DOCSLIB.ORG

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River Bonneville Power Administration, USACE – Portland District, USACE – Walla Walla District, and Grant County Public Utility District Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report 1 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts in the Lower and Mid‐Columbia River 2013 Draft Annual Report This 2013 Draft Annual Report has been prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Grant County Public Utility District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator U.S. Geological Survey ‐ Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐737‐1955 Ken Collis, Co‐Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541‐382‐3836 Donald Lyons, Jessica Adkins, Yasuko Suzuki, Peter Loschl, Timothy Lawes, Kirsten Bixler, Adam Peck‐Richardson, Allison Patterson, Stefanie Collar, Alexa Piggott, Helen Davis, Jen Mannas, Anna Laws, John Mulligan, Kelly Young, Pam Kostka, Nate Banet, Ethan Schniedermeyer, Amy Wilson, and Allison Mohoric Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331‐3803 2 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, Mike Hawbecker, Nathan Hostetter, and Aaron Turecek Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Jen Zamon NOAA Fisheries – Pt. Adams Biological Station, 520 Heceta Street, Hammond, OR 97121 David Kuligowski NOAA Fisheries, 7305 Beach Drive East, Port Orchard, WA 98366 Submitted: February 28, 2014 3 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………....…………………………………………………………. 7 INTRODUCTION…………………………………..…………………………………………………………………… 13 STUDY AREA………………………………….…...…………………………………………………………………... 16 SECTION 1: CASPIAN TERNS……………………………………………………………………………………... 16 1.1. Preparation and Modification of Nesting Habitat……………………………………………... 16 1.1.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 17 1.1.2. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 18 1.2. Colony Size and Productivity……………………………………………….…………………………….. 19 1.2.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 19 1.2.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………………………………………………... 21 1.2.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………………………………………………... 24 1.2.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 29 1.3. Diet Composition and Salmonid Smolt Consumption………………………………………… 32 1.3.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 32 1.3.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………………………………………………... 34 1.3.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………………………………………………... 36 1.3.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 36 1.4. Predation Rates Based on Smolt PIT Tag Recoveries……………….…………………………. 38 1.4.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 42 1.4.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………………………………………………... 44 1.4.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………………………………………………... 50 1.4.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 50 1.5. Color Banding and Band Re‐sightings…………………....…...……………………………………. 51 1.5.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 52 1.5.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………………………………………………... 53 1.5.3. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 54 SECTION 2: DOUBLE‐CRESTED CORMORANTS………………………………………………………….. 57 2.1. Nesting Distribution and Colony Size…………………….…………………………………………… 57 2.1.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 57 2.1.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………...……………………………………… 59 2.1.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………...……………………………………… 60 2.1.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 61 4 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest 2.2. Nesting Success…………………………….……………………..……………………………………………. 61 2.2.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 61 2.2.2. Columbia Plateau…………………..……………………………………………………………... 62 2.2.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………...……………………………………… 62 2.2.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 62 2.3. Diet Composition and Salmonid Smolt Consumption……………………………………….. 63 2.3.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 63 2.3.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………………………………………………... 65 2.3.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………...……………………………………… 65 2.3.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 66 2.4. Predation Rates Based on Smolt PIT Tag Recoveries…….…………………………………... 66 2.4.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 66 2.4.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..………………………………………………………... 67 2.5. Color‐banding………………………………………..……………………………....………………………… 68 2.6. Management Feasibility Study………………………..………………………………………………… 69 SECTION 3: OTHER PISCIVOROUS COLONIAL WATERBIRDS……………………………………… 74 3.1. Distribution……………………………….………………………………………………………………………. 74 3.1.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 74 3.1.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..