvor 2005). Invasive non-native plants and water quality at North 

Potholes Reserve, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Increased use of water for residential and agricultural 

uses, significant agricultural runoff from nearby lands contains nitrogen and phosphorus which has caused 

algae blooms in several wetlands at Turnbull NWR, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Main threat in Oregon is 

loss of habitat, with possible oil spills at Upper Klamath Lake from roads, railroad, or boats; and possible 

impact from early dewatering of hay fields for harvest in Harney Basin (Shuford 1999). Loss of habitat 

in northeast California (particularly in Klamath Basin) may have been partially offset in Modoc Plateau 

by creation of shallow reservoirs and efforts to increase waterfowl habitat; over 90% of all nesting birds 

in northeast California on private lands (Shuford 1999). At Fall River Valley, California, potential conflict 

over allocation of water from Big Lake (owned by Pacific Gas and Electric)—ranchers don’t want wetlands 

expanded to impact grazing opportunities, and PG&E wants it reserved for hydropower, which often leaves 

relatively little for wildlife (Cooper 2004). Main threat in Idaho is loss of habitat and limited water supplies 

for marshes due to overdrafting of ground water, and bombing range proposed for Duck Valley Reservation 

could impact nesting birds (Shuford 1999). Habitat loss and poor water quality are main threats in Nevada, 

suspected to be sensitive to water quality and pesticide accumulation (Nevada PIF 1999). Overgrazing, 

agricultural runoff, changing water levels are threats at Franklin Lake, Nevada (McIvor 2005). Habitat loss 
122 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

to agricultural and commercial development in Utah, but creation of reservoirs may have helped balance 

habitat loss (Shuford 1999).

Disturbance. Potential for recreational overuse and disturbance to nesting birds is a substantial threat at 

North Potholes Reserve, Washington (Cullinan 2001). 

Issues in BCR 10: Habitat. Habitat loss main threat in Oregon and Montana (Shuford 1999), leading to 

direct loss and fragmentation (Montana PIF 2000). Loss of habitat and limited water supplies for marshes 

because of overdrafting of ground water are main threats statewide in Idaho (Shuford 1999). Water 

level fluctuations in nesting areas due to natural events or manipulation for other species in Montana, 

and new dam at Red Rock Lakes caused a dramatic decline in nesting birds (Shuford 1999). Water level 

fluctuations primary threat in Wyoming, along with potential threat of natural pests and diseases, oil 

pollution and degradation (A. Cerovski pers. comm., www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html). High 

levels of selenium may influence reproduction at some nesting areas in Montana (Montana PIF 2000). Most 

colonies in Montana are in wetlands surrounded by agricultural land, and vulnerable to contamination from 

agricultural runoff which can cause excessive growth of emergents and algae making the wetland unsuitable 

for nesting or foraging (Montana PIF 2000). Spread of purple loosestrife and phragmites may reduce 

habitat in Washington (Shuford 1999). 

Disturbance. Loss of breeding habitat from human disturbance main threat in Wyoming (Shuford 1999). 

Disturbance in nesting colonies a potential problem in colonies on boatable/fishable waters in western 

Montana, such as Browns Lake near Ovando (Montana PIF 2000). 

Predation. Low fur prices, habitat fragmentation, farming practices, introduction of non-native predators, 

and enhancement of native avian predator populations (corvids and gulls) have contributed to increased 

predation levels of birds nesting in fragmented wetlands (Montana PIF 2000). 

Issues in BCR 15: At Lake Tahoe, development and lowering of water levels eliminated breeding terns 

(Shuford 1999). Development is a threat at Mountain Meadows Reservoir in California Sierra, east of 

Lake Almanor (Cooper 2004). Building development, lowering of water table and resulting decrease of 

wetlands, and overgrazing are threats in Sierra Valley (Cooper 2004). Habitat has been eliminated in 

portions of northeast California due to agricultural practices and water diversions (USFS 2001). If the 

Forest Service does not acquire land with suitable habitat, there may be a risk to existing populations of 

colonies on national forest land (USFS 2001). Because the nesting habits make them vulnerable to weather 

and flooding, success of future colonies depends on protection of large landscape level wetland areas (USFS 

2001).

Issues in BCR 16: Habitat loss to agricultural and commercial development in Utah, but creation of 

reservoirs may have helped balance habitat loss (Shuford 1999). On the verge of extirpation as a breeder 

in Colorado as no nests found in 1999 or 2000; requires immediate attention (Leukering et al. 2000). Some 

recovery in 2001 (R. Levad pers. comm.).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Former Federal Species of Management Concern (Regions 1 and 6) because documented or apparent 

population decline (USFWS 1995), but not on 2002 list (USFWS 2002).

• BSSC in California (2003 draft list), SC in Idaho (2001 list), SC in Montana (2001 list), SP in Utah (1998 

list), NSS3 in Wyoming (1999 list).

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Nevada (Nevada PIF 1999).

• Focal species for “marsh/grasslands” habitat suite for BCR 9 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G4 (widespread distribution and relatively abundant, but habitat alteration 

and degradation threaten the species).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N4B, NZN.

• Heritage Status Rank: SN in Arizona; S2 in California; S2B, SZN in Colorado; S2B, SZN in Idaho; S3B, 

SZN in Montana; S2S3B in Nevada; ; S4N in New Mexico; S3B in Oregon; S2B in Utah; S4B, SZN in 

Washington; S1B, SZN in Wyoming. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 17.

• Annual surveys at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.). Northeast California surveyed in 1997 

(Shuford 1999). Southern Idaho surveyed in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 123

• Studied at Sycan Marsh, Oregon (Stern 1988, Stern and Jarvis 1991), and Eagle Lake, northeast 

California (Gould 1974 ).

• In the Columbia Basin of Washington, responding favorably to removal of purple loosestrife and 

phragmites which have been choking out marshes (Shuford 1999).

• Annual surveys of most important breeding habitats in Wyoming started in 1994 (Shuford 1999). 

Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000). Limited research in Montana at Freezeout 

Lake WMA and Benton Lake NWR in recent years, monitoring at NWRs including Benton Lake and 

Ninepipe; partial statewide survey in Montana in 1997 (Shuford 1999). Southern Idaho surveyed in 1993 

(Trost and Gerstell 1994).

• Water management at Freezeout Lake provides a buffer against water fluctuations caused by large storm 

events or severe drought, thus maintaining nesting habitat for this species in very wet or very dry years 

(Montana PIF 2000).

• At Benton Lake NWR, few nested during the late 1980s, but when water management changed to 

increase the amount of emergent vegetation in one of the pond units, nesting increased dramatically in 

the 1990s (Montana PIF 2000). Benton Lake NWR is implementing actions to address high selenium 

levels in their water units (Montana PIF 2000). Studies have been conducted at Freezeout Lake WMA to 

evaluate both selenium and salinity in their units (Montana PIF 2000). 

• Studied at Eagle Lake in 1974 (Gould 1974).

• Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000). Monitoring programs at Alamos and 

Arapaho NWRs in Colorado (Shuford 1999).

Action needed:

• Protect, acquire, preserve, and maintain wetlands from development or drainage. Obtain water rights 

and maintain water levels; sites with more stable levels can be better managed (Oakleaf et al. 1996). 

Initiate priority management for breeding birds at important population centers (Nevada PIF 1999).

• Investigate habitat preferences to develop habitat model for use by wetland managers, but obtain status 

and trend information before adjusting management strategies (Nevada PIF 1999). 

• Form partnerships to protect and restore wetlands to slow wetland loss (Shuford 1999). 

• Manage habitat for this species based on current knowledge while conducting research to identify 

limiting factors and evaluate additional management techniques (Shuford 1999). 

• Develop site specific management techniques and strategies if needed (Oakleaf et al. 1996). In most cases, 

waterfowl production managers can provide suitable nesting habitat for terns without any major changes 

to their water management (Montana PIF 2000). Provide managers with information on the specific 

needs of Black Terns (Montana PIF 2000). Incorporate known and potential habitats into any wetlands 

restoration program (Montana PIF 2000). Form partnerships to protect and restore wetlands to slow 

wetland loss (Oakleaf et al. 1996, Shuford 1999). Undertake continued management actions at waterfowl 

management areas to reduce salinity and selenium concentrations (Montana PIF 2000). Take steps to 

reduce nutrient loading from runoff at known nesting sites (Montana PIF 2000).

• Monitor grazing. 

• Study of sensitivity to water quality and pesticides probably warranted; collect baseline contaminant 

residue information from nesting colonies (Nevada PIF 1999). 

• Create conservation easement agreements to protect nesting sites on private lands with major colonies 

(Nevada PIF 1999), work with private landowners for late irrigation dates. 

• Educate the public about the value of wetlands and effects of their actions on this species (Shuford 1999).

• Minimize disturbance at nesting areas and maintain minimum buffer zone of 330-590 ft (100-180 m) 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996). Document human activity levels and, if excessive, educational efforts should begin 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996); implement public education and signing program similar to that for Common Loons 

(Montana PIF 2000). Minimize disturbance when conducting research (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Monitor the population: Refine monitoring techniques to better detect population trends and determine 

causes of changes (Shuford 1999). Conduct surveys of potential nesting sites and create atlas of 

significant sites; monitor nesting activity and productivity on priority management sites (Nevada PIF 

1999). Should be monitored every 3-5 years in northeast California using species-appropriate measures 

for accurate counts, minimizing time and expense (Shuford 1998). Monitoring program should be 

developed in cooperation with State, Federal, and tribal entities that manage wetlands in Montana 
124 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

(Montana PIF 2000). Survey known and potential breeding sites, conduct statewide surveys every three 

years (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Develop a positive relationship with private landowners so that surveys can be 

conducted (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Identify factors impacting or limiting population (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Assess effects of predation: Predator management should be addressed, as needed, around nesting 

wetlands (Montana PIF 2000).

• Monitor for disease.

 

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 125

Pied-billed Grebe – Podilymbus podiceps

Grebe a bec bigarre – Zambullidor piquigrueso/Zambullidor Piquipinto

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority has not yet been determined.

Global and BCR populations: Global: No estimate available. BCR populations unknown.

Population trend in BCRs 9,10, 15, 16: Uncertain trend (PIF Prioritization Database). BBS data show no 

significant trend.(Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in North America: BBS data showed no significant trend (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCRs: Common breeder in palustrine wetlands.

BCR 9 % of Global population: unknown BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: unknown BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 15 % of Global population: unknown BCR 15 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: unknown BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Common in Northern Great Basin and Columbia Basin, Uncommon elsewhere.

Occurrence in BCR 10: Common in northeast WA, northern ID, and northwest MT. Uncommon elsewhere.

Occurrence in BCR 15: Common in Lassen, Modoc, Shasta and Plumas counties. Uncommon elsewhere.

Occurrence in BCR 16: Common in Colorado Plateau. Uncommon elsewhere.

Global distribution: Western Hemisphere. 

Habitat requirements: Palustrine wetlands.

Issues in Intermountain West region: Likely affected by habitat loss.

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (very large range and common in many areas).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S5 in Arizona; no rank in California; no rank in Colorado; no rank in Idaho; 

S5B,SZN in Montana, no rank in Nevada; no rank in New Mexico; no rank in Oregon; no rank in Utah; 

S4B,S5N in Washington.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 13.

Action needed:

• Obtain more accurate information (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001): Determine migration 

routes; return rates to breeding grounds; movement and habitat use prior to fall migration; movement 

and habitat use of juveniles; population estimate, distribution and population trends, and availability of 

appropriate habitat; wintering habitat needs; survival of young and juveniles; extent of double-brooding 

and re-nesting; marsh size and distribution requirements for breeding and wintering; verification of 

response rates to passive listening and broadcast call recordings; use of restored and created wetlands 

and effects of management techniques (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Find out where 

birds from important areas winter, and what are most important wintering areas (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001). Assess food resource availability (i.e., the timing of availability and types of food, 

NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Assess complex habitat (marsh and grassland) criteria, in 

relation to marsh size requirements (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes. 
126 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Eared Grebe - Podiceps nigricollis

Grèbe à cour noir - Zambullidor orejudo

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 3

Relative abundance 1

Threats to breeding 2

Threats to non-breeding 4

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 3

Global and BCR populations: Global: North American population 4.1 million in 1997; the most abundant 

grebe in the world (Cullen et al.1999). In fall, 3,500,000-4,100,000 individuals in North America (NAWCP 

Appendix). 

BCR 9: 27,318 breeders, >3 million migrants

Population trend in BCR 9: Fluctuates at Malheur NWR in Oregon (range 0-1633 from 1988-1998, G. 

Ivey pers. observ.); “Healthy and reproducing well in southern Idaho” (Trost and Gerstell 1994); Lake 

Mead, Nevada, supported 50,000 to 100,000 as late as 1972, but then numbers disappeared, may have 

been migrants, not wintering birds (Cullen et al. 1999). Breeding trend increasing significantly (PIF 

Prioritization Database). 

Population trend in North America: No demonstrable trends in distribution, but local increases and 

decreases (Cullen et al. 1999). BBS data showed significant 5.6% increase from 1966-2000, 5.1% from 1980-

2000 (Sauer et al. 2004), but not useful for this species except for range (Cullen et al. 1999). 

Abundance status in BCR 9: Most of the population stages at Mono Lake, California, or Great Salt Lake, 

Utah (Cullen et al. 1999); together supports more than 90% of North American birds in fall (Mono Lake 

Committee website). Occasional to common in spring and fall, occasional to abundant in summer in eastern 

Washington (checklists); locally common breeder, fairly common to abundant migrant, rare winter in eastern 

Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994), but several hundred will winter in mild conditions (Spencer 2003b); uncommon 

to common in spring, common to abundant in summer, uncommon to abundant in fall, rare to uncommon in 

winter in northern California (checklists); common in summer, rare in winter in southern Idaho (Svingen 

and Dumroese 1997); common in spring through fall, uncommon in winter in Nevada (checklists); uncommon 

to abundant migrant, uncommon in summer, rare to uncommon in winter in western Utah (checklists).

BCR 9 % of Global population: >90% (migrants)

BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern (migrant)

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR except central 

Washington and north-central Oregon (Smith et al. 1997, Cullen et al. 1999, Adamus et al. 2001). Major 

colonies at Harney, Lake, Klamath, and Deschutes counties, Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); Eagle Lake, 

California (Cooper 2004); Mud Lake WMA and Duck Valley Indian Reservation, Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 

1994). Migrant through most of BCR (checklists). Major migration stops include Lake Abert, Oregon 

(30,000 in 1994); Mono Lake, California (from 1-2 million stage and molt each fall [Mono Lake Committee 

website]), and Great Salt Lake with 1-1.5 million (D. Paul pers. comm. and internal agency reports 1997-

2004). Winters in most of BCR, especially in mild winters (Spencer 2003b, checklists).

Global distribution: Cosmopolitan.

Habitat requirements: Breeds in shallow lakes and ponds with emergent vegetation and highly productive 

marcoinvertebrate communities; rarely on ponds with fish; only time of year when does not prefer saline 

habitats for breeding (Cullen et al. 1999). In migration, prefers saline habitats which have superabundant 

invertebrate populations due to lack of fish and late freeze-over periods; and ponds and lakes where adults 

feed offshore in open water, while juveniles feed near shore in very shallow water; these age-specific feeding 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 127

differences are especially apparent when food is scarce (Cullen et al. 1999). In winter, found on lakes, 

reservoirs, shallow saline lakes, and salt ponds (Cullen et al. 1999). Uses sewage treatment ponds in all 

seasons in Oregon (Spencer 2003b).

Issues in BCR 9: Development, proposed highway, and a dumping site for toxic chemicals, and changing 

water levels all threaten habitat at Great Salt Lake (D. Paul pers. comm.). Mass fallouts of migrants can 

occur after leaving staging areas such as Great Salt Lake when disoriented in fog or snow and attracted 

to lights (Cullen et al. 1999). Nesting failures in Oregon occur due to rising water levels, waves from high 

winds, and water recession (Spencer 2003b). Potential loss of habitat at Mono Lake due to future water 

diversions and increased recreation (J. Jehl pers. comm.).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: SNRB, SNRN, SNRM in California; S4B, SZN in Idaho; S4B in Nevada; S4 in 

Oregon; S3N, S4B in Utah; S2B, S4N in Washington. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 12.

• Coordinated monitoring program at major staging areas during migration (Great Salt Lake, Mono Lake, 

and Lake Abert).

• Monitoring program and staging survey at Great Salt Lake (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest 

Regional Workshop April 2000). Annual surveys at Tule Lake NWR (D. Mauser pers. comm.), at Malheur 

NWR in Oregon through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Statewide survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost and 

Gerstell 1994).

Action needed:

• Protect and preserve habitat. Maintain water levels and forage base (brine shrimp) at saline lakes.

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
128 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Western Grebe - Aechmophorus occidentalis

Le Grèbe de l’Ouest - (Nahuatl) Achichilique, Acitli

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 3

Relative abundance 2

Threats to breeding 4

Threats to non-breeding 4

Breeding distribution 3

Non-breeding distribution 3

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unavailable since no thorough surveys and not always separated 

out from Clark’s Grebe in surveys. Split with Clark’s Grebe in 1985 confounds data, so accurate trend 

unavailable (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). >120,000 in N. America (Jehl 2001 in Spencer 2003e). Greater 

than 110,000 breeders (NAWCP Appendix) 

BCR 9: 12,088 breeders

BCR 10: 3,580 breeders

BCR 15: 1,286 breeders

BCR 16: 382 breeders

Population trend in BCR 9: No data (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992, PIF Prioritization Database). On 

Basin and Range BBS routes, significant increase of 9.3% from 1966-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 15: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 16: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: No data available (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). Christmas bird 

count data suggests declines (Ivey 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Occasional in spring and fall, rare to occasional in summer in eastern 

Washington (checklists); locally common breeder, locally common to rare in winter in eastern Oregon 

(Gilligan et al. 1994); uncommon to common in spring, common to abundant in summer and fall, rare in 

winter in northern California (checklists); abundant in summer, uncommon in winter in southern Idaho 

(Svingen and Dumroese 1997); rare to common in spring, rare to occasional in summer, uncommon to 

common in fall, rare to occasional in winter in Nevada (checklists); rare to uncommon in spring and fall, 

uncommon to common in summer, rare in winter in western Utah (checklists). Populations on neighboring 

lakes in Oregon and California vary widely in proportion between Western and Clark’s (Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992); in equal numbers compared to Westerns in Klamath County, less common at Goose 

Lake in Lake County, far more numerous in Harney County, Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994). Summer counts of 

Westerns and Clark’s in northern California, southern Oregon, and Utah showed 50.8% of 1,584 birds to be 

Westerns (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). In western Nevada, breeding Clark’s outnumber Westerns 60/40-

90/10 (Nevada PIF 1999). 

Abundance status in BCR 10: Common in northern Idaho, particularly at Lake Cascade where 1350 nests 

were detected in 2004 (C. Moulton pers. comm.). Common in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 15: Unknown.

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 11% BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: 3% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 15 % of Global population: 1% BCR 15 conservation priority: High concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: <1% BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR (Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992, National Geographic Society 1999). Major colonies at Eagle Lake, California (Cooper 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 129

2004); and American Falls Reservoir and Minidoka NWR, Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Migrant through 

most of BCR (checklists). Winters through most of BCR except Washington (Gilligan et al. 1994, Svingen 

and Dumroese 1997, checklists). Especially common in Oregon in winter in Klamath Basin (Gilligan et al. 

1994).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR (Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992). Migrant through most of BCR (checklists). Winters in northern Idaho (Svingen and 

Dumroese 1997) and western Montana (Metcalf NWR checklist).

Occurrence in BCR 15: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Year-round, small numbers winter (National 

Geographic Society 1999, Sibley 2000, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.). Major colony at Eagle Lake, 

California (Cooper 2004).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR (Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992). Breeds most frequently in New Mexico at Las Vegas NWR and northern lakes (Rustay 

2000). Migrant through most of BCR (checklists). Rare in winter in northern New Mexico (Las Vegas NWR 

checklist).

Habitat requirements: Breeds on freshwater lakes and marshes with extensive areas of open water 

bordered by emergent vegetation (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). Requires open water for displaying, 

feeding, and social flocking; and large areas of tall emergent aquatic plants such as tule or cattail for nesting 

(Trost and Gerstell 1994). In migration, usually on large bodies of water, in winter on brackish bays, lakes, 

occasionally on rivers (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). Western usually forages in shallower water closer to 

shore than Clark’s, at least at Upper Klamath Lake (Oregon) and Idaho, distinction less if shallow areas far 

from shore (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992, Trost and Gerstell 1994). 

Global distribution: North America

Issues in BCR 9: Concern over effects of water level fluctuations and poor water quality on nesting 

birds in Idaho; no longer nest at Lake Lowell due to fluctuating water levels and nutrient load (Trost and 

Gerstell 1994). Winter fish kills likely lowers breeding success which occurs when low water levels, caused 

by drought or management to control nongame fish, are followed by a cold winter (Trost and Gerstell 

1994). Flooding and drops in water levels destroyed colonies in Oregon and Utah (Spencer 2003e). Heavy 

recreational use, with few restrictions on public access or recreational activities, and insufficient funding 

of enforcement to prevent dumping, vandalism, disturbance, and illegal hunting are issues at Potholes 

Reservoir, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Except for long-term viability of Walker Lake fishery, few issues in 

Nevada (Nevada PIF 1999). Water levels and use of Rotenone for carp control effect numbers of breeding 

birds at Malheur NWR (Gilligan et al. 1994); lack of control resulted in presence of only adult carp that were 

too large for feeding grebes; carp control resulted in near elimination of carp followed by years with an 

unusually large population of fingerling sized carp appropriate for feeding grebes (Spencer 2003e).

Issues in BCR 10: Concern over effects of water level fluctuations and poor water quality on nesting birds 

in Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Winter fish kills likely lowers breeding success; this results when low 

water levels caused by drought or management to control nongame fish are followed by a cold winter (Trost 

and Gerstell 1994). Flooding and drops in water levels destroyed colonies in Oregon and Utah (Spencer 

2003e). 

Issues in BCR 15: Water level drawdowns for power generation at Lake Almanor caused major nest losses.

Issues in BCR 16: Flooding and drops in water levels destroyed colonies in Utah (Spencer 2003e). 

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Candidate for listing in Washington (2001 list). High priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 

2000).

• High priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000), Utah focal (Parrish et al. 2002).

• NSS4 in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

• Focal species for “open water, lakes” habitat suite for BCRs 9 and 16 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Priority bird species in PIF Columbia Plateau (#89) Physiographic Area Plan.
130 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S3 in Arizona; SNRB, SNRN in California; S4B in Colorado; S4B in Idaho; S4B in 

Montana; S4B in Nevada; S3B, S5N in New Mexico; S3B, S2S3N in Oregon; S3N, S4B in Utah; S3B, S3N 

in Washington; S4B in Wyoming. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 17.

• PIF continental concern (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Statewide survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 

(Leukering et al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Habitat management: Maintain water levels. Monitor water quality. Consider carp control. Modify lake 

restrictions from no wake to trolling speed only to favor wildlife (Rustay 2000). Control grazing along 

shores and banks through low intensity or rest-rotation (Rustay 2000). Fence cattail/bulrush areas during 

dry years for rapid recovery of nesting habitat (Rustay 2000).

• Minimize disturbance at nesting areas. 

• Collect data on status, trend, and population parameters to differentiate from Clark’s.

