Draft proposed plan for enhancing the Rocky Mountain population of trumpeter swans on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System

              DRAFT
PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN FOR ENHANCING THE ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POPULATION OF TRUMPETER SWANS ON UNITS
OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Historic Breeding and Wintering Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Trumpeter Swan Management History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Discussion of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
IV. Brief Description of Refuges Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
V. Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Pacific Flyway Management Plan Goals/Objectives (as revised in 1998) . . . . . . 19
B. Trumpeter Swan Refuge Implementation Plan Strategies/Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
VI. Refuge Specific Swan Management Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
VII. Service Habitat Management and Funding Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix 1: Breeding and Wintering Range Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix 2: Suitability Checklists for Management Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Appendix 3: Augmentation and Emergency Release Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
-1-
DRAFT
PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN FOR ENHANCING THE ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POPULATION OF TRUMPETER SWANS ON UNITS
OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
Prepared By: Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swan Working Group Fish and
Wildlife Service. Lead Authors: Steve Bouffard, Minidoka NWR and Dick Sjostrom, Bear
Lake NWR. Co-Chairmen: Daniel Gomez, Red Rock Lakes NWR, Richard Munoz,
Southeast Idaho NWR Complex. Group Members: Carol Damberg, Seedskadee NWR,
Eric Cole, National Elk Refuge, Lindy Garner, National Bison Range, Marti Collins, Ruby
Lake NWR, Kim Hanson, Stillwater NWR, Al Trout, Bear River MBR, Vicki Roy, Bear
River MBR, Karen Lindsey, Bear River MBR, Steve Hicks, Bear River MBR, Mike Fisher,
Grays Lake NWR, Gerry Deutscher, Camas NWR, Tom Reed, Red Rock Lakes NWR, Meg
Laws, Malheur NWR. Randy Gazda, Private Lands Coordinator, Region 6, Peggy
Guillory, Private Lands Coordinator, Region 1, Steve Magone and Rich McDonald, Law
Enforcement
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the 17th annual conference of The Trumpeter Swan Society on September 17, 1999, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announced the formation of a cross-regional team to develop
integrated management objectives on National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) with the goal for
restoring the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of the Trumpeter Swan. The team was also
directed to help define roles for other Service programs and to develop a strategy to address the
role of individual refuges in the restoration of RMP. This implementation plan is the result of this
directive and will be used to establish strategies for working together to achieve broader swan
management goals and objectives. This plan is intended to complement and encourage a similar
effort by the Pacific Flyway Council, Tribal Governments, State Agencies, other Federal Agencies
and non-governmental organizations, most notably, The Trumpeter Swan Society.
-2-
Refuges that are identified in the plan include:
Refuge State Service Region
Bear Lake NWR
(Including Oxford Slough Waterfowl Production Area)
Idaho 1
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Utah 6
Benton Lake Wetland Management District Montana 6
Camas NWR Idaho 1
Fish Springs NWR Utah 6
Grays Lake NWR Idaho 1
Kootenai NWR Idaho 1
Lee Metcalf NWR Montana 6
Malheur NWR Oregon 1
Minidoka NWR Idaho 1
National Bison Range Montana 6
National Elk Refuge Wyoming 6
Ouray NWR Utah 6
Red Rock Lakes NWR Montana 6
Ruby Lake NWR Nevada 1
Seedskadee NWR
(including Cokeville Meadow NWR)
Wyoming 6
Stillwater NWR Nevada 1
Turnbull NWR Washington 1
The plan describes habitat on refuges that is suitable for trumpeter swan expansion/augmentation
and delineates the Service’s priorities for specific enhancement projects. It provides a site
suitability check list and augmentation/expansion guidelines as a way of measuring relative
importance of refuges for trumpeter swan management. Most of the proposed strategies
contained in this document are, at present, unfunded by any agency or organization. Addressing
many of the strategies will require additional resources or reprogramming existing resources away
from other high priority issues. Participation in the development of the plan should not be
interpreted as endorsement of all options by the participating agencies or organizations.
The proposals were submitted by individual Refuges. The proposals are simply a list of potential
projects that need to be reviewed and ranked. These reviews will include detailed descriptions of
each proposal objectives, justification, budgets, and of how each project will be monitored and
evaluated. Some of these proposals need to be coordinated among Refuges to avoid duplication
of effort and to complement each other. Other proposals may best be addressed in a larger
context than Refuges.
-3-
The charter of this group was to coordinate swan restoration activities on Refuges, but there are
some critical issues that cannot be addressed solely on Refuges. These issues can only be
addressed with the cooperation of all players. Without addressing these issues first, swan
restoration efforts could be inefficient, or worse misguided. Swans on the Henry’s Fork are being
managed on incomplete information, supposition, and assumptions, perhaps unfounded or
erroneous suppositions and assumptions. A study of all the interrelated factors (swan, vegetation,
fish, river flows, ice conditions, temperatures) on the Henry’s Fork is needed. Several studies
have looked at one, or even two factors, but never all together. Swan genetics need to be
analyzed across all populations, including the Pacific Coast Population, so that restoration can
continue smoothly. The lack of this basic information has led to disagreements over how to
proceed. Some projects are larger in scope than single Refuges, or even all the Refuges in
Regions 1 and 6. Satellite tracking will be more efficient, less expensive, and probably more valid
statistically if done under a well conceived plan including the entire breeding and wintering range.
The same rationale applies to demographic and management studies (e.g., nest success, survival,
philopatry, and habitat preferences). In these case the information gained from studying all the
sites as a whole equals more than the sum of that gained from studying all the individual sites
separately.
-4-
II. INTRODUCTION
The goal of the plan is to develop a coordinated approach on National Wildlife Refuges in
Regions 1 and 6 for managing the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of the Trumpeter
Swan. This plan is designed to step down and implement the objectives listed in the Pacific
Flyway Management Plan for the RMP with strategies specific to the National Wildlife
Refuges involved.
Past management has been reactive and not well coordinated and has been based on untested
assumptions. With this plan all National Wildlife Refuges within the range of the RMP Trumpeter
Swan will contribute to the overall goals of trumpeter swan restoration.
Eventually, the Service will coordinate swan management activities with other Tribal, State and
Federal Agencies and propose that the plan be incorporated into the Pacific Flyway Trumpeter
Swan Management Plan (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 1998).
The Service recently published policies regarding guiding principles for the National Wildlife
Refuge System. The principles are derived from the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (Act), and further described in the document entitled Fulfilling the
Promise. The Act established that wildlife conservation is the singular mission of the System.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans. This Implementation Plan identifies methods by which
restoration of trumpeter swans in the Rocky Mountain population can be facilitated on refuges
within their historic range.
Two core principles are significantly germane to this implementation plan. The first principle is
that of “biological integrity”. The Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to “ensure that the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained...”. The
final policy (Federal Register, 2000) directs Service personnel to consider a particular refuge’s
importance to refuge, ecosystem, national, and international landscape scales of biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health. This policy views one significant measure of
biological integrity as those intact and self-sustaining habitats and wildlife populations that existed
during historic conditions (Federal Register, 2001).
Participation in this implementation plan by refuges within the trumpeter swan’s historic range is
therefore consistent and expected under the Act, and can play a significant role in maintaining the
biological integrity of those refuges and of meeting Service and international goals for trumpeter
swan management.
Another principle is that of compatibility. A compatible use is a proposed or existing wildlife-dependent
recreational use or any other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound
professional judgement, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the
National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposed of the national wildlife refuge. (Federal
Register, 2000). Service policy directs that public uses be coordinated with other entities, and
-5-
that public involvement be accomplished through appropriate planning processes. While Refuge
management activities, such as native species restoration, are generally not considered uses which
require that determinations of compatibility be made, the Service has processes in place, such as
intra-agency consultation, and public review through refuge planning and associated National
Environmental Policy Act compliance, to help insure that refuge personnel are conducting
appropriate management activities.
The population management goal listed in the Pacific Flyway Management Plan (1998) is “to
restore the RMP as a secure and primarily migratory population, with a 5% average annual
growth in number of wintering birds, sustained by naturally-occurring and agricultural food
resources in diverse breeding and wintering sites.” Within the spirit of this goal, the long term
strategy of this implementation plan for trumpeter swan management is to contribute to a stable to
slowly growing trumpeter swan population (U.S. segment) that occupies all potential swan habitat
within the RMP historic breeding range and to achieve wintering numbers that do not exceed the
carrying capacity of the Upper Henry’s Fork of the Snake River in Idaho. These new or
expanded breeding areas would include northwestern Montana and the Flathead Valley to the
Canadian border, possibly areas in the Idaho panhandle, south to north central, eastern and
southeast Idaho wetlands, and east into available habitat in western Wyoming, the Green River
drainage, and possibly central Wyoming. Within the RMP there would be a healthy tri-state flock
centered around Rock Lakes NWR, Yellowstone National Park and the Targhee National Forest
that has most or all of its potential trumpeter swan breeding habitat occupied by nesting pairs,
with improved wetland habitat, nest success, and cygnet survival over what it is today. The
northern swan breeding segment would tie the U.S. swan flock in with the expanding Canadian
trumpeter swans to the north in Alberta. The southern segment would help focus migrating
trumpeters to possible new wintering areas to the south through Utah and along the Green River
to the southeast, and west along the Snake River. Ongoing habitat management, priority wetland
improvement projects for swans, research, protection from disturbance, coupled with
augmentation efforts using sub-adults swans in areas of vacant suitable habitat would be used to
meet these goals. With increased breeding birds and subsequent family groups in these new
breeding areas, there would be a critical need for additional wintering habitat of good quality.
Hopefully, new migration pathways will be pioneered by these newly established swans to areas
outside of their historic breeding range. Other RMP trumpeters would hopefully link up with
these new breeding groups and travel with them, forming migration pathways to new trumpeter
swan wintering areas to the south, east and west. As this happens other Regions of the Service
will become involved in this process. The above process will be a slow one and patience will be
required. There will be setbacks but with planning, coordination, funding and dedication, we
believe the RMP can be a healthier, more abundant flock of trumpeter swans occupying and
migrating to many new areas.
-6-
III. BACKGROUND
A. Historic Breeding and Wintering Range:
This plan will use the distribution maps for historic breeding and wintering ranges published by
Mitchell (1994) and Bellrose (1976). There is evidence that the historic breeding range once
extended to the east coast of Canada and the United States (Alison 1975, Lumsden 1984, 1992,
Bent 1962, Rogers and Hammer 1978 - all as cited in Mitchell 1994) and possibly California
(Dawson 1923 as cited in Mitchell (1994). Restoration efforts have expanded the current nesting
range, so this plan will use Mitchell (1994) as the current breeding range. See Appendix 1 for
maps of these ranges.
B. Trumpeter Swan Management History:
The history of trumpeter swan management for the RMP is covered in greater detail in Banko
(1960), the Pacific Flyway Management Plan (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter
Swans 1998) and in Shea and Drewien (1999). For convenience of the reader, this plan will
include a short review.
Prior to the establishment of game laws in the early 1900's trumpeter swan populations and
distribution were severely reduced, primarily by hunting for food and feathers. Feathers were used
for bedding and for writing. Swan skins were one of the wildlife commodities sought after by
major fur trading companies (Banko 1960). Both the Tri-State and the Canadian flocks were
reduced to about 70 birds each in the early 1900's (Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter
Swans 1998). This low number was the impetus to establish Red Rock Lakes NWR in 1935 to
preserve swan habitat and to increase trumpeter swan numbers in the U.S. Red Rock Lakes
NWR and Yellowstone National Park were the core of swan management at that time.
Winter feeding of grain was started at Red Rock Lakes in 1936-37 (Banko 1960) and continued
through 1992. This practice discouraged swans from migrating from the area, improved winter
survival and probably contributed to increased productivity. Keeping the swans on the refuge
during winter was good for swans in the short term, as fewer swans were exposed to hazards
from power lines and poaching. Swan numbers increased in the Tri-State Flock and feeding was
undoubtedly a contributing factor. As Canadian and U.S. RMP swan population segments
increased, large concentrations of swans (800+) wintered at the Red Rock Lakes NWR spring-fed
feeding ponds. This led to concerns over potential disease problems in the RMP. Cessation of
feeding at Red Rock Lakes NWR in 1992 resulted in high winter mortality of trumpeter swans
during that first winter. The local population has stabilized at a lower level. Now swans from
Red Rock Lakes NWR winter elsewhere and without supplemental feed.
Red Rock Lakes NWR had been a source of live birds for zoos and private waterfowl collections
through the late 1800's and early 1900's (Banko 1960). Even after the Refuge was established
numerous eggs and cygnets were taken for private propagators and for restoration efforts. Eggs
and cygnets taken from Red Rock Lakes NWR in the 1940's and 1950's were the source birds for
restoration flocks at Malheur, Ruby Lake, Turnbull and Lacreek NWR’s. The Lacreek NWR
flock has expanded into unoccupied historic range in the midwest. The Ruby Lake and Malheur
-7-
flocks, which were outside of or on the periphery of the historic range have persisted, but not
expanded; these birds are primarily sedentary. The Turnbull NWR flock died out. In the 1980's
and 1990's swans, (primarily yearlings and cygnets), from Red Rock Lakes NWR were released
during summer at Grays Lake NWR, Seedskadee NWR, and Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Breeding has been recorded at Fort Hall Indian Reservation and Seedskadee NWR, but the
populations have not increased. The flock at Grays Lake has increased and migrates during the
winter. This large exportation of cygnets and eggs from Red Rock Lakes NWR was probably a
major drain on the flock. Transplants of swans from Red Rock Lakes NWR have ceased.
