DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Comments Accepted on Proposed Changes in Bald Eagle Status and Habitat Protection Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Public Comments Accepted on Proposed Changes in Bald Eagle Status and Habitat Protection Rule The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is beginning a 90-day public comment period on the draft bald eagle status report and proposed revisions to the bald eagle habitat protection rule (WAC 232-12-292). The draft status report contains a recommendation to down-list the bald eagle to Sensitive, provided that the habitat rule be revised. Changes in listing of species are based solely on the biological status of the species and its habitat. The purpose of the public review is to allow interested persons to submit new scientific information which applies to the status report and listing recommendation and to comment on the Department’s interpretation