….…………………………………………………….. 75 3.1.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………………………………………………... 77 3.1.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 77 3.2. Diet Composition…………………………….………………………………………………………………… 78 3.2.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 78 3.2.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..….…………………………………………………….. 79 3.2.3. Coastal Washington……………………….……………………………………………………... 81 3.2.4. Interior Oregon and Northeastern California…………….…………………………… 81 3.3. Predation Rates Based on Smolt PIT Tag Recoveries……………….………………………… 81 3.3.1. Columbia River Estuary……………………….…………………………………………………. 81 3.3.2. Columbia Plateau………………………..….…………………………………………………….. 82 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86 LITERATURE CITED…………………………………...……………………………………………………………… 88 PROJECT PUBLICATIONS AND SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPTS………………………….……………. 98 5 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest PROGRAM FUNDING………………………………...…………………………………………………………….. 102 MAPS…………………………………….….……………………………………………………………………………… 105 FIGURES…………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………….. 111 TABLES……………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………… 184 APPENDIX A: PIT TAG DEPOSITION STUDIES…………………………………………………………….. 193 APPENDIX B: PREVIOUSLY REPORTED CASPIAN TERN PREDATION RATES ADJUSTED FOR SMOLT PIT TAG DEPOSITION RATE, 2007‐2013..……….…………………… 208 APPENDIX C: FORAGING BEHAVIOR AND DISPERSAL PATTERNS OF CASPIAN TERNS NESTING ON GOOSE ISLAND, POTHOLES RESERVOIR…………………….. 210 6 2013 Draft Annual Report Bird Research Northwest EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The primary objectives of this project in 2013 were to (1) evaluate the efficacy of management initiatives implemented to reduce predation on juvenile salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) by Caspian terns (Hydroprogne caspia) nesting on East Sand Island in the Columbia River estuary, including the monitoring of alternative Caspian tern nesting islands built by the Corps outside the Columbia River basin; (2) collect, compile, and analyze data needed to assist in completion of the NEPA analysis required for management of (a) double‐crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) nesting on East Sand Island and (b) Caspian terns nesting at colonies in the Columbia Plateau region; (3) investigate the numbers of other piscivorous colonial waterbirds (i.e., Brandt’s cormorants P. penicillatus, California brown pelicans Pelecanus occidentalis californicus, American white pelicans P. erythrorhynchos, and gulls Larus spp.) that use the Columbia River to nest or roost and assess their potential impacts on smolt survival; and (4) assist resource managers as technical advisors in the development of plans for long‐term management of avian predation on juvenile salmonids from the Columbia River basin, as warranted. The Caspian tern colony on East Sand Island, the largest for the species in the world, consisted of about 7,400 breeding pairs in 2013. This is an increase from the estimate of 6,400 pairs in 2012, and the first increase since the initiation of habitat reduction on East Sand Island in 2008, when the colony numbered about 10,000 breeding pairs. In addition to the increase in colony size, Caspian terns at this colony were more resilient to disturbances by bald eagles and associated gull depredation on tern eggs and chicks compared to during 2010‐2012. The Caspian tern colony on East Sand Island produced about 1,480 fledglings in 2013 (average of 0.20 young raised/breeding pair), a significant increase from 2010‐2012 (average of 0 ‐ 0.06 young raised/breeding pair), but lower than in other years during 2001‐2009. The average proportion of juvenile salmonids in the diet of Caspian terns during the 2013 nesting season was 32%, similar to 2009‐2012. The estimated total smolt consumption by Caspian terns nesting at East Sand Island in 2013 was 4.6 million (95% c.i. = 3.9 ‐ 5.3 million), similar to 2012. Recoveries of smolt passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags on the Caspian tern colony at East Sand Island indicated that tern predation rates on salmonid smolts that were interrogated passing Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River or Sullivan Dam on the Willamette River were similar in 2013 and 2012. Also similar to previous