A die-off of trumpeter swans at Harriman State Park during a cold snap in February 1989 was the
impetus for a number of management actions. About 50 dead swans were picked up, but the loss
was probably higher. The first salvage action was to encourage the Bureau of Reclamation to
release more water during winter from Island Park Dam to keep the Henry’s Fork from freezing,
so that swans would have more feeding area available to them. The following winter swan
numbers peaked at over 800 on the Henry’s Fork and stripped the river clean of aquatic
vegetation. The consensus was that the Canadian swans were increasing and were becoming too
numerous for the wintering area and would not migrate any further south, and that the
nonmigratory Tri-State swans were in danger of being out-competed by the Canadian swans.
This left the river with little carrying capacity for swans, and impacted fish habitat. Concerns
arose that the world-famous trout fishery found in the Henry’s Fork would decline. These threats
led to the winter hazing/translocation program that ran from winter 1990/91 through 1996/97.
During this time nearly 1,300 trumpeter swans were moved during early winter from Harriman
State Park and Red Rock Lakes NWR to ten different locations in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and
Oregon. This program was discontinued because of a lack of apparent success in developing a
new migratory tradition. The intent was for swans to learn a new wintering area and associated
migration tradition, and in doing so, teach their offspring new wintering areas in subsequent years.
Unfortunately, few swans returned to the release sites. Possible complications included human
disturbance at release sites, disease outbreaks, and unexpected behavior of released swans.
Several hundred swans were wing clipped prior to release in an attempt to increase the site fidelity
of released swans. This resulted in unexpectedly high mortality of wing-clipped swans due to
predation. After cessation of the capture effort, concerted hazing effort was attempted to
encourage swans to continue to migrate south. Hazing was continued through the winter of
2000-01 with limited success.
Trumpeter swans were marked with neck collars and have been monitored for years and this
monitoring should continue. The level of effort varies among years depending on funding. The
number of marked birds in the population is declining from mortality and collar loss.
For the past 10 years, the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish has raised trumpeter swans
from captive adults or from salvaged eggs and released them the following summer as yearlings.
Releases have occurred primarily in the Jackson area and in the Green River drainage. The
program has successfully established breeding swans in these areas. This approach has also
worked in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways.
-8-
Trumpeter swans have been captured at Summer Lake WMA, Oregon and released in spring at
Bear Lake NWR and the Flathead Lake area of Montana, after first translocating them during
winter from Harriman State Park to Summer Lake WMA. These double translocations were not
successful at establishing breeding flocks. Many of these swans were also wing-clipped. In
subsequent years, swans were captured in Alberta and released during summer near Flathead
Lake; this effort was also unsuccessful.
The most successful aspect of the trumpeter swan program has been the cooperation among a
multitude of parties and interests. Numerous Tribal, State, and Federal Agencies, NGOs, and
private individuals have contributed funds, volunteer time, or in-kind services to the project. The
review of management in the preceding paragraphs were efforts of these entities, not just the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
C. Discussion of Issues
1. Population Affiliation
While the Service does not believe that the Tri-State breeding segment of the RMP trumpeter
swan population constitutes a separate genetic entity, we do recognize that maintenance and
enhancement of a diverse breeding distribution is a sound strategy for the population as a
whole. We recognize the importance of maximizing the numbers of swans that breed in
suitable habitat in the Tri-State region as well as re-establishing Trumpeter Swans to their
former breeding range.
As yet there is no information to suggest that the various flocks are either genetically similar
or different. We are aware of no published information on DNA testing to compare various
nesting flocks. There is limited electrophoretic work on proteins among flocks (Barret and
Vyse 1982). However, it is neither exhaustive nor very discriminating to make any
conclusions of genetic similarity.
We can safely conclude that trumpeter swan populations have gone through a severe
population bottleneck. The trumpeter swan once nested over much of North America
(Appendix 1) ( Bellrose 1976, Mitchell 1994). The population was reduced to several
breeding flocks. However, population totals have recovered dramatically from the 1934
levels. Specifically, the Pacific Coast population had 16,312 birds in 1995 (Caithamer 1996),
the Canadian segment was documented at 3,058 in winter 1999 (Gomez 1999a) and the Tri-
State segment was estimated at 417 birds in fall 1999 (Gomez 1999b). Additionally, there are
now substantial numbers of trumpeter swans nesting in the Midwest (Subcommittee on the
Interior Population of Trumpeter Swans 1997).
2. Winter Translocation
Nearly 1,300 trumpeter swans were translocated during winters 1990/91 through 1996/97
from wintering areas in Harriman State Park and Red Rock Lakes NWR to 10 different sites
in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Utah (Shea and Drewien 1999). It appears that the winter
translocation program did not achieve its goal to teach trumpeter swans new migration routes
-9-
and wintering areas. Statistical protocols necessary for sound analysis of winter transplants
were not established; therefore, any analysis of this program must be based on casual
observations. About 40% of the birds translocated have not shown up in reports of collar
observations and are presumed lost (Shea and Drewien 1999). Productivity of the survivors
probably suffered too, when pairs were broken up when one member was translocated and the
other was not. If the program were successful there should be large numbers of wintering
swans at release sites, but there is not. At Summer Lake, OR where 585 swans were released
from winter translocation, only 21 were present during the 2000 Mid-Winter Survey (Reed
and Gomez 2000). These were likely residents resulting from the 52 swans released there in
summer 1996, as summer released swans are more likely to remain at the release site. At
Bruneau Dunes State Park, ID where 229 swans were translocated in winter (Shea & Drewien
1999) none were reported during the 2000 Mid-Winter Survey (Reed and Gomez 2000).
3. Hazing
Hazing at Harriman State Park near Island Park, Idaho, has been employed as a management
technique from 1990 to the present. The objectives of the hazing program at Harriman State
Park were to encourage further migration downstream, minimize the overuse of submergent
vegetation in Henry’s Fork, and minimize the risk of a large die-off in the event of a severe
winter. In recent years, efforts were confined to several people on snow machines using
pyrotechnic devices hazing swans from late October through late December and occasionally
into early January. By late December and early January managers thought that hazing would
unnecessarily stress birds that were unlikely to migrate further south once day length started
increasing. Hazing after this time was thought to be ineffective and merely caused swans to
use up energy reserves without moving them out of Harriman State Park. Some swan experts
contend that hazing at any time is of absolutely no value, contending that hazing wastes
energy from the birds’ reserves, splits up pairs, and, separates cygnets from parents. There is
no question that it increases energy costs, as swans are forced to fly more often.
The problem that hazing was designed to address was described by the Pacific Flyway
Council’s Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swan Management Plan (1998) as follows:
The current (1985 to present) winter distribution of the RMP is too
restrictive to provide for desired population growth and security. This
winter distribution may contribute to high winter cygnet mortality and to
depressed productivity in adults, particularly for resident swans that remain
on these sites until immediately prior to nesting (Gale et al. 1987). High
concentrations of swans and other waterfowl in the Henry’s Fork area have
the potential to damage both plants and fish habitat by their heavy use of
submerged macrophytes during the winter.
The Management Plan also established that the goal of this effort is to “carry out organized
and deliberate hazing annually inside Harriman State park, beginning in late October to early
November as needed, and continuing through early January, to maintain approximately 200
swans but discourage use by ducks and geese; maintain a maximum of approximately 300
swans in the entire Island Park area”.
-10-
It is not possible to statistically analyze the effectiveness of the hazing program, but our
conclusion is that hazing, at the level employed during 1999-2000, did not encourage most
swans to move further south. Peak number of swans in the Island Park area last winter
totaled 751 despite efforts to haze swans away. Hazing at this level did not seem to reduce
the numbers of other waterfowl present at Harriman State Park either; these birds are also
feeding on the submergent vegetation (Bouffard 1999, 2000). Although a formal survey of
submergent vegetation was not conducted this year, casual observation of this resource
indicated that vegetation was not overly grazed (Shea, personal communication). It must also
be noted that water levels in the river were above average and this may have contributed to
the maintenance of submergent vegetation.
The Service, Pacific Flyway Council and the State of Idaho committed to conducting hazing
during the winter of 2000-01. Alterations of the hazing program were made during the winter
of 2000-2001 to attempt to put more pressure on swans by hazing several days in a row.
Distribution of swans was again monitored and results were again mixed. Early freeze up of
lakes and rivers in Montana accelerated the build up of swans at Harriman State Park (Table
1). Swan numbers peaked at 1227 on November 13. Hazing was initiated on November 15
and was conducted more aggressively than in the previous year. Hazing days occurred back
to back each week from ATV’s and snowmachines that enabled hazing to be more
concentrated throughout the day. By the end of December 2000, swan numbers documented
on HSP stabilized at about 750, which indicates a possible influence on distribution of about
475 swans from the peak in November. Where swans moved to is not known conclusively.
The Mid-winter Swan Survey conducted on February 8 and 9, 2001, documented 989 swans
in the Island Park Area, or only 238 less than the peak in November. The HSP total was 582
swans, or 645 less than the peak number. Further analysis of neck collar sightings is necessary
before the question of hazing efficiency can be answered. It can be definitely stated that the
number of swans wintering in the Island Park Area, especially on Harriman State Park, is
dramatically higher than the goal called for in the Five Year Pacific Flyway Management Plan
for the RMP.
-11-
Table 1. Summary of pre and post hazing swan surveys conducted at Harriman State Park from
November 6 to December 31, 2000.
Trumpeter Swans Tundra Swans
Date Adults Cygnets Adult Cygnets Total
11-6 419 95 53 7 574
11-13 969 227 26 5 1227
11-15/16 Hazing days
11-17 494 134 18 4 651
11-20/21 Hazing days
11-22 359 114 5 2 480
11-27 622 192 9 6 829
11-27 183 43 0 0 226
12-4 617 169 4 5 795
12-5/6 Hazing days
12-7 322 104 2 2 430
12-11 397 126 2 1 526
12-12/13 Hazing days
12-17 332 93 0 0 425
12-19/20 Hazing days
12-21 179 64 0 0 243
12-27 524 154 1 0 679
4. Historic Breeding Range Expansion and Conflicts
There is general agreement that a key part of any coordinated trumpeter swan restoration
effort would be habitat management and/or augmentation efforts directed at restoring nesting
pairs of trumpeter swans throughout their historic breeding range. National wildlife refuges in
Regions 1 and 6, other public lands and partnership projects on private lands would be used to
restore or improve wetlands that meet swan breeding habitat criteria within historic ranges.
The goal of this effort would be to establish new nesting pairs of trumpeter swans in
previously used habitats, thereby strengthening the breeding population through geographic
diversity and numbers. Another important benefit would be the fall/winter migration of these
new breeding segments to possibly new wintering habitats. An important issue deals with the
possible impacts to public use programs such as the Utah tundra swan hunt if increased
-12-
numbers of protected trumpeters move through the western portion of the state en route to
winter areas to the south.
5. Trumpeter Swans and Trout Fishing
One of the primary wintering grounds of the trumpeter swan is the Henry’s Fork River. This
river supports a world class trout fishery that depends primarily on natural reproduction. Too
many swans wintering on the river remove the vegetation that is important for trout. Quality
of fishing opportunities may be impacted by increasing concentrations of swans at Harriman
State Park. Swans have nearly denuded aquatic vegetation from the river in the past. Fishing
provides important economic benefits for the area in the way of fishing guide services, fly
fishing shops, and support businesses. Anglers are generally supportive of trumpeter swans
and were vital in providing funding for the first year of translocation operations. However,
should swans continue to increase to the point where trout fishing is degraded, trumpeter
swan restoration could negatively impact this key constituent. The possibility of concentrating
more public visitation along the river has been suggested as a method to replace hazing. This
idea needs to involve Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and Idaho Department of
Fish and Game before final recommendations can be made. Initial discussions have identified
several public use alternatives that might be employed next year. This includes, 1)opening a
cross country ski trail along the Henry’s Fork in an area of HSP that is currently closed;
2)developing outreach that encourages bird watching along the river including the possibility
of a festival; and, 3) increasing fishing pressure on the Henry’s Fork during November.
6. Mortality Factors
There are a number of mortality and disturbance factors that must be considered when
transplanting swans. These factors can vary from site to site. Things such as lead pellets and
sinkers, fences, power lines, and disturbance from hunters and fishermen can be a problem at
various sites. These need to be evaluated for each augmentation and emergency release site.
-13-
IV. Brief Description of Refuges Involved
The Refuges involved in this plan are in Regions 1 and 6 in the States of Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Trumpeter swans use these Refuges for breeding, migration and
wintering habitats.
1. Bear Lake NWR
Bear Lake NWR is located in southeast Idaho near the town of Montpelier. It lies in the Bear
Lake Valley at an elevation of about 6,000 feet. The refuge encompasses about 18,000 acres
of the old Dingle Marsh and is comprised of a bulrush-cattail marsh, open water and flooded
meadows of sedges, rushes and grasses. Siltation from the Bear River and feeding activity of
carp reduce productivity of the marsh. However, impoundment projects have resulted in large
expanses of carp free waters that are very productive. The vastness of the marsh provides the
isolation from disturbance needed by trumpeter swans for successful nesting.
2. Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
Bear River MBR is located 15 miles west of Brigham City, in northwestern Utah at the mouth
of the Bear River. Historically, the refuge was comprised of 64,500 acres of marsh and open
water impoundments maintained by an extensive system of dikes and water control structures.
In 1983, the refuge was reduced to ruins by flooding of the Great Salt Lake. Extensive
restoration efforts began in 1989 and the total acreage of the refuge is now 74,000 acres of
wetland and upland habitat, which includes over 75 miles of dikes and channels, and 50
primary water control structures. The refuge has a history of providing migrational habitat for
tundra swans. Use by trumpeter swans has been limited.
3. Benton Lake WMD
The Benton Lake Wetland Management District encompasses ten counties in north central
Montana. The Blackfoot Valley in Powell County and the East Front of the Rocky Mountains
in Lewis and Clark, Teton, Pondera and Glacier Counties contain outstanding natural wetland
complexes. Several pairs of Trumpeter Swans nest in Lewis and Clark County and migrating
birds are seen annually on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Glacier County and on the
Jarina Waterfowl Production area in Pondera County.
The Fish and Wildlife Service administers three Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA) in the
Blackfoot Valley that total approximately 4400 acres. The Service also has Conservation
Easements on 28,000 acres in the Valley. The wetland complex in the Blackfoot is
outstanding and would provide excellent nesting habitat for Trumpeter Swans. The Blackfoot
WPA has more than 100 acres of seasonal and semipermanent wetlands and the H2-0 WPA
has almost 400 wetland acres. Private ranches in the valley also have numerous wetland
basins.
The Service administers one 640 acre WPA along the East Front in Pondera County and a
-14-
Figure 1. Locations of National Wildlife Refuges in the Western United States, including refuges
discussed in the Trumpeter Swan Implementation Plan.
-15-
640 acre unit and an 800 acre unit in Teton County. The Service also administers almost
19,000 acres of conservation easements along the East Front
4. Camas NWR
Camas NWR is located in southeastern Idaho, 36 miles north of Idaho Falls at an elevation of
about 4,800 feet in the Upper Snake River Plain. About half of the refuge’s 10,578 acres are
lakes, ponds and marshlands. The remainder consists of grass/sagebrush uplands and
meadows. Camas Creek flows for eight miles through the length of the refuge and is the
source of water for many of the refuge lakes and ponds. Several wells on the refuge also
provide water for wildlife during the dry summer months. Mud Lake and Market Lake
Wildlife Management Areas managed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, are near
Camas NWR. All three areas are used by swans share a common watershed. Undoubtably
swan interchange occurs between the areas.
5. Fish Springs NWR
Fish Springs NWR is situated at the southern end of the Great Salt Lake Desert in Western
Utah and encompasses 17,992 acres between two small mountain ranges 150 miles southwest
of Salt Lake City. Water supply is from five major springs and several lesser springs and
seeps that flow from the base of the eastern front of the Fish Springs Range. These warm,
saline springs provide virtually all of the water for the 10,000 acres of wetlands on the refuge.
The refuge provides what appears to be good swan habitat especially during years of severe
winter weather to the north. However, due to a possibly endemic problem with
histomoniasis, that surfaced among trumpeter swans transplanted to Fish Springs NWR
during the 1970's, no further attempts have been made to encourage swan use of this refuge.
6. Grays Lake NWR
Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge is situated in eastern Idaho near Wayan at an elevation
of about 6,300 feet. This 22,000 acre montane marsh is composed principally of hardstem
bulrush and cattail with scattered, small, shallow ponds. Snow melt from surrounding
mountains, the valley, and on the lake provide the marsh with water. Grays Lake water rights
are held in trust by the BIA for use in the Fort Hall Irrigation Project. Efforts to transplant
swans to Grays Lake were very successful in establishing nesting pairs. However, the marsh
is drained annually by June 25 for irrigation of croplands on the Fort Hall Reservation which is
undoubtably contributing to the very poor survival of cygnets.
7. Kootenai NWR
Kootenai NWR was established in 1964 to reclaim some of the Idaho Panhandle wetlands lost
to development. Water supply for this 2,774 acre refuge is provided by diversions from
Myrtle Creek and pumping from the Kootenai River and Deep Creek to maintain permanent
ponds and to flood waterfowl food plots in the fall. Currently, no trumpeter swans are found
on the refuge but 300-500 acres of suitable nesting habitat is available and the Kootenai River
stays open throughout the winter and may provide suitable wintering habitat. In addition,
-16-
significant land protection and wetland enhancement is ongoing on adjacent areas managed by
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and The Nature Conservancy. The Creston
Management Area in Canada also contributes 17,000 acres of protected lands at the southern
end of Kootenay Lake. Managed as a ecosystem these units represent an area that should be
explored for swan enhancement.
8. Lee Metcalf NWR
9. Malheur NWR
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is located in the sagebrush desert of southeastern Oregon.
Situated at 4,100 feet above sea level. It covers over 186,000 acres of the Malheur-Harney
Lakes Basin, a watershed with no outlet to the sea. Annual precipitation averages 9-11 inches,
occurring primarily as snow from November through March.
Water availability in this desert determines how much habitat can be maintained, whether for
trumpeter swans or other water-dependent species. In the last decade, trumpeter swans have
restricted their nesting to about ten sites of interspersed emergent marsh/deep pond habitat in
the Blitzen Valley. In the past, there was some use of Malheur Lake as well, but carp invasion
of the lake and refuge water system in the early 1950's has severely deteriorated habitat
conditions.
10. Minidoka NWR
Minidoka NWR includes both shores of Lake Walcott, an irrigation reservoir on the Snake
River in south central Idaho near the town of Rupert. The Refuge is 25 miles long and
encompasses about 11,300 acres of wetlands, primarily open water, and 9,400 acres of
upland. The water level is high and stable from April though September, then is lowered and
stable throughout the winter. From Spring through fall the Refuge offers extensive beds of
aquatic vegetation, especially sago pondweed, that is used by large numbers of migrating and
molting waterfowl. The shallower areas supporting the submergent vegetation are closed to
boats, giving waterfowl freedom from disturbance in these areas. There are areas with
emergent vegetation that could support a few nesting pairs of trumpeter swans.
11. National Bison Range Complex
The National Bison Range Complex is located in the northwest corner of Montana about 50
miles north of Missoula in the Mission and Flathead Valleys. It is comprised of five units:
National Bison Range, Pablo, Ninepipe, Swan River, and Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuges and the Northwest Montana Wetland Management District (14 Waterfowl
Production Areas). In the Complex, Pablo, Swan River and Lost Trail NWRs with a few of
the WPAs, provide the highest probability of swan habitat. Pablo NWR comprises 2,542
acres of refuge of uplands surrounding a reservoir that is 1850 acres of water at full pool.
Pablo and Ninepipe NWRs are superimposed on BIA Flathead Irrigation Project reservoirs.
There are also four impoundments with meandering shorelines of emergent and submergent
vegetation. Swan River is 1,568 acres of mainly reed canary grass within the floodplain of the
-17-
Swan River above Swan Lake about 38 miles southeast of Creston, Mt. Lost Trail is 9,325
acres of prairie grassland, forest, and wetlands 50 miles west of Kalispell. Lost Trail NWR
includes Dahl Lake, which is a lacustrine wetland system surrounded by a large, emergent
wetland complex (1,300 acres). WPAs are located in Lake and Flathead Counties and consist
of grasslands interspersed with a high density of wetlands.
12. National Elk Refuge
National Elk Refuge is located in the Jackson Hole area of northwestern Wyoming. Although
known for its value as elk winter range, the refuge also hosts diverse aquatic habitats including
two major streams, the largest calcareous fen in Wyoming, and 23 ponds. The southwest
portion of the refuge is dominated by the largest wetland in Northwest Wyoming.
13. Ouray NWR
Ouray NWR is located about 30 miles southwest of Vernal within the Uintah Basin of
northeastern Utah. The Refuge is long and narrow covering about 19 square miles and
encompassing approximately 16 miles of the Green River. Elevations range between 4,655'
near the river to 5,072' on top of Leota Bluff. Habitats are characterized as a mix of riparian
woodlands, bottomland wetlands or floodplains, and grasslands which border the river and lie
on top of the benches.
14. Red Rock Lakes NWR
Red Rock Lakes NWR is located in southwestern Montana in the Centennial Valley and totals
about 45,000 acres. Habitat is characterized as a high elevation montane wetland complex.
Most of the refuge is designated wilderness, which helps to provide protection and isolation
for trumpeter swans. Trumpeter swan management at Red Rock Lakes NWR has been a focal
point since establishment in 1935. Recently, the Centennial Valley Initiative (spearheaded by
the Nature Conservancy and the Service) has targeted Conservation Easements on about
50,000 acres of surrounding private lands that will protect existing range land from
development.
15. Ruby Lake NWR
Ruby Lake NWR is located at the south end of the Ruby Valley in Elko and White Pine
counties in northeast Nevada. The refuge is 65 miles southeast of the town of Elko and lies
along the eastern flank of the rugged and scenic Ruby Mountains at an elevation of 6,000 feet
above mean sea level. It is one of the most important waterfowl nesting areas in the Great
Basin and the Intermountain West, and consistently provides high quality upland and wetland
habitats. Because of its strategic location along migration corridors serving both the Pacific
and Central flyways, birds converge on the refuge from the Humboldt River drainage to the
west, the Owens Valley to the southwest, the Great Salt Lake to the east, the Klamath Basin
to the northeast, and the Colorado River and imperial Valleys to the south.
-18-
16. Seedskadee NWR & Cokeville Meadows NWR
Seedskadee NWR is located 37 miles northwest of Green River, WY. The entire refuge is
within Sweetwater County in the heart of the Green River basin of Southwestern Wyoming.
Geographically, the refuge is long and narrow, and bisected through its length by the Green
River. The north boundary of the refuge is seven miles below Fontenelle Dam. From the
north boundary the refuge extends 34 miles downstream and ranges in width from one to two
miles. Total relief within the refuge is 300 feet. The highest elevation is 6,490 feet near the
north end of the refuge at McCullen Bluff. The lowest elevation is 6,190 feet at the south end
of the refuge, below Big Island.
Cokeville Meadows NWR is located in Southwestern Wyoming along a portion of the Bear
River and is characterized with wet meadows, deep water wetlands, ponds, upland sagebrush,
forested riparian, upland grasslands, and irrigated farmlands. The 20 mile stretch of the Bear
River Valley in Wyoming has been recognized as the best waterfowl production area in the
state and identified as the number one priority area in the Bear River Focus Area Plan for the
Intermountain West Joint Venture.
Cokeville Meadows NWR became a reality on October 12, 1993 with the purchase of 203.91
acres. Currently the Refuge System owns 5,204 acres in fee title, 1,689 acres in Conservation
Easements, and 784 acres in FmHA easements (Total = 7,677 acres). The final acquisition
size of the refuge is projected to be about 27,000 acres.
17. Stillwater NWR Complex
Stillwater NWR Complex is located in western Nevada, 60 miles east of Reno in Churchill
County. The refuge lies within the ancient subbasin of Lake Lahontan along the western front
of the Stillwater Mountains at an elevation of 3,865 feet above mean sea level. The SNWR
Complex encompasses 137,500 acres within the Carson Desert region of the Great Basin
ecosystem and consists of gently rolling to flat desert shrub lands and alkali flats. Wetlands
comprise a small proportion of the landscape characterized by shallow and deep emergent
vegetation
In 1990, the approved boundary of Stillwater NWR Complex was expanded, under subsection
206(b)(1) of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act (Title II of
Public Law 101-618), to encompass Stillwater Marsh, most of which was previously in the
Stillwater WMA. In addition to boundary expansion, Public Law 101-618 also outlined four
purposes for which the Service must manage 14,000 acres of wetland-habitat , over the long
term, at Stillwater NWR Complex: (1) maintaining and restoring natural biological diversity
within the refuge; (2) providing for the conservation and management of fish and wildlife and
their habitats within the refuge; (3) fulfilling international treaty obligations of the United
States with respect to fish and wildlife; (4) providing opportunities for scientific research,
environmental education, and fish and wildlife oriented recreation.
Enactment of Public Law 101-618 shifted the legal authority for managing the lands now
within Stillwater NWR from the Tripartite Agreement to the Refuge Administration Act and
-19-
the refuge purposes identified in Public Law 101-618. The Public Law enacted a shift in
priorities whereby wildlife conservation became the single highest priority.