• All known colonies should be surveyed on an annual basis to track distribution and numbers of both 

Western and Clark’s (Montana PIF 2000).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 131

Clark’s Grebe - Aechmophorus clarkii

Le Grèbe de Clark - (Nahuatl) Achichilique, Acitli

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of low concern

Population trend 3

Relative abundance 3

Threats to breeding 3

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 3

Non-breeding distribution 3

Global and BCR populations: Global: 10,000-20,000 individuals (NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 9: 3,546 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

BCR 10: 106 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

BCR 15: 12 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

BCR 16: 210 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

Population trend in BCR 9: Not always separated out from Western Grebes in surveys and taxonomic 

split between Western and Clark’s grebes in 1985 confounds data, so accurate trend unavailable. No data on 

breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 10: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 15: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 15: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: BBS data showed non-significant 0.4% increase from 1966-2000, and 

1.9% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare to occasional in spring, rare in summer and fall in eastern Washington 

(checklists); locally common breeder, rare in winter in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); uncommon to 

common in spring and fall, common in summer, rare in winter in northern California (checklists); locally 

common breeder, accidental in winter in southwest Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); rare to uncommon 

in spring and summer in Nevada (checklists); rare to common in summer, rare in winter in western Utah 

(checklists). Populations on neighboring lakes in Oregon and California vary widely in proportion between 

Western and Clark’s (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992); in equal numbers compared to Westerns in Klamath 

County, more common at Goose Lake in Lake County, far less numerous in Harney County (Gilligan et 

al. 1994.). Summer counts of Western/Clark’s in northern California, southern Oregon, and Utah showed 

49.2% of 1,584 birds to be Clark’s (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). In western Nevada, breeding Clark’s 

outnumbered Westerns 60/40-90/10 (Nevada PIF 1999). 

Abundance status in BCR 10: Uncommon in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 15: Unknown.

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 24% BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: <1% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 15 % of Global population: <1% BCR 15 conservation priority: High concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: 1% BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR (Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992, National Geographic Society 1999). Upper Klamath and Goose lakes, Oregon, and 

California’s Modoc Co. support the largest known concentrations of this species within its range (Spencer 

2003a). Migrant through most of BCR (checklists). Rare in winter through most of BCR (Gilligan et al. 

1994, Svingen and Dumroese 1997, Nevada PIF 1999, checklists), in large numbers on Walker Lake, Nevada 

(Nevada PIF 1999).
132 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in most of BCR (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992), 

except northern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Migrant in northern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997) 

and southwest Montana (Red Rock Lakes NWR checklist).

Occurrence in BCR 15: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Year-round, small numbers in winter (National 

Geographic Society 1999, Sibley 2000, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR (Storer and 

Nuechterlein 1992) except Arizona (AGFD 1996). Breeds most frequently in New Mexico at Las Vegas 

NWR and northern lakes (Rustay 2000). Migrant in northern New Mexico (Las Vegas NWR checklist, 

NMGF website). Rare in winter in northern New Mexico (Las Vegas NWR checklist).

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Breeds on freshwater lakes and marshes with extensive areas of open water 

bordered by emergent vegetation (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). In migration, usually on large bodies of 

water (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992), needs deep lakes with fish (Nevada PIF 1999). In winter on brackish 

bays, lakes, occasionally on rivers (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992). Clark’s usually forages in deeper water 

further from shore than Western, at least in Upper Klamath Lake (Oregon) and Idaho, distinction less 

if shallow areas far from shore (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992, Trost and Gerstell 1994). Uses wetlands, 

irrigation reservoirs < 640 acres, and reservoirs and stockponds < 640 acres for nesting, foraging, and 

migration in Montana (Montana PIF 2000).

Issues in BCR 9: Concern over effects of poor water quality and water level fluctuations on nesting birds 

in Idaho; no longer nest at Lake Lowell due to fluctuating water levels and nutrient load (Trost and Gerstell 

1994). Winter fish kills likely lowers breeding success, which occurs when low water levels, caused by 

drought or management to control nongame fish, are followed by a cold winter (Trost and Gerstell 1994). 

Except for long-term viability of Walker Lake fishery, few issues in Nevada (Nevada PIF 1999).

Issues in BCR 10: Poorly understood and monitored in Montana (Montana PIF 2000).

Issues in BCR 15: Water level drawdowns at Lake Almanor causing nest failures.

Issues in BCR 16: Unknown.

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Candidate species in Arizona (1996 list), moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 

2000), SC in Montana, management priority species in Nevada (Nevada PIF 1999), wetland priority 

species in New Mexico (Rustay 2000), Utah focal (Parrish et al. 2002 ), SSC4 in Wyoming (1999 list).

• Focal species for “open water, lakes” habitat suite for BCRs 9 and 16 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S3 in Arizona; SNRB, SNRN in California; S4B, SZN in Colorado; S2B, SZN 

in Idaho; S2S4B, SZN in Montana; S2B; S4B in Nevada; S4B, S5N in New Mexico; S4 in Oregon; S3N, 

S3S4B in Utah; S2B, SZN in Washington; SZN in Wyoming.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 17.

• PIF continental concern (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Statewide survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 

(Leukering et al. 2000). Montana Natural Heritage Program has tracked occurrences of known nesting 

sites in Montana (Montana PIF 2000).

Action needed:

• Habitat management: Maintain semi-permanent marshes with well-developed emergent and 

submergents, abundant fish populations, and stable water levels May 1 to November 15 (Nevada PIF 

1999). Adjust water plans to adjust to nesting schedule of that year (Nevada PIF 1999). Accumulate 

water rights for Lahontan Valley wetlands to provided optimum breeding habitats (Nevada PIF 1999). 

Coordinate annual habitat management objectives of important colony sites in the Great Basin, review 

annual performance, and plan on an ecoregional scale (Nevada PIF 1999). Monitor water quality. Habitat 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 133

needs should be incorporated into water level and habitat management decisions at refuges and other 

management areas (Montana PIF 2000). Modify lake restrictions from no wake to trolling speed only 

to favor wildlife (Rustay 2000). Control grazing along shores and banks through low intensity or restrotation (Rustay 2000). Fence cattail/bulrush areas during dry years for rapid recovery of nesting habitat 

(Rustay 2000).

• Monitor population: Coordinate state management and monitoring of major colony sites with national 

planning efforts (Nevada PIF 1999). Conduct censuses of staging and wintering areas, and maintain 

abundant fish populations at important sites (Nevada PIF 1999). Collect data on status, trend, and 

population parameters to differentiate from Western. All known colonies should be surveyed on an 

annual basis to track distribution and numbers of both Western and Clark’s (Montana PIF 2000). 

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
134 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Snowy Egret - Egretta thula

Aigrette neigeuse - Garceta pie-dorado, Garza chusmita, Garza nivea

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of high concern

Population trend 4

Relative abundance 2

Threats to breeding 4

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 3

Non-breeding distribution 4

Global and BCR populations: Global: Inadequate data (Parsons and Master 2000). Greater than 143,000 

breeders in North America (NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 9: 3,322 breeders

BCR 10: 70 breeders

BCR 16: 940 breeders

Population trend in BCR 9: May be declining in Oregon (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest Regional 

Workshop April 2000), declining at Malheur NWR (range 0 to 85 from 1988-1998, G. Ivey pers. observ.); 

stable or increasing in southern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994); nest total for Lahontan Valley in 2001 was 

30% below the five-year average (Bradley et al. 2001). On Basin and Range BBS routes, significant decrease 

of 10.8% from 1966-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004). 

Population trend in BCR 10: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database). 

Population trend in BCR 16: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database). 

Population trend in North America: Widespread declines in late 20th century, populations have fluctuated, 

with colonization on mid-Atlantic Coast and northeast tempered with declines (Parsons and Master 2000). 

BBS data showed significant 3.4% increase from 1966-2000, and 4.3% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Uncommon breeder, rare to uncommon migrant in eastern Oregon 

(Gilligan et al. 1994); rare to uncommon in spring, rare to common in summer, uncommon to common in 

fall in northern California (checklists); common to uncommon in summer in southern Idaho (Svingen and 

Dumroese 1997); common in spring, common to abundant in summer, uncommon to common in fall in 

Nevada (checklists); rare to abundant in spring, common to abundant in summer, rare to occasional in fall, 

rare in winter in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Uncommon in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 2% BCR 9 conservation priority: High concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: <1% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: <1% BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR from southern Oregon 

and Idaho south (National Geographic Society 1999, Parsons and Master 2000). Migrant in most of BCR 

from Oregon and Idaho south (checklists). Rare in winter in northern Utah (checklists). Common breeder at 

Great Salt Lake, Utah (Paul et al 2001).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in western Wyoming (National Geographic 

Society 1999, Parsons and Master 2000). Migrant in northern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997) and 

western Montana (Montana Natural Heritage Program website).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in northeast Utah, central and southern 

Colorado (Parsons and Master 2000), and northern New Mexico (B. Howe pers. comm.). Migrant through 

most of BCR (checklists). 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 135

Global distribution: Western Hemisphere 

Habitat requirements: Nests on reservoirs, grassy marshes, wet meadows (Parsons and Master 2000), 

riparian, marsh, and tree habitats, in hardstem bulrush, cattails, shrub willows, and on sparsely-vegetated 

islands (Herziger and Ivey 2003d); in willows along large rivers in Nevada (Parsons and Master 2000). 

Forages in shallow water (Parsons and Master 2000), in lakes, meadows, marshes, ponds, streams, and 

urban habitats, including migration (Herziger and Ivey 2003d).

Issues in BCR 9: DDE present in eggs in Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho, and effected reproductive success 

(Henny et al. 1985).

Issues in BCR 10: None reported.

Issues in BCR 16: Urban colonies and human conflicts in New Mexico (B. Howe pers. comm.).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• T in Arizona (1996 list); SV in Oregon (ONHP 2001 list); NSS3 in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (very large range, relatively secure on a global level; threatened in some 

areas by loss/degradation of wetland habitat).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S1B, S4N in Arizona; S4 in California; S2B, SZN in Colorado. S2B, SZN in Idaho; 

SAB, SZN in Montana; S4B in Nevada; S4B, S4N in New Mexico; S2B in Oregon; S4S5B in Utah; SZN in 

Washington; S3B, SZN in Wyoming. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 9.

• Annual surveys at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.), Great Salt Lake (J. Neill pers. comm.); at 

Malheur NWR in Oregon through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Southern Idaho surveyed in 1993 (Trost 

and Gerstell 1994). Annual surveys at important sites in Wyoming (A. Cerovski pers. comm.). Statewide 

survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Monitor effects of pesticides. 

• Better data needed on nesting bird numbers (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest Regional Workshop 

April 2000). 

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
136 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Great Blue Heron - Ardea herodias

Grand Héron - Garza morena, Garza blanca granda, Gallinaza

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species not at risk.

 Population trend 1

 Relative abundance 2

 Threats to breeding 2

 Threats to non-breeding 2

 Breeding distribution 2

 Non-breeding distribution 3

Global and BCR 9 populations: Global: Unavailable due to incomplete data (Butler 1992). Greater than 

83,000 breeders in North America (NAWCP Appendix). 

 BCR 9: 4.560 breeders

 BCR 10: 1,600 breeders

 BCR 15: unknown

 BCR 16: 2,082 breeders

Population trend in BCR 9: Probably stable in Washington (Butler 1992); decreasing at Malheur NWR in 

Oregon (range 45-682 from 1988-1998, G. Ivey pers. observ.); stable or increasing in southern Idaho (Trost 

and Gerstell 1994); nest total for Lahontan Valley in 2001 was 92% below the five-year average (Bradley 

et al. 2001); formerly nested on largest island on Great Salt Lake, Utah (now a state park, Intermountain 

West/Desert Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000). On Basin and Range BBS routes, non-significant 

increase of 2.3% from 1966-2000, 1.9% from 1980-2000; on Columbia Plateau routes, a non-significant 

decrease of 2.5% from 1966-2000, 4.5% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004). Greatest increase per year on 

BBS routes from 1966-1996 in southern Washington, northern and eastern Oregon, eastern California, 

southern Idaho, most of Nevada, and northern Utah (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: Breeding trend possibly increasing (PIF Prioritization Database). On 

Wyoming Basin routes, non-significant increase of 6.2% from 1966-2000, and non-significant increase of 

12.2% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004). Greatest increase per year on BBS routes from 1966-1996 in 

northeast Oregon, central Idaho, southwest Montana, western Wyoming, and northern Colorado (Sauer et 

al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 15: Breeding trend uncertain (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 16: Breeding trend uncertain (PIF Prioritization Database). On Southern 

Rockies BBS routes, non-significant increase of 17.6% from 1966-2000, and significant increase of 21.2% 

from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004). Greatest increase per year on BBS routes from 1966-1996 in eastern 

Utah, western Colorado, and central Arizona (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in North America: Stable or increasing in most areas (NatureServe). BBS data showed 

significant 2.3% increase from 1966-2000, and 1.1% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Common spring through fall, occasional to uncommon in winter in eastern 

Washington (checklists); uncommon to locally common breeder, uncommon to fairly common most winters 

in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); common spring through fall, rare in winter in northern California 

(checklists); most widespread and successful ciconiform in Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994)--common 

resident (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); common spring through fall, uncommon to common in winter in 

Nevada (checklists); common year-round in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: common spring through fall, rare in winter.

Abundance status in BCR 15: uncommon spring through fall, rare in winter.

Abundance status in BCR 16: uncommon spring through fall.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 4% BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: 1% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 137

BCR 15 % of Global population: 1% BCR 15 conservation priority: Not at risk

BCR 16 % of Global population: 1% BCR 16 conservation priority: Not at risk

 

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Year-round in most of BCR (Butler 1992, 

National Geographic Society 1999, checklists). Most colonies in Oregon in Klamath and Harney basins; 

Deer Flat NWR, Island Park Reservoir, Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Highest densities in winter include 

Great Salt Lake (Butler 1992), Klamath and Harney basins and along Columbia River in Oregon (Gilligan et 

al. 1994).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Year-round in most of BCR except for 

portions of northern Idaho and western Wyoming and Montana (Butler 1992, checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 15: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Year-round (Butler 1992, National Geographic 

Society 1999, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comms.).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Year-round in most of BCR except western 

Colorado and northwest New Mexico (Butler 1992, National Geographic Society 1999).

Global distribution: North and Central America; Galapagos.

Habitat requirements: Nests in marsh and riparian habitats on islands, lakes, wetlands, trees (including 

cottonwoods and willows in Oregon and Douglas Fir in Idaho, Trost and Gerstell 1994, G. Ivey pers. observ.). 

Little information on habitats in migration and winter, but probably similar to breeding (Butler 1992). Feeds 

mostly in slow moving or calm freshwater, including lakes, ponds, marshes, streams, wet meadows, urban 

areas (Butler 1992), and dry fields (especially in winter Gilligan et al. 1994). 

 

Issues in BCR 9: Recreational and agricultural developments threaten habitat in inholdings and on 

adjacent lands, no secure water rights at Columbia NWR, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Nesting trees 

bulldozed in Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Potential removal of area protective status and resulting 

agricultural development, invasion of non-native plants, and increasing adverse impacts from recreational 

use, particularly motorized boats, at Hanford Reach, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Potential for recreational 

overuse and disturbance to nesting birds is a substantial threat; other threats include invasive non-native 

plants and water quality at North Potholes Reserve, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Increased use of water for 

residential and agricultural uses and runoff of chemicals and organic nutrients from adjacent agricultural 

lands may result in contamination of water and soils, or cause algae blooms in smaller ponds and wetlands, 

especially in several wetlands at Turnbull NWR in Washington (Cullinan 2001); dredging and gravel 

mining in the river floodplains causes loss of habitat and may alter hydrology; some additional habitat may 

be lost because of urban development near the eastern edge of Toppenish Creek/Yakima River Oxbows, 

Washington (Cullinan 2001). Pesticides and eggshell thinning found in eggs at Malheur NWR (Cornely et 

al. 1993), but DDE and PCB residues in birds in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada not high enough to cause 

reproductive problems; species not considered sensitive to DDT effects (Fitzner et al. 1988).

Issues in BCR 10: Minor threat of invasive or non-native plants at Red Canyon Ranch and Sweetwater 

River Project, Wyoming (WY IBAs).

Issues in BCR 15: None reported.

Issues in BCR 16: Animal Damage Control in New Mexico reports taking average of ten a year using 

leghold traps (NMGF website).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S4 in California; S5B, S5N in Idaho; S5 in Nevada; S4 in Oregon; S3S4 in Utah; 

S4S5 in Washington; S4B, SZN in Montana; S4B, SZN in Wyoming; S3B, SZN in Colorado; S5 in Arizona; 

S4B, S5N in New Mexico.

• Partners in Flight Rank: 9.

• Annual surveys at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.), Great Salt Lake (J. Neill pers. comm.); at 
138 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Malheur NWR in Oregon through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Statewide survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost 

and Gerstell 1994). Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000). Statewide survey in 

Wyoming in 1994 (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000). Statewide 

survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). 

Action needed:

• Preserve and protect wetland habitat: secure water rights and maintain water levels and encourage 

preservation of nesting trees on private lands. 

• Monitor for exotic species.

• Monitor water quality. 

• Minimize disturbance at nesting areas.

• Watch placement of leghold traps.

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 139

Green Heron - Butorides virescens

Heron vert - Garcita verde

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of low concern

Population trend 2

Relative abundance 3

Threats to breeding 2

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 4

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unknown (Davis and Kushlan 1994, NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 16: unknown

Population trend in BCR 16: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database). 

Population trend in North America: Sparse early data makes trend unavailable, but range expansion 

has occurred in middle of continent and on the Pacific Coast (Davis and Kushlan 1994). BBS data indicates 

significant 0.8% decline from 1966-2000, 2.0% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 16: unknown

BCR 16 % of Global population: unknown BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. Breeds in southeast Utah, northwest Arizona, 

(Davis and Kushlan 1994, National Geographic Society 1999) at Fort Collins and possibly Grand Junction 

in Colorado (Leukering et al. 2000), and New Mexico (B. Howe pers. comm.). Migrant in most of BCR 

(checklists). 

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Nests in marshes, lakes, ponds, human-made impoundments, dry woods and 

orchards if feeding site available (Davis and Kushlan 1994). Likely uses wetlands in migration (Davis and 

Kushlan 1994). Feeds in riparian zones along creeks and streams, marshes, human-made ditches, canals, 

ponds, lake edges, open floodplains, and mudflats; prefers to feed in thick vegetation, but will use open areas 

on mudflats, open marshes, and pond edges (Davis and Kushlan 1994).

Issues in BCR 16: Loss of riparian habitats. Invasive plant species (e.g., salt cedar)

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (large range, common in many areas).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S1B, SAN in Utah; S3B, SZN in Colorado; S4 in Arizona; S4B, S4N in New 

Mexico. 

• Partners In Flight Rank: 10.

• Statewide survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Conservation and restoration of woody riparian habitats along rivers and streams.

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
140 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Black-crowned Night-Heron - Nycticorax nycticorax

Bihoreau a couronne noire (Canada) - Yaboa Real, Guanaba (Puerto Rico), Guaco (Venezuela)

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 4

Relative abundance 3

Threats to breeding 3

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 3

Global and BCR populations: Global: Greater than 50,000 breeders in North America not including 

Central America, NAWCP Appendix).

BCR 9: 5,586 breeders

BCR 10: 520 breeders

BCR 16: 656 breeders

Population trend in BCR 9: Fluctuates but generally decreasing at Malheur NWR in Oregon (range 

29-350 from 1988-1998, G. Ivey pers. observ.); stable or increasing in southern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 

1994); nest total for Lahontan Valley in 2001 was 81% below the five-year average (Bradley et al. 2001). On 

Basin and Range BBS routes, non-significant decrease of 2.1% from 1966-2000, 1.4% from 1980-2000; on 

Columbia Plateau routes, non-significant increase of 3.2% from 1966-2000, 4.4% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 

2004). Greatest increase per year on BBS routes from 1966-1996 in southern Oregon, northeast and eastern 

California, southwest Idaho, most of Nevada, and west-central Utah (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: Where disturbance minimized and water levels consistent, some colonies 

used for 30 consecutive years or more in Montana (Montana PIF 2000). No data on breeding trend (PIF 

Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 16: Breeding trend uncertain (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: Lack of data makes trend difficult, but most populations stable or 

increasing (Davis 1993). BBS data showed significant 5.9% increase from 1966-2000 and 5.3% from 1980-

2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare to common in spring and summer, rare to uncommon in fall in eastern 

Washington (checklists); fairly common breeder in summer, uncommon in migration and winter in eastern 

Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); common in spring through fall, rare to uncommon in winter in northern 

California (checklists); common in summer, uncommon in winter in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 

1997); common in spring and fall, common to abundant in summer, occasional to uncommon in winter in 

Nevada (checklists); rare to abundant in spring, common to abundant in summer, rare to common in fall and 

winter in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Uncommon in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 16: Unknown

BCR 9 % of Global population: 11% BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: 1% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: 1% BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern 

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds through most of BCR (Davis 1993, 

National Geographic Society 1999, Sibley 2000). Most important colonies in Harney, Lake, and Klamath 

counties, Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994), and Thousand Springs, Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Migrant 

through most of BCR (checklists). Major migration staging sites include Malheur NWR (3,000 or more) 

(Gilligan et al. 1994). Winters in most of BCR except Washington and northern Oregon (Davis 1993, Trost 

and Gerstell 1994, checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in most of BCR except northeast Washington 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 141

(Smith et al. 1997), northern Idaho, parts of western Montana, and parts of southeastern and central 

Wyoming (Davis 1993, National Geographic Society 1999). Uncommon migrant in northern Idaho (Svingen 

and Dumroese 1997), rare in other areas of BCR (checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds through most of BCR (Davis 1993). 

Migrant through most of BCR (checklists). Winters in northwest Arizona and central New Mexico (Davis 

1993), rarely in southern Colorado (Alamosa-Monte Vista NWRs checklist).

Global distribution: Cosmopolitan.

Habitat requirements: Breeds in marsh and riparian habitats in marshes, streams, rivers, pools, ponds, 

lakes, man-made ditches, canals, reservoirs, and wet agricultural fields (Davis 1993); in Oregon and Idaho 

on trees, shrubs, islands, and in emergents (Cornely et al. 1993, Trost and Gerstell 1994). Prefers sites over 

water or on islands, in bulrush or cattail marshes for nesting in Montana, but also cottonwoods, willows, or 

other wetland vegetation (Montana PIF 2000). Uses wetlands in migration, wide variety of wetland habitats 

in breeding season in winter (Davis 1993). For feeding, prefers shallow, weedy and margins, creeks, and 

marshes (Davis 1993); forages primarily in wetlands, also grasslands in Montana (Montana PIF 2000). 

Uses Intermountain West wetlands, and reservoirs and stockponds < 640 acres for nesting, foraging, and 

migration in Montana (Montana PIF 2000).

Issues in BCR 9: Greatest mortality in Magic Valley, Idaho, probably due to concentration of prey at trout 

hatcheries (Trost and Gerstell 1994). With low water levels, grazing cattle may gain access to island colonies 

and cause abandonment (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Potential for recreational overuse and disturbance 

to nesting birds is a substantial threat, as well as invasive non-native plants and water quality at North 

Potholes Reserve, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Runoff of chemicals and organic nutrients from adjacent 

agricultural lands may result in contamination of water and soils, or cause algae blooms in the smaller 

ponds and wetlands; dredging and gravel mining in the river floodplains causes loss of habitat and may 

alter hydrology; some additional habitat may be lost because of urban development near the eastern edge 

of Toppenish Creek/Yakima River Oxbows, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Reproductive problems related to 

DDE in Washington, Oregon, and Nevada have been observed eight years after substance banned (clutch 

size decreased, productivity decreased, and greater incidence of cracked eggs), particularly Nevada; 

however, residues have declined (Henny et al. 1984) and no pesticides have been found at colony sites, thus 

birds must acquire these pesticides elsewhere (Henny et al. 1985).

Issues in BCR 10: None reported.

Issues in BCR 16: Riparian woodland decadence and exotic plant species in New Mexico (salt cedar and 

Russian olive) threaten nesting habitat (B. Howe pers. comm.). 