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan Conservation Seabird Pacific Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Seabird Conservation Plan—Pacific Region 120 0’0"E 140 0’0"E 160 0’0"E 180 0’0" 160 0’0"W 140 0’0"W 120 0’0"W 100 0’0"W RUSSIA CANADA 0’0"N 0’0"N 50 50 WA CHINA US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region OR ID AN NV JAP CA H A 0’0"N I W 0’0"N 30 S A 30 N L I ort I Main Hawaiian Islands Commonwealth of the hwe A stern A (see inset below) Northern Mariana Islands Haw N aiian Isla D N nds S P a c i f i c Wake Atoll S ND ANA O c e a n LA RI IS Johnston Atoll MA Guam L I 0’0"N 0’0"N N 10 10 Kingman Reef E Palmyra Atoll I S 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W L Howland Island Equator A M a i n H a w a i i a n I s l a n d s Baker Island Jarvis N P H O E N I X D IN D Island Kauai S 0’0"N ONE 0’0"N I S L A N D S 22 SI 22 A PAPUA NEW Niihau Oahu GUINEA Molokai Maui 0’0"S Lanai 0’0"S 10 AMERICAN P a c i f i c 10 Kahoolawe SAMOA O c e a n Hawaii 0’0"N 0’0"N 20 FIJI 20 AUSTRALIA 0 200 Miles 0 2,000 ES - OTS/FR Miles September 2003 160 0’0"W 158 0’0"W 156 0’0"W (800) 244-WILD http://www.fws.gov Information U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Draft Supplemental
    Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment (with Draft Amended FONSI) and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Caspian Tern Nesting Island Construction Project Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District June 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Proposed Project 1.1 Proposed Project Description 1.2 Proposed Location 1.3 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action 1.4 Project Authority 2.0 Scope of Analysis 3.0 Proposed Action 3.1 Habitat Construction: Sheepy Lake in Lower Klamath NWR 3.1.1 Demolition and Disposal of Sheepy Floating Island 3.1.2 Sheepy Rock Island Design 3.1.3 Timing of Construction 3.1.4 Construction Methods 3.1.5 Access 3.1.6 Staging Area 3.1.7 Temporary Access Road 3.1.8 Maintenance Methods 3.1.9 Summary of Fill Requirements and Footprint 3.1.10 Post-Construction Monitoring 4.0 Alternatives 4.1 No Action Alternative 4.2 Repair the existing floating island 5.0 Impact Assessment 6.0 Summary of Indirect and Cumulative Effects 6.1 Indirect Effects 6.1.1 Caspian Terns 6.1.2 Fishes 6.1.3 Endangered and Threatened Species 6.1.4 Other Birds 6.1.5 Socioeconomic Effects 6.2 Cumulative Impacts 7.0 Environmental Compliance 8.0 Agencies Consulted and Public Notifications 9.0 Mitigation Measures 10.0 Draft Amended FONSI LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Map of Tule Lake NWR and Lower Klamath NWR within the vicinity of Klamath Basin NWRs, Oregon and California 3.1 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (1 of 3) 3.2 Sheepy Lake Floating Island Failure (2 of 3) 3.3
    [Show full text]
  • Sterna Hirundo)
    Vol. 1931XLVIII1 j JACKSONANDALLAN, C0•/gat/• ofTer•. 17 EXPERIMENT IN THE KECOLONIZATION OF THE COMMON TERN • (STERNA HIRUNDO). BY C. F. JACKSON AND PHILIP F. ALLAN. DURINGthe summerof 1929an attemptwas made at the Marine ZoologicalLaboratory at the Islesof Shoalsto establisha colony of Terns (Sternahitundo) on North Head of AppledoreIsland. This colonization was tried because of the threatened destruction of the colonyon Londoner'sIsland. The first recordsof a colonyof thesebirds at the Shoalscome from two of the oldest inhabitants. "Uncle" Oscar Leighton, ninety-oneyears of age, recalls a colony on Duck Island where thousandsof "mackerelgulls" nestedyearly. In his boyhood the fishermenused to collectthe eggsfor food,and the men and youthsshot the adults for the feathers. This colonypersisted until 1898 when "Captain" Caswellmoved to Duck Island. As a resultof this disturbance,the colonymigrated "down the Maine Coast" and settledon variousislands. In 1922a few pairsstarted nestingon Londoner'sIsland. This new colonyincreased rapidly and duringthe summerof 1928approximately one thousandpairs were breeding on the island. The year after the establishmentof the colony,a cottagewas erectedon the'island. The cottage,however, was not occupied to any extent until the summerof 1927. At this time the island wassold and the newowner, not desiringthe presenceof the birds, set aboutto drive them from the island. The eggswere destroyed, the youngwere killed, and the adultskept in a state of constant confusion. During the summerof 1929 large numbersof eggs were broken,and numerousyoung were killed. A dog was kept rovingthe islandand nosedout and killed many of the fledglings, and a flockof hensdestroyed great numbers of eggs. Althoughthe situationwas unfortunate, the ownerwas evidently well within his rightsin destroyingthe birdson his own property.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Threatened Fishes in Warner Basin, Oregon
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 50 Number 3 Article 5 10-31-1990 Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon Jack E. Williams Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Mark A. Stern The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon Alan V. Munhall Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Oregon Gary A. Anderson Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Williams, Jack E.; Stern, Mark A.; Munhall, Alan V.; and Anderson, Gary A. (1990) "Conservation status of threatened fishes in arnerW Basin, Oregon," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 50 : No. 3 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol50/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Creat &Isio N:l.luraUst 50(3), 1900, pp. 243-248 CONSERVATION STATUS OF THREATENED FISHES IN WARNER BASIN, OREGON 1 l 3 Jack E. Williams , MarkA. Stern \ Alan V. Munhall , and Cary A. Anderson"" A8S'TRACT.-Two fedemlJy listed fisbes, the Foskett speckled daceand Warnersucker, are endemic to Warner Basin in south central Oregon. The Foskett speckled dace is native only to a single spring in Coleman Valley. Anearby'spring was stocked with dace in 1979 and 1980, and now provides a second population. The present numbers ofdace probably are at their Wgbest levels since settlement ofthe region.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Rangeland Health Assessment O'keeffe FRF