18. Turnbull NWR
Turnbull NWR is located approximately 25 miles southwest of the city of Spokane on the
eastern edge of the Columbia Basin in northeastern Washington. The refuge protects 15,628
acres of an area referred to as the ‘channeled scablands’. The channeled scablands were
formed approximately 15,000 years ago by a series of ice age floods originating from ancient
Lake Missoula in northwestern Montana that scoured out large flood channels in the basalt
and loess formations of the Columbia Plateau. Within these large flood tract numerous
channels and pothole depressions were formed that later became a diverse complex of lakes,
deep water marshes and ponds. The surrounding uplands are a mosaic of ponderosa pine
forest, perennial bunch grass grasslands and deep water wetlands. Turnbull NWR with over
1700 acres of semi-permanent wetlands and permanent wetlands has suitable habitat for
several trumpeter swan breeding pairs. Twenty- two large sloughs contain extensive aquatic
beds of sago and flatstem pondweed, horned pond weed coontail and others surrounded by
emergent plant beds of hardstem bulrush and common cattail. The refuge was the site of a
restoration flock established in the 1960's by relocation of 33 cygnets from Red Rock Lakes
NWR. Establishment of eight breeding pairs and peak recruitment of 14 cygnets fledged in
1975 indicates the quality of this breeding habitat. Wintering habitat is limited and the
restoration flock disappeared following cessation of pond aeration and supplemental feeding
in 1976. The surrounding channeled wintering habitat may be available along the Palouse ,
Snake, and Columbia Rivers.
V. Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Tasks
The following goals, objectives, strategies and tasks will be utilized to implement the plan. Goals
and objectives listed below are found in the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the RMP
(Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swans 1998). Strategies and tasks are designed
to implement these goals and objectives. None of these strategies and tasks are intended to meet
goals and objectives alone, but rather were established to work in concert and to provide a range
of options to address trumpeter swan management issues.
A. Pacific Flyway Management Plan Goals/Objectives (as revised in 1998)
Goal 1. Population Management
Objective 1. Redistribute wintering swans to wintering areas outside of the core Tri-State Area,
reducing the number of wintering swans in the core Tri-state Area to a maximum of 1,500.
Objective 2. Rebuild U.S. breeding flocks by the year 2002 to at least 131 nesting pairs (594
adults and subadults) that use natural, diverse habitats and winter predominately outside of the
core Tri-state Area.
Objective 3. Encourage growth of Canadian flocks.
-20-
Objective 4. Increase the abundance of most desirable submerged macrophytes in the Henry’s
Fork of the Snake River in and near Harriman State Park.
Objective 5. Monitor the population.
Goal 2. Public Education
Objective 1. Provide cooperating agencies, concerned non-governmental organizations, and the
general public with up-to-date, clear, and accurate information on management activities,
problems, and accomplishments in a timely and professional manner.
Goal 3. Research Needs
Objective 1. Investigate the vulnerability of trumpeter swans to hunter-caused mortality, diseases,
and parasites at potentially new release sites and on new migration routes.
Objective 2. Ascertain the seasonal movements of Canadian and Tri-State trumpeter swans using
satellite tracking of transmitters.
Objective 3. Continue evaluation of potential habitat range wide (particularly on the Bighorn
River, Wyoming; northern Idaho; western Montana; eastern Nevada; eastern Oregon; eastern
Washington). Coordinate habitat evaluation with appropriate states and NWR’s.
Objective 4. If university interest exists, obtain graduate student help to investigate movements,
habitat use, behavior, and factors affecting success of recent translocation (particularly Summer
Lake, Oregon; Green River drainage, Wyoming; Bear Lake NWR, Idaho; Bear River marshes,
Utah).
Objective 5. Investigate the use of morphological measurements to differentiate between
trumpeter and tundra swans.
Objective 6. Develop methods to routinely monitor vegetation trends at key wintering sites.
Objective 7. Assess trumpeter swan interactions with tundra swans and competition with tundra
swans and other waterfowl for resources in tundra swan hunt area.
Objective 8. Ascertain epizootiology of the protozoan responsible for the 1991-92 swan mortality
at Fish Springs NWR. Identify factors contributing to outbreak and means of preventing or
reducing risk.
B. Trumpeter Swan Refuge Implementation Plan Strategies/Tasks
Strategy 1- Restore trumpeter swans to unoccupied breeding habitat within the RMP’s
historic range (subset of Goal 1, Objective 2)
Tasks
10. Manage/restore wetland habitat to allow for natural redistribution of nesting trumpeter
swans.
-21-
11. Augment breeding population where feasible.
Strategy 2 - Encourage broader winter distribution (subset of Goal 1, Objective 1).
Tasks
1. Encourage swans to winter outside the Tri-State Core Area.
2. Identify and enhance relatively disturbance-free wintering areas.
3. Continue to discourage sedentary flocks and prohibit supplementary feeding.
Strategy 3 -Conduct appropriate research (subset of Goal 3).
Tasks
1. Monitor success of restoration.
2. Analyze migration behavior/pathways.
3. Delineate alternate winter distribution techniques.
4. Define habitat suitability.
5. Develop monitoring protocols for restoration efforts.
6. Evaluate current population surveys.
Strategies 4 - Develop outreach plans (subset of Goal 2).
Tasks
1. Coordinate and expand program-wide outreach efforts and establish a trumpeter swan
management web site.
2. Prepare refuge specific outreach plans for each augmentation action.
Strategies 5 - Reduce swan mortality (subset of Goal 1, Objective 2)
Tasks
1. Research the impacts of chronic or low lead levels in swans.
2. Power line strikes; reduce or eliminate problem strike areas where possible.
3. Protection; improve swan awareness by public, reduce poaching, improve LE.
4. Disease/parasites; identify problem areas and focus research.
5. Reduce Environmental Mortality Factors; development, human disturbance, flooding,
contaminants, loss of water, excessive predation.
6. Analyze effects of hazing on productivity/survival.
VI. Refuge Specific Swan Management Tasks (See Appendix 2 for Site Suitability Criteria
Checklist):
1. Bear Lake NWR (southeast Idaho):
Habitat Suitability:
Bear Lake NWR (BL) is an 19,000 acre refuge comprised of some 14,000 acres of semi-permanent
bulrush marsh suitable for swan maintenance and production. The refuge marsh has
-22-
problems from siltation coming down the Bear River and from carp, which reduce water quality
and aquatic plant productivity. Two units totally 2,700 acres have been enhanced through diking,
carp control and screening water inflows. These management efforts have been successful and
provide good quality wetland habitat for swan migration and production. BL is located on the
southern edge of trumpeter swan’s historic breeding range. Under the Site Suitability Checklist
guidelines BL, meets the criteria established for trumpeter swan production and migration (spring
and fall) habitat, but would not be considered as wintering area due to early freeze-up. A fairly
high potential for increased trumpeter swan production, migrational use, and spring augmentation
(sub-adult releases) exists at this station.
Current Management Summary:
BL has one nesting pair of trumpeter swans that has nested at the refuge since 1997. This is a
young pair of swans that have successfully hatched and raised three cygnets (1 cygnet in 1998 and
2 cygnets in 2000). These three cygnets were raised to fledging. BL currently (10/2000) has a
family group of four trumpeters (pair plus two cygnets), one subadult (2 year old) from 1998, and
two released sub-adult swans. Since the summer of 1994, BL has had one or two trumpeters
spending the summer and fall, showing a pioneering effort by sub-adult swans from successful
production areas to the north such as Grays Lake NWR. To date BL trumpeter swans spend
most of their time on the refuge’s higher quality units such as the 1,800 acre, carp controlled
Rainbow Unit, showing the benefits of this type of project. The new 1,900 acre Bloomington
Unit will come on line in 2001 providing additional good quality swan habitat next spring. The
release of 25 trumpeter swans of various age classes from Summer Lake WMA, OR in April,
1996, from winter translocated swans failed to establish new breeding pairs at BL. Much like
Grays Lake NWR in the late 1980's, the refuge does have important potential for properly
planned, spring sub-adult swan releases that may more quickly establish breeding pairs in newly
available habitat.
Swan Management Goals:
1. Continue to emphasize refuge wetland management and restoration efforts to encourage
increased reproduction from resident trumpeter swans, augmented with annual spring releases
of propagated sub-adult swans.
2. Management would also emphasize good waterfowl habitat maintenance for swans during
spring and fall migration periods.
3. Investigate other potential swan habitat restoration projects and potential augmentation sites
in the area.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
BL is becoming an important trumpeter swan use and production area due to its expansive
unoccupied wetland habitats, its successful wetland restoration efforts, and its location on the
southern edge of historic swan breeding range. BL’s slowly increasing trumpeter swan flock
should continue to be encouraged and locally produced and released sub-adult swans allowed to
follow their migrational instincts to wintering areas. As indicated by previously marked swans,
these migration pathways may include routes through Utah and hopefully the upper Bear River
and lower Green River in southeast Wyoming.
-23-
Swan Management Proposals, Duration and Funding Estimates:
1. Evaluate the success of the new 1,900 acre Bloomington Unit wetland improvement project
for the next five years, look at other possible wetland projects off-refuge, and begin planning
another new project(s) if feasible. Hire biological help to study Bloomington Unit and work
on NAWCA partnership proposals. Cost: $40K/year for three years($120K) evaluate project
then proceed.
2. Swan Augmentation: Release 6-8 sub-adult trumpeter swans propagated one year at Long’s
facility in Wyoming early each spring to maximize imprinting on refuge wetland habitat.
Monitor success with satellite transmitters. Cost: $30K/year for five years, then evaluate
release effort success ($150K).
3. Coordinate swan management efforts with the State of Utah and adjacent refuges in Region 6.
Begin satellite radio telemetry monitoring of some of Bear Lake’s trumpeter swans to more
accurately track their movements in the region and during their winter migration. Mark and
track 6-8 swans from Bear Lake over a 3 year period. Cost: $50K/year for three years.
4. Construct new wetland unit within the refuge marsh. Approximately 1,500 to 2,000 acres in
size and includes: five miles of dike, four water control structures, fish screening, fish control,
partnership setup, administration, engineering and surveying and permit clearances. Cost:
$750K and 5-8 years to complete. Pursue as a NAWCA project.
2. Bear River MBR (northern Utah)
Habitat Suitability Discussion:
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR) is located at the delta of the Bear River where it
enters the north end of the Great Salt Lake in northern Utah. The refuge boundary
encompasses 72,473 acres of wetlands ranging from mudflat to deep water, submergent
habitats . An additional 940 acres are classified as upland grassland. Water from the Bear
River is diverted into diked impoundments and held at specific depths to meet habitat
management goals as outlined in the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the Bear
River MBR (USFWS 1997). Irrigation return flows from the Malad River to the north and
from springs along the east contribute lesser amounts of water to parts of the refuge. River
flows during the summer may fluctuate dramatically between years depending on the
snowpack the previous winter. Periods of extreme drought or flooding are not uncommon.
Bear River MBR is south of the historic breeding range of trumpeter swans as defined by
Banko (1960) and Bellrose (1976). No breeding by swans has been recorded at the refuge or
in the Great Salt Lake Basin.
Trumpeter swans are sighted on rare occasions during the fall migration. Large flocks (30,000
to 40,000 individuals) of tundra swans are also present in the fall and reliably detecting small
numbers of trumpeters is difficult. Sago pondweed tubers are generally abundant on the
refuge and available during the fall flight until mid-November when the ponds freeze. In most
years (>80%) the entire refuge freezes by early December and few waterfowl remain.
-24-
Current Management Summary:
Bear River staff manage resources to provide a variety of wetland and upland habitat types to
meet the diverse needs of the wildlife that occurs throughout the year. Current objectives for
foraging waterfowl are to provide 18,000 acres of deep water (18-36") with submergent
vegetation (primarily sago pondweed) and 8,500 acres of shallow water (4-16") , submergent
habitat. Large flocks of waterfowl, including tundra swans roost on mudflat. The refuge
provides about 35,000 acres of mudflat in large, undisturbed blocks. Trumpeter swans may or
may not prefer these wide open vistas.
Biologists at Bear River monitor for trumpeter swans several times a week during the fall and
early winter. Utah DWR counts all swans on weekly aerial surveys of the refuge.
Trumpeter Swan Management Goals:
The primary goal of the refuge is to provide habitat to meet the life requirements of native
migratory birds. Trumpeter swans benefit from having secure staging and feeding habitats.
Objectives include providing 34391 acres of vegetated mudflat for staging and resting, and
9146 acres of shallow submergent and 3591 acres of deep submergent habitat for feeding.
Other habitat specific goals and objectives are found in the CMP (USFWS 1997).
Trumpeter Swan Management Plan/Proposals:
1. Monitoring: Monitor all swans within the Great Salt Lake Basin from the ground and air.
Costs include hiring a technician (6 months) and providing a vehicle and optical equipment
(8K); and costs associated with hiring A pilot/biologist and plane from Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources (5K). Total cost = 13 K per year.
2. Habitat Management:
(a) Negotiate the acquisition and/or development of summer storage water from the Bear
River to supply the refuge during low river flows in July and August. Cost will be in the
multiple millions to construct a dam and storage facility upstream from the refuge.
Negotiations are ongoing at this time.
(b) Develop, construct, and install fish barriers on all inlets to limit carp and improve
production of sago pondweed. Cost has been estimated at 1 million dollars to outfit all
structures.
3. Research
(a) Apply flight energetic models to trumpeter swans to help determine the feasibility of
migration through the Great Basin and the vulnerability of trumpeter swans during staging and
foraging at Bear River. Cost 120K.