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• SC in Montana (2001 list). Formerly NSS3 in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (very large range, fairly common in many local areas).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S3 in Arizona; S3 in California; SZN in Colorado; Partners In Flight Rank: 9.S3B, 

SZN in Idaho; S2S3B, SZN in Montana; S4B, S4N in New Mexico S5B in Nevada; S4 in Oregon; S3N, 

S3S4B in Utah; S3B, S3N in Washington; S3B, SZN in Wyoming.

• Annual surveys at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.), Great Salt Lake (J. Neill pers. comm.); at 

Malheur NWR in Oregon through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Statewide survey in Idaho in 1993 (Trost 

and Gerstell 1994). Annual surveys at some sites in Wyoming (A. Cerovski pers. comm.). Statewide 

survey in Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Prevent access to hatchery fish. 

• Preserve and protect wetlands and riparian habitats. Maintain water levels. Monitor for exotic species. 

Monitor water quality. 

• Minimize disturbance at breeding areas.
142 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

• Annual surveys should be conducted to track the occupancy of known and potential colony sites, and 

develop population trends (Montana PIF 2000).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 143

Least Bittern (Western) - Ixobrychus exilis hesperis

Blongios minute - Ardeola, Garza enana, Garcilla

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined

Global and BCR populations: Global: Little information due to secretive behavior (Gibbs et al. 1992b). 

Insufficient data (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). BCR populations unknown 

Population trend in BCR 9: Uncertain trend (PIF Prioritization Database). Historically nested at Great 

Salt Lake, now a rare migrant in most of the Great Basin (Gibbs et al. 1992b). Small numbers at Modoc 

NWR recently; virtually unknown otherwise in northeastern California (Cooper 2004). 

Population trend in BCR 16: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database). 

Population trend in North America: Secretive behavior makes trend unclear (Gibbs et al. 1992b), and BBS 

data not conclusive as species breeds away from roadsides and peak of vocal activity is past standard survey 

period (NatureServe). Showed stability 1966-1989 on the few routes this species was recorded (less than 10 

routes in any state except Florida, Gibbs et al. 1992b); BBS data showed significant decline of 2.9% from 

1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare in spring and summer in Oregon (Spencer 2003c); rare in spring and 

summer in northern California (checklists); rare spring through fall in Nevada (checklists).

BCR 9 % of Global population: unknown BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 16 % of Global population: unknown BCR 16 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. Breeds in southern Oregon and northeast 

California (Gibbs et al. 1992b, checklists). Western population concentrations include Klamath and Malheur 

basins of Oregon and Modoc Plateau of California (Gibbs et al. 1992b). Rare migrant and occasional in 

winter in most of the Great Basin (Gibbs et al. 1992b, National Geographic Society 1999).

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. Breeds in New Mexico (B. Howe pers. comm.), and 

at only a few locations in Arizona (AGFD 1996). Migrant through most of BCR (checklists).

Global distribution: Western Hemisphere. 

Habitat requirements: Breeds in low-lying areas associated with large rivers and lakes in freshwater and 

brackish marshes with dense, tall growth of aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation, particularly where cattail, 

sedge, bulrush, or wapato are interspersed with clumps of woody vegetation and open water (Gibbs et al. 

1992b). Migration habitat similar to breeding (Gibbs et al. 1992b). Feeds along deep, open waters in tall, 

dense stands of emergents (Gibbs et al. 1992b). Uses a narrower range of wetland types, more densely 

vegetated sites and deeper water than American Bittern (Gibbs et al. 1992b). Breeds in cattail marshes in 

central New Mexico (B. Howe pers. comm.). Migration habitat similar to breeding (Gibbs et al. 1992b).

Issues in BCR 9: Unknown.

Issues in BCR 16: Habitat threatened by channelization and dredging, stream diversions, flood control 

clearing and draining of marshes (AGFD 1996).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Former Federal Species of Management Concern (Region 1) because depends on vulnerable or restricted 

habitats (USFWS 1995), but not on 2002 BCC list (USFWS 2002).

• Candidate species in Arizona (1996 list); BSSC in California (2003 draft list); SP in Oregon (ONHP 2001 

list).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (very large range and common in many areas).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N5B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S2B, S3 in Arizona; S1 in California; SZN in Colorado; no rank in Idaho; S2N in 

Nevada; S3B, S3N in New Mexico; S1B in Oregon; S1B in Utah; no rank in Washington.
144 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

• Partners In Flight Rank: 15.

• This species recorded in Colorado in 2000 when encountered on statewide colonial survey (Leukering et 

al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Preserve and protect habitat; Increase the quality and quantity of both breeding and wintering habitat to 

1900 levels (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

• Obtain more accurate information (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001); Determine migration 

routes; return rates to breeding grounds; movement and habitat use prior to fall migration; movement 

and habitat use of juveniles; population estimate, distribution and population trends, and availability of 

appropriate habitat; wintering habitat needs; survival of young and juveniles; extent of double-brooding 

and re-nesting; marsh size and distribution requirements for breeding and wintering; verification of 

response rates to passive listening and broadcast call recordings; use of restored and created wetlands 

and effects of management techniques (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Find out where 

birds from important areas winter and what are most important wintering areas (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001). Assess food resource availability (i.e., the timing of availability and types of food) 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Assess complex habitat (marsh and grassland) criteria, in 

relation to marsh size requirements (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Increase population to pre-1970s levels and prevent range contraction (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 145

American Bittern - Botaurus lentiginosis

Butor d’Amérique - Torcomón, Avetoro lentiginoso

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unknown (Gibbs et al. 1992a). Insufficient data (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001). 

BCRs: Unknown

Population trend in BCR 9: Likely declining in Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997). Breeding trend 

uncertain (PIF Prioritization Database). On Basin and Range BBS routes, non-significant increase of 130% 

from 1966-2000, 174.1% from 1980-2000; on Columbia Plateau routes, non-significant increase of 9.9% from 

1966-2000, 18.4% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 10: Breeding trend significantly decreasing (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 15: No data on breeding trend (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in BCR 16: Decreasing in Arizona and New Mexico (Intermountain West/Desert 

Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000); historically nested in Mongollon Plateau in Arizona (Latta et al. 

1999). Breeding trend uncertain (PIF Prioritization Database). Greatest increase per year on BBS routes 

from 1966-1996 in northeast Utah, south-central Colorado, and north-central New Mexico (Sauer et al. 

2004).

Population trend in North America: Substantially declining over most of U.S. (Gibbs et al. 1992a). BBS 

data showed significant 2.4% annual decline 1966-1989, but only in U.S. (no change in Canada, where overall 

more frequent than U.S.; Gibbs et al. 1992a). However, BBS data is unreliable, as this species is encountered 

too infrequently, uses habitats away from roads, past peak of vocal activity to assess trends in most states 

(NatureServe). 

Abundance status in BCR 9: Occasional to uncommon in spring through fall, rare to occasional in winter 

in eastern Washington (checklists); uncommon breeder, rare in winter in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 

1994); uncommon in spring and fall, common to uncommon in summer, rare in winter in northern California 

(checklists); uncommon breeder in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); rare to common in spring 

and fall, occasional to common in summer in Nevada (checklists); rare to uncommon year-round in western 

Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Uncommon in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 15: Uncommon breeders (small numbers) (L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.).

Abundance status in BCR 16: Rare

BCR 9 % of Global population: Unknown, 1.53% (PIF Prioritization Database based on BBS data).

BCR 10 % of Global population: Unknown, 1.07% (PIF Prioritization Database based on BBS data).

BCR 15 % of Global population: Unknown, likely less than 1%.

BCR 16 % of Global population: Unknown, 0.4% (PIF Prioritization Database based on BBS data).

BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern species

BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern species

BCR 15 conservation priority: Moderate concern species

BCR 16 conservation priority: High concern species

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in most of BCR except southern 

Nevada and Utah (Gibbs et al. 1992a, National Geographic Society 1999). Most common in Harney, Klamath, 

and Lake counties in Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); in Idaho at Camas NWR, Market Lake WMA, and Silver 

Creek Preserve (Svingen and Dumroese 1997). Migrant and winters through most of BCR (checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant. Breeds in most of BCR (Gibbs et al. 1992a, 

National Geographic Society 1999). Migrant through most of BCR (checklists).
146 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Occurrence in BCR 15: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters (Sibley 2000). Breeds (L. Oring and L. 

Neel pers. comm.). 

Occurrence in BCR 16: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in northeast Utah, western 

Colorado, and northern New Mexico (Gibbs et al. 1992a, Sibley 2000). Migrant through most of BCR 

(checklists). Winters in southern Colorado (Alamosa-Monte Vista NWRs checklist) and northern New 

Mexico (Las Vegas NWR checklist). 

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Entire life cycle depends on wetlands. Breeds in freshwater marshes with emergent 

vegetation, including Baltic rush, bulrush, burreed, cattail, common reed, creeping wildrye, and Nevada 

bluegrass (Gibbs et al. 1992a, Svingen and Dumroese 1997, Herziger and Ivey 2003a). Migration habitats 

are not well known but likely similar to breeding. In winter, uses wetlands where temperatures remain 

above freezing and waters remain open; may forage on uplands (Gibbs et al. 1992a). Feeds on vegetation 

fringes and shorelines of wetlands dominated by tall emergent vegetation, avoiding older, dense, or dry 

vegetation (Gibbs et al. 1992a). Uses a wider variety of wetland types, less densely vegetated sites, and 

shallower water than Least Bittern (Gibbs et al. 1992a).

Issues in BCR 9: Runoff of chemicals and organic nutrients from adjacent agricultural lands may result 

in contamination of water and soils, or cause algae blooms in the smaller ponds and wetlands; dredging 

and gravel mining in the river floodplains causes loss of habitat and may alter hydrology; some additional 

habitat may be lost because of urban development near the eastern edge of Toppenish Creek/Yakima River 

Oxbows, Washington (Cullinan 2001). 

Issues in BCR 10: Since prefers tall nesting cover; will not tolerate haying, mowing, or grazing immediately 

prior to nesting season (Montana PIF 2000). Poorly monitored (Montana PIF 2000).

Issues in BCR 15: Unknown

Issues in BCR 16: No longer exists in Arizona as result of habitat loss (Latta et al. 1999). Habitat 

threatened by marsh desiccation, fires, and grazing (AGFD 1996).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Former Federal Bird of Conservation Concern (Regions 1 and 6) because documented or apparent 

population decline (USFWS 1995), but not on 2002 list (USFWS 2002). 

• Candidate species in Arizona (1996 list). 

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000). 

• Wetland priority species in New Mexico (Rustay 2000).

• NSS3 in Wyoming (1999 list). 

• Moderate priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000). 

• Priority species in Montana (Montana PIF 2000).

• Focal species for marsh habitat in BCRs 10 and 16 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Heritage Status Rank: S1S2 in Arizona; S3 in California; S3S4B, SZN in Colorado; S4B, SZN in Idaho; 

S3S4B in Nevada; S3B, S4N in New Mexico; S4B, SZN in Montana; S4 in Oregon S3S4B in Utah; S4N, 

S4B in Washington; S2B, SZN in Wyoming; 

• National Heritage Status Rank: N4B, N4N.

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G4 (widespread distribution but populations are declining; threat of habitat 

destruction).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N4B, N4N.

• This species recorded in Colorado in 2000 when encountered on statewide colonial survey (Leukering et 

al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Protect and maintain habitat: Increase quality and quantity of both breeding and wintering habitat to 

pre-1970s levels (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Monitor water quality.

• Obtain more accurate information (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001): Identify relatively 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 147

important breeding areas not shown by existing data (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

Identify migration route and stop-over areas (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Find out where 

birds from important areas winter and what are most important wintering sites (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001). Better describe winter habitat (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Assess 

food resource availability (i.e., the timing of availability and types of food) (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001). Assess complex habitat (marsh and grassland) criteria in relation to marsh size requirements 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Maintain annual detectable populations at known breeding 

areas (Rustay 2000).

• Increase population to pre-1970s levels and prevent range contraction (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001).

• Management of wetland complexes for waterfowl should include dense emergent vegetation for this and 

other priority species (Montana PIF 2000). Increase quality and quantity of both breeding and wintering 

habitat to pre-1970s levels (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Aggressive marsh management is needed to increase population numbers in Arizona (Latta et al. 1999). 

Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) and support state and national wildlife refuges where 

highest concentrations of bitterns breed and winter (Latta et al. 1999); establish or maintain blocks of 

24ac (9.7ha) patches of habitat to sustain one or more breeding pair to ensure sustained breeding (Rustay 

2000). Maintain shallow water levels in freshwater marshes (<10 cm/4”) (Latta et al. 1999). Manage fire 

in marsh habitats. Manage grazing. Increase quality and quantity of both breeding and wintering habitat 

to pre-1970s levels (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Protect freshwater marsh areas from 

chemical contaminants and manage to control siltation and eutrophication (Latta et al. 1999).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
148 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

White-faced Ibis - Plegadis chihi

Ibis á Face Blanche, Bec Crosha (Cajun), Pêcheur - Atotola, Cuervillo de Cañada, Cuervo de Cañada

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of low concern

Population trend 2

Relative abundance 2

Threats to breeding 4

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 3

Non-breeding distribution 4

Global and BCR populations: Global: Unavailable since lack of census data, variations in colony locations 

and populations from year-to-year also make totals difficult (Ryder and Manry 1994). Greater than 100,000 

breeders in North America (NAWCP Appendix). 

BCR 9: 57,978 breeders

BCR 10: 1,708 breeders

Population trend in BCR 9: Great Basin Population has increased more than 4-fold since 1985 (Ivey et al. 

in prep b). Breeding population has increased from an estimated 7,500 pairs among 19 colonies in the mid 

1980s to an average of over 33,000 pairs using over 40 colonies in the late 1990s, however, not all colonies 

were surveyed each year. Traditionally, most have bred in Utah and Nevada, with fluctuating peripheral 

colonies in California, Idaho, and Oregon; the peripheral colonies, particularly in Oregon, have grown 

steadily in recent years (Ivey et al. in prep b). Breeding trend significantly increasing (PIF Prioritization 

Database). 

Population trend in BCR 10: Increasing (Ivey et al. in prep b). 

Population trend in North America: Drastic decline in 1960s and 1970s, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s 

(Ryder and Manry 1994). Breeding range and population expanded in last two decades, but fluctuates from 

year-to-year, some areas show declines (Ryder and Manry 1994). BBS data showed significant 8.3% increase 

from 1966-2000, and 4.9% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Locally common breeder, uncommon to common migrant. Utah supported 

32% of the Great Basin Population from 1997-1999, Oregon 30%, Nevada 20%, and Idaho 11% (Ivey et al. in 

prep b).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Locally common breeder, uncommon to common migrant.

BCR 9 % of Global population: 58% BCR 9 conservation priority: Moderate concern

BCR 10 % of Global population: 2% BCR 10 conservation priority: Moderate concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in south-central Oregon, northeast California, 

southern Idaho, and northern Nevada and Utah (Ivey et al. in prep b). Major colonies in 1999 at Lower 

Klamath NWR and Mendota WMA, California; Carson and Quinn lakes, Nevada; Malheur NWR, Oregon; 

and Bear River MBR and Layton Wetland Preserve, Utah (Ivey et al. in prep b). Attempted to breed 

in southeast Washington but water levels dropped (Denny 2002). Migrant through most of BCR. Major 

migration areas are American Falls Reservoir, Idaho (Ryder and Manry 1994); Great Salt Lake Basin, Utah; 

and Carson Lake Basin, Nevada (Ivey et al. in prep b). Rare in winter in Nevada (checklist, 3/02 meeting).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in western Montana (Montana PIF 2000) 

and Wyoming (www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html , A. Cerovski pers. comm.). Casual migrant in 

northern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997) and Wyoming (National Elk Refuge checklist), most migrants 

in southwest Montana (Montana PIF 2000). 

Global distribution: Western Hemisphere.

Habitat requirements: Usually breeds in mixed colonies over water in emergent vegetation in areas 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 149

isolated from disturbance and predators (Ivey et al. in prep b). Feeds in seasonal wetlands, shallow lake 

shores, mudflats, or agricultural fields, often focusing on receding wetlands and newly flooded habitats 

where prey is concentrated (Ivey et al. in prep b). Irrigated crops are also important feeding sites, 

particularly native hay meadows, pastures, alfalfa and barley fields within 6 km (4 mi) of breeding areas 

(Ivey et al. in prep b). Uses similar habitats in migration.

Issues in BCR 9: Nomadic species pose special management and conservation challenges because of the 

large area they occupy and their unique population dynamics. 

Habitat. Development at and proposed highway through Great Salt Lake threaten habitat (D. Paul pers. 

comm.). Some foraging areas in flood-irrigated habitats lost to urbanization and conversion to sprinkler 

irrigation (Ivey et al. in prep b). Some breeding sites severely damaged by cattle grazing and trampling in 

Utah and Nevada (Ryder and Manry 1994), including Franklin Lake, Nevada (McIvor 2005).

Water levels. Many wetlands used by ibises do not have adequate water supplies and water rights to ensure 

their existence in the future (Ivey et al. in prep b). Managing habitat for the aggregation of waterfowl 

during the hunting season may divert or delay the delivery of water which might otherwise have been 

available for nesting ibis (Ivey et al. in prep b). Nest loss and complete abandonment of nesting colonies 

can be caused by fluctuating water levels from floods, droughts, or wetland drawdowns (Ivey et al. in prep

b). Colonies in private ownership in Oregon have been dewatered to facilitate haying and livestock grazing, 

resulting in abandonment and production failures (Ivey et al. in prep b).

Water quality. Species’ habit of feeding in agricultural fields and in shallow wetlands subject to spraying 

of pesticides for agricultural pest and mosquito control has increased exposure for birds to DDT and DDE 

which cause eggshell thinning, reduced clutch size, lower hatching success, and possibly delaying breeding 

lowering overall production (Ivey et al. in prep b). Proposed dumping site for toxic chemicals at Great Salt 

Lake (D. Paul pers. comm.) and addition of nutrients and sediment from water diversion for agriculture at 

Franklin Lake, Nevada potentially will affect water quality (McIvor 2005).

Disturbance. Human intrusion into nesting colonies can cause abandonment, especially early in the nesting 

season (Ivey et al. in prep b).

Other. All major nesting areas have a history of periodic outbreak of botulism (Ivey et al. in prep b). In 

Nevada and Utah, some farmers have blamed ibis for causing soil compaction and trampling of alfalfa 

crops, making it difficult to harvest (Ryder and Manry 1994).

Issues in BCR 10: Habitat. Many wetlands used by ibises do not have adequate water supplies and water 

rights to ensure their existence in the future (Ivey et al. in prep b). Managing habitat for the aggregation 

of waterfowl during the hunting season may divert or delay the delivery of water which might otherwise 

have been available for nesting ibis (Ivey et al. in prep b). Nest loss and complete abandonment of nesting 

colonies can be caused by fluctuating water levels from floods, droughts, or wetland drawdowns (Ivey et 

al. in prep b). Occupation of sites and nesting success easily effected by water level changes (Montana PIF 

2000).

Water quality. Potential threat of oil pollution/degradation at Loch Katrine, Wyoming (www.

audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html). Renewed interest in mining for gold on nearby National Forest 

lands, resulting in water quality concerns at Grays Lake, Idaho (www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/

nongame/birds/iba.cfm). Addition of nutrients and sediment from water diversion for agriculture at Bear 

Lake NWR, Idaho affect water quality (www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/nongame/birds/iba.cfm).

Water levels. Inadequate water levels at Grays Lake NWR have caused regular major nest failures.

Other. Potential threat of natural pests/diseases at Loch Katrine, Wyoming (www.audubonwyoming.com/

m3item3.html).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Former Federal Species of Management Concern (Regions 1 and 6) (USFWS 1995), but not on 2002 list 

(USFWS 2002).

• SC in Idaho (2001 list), SC in Montana (2001 list), NSS3 in Wyoming (1999 list).

• High priority breeding bird species in Idaho (Idaho PIF 2000). Focal species in Nevada (Nevada PIF 

1999). 
150 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

• Focal species for marsh/grasslands habitat suite for BCR 9 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5 (secure due mainly to large range; locally fairly common; relatively 

small number of breeding areas; vulnerable to habitat alteration, disturbance during nesting, and 

pesticide contamination).

• National Heritage Status Rank: N4B, N4N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S1 in California; S2B, SZN in Colorado; S2B, SZN in Idaho; S1B, SZN in 

Montana; S3B in Nevada; S3B in Oregon; S2S3B, SAN in Utah; SZN in Washington; S1B, SZN in 

Wyoming.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 12.

• PIF continental concern (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• White-faced Ibis Status Update and Management Guidelines for Great Basin Population (Ivey et al. in 

prep b).

• Several NWRs have specific objectives listed in Master Plans or Refuge Management Plans (e.g., 

Malheur, Ruby Lake, Southeast Idaho NWRs), however, Comprehensive Conservation Plans are 

replacing these plans (Bear River MBR’s plan prescribes maintenance of habitats which should meet the 

needs of feeding and nesting ibises); a few WMAs have objectives for ibis or other colonial waterbirds 

(e.g., Summer Lake and Mason Valley WMAs, Ivey et al. in prep b).

• Since 1995, the majority of nesting colonies in the Great Basin have been monitored; however, these 

efforts have not been coordinated among the states or agencies and techniques and data quality varied 

considerably among efforts (Ivey et al. in prep b). Annual surveys at Lower Klamath NWR (D. Mauser 

pers. comm.), Great Salt Lake (J. Neill pers. comm.), and at Malheur NWR through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. 

observ.). Annual surveys at some sites in Wyoming (A. Cerovski pers. comm.). Statewide survey in 

Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).

• Intermountain West Joint Venture efforts have led to several important wetland restoration projects that 

have improved ibis breeding habitats, including The Nature Conservancy’s Sycan Marsh Preserve in 

Oregon, and many other project areas used for foraging (Ivey et al. in prep b).

• The Utah Mitigation and Conservation Commission has invested several million dollars in Great Salt 

Lake wetland procurement and enhancement projects over the past 10 years as part of the Central Utah 

Water Project (Ivey et al. in prep b).

• The Nature Conservancy has played an important role in protection of colony sites at Layton Wetland 

Preserve and Farmington Bay areas, enhancing several breeding sites (Ivey et al. in prep b).

• To track source of contaminants in Nevada, a satellite study of birds from Stillwater NWR, and 

Carson Lake, Nevada, tracked to California and Mexico. Blood analyses indicate 3 hot spots for DDT 

contamination may be identified, and prey were sampled at selected stopover and wintering sites and 

tested for contamination (Center for Conservation Research and Technology website).

Action needed:

• Protect and preserve habitat: Monitor grazing. Monitor for exotic species (fish, plants). Acquire water 

rights where possible to maintain nesting and foraging habitat by not diverting all water to deep-water 

habitats (Nevada PIF 1999). Monitor water quality. Wetland management decisions should be made 

in a regional context since species nomadic. Provide stable water levels at colony sites during duration 

of nesting cycle (Montana PIF 2000); sites with more stable levels can be better managed (Oakleaf et 

al. 1996). Acquire water rights. Monitor water quality. Management in Wyoming should focus on Bear 

River Marshes since it is less susceptible to drought, close to agricultural foraging sites, and not on edge 

of range (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Develop site specific management techniques and strategies if needed 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Minimize disturbance at nesting areas and maintain minimum buffer zone of 330-590 ft (100-180 m) 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996). Document human activity levels and if excessive, educational efforts should begin 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996). Minimize disturbance when conducting research (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Conservation of Ibises should be integrated with other wetland and bird conservation initiatives such as 

Joint Ventures and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (Ivey et al. in prep b). Monitor for 

disease. 