    ee e_ O'KEEFFE FRF INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT #0203 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM, 1997) Introduction The Range Reform '94 Record of Decision (BLM, 1995a) recently amended current grazing administration and management practices. The ROD required that region-specific standards and guidelines be developed and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In the State of Oregon, several Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) were established to develop these regional standards and guidelines. The RAC established for the part of the state covering the O'Keeffe FRF Individual Allotment is the Southeastern Oregon RAe. These standards and guidelines for Oregon and Washington were finalized on August 12, 1997 and include: Standard 1 - Upland Watershed Function Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. • dard 2 - Riparian/Wetland Watershed Function • Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning physical condition appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. Standard 3 - Ecological Processes Healthy, productive, and diverse plant and animal populations and communities appropriate to soil, climate, and landform are supported by ecological processes of nutrient cycling, energy flow, and the hydrologic cycle. Standard 4 - Water Quality Surface water and groundwater quality, influenced by agency actions, complies with State water quality standards. Standard 5 - Native, T&E, and Locally Important Species Habitats support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native plants and animals (including special status species and species of local importance) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. NDARD 1 - UPLAND WATERSHED CONDITION: Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates, moisture storage, and stability that are appropriate to soil, climate, and landform.
    [Show full text]
  • South Florida Wading Bird Report 2000
    SOUTH FLORIDA WADING BIRD REPORT Volume 6, Issue 1 Dale E. Gawlik, Editor September 2000 SYSTEM-WIDE SUMMARY the ecosystem prior to the breeding season (probably because of droughts in the SE U.S.), a very wet system at the start of At the start of the dry season, water levels throughout the the dry season (even the short hydroperiod marshes were Everglades were much higher than normal due to Hurricane inundated), and a rapid and prolonged drydown (concentrated Irene. As the dry season progressed, water levels receded prey patches moved over the entire landscape as water receded rapidly so that by June, they were close to, or slightly above, across it). But, other hypotheses are equally plausible (see normal. A heavy rain in April caused water levels to rise Frederick et al. this report). Determining causation so that key quickly, albeit temporarily, but the amount of increase differed conditions can be repeated will require both long-term among regions, as did the response by wading birds. monitoring and shorter-term experiments and modeling. The estimated number of wading bird nests in south Florida in Past differences in survey methodology and effort among 2000 was 39,480 (excluding Cattle Egrets, which are not regions are starting to be addressed. All regions of the dependent on wetlands). That represents a 40% increase over Everglades proper now have systematic aerial colony surveys. 1999, which was one of the best years in a decade. Increased However, ground counts are not universal and no surveys are nesting effort in 2000 was almost solely a function of increases done in Big Cypress National Preserve or Lake Okeechobee.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 37/Thursday, February 25, 2010
    Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8621 We encourage interested parties to DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wildlife Office, 2600 SE. 98th Avenue, continue to gather data that will assist Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; with the conservation of the species. If Fish and Wildlife Service telephone 503–231–6179; facsimile you wish to provide information 503–231–6195. regarding the bald eagle, you may 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul submit your information or materials to [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2008–0128] Henson, Ph.D., State Supervisor, U.S. the Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological [MO 92210–0–0009–B4] Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish ADDRESSES and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES, Services Office (see section RIN 1018–AW72 above). The Service continues to above). Persons who use a strongly support the cooperative Endangered and Threatened Wildlife telecommunications device for the deaf conservation of the Sonoran Desert Area and Plants; Withdrawal of Proposed (TDD) may call the Federal Information bald eagle. Rule To List the Southwestern Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. On March 6, 2008, the U.S. District Washington/Columbia River Distinct SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Court for the District of Arizona Population Segment of Coastal Background enjoined our application of the July 9, Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened On July 5, 2002, we published a 2007 (72 FR 37346), final delisting rule notice of our withdrawal of the for bald eagles to the Sonoran Desert AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, proposed rule to list the Southwestern population pending the outcome of our Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Fern Ridge Wildlife Area Management Plan
    DRAFT FERN RIDGE WILDLIFE AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN January 2009 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 3406 Cherry Avenue NE Salem, Oregon 97303 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Plan ..................................................................................................... 1 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mission and Authority................................... 1 Purpose and Need of Fern Ridge Wildlife Area ........................................................... 1 Wildlife Area Goals and Objectives.............................................................................. 4 Wildlife Area Establishment ......................................................................................... 5 Description and Environment ...................................................................................... 6 Physical Resources................................................................................................... 6 Locatio n ................................................................................................................... 6 Climate..................................................................................................................... 7 Topography and Soils .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seabird Curriculum Book, by the Alaska
    LEARN ABOUT SEABIRDS DEAR EDUCATOR, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes that education plays a vital role in preparing young Alaskans to make wise decisions about fish and wildlife resource issues. The Service in Alaska has developed several educational curricula including “Teach about Geese,” “Wetlands and Wildlife,” and “The Role of Fire in Alaska.” The goal of these curricula is to teach students about Alaska’s natural resource topics so they will have the information and skills necessary to make informed decisions in the future. Many species of seabirds are found in Alaska; about 86 percent of the total U.S. population of seabirds occur here. Seabirds are an important socioeconomic resource in Alaska. Seabirds are vulnerable to impacts, some caused by people and others caused by animals. The “Learn About Seabirds” teaching packet is designed to teach 4-6 grade Alaskans about Alaska’s seabird popula- tions, the worldwide significance of seabirds, and the impacts seabirds are vulnerable to. The “Learn About Seabirds” teaching packet includes: * A Teacher’s Background Story * 12 teaching activities * A Guide to Alaskan Seabirds * Zoobooks Seabirds * A full color poster - Help Protect Alaska’s Seabirds Topics that are covered in the packet include seabird identification, food webs, population dynam- ics, predator/prey relationships, adaptations of seabirds to their habitats, traditional uses by people, and potential adverse impacts to seabirds and their habitats. The interdisciplinary activities are sequenced so that important concepts build upon one another. Training workshops can be arranged in your region to introduce these materials to teachers and other community members.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Penguin Colonies in the Antarctic Using Remote Sensing Data Final Report