(b) Research historical records of trumpeter swan occurrence in the Great Basin and publish
findings in peer review journal. Cost: 1K
3. Benton Lake Wetland Management District
-25-
4. Camas NWR (southeast Idaho)
Habitat Suitability:
Camas NWR contains 10,578 acres with approximately 6,000 acres of wetlands ranging from sub-irrigated
meadows to open-water lakes. About 140 acres can be used for producing cereal grains
and alfalfa to provide food for migrating waterfowl. The remaining acreage are grass and
sagebrush-grass uplands.
Camas creek, which bisects the refuge, is one of the principal sources of water for the refuge.
Because its flow is dependent on the mountain snowpack, nine wells have been drilled on the
refuge to supplement the creek flow. Some years, these wells are our only source of water during
the summer and fall.
Camas is within the historic breeding range of trumpeter swans. Based on recent history of
breeding success, the breeding habitat at Camas NWR is suitable for trumpeter swans. In
addition, up to 18 non-breeding and unsuccessful nesting trumpeter swans have summered on the
refuge. Sufficient breeding pairs are present on Camas NWR and the surrounding area so that
releases are not considered necessary to augment or increase the breeding population.
Swans use the refuge for feeding throughout the fall. The refuge marshes become completely
frozen by late November and most birds leave the refuge. Throughout the winter one or two pair
of swans show up for a day or two on the nesting territories and then leave again to nearby
wintering areas.
As soon as water opens up again in March, trumpeter swan pairs return to the nesting territories
and other trumpeter swans use the refuge for feeding and staging.
Current Management Summary :
Trumpeter swans have nested at Camas NWR since 1976 and initiated nesting in 18 of the 25
years through 2000. Nests have hatched in 16 years and young have fledged in 13 of the 25
years. Fifteen broods and 58 young were fledged.
Marsh units are filled early and held at stable water elevations during the nesting season to
prevent flooding of swan nests. The most commonly used nest site is in among a white-faced ibis
colony but no swans have fledged since 1997. We have not been able to identify any single factor
for why the nests have been unsuccessful.
Camas NWR Swan Management Goals:
1. Provide optimum wetland habitat by filling marsh units prior to nest initiation using Camas
Creek and ground water diversions
2. Maintain stable water levels during the nesting season
3. Minimize nest disturbance.
-26-
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
1. Ground water depletion has lowered the water table such that wetland basins dry up unless
they are maintained by supplemental water from Camas Creek diversions and ground water
pumping. The refuge will restore and maintain wetland habitat on the refuge by seeking
adequate funding for pumping and moving of an existing well.
We need funding to move one well to a new location so that the well can then be used to
restore a complex of wetlands between Sandhole Lake and I-15. This will provide additional
wetland habitat to increase potential swan territories. The cost for moving the well is
$200,000 with an annual operating cost of $15,000. The new well could be operational within
two years of funding and the pumps would be in operation the first irrigation season.
Inadequate funding to operate irrigation pumps to maintain wetland habitat is a recurring and
long standing problem. The cost for electricity to operate the pumps to full capacity is
$70,000 per year. This would allow the maintenance of all wetland areas on the refuge.
We will also continue to scrutinize water right transfers to determine if they may potentially
affect Refuge water rights and water table.
2. There is a history of lead poisoning of swans at Market Lake which may be limiting swan
success locally. We do not know if this is leading to mortality of birds nesting or produced at
Camas. We propose that this issue and any other factors which may be affecting swan nest
success and survival should be studied. 2) An investigation into the possibility of chronic lead
poisoning of local trumpeter swan would entail a five year study, costing $200K.
3. Mark locally produced birds with satellite radio telemetry determine summer and winter use
areas. This would be a three year study costing $150K.
5. Fish Springs NWR
6. Grays Lake NWR (southeast Idaho)
Habitat Suitability:
Wetland habitat within Grays Lake’s expansive marsh is considered to be good swan nesting
habitat as evidenced by the successful augmentation program conducted in the 1980's and 1990's.
The large marsh, with areas of open water, abundant emergents and aquatic plants free of the
impacts from carp provides habitat for up to eleven nesting pairs of trumpeters each year. This
refuge is within the historic breeding range of trumpeters and meets the suitability criteria as a
breeding area for swans. A major limiting factor for successful fledging of cygnets is the lowering
of water levels during the summer for irrigation. Areas with swan family groups often dry up
entirely, forcing intervention by the refuge to move swans to nearby reservoirs or marshes for
survival. This lowering of water is the result of a water draw down schedule that is mandated by
cooperative agreements that enabled establishment of the refuge.
-27-
From a migration stand point, Grays Lake NWR is considered as only fair habitat for swans for
these reasons: 1) the refuge is fairly remote from a migration standpoint, not being on a main
flyway route, 2) it has late ice in the spring reducing migratory swan use, and, 3) lower water
levels in the fall reduce fall migration opportunities and freeze-up is early. No over wintering
habitat is available for swans at Grays Lake NWR.
Current Management Summary:
Swans of Grays Lake probably provided a nucleus for swan expansion to surrounding areas
during 1993-99. The newly established (1997) nesting swan pair at Bear Lake NWR (60 miles
south) is thought to have come from the Grays Lake flock. Because no suitable winter habitat is
found at Grays Lake, the flock is forced to disperse, typically to lower elevation sites within a 40
mile radius of Grays Lake (vicinities of Soda Springs, ID, and Star Valley, WY).
Swan Management Goals:
a. Continue to work with local landowners and the BIA to improve marsh habitat condition.
b. Conduct baseline research with partners to identify best water management.
c. Resolve land status questions through adjudication process.
d. Determine mitigation mechanisms for compensation to landowners for flooded land.
e. Determine appropriate amount and variation of inundation of lake shoreline including
private land.
f. Negotiate with BIA and private landowners to change water management.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
a. During years of when severely reduced water levels and summer/fall drying of the marsh is
anticipated, eggs from selected swan nests in probable impact areas of the marsh would be
collected and used as propagation stock for augmentation efforts elsewhere. Egg
collection criteria would follow plan guidelines with the objective that Grays Lake NWR
nesting pairs would be protected from undue disturbance and collection frequency to
maintain their territorial integrity. Funds needed to propagate, release and monitor up to
30 swans is $75,000.
b. Develop an Emergency Augmentation Plan at the refuge following plan guidelines to
address the continual problem of what to do with late summer cygnets that may be running
out of water prior to fledging. Establish approved priority emergency release sites for
cygnets and capture guidelines. As part of this plan, captured cygnets could also be
moved to propagation facilities over winter, to be subsequently released back to Grays
Lake NWR or other augmentation areas the next spring.
Swan Management Proposals, Duration and Funding Estimates:
1. Marsh Habitat Condition:
a. 2 - 5 years of negotiations; 3 - 5 years of research with funding at $80-100K per year.
Fund a permanent full time (PFT) Asst Mgr Trainee or Refuge Operation Specialist) ROS
and a PFT Refuge Biological Technician position (RONS funding) $246K, with $116K
support annually.
-28-
b. Study the feasibility of developing several wells in prime locations around the refuge for
use in providing late summer water for resident trumpeter swan family groups during years
of severe water shortages and drying of critical habitat areas 1-2 year study: $60K.
2. Conflicts with Local Landowners/Water Owners:
Ultimate costs unknown; dependent on lake bed legal ownership determinations. To solve
this issue through land protection a minimum of $5-8 million dollars over 10 years is needed
to purchase land or establish easements. Fund sources would possibly include land acquisition
funds from the Duck Stamp or Land and Water Conservation funds.
7. Kootentai NWR
8. Lee Metcalf NWR
9. Malheur NWR
10. Minidoka NWR (southeast Idaho)
Habitat Suitability:
Spring through fall the Refuge offers extensive beds of aquatic vegetation, especially sago
pondweed, that is used by large numbers of migrating and molting waterfowl. The shallower
areas supporting the submergent vegetation are closed to boats, giving waterfowl year round
freedom from disturbance in these areas. There are areas with emergent vegetation, though not
extensive in area, that could support a few nesting pairs of trumpeter swans. The Refuge meets
the suitability criteria for nesting, for augmentation and for migration habitat. While few
trumpeter swans use the Refuge during migration each year, the Refuge and several miles of the
Snake River upstream of the Refuge are heavily used by tundra swans during spring and fall
migration. As many as 1000+ tundra swans may be present over this reach. During mild winters
some swans may stay all winter, but in normal years wetlands on the Refuge are frozen. Because
the wetlands normally freeze, nesting trumpeters will have to migrate. It is more likely that they
will move downstream along the Snake River to winter, rather than north to the Island Park Area.
During December 1990, 16 trumpeter swans were released on the refuge. There were no records
of these marked birds on the Refuge in subsequent years.
Current Management Summary
There are no current trumpeter swan management actions on the Refuge, other than periodic
monitoring to detect trumpeter swan presence during migration.
Trumpeter Swan Management Goals:
To establish a stable breeding flock of 3-5 pairs that are not isolated from other nesting pairs in
the Tri-State Flock and that do not winter in the Island Park Area.
-29-
Trumpeter Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
1. Nest Structures: Construct 5 small islands or floating platforms in places where there is
suitable emergent cover, but no adequate nest site. Islands would require rock and gravel for
construction. Floating platforms will be made from foam filled plastic pipe. Timing:
Construction of islands and platforms would be conditional on plans to release of trumpeter
swans on the Refuge, and would take place anytime from FY 2001 until the year prior to
release of trumpeter swans. Adequate lead time will be needed to obtain permits.
Costs: $15-20k depending on the difficulty of transporting rock into the wetlands.
2. Establish Breeding Flock: Release yearling, captive reared trumpeter swans during summer on
the Refuge. Release at least 5-7 per year for at least 3 years (see Grays Lake proposal to
cross reference).
Timing: Collect eggs from Grays Lake NWR in 2001; incubate and over winter cygnets at the
Wyoming captive rearing facility; release swans as yearlings at prioritized locations in spring
2002.
Costs: Current estimates are $3k per bird released in the spring of their second year. Logistics
and monitoring costs would increase the total to about $75k.
11. National Bison Range Complex (northwest Montana)
Habitat Suitability:
Pablo NWR comprises a 2,542 acre refuge superimposed on a reservoir that is 1850 ac of water
at full pool. Approximately 700 ac of mixed grasslands surround the reservoir in a narrow band
around the refuge, with a small stand of cottonwood at the north end of the refuge and willows
along southern and western edge. On the west edge of the reservoir a dike separates the reservoir
and four impoundments that create a wetland complex of meandering shorelines and oxbows with
emergent and submergent vegetation. The impoundments provide good swan habitat with
adequate food resources, shallow foraging sites, and limited disturbance. Water levels can be
controlled. There is no hunting at Pablo and no use of lead sinkers so lead exposure should be
minimal, if at all. Fishing is not allowed in the impoundments so there is minimal disturbance.
Waterfowl Production Areas cover 3000+ acre of intermountain grassland interspersed with high
densities of wetlands. Many of the wetlands have emergent and submergent vegetation, but some
would need to be improved for quality swan habitat. A few of the WPAs are large enough where
the wetlands would have minimal disturbance. However, two of the WPAs are next to a highway
yet have large congregations of foraging tundra swans and usually 1-5 trumpeter swans during
spring migration. It is unknown what the level of food resources are, and water levels cannot be
controlled, but many should have good shallow foraging. The wetlands also need to be evaluated
for size to make sure they are large enough for gaining flight. Powerlines may need to be
evaluated.
Lost Trail NWR comprises 9,325 acres composed of prairie grassland, riparian areas, coniferous
and deciduous timber and wetlands composed primarily of reed canary grass. The Dahl Lake
wetland complex consists of semi-permanent and temporary wetlands with large components of
emergent and submergent vegetation. There is minimal elevational changes in the valley floor so
there is possibly many areas for shallow foraging sites. Ice-out typically occurs in early April and
-30-
freeze-up in mid-November, and water levels will be under management control. The refuge is
fairly isolated from much human visitation, and the Dahl Lake wetland complex is off of the main
road such that it could be closed to human disturbance during nesting season. There is a
powerline that needs to be evaluated for potential danger to swans. Lost Trail is in the process of
developing its Comprehensive Conservation Plan, in which trumpeter swan restoration efforts
would need to be reviewed.
Swan River NWR is 1,568 acres within the floodplain of the Swan River above Swan Lake and
between the Swan Mountain Range to the east and Mission Mountain Range to the west, 38 miles
southeast of Creston, MT. Eighty percent of the floodplain is composed of reed canary grass.
There is no water control available and no information on food resources or water levels for
foraging sites.
All of the units of the Complex are within the historic breeding range of trumpeter swans.
Trumpeters were observed as breeding birds in the Flathead Valley during the mid-late 1800s by
Father DeSmet. Banko (1960) distinguished Flathead Valley as one of the three ecologically
distinct regions in the United States in which trumpeters were said to have once been a more or
less common breeding species in areas of suitable habitat.
Pablo NWR and the WPAs are in the Mission Valley south of Flathead Lake. Tundras and a few
trumpeters migrate through the valley each spring, and many winter on Flathead Lake when the
bays stay clear of ice. The refuge and WPAs normally freeze up. There also is often open water
in the winter on Flathead River, Clark Fork River, and Thompson River where many tundras are
surveyed each year. Hunting season should not be a problem. Even though we have a white
goose season, there usually aren’t any white geese that come through here. However, the public
would need to be educated or reminded about the swans.