• Monitor population: Continue to survey known and potential breeding locations to track status of species 

on an annual basis (Montana PIF 2000), conduct statewide surveys every three years (Oakleaf et al. 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 151

1996). Develop a positive relationship with private landowners so that surveys can be conducted (Oakleaf 

et al. 1996). Identify factors impacting or limiting population (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
152 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

American White Pelican - Pelecanus erythrorynchos

Pelican (blanc) d’Amerique - Pelicano Norteamericano

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Species of moderate concern

Population trend 3 

Relative abundance 2

Threats to breeding 4

Threats to non-breeding 3

Breeding distribution 2

Non-breeding distribution 2

Global and BCR populations: Global: 400,000 in 1995 (including nonbreeders, Keith 2005). 

BCR 9: 26,924 breeders (App. D, Table D-10); >55,000 staging migrants at Great Salt Lake.

BCR 10: 10,500 breeders (App. D, Table D-10)

Population trend in BCR 9: Uncertain. Formerly nested in central Washington and Oregon (Evans 

and Knopf 1993); throughout northeast California (Cooper 2004); and Utah Lake, Utah (Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources 1998). Colony found in 1994 in Washington was first in state since 1926 (Smith et 

al. 1997); declining trend at Malheur NWR, Oregon (G. Ivey pers. observ.); limited and mostly anecdotal 

knowledge of historical northeast California populations makes trend assessment difficult (Shuford 1998), 

but Klamath Basin colony sites have decreased from 12 to 2 during the 1990s (Intermountain West/Desert 

Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000); increasing in southern Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994); declining 

trend at Anaho Island, Nevada (USFWS data), slight increasing trend in colonies at Great Salt Lake 

(UTDWR data). 

Population trend in BCR 10: Uncertain. Breeding trend possibly increasing (PIF Prioritization Database).

Population trend in North America: West of Rockies has declined considerably, increasing in east (King 

and Anderson 2005). BBS data showed 5.3%/yr increase from 1966-1991 (Evans and Knopf 1993). From 

1966-2000, BBS data showed 1.7% non-significant increase, but significant increase of 2.7% from 1980-2000 

(Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Accidental to uncommon in spring and fall, accidental to occasional in 

summer in eastern Washington (checklists); locally common breeder and migrant, rare in winter in eastern 

Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); uncommon to common in spring and fall, common in summer, rare in winter 

in northern California (checklists); abundant in summer, casual in winter in southern Idaho (Svingen and 

Dumroese 1997); occasional to common in spring, uncommon to abundant in summer and fall, rare in winter 

in Nevada (checklists); rare to common in spring, occasional to common in summer, rare to occasional in fall, 

and rare in winter in western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Common in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

BCR 9 % of Global population: 22% BCR 9 conservation priority: High Concern species

BCR 10 % of Global population: 9% BCR 10 conservation priority: High Concern species

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in patchy distribution in southeast 

Washington (Smith et al. 1997), southern Oregon, northeast California, northwest Nevada, southern Idaho, 

and northwest Utah (Evans and Knopf 1993). Major colonies usually include Malheur NWR and Klamath 

and Warner basins, Oregon (Evanich 1990); Clear Lake and Lower Klamath NWR, California (Shuford 

1998); Blackfoot Reservoir and Minidoka NWR, Idaho (Trost and Gerstell 1994); Anaho Island, Nevada 

(Nevada PIF 1999); and Great Salt Lake, Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1998). Daily flights 

made from Pyramid to Walker lakes to feed in Nevada occur (>145 km), but Lahontan Valley (97 km) and 

Humboldt Sink (64 km) are more common (Nevada PIF 1999). Columbia River near Hanford Reach is 

important summer roost area for nonbreeders (Smith et al. 1997). Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 

2000, checklists). Major post-breeding migration sites include the Klamath Basin, Malheur NWR, and along 

the Columbia River in Umatilla County, Oregon (Gilligan et al. 1994); and Bear River NWR, Utah (Trost and 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 153

Gerstell 1994). Year-round in south-central Washington (Cullinan 2001), rarely in rest of BCR (checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (colonial), migrant. Breeds in western Montana and northwestern, 

southeastern and central Wyoming (Evans and Knopf 1993, Montana Natural Heritage Program website, 

www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html). Yellowstone NP is one of most significant colonies in Northern 

Rockies, and the only one in a National Park (www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.html). Migrant through 

most of BCR (Sibley 2000, checklists).

Global distribution: North America.

Habitat requirements: Breeds on isolated lakes and marshes on sparsely vegetated islands (Herziger 

and Ivey 2003b). Uses similar habitats in migration and winter for foraging and loafing (Evans and Knopf 

1993). Feeds in shallow water in marshes, lakes, rivers, and canals (Herziger and Ivey 2003b). Feeding 

areas typically are 30-60 cm deep, may be as far as 50 miles (85 km) from nesting site (Evans and Knopf 

1993). Uses Intermountain West wetlands, and irrigation reservoirs >640 acres for nesting, foraging, and 

migration in Montana; also forages in reservoirs and stockponds <640 acres and high elevation wetlands 

(Montana PIF 2000).

Issues in BCR 9: Habitat. The largest U.S. breeding colony on Anaho Island does not provide adequate 

food as a result of wetland losses to irrigation projects, therefore, pelicans must fly about 60 miles one way 

to feed where prey is increasingly scarce and contaminated with arsenic, selenium, mercury, and boron 

(NatureServe). Development, proposed highway and dumping site for toxic chemicals, and changing water 

levels at Great Salt Lake threaten habitat (D. Paul pers. comm.). Adversely impacted by loss of foraging 

(wetland) habitat, environmental contaminants, and water level fluctuations (Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources 1998). Habitat degradation from flooding and drought allows access to mammal predators. 

All nests were destroyed at Malheur NWR by increased water levels in 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). 

Recreational and agricultural developments threaten habitat on inholdings and on adjacent lands, and there 

are no secure water rights at Columbia NWR, Washington (Cullinan 2001). The following threaten habitats: 

Potential removal of area protective status and resulting agricultural development, and invasion of nonnative plants at Hanford Reach, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Invasive non-native plants and water quality 

at Potholes Reserve, Washington (Cullinan 2001). Water diversion and contaminants at Lahontan Valley 

Wetlands, Nevada (McIvor 2005). An estimated 958 more fledglings would have been produced annually 

at Anaho Island if Truckee River was not diverted (Murphy and Tracy 2005). Overgrazing, agricultural 

runoff, changing water levels at Franklin Lake, Nevada, are also issues (McIvor 2005). At Walla Walla 

River Delta, Washington, invasive non-native plants have aggressively colonized newly-deposited mudflats; 

and site surrounded on three sides by industrial facilities, including a pulp mill, which could be a source of 

contamination (Cullinan 2001). Historically nested at Eagle Lake, California, but now over-summers only; 

may re-establish if changes are made to lake management (Cooper 2004).

Disturbance. Particularly sensitive to disturbance (Shuford 1998). Increasing adverse impacts from 

recreational use, particularly motorized boats, at Hanford Reach, Washington; potential for recreational 

overuse and disturbance to nesting birds is a substantial threat at North Potholes Reserve (Cullinan 2001). 

Heavy recreational use, with few restrictions on public access or recreational activities, and insufficient 

funding of enforcement to prevent dumping, vandalism, disturbance, and illegal hunting at Potholes 

Reservoir, Washington (Cullinan 2001).

Fish. At Anaho Island birds are eating an endangered fish (cui-ui); an example of difficulties with single 

species management as opposed to ecosystem conservation (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest 

Regional Workshop April 2000). Although carp are a pelican food item, they can disrupt their food supply. In 

some cases, they have dominated wetland resources, outcompeting indigenous fish species while becoming 

too large to serve as pelican food (Ivey et al. in prep a). Native fish are a better food source (Intermountain 

West/Desert Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000). Carp also increase turbidity which may affect 

foraging (Intermountain West/Desert Southwest Regional Workshop April 2000). In the past, anglers 

thought this species reduced game fish numbers and apparently destroyed colonies in southern Idaho (Trost 

and Gerstell 1994). 

Misc. Powerlines (G. Ivey pers. observ.); soaring birds may be a threat to Fallon Naval Air Station aircraft 
154 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

(Yates 1999); some mortality occurs from botulism every year (Nevada PIF 1999); subject to die-offs during 

droughts, from starvation, and heavy parasite loads (Nevada PIF 1999).

Issues in BCR 10: Secure nesting habitat in Wyoming only at Yellowstone NP (Oakleaf et al. 1996), but 

the park is overused by tourism, outdoor recreation, and increased development within and bordering the 

park; exotic plant and animal species are potential threats to integrity of ecosystem, including introduced 

lake trout, a snail from New Zealand, and various non-native plants (www.audubonwyoming.com/m3item3.

html). At Bird Island in Pathfinder Reservoir, Wyoming, a major threat is recreational development/overuse 

(boating and hunting). Potential threats also include irrigation and drought (www.audubonwyoming.com/

m3item3.html). There are some concerns about local effects on sports fisheries near colonies in Montana, 

resulting in some pressure to control colony size (Montana PIF 2000); numbers of birds, especially 

nonbreeders, have greatly increased and may have exceeded acceptable levels for users of game fish 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996).

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• E in Washington (2001 list); BSSC in California (2003 draft list), SC in Colorado (2001 list), SC in Idaho 

(2001 list), SV in Oregon (ONHP 2001 list), SD in Utah (1998 list).TE in SSC3 in Montana (2001 list), 

Washington (2001 list); NSS3 in Wyoming (1999 list).

• Management priority species in Nevada (Nevada PIF 1999). 

• Focal species for “open water, lakes” habitat suite for BCRs 9 and 10 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Priority bird species in PIF Basin and Range (#80) Physiographic Area Plan. Priority bird species in 

PIF Central Rocky Mountains (#64) and Wyoming Basin (#86) Physiographic Area Plans.

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G3.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N3B, N3N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S1 in California; S1B, SZN in Colorado; S1B, SZN in Idaho; S2B, SZN in 

Montana; S2B in Nevada; S1 in Oregon; S1B in Utah; S1B, SZN in Washington; S1B, SZN in Wyoming;

• Partners In Flight Rank: 16. 

• PIF continental concern (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Surveys of breeding colonies at Klamath Basin (D. Mauser pers. comm.) at Malheur NWR in Oregon 

through 1998 (G. Ivey pers. observ.). Northeast California surveyed in 1997 (Shuford 1998). Southern 

Idaho surveyed in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). Nevada and Utah colonies surveyed annually (Neil 

2002, D. Withers pers. comm.).

• Satellite telemetry study of Nevada birds provided insights into soaring bird flight patterns (as a threat 

to aircraft) and migration, producing a model using weather forecasts to predict flight altitudes of 

pelicans (Yates 1999).

• Electric fence exclosures built to protect nesting birds from coyotes at Clear Lake, California (Shuford 

1998).

• Recent work with mercury contaminants and curved bills (L. Neel pers. comm.).

• Wyoming’s Piscivorous Bird Management Plan (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1997).

• Breeding colonies monitored annually in Wyoming (A. Cerovski pers. comm.) Statewide survey in 

Colorado in 2000 (Leukering et al. 2000).

Action needed:

• Protect and maintain wetland habitats: Manage for ecosystem, not single species. Obtain water rights 

and maintain water levels. Protection of two remaining colonies in northeast California is crucial, and 

establishment of additional colony would be valuable (Shuford 1998). Maintain variety of shallow fish sites 

within commuting distances of colonies (Nevada PIF 1999). Monitor water quality. Maintain water levels. 

Monitor for exotic plants. Monitor grazing. Consider carp control. Remove or mark powerlines where 

possible. 

• Known colonies should be monitored annually to assess statewide populations, and water levels managed 

to minimize mammalian predation (Oakleaf et al. 1996, Montana PIF 2000). Studies are needed to assess 

the effects of nesting colonies on fish populations (Montana PIF 2000). Public should be educated about 

feeding habits and preferred food sources and provided with Wyoming’s Piscivorous Bird Management 

Plan (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1997).

• Protect colonies from disturbance: Minimize disturbance at nesting areas and maintain minimum buffer 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 155

zone of 330-590 ft (100-180 m, Oakleaf et al. 1996). Document human activity levels and, if excessive, 

educational efforts should begin (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Minimize disturbance when conducting research 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996). Keep jet training routes out of heavy pelican use areas in Nevada (Nevada PIF 

1999).

• Monitor for disease.

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
156 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Common Loon - Gavia immer

Plongeon huard - Colimbo mayor, Colimbo común

Status Summary: Continental conservation priority: Not yet determined.

Global and BCR populations: Global: 500,000 to 700,000, with most in Canada (McIntyre and Barr 1997; 

250,000 pairs, 600,000 individuals (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

BCR 9: 8 breeders, >1,050 migrants (App. D)

BCR 10: 270 breeders (App. 4)

BCR 15: extirpated breeder

Population trend in BCR 9: No evidence of a declining population or a substantial change in distribution in 

Washington; number of known nests have increased over the past 15 years, but this increase may be a result 

of increased survey effort (WDFW website). No longer nests at 4 lakes in western Washington and one lake 

in eastern Washington where nesting was known early in the 20th century (WDFW website); formerly bred 

in northeast California (no dates given) (McIntyre and Barr 1997).

Population trend in BCR 10: No evidence of population declines in Montana (Montana PIF 2000). 

Breeding trend significantly increasing (PIF Prioritization Database). On Northern Rockies BBS routes, 

non-significant increase of 0.6% from 1966-2000, and non-significant increase of 1.0% from 1980-2000 (Sauer 

et al. 2004). Greatest increase per year on BBS routes from 1966-1996 in northern Washington, Idaho, and 

Montana (Sauer et al. 2004).

Population trend in BCR 15: Extirpated historic breeder.

Population trend in North America: Increasing across range (McIntyre and Barr 1997). BBS data showed 

significant 2.8% increase from 1966-2000, and 2.5% from 1980-2000 (Sauer et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 9: Rare breeder, common in migration and winter in Washington (WDFW 

website); uncommon to rare in migration and winter, rare in summer in eastern Oregon (Gilligan et al. 

1994); rare to uncommon in spring and fall, rare in winter in northern California (checklists); uncommon 

in summer, common migrant, and rare in winter in southern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 1997); rare in 

spring and fall in Nevada (checklists); occasional to uncommon migrant, rare to occasional in summer in 

western Utah (checklists).

Abundance status in BCR 10: Uncommon in Wyoming (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Abundance status in BCR 15: Uncommon (small numbers, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.).

BCR 9 % of Global population: <1% BCR 9 conservation priority: High (breeding), 

 Moderate concern (migrant)

BCR 10 % of Global population: <1% BCR 10 conservation priority: High concern

BCR 15 % of Global population: 0% BCR 15 conservation priority: High concern

Occurrence in BCR 9: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in north-central Washington (Smith 

et al. 1997). Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 2000). Large numbers of migrants use Topaz Lake, 

Mono County, particularly in spring (Cooper 2004), also western Nevada, especially Walker Lake (McIntyre 

and Barr 1997) with numbers up to 1,400 (Nevada Wildlife Federation website). Birds travel from Walker 

Lake through eastern Oregon and Washington and western Idaho to breeding grounds in Saskatchewan 

(Boise State Univ. website). Rare in winter in most of BCR except Utah (Gilligan et al. 1994, Svingen and 

Dumroese 1997, Cullinan 2001, checklists).

Occurrence in BCR 10: Breeder (non-colonial), migrant, winters. Breeds in northeast Washington (Smith 

et al. 1997), northern Idaho, and northwest Montana and Wyoming (McIntyre and Barr 1997). Breeding in 

Montana restricted to northwest which supports the highest density of nesting loons in the west (Montana 

PIF 2000). Migrant through most of BCR (Sibley 2000). Important migration sites in Montana include 

Canyon Ferry Reservoir (Montana PIF 2000). Rare in winter in northern Idaho (Svingen and Dumroese 

1997).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 157

Occurrence in BCR 15: Non-breeder (non-colonial), migrant (Sibley 2000, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. 

comm.), winters (National Geographic Society 1999, L. Oring and L. Neel pers. comm.).

Global distribution: Northern Hemisphere.

Habitat requirements: Characteristic nest sites in Washington are relatively undisturbed forest lakes at 

least 20 ha (49 ac) in size, with deep inlets and bays, with islands or logs and other floating debris for nest 

sites, and characterized by good water quality, an adequate food source, and seclusion from intense human 

activity (WDFW website). About half the loon nests documented each year in Washington are located 

on water bodies that are relatively inaccessible to people (WDFW website). Uses rivers and larger lakes 

and reservoirs in migration and winter as it needs adequate room for space-consuming takeoff (McIntyre 

and Barr 1997). Feeds primarily in littoral zone with good underwater visibility, low-density vegetation, 

but may feed in turbid water if shallow (McIntyre and Barr 1997). Uses Intermountain Valley and high 

elevation wetlands for nesting and foraging in Montana, most breeding on lower elevation glacial lakes, 

usually greater than 20 ha unless at least half the shoreline is undisturbed (Montana PIF 2000). Requires 

both nesting sites (small islands or herbaceous shorelines) and nursery areas (sheltered shallow coves 

with abundant insects and small fish) for successful nesting (Montana PIF 2000, Oakleaf et al. 1996). 

Wide variety of open water habitats used in migration in Montana, but larger lakes and rivers preferred; 

occasionally winters on large lakes and reservoirs (Montana PIF 2000). 

Issues in BCR 9: Shoreline development, including homes, roads, and powerlines, has eliminated nesting 

habitat and increased the level of human activity in the vicinity of potential loon nests in Washington 

(WDFW website). Human disturbance is likely to reduce loon productivity and may preclude nesting 

at important sites; persecution directed toward loons can cause abandonment of nesting sites (WDFW 

website). Drastic changes in water level (frequent events at reservoirs) either flood nests or render them 

unapproachable, causing abandonment (WDFW website). Walker Lake, Nevada, has greatly reduced 

volume and degraded water quality largely caused by decreased water flows from the Walker River for 

upstream use, threatening the lake’s fishery; upstream diversions are causing water level decreases and 

salt content increases to levels lethal to the resident fish and invertebrates (Boise State Univ. website). 

Loon blood samples (n=98) were taken at this site, and analyses revealed blood mercury levels placing 45% 

of birds in a high risk category (3.0 ppm and above). Subsequent investigation revealed elevated mercury 

levels in 1996 on composite samples of Lahontan tui chub from the lake and sources of mercury within the 

river basin. Thus, loons, and perhaps other fish eating birds, that use Walker Lake face a double threat: loss 

of the food base and environmental contamination from the food that is available now. The use of rotenone 

to kill unwanted fish may affect the food supply of common loons for several years (WDFW website). 

Wintering areas with unknown densities are of most conservation concern (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop 

Aug 2001).

Issues in BCR 10: Habitat. Population in northwest Montana limited primarily by quantity and quality 

of nesting habitat (Montana PIF 2000); habitat also limited in Wyoming and therefore may not be able to 

expand population to secure levels (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Shoreline development including homes, roads, 

and powerlines result in lost habitat and increased recreational use during the nesting and young-rearing 

seasons; problems occur in Montana and Washington, and loons are highly intolerant of human activity 

in nesting territory (Montana PIF, WDFW website). Drastic changes in water level (frequent events at 

reservoirs) either flood nests or render them unapproachable, causing abandonment (WDFW website). 

Maintaining breeding pairs in the state is important since young return only within 40 mi from natal lakes 

(Montana PIF 2000). Wintering areas with unknown densities are of most conservation concern (NAWCP 

Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Results from heavy metal tests in Montana were among lowest levels 

recorded, but at one site (Island Lake) an egg tested at the risk level (1.34) for mercury, and therefore there 

may be a point source (Montana PIF 2000). Acidification of nesting lakes could lower nest success rates or 

render them unsuitable through reduction of available foods for young (Montana PIF 2000). Water quality 

degradation from faulty septic systems, road building, timber harvest or other activities near nesting lakes 

has potential to change prey populations and vegetation patterns at nesting lakes (Montana PIF 2000).

Disturbance. Human disturbance is likely to reduce loon productivity and may preclude nesting at 
158 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

important sites (WDFW website). Persecution directed toward loons can cause abandonment of nesting 

sites; public education is an important element in the protection of nesting security (Montana PIF 2000). 

Seventy-five percent of nesting lakes used in Montana are bordered by public land; it will take awareness by 

landowners to ensure continued nesting (Montana PIF 2000). 

Other. Wyoming loons may be genetically isolated and highly susceptible to stochastic influences (Oakleaf et 

al. 1996).

Issues in BCR 15: Wintering areas with unknown densities are of most conservation concern (NAWCP 

Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

Conservation Status and Management Actions:

• Former Federal Species of Management Concern (Regions 1 and 6) because of specific threats (USFWS 

1995), but not on 2002 list (USFWS 2002).

• BSSC in California (2003 draft list), SC in Idaho (2001 list), SC in Montana (2001 list), S in Washington 

(2001 list), NSS1 in Wyoming (1999 list).

• Focal species for “open water, lakes” habitat suite for BCRs 9 and 10 (Rosenberg et al. 2001).

• Global Heritage Status Rank: G5.

• National Heritage Status Rank: N4B, N5N.

• Heritage Status Rank: S2B, S1 in California; SZN in Colorado; S1B, S2N in Idaho; S1S2B, SZN in 

Montana; S2S3N in Nevada; SH in Oregon; SZN in Utah; S5N in Washington; S2B, SZN in Wyoming.

• Partners In Flight Rank: 14. 

• Floating nest platforms, access restrictions, and educational campaigns have helped loons to persist and 

successfully reproduce at certain sites (WDFW website). 

• The development of reservoirs on rivers from dam construction has created some nesting and wintering 

habitat for common loons (WDFW website).

• Montana Common Loon Management Plan (MCLMP) written in 1990 in response to perceived need to 

consider this species in management of northwest Montana lakes (Montana PIF 2000). Montana Loon 

Working Group (MLWG) established in 1999 to implement items of MCLMP (Montana PIF 2000). 

Flathead NF (USFS) has loon management plan which addresses protection of habitat quality at nesting 

lakes (Montana PIF 2000). Management goal in Montana is to provide for a stable loon population within 

the suitable habitat which presently exists in the northwest part of the state, with a population goal to 

maintain suitable habitat for 57-185 territories (Montana PIF 2000); all management strategies involve 

protection or enhancement of nesting habitat. Five-year objective in Wyoming to maintain a minimum of 

15 nesting pairs (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Annual population surveys in Montana conducted primarily by volunteers and coordinated by the 

Montana Loon Society (Montana PIF 2000). Annual migration counts in spring and fall at important 

migration sites in Montana (Montana PIF 2000). Occupied lakes in Montana have been prioritized based 

on perceived or documented threats or conflicts and reproductive history (Montana PIF 2000). 

• Management tools include controlling access to or near nests, easements, acquisition of traditional sites, 

signing, physical barriers, use of artificial nest structures, and recreational use restrictions (Montana 

PIF 2000). Use of floating signs to delineate and limit access into nesting and nursery areas has been 

shown to increase nesting success and number of chicks produced (Montana PIF 2000). Floating 

nesting platforms have been used with some success in lakes which lack nesting islands or where water 

level fluctuations threaten nesting success at natural sites, but should not be viewed as alternative to 

protection of natural nest sites (Montana PIF 2000.)

• Nesting loon sites sampled for heavy metals as part of a nationwide assessment (Montana PIF 2000).

Action needed:

• Protect and maintain wetland habitat: Minimize development on known nesting lakes (Montana PIF 

2000). Top priority is maintaining the suitability of currently-used nesting territories (Montana PIF 

2000). Maintain water levels and obtain water rights. Pursue site-specific conservation of lake habitat 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Determine impacts of shoreline development/recreational 

activities (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Pursue site-specific conservation of lake habitat 

(Oakleaf et al. 1996, NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Review and comment on proposed 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 159

projects near suitable habitats (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Consider impacts on loons before using Rotenone for 

fish control. Continue to monitor contaminants in water and fish at Walker Lake. Determine impacts of 

mercury contamination, and other contaminants such as lead sinkers (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 

2001). 