    TEXTE 30 /2017 Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data Final Report TEXTE 30/2017 Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety Project No. (FKZ) 3713 12 101 Report No. (UBA-FB) 002498/ENG Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data by Osama Mustafa, Jan Esefeld, Hannes Grämer, Jakob Maercker, Marie-Charlott Rümmler, Martin Senf, Christian Pfeifer ThINK - Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection, Jena Hans-Ulrich Peter Polar & Bird Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena On behalf of the German Environment Agency Imprint Publisher: Umweltbundesamt Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Study performed by: ThINK - Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection Leutragraben 1 07743 Jena Germany Study completed in: March 2017 Edited by: Section II 2.8 Protection of the Arctic and Antarctic Fritz Hertel Publication as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen ISSN 1862-4804 Dessau-Roßlau, May 2017 The Project underlying this report was supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety under project number FKZ 3713 12 101. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data Abstract In the context of the already observed population changes at specific time intervals and the shift in penguin breeding sites because of global warming and the fluctuations in availability of food, full-scale monitoring of Antarctic penguins seems reasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • FRAMEWORK for a CIRCUMPOLAR ARCTIC SEABIRD MONITORING NETWORK Caffs CIRCUMPOLAR SEABIRD GROUP Acknowledgements I
    Supporting Publication to the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program CAFF CBMP Report No. 15 September 2008 FRAMEWORK FOR A CIRCUMPOLAR ARCTIC SEABIRD MONITORING NETWORK CAFFs CIRCUMPOLAR SEABIRD GROUP Acknowledgements i CAFF Designated Agencies: t Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada t Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland t Ministry of the Environment and Nature, Greenland Homerule, Greenland (Kingdom of Denmark) t Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands (Kingdom of Denmark) t Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Reykjavik, Iceland t Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim, Norway t Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, Russia t Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden t United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska This publication should be cited as: Aevar Petersen, David Irons, Tycho Anker-Nilssen, Yuri Ar- tukhin, Robert Barrett, David Boertmann, Carsten Egevang, Maria V. Gavrilo, Grant Gilchrist, Martti Hario, Mark Mallory, Anders Mosbech, Bergur Olsen, Henrik Osterblom, Greg Robertson, and Hall- vard Strøm (2008): Framework for a Circumpolar Arctic Seabird Monitoring Network. CAFF CBMP Report No.15 . CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Cover photo: Recording Arctic Tern growth parameters at Kitsissunnguit West Greenland 2004. Photo by Carsten Egevang/ARC-PIC.COM. For more information please contact: CAFF International Secretariat Borgir, Nordurslod 600 Akureyri, Iceland Phone: +354 462-3350 Fax: +354 462-3390 Email: ca"@ca".is Internet: http://www.ca".is ___ CAFF Designated Area Editor: Aevar Petersen Design & Layout: Tom Barry Institutional Logos CAFFs Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program: Framework for a Circumpolar Arctic Seabird Monitoring Network Aevar Petersen, David Irons, Tycho Anker-Nilssen, Yuri Artukhin, Robert Barrett, David Boertmann, Carsten Egevang, Maria V.
    [Show full text]
  • Scenic Bikeways! Safety Tips Please Be Aware That the Bikeway Information Here Is in 2009, Oregon Became the First State to Develop Only Advisory
    Explore Oregon’s Scenic Bikeways! Safety Tips Please be aware that the bikeway information here is In 2009, Oregon became the first state to develop only advisory. You assume all risks as far as the quality a statewide Scenic Bikeway program. Ten years and accuracy of the information; in other words, you’re later this innovative program now includes 17 agreeing to use it at your own risk. Scenic Bikeway designated bicycle routes that showcase Oregon’s routes include roads with car and truck traffic, and are breathtaking landscapes, cultural treasures and for cyclists that are comfortable riding in some amount western hospitality. of traffic. Cyclists must obey the rules of the road. For car-free riding, check out the Banks-Vernonia State Trail Scenic Bikeways are Oregon’s best of the best bicycle rides on the Tualatin Valley Bikeway and the Row River Trail for exploring this beautiful state. Everyone can find a ride section of the Covered Bridges Bikeway. that fits their style, from a half-day, family-friendly outing A must-know: in Oregon, a bicycle is legally considered to a multi-day, remote and challenging route. Ride one or a vehicle (and the same laws apply). Riding with the connect a series of bikeways for an epic adventure. Official direction of traffic is the law; it’s also the best way to be route signs are posted along each bikeway. seen by motorists. Painted Hills Scenic Bikeway Crooked River Canyon Bikeway Scenic Bikeways are nominated by locals and then tested To demonstrate the best riding etiquette and promote and vetted by a statewide advisory committee of cyclists, good relations with motorists, please ride single-file.
    [Show full text]