Lost Trail is located in Pleasant Valley that is part of an ecosystem that has several other large
lakes in the area that may provide additional swan habitat currently or did historically. We are in
the process of researching any historical records of swan occurrence in the Pleasant Valley area of
Lost Trail NWR and the Swan Valley for Swan River NWR with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
Current Management Summary:
Pablo NWR is the only unit with active swan management occurring, and that is only in the form
of a release site. Management does not specifically control water levels or conduct management
practices specifically for swans. The Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes are spearheading a
restoration effort for the Flathead Indian Reservation, of which Pablo NWR and several
Waterfowl Production Areas are within the exterior boundaries.
In 1996 initial reintroduction efforts commenced with the capture of 19 (11 adults, 8 yearlings)
trumpeter swans originally captured at Harriman State Park (natal area in northern Alberta) and
relocated to Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area in south-central Oregon. These birds were
released at Pablo NWR in May 1996. The birds acclimated immediately and thrived throughout
the summer. In early October the swans began to leave the area and ranged northward into the
migration path between northern Alberta and eastern Idaho. None of these birds returned to the
valley.
-31-
This effort did not establish breeding swans but did provide evidence of a successful site for future
efforts. No activity took place in 1997 due to poor reproduction in Grand Prairie Alberta and no
available cygnets. Ten cygnets were made available from Grand Prairie in 1998 and released on
Pablo NWR. These birds stayed until late October. Efforts could not follow their movements,
but five were observed at Lee Metcalf NWR in the Bitterroot Valley (145 km from Pablo). In
May 1999, one of the swans observed at Metcalf was observed again near Bigfork, Montana in
the company of an unmarked bird, but then not seen again.
In 1999, no release was conducted due to poor reproduction again in Canada. Reevaluation of
the project in 2000 by the Tribes led to a cooperative relationship with the Trumpeter Swan Fund
at Jackson, Wyoming. The Tribes purchase 4-5 pairs at this facility and one additional pair at a
local facility in the Flathead Valley to produce cygnets for release. Progeny are held in captivity
during their first winter and then transported to the release site, wing-clipped and banded during
the summer of their release, and released and monitored until they fledge and hopefully after they
fledge.
In 2001, the Tribes will release 15 yearlings in May or June on Pablo NWR. Five of the 15 will
have satellite transmitters so that their migration movements can be monitored.
Waterfowl Production Areas have no current trumpeter swan management actions other than
periodic monitoring to detect swan presence during spring migration.
Lost Trail and Swan River NWRs have no current trumpeter swan management.
Swan Management Goals:
Pablo NWR
1. Provide adequate water levels in the Ducks Unlimited impoundments prior to trumpeter
swan releases
2. Maintain stable water levels for optimal trumpeter swan foraging sites
3. Minimize disturbance to trumpeter swans released on impoundments or if the birds move
to the reservoir.
4. Educate the public about trumpeter swan presence in the valley
Waterfowl Production Areas
1. Provide optimal trumpeter swan nesting habitat for 1-3 pairs
Lost Trail NWR (pending CCP)
1. provide optimal trumpeter swan nesting habitat for 1 pair on Dahl Lake
2. collaborate with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and private landowners to foster optimal
trumpeter swan nesting habitat for 2-5 pairs within the Pleasant Valley Ecosystem
Swan River NWR
1. Provide optimal trumpeter swan nesting habitat for 1 pair
-32-
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
Pablo NWR
a. The Tribes have funded five satellite transmitters out of the 15 birds being released in spring
2001 to monitor migration movements. Two to three more transmitters would increase the
chance of covering the birds if they break into groups during migration. This would cost $10
K.
b. Evaluate powerlines around Pablo and determine if need to be put underground. Inform
power company and CSKT to try to put any new powerlines underground. Cost is estimated
at $100 K.
c. Determine whether carp are present in Pablo impoundments, if so implement management to
reduce their presence. Install fish screens. Cost is estimated at $150 K.
d. Increase LE to keep fishermen out and inform public about presence of trumpeter swans
during hunting season. Cost estimate is $30 K.
Pablo NWR, Waterfowl Production Areas, Lost Trail NWR, and Swan River NWR
Hire technician to evaluate habitat suitability for swan nesting and foraging habitat among the
units for three months at GS-5 level for cost of $7K (site reconnaissance, vegetation sampling and
mapping, invertebrate sampling, water depth profiles, track trumpeter swan occurrence and
locations in Flathead Valley during migration, coordinate with private landowners for potential
swan habitat, reports).
Lost Trail NWR, Waterfowl Production Areas
Kerr Dam mitigation dollars are earmarked for wetland restoration and goose nesting platforms
on Dahl Lake and McGregor Meadows. There may be a possibility to create the platforms such
that trumpeters could use them instead and restore the wetlands to an optimal condition for
swans. Funding of $3 K per bird released for two pair would require $12 K.
12. National Elk Refuge (northwest Wyoming)
Habitat Suitability:
The National Elk Refuge (NER) is 24,606 acres in size with 3,700 wetland acres. Wetlands range
from spring fed ponds and streams to sub-irrigated grassland meadows. NER is within the
historic trumpeter swan breeding range and is part of the core tri-state flock. Since 1938 NER
has averaged 5.54 breeding and non-breeding adults per year during the summer months. 2000
was the best breeding season on record with 3 pairs fledging 7 cygnets. Because there are ample
breeding pairs at NER, there is no need to augment the breeding population with released birds.
NER is an important fall and spring staging area with as many as 107 trumpeters counted during
recent migrations. However, most Refuge wetlands freeze solid during parts of the winter, with
small, isolated, spring-fed areas remaining open in all but the coldest weather. One to 3 pairs of
swans are present during ice-free periods, but swans abandon the Refuge during extreme cold
periods. We speculate that wintering swans use running water habitat in the Snake River and its
-33-
tributaries when the Refuge is unsuitable, but neck collars or satellite telemetry are needed to
determine where resident birds are wintering.
Current Management Summary:
Trumpeter swans were reintroduced to NER in fall of 1938 and established breeding territories by
1944. NER has averaged 1.46 breeding pairs, 2.69 eggs hatched, and 1.64 cygnets fledged per
year since 1938. Production tends to follow a boom and bust cycle with several years of little to
no production interrupted by a good year with 2-7 cygnets fledged.
Most swan production occurs in the main marsh in the southern end of the Refuge, where it is not
possible to manipulate water levels. Therefore, past management activities have been limited to
preventing all public entry in this portion of the Refuge and use of a “cookie cutter” boat to open
water channels.
Refuge ponds offer the greatest opportunity for management action to improve swan habitat.
Construction of the Jackson Lake Dam in Grand Teton National Park permanently flooded
several swan breeding territories, and six Refuge ponds were created as mitigation. Flooding
from the Gros Ventre River drained one pond in 1999, and the dike was repaired by Refuge
personnel. Because the mitigation ponds are all located within the flood plain of the Gros Ventre
River, inspection and maintenance of these dikes is an ongoing task. Most water control
structures in these ponds are in disrepair, and water levels have remained stable for several years.
Due to stable water levels, emergent plant communities are not well developed, submergent plant
communities are dominated by milfoil (Myriophyllum) species, and swan production has been
poor. Repairing water control structures and manipulating water levels to produce more desirable
vegetation for nesting and foraging is a high priority.
Swan Management Goals:
Improve forage and nesting substrate conditions in Refuge wetlands to encourage increased
production of resident trumpeter swans.
Decrease mortality risks for wintering swans associated with power line collisions.
Monitor swan winter habitat use to help guide management strategies for lands surrounding the
Refuge.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
Maintenance and Water Level Management for Mitigation Ponds: Water control structures in
these ponds need to be repaired to allow manipulation of water levels for vegetation management.
Dikes are subject to flooding from the Gros Ventre River and often require inspection and repair.
Cost: $40K
-34-
“Cookie Cutter” Operation and Maintenance: The cookie cutter boat is used to maintain open
water channels in the main marsh. It has not been operated since 1993 and requires maintenance
before operation. Cost: $6K
Floating Nest Platforms: In areas where water levels cannot be manipulated and emergent
vegetation is limited, floating platforms can be used to increase swan nesting opportunities. Cost
for construction of 10 platforms: $4K
Burial of Problem Power Lines: At least 2 trumpeter swans have been killed due to collision with
power lines immediately adjacent to Flat Creek. Sleeves have been added to the lines to improve
visibility, but burial of the lines is the only option that will completely solve the problem. $30,000
Monitoring Winter Movements of Resident Swans: We speculate that swans that breed on NER
winter both on the Refuge and on private lands adjacent to the Refuge. Winter monitoring is
necessary to determine the best management actions to improve and protect winter habitat on
adjacent private lands. Cost for satellite transmitter monitoring for three year period $150,000.
13. Ouray NWR
Habitat Suitability:
Six floodplains, which include Brennan Bottom, Johnson Bottom, Leota Bottom, Wyasket
Bottom, Sheppard Bottom, and Woods Bottom, comprise more than a a of the existing habitat
and are managed according to river flows. Due to the dikes and levees (some natural most
manmade) a mix of classified wetlands exists within each bottom and range from palustrine to
lacustrine and temporarily, seasonally, and semi-permanently flooded. Presently, we are
incorporating a “rest/rotation” scheme for the wetlands within the bottoms; therefore, not all
wetlands are filled during the year. Regardless, attempts are made to keep water, if conditions
allow, in at least a to ½ of the units. Additionally as previously mentioned, about 16 miles of the
Green River occur within the Refuge boundary.
Current Mgmt. Summary:
Most trumpeter swan observations (3-4 sightings during the past 6 years, according to Refuge
files) have occurred during late fall/winter and thus the swans have access to all open water
habitats on and off the Refuge. During this time of year, the wetlands are ideally kept shallow and
are sparsely vegetated (emergents) for use by waterfowl, presumably including trumpeter swans,
waterbirds, and shorebirds. Typically, most wetlands begin to freeze about the third week in
November but it is usually about the first or second week in December when the units are frozen
entirely. The river, however, can remain “open” but also has been known to freeze entirely within
the Refuge boundary.
Swan Mgmt Goals:
None identified at present.
-35-
Swan Management Plans/Goals:
Specifically for trumpeter swans, none are identified at present. However, as previously stated,
we are incorporating a “rest/rotation”(keeping some units dry for a period of 2 years-if conditions
allow) scheme of our wetlands which should aid in overall health and productivity of these units.
Additionally, we are using prescribed burns to reduce/remove cattail/bulrush cover and release
nutrients within wetlands which may also aid in overall health, productivity, and use by birds.
14. Red Rock Lake NWR (southwest Montana)
Historical and Present Day Management:
Prior to the establishment of the refuge, the entire population of trumpeter swans that wintered
and nested in the tri-state area numbered less than 70. Supplemental winter feeding of grain
occurred on the refuge from 1936 - 1992, boosting the calorie and carbohydrate intake of swans
wintering in the area. The protection afforded by the Refuge and supplemental feeding helped
boost trumpeter swan numbers in the RMP tri-state area to over 500 by the early 1970's. These
efforts also provided over 500 swans for restoration efforts. Swans were periodically trapped and
translocated from Red Rock Lakes to numerous other areas, including northwest Wyoming,
eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Nevada, southeastern Idaho, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Canada. This translocation program has had mixed success, and is no longer
occurring.
Winter feeding ended in 1992 to encourage trumpeters to winter in more temperate climates
further south and to ease overcrowding at the Refuge. Swans that consumed winter grain
appeared to be in better physical shape at the initiation of spring nesting season than those that
currently winter in the tri-state area on scarce natural foods. After the cessation of winter
feeding, numbers of wintering swans at Red Rock Lakes NWR dropped from approximately 250
to around 30. Numbers of nesting pairs dropped significantly as well.
Today, the Refuge and surrounding Centennial Valley remain a stronghold for trumpeter swans
and current trumpeter swan management at Red Rock Lakes NWR focuses on maintaining the
wilderness characteristic of the landscape on and near the refuge and the trumpeter habitat that
exists in this landscape.
Swan Management Goals
Perpetuate trumpeter swan recovery efforts within their historic range while maintaining a nesting
level of 20 - 30 pairs on the Refuge with minimal artificial enhancement.
Management objectives focus on managing recreational uses away from swan territories,
maintaining, and potentially increasing, appropriate swan nesting and brood rearing habitat, and
expanding protected areas off the refuge for the benefit of trumpeter swans.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
-36-
1. Monitor the post-feeding recovery of the Centennial Valley trumpeter swan flock by
conducting at least three aerial production surveys in the Centennial Valley during May, June, and
July ($3K per year).
2. Conduct the two major fall and mid-winter, area-wide trumpeter swan aerial surveys. Prepare
and distribute results to the mailing list of over 70 people (14K per year).
3. Continue to capture and leg band from 10 - 20 adults or cygnets in summer as needed (2K per
year).
4. Because of potential icing, minimize neck collars unless needed for critical spot monitoring, for
example, in any transplanted birds. Explore use of patagial tags or other low impact marking
techniques (2K per year).
5. Perpetuate and encourage swan nesting or brood use at Culver, Macdonald, and Widgeon
Ponds by continuing the seasonal closure during the nesting season.