• Minimize disturbance in nesting areas: Increased development and recreational pressure leading to 

disturbance at sensitive nesting lakes must be actively managed to prevent further loss of nesting loons 

(WDFW website). Protection and education programs must be expanded to appropriate lakes that 

currently do not support breeding loons to allow the species to recolonize and nest undisturbed, ensuring 

a stable and well-distributed population (WDFW website). Minimize recreational activities on known 

nesting lakes, at least during critical portions of the breeding cycle (Montana PIF 2000). Personal contact 

with the public builds local support for loon conservation (Montana PIF 2000). Evaluate disturbance on 

occupied and potential breeding lakes (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Monitor the population: Monitoring points should be established for migration, molt, and staging areas 

(NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Continue inventory and monitoring and identify and prioritize 

breeding sites; continue surveys, public contacts, education and outreach to ensure that breeding 

territories remain suitable and available in Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 1996). Connect breeding and 

wintering populations (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Quantify demography (age structure) 

of populations (breeding/winter). Document nesting success and protect occupied territories; if nesting 

pairs are lost or are unsuccessful year after year there will be no young to recruit into the population, and 

over time this can cause local populations to disappear (Montana PIF 2000). This implies that monitoring 

programs will be continued and developed throughout range (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 

2001). Assess body condition of breeding adults throughout range (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 

2001). Assess manipulated (reservoirs) and degraded breeding/wintering habitat (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001).

• Continued testing may be needed at sites with continued high levels of heavy metals (Montana PIF 2000). 

Determine impacts of mercury contamination, shoreline development/recreational activities, and other 

contaminants such as lead sinkers (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). 

• Compile habitat data. Gather habitat data (digital lake and wetland atlases) from throughout range and 

integrate with population estimates from throughout range to produce spatially-specific population model 

of loons throughout range and BCR (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001). Assess manipulated 

(reservoirs) and degraded breeding/wintering habitat (NAWCP Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001).

• Montana Loon Working Group should continue to meet at least semiannually to coordinated construction 

and use of floating signs and nest structures; coordinate annual surveys of occupancy and production 

at known, historic and potential nesting areas; serve as a clearinghouse for the compilation and use of 

population data; develop and disseminate public outreach materials; facilitate public contacts throughout 

the nesting season on high conflict lakes; and provide information to managers, planners, developers, 

and landowners regarding potential conflicts on lakes used for nesting (Montana PIF 2000). Wyoming 

Game and Fish should continue working with Yellowstone NP to share information (Oakleaf et al. 1996). 

Monitoring points should be established for migration, molt, and staging areas (NAWCP Marshbird 

Workshop Aug 2001). Connect breeding and wintering populations (Oakleaf et al. 1996, NAWCP 

Marshbird Workshop Aug 2001), and determine if genetic isolation, risk assessment, and population 

increases should be investigated (Oakleaf et al. 1996).

• Studies at Walker Lake, Nevada: determine inter-seasonal movements using satellite transmitters; 

determine source and pathways of Mercury contamination, and intra-season migration chronology 

(BRILoon.org). To learn about the ecology and threats to the loons that use Walker Lake, birds tracked 

by satellite (Boise State Univ. website).

Is there a BNA for this species? Yes.
160 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Population objectives are scientifically-based 

targets that will function as a basis for setting 

habitat objectives and as performance indicators. 

We derived numerical population objectives for 

priority (High or Moderate Concern) waterbird 

species by each state and BCR. For priority migrant 

species, population objectives are for individual 

sites that support high numbers and were derived 

from estimates of peak numbers of staging birds 

using those sites (Appendix D, Tables D-2 to D-5,). 

The focus for species in this category will be based 

on maintenance of habitat at those key staging 

sites (see Appendix H: Conservation Strategies). 

For breeding waterbirds, population objectives 

were derived using the methodology described 

below. These numbers are, as possible, consistent 

with other plans (e.g., recovery plan goals for 

endangered species, Flyway plans). Two steps were 

involved in this process: 

1. Determine population trend (PT) index.

2. Derive state and BCR numerical population 

objectives.

Step 1. Determine Population Trend (PT) index

A consensus was reached by the planning team 

to use the PIF approach as a foundation for 

determining Population Trend (PT), with some 

necessary modifications. In PIF documents, PTs 

were based on the degree of population change or 

trend, indicated by Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) 

data since 1966, with objectives defined for different 

PT levels. The overall objective for PIF is to return 

populations toward historic levels in the early BBS 

years (1966-68). We adapted this methodology to 

waterbirds by the following:

• BBS data are poor indices to waterbird 

population trends; therefore, survey data and 

professional judgment (if no data were available) 

were used instead.

• Since most waterbird species populations 

change more slowly than most landbirds, it was 

appropriate to use a longer time to evaluate 

population trends. We chose 50 years as the 

period on which to base recovery, although 

achieving these goals should be earlier (more 

details are in Step 2). In this document, we were 

not trying to restore populations to historic 

numbers because they are unknown and there 

have been drastic wetland habitat declines. 

Instead, our goal is to have populations reach our 

objectives within the 50-year period.

• For some species, a PT has been established in 

a state PIF plan and was used in the IWWCP. 

Although some were based on BBS data, scores 

were reviewed by members of the Group.

• For Sandhill Crane in Washington and American 

White Pelican in Utah, previously set state 

objectives were used.

• Western and Clark’s grebes were assigned the 

same ranking in each BCR because they have 

similar habitat requirements and would both 

benefit from management actions.

• For priority migrant species, we did not set 

numeric population objectives, but did set habitat 

objectives.

PT definitions are in Table F-1. The Group decided 

to assign a score for each High and Moderate 

concern species in each state and each BCR, for 

although this is a regional plan, it also accounts 

for state interests, and species’ status often varied 

between states. The index was then applied to 

the population for each state to determine the 

population objective. Justifications for each score 

are in Tables F-2 to F-5.

Step 2. Derive state and BCR numerical 

population objectives

Table F-6 summarizes State population objectives 

for priority waterbird species, derived from 

population data (see Appendix D, Tables D-2 

to D-5), and rounded off to the nearest ten and 

manipulated by the process required by the PT 

score (Tables D-2 to D-5). In Tables D-7 to D-10, 

State objectives were added together to derive a 

total objective for each BCR. PT scores vary by 

state; therefore, objectives may have been derived 

differently (i.e., the objective may be the same as 

the current estimate for one state, but increased in 

another).

It should be emphasized that the objectives are 

based on available information, and the quality of 

the data is variable. Therefore, objectives should 

be considered interim until more current and 

APPENDIX F. Intermountain West Waterbird Population Objectives.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 161

concurrent data become available from monitoring 

programs. Some goals may not be achievable due 

to biological, ecological, and/or social constraints 

(e.g., drought, global warming, disturbance), either 

within the region, or at migration and/or wintering 

habitat outside the region. Assuming new data will 

become available, a five-year status review should 

be conducted of the last 10 years of data to evaluate 

trends and determine the effectiveness of habitat 

management and the response of different species. 

Population objectives, DQ and PT scores can then 

be re-evaluated.

Table F-1. Definitions of Population Trend (PT) indices for priority waterbird species and population 

objective goal for the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan.

PT index PT definition Population objective goal

PT = 5 Species with a biologically significant (estimated 50%) historic 

population decline or range contraction. This includes species 

that were severely impacted by market hunting, habitat loss, and 

contaminants (primarily DDT-DDE). Also species with evidence 

of recent major declines and those that have been extirpated or 

nearly extirpated in a state.

Double the current population 

over the next 50 years or restore 

breeding populations of extirpated 

species.

PT = 4 Species that experienced significant historic declines and have 

shown an increasing trend, but have not recovered to their 

potential. Also species with recent moderate population decline.

Increase the current population by 

50% over the next 50 years.

PT = 3 Species that historically declined and have apparently recovered. 

Also species with recent unknown trends. Priority migrant species 

were also included, but did not receive numerical objectives (only 

habitat objectives).

Maintain or increase the current 

population over the next 50 years.

PT = 2 Species with recent suspected or moderate increase. Maintain the current population 

over the next 50 years.

PT = 1 Species with recent large population increase. Maintain the current population 

over the next 50 years.

 
1

62 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table F-2. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for High and Moderate concern waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = migrant). Species PT index Trend justification Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) PT = 5 WA: Historic declines and range contraction (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). State recovery plan set population objective. PT = 4 CA: Historic declines due to market hunting and habitat loss (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Recent breeding surveys (Ivey and Herziger 2001) suggest increasing trend, and potential for expansion into former range. NV: Historic declines due to market hunting and habitat loss (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Recent increasing trend and potential for expansion into former range. PT = 3 OR: Historic declines due to market hunting and habitat loss (Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Recent breeding surveys (Ivey and Herziger 2000) suggest remaining available habitat is close to saturation in the state. Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) PT = 3 CA, OR, WA: Migrant. Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) PT = 4 ID: PT set at 4 (Idaho PIF 2000). NV: Recovering from historic declines, potential for expansion into former range. PT = 3 UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) PT = 3 NV: Migrant. Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) PT = 3 CA, ID, OR, WA: Migrant. Yellow Rail (b) PT = 5 CA: Historic nesting in Mono County (Grinnell and Miller 1944), with recent records in last few years in Siskiyou and Modoc counties (Popper/Shuford pers. comm.). OR: Thought to be extirpated in state until 1980s (Stern and Popper 2003). Virginia Rail (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA: Uncertain trend. Sora (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA: Uncertain trend. California Gull (b) PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). PT = 1 CA, NV, OR, WA: Increasing trend. UT: PT set at 1 (Parrish et al. 2002). Franklin’s Gull (b) PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). PT = 2 NV: Slightly increasing population (now breeding in small numbers). 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 163 Species PT index 

Trend justification

PT = 1 CA: First nested at Lower Klamath NWR in 1990 followed by increasing trend. PT = 1.

OR: First nested at Malheur NWR in 1947, significantly increasing trend (Herziger and Ivey 2003c). 

Franklin’s Gull (m) PT = 3 UT: Migrant. Forster’s Tern (b) PT = 3 CA, NV, OR, WA: Uncertain trend. 

ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

Black Tern (b) PT = 4 CA: Declining in recent years (Shuford 1999). 

PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

NV, OR, WA: Equivocal or unknown (Shuford 1999). UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

Pied-billed Grebe (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA: Uncertain trend. Eared Grebe (m) PT = 3 CA, OR, UT: Migrant. Western Grebe (b) PT = 4 CA, OR: Evidence of recent moderate population decline (Ivey 2004, G. Ivey unpubl. 

data).ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000), but recent declining trends (C. Moulton pers. comm.). NV: Recent population decline (e.g., Topaz Lake). 

PT = 3 UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

WA: Unknown trend. 

Clark’s Grebe (b) PT = 4 CA, OR: Evidence of recent moderate population decline (Ivey 2004, G. Ivey unpubl. data). 

ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000), but recent declining trends (C. Moulton pers. comm.). NV: Recent population decline (e.g., Topaz Lake). 

PT = 3 UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

WA: Unknown trend. 

Snowy Egret (b) PT = 4 OR: Historic declines due to market hunting in the late 1800s near Malheur Lake, nesting did not 

resume until 1941 (Herziger and Ivey 2003d). Recent decline at Malheur NWR (G. Ivey unpubl. data). 

PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

NV: Unknown trend. UT: PT set at 1 (Parrish et al. 2002), but need more information fide D. Paul. 

Great Blue Heron (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, WA: Uncertain trend. 

UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

Table F-2. Continued.
164 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, WA: Uncertain trend. UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). Least Bittern (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, UT: Uncertain trend. American Bittern (b) PT = 3 CA, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA: Uncertain trend. White-faced Ibis (b) PT = 3 CA, NV, OR: Historic declines due to market hunting and contaminants, apparent recent recovery (Ivey et al. in prep b). ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). American White Pelican (b) PT = 4 CA: Formerly nested at Eagle Lake, Honey Lake WA (PRBO 2003) and Goose Lake. Declines due to habitat loss and degradation, disturbance, harassment by fishermen, contaminants. NV: Decreasing trend at Anaho Island (USFWS data). OR: Common Malheur Lake late 1800s, no colonies in state by 1932 due to drought and draining, resumed nesting Upper Klamath Lake 1934, sporadic Malheur Lake and abandoned 1960, resumed 1985 (Herziger and Ivey 2003b). Recent moderate decline at Malheur NWR (G. Ivey unpubl. data). WA: Extirpated from two sites, started nesting at new island in 1994 (Doran et al. 2004). PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). UT. State PIF plan set population objective. American White Pelican (m) PT = 3 UT: Migrant. Common Loon (b) PT = 5 CA: Extirpated (PRBO 2003). OR: Historically probable breeder Malheur Lake, present at Cascade Lakes, breeding range from northern California to British Columbia (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940), only one recent record (early 1990s). PT = 4 WA: Unknown trend, but formerly more widely distributed (Richardson et al. 2000). PT = 3 ID: Unknown trend. Common Loon (m) PT = 3 NV: Migrant. Species PT index Trend justification Table F-2. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 165

Table F-3. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for priority waterbird species in Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 10 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(b = breeding, m = migrant).

Species PT index Trend justification

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) PT = 4 ID: PT set at 4 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

WY: Historic declines due to market hunting and habitat loss (Ivey 

and Littlefield 2002). Population may have recovered, but potential 

for expansion into former range (R. Drewien pers. comm.). 

PT = 2 MT: PT set at 2 (Montana PIF 2002). 

Virginia Rail (b) PT = 3 ID, MT, OR, WA, WY: Uncertain trend. 

Sora (b) PT = 3 ID, MT, OR, WA, WY: Uncertain trend. 

California Gull (b) PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

WY: Uncertain trend. 

Franklin’s Gull (b) PT = 4 MT: PT set at 4 (Montana PIF 2002). 

PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

WY: Uncertain trend. 

Forster’s Tern (b) PT = 3 MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

WY: Unknown (Nicholoff 2003). 

Black Tern (b) PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

MT, OR, WA, WY: Equivocal or unknown trend (Shuford 1999). 

Pied-billed Grebe (b) PT = 3 ID, MT, OR, WA, WY: Uncertain trend. 

Western Grebe (b) PT = 4 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000), but recent declining trends (C. 

Moulton pers. comm.). 

PT = 3 MT, OR, WY: Uncertain trend. 

Clark’s Grebe (b) PT = 4 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000), but recent declining trends (C. 

Moulton pers. comm.). 

PT = 3 MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002).

WY: Uncertain trend. 

Snowy Egret (b) PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

WY: Uncertain trend.

Great Blue Heron (b) PT = 3 ID, OR, WA, WY: Uncertain trend. 

MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) PT = 3 ID, OR, WY: Uncertain trend. 

MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

American Bittern (b) PT = 3 ID, OR, WA: Uncertain trend. 

MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

WY: Unknown (Nicholoff 2003). 

White-faced Ibis (b) PT = 3 ID: PT set at 3 (Idaho PIF 2000). 

MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

WY: Uncertain trend. 

American White Pelican (b) PT = 3 MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

WY: Unknown (Nicholoff 2003). 

Common Loon (b) PT = 4 WA: Trend unknown, but formerly more widely distributed 

(Richardson et al. 2000).

PT = 3 ID: Uncertain trend. 

MT: PT set at 3 (Montana PIF 2002). 

WY: Unknown (Nicholoff 2003). 
166 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table F-4. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for priority waterbird species in Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 15 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = 

migrant).

Species PT index Trend justification

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) PT = 4 CA: Historic declines due to market hunting and habitat loss 

(Littlefield and Ivey 2002). Recent breeding surveys (Ivey and 

Herziger 2001) suggest increasing trend and potential for expansion 

into former range. 

Virginia Rail (b) PT = 3 CA: Uncertain trend. 

Sora (b) PT = 3 CA: Uncertain trend. 

Black Tern (b) PT = 4 CA: Declining in recent years (Shuford 1999).

Pied-billed Grebe (b) PT = 3 CA: Uncertain trend. 

Western Grebe (b) PT = 4 CA: Evidence of recent moderate population decline (Ivey 2004). 

Clark’s Grebe (b) PT = 4 CA: Evidence of recent moderate population decline (Ivey 2004).

American Bittern (b) PT = 3 CA: Uncertain trend. 

Common Loon (b) PT = 5 CA: Extirpated. 

 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 167

Table F-5. Justification for Population Trend (PT) scores for priority waterbird species in Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) 16 in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan (b = breeding, m = 

migrant).

Species PT index Trend justification

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) PT = 4 CO: Historic declines due to market hunting and habitat loss (Ivey 

and Littlefield 2002). Population may have recovered, but potential 

for expansion into former range (R. Drewien pers. comm.). 

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) PT = 3 CO: Migrant. 

Virginia Rail (b) PT = 3 AZ, CO, NM, UT: Uncertain trend. 

Sora (b) PT = 3 AZ, CO, NM, UT: Uncertain trend. 

Black Tern (b) PT = 5 

PT = 3

CO: Nearly extirpated (T. Leukering pers. comm.). 

UT: Uncertain trend. 

Pied-billed Grebe (b) PT = 3 AZ, CO, NM, UT: Uncertain trend. 

Western Grebe (b) PT = 3 AZ, CO: Uncertain trend.

UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

Clark’s Grebe (b) PT = 3 AZ, CO, NM: Uncertain trend.

Snowy Egret (b) PT = 3 CO, NM, UT: Uncertain trend. 

Green Heron (b) PT = 3 CO, NM: Uncertain trend.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) PT = 3 CO, NM: Uncertain trend. 

UT: PT set at 3 (Parrish et al. 2002). 

Least Bittern (b) PT = 3 AZ, CO, NM, UT: Uncertain trend. 

American Bittern (b) PT = 5 

PT = 3

AZ: Extirpated. 

CO, NM, UT: Uncertain trend. 
168 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table F-6. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan by state. Some states are in more than one Bird Conservation Regions (BCR). TBD = To Be Determined (after data become available or species resumes nesting)1. State BCR objective # State Species State total objective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16 Arizona Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD Sora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD Western Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 200 200 Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 50 50 Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD American Bittern (b) (PT = 5) TBD TBD California Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) (PT = 4) 1,390 1,200 190 Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) (PT = 3) >8,000 >8,000 Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) (PT = 3) >20,000 >20,000 Yellow Rail (b) (PT = 5) 20 20 Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD Sora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD California Gull (b) (PT = 1) 62,470 62,470 Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 1) 150 150 Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 3,510 3,510 Black Tern (b) (PT = 4) 5,820 5,550 270 Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD Eared Grebe (m) (PT = 3) >2 million >2 million Western Grebe (b) (PT = 4) 9,320 7,390 1,930 Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 4) 1,030 1,010 20 Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 110 110 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 310 310 Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

169

State BCR objective #

State Species

State total

objective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

American Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDWhite-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 2,310 2,310American White Pelican (b) (PT = 4) 5,880 5,880Common Loon (b) (PT = 5) TBD TBD TBD

Colorado Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) (PT = 4) 450 450

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) (PT = 3) >18,000 >18,000Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDSora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDBlack Tern (b) (PT = 5) 30 30Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDWestern Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 150 150Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 150 150Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 3) 400 400Green Heron (b) (PT = 3) 20 20Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 600 600Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDAmerican Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

Idaho Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) (PT = 4) TBD TBD

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) (PT = 4) TBD TBDLesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) (PT = 3) >1,000 >1,000Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDSora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDCalifornia Gull (b) (PT = 3) 72,640 72,400 240Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 3) 23,500 8,500 15,000Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 40 40

Table F-6. Continued.
170 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan State BCR objective # State Species State total objective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16 Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) 200 80 120 Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD Western Grebe (b) (PT = 4) 6,140 1,790 4,350 Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 4) >710 710 TBD Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 3) 650 610 40 Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 1,970 1,800 170 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 1,610 1,540 70 Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD American Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD White-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 6,760 5,340 1,420 American White Pelican (b) (PT = 3) 2,770 2,770 Common Loon (b) (PT = 3) >10 TBD 10

Montana Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) (PT = 2) TBD TBD

Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDSora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDCalifornia Gull (b) (PT = 3) 920 920Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 4) 6,000 6,000Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 130 130Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) 200 200Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDWestern Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 250 250Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 30 30Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 900 900Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 50 50American Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

Table F-6. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

171

White-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 20 20American White Pelican (b) (PT = 3) 8,000 8,000Common Loon (b) (PT = 3) 200 200

Nevada Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) (PT = 4) 30 30

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) (PT = 4) TBD TBDGreater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) (PT = 3) >2,000 >2,000Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDSora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDCalifornia Gull (b) (PT = 1) 4,200 4,200Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 2) 10 10Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 190 190Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) 550 550Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDWestern Grebe (b) (PT = 4) 80 80Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 4) 450 450Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 3) 600 600Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 660 660Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 910 910Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDAmerican Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDWhite-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 12,230 12,230American White Pelican (b) (PT = 4) 12,620 12,620Common Loon (m) (PT = 3) >1,000 >1,000

New Mexico Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

Sora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

State BCR objective #

State Species

State totalobjective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

Table F-6. Continued.
172 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 10 10 Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 3) 500 500 Green Heron (b) (PT = 3) 200 200 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 40 40 Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD American Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

Oregon Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) (PT = 3) 2,140 2,140

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) (PT = 3) >6,000 >6,000Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) (PT = 3) >20,000 >20,000Yellow Rail (b) (PT = 5) 1,200 1,200Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDSora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDCalifornia Gull (b) (PT = 1) 11,330 11,330Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 1) 3,270 3,270Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 1,610 1,610Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) >3,180 3,180 TBDPied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDEared Grebe (m) (PT = 3) >20,000 >20,000Western Grebe (b) (PT = 4, 3) >5,800 5,800 TBDClark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 4) 2,560 2,560Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 4) 250 250Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) >320 320 TBDBlack-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) >1,380 1,380 TBDLeast Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDAmerican Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

State 

TBD

BCR objective #

State Species

State totalobjective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

Table F-6. Continued.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

173

White-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 18,100 18,100American White Pelican (b) (PT = 4) 2,360 2,360Common Loon (b) (PT = 5) TBD TBD

Utah Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD

Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDSora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDCalifornia Gull (b) (PT = 1) 150,000 150,000Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 3) 30,650 30,650Franklin’s Gull (n) (PT = 3) >85,000 >85,000Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 1,590 1,590Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) 130 120 10Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDEared Grebe (m) (PT = 3) >1.6 million >1.6 millionWestern Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 730 700 30Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 300 300Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 3) 1,980 1,940 40Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 470 470Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 470 450 20Least Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDAmerican Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBDWhite-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 20,000 20,000American White Pelican (b) (PT = 3) 10,1202 10,120American White Pelican (m) (PT = 3) >55,000 >55,000

Washington Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) (PT =5) 2603 260

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) (PT = 3) >2,000 >2,000

State BCR objective #

State Species

State totalobjective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

Table F-6. Continued.
174 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan State BCR objective # State Species State total objective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16 Table F-6. Continued. Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) (PT = 3) >20,000 >20,000 Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD Sora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD California Gull (b) (PT = 1) 14,000 14,000 Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 400 400 Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) 550 300 250 Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD Western Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 1,000 1,000 Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 100 100 Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 1,530 1,200 330 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3) 1,000 1,000 American Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD TBD American White Pelican (b) (PT = 4) 360 360 Common Loon (b) (PT = 4) 20 10 10 Wyoming Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) (PT = 4) TBD TBD Virginia Rail (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD Sora (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD California Gull (b) (PT = 3) 8,310 8,310 Franklin’s Gull (b) (PT = 3) 50 50 Forster’s Tern (b) (PT = 3) 50 50 Black Tern (b) (PT = 3) 100 100 Pied-billed Grebe (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBD Western Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 430 430 Clark’s Grebe (b) (PT = 3) 80 80 Snowy Egret (b) (PT = 3) 30 30
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

175

State BCR objective #

State Species

State totalobjective # BCR 9 BCR 10 BCR 15 BCR 16

Table F-6. Continued.

Great Blue Heron (b) (PT = 3) 200 200Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) (PT = 3)

400 400

American Bittern (b) (PT = 3) TBD TBDWhite-faced Ibis (b) (PT = 3) 270 270American White Pelican (b) (PT = 3) 2,500 2,500Common Loon (b) (PT = 3) 50 50

1 PT = 5: Double the current population over the next 50 years, PT = 4: Increase the current population by 50% over the next 50 years, PT = 3: Maintain or increase the current 

population over the next 50 years, PT = 2 and 1: Maintain the current population over the next 50 years.

2 Objective set in state PIF plan (Parrish et al. 2002). 3 Objective set in state recovery plan (Littlefield and Ivey 2002).
176 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table F-7. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 9 in the 

Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. TBD = To Be Determined (after data become available 

or species resumes nesting)1.

State objective # for BCR

Species

BCR

objective # CA2 ID3 NV OR3 UT4 WA3

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 3,630 1,200 30 2,140 2605

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (m) >8,000 >8,000 >6,000 >2,000

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD

Greater Sandhill Crane (LCRVP) (m) >2,000 >2,000

Lesser Sandhill Crane (PFP) (m) >25,000 >20,000 >1,000 >20,000 >20,000

Yellow Rail (b) 1,220 20 1,200

Virginia Rail (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Sora (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

California Gull (b) 314,400 62,470 72,400 4,200 11,330 150,000 14,000

Franklin’s Gull (b) 42,580 150 8,500 10 3,270 30,650

Franklin’s Gull (m) >85,000 >85,000

Forster’s Tern (b) 7,340 3,510 40 190 1,610 1,590 400

Black Tern (b) 9,780 5,550 80 550 3,180 120 300

Pied-billed Grebe (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Eared Grebe (m) >3 million >2 million >20,000 >1.6 million

Western Grebe (b) 17,280 7,910 1,790 80 5,800 700 1,000

Clark’s Grebe (b) 5,130 1,010 710 450 2,560 300 100

Snowy Egret (b) 3,400 610 600 250 1,940

Great Blue Heron (b) 4,560 110 1,800 660 320 470 1,200

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 5,590 310 1,540 910 1,380 450 1,000

Least Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

American Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

White-faced Ibis (b) 57,980 2,310 5,340 12,230 18,100 20,000

American White Pelican (b) 34,110 5,880 2,770 12,620 2,360 10,1206 360

American White Pelican (m) >55,000 >55,000

Common Loon (b) >10 TBD TBD TBD 10

Common Loon (m) >1,000 >1,000

1

 State PT scores by state can be found in Table F-6.

2

 California has objectives in BCR 15 as well. See Table F-6 for state totals.

3

 Idaho, Oregon, and Washington have objectives in BCR 10 as well. See Table F-6 for state totals.

4

 Utah has objectives in BCR 16 as well. See Table F-6 for state totals.

5

 Objective set in state recovery plan (Littlefield and Ivey 2002).

6

 Objective set in state PIF plan (Parrish et al. 2002).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 177

Table F-9. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 15 

in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. TBD = To Be Determined (after data become 

available or species resumes nesting)1.

State objective # for BCR

Species BCR objective # CA2

Greater Sandhill Crane (CVP) (b) 190 190

Virginia Rail (b) TBD TBD

Sora (b) TBD TBD

Black Tern (b) 270 270

Pied-billed Grebe (b) TBD TBD

Western Grebe (b) 1,930 1,930

Clark’s Grebe (b) 20 20

American Bittern (b) TBD TBD

Common Loon (b) TBD TBD

1

 State PT scores by state can be found in Table 6-6.

2

 California has objectives in BCR 9 as well. See Table 6-6 for state totals.

Table F-8. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 10 

in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. TBD = To Be Determined (after data become 

available or species resumes nesting)1. 

State objective # for BCR

Species

BCR objective 

# ID2 MT OR2 WA2 WY

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD

Virginia Rail (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Sora (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

California Gull (b) 9,470 240 920 8,310

Franklin’s Gull (b) 21,050 15,000 6,000 100

Forster’s Tern (b) 180 130 100

Black Tern (b) >670 120 200 TBD 250 100

Pied-billed Grebe (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Western Grebe (b) >5,030 4,350 250 TBD 430

Clark’s Grebe (b) >110 TBD 30 80

Snowy Egret (b) 70 40 10

Great Blue Heron (b) >1,600 170 900 TBD 330 400

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) >520 70 50 TBD 200

American Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

White-faced Ibis (b) 1,710 1,420 20 270

American White Pelican (b) 10,500 8,000 2,500

Common Loon (b) 270 10 200 10 50

1

 State PT scores by state can be found in Table F-6.

2

 Idaho, Oregon and Washington have objectives in BCR 9 as well. See Table F-6 for state totals.

 
178 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table F-10. Population objectives for priority waterbird species in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 

in the Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan. TBD = To Be Determined (after data become 

available or species resumes nesting)1.

State objective # for BCR

Species

BCR objective 

# AZ CO NM UT2

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (b) 450 450

Greater Sandhill Crane (RMP) (m) >18,000 >18,000

Virginia Rail (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Sora (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Black Tern (b) 40 30 10

Pied-billed Grebe (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Western Grebe (b) 380 200 150 30

Clark’s Grebe (b) 210 50 150 10

Snowy Egret (b) 940 400 500 40

Green Heron (b) 220 20 200

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 660 600 40 20

Least Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

American Bittern (b) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

1 State PT scores by state can be found in Table 6-6.

2

 Utah has objectives in BCR 9 as well. See Table 6-6 for state totals.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 179

Establishing habitat objectives is a difficult task at 

this time, as existing information is not adequate 

to translate population objectives into habitat 

objectives. Defining relationships of population 

numbers to habitat is an important research need. 

An inventory of existing wetland habitats is also 

needed to further this task. National Wetland 

Inventory coverage is incomplete in this region. 

The discussion in this appendix was a preliminary 

attempt at defining habitat objectives; however, 

because of the difficulties in translating population 

objectives to habitat objectives, the Intermountain 

West Waterbird Group decided to use the 

habitat objectives developed in state-coordinated 

implementation plans. Therefore, the following 

discussion is informational and may prove useful for 

developing more site-specific habitat objectives and 

management strategies.

The Guild Approach

Waterbirds can be classified into guilds by their 

preference for a specific type of wetland utilized 

during the breeding season. Waterbird breeding 

habitat guilds were delineated into five generalized 

groups and are represented in Table G-1, however, 

more detailed species habitat requirements are 

recorded in the waterbird species accounts in 

Appendix E. These guilds are the primary basis 

for establishing habitat objectives for breeding 

waterbirds. Table G-2 details the rationale used to 

derive habitat objectives for each guild.

Some species overlap with more than one 

habitat guild. Guild 1 species generally nest in 

extensive stands of emergent vegetation. These 

sites range from flooded sedge meadows to 

cattail or bulrush stands in deep water marshes 

and are usually seasonal wetlands. Habitat for 

Guild 2 species consists of mostly larger, semipermanent freshwater marshes with patches of 

emergent vegetation interspersed with open water, 

approaching a 50:50 mix of open water to emergent 

cover (hemi-marsh). The wetlands used by species 

in Guild 3 are characterized as having mostly 

permanent water, and are deep-water marshes 

or lakes usually with some emergent vegetation 

stands and extensive areas of open water. Guild 4 

species utilize trees adjacent to wetlands or streams 

for nesting. Guild 5 species use those wetlands or 

waterways with an island, a sandbar along a river, 

or an exposed shoreline of a river or lake. Although 

these species are separated into general categories, 

there is the likelihood that habitat preference will 

overlap substantially across the region.

Individual Site Approach

After an assessment of existing waterbird sites, 

habitat objectives could be defined considering 

waterbird priorities and objectives and could 

eventually be rolled up into a state and BCR 

objective. This is the approach we used to set 

preliminary habitat objectives for priority migrant 

species. 

APPENDIX G. Intermountain West Waterbird Habitat Objectives.
1

80 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan Table G-1. Description of waterbird guilds in the Intermountain West, based on breeding habitats used. GUILD: Habitat types: Guild 1 Seasonal wetlands Vast emergent wetlands Wet meadows Guild 2 Semi-permanent wetlands Hemi-marsh wetlands Guild 3 Freshwater Lakes Deeper wetlands Mostly permanent Some emergents Extensive open water Guild 4 Tree nesting Near wetlands Woody riparian habitats Guild 5 Island nesting Lake or River Open water Barren ground PRIORITY SPECIES: Sandhill Crane Yellow Rail Virginia Rail Sora Least Bittern American Bittern Black Tern Franklin’s Gull Forster’s Tern Black Tern Pied-billed Grebe Snowy Egret Black-crowned Night-Heron Least Bittern American Bittern White-faced Ibis Western Grebe Clark’s Grebe Common Loon Snowy Egret Great Blue Heron Green Heron Black-crowned Night-Heron California Gull Forster’s Tern American White Pelican OTHER SPECIES: Common Moorhen American Coot Common Moorhen American Coot Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Great Egret Cattle Egret Red-necked Grebe Eared Grebe Double-crested Cormorant Little Blue Heron Great Egret Cattle Egret Double-crested Cormorant Ring-billed Gull Herring Gull Caspian Tern Common Tern
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 181

Table G- 2. Description of potential criteria for setting habitat objectives using a guild approach.

Guild Criteria for setting objectives

Guild 1

Seasonal wetlands

Vast emergent wetlands

· Use professional judgment from each state to set habitat objective. 

· Consider amount of current habitat under conservation and set objective to 

increase the conserved acreage by 25% over the next 50 years.

Wet meadows: · Use Sandhill Crane as umbrella species for this guild: 75 acres/pair, 

approximately based on median territory size (Littlefield 1968, Drewien 1973).

· Set specific objectives within Yellow Rail breeding range in OR and CA.

Guild 2

Semi-permanent wetlands

Hemi-marsh wetlands

· Use professional judgment from each state to set habitat objective. 

· Consider amount of current habitat under conservation and set objective to 

increase the conserved acreage by 25% over the next 50 years.

Guild 3 

Freshwater Lakes

Deeper wetlands

Mostly permanent

Some emergents

Extensive open water

· Use professional judgment from each state to set habitat objective. 

· Consider amount of current habitat under conservation and set objective to 

increase the conserved acreage by 25% over the next 50 years.

· Implement management practices to improve productivity at current nesting 

sites.

Guild 4 

Tree nesting

Near wetlands

Woody riparian habitats

· Use professional judgment from each state to set habitat objective. 

· Consider amount of current habitat under conservation and set objective to 

increase the conserved acreage by 25% over the next 50 years.

· Consider the current amount of habitat available and prescribe management to 

increase the total suitable riparian habitat by 50% over the next 50 years.

Guild 5

Island nesting

Lake or River 

Open water 

Barren ground 

· Use professional judgment from each state to set habitat objective. 

· Consider amount of current habitat under conservation and set objective to 

increase the number of conserved and suitable island nesting sites by 25% over 

the next 50 years.

An example: BCR 9, Oregon: 

Guild 1: Establish conservation status on at least 150,000 acres of private flood-irrigated wet meadows in Klamath, Lake 

and Harney counties (Silvies Floodplain, Chewaucan Marshes, Klamath Marsh, Warner Basin, Goose Lake Valley, and 

Paulina Marsh). Lobby to develop legislation to protect the flood-irrigation practice on these lands for its wildlife values.

Priority waterbird benefactors: Greater Sandhill Crane, Lesser Sandhill Crane (staging), California Gull, Franklin’s 

Gull, Black Tern, Snowy Egret, Black-crowned Night-Heron and White-faced Ibis.

Guild 2: Develop 5-10 large (100-500 acre) impoundments and manage them for hemi-marsh conditions (Malheur NWR, 

Goose Lake Basin, Fremont NF, BLM).

Priority waterbird benefactors: California Gull, Franklin’s Gull, Black Tern, Forster’s Tern, Snowy Egret, Blackcrowned Night-Heron and White-faced Ibis.

Guild 3: Seek a higher level of conservation status for Lake Abert to ensure protection from threats. Limit boating 

disturbance on Cascades lakes which have suitable habitat to support nesting loons (list possibilities). Develop barriers 

to reduce wind fetch and protect grebe nests on Goose and Upper Klamath lakes.

Priority waterbird benefactors: Eared Grebe, Western Grebe, Common Loon.

Guild 4: Restore and enhance at least 10 miles of riparian forests along rivers and streams near large wetlands (Silvies 

Floodplain, Summer Lake).

Priority waterbird benefactors: Snowy Egret, Black-crowned Night-Heron

Guild 5: Construct permanent pelican nesting islands (one each) at Malheur Lake, Goose Lake, and Summer Lake.

Priority waterbird benefactors: American White Pelican, California Gull, Forster’s Tern.
182 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

A variety of conservation strategies will be used 

to implement the IWWCP and achieve population 

and habitat objectives (Table H-1). Because 

wetlands are generally isolated oases in the 

Intermountain West landscape, most waterbird 

habitat conservation will be focused on important 

wetland sites in the region, within BHCAs and 

IBAs. Descriptions of IBAs provide an additional 

source of conservation strategies which should be 

consulted when developing conservation plans (see 

APPENDIX H. Intermountain West waterbird conservation strategies.

Audubon Society 2004). Additionally, waterbirdfocused habitat management practices need to be 

implemented at a broad scale in wetlands around 

the region. A regional assessment of potential for 

waterbird habitat enhancement and restoration 

projects, and local management issues should be 

conducted. Site-specific habitat conservation should 

be addressed using the strategies in Table H-1 and 

IBA descriptions as guidelines.

Table H-1. Waterbird conservation strategies for priority species in Bird Conservation Regions of the 

Intermountain West, by state. 

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

ARIZONA:

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

Pied-billed Grebe (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 100 pairs of Western Grebes and 25 

pairs of Clark’s Grebes. Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes 

near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the nesting 

period (late September, Ivey 2004).

· Maintain suitable breeding habitat and security at Mormon Lake and 

Many Farms and Ganado Lakes (later 2 on the Navajo Reservation).

Least Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats. 

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac, Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

CALIFORNIA:

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (b) 9 · Maintain, restore and conserve at least 45,000 acres of suitable 

wet meadow/seasonal wetland breeding habitat at breeding sites 

throughout northeastern California (Ivey and Herziger 2001) to 

support at least 600 pairs. 

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (b) 15 · Maintain, restore and conserve at least 7,125 acres of suitable wet 

meadow/seasonal wetland breeding habitat at breeding sites in the 

northern Sierras (Ivey and Herziger 2001) to support at least 95 pairs. 

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas to 

support at least 8,000 birds (e.g., Lower Klamath and Modoc NWRs, 

Honey Lake and Butte Valley WAs).

Lesser Sandhill Crane PFP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas to 

support at least 20,000 birds (e.g., Goose Lake Valley, Modoc NWR, 

and Honey Lake WA).

Yellow Rail (b) 9 · Prioritize habitat conservation of wet meadows in known breeding 

sites in Modoc (Surprise Valley) and Shasta counties. 

· Search for additional breeding locations and determine wintering area.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 183

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 9, 15 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites 

(Shuford and Ryan 2000).

Franklin’s Gull (b) 9 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat at Lower Klamath NWR.

Forster’s Tern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites 

(Shuford 1998).

Black Tern (b) 9 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 2,775 pairs (Shuford 1998).

Black Tern (b) 15 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 135 pairs (Shuford 1998).

Pied-billed Grebe (b) 9, 15 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Eared Grebe (m) 9 · Maintain foraging conditions to support at least 2 million birds.

· At Mono Lake, work with water users to develop a strategy to 

maintain water chemistry favorable to high populations of brine 

shrimp and brine flies. 

· Minimize human disturbance during staging periods. 

· Seek conservation status for Mono Lake (e.g., as a NWR) to allow it to 

continue to support >1.6 million grebes.

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites in 

the region (Eagle Lake, Tulelake NWR, Goose Lake, Crowley Lake, 

and Bridgeport Reservoir). Minimize human disturbance and boat 

wakes near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the 

nesting period (late September, Ivey 2004).

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 15 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region (Lake Almanor and Mountain Meadows Reservoir). 

Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting colonies. 

Maintain stable water levels through the nesting period (late 

September, Ivey 2004).

Great Blue Heron 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at Clear Lake and Lower 

Klamath NWRs to support at least 55 nests.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at Clear Lake, Tulelake and 

Lower Klamath NWRs to support at least 155 nests.

Least Bittern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 9, 15 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

White-faced Ibis (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at Lower 

Klamath NWR, Modoc NWR and Honey Lake WA and other nesting 

sites to support at least 1,155 nests (Ivey et al. in prep b).

American White Pelican (b) 9 · Maintain suitable nesting sites at Clear Lake, Lower Klamath NWRs 

and Butte Valley WA to support at least 2,940 nests.

· Consider building a nesting island, along the Oregon border, to restore 

nesting to Goose Lake (in cooperation with Oregon).

· Consider building a nesting island (during a dry year) at Hartson 

Reservoir, Honey Lake WA (Shuford 1998).

Common Loon (b) 9, 15 · Monitor for nesting at potential lakes and reservoirs. If nesting 

resumes in the state, initiate conservation measures to protect nests 

from human disturbance. 
184 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

COLORADO:

Greater Sandhill Crane RMP (b) 16 · Increase efforts for habitat conservation in potential wet meadow/

seasonal marsh breeding habitats.

· Conserve, restore and protect 16,875 acres of nesting habitat to 

support at least 225 pairs.

Greater Sandhill Crane RMP (m) 16 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas 

to support at least 18,000 cranes in the San Luis Valley, especially 

Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs; along the Rio Grande; Northpark; 

Fruit Growers Reservoir (Delta Co.); Morgan Bottom and adjacent 

areas; Hart’s Basin near Eckert; Grand Valley; Gunnison and White 

River Valleys; .and the Elk River near the confluence of the Yampa 

River (Routt Co.) (Pacific and Central Flyways 2001; Todd Sanders, 

Colorado Div. of Wildlife, Fort Collins, pers. comm.).

· Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional wintering areas 

(e.g., near Escalante WMA, near Montrose).

 Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

Black Tern (b) 16 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to support 

at least 15 pairs. 

Pied-billed Grebe (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Western /Clark’s Grebe (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 75 pairs of each species. Minimize 

human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting colonies. Maintain 

stable water levels through the nesting period (Ivey 2004).

Snowy Egret (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 200 nests.

Green Heron (b) 16 · Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 10 pairs.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 300 nests.

Least Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

IDAHO:

Greater Sandhill Crane RMP (b) 9, 10 · Conserve, restore and protect wet meadow/seasonal marsh breeding 

habitats.

Greater Sandhill Crane LCRVP (b) 9, 10 · Conserve, restore and protect wet meadow/seasonal marsh breeding 

habitats.

Lesser Sandhill Crane PFP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites to maintain at least 1000 cranes 

at traditional staging areas in Treasure and Payette River Valleys.

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation to maintain existing breeding sites.

California Gull (b) 10 · Implement conservation to maintain existing breeding sites (Bear 

Lake NWR).

Franklin’s Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation to maintain existing breeding sites (Camas 

NWR, Mud and Market lakes).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 185

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Franklin’s Gull (b) 10 · Implement conservation to maintain existing breeding sites (Oxford 

Slough WPA, Bear Lake and Grays Lake NWRs).

· Strive to resolve water level issues at Grays Lake (Ivey et al. in prep 

b).

Forster’s Tern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

maintain at least 20 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 9 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 40 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 10 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 60 pairs.

· Maintain habitat for colony at Kootenai NWR.

Pied-billed Grebe (b) 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Western /Clark’s Grebe (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

(Minidoka NWR and Deer Flat NWR) to support at least 895 pairs of 

Western Grebes and 355 pairs of Clark’s Grebes.

· Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting colonies. 

Maintain stable water levels through the nesting period (Ivey 2004).

Western /Clark’s Grebe (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 2175 pairs (Lake Cascade). Minimize 

human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting colonies. Maintain 

stable water levels through the nesting period (Ivey 2004).

· Maintain suitable nesting habitat and conservation for at least 2 

colony sites (Lake Cascade and Bear Lake NWR).

Snowy Egret (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 305 nests (Trost and Gerstell 1994).

Snowy Egret (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 20 nests (Trost and Gerstell 1994).

Great Blue Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 900 pairs.

Great Blue Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 85 pairs.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 770 nests (Trost and Gerstell 1994).

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 35 nests (Trost and Gerstell 1994).

Least Bittern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

MONTANA:

White-faced Ibis (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at nesting sites 

to support at least 2,670 nests (Market and Mud Lake WAs, Camas 

NWR, Oxford Slough WPA, and Duck Valley Indian Reservation) 

(Ivey et al. in prep b).

· Restore hydrology to Grays Lake to improve productivity of 

Franklin’s Gulls and other waterbirds.

White-faced Ibis (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat for at least 2 colony sites 

(Grays Lake NWR, Bear Lake NWR) to support at least 710 nests 

(Ivey et al. in prep b).

· Negotiate some form of conservation agreement with the Duck Valley 

Tribes to protect the Duck Valley wetlands.
186 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

American White Pelican 9 · Maintain habitat to support at least 1,385 pairs and minimize 

disturbance during the nesting season at Blackfoot Reservoir.

Common Loon 9, 10 · Maintain suitable nesting habitat at major breeding sites in the region 

to support at least 10 pairs. Minimize human disturbance.

· Protect one known territory in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Greater Sandhill Crane RMP (b) 10 · Maintain, restore and conserve suitable wet meadow/seasonal wetland 

breeding habitat at breeding sites throughout the region.

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 10 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites 

to support at least 460 pairs.

Franklin’s Gull (b) 10 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat to support at least 3,000 pairs..

Forster’s Tern (b) 10 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

maintain at least 65 pairs.

· See Casey (2000) for management considerations.

Black Tern (b) 10 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 100 pairs (Casey 2000).

Pied-billed Grebe 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Western /Clark’s Grebe (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 125 pairs of Western Grebes and 

15 pairs of Clark’s Grebes. Minimize human disturbance and boat 

wakes near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the 

nesting period (Ivey 2004).

Great Blue Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 450 pairs.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 25 nests.

American Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

White-faced Ibis (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at nesting sites 

to support at least 10 nests.

American White Pelican 10 · Manage known and newly formed colonies at 2 sites: Canyon Ferry 

Reservoir and Arod Lakes to support at least 4,000 pairs.

Common Loon 10 · Maintain suitable nesting habitat at major breeding sites in the region 

to support at least 100 pairs. Minimize human disturbance on nesting 

lakes.

· Maintain productivity of at least 1.4 young/nesting pair.

· Protect/enhance productivity at known territories with buoys, floating 

nests and outreach as needed. Preparation of site-specific territory 

management plans is a primary strategy (Casey 2000).

NEVADA:

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (b) 9 · Maintain, restore and conserve at least 45,000 acres of suitable wet 

meadow/seasonal wetland breeding habitat at breeding sites in 

northwestern Nevada (Ivey and Herziger 2001) to support at least 15 

pairs.

Greater Sandhill Crane LCRVP (b) 9 · Maintain, restore and conserve at least 7 suitable wet meadow/

seasonal wetland breeding habitat at breeding sites in the 

northeastern Nevada (Nevada Partners In Flight 1999).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 187

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Greater Sandhill Crane LCRVP(m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas (e.g., 

Lund area and Pharanaget NWR).

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites 

to support at least 2,100 pairs.

Franklin’s Gull (b) 9 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat at Ruby Lake NWR to support at 

least 5 pairs.

Forster’s Tern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 95 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 9 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 225 pairs

Pied-billed Grebe 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 40 pairs of Western Grebes and 225 

pairs of Clark’s Grebes. Restore emergent nesting habitat at Topaz 

Lake. Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting 

colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the nesting period (late 

September, Nevada Partners In Flight 1999, Ivey 2004).

Snowy Egret (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 300 nests.

Great Blue Heron 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats to support at least 330 nests.

 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats to support at least 455 nests.