6. Maintain Culver and Macdonald Ponds as trumpeter swan winter roosting areas by continuing
the seasonal closure.
7. Monitor lead levels in trumpeter swans by submitting carcasses when found to the National
Wildlife Health Laboratory and/or submitting blood samples from captured swans to the
laboratory in a timely manner (5K per year).
8. Assist in genetics research (5K).
9. Develop satellite transmitter placement and tracking methodology suitable for monitoring
movements of trumpeter swans within the restoration areas (10K per year).
15. Ruby Lake NWR (northeast Nevada)
Habitat Suitability:
Ruby Lake NWR encompasses 37,632 acres within a closed hydrologic basin and consists of a
shallow permanent marsh bordered by meadows, grasslands, and brush-covered uplands. The
pristine marsh is a mosaic of open water, bulrush stands, and grass/brush-covered islands. The
marsh has been subdivided into management units.
About 165 springs emanating from the basin and along the base of the southern half of the Ruby
Mountains supply the marsh with water. The snow volume and water content of the snowpack on
the mountains directly influences the amount of water provided by the springs. Water from some
of these springs is collected in a ditch where it can be diverted to five small marsh units and three
larger wetland areas. Water reaching the end of the Collection Ditch flows into the 7,300-acre
South Marsh, a natural depression at the south end of the refuge. Water can also be diverted
through the small west marsh units to the North and East marsh units to maintain shallow
wetlands that are especially attractive to waterfowl and shorebirds. Water is managed to provide
-37-
optimum nesting and feeding habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland-dependent bird
species. Manipulation of water elevations and flows provides up to 17,000 acres of high quality
marsh habitat during consecutive years with average or above average precipitation.
Trumpeter swans are not known to be native to the Ruby Valley. They were introduced to Ruby
Lake NWR in the 1940s and 1950s in an attempt to establish a reserve population in the event
disease or other factors decimated the population at Red Rock Lakes NWR in Montana.
Altogether, 102 trumpeter swans were transferred from Red Rock Lakes NWR, and 96 were
released at Ruby Lake NWR.
Current Management Summary:
Trumpeter swan production is the highest priority output listed in the refuge management plan,
with an objective level of 15 birds and a management target of 12 birds. The first successful
nesting was documented in 1958, when 6 cygnets were fledged. In the last 10 years (1990-1999)
an average of 5 pairs have fledged an average of 5 cygnets per year.
An average of 40 trumpeter swans use the refuge during winter months, with a high of 60 in
recorded in February 2000. The population of wintering swans has gradually increased over the
last 10 years. This build-up in numbers from the nesting population would seem to indicate that
swans are migrating to or through Ruby Valley.
In terms of habitat management, marsh units are flooded to objective levels by the end of March
each year, and maintained at stable elevations through the nesting period. Water levels are
allowed to decrease naturally for feeding and foraging. De-watering for other management
purposes (i.e. prescribed burning) is not initiated until broods have fledged.
Swan Management Goals:
Emphasize refuge wetland management to encourage continued nesting by resident trumpeter
swans. Provide optimum wetland habitat by flooding marsh units to objective levels by the end of
March and maintaining at stable elevations through the nesting period. Minimize nest disturbance.
A. Emphasize good waterfowl maintenance habitat for swans during the spring and fall
migration periods.
B. Emphasize refuge wetland management to encourage continued use by wintering trumpeter
swans. Investigate potential winter habitat restoration and expansion projects.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
1. Implement voluntary conversion to non-lead sinkers for fishing by providing non-toxic
sinkers in exchange for lead sinkers.
Cost: $5K
2. Evaluate and implement, where appropriate, the rehabilitation and construction of
spring ponds to provide wintering habitat for trumpeter swans.
-38-
Cost: $75K per year for two years
3. Sample and study DNA of trumpeter swans utilizing Ruby Lake NWR to
determine if inbreeding has resulted in a less vigorous flock of birds.
Cost: $50K
4. Introduce new genetic material into the Ruby Lake flock by replacing eggs in
active nests with eggs from the Tri-State Management Area.
Cost: $25K over three years
E. Determine the migration pathway of trumpeter swans produced at Ruby Lake NWR using
satellite transmitters/telemetry.
Cost: $52K over three years
F. Conduct a study to determine whether predation (mammalian and avian on eggs and
cygnets) is having an effect on trumpeter swan production.
Cost: $25K per year for three years
16. Seedskadee NWR & Cokeville Meadows NWR (southwest Wyoming)
Habitat Suitability:
Seedskadee contains five primary wetland impoundments (Hamp, Upper Hawley, Lower Hawley,
Pal, and Dunkle). These units combined provide approximately 335 acres of wetland habitat.
The Dunkle, Hamp and Hawley units are the primary wetland units providing a mix of open
water, short emergent and tall emergent wetlands. The Pal unit is primarily a wet meadow
habitat interspersed with some short and tall emergent vegetation. There is very little open water
in the Pal Unit.
The primary source of water is the Green River. Water from the Green River is diverted into
three primary ditches (Hamp 1, Hamp 2, and Superior) using gravity flow. At River flows of
2000 cfs or greater, adequate water exists to maintain most of the units at full pool. With the
exception of the Pal Unit, pool depths range from one to four feet. Depths in the Pal unit are one-two
feet.
Seedskadee NWR is adjacent to the historic breeding range according to Bellrose (1976), but
meets the suitability criteria as a breeding area for swans. Based on the recent history of breeding
success, the man-made wetland impoundments provide suitable breeding habitat for trumpeter
swans. One pair has successfully nested on the Refuge in the Hawley unit for the past four years
(1997-2000). At least one other pair has summered on the Refuge the past three years but has
not nested. The Hamp Unit has not been flooded the past two years in order to complete repairs
and conduct invasive species management for pepperweed.
Approximately 20-30 trumpeter swans have wintered on the Refuge since 1996. The habitat
afforded by the Green River meets the suitability criteria as migration and winter range habitat.
The Green River section from Fontenelle Dam to Highway 28 often remains open and primarily
free of ice during the critical winter months (November - April). The River apparently contains
sufficient submersed vegetation to maintain a wintering population of swans. The exact wintering
-39-
carrying capacity is undetermined at this point. It should be noted that the winter area for swans
also supports a trophy trout fishery. The primary drawbacks associated with this wintering are: 1)
there is disturbance by duck hunters and fisherman year round (6 swans have been shot), 2)
contamination by lead split shot used in fishing is a concern (no documented cases, although a
cygnet was killed in 2000 because a fish hook was stuck in its bill) and 3), the area is designated a
trophy trout fishery.
Cokeville Meadows NWR is also adjacent to the historic breeding range. This refuge is new and
currently 7,677 acres are under Service management. There is no staff or funding currently
allocated to the Refuge and therefore development of the Refuge has remained at a minimum.
Eventually, this Refuge holds great potential swan breeding and migration habitat. There are no
records of swans nesting or migrating through the Refuge. Current land use is primarily
agriculture crops, hay production, and grazing. Creation of future wetland impoundments along
the Bear River should provide excellent waterfowl habitat. This refuge will likely not provide
wintering habitat due to freeze up of the Bear River. Eventual releases may be suitable at this
Refuge to establish a breeding population.
Current Management Summary:
Starting in 1992 trumpeter swans were released on Seedskadee NWR from Red Rock Lakes
NWR, Harriman State Park, and the Wyoming Wetland Society Trumpeter Swan Fund.
Trumpeter swans have nested on Seedskadee since 1997 and wintered on the refuge since 1992.
It is believed that the same pair has nested in the past four years and one of the birds is from RRL
(the female of the pair has a leucycstic foot).
Wetland impoundments are filled as early as possible in the spring and water levels held stable
during the nesting season to prevent flooding of swan nests. So far the only unit with a nest is the
Hawley Unit and refuge staff are careful to maintain adequate water to this impoundment during
the nesting season. The nest site is within cattails and bullrush. Predator trapping is conducted in
the spring for raccoons, foxes, and skunks.
There are no swan management activities currently conducted at Cokeville Meadows NWR .
Seedskadee/ Cokeville Meadows NWR Swan Management Goals:
1. Provide optimum wetland habitat in the Hawley and Hamp Units prior to nest initiation to
encourage nesting of one to three pairs of trumpeter swans.
2. Maintain stable water levels in wetland units where nests are initiated to ensure swan nests
are not flooded.
3. Minimize disturbance to nesting and wintering sites. This may involve closures of certain
sections of the Refuge during various times of the year.
4. Educate the public about trumpeter swans and swan management
-40-
5. Work with the BOR and Wyoming Game and Fish Department to maintain river flows
which provide open water areas during winter to provide wintering habitat for swans.
6. Initiate planning for management of wetlands and public use at Cokeville Meadows NWR.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals Seedskadee NWR-Cokeville Meadows NWR
(southwest Wyoming):
1. At Seedskadee NWR the future emphasis is on improving and maintaining the current
wetland impoundments. Invasive species, like pepperweed, have invaded all major
impoundments and need annual control. To maintain a good water/vegetation ratio in
wetland impoundments management needs to control cattail and bullrush stands via mowing
and draw downs. The infrastructure of dikes in several of the wetland units needs to be
improved by adding additional fill material and water control structures. Predator
management should continue annually to help minimize predation of nests. Additional
outreach material should be supplied to educate the public about the Service’s trumpeter
swan management program. Finally, a greater understanding of the winter carrying capacity
at the Refuge, and the migratory patterns of swans utilizing the Refuge, would help to fill
some of the overall information gaps about trumpeter swan management in the west.
2. Management at Cokeville Meadows NWR simply needs to be planned, initiated, and
eventually implemented on the ground.
Specific project proposals include:
a. Develop brochure highlighting RMP management program that informs the public about the
overall strategy for the RMP and specifically addresses the strategies implemented in
Wyoming to assist with the swan recovery program. Step down this message to
informational signs that will be strategically posted where swans are currently nesting.
Cost: $20 K
b. Monitor winter populations of swans from Fontenelle Dam south on all open water areas to
assist in the development of winter closed zones.
Cost: $13 K (2 years)
c. Evaluate the availability of winter forage for trumpeter swans below the Fontenelle Dam.
Cost: $40 K for three years
d. Conduct a predator control program designed to minimize nest depredation.
Cost: $2 K per year
e. Implement the Integrated Pest Management plan that targets habitat that is overrun by
pepperweed on Seedskadee and Cokeville Meadows NWR’s.
Cost: $10 K/refuge/year - until populations are controlled.
f. Plan and implement wetland restoration projects on Cokeville Meadows NWR.
-41-
Cost: $65 K annually
g. Conduct radio-telemetry on swans breeding and wintering on the Refuge to determine
where birds disperse to. This should be conducted in connection with other Refuge efforts.
Cost: $40 K
h. Rehabilitate Hawley wetland impoundment - improve dikes and water control structures.
Cost: $ 60 K
17. Stillwater NWR Complex Nevada)
Habitat Suitability:
Stillwater NWR is not within the historic breeding range and is irregularly used during
migration by trumpeter swans. The refuge is used by large numbers of migrating tundra
swans both spring and fall. It is assumed that habitat adequate for tundra swans would be
suitable for trumpeter swans since both species share habitat elsewhere during migration.
Current Management Summary:
Current management is to provide a natural range of habitats for all wetland species. This
would include any trumpeter swans that use the refuge.
Swan Management Goals:
There are no specific goals for trumpeter or tundra swans at Stillwater NWR. Refuge goals
are to maintain 14,000 acres of wetlands for wetland species, which would include both
swan species. The refuge aims to mimic natural hydrological and other ecological processes
in wetland management.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
Continue monitoring swan populations at Stillwater NWR. No projects are proposed
specifically for trumpeter swans at this time.
18. Turnbull NWR:
Habitat Suitability:
Turnbull NWR is a 15,628 acre refuge comprised of 1700 acres of semi-permanent and permanent
wetlands suitable for swan maintenance and production. The absence of rough fish such as carp
and exotic aquatic weeds such as purple loosestrife results in high aquatic plant productivity in all
wetlands. The presence of several natural and man-made islands provide potential nest locations.
Some water quality issues with nutrient loading and eutrophication have been identified for some
of the refuge watersheds. Under the Site Suitability Checklist guidelines, Turnbull NWR meets the
criteria established for trumpeter swan production and migration (spring and fall) habitat. Based
on past production of the restoration flock and present habitat conditions, a high potential exist
-42-
for trumpeter swan production with the reestablishment of a breeding population, migrational use,
and spring augmentation at this refuge.
Current Management Summary:
The refuge maintains one adult male trumpeter swan during the ice free months. This swan is all
that remains of the restoration flock that dwindled following the cessation of pond aeration and
supplemental feeding. Over the past ten years one or two unmarked trumpeter swans have been
observed in the spring and fall of most years. A family group was observed in the fall of 2000.
One female that arrived in 1995 established a pair bond with the male and remained with him for
over two years. No nesting was documented. The female has not been seen since the winter of
1998. Current wetland management focuses on the maintenance of adequate emergent marsh and
aquatic plant beds in the 22 wetlands with water management capability to meet habitat objectives
for species requiring emergent vegetation and productive open, aquatic bed habitat.