Least Bittern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

White-faced Ibis (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at Carson 

Lake, Stillwater NWR, Ruby Lake NWR, and Franklin Lake and 

other nesting sites to support at least 6,115 nests (Ivey et al. in prep 

b).

· Mitigate losses of flood irrigated agricultural feeding sites in the 

Lahontan Valley by creating seasonal wetlands.

American White Pelican (b) 9 · Maintain suitable nesting sites at Anaho Island in Pyramid Lake to 

support at least 6,310 nests.

· Provide adequate water level management of Pyramid Lake such that 

a land bridge from Pyramid Point to Anaho Island would never be 

exposed (Nevada Partners In Flight 1999).

· Consider building a nesting Island at Ruby or Franklin Lake.

Common Loon (m) 9 · Acquire enough water to maintain suitable fish forage base at Walker 

Lake to support at least 1,000 staging loons.

NEW MEXICO:

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

Pied-billed Grebe 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.
188 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites in 

the region to support at least 10 pairs Clark’s Grebes. Minimize human 

disturbance and boat wakes near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water 

levels through the nesting period (late September, Ivey 2004).

· Maintain suitable breeding habitat at Las Vegas and Maxwell NWRs; 

Elephant Butte, Caballo and the Jicarilla Lakes. Control grazing along 

shores and banks through low intensity or rest-rotation and fence 

cattail/bulrush areas during dry years for rapid recovery of nesting 

habitat.

Snowy Egret (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites in 

the region to support at least 250 pairs.

· During wet years, maintain suitable nesting habitat near Zuni, and on 

the Jicarilla Apache reservation. Maintain habitat in dry years, through 

fencing of bulrush and cattail areas, for quick recovery in wetter years.

Green Heron (b) 16 · Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 100 pairs.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites in 

the region to support at least 20 pairs.

Least Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

· Establish or maintain blocks of 24ac (9.7ha) patches of habitat to sustain 

one or more breeding pair to ensure sustained breeding (Rustay 2000).

OREGON:

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (b) 9 · Maintain, restore and conserve at least 80,250 acres of suitable wet 

meadow/seasonal wetland breeding habitat at breeding sites throughout 

central and eastern Oregon (Ivey and Herziger 2000) to support at least 

1,070 pairs.

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas (e.g., 

Malheur NWR, Summer Lake, Chewaucan Marsh, Langell and Warner 

Valleys).

Lesser Sandhill Crane PFP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas (e.g., 

Silvies River Floodplain, Goose Lake Basin, Warner Basin, Summer 

Lake/Chewaucan Basins, and Paulina Marsh).

Yellow Rail (b) 9 · Prioritize habitat conservation of wet meadows in known breeding sites 

in Klamath and Lake Counties (at known breeding sites (Wood River 

Valley, Klamath Marsh, Sycan Marsh, Camas Prairie, Jack Spring, 

Odessa Creek near Shoalwater Bay and Aspen Lake) to support at least 

600 pairs.

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites to 

support at least 5,665 pairs.

Franklin’s Gull (b) 9 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat at Malheur NWR to support at least 

1,635 pairs.

Forster’s Tern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 805 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 9 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to support 

at least 1,590 pairs.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 189

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Black Tern (b) 10 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites.

Pied-billed Grebe 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Eared Grebe (m) 9 · Maintain suitable water chemistry to support brine shrimp at Lake 

Abert and Stinking Lake.

· Seek conservation status for Lake Abert (e.g., as a NWR) to allow it to 

continue to support >25,000 grebes.

· Monitor harvest of brine shrimp to and halt harvest when there appears 

to be an effect on forage base.

· Maintain favorable habitat at Stinking Lake (Malheur NWR) by not 

allowing unnatural surface flows to enter the basin to maintain its 

hypersaline character.

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites in 

the region to support at least 2,900 pairs of Western Grebes and 1,280 

pairs of Clark’s Grebes. Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes 

near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the nesting 

period (late September, Ivey 2004).

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at breeding sites in the 

region. Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting 

colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the nesting period (late 

September, Ivey 2004).

Snowy Egret (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 125 nests.

Great Blue Heron 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats to support at least 160 nests.

Great Blue Heron 10 · Maintain suitable riparian breeding habitats at known colony 

locations.

 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats to support at least 690 nests.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at known colony sites.

 Least Bittern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

American Bittern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

White-faced Ibis (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at Malheur 

NWR, Warner Basin, Summer Lake WA, Sycan Marsh, Chewaucan 

Marsh and other nesting sites to support at least 9,050 nests (Ivey et 

al. in prep b).

· Ensure that all major colony sites are protected by some sort of 

conservation strategy. Seek some form of conservation for the 

privately-owned Chewaucan Marsh.

American White Pelican (b) 9 · Maintain suitable nesting sites at Malheur Lake and Crump Lake to 

support at least 1,180 nests.

· Consider construction of a nesting island during a dry year which 

would provide suitable breeding site at most water levels, in Malheur 

Lake and Goose Lake (to restore an historic nesting site).

Common Loon (b) 9, 10 · Monitor for nesting at potential lakes and reservoirs. If nesting 

resumes in the state, initiate conservation measures to protect nests 

from human disturbance.
190 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

UTAH:

Greater Sandhill Crane LCRVP (b) 9 · Maintain, restore and conserve suitable wet meadow/seasonal wetland 

breeding habitat at breeding sites throughout northwest Utah.

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 9, 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites to 

support at least 75,000 pairs.

· Continue to manage Gunnison and Bird (Hat) Islands for breeding 

colonial birds with emphasis on American White Pelicans and California 

Gulls.

Franklin’s Gull (b) 9 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat in Great Salt Lake wetlands to 

support at least 15,325 pairs.

Franklin’s Gull (b) 9 · Maintain suitable foraging habitat in Great Salt Lake basin to support 

at least 85,000 birds.

Forster’s Tern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 795 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 9 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to support 

at least 60 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 16 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at Ouray NWR to support at least 5 

pairs.

· Enhance seasonal wetland habitats near Pelican Lake and along the 

Green River to increase breeding population.

Pied-billed Grebe 9, 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Eared Grebe (m) 9 · Maintain suitable water chemistry to support brine shrimp at Great 

Salt Lake.

· As possible, maintain habitat conditions in GSL to allow it to continue to 

support >1 million grebes.

· Work with water users to develop a strategy to maintain water 

chemistry favorable to high populations of brine shrimp and brine flies.

· Monitor harvest of brine shrimp to and halt harvest when there 

appears to be an effect on forage base.

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 350 pairs of Western Grebes and 150 

pairs of Clark’s Grebes. Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes 

near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the nesting 

period (late September, Ivey 2004).

Western Grebe (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at Ouray NWR to support 

at least 15 pairs. Maintain stable water levels through the nesting 

period (late September, Ivey 2004).

Snowy Egret (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats to support at 

least 970 nests in the Great Salt Lake wetlands and Fish Springs NWR.

Snowy Egret (b) 16 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at Ouray NWR 

to support at least 20 nests.

Great Blue Heron 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats to support at least 235 nests.

 Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats in Great Salt Lake wetlands and 

at Fish Springs NWR to support at least 225 nests.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 16 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at Ouray NWR to support at least 

10 nests.

 Least Bittern (b) 9, 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 191

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

American Bittern (b) 9, 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

White-faced Ibis (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats in the Great 

Salt Lake basin and other nesting sites to support at least 10,000 nests 

(Ivey et al. in prep b).

· Maintain suitable habitat to support breeding colonies at Ouray 

NWR.

American White Pelican (b) 9 · Maintain suitable nesting sites at Gunnison and Bird Islands to 

support at least 5,060 nests (Parrish et al. 2002).

· Continue to manage Gunnison and Bird (Hat) Islands for breeding 

colonial birds with emphasis on American White Pelicans and 

California Gulls.

· Provide, through statutory and wildlife rule regulation, breeding 

season protection from human disturbance to these and other 

breeding sites as they occur.

· Provide management and protection of breeding colonies from human 

and terrestrial predation to allow for a > 0.69 nesting survival rate 

per nest (Parrish et al. 2002).

American White Pelican (m) 9 · Maintain suitable foraging conditions in Great Salt Lake wetlands to 

support at least 55,000 staging pelicans.

· Key foraging areas should be identified and managed for sustainable 

fisheries in balance with other Wetland management objectives 

especially within the Bear River, Ogden/Weber River and Jordan 

River systems.

WASHINGTON:

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (b) 9 · Maintain, restore and conserve at least 8,125 acres of suitable wet 

meadow/seasonal wetland breeding habitat at breeding sites in southcentral Washington) to support at least 260 pairs (Littlefield and Ivey 

2002.

Greater Sandhill Crane CVP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas (e.g., 

Turnbull NWR and Columbia NWR areas).

Lesser Sandhill Crane PFP (m) 9 · Maintain grain fields and roost sites at traditional staging areas to 

support at least 10,000 spring migrants at important use areas in 

Okanogan, Grant, Lincoln and Douglas counties (e.g., Columbia NWR 

area).

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 9 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites 

to support at least 7,000 pairs.

Forster’s Tern (b) 9 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 200 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 9 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 150 pairs.

Black Tern (b) 10 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 125 pairs.

Pied-billed Grebe 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.
192 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Western/Clark’s Grebe (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 500 pairs of Western Grebes and 

50 pairs of Clark’s Grebes. Minimize human disturbance and boat 

wakes near nesting colonies. Maintain stable water levels through the 

nesting period (late September, Ivey 2004).

Great Blue Heron 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at colony sites to support at least 

600 nests.

Great Blue Heron 10 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at colony sites to support at least 

165 nests.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 9 · Maintain suitable breeding habitats at colony sites to support at least 

500 nests.

American Bittern (b) 9, 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac, Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

White-faced Ibis (b) 9 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at Malheur 

NWR, Sycan Marsh and other nesting sites to support at least 9,050 

nests (Ivey et al. in prep b).

American White Pelican (b) 9 · Maintain suitable nesting sites at existing colony sites to support at 

least 180 nests.

Common Loon (b) 9 · Maintain suitable habitat to support at least 5 nests. Monitor for 

nesting at potential lakes and reservoirs. Initiate conservation 

measures to protect nests from human disturbance.

Common Loon (b) 10 · Maintain suitable habitat to support at least 5 nests. Monitor for 

nesting at potential lakes and reservoirs. Initiate conservation 

measures to protect nests from human disturbance.

WYOMING:

Greater Sandhill Crane RMP (b) 10 · Maintain, restore and conserve suitable wet meadow/seasonal wetland 

breeding habitat at breeding sites throughout the region.

Virginia Rail, Sora (b) 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal wetlands or wet meadow habitats.

California Gull (b) 10 · Implement conservation measure to maintain existing breeding sites 

to support at least 4,155 pairs.

· Maintain suitable nesting habitat and conservation for at least 3 

colony sites: Pathfinder Res., Bamforth Lake, and Yellowstone Lake.

Franklin’s Gull (b) 10 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat at colony sites to support at least 

25 nests (Cerovski et al. 2001).

Forster’s Tern (b) 10 · No net loss of existing nesting habitat at known breeding sites to 

maintain at least 25 pairs (Cerovski et al. 2001).

Black Tern (b) 10 · Maintain emergent wetland habitat at known breeding sites to 

support at least 50 pairs.

· Provide marshes or marsh complexes greater than 50 acres (20 ha, 

Cerovski et al. 2001).

Pied-billed Grebe 10 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetlands.

Western /Clark’s Grebe (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent nesting habitat at major breeding sites 

in the region to support at least 215 pairs of Western Grebes and 40 

pairs of Clark’s Grebes.

· Minimize human disturbance and boat wakes near nesting colonies. 

Maintain stable water levels through the nesting period (Cerovski et 

al. 2001, Ivey 2004).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 193

Table H-1. Continued.

Priority Species BCR Conservation Strategies

Snowy Egret (b) 10 · Maintain emergent nesting habitat at colony sites to support at least 

15 nests.

Great Blue Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable riparian nesting areas to maintain at least 100 pairs.

Black-crowned Night-Heron (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at colony sites 

to support at least 200 nests.

American Bittern (b) 16 · No net loss of existing seasonal or semi-permanent wetland habitats.

· Maintain freshwater wetlands >10 ha (2.5 ac) (Brown and Dinsmore 

1986).

· Maintain a complex of wetlands of sufficient size [50 to 450 acres (20 to 

180 ha)] to provide habitats at various stages of succession (Cerovski 

et al. 2001).

White-faced Ibis (b) 10 · Maintain suitable emergent wetland breeding habitats at Bear River 

Marshes-Cokeville Meadows NWR to support at least 135 nests.

American White Pelican 10 · Maintain suitable habitat at colony sites to support at least 1,250 

pairs.

· Maintain a minimum disturbance-free buffer zone of 330 to 590 feet 

(100 to 180 m) at breeding colonies (Cerovski et al. 2001).

· See Cerovski et al. 2001 for additional management considerations.

Common Loon (b) 10 · Maintain suitable nesting habitat at major breeding sites in the region 

to support at least 25 pairs. Minimize human disturbance on nesting 

lakes.

· Protect known territories: 15 in Yellowstone NP and 5 outside on 7 

lakes.

· Consider use of artificial platforms (Cerovski et al. 2001).
194 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(NAWCA) grants. These Federal grants provide 

funding for wetland restoration and enhancement 

on both public and private lands. Past NAWCA 

grants have provided considerable funding for 

wetland projects within the IWJV. Generally, 

NAWCA funds are used to cost-share on wetland 

projects and the landowners will agree to maintain 

the project for a minimum time (10-25 years). 

Landowner contributions may be met through cash 

expenditures or in-kind services. There is also a 

program for small grants (up to $50,000). Ducks 

Unlimited, Inc. (DU) often serves as facilitator for 

NAWCA grant proposals.

Intermountain West Joint Venture (Joint 

Venture). The IWJV provides matching funds 

for proposals that initiate or complete funding of 

projects that support the mission and objectives of 

the Joint Venture and have developed broad-based 

partnerships. In 1999, the Joint Venture mission 

was expanded to include conservation actions for 

all bird habitats within the Joint Venture boundary. 

Thus, the purpose is to assist partners to implement 

the major bird conservation initiatives, including 

the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan, National Shorebird Conservation Plan, 

Partners In Flight, and the North American 

Waterbird Conservation Plan. This is a small grant 

program, and the maximum grant amount for 

which partners may apply is $50,000. Although a 

direct match is not required, grant funds must be 

leveraged with partner funds at least on a 1:1 basis 

to be considered. Partner funding may come from 

Federal, State, or private sources. Key elements 

that are evaluated, in order of their importance, 

are: avian habitat benefits; partnership significance; 

special considerations, including risk, urgency, and 

listed species; and ranking by the State Steering 

Committee.

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP). The 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

administers this program, which provides 

landowners financial incentives to retire farmland 

and restore it to wetlands. To be eligible for the 

WRP, the property must have hydric (wetland) soils 

and an agricultural history. WRP offers landowners 

three options: permanent easements, 30-year 

easements, and 10-year restoration agreements. 

Permanent easements purchase development rights 

in perpetuity and the payment will be the lesser 

of the three: 1) the agricultural value of the land, 

2) an established payment cap ($2,000/acre), or 3) 

an amount offered by the landowner. In addition 

to the permanent easement payment, the NRCS 

pays 100% of the cost of restoring easement lands 

back to wetlands. The 30-year easement buys 

the property development rights for 30 years 

and pays 75% of the permanent easements value 

and 75% of the restoration costs. The 10-year 

restoration agreement does not put an easement 

on the property; instead it pays 75% of the cost 

of restoration and requires that the restored 

wetland be maintained for a minimum of 10 years. 

Undeveloped recreation activities, such as hunting 

and fishing, are allowed and other uses such as 

livestock grazing can be negotiated. For further 

information contact your county NRCS/U.S. 

Department of Agriculture office.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This 

program is available in some areas. NRCS will pay 

landowners on a per acre/per year basis for entering 

a 10-year agreement to follow a management plan 

that enhances wetland habitat on their property. 

The NRCS verifies compliance with the agreement 

each summer and makes payments accordingly.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This 

program provides participating landowners 50% of 

the implementation costs for wetland restoration 

and enhancement projects. Interested landowners 

are encouraged to contact USFWS staff who will 

work closely with landowners to develop a Habitat 

Restoration Proposal which is submitted for 

funding. Once a project is selected for funding, the 

landowner and USFWS enter into an agreement in 

which USFWS agrees to reimburse the cooperating 

landowner for 50% of the project cost, and the 

landowner agrees to maintain the project for a 

minimum of 10 years. The landowners’ contribution 

towards the project may be met through cash 

expenditures and/or in-kind services. USFWS 

contributions are generally limited to $25,000 per 

project per year.

APPENDIX I. List of Potential Sources of Funding for Habitat Initiatives 

Which Could be Applicable to the Intermountain West Waterbird 

Conservation Plan.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 195

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP).

NRCS will provide landowners up to 75% of the 

costs for habitat restoration and enhancement 

projects. Participants agree to implement a wildlife 

habitat development plan, and NRCS agrees 

to provide cost-share assistance for the initial 

implementation of wildlife habitat development 

practices. NRCS and program participants enter 

into a cost-share agreement for wildlife habitat 

development. This agreement generally lasts 

a minimum of 10 years from the date that the 

contract is signed. Similar to the Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program, applications and project 

proposals are submitted annually for funding. 

When funded, an agreement is entered in which the 

NRCS reimburses the landowner for 75% of the 

project costs and the landowner agrees to maintain 

the project for a minimum of 10 years. NRCS 

contributions are limited to $10,000 per project per 

year.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP). This NRCS program provides technical, 

educational, and financial assistance to eligible 

farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, 

and related natural resource concerns on their 

lands in an environmentally beneficial and costeffective manner. The program provides assistance 

to farmers and ranchers in complying with 

Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws, 

and encourages environmental enhancement. 

The program is funded through the Commodity 

Credit Corporation. The purposes of the program 

are achieved through the implementation of 

a conservation plan that includes structural, 

vegetative, and land management practices on 

eligible land. Five- to 10-year contracts are made 

with eligible producers. Cost-share payments 

may be made to implement one or more eligible 

structural or vegetative practices, such as animal 

waste management facilities, terraces, filter strips, 

tree planting, and permanent wildlife habitat. 

Incentive payments can be made to implement 

one or more land management practices, such 

as nutrient management, pest management, and 

grazing land management. Fifty percent of the 

funding available for the program will be targeted 

at natural resource concerns relating to livestock 

production. The program is carried out primarily 

in priority areas that may be watersheds, regions, 

or multi-state areas, and for significant statewide 

natural resource concerns that are outside of 

geographic priority areas.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s 

(Foundation) Challenge Grant Program. The 

Foundation has five initiatives through which 

challenge grants are awarded. These include 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation, Wetlands 

and Private Lands, and Wildlife and Habitat 

Management. Grants generally fall into one or 

more areas, including species conservation and 

applied conservation, and habitat protection and 

restoration. A non-federal to federal match of 2:1 is 

required for all grants. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Wetland Grants. This program assists the public, 

local governments, states, and tribes to develop the 

ability to conserve, manage, and restore wetlands. 

Projects funded under this program generally 

support the initial development of a wetlands 

conservation, restoration, or management program 

or support enhancement of an existing program. 

The required minimum local, state, or tribal match 

is 25 percent of the total project costs. 

Inland Wetland Conservation Program (IWCP). 

The California State Wildlife Conservation Board 

(WCB) implements this program which will costshare with California’s private landowners on 

wetland restoration and enhancement projects. 

Landowners interested in pursuing cost-share 

projects with the IWCP must first contact WCB 

staff and or a local sponsor (such as DU, California 

Waterfowl Association, local resource conservation 

districts, or city or county agencies). Working 

cooperatively, the landowner, WCB staff, and the 

local sponsor design and submit a project proposal 

for funding (submitted quarterly). When funded, 

the WCB’s payment for the project is passed on 

to the landowner through the local sponsor. The 

landowner’s contribution towards the project may 

be met through cash expenditures and or in-kind 

service.

Missouri/Madison Watershed Restoration Fund.

PPL Corporation has provided $10 million seed 

money for Montana wildlife projects, management 

plans for riparian restoration, and conservation 

easements; several Montana IBAs are involved. 

The project has received matching funding through 

the NRCS-Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program. 

Arizona Heritage Fund Program. Funding is 

available for management and protection, including 

land acquisition and conservation easements for 
196 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

species of concern and/or federally listed species. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department administers an 

annual granting program for governmental entities, 

including educational institutions, to fund proposed 

research and management projects.

National Natural Landmark Program. The 

National Natural Landmarks Program recognizes 

and encourages the conservation of outstanding 

examples of our country’s natural history. It is 

the only natural areas program of national scope 

that identifies and recognizes the best examples of 

biological and geological features in both public and 

private ownership. National Natural Landmarks 

are designated by the Secretary of the Interior 

with the owner’s concurrence. To date, fewer than 

600 sites have been designated. The National Park 

Service administers the program and, if requested, 

assists owners and managers with the conservation 

of these important sites.

Waterways for Wildlife. This voluntary cooperative 

program promotes corporate and private sector 

leadership in the development of comprehensive 

regional ecosystem management programs aimed at 

wildlife habitat enhancement. Through coordinated 

land management goals, Waterways for Wildlife 

expands habitat acreage by linking private and 

public lands into integrated corridors used by 

wildlife for migration and to sustain and expand 

populations. These projects engage participants by 

increasing and diversifying participation by private 

landowners; expanding project awareness along 

major water channels; developing environmental 

and habitat awareness within the communities; and 

forming partnerships between private landowners 

with local, State and Federal as well as provincial 

agencies. 

Wyoming Wildlife Heritage Foundation. This 

is an independent charitable organization whose 

purpose is to provide financial support, through 

philanthropy, to critical wildlife conservation 

efforts in Wyoming, with goals to further species 

conservation, habitat protection and enhancement, 

and public conservation education.

Research grants: 

Webless Migratory Game Bird Research Grants. 

Grants are available from USFWS’s Webless 

Migratory Gamebird Research Program for certain 

waterbird species (rails, coots, moorhens, cranes).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 197

Monitoring Committee

Jon Bart (USGS), Dan Casey (BCR 10 CoordinatorAmerican Bird Conservancy), Gary Ivey, Rich 

Levad (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory), 

Jeff Mackay (Ruby Lake NWR), Sue Thomas 

(USFWS—Region 1), and Don Paul (BCR 9 

Coordinator—Intermountain West Joint Venture) 

volunteered to serve on this committee.

Past and ongoing monitoring projects

Regional. Coordinated eared grebe surveys are 

being conducted at Great Salt Lake in Utah and 

Mono Lake in California to document numbers of 

fall-staging eared grebes. Mono Lake grebe staging 

has been monitored by Dr. Joseph Jehl for over 20 

years, and the data collected are incomparable as 

they reflect the status of the entire North American 

population and are an indicator of water conditions 

over a broad region. The Mono Lake data have been 

supplemented with a similar data set from the Great 

Salt Lake over the same 20 year period by the Utah 

Div. of Wildlife Resources. This program should 

continue on an annual basis.

Arizona. Winter waterfowl aerial surveys record 

sightings of waterbirds. Arizona breeding bird 

range surveys have recently been completed and 

the Arizona breeding bird atlas is in preparation. 

Audubon Christmas bird counts are another 

organized data collection activity for bird 

populations. There are no significant breeding 

waterbird populations in the Arizona portion of 

BCR 16. Most migration/wintering populations are 

in southern Arizona in BCRs 33 and 34.

California. Annual counts of some colonial nesting 

waterbirds have been conducted at Klamath Basin 

NWRs. State Wildlife Areas (Honey Lake, Butte 

Valley, and Shasta Valley) keep some records of 

nesting colonies. Modoc NWR has a long history 

of monitoring breeding Sandhill Cranes on the 

refuge. Inland-nesting waterbirds (gulls, terns, 

pelicans, cormorants) in northeast California 

were inventoried in 1997 (Shuford 1998); pelicans 

and cormorants were resurveyed in 1999 (PRBO 

unpubl. data); gulls were surveyed annually 1994-

1997 (Shuford and Ryan 2000). Black Terns were 

surveyed in 1997 (Shuford et al. 2001). Breeding 

Sandhill Crane pairs were mapped in 1981, 1986, 

and 2000 (Littlefield 1989, Littlefield et al. 1994, 

Ivey and Herziger 2001). J. Dow Sr. Wetland has 

been monitored annually by University of Nevada, 

Reno. Lassen National Forest staff has monitored 

cranes and other waterbirds annually at key sites on 

the forest (T. Rickman pers. comm.). Monitoring on 

other National Forests in northeastern California 

has been sporadic (T. Ratcliff pers. comm.). 

Eared Grebes and California Gulls have been 

monitored annually at Mono Lake by Dr. Joseph 

Jehl (retired). Since 1983, the nesting population 

of California Gulls at the lake has been monitored 

annually (Shuford and Ryan 2000). PRBO has been 

monitoring the Negit Islets (and Negit Island, when 

occupied), which hold the vast majority of the gulls 

in any year, and until the last few years Dr. Joseph 

Jehl monitored the much smaller population on 

the Paoha Islets. PRBO now monitors all breeding 

islands.

Colorado. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory has 

initiated a monitoring program for colonial species 

called Project Colony Watch (currently three years 

of data, R. Levad pers. comm.).

Idaho. Idaho is currently developing a plan (Idaho 

Bird Inventory and Survey) to monitor all birds 

in the state, including waterbirds (R. Sallabanks 

pers. comm.). Bear Lake, Camas, Grays Lake, and 

Minidoka NWRs, and Oxford Slough WPA staff 

have done some monitoring of colonial nesting 

waterbirds, but nest estimates have been imprecise 

because of concerns about disturbance to birds 

(S. Bouffard pers. comm.). A comprehensive 

survey of colonial waterbirds in southern Idaho 

was conducted in 1993 (Trost and Gerstell 1994). 

An aerial survey technique is planned to try and 

enumerate some of the colonial nesters at Blackfoot 

Reservoir and Grays Lake NWR in 2003 (C. 

Mitchell pers. comm.). Some Great Blue Heron 

colonies have been tracked in the panhandle (R. 

Sallabanks pers. comm.). Staging RMP Sandhill 

Cranes are counted in southeast Idaho each fall 

(Sharp et al. 2002). Staging Sandhill Cranes are 

also monitored in the Teton Basin by the Teton 

Regional Land Trust. In Spring/Summer 2004, 

IDFG surveyed California Gull/Ring-billed Gull 

APPENDIX J. Monitoring Committee and a Summary of Past and 

Ongoing Monitoring Projects in the Intermountain West Region. 
198 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

colonies (direct nest counts) at Magic and Mormon 

Reservoirs, and will expand colonial waterbird 

surveys in Spring/Summer 2005. Also in 2004, 

IDFG began secretive marshbird surveys, using 

Conway (2004) survey protocols (with playback), 

at Camas Prairie Centennial Marsh and Silver 

Creek Preserve, and will expand this effort in 2005. 

Finally, IDFG has begun breeding season general 

waterbird surveys at five different wetland locations 

(one location is surveyed monthly year-round) 

and likely will expand this effort to more than 20 

wetland sites in 2005.

Nevada. Nevada Division of Wildlife and USFWS 

have cooperatively monitored waterbird numbers 

in northwestern Nevada since 1986 (L. Neel pers. 

comm.). Stillwater NWR has long-term data on 

nesting pelicans at Anaho Island in Pyramid Lake 

(S. Bell pers. comm.). Ruby Lake NWR colonies 

have been tracked since the late 1970s, and Sandhill 

Cranes and rails have also been monitored there (J. 

Mackay pers. comm.).

Oregon. There is a long-term data set on colonial 

waterbirds and Sandhill Cranes from Malheur 

NWR, and colonial waterbirds and cranes are 

monitored annually at Klamath Basin NWRs. 

Yellow rails have been monitored in the Klamath 

Basin in recent years (Stern and Popper 2003, 

Popper 2004), and a comprehensive waterbird 

survey was initiated in the Klamath Basin in 2003 

by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (Shuford et al. 

2004). Klamath Basin Bird Observatory conducts 

annual Black Tern surveys in the Upper Klamath 

Basin (Alexander et al. 2004). Waterbird colonies 

have also been tracked at Summer Lake WA and 

there is periodic data for colonies at other sites. 

Breeding Sandhill crane pairs were mapped in 1999 

and 2000 (Ivey and Herziger 2000). 

New Mexico. Monitoring has been scant in the state, 

but good data exists on Double-crested Cormorants, 

and for some sites on the Jicarilla Apache and Zuni 

Reservations. There is at least a 10-year data set for 

waterbirds from Stinking Lake (Stahlecker 1996, 

1997). Wildlife Services monitors urban colonies.

Montana. Nesting Common Loons are annually 

monitored for occupancy and productivity. Colonial 

species have been monitored well at some sites, 

but not at all. Pelicans at some sites covered well 

(e.g., Canyon Ferry Reservoir). Refuges and WMA 

monitoring efforts have been sporadic. Good data 

exists for some species, but not others, with grebe 

data being poorest. A one-time state-wide Black 

Tern survey was conducted. Heritage Program 

information is incomplete, but most sites are in their 

database. They track loons and several colonial 

species. Red Rock Lakes NWR has monitored 

nesting Great Blue Herons in the past (C. Mitchell 

pers. comm.). The Montana Bird Conservation 

Partnership is developing the “Montana Integrated 

Avian Monitoring Plan.” The plan prescribes 

stratified surveys, which include colonial waterbirds 

and some focus sites and a pilot program was 

initiated in 2002 (D. Casey pers. comm.). 

Utah. Bear River MBR has long-term data on 

colonial species. At Great Salt Lake, California 

Gulls were monitored intermittently from the 1940s1990s, nesting pelicans have been tracked for about 

20 years, and emergent nesting colonials (ibises, 

Franklin’s Gulls, grebes, etc.) have been counted 

the past five years. A five-year intensive waterbird 

survey (waterbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl) was 

conducted from 1997-2001 at Great Salt Lake. A 

final report should be available in 2003. Also, some 

heron tree rookeries have been monitored outside 

the Great Salt Lake Basin (D. Paul pers. comm.).

Washington. Monitoring efforts have been sporadic 

for most species. Common Loons are monitored 

annually. Heron colonies have been more closely 

monitored in recent years (R. Friesz pers. comm.). 

Sandhill Cranes are monitored annually at Conboy 

Lake NWR (Engler and Brady 2000), and Conboy 

Lake and Columbia NWRs have some data on other 

waterbird species. The state’s Wildlife Diversity 

Program maintains a database on several waterbird 

species (R. Friesz pers. comm.). 

Wyoming. The 13 most important colonial nesting 

sites have been carefully monitored from canoes 

to minimize disturbance to colonies. Pelican nest 

surveys have been conducted from the air. Nesting 

Common Loons are currently surveyed three times 

per year to determine productivity. In Yellowstone 

NP, Common Loons are monitored aerially and 

nesting pelicans, California Gulls and Caspian Terns 

on the Molly Islands are counted by motorboat. In 

1990, Wyoming Game and Fish inventoried habitats 

and waterbird use in each District (A. Cerovski 

pers. comm.).
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 199

Research Committee 

At our 2002 meeting we decided a research 

committee should be formed to develop and 

prioritize research needs. The following individuals 

either volunteered or were recommended: Bruce 

Dugger (Oregon State University), Charles Henny 

(BRD), Gary Ivey (private consultant), Joseph Jehl 

(private consultant), Dave Mauser (USFWS), Lew 

Oring (University of Nevada, Reno), and Mike Yates 

(Boise State University). This committee could 

serve to help prioritize research proposals under 

consideration by various funding sources.

Research needs

Identification and prioritization of research needs 

is an important element of waterbird conservation. 

The following is a brief, unprioritized summary of 

research needs developed for the Intermountain 

West: 

General:

• Develop an understanding of factors affecting 

adult survival and productivity.

• Increase our understanding of the influence of 

environmental conditions, particularly water 

conditions, on dispersal and population shifts of 

waterbirds.

• Determine the impacts of diseases such as avian 

botulism, avian cholera, and West Nile virus on 

waterbird populations.

• Effects of exotic fish on waterbirds.

• Control exotic vegetation (e.g., salt cedar, 

Russian olive, common reed).

• Effects of recreation on waterbirds.

• Grassland, wetland restoration research.

• Relationships between agricultural practices and 

waterbirds:

– Quantify the impact of agricultural practices 

(e.g. grazing, irrigation, dewatering, mowing, 

etc.) on waterbird breeding success.

• Study wetland dynamics of salt lakes to 

understand what conditions are needed to 

maintain brine flies and brine shrimp.

• Study the biology of brine flies and relationships 

to waterbirds (primarily gulls).

• Examine bird movements through different 

wetland-cycle extremes.

• Relationships of waterbirds to native and exotic 

fish population dynamics.

• Effects of predation on waterbird populations.

• Develop documentation of historical status of 

wetland and riparian habitats.

• Study fire effects on waterbirds.

• Study conflicts between different suites of 

wildlife (e.g., management for curlews might be 

negative for some waterbird species).

• Study effects of water level elevations (floods and 

droughts) on waterbirds.

• Study the importance of alternate breeding 

habitats on a landscape scale to understand 

landscape-level wetland connectivity.

• Evaluate, assess, and review existing data sets.

Contaminants:

• Monitor the effects of contaminants and maintain 

long-term data. Changes in habitat due to water 

quality should be avoided and reversed (Kushlan 

et al. 2002).

• Research on use of lead sinkers and the effects 

on waterbird mortality (Kushlan et al. 2002).

• Effects of elevated mercury levels in Walker 

Lake and Lahontan Valley, Nevada.

• Explore relationships between contaminants and 

diseases.

– Study gull die-offs (Market Lake, Idaho) to 

understand disease dynamics.

• Effects of water quality and contaminants on 

nesting grebes at Eagle Lake, California

Species-specific. Most of these came from 

discussions at our 2002 meeting, but were also 

gleaned some from other sources (Flyway plans, 

PIF plans, etc.).

American Bittern 

• Study basic breeding biology, including: diet, 

home range, habitat requirements, mating 

systems, mortality rates, and dispersal (Latta et 

al. 1999). 

• Identify migration routes, stopover sites, and 

wintering areas. 

• Monitor contaminant levels in birds and their 

eggs throughout their range (Gibbs et al. 1992a). 

APPENDIX K. Research Committee Makeup, a Preliminary List of 

Waterbird Research Needs in the Intermountain West, and a Summary 

of Current and Recent Waterbird Research Conducted in the Region. 
200 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

American White Pelican

• Mercury contamination study.

• Foraging ecology in relation to endangered cui-ui 

populations.

• Food habits study at Blackfoot Reservoir, 

to assess impact of pelicans on endangered 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (IDFG-Fisheries).

• Satellite telemetry study to relate the population 

dynamics of Anaho Island breeding cohort to 

potential threats associated with their local and 

seasonal movements.

Black tern

• Determine population dynamics; identify limiting 

factors.

California Gull

• Determine the relationship of nesting success in 

local populations of California Gulls to regional 

population dynamics. 

Common Loon

• Document contaminant levels and sources of 

contaminants.

• Explore philopatry and interchange between 

regional populations.

• Define subpopulation relationships through 

genetic studies.

Double-crested Cormorant

• Food habits study.

Eared Grebe

• Study how birds respond to particular water 

regimes, such as drought and meromixis. Use 

staging surveys from Mono and Great Salt Lake 

as an index to population fluctuations in all NA 

grebe species.

Sandhill Crane 

• Assess the quality of resources needed by RMP 

cranes in the San Luis Valley, Colorado (Central 

Flyway Webless Migratory Game Bird Technical 

Committee 2001).

• Develop and test techniques that will reduce 

or eliminate crop damage by Rocky Mountain 

Sandhill Cranes (Pacific and Central Flyway 

Councils 2001).

• Develop more accurate estimates of various 

populations of Pacific Flyway cranes (Flyway 

plans).

• Assess the relative importance of different 

habitats (palustrine marsh, riparian meadows, 

etc.) to breeding Sandhill Cranes under different 

moisture regimes. 

• Assess the impacts of predation upon nesting 

cranes and recruitment of young birds into the 

CVP (Pacific Flyway Council 1997).

• Assess subadult survival and distribution by 

radio-marking a sample of greater sandhill 

cranes (Pacific Flyway Council 1997).

• Develop more accurate population estimates for 

the various populations of sandhill cranes in the 

Pacific Flyway (Pacific Flyway Council 1983, 

1997).

• Assess the impact of mortality factors, such as 

powerlines, predation, and disease on sandhill 

crane populations.

White-faced Ibis (from Ivey et al. in prep b)

• Quantify parameters that will facilitate improved 

design of monitoring protocols and increase the 

precision of population estimates.

– Estimate detection rates by calibrating 

aerial counts of adults with nest counts from 

intensive ground studies.

– Quantify the mean and variation in proportion 

of time that zero, one, and two parents are at 

the nest during each stage of nesting. Identify 

factors that cause variation in number of 

parents present (e.g., weather, time of day). 

Knowledge of daily colony attendance patterns 

is an important factor in estimating breeding 

pair numbers from surveys, as the number of 

adults in a colony varies with the time of day, 

the stage of nesting and other environmental 

factors.

– Identify roosting areas of non-breeders and 

their movements in relation to that of off-duty 

parents.

• Identify patterns in reproductive success and 

other factors that affect success.

– Identify conditions that facilitate nesting at 

new sites (or infrequently used sites) and 

quantify the success of such nesting attempts.

– Compare success of various colonies within 

and among years. Investigate the possibility 

that some colonies are consistently more 

productive than others, or that the location 

of the most productive colonies varies among 

years depending on local and regional wetland 

conditions.

– Quantify demographic parameters such 

as age at first breeding, juvenile survival, 

adult survival, and average proportion of 

adults that attempt to breed in a given year. 

Consider using large-scale color-marking and 

radio telemetry studies at a regional scale to 
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 201

determine these parameters.

• Quantify the rate and identify the causes of 

within- and between-year movements among 

colonies to help identify the appropriate scale at 

which to maintain a mosaic of available wetlands. 

– Identify the type and extent of events that 

cause a colony to be abandoned between years. 

Estimate average colony longevity, and relate 

longevity to colony size, wetland size, depth, 

persistence, and other relevant factors.

– Identify the probability that an individual 

breeder will change colonies between years, 

and determine if shifting is related to nesting 

success in the previous year.

– Determine degree of interchange between 

Great Basin colonies, those in peripheral 

states (Colorado, Montana, the Dakotas, and 

eastern Wyoming) and Canada, and southern 

colonies (Texas, Louisiana, Mexico, and South 

America).

• Identify important wintering sites for Whitefaced Ibises from various Great Basin colonies.

– Use color-marking or radio telemetry to 

determine migration and wintering sites for 

individual birds from various colonies and 

quantify wintering site fidelity.

– Investigate whether spatial (e.g., a given 

colony) or temporal (e.g., late-breeders) 

segments of the breeding population tend to 

winter in a given area. 

• Investigate contaminant loads of ibises on 

wintering grounds and at major breeding 

colonies.

– Quantify contaminant loads in breeding 

colonies, and attempt to understand the origin 

of contamination (breeding, wintering or 

migratory) and the uptake pathway.

– Continue to investigate the effects of 

contaminants on hatchability, nestling growth, 

and survivorship.

– Investigate wintering site fidelity of segments 

of the breeding population with known 

contaminant loads by marking birds at 

breeding colonies with satellite or traditional 

telemetry. 

– Investigate the availability of environmental 

DDT at known ibis wintering sites.

– Complete determination of source(s) of DDE 

loading in Caron Lake, NV cohort.

Table K-1 is a partial list of recent and current 

waterbird research projects in the Intermountain 

West.
202 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Table K-1. A summary of current and recent waterbird research in the Intermountain West Region.

Species-specific research:

Yellow Rail 1995-2000 study in Klamath County, Oregon Lundsten and Popper 2001

Black Tern Studied at Sycan Marsh, Oregon

Eagle Lake, California

Stern 1987, Stern and Jarvis 1991

Gould 1974, Shuford et al. 2001

Eared Grebe Research on the effects of brine shrimp harvest on 

Eared Grebes is being conducted at Great Salt Lake 

in Utah for 5 years.

A fall diet study and an energetics study of Eared 

Grebes have been completed on Great Salt Lake.

Eared Grebes studied extensively at Mono Lake 

and through most of the range.

Mortality of migrants landing on trona ponds in 

Wyoming

D. Paul pers. comm.

D. Paul pers. comm.

J. Jehl, Jr. pers. comm.

Bjorling 2004, Sladky et al. 2004

Western/Clark’s 

Grebe

Breeding biology, nesting ecology at Eagle Lake

Comparison of breeding behavior of Western and 

Clark’s Grebes

Mercury levels, productivity at Eagle Lake and Tule 

Lake, California

Annual productivity at Eagle Lake, California

Conservation strategy for northern California

Gould 1974, Shaw 1998, Sardella 2002 

Ratti 1977 

Elbert and Anderson 1998

D. Anderson pers. comm.

Ivey 2004

White-faced Ibis Breeding ecology in the Carson Sink, Nevada 

Telemetry study in Lahontan Valley, Nevada to 

identify wintering areas as possible sources of DDE 

contamination which has affected their productivity.

Kelchlin 2000

Raptor Research Center 2004a

American White 

Pelican

Satellite telemetry study of Nevada birds provided 

insights into soaring bird flight patterns (as a 

threat to aircraft) and migration, producing a 

model using weather forecasts to predict flight 

altitudes of pelicans.

Food habits study conducted in Wyoming. 

A Ph.D. study of white pelicans in the Klamath 

Basin was conducted in the early 1990’s.

A study of the effects of pelican predation on 

populations of endangered cui-ui.

Yates 1999, Shannon et al. 2002a,b

Findholt and Anderson 1995

D. Anderson pers. comm.

D. Withers pers. comm.

Common Loon Telemetry study on loons staging at Walker 

Lake, Nevada in to identify wintering areas and 

determine the effects of mercury contamination.

Blood samples are being collected from Common 

Loons in Montana to monitor heavy metals as part 

of a nationwide assessment

Raptor Research Center 2004b

Casey 2000

Idaho Mercury contamination in waterbirds on the Little 

Pend Oreille River in northern Idaho.

Lake Lowell contaminants

R. Sallabanks pers. comm.

Nevada Effects of mercury on aquatic birds nesting along 

the Carson River. 

Henny et al. 2002, Hoffman et al. in prep
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 203

General or multiple species research by state:

Utah A red fox food habits study and a predator exclusion 

study are underway at Bear River MBR 

D. Paul pers. comm.

Washington BOR has ongoing water quality research in 

Washington.

The Soap Lake Conservancy is studying Soap 

Lake’s water chemistry in Washington

R. Friesz pers. comm. 

R. Friesz pers. comm.

Wyoming A long term study of gulls was conducted at 

Bamforth Lake.

Contaminants levels are being monitored at Soda 

Lake (owned by BP) near Casper.

A. Cerovski pers. comm.

Table K-1. Continued.
204 Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan

Arizona

American Bittern (Latta et al. 1999)

• Coordinate with refuge managers, Bureau of 

Reclamation biologists, and land managers, etc. 

to better manage for American Bittern.

• Work with wastewater plant managers to plan for 

American Bittern management (create ponds and 

habitat adjacent to flood plain).

California

Western Grebes and Clark’s Grebes (Ivey 2004)

• Mortality from boat strikes and fishing line 

entanglements could be reduced by providing 

an interpretive sign or poster at boat ramps 

to educate the general public, boaters, and 

fishermen about grebe conservation, and 

encourage them to steer clear of grebes and clean 

up discarded fishing lines.

• To further a conservation ethic for nesting 

grebes, an interpretive program should be 

developed for use at agency facilities, campfire 

talks, and meetings of recreation groups and 

other interests.

Montana

Black Tern (Casey 2000)

• Provide managers with information on the 

specific habitat needs of Black Terns.

• Protect tern colonies by implementing a public 

education and signing program, similar to the 

program for Common Loon nesting areas.

Common Loon (Casey 2000)

• Minimize development and recreational activities 

on known nesting lakes, at least during critical 

portions of the breeding cycle, is perhaps the best 

means of managing loon habitat in northwestern 

Montana.

• Posting of nesting or nursery areas on those 

lakes most susceptible to disturbance has been 

shown to be effective. 

• Floating signs have been built by MFWP and 

conservation groups for use on high conflict 

lakes.

• Floating signs and posters at boating access 

sites have been most effective when used in 

combination. 

• Personal contact with the recreating public 

improves compliance with signs and builds 

local support for loon conservation. It should 

occur before, during and after the deployment 

of floating signs or posters. The best option is 

personal contact at boat ramps, by non-agency 

volunteers.

• The USFS Management Plan for the species 

outlines both appropriate management activities 

and a public information strategy, including use 

of the media and slide-show presentations to the 

public at large as well as landowners at nesting 

lakes. 

Nevada 

Sandhill Crane (Nevada PIF 1999)

• Encourage landowners, through incentives and 

conservation easements if necessary, to keep 

meadows wet through July; closely control, 

limit, or restrict livestock grazing on nesting 

areas through the nesting period; and postpone 

mowing until August.

• Through incentives or conservation easements, 

encourage conservation plantings of grain crops 

for staging and breeding Sandhill Cranes on 

private lands, state wildlife management areas, 

and National Wildlife Refuges.

• Organize affected landowners into a task force 

to investigate cooperative strategies to maximize 

Sandhill Crane production—i.e., nest protection 

from predation, livestock grazing deferrals 

during the nesting season, irrigation strategies, 

etc.

• Increase the economic value of Sandhill Cranes 

to rural communities and businesses by 

encouraging more nonconsumptive interest in 

Sandhill Crane staging and summering sites.

• Through a variety of media, including television, 

newspapers, and magazines, promote staging 

areas such as White River Valley as “adventure 

destinations” that combine Sandhill Crane 

viewing with other birding opportunities as well 

as other local sightseeing and historical study 

opportunities. Promote weekend trips that 

patronize local restaurants and motels.

Black Tern (Nevada PIF 1999)

• Purchase of water rights from willing sellers 

for the Lahontan Valley wetlands to increase 

land managers’ ability to provide the freshwater 

marshes necessary to facilitate Black Tern 

nesting.

APPENDIX L. A Summary of Outreach Recommendations for Waterbirds 

in the Intermountain West Region from Various Sources.
Intermountain West Waterbird Conservation Plan 205

American White Pelican (Nevada PIF 1999)

• Continue to consult with Fallon Naval Air Station 

regarding low altitude jet training routes. Keep 

training routes out of heavy pelican commuter 

lanes.

• Work with salt industries to eliminate, reduce, or 

mitigate impacts to the Gunnison Island colony 

in the north arm and foraging sites in Bear River 

Bay.

• Work with the Division of State Lands to protect 

American White Pelican habitats within state 

land holdings.

• Work with wetland managers within the greater 

Great Salt Lake ecosystem to manage for 

pelican habitat as part of their comprehensive 

management plans.

Utah

American White Pelican (Parrish et al. 2002)

• Educate public to the importance of rough fish 

fisheries to pelicans and other piscivorous birds.

• Tell the story of Gunnison Island and its value 

to colonial nesting birds at the Great Salt Lake, 

Utah, and for the continent.

• Educate the public at large, lake industries, 

agencies, and NGO’s as to the value of the 

Great Salt Lake ecosystem for western colonial 

waterbirds.
February 2006

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wate

br ird

C

o

nservation for the Americas