Swan Management Goals:
No specific goals have been established for trumpeter swans. Habitat goals and objectives were
established for refuge wetlands to meet the reproductive and foraging needs of emergent and
aquatic bed breeding and foraging guilds. If these goals and objectives are met, refuge wetlands
will provide production and maintenance habitat for trumpeter swans.
Wetland Goals and Objectives:
Goal#1. Provide habitat conditions essential to the conservation of migratory birds and
other wildlife within a variety of wetland complexes.
Objective 1A. Manage the 22 refuge wetlands with water control capability at a level that
maintains between 500 and 750 acres of permanent open water annually to support the water
surface breeding guild.
Objective 1B. Establish an annual operating level for the 22 managed wetlands that maintains an
emergent plant strata that covers between 10% and 30% of each wetland basin to support the
emergent stratum breeding and foraging guilds. Fifty percent of this zone should have a width of
greater than 100 feet.
Objective 1C. Manage water annually to maintain water depths of at least 18 inches in the
emergent plant zone of managed wetlands from April 1 through July 30 for nesting birds in the
emergent strata breeding guild.
Goal#2. Protect and restore water quality and quantity sufficient to maintain native
wetland flora and fauna.
Objective 2A. By 1999, review the status of current adjudicated water rights and all claims for
water rights and update to coincide with current water management objectives.
-43-
Objective 2B. Annually monitor wetland recharge and water losses for the 22 managed wetlands
to quantify water usage and the status of local groundwater resources.
Objective 2C. Restore and maintain the natural water yield of refuge watersheds through
restoration of open forest conditions and deciduous riparian habitats within annual forest
treatment areas.
Objective 2D. By 2000, identify properties adjacent to the refuge that contain large portions of
the four major drainage systems that enter the refuge and their watersheds, and coordinate with
federal, state, and local agencies to identify and reduce non-point sources of pollution to protect
water quantity.
Swan Management Plans/Proposals:
Turnbull NWR has demonstrated in the past that it can provide excellent production and spring
and fall maintenance habitat for trumpeter swans. It is possible that through relocation and
augmentation efforts the refuge may again host breeding swans and migrant birds. Wintering
habitat is, however, limited in this area and migration of breeding birds is imperative as
demonstrated by the loss of the restoration flock after 1976. The only plans or proposals the
refuge has are for the improved management of refuge wetlands and acquisition and restoration of
wetlands in the channeled scabland region adjacent to the refuge. The feasibility of reestablishing
a breeding population at Turnbull needs to be studied and proposals developed.
Swan Management Proposals, Duration and Funding Estimates
1) Evaluate the possibility of reestablishing a breeding population of trumpeter swans at the
refuge, develop a proposal and identify project. Costs: $5K.
2) Developed contour mapping of 22 managed refuge wetlands and establish piezometer wells
and water level recorders at each structure to allow monitoring of water depths through out
wetland basin and refinement of water level management to meet habitat objectives. Costs $165K
RONS 98004 and $30K RONS 97007
3) Study nutrient enrichment of refuge wetlands and determine potential sources of nutrient from
off-refuge sources. Costs $100K
VII. Service Habitat Management and Funding Priorities:
The following represents the general priorities recommended by the Trumpeter Swan Working
Group to the Service as the implementation strategy for management of the RMP of trumpeter
swans. The Working Group in collaboration with State and private partners would be responsible
for selecting the specific priority projects by area. The development of funding packages needed
to implement these swan management and research projects would be developed also through
this process. The group would then submit project packages to Refuge Supervisors and
Migratory Bird Coordinators for competition for funds during the annual appropriation processes.
The Regional Refuge Supervisors, Migratory Bird Coordinators, and Flyway Representatives will
-44-
have input in the final selection of projects and will help develop funding packages needed to
implement these projects. They will also help the Trumpeter Swan Working Group to coordinate
among the many individual refuge projects and they will take the lead in coordinating Service
planning with other Tribal, Federal, and State agencies, and non-governmental organizations.
Several general concepts guided the prioritization. Coordinated efforts are better than a series of
individual efforts. Monitoring, and marking, especially satellite tracking needs to be coordinated
to avoid duplication and for more efficient use of time and funds. The Tri-State flock should also
be the core of Refuge efforts. Expansion should take place from the core outward, always
maintaining connectivity with established breeding flocks and eventually connecting with other
breeding flocks nearer the core of the trumpeters historic range. For example expansion should
occur eastward towards Lacreek NWR and northward toward the Canadian flock of the RMP.
Expansion sites where trumpeter swans will be forced to migrate south and/or where they are not
likely to migrate to the Island Park area of Idaho will be prioritized higher than sites where these
conditions are unlikely to be met.
Finally, there are questions that cannot be answered only on refuges, but should be answered
before trumpeter swan restoration continues. The two major issues are, a review of trumpeter
swan genetics among the various flocks, and the interrelationships of all factors on the wintering
areas on the Henry’s Fork River. Because of the importance of these issues, they are proposed in
this document even though they will entail efforts beyond refuge boundaries.
Management and Research Priorities:
A. Continue to maintain the Tri-State trumpeter swan flock within United States segment of the
RMP as a high management and research priority. This historically and biologically important
trumpeter swan population centers around the Centennial Valley/Red Rock Lakes NWR (
southwest Montana), Yellowstone National Park, the Targhee National Forest, the Jackson
Valley/ Grand Teton National Park, and the National Elk Refuge. Its critical that proper funding
resources be allocated for priority trumpeter swan management projects in this Tri-State area.
These would include: wetland restoration, swan augmentation efforts, research needs that might
include: concerns about chronic lead poisoning in swans, cygnet mortality problems, swan genetic
health, better habitat criteria for swans, what type of coordinated marking programs work best,
and migrational information (satellite tracking telemetry) to hopefully answer questions that have
persisted for many decades.
Objective: To improve the overall population health and numbers of the Tri-State flock, and
thereby, the overall reproductive and migrational viability of the RMP.
B. Establish additional nesting populations of trumpeter swans in the more southern regions of the
RMP, such as eastern/southeastern Idaho (Grays Lake NWR, Camas NWR, Minidoka NWR,
and Bear Lake NWR/Oxford Slough WPA), western/southwestern Wyoming (the Afton Valley,
Seedskadee NWR, the Green River drainage, Cokeville Meadows NWR along the upper Bear
River, and possibly central Wyoming). Management projects that encourage natural pioneering
into restored swan habitat from northern swans and selected augmentation releases in suitable
priority wetland habitat would be used. Closely coordinated marking and tracking protocols
-45-
should be established, with the objective that researchers try to find out where southern
trumpeters migrate to , which pathways do they follow, what are their seasonal movements, how
does this effect Utah and Nevada tundra swan hunting programs? Augmentation efforts would
require swan propagation facility certification, support and funding. As part of this southern
effort, more southern refuges identified as winter homes for trumpeters would need to
emphasize where possible, wetland and aquatic food management for swans.
Objective: To improve the overall southern breeding densities of Rocky Mountain trumpeter
swans within their historic breeding range, and to encourage these swans along with their northern
segments to move to more southern habitats for wintering.
C. The Service should continue or renew its efforts to restore trumpeter swan breeding numbers
to the wetland units within the National Bison Range, the Flathead Valley, the northern Idaho
panhandle that includes Kootenai NWR, and possibly northeast Washington wetlands at Turnbull
NWR, and any other suitable breeding wetland habitats, private or public, that would provide for
nesting pairs of trumpeter swans closer to the Canadian border. This would also include setting
up new swan management partnerships (and maintaining existing ones) with the tribal entities in
this area. RMP swan management efforts should also try to move south into the Bitteroot Valley
(Lee Metcalf NWR) and other portions of southwest Montana and central Idaho, in an attempt to
establish some connectivity with the more southern nesting trumpeters and the Tri-State flock.
These efforts would involve a variety of funded projects that would include: wetland habitat
restoration, wetland habitat maintenance, spring swan augmentation at select sites, important
research needs, proper marking/tracking, and fall/winter habitat maintenance for swans where
applicable.
Objective: To expand trumpeter swan breeding numbers north, closer to the expanding
Canadian nesting segment of the RMP in Alberta and south to the tri-state flock.. This would
improved overall RMP continuity with the United States and Canadian segments, and hopefully
encourage more breeding and migrational interchange.
D. Coordinate marking and monitoring of trumpeter swans.
Objective: Delineate a process through which priorities of how to mark swans and where to best
use limited research dollars. Designate a person to act as the clearinghouse with the objective of
consolidating and analyzing data collected. First step should be hiring a graduate student to
analysis existing neck collar data.
E. Analyze the genetics among the various flocks
Objective: Review the genetic status of trumpeter swans and recommend where funds should be
spent to clearly define this issue.
F. Study the interrelationships of all the factors influencing trumpeter swan use of the Henry’s
Fork of the Snake River.
-46-
Objective: Brainstorm interrelationships and develop a study plan and budget to address
management concerns.
Specific Projects (These projects are listed as examples of how this plan would propose funding
initiative. Development of a final, prioritized list of projects should involve all partners during the
facilitated session in May 2001. Funding sources to implement this plan will be pursued through
several channels. We recommend that a NAWCA project be submitted once State and private
lands projects are identified to capture wetland enhancement projects. Within the Service budget
we recommend placing prioritized projects in Refuge Operating Needs, Maintenance Management
System and Migratory Bird Project data bases for possible funding allocations each fiscal year.
Research project funds will be pursued through the Biological Research Division of USGS.
Monitoring funds will be pursued through the Challenge Cost Share allocations.).
Projects identified above by each refuge were analyzed and lumped into the following seven
categories:
Monitoring
1. Due to refuge budget base erosion, Red Rock Lakes NWR can no longer fund the two area
wide fall and mid-winter swan surveys that they have coordinated for years. The data generated
by this effort is essential to the sound management of the RMP. Cost: $15K
2. Initiate satellite telemetry study to answer key questions about swan distribution.
Questions addressed include:
a. Red Rock Lakes NWR swan distribution.
b. Harriman State Park winter distribution and response to disturbance techniques.
c. Canadian segment winter distribution.
d. Distribution of captive reared swans following releases.
Refuges that identified this type of monitoring and the associated costs included:
a. Red Rock Lakes NWR $10K
b. Ruby Lake NWR 52
c. Bear Lake NWR 50
d. Seedskadee NWR 53
e. National Elk Refuge 150
f. Camas 150
SUBTOTAL $465K
3. Mark and monitor swans released as part of any expansion or augmentation efforts to include
projects at:
a. Bear Lake NWR $30K
b. Seedskadee NWR 30K
c. National Bison Range 50K
d. Kootenai NWR 25K
-47-
e. Turnbull NWR 30 K
SUBTOTAL $165K
4. Conduct three aerial surveys throughout the breeding season at Red Rock Lakes NWR to
monitor breeding success and distribution. Cost: $15K
TOTAL: $660K
Wetland Enhancement/Rehabilitation
Wetland enhancement and rehabilitation projects identified in this report are presented to
stimulate a discussion about priorities during the facilitated scoping session planned for May 2000
by the Pacific Flyway Council. We recommend that these projects once prioritized and
complemented by projects on State and private land, be packaged as a NAWCA project by the
Intermountain West Joint Venture Office.
1. Continue Phase 3 of the Bear Lake NWR wetland enhancement project by constructing
another carp free impoundment totally 2000 acres. Cost: $750K.
2. Move well on Camas NWR to restore the Sandhole Lake Wetland Complex. Cost: $200K
3. Construct nesting islands at Minidoka NWR in preparation for transplants of captive reared
swans. Cost: $20K
4. Install carp excluding screens on water control structures at Pablo NWR. Cost: $150K
5. Construct nesting platforms at Dahl Lake and McGregor Meadows on the National Bison
Range Complex in preparation for transplants of captive reared swans. Cost: $12K.
6. Repair non functioning water control structures in the mitigation ponds at National Elk
Refuge. Cost: $40K.
7. Rehabilitate Spring Ponds at Ruby Lake NWR. Cost: $75K.
8. Restore wetlands at Cokeville Meadows in preparation for transplants of captive reared swans.
Cost: $65K.
9. Enhance Hawley wetland complex at Seedskadee NWR. Cost: $60K
TOTAL of Identified Wetland Projects: $1,372K
Translocation/Augmentation Projects
1. Salvage 30 eggs from Trumpeter Swan nests at Grays Lake for propagation at the Wyoming
Captive Rearing Facility for release at priority locations in Idaho.
Cost: Propagation Fee $15K
-48-
Satellite Transmitters $20K
BioTech-Monitoring $30K
SUBTOTAL $65K
2. Restore vigor of the Ruby Lake NWR flock by importing eggs from the captive rearing facility
into nests of resident swans. Cost: $25K.
3. Study the feasibility of restoring swans at Turnbull NWR. Cost: $5K.
4. Develop protocol for emergency releases of swans salvaged from Grays Lake NWR during
drought years. Cost: $5K.
TOTAL $100K
Research
1. Convene a group of scientists with expertise in hydrology, fish, swans, fishing birds,
aquatic plants, and ice formation in rivers to lay out a comprehensive research project that
would study and explain these interrelationships and how they relate to trumpeter swan
management.
Cost: $25K
2. Convene a population genetic specialists panel to review existing data and identify data
gaps that should be addressed with research dollars, with the goal of determining whether
species differentiation exists between RMP breeding segments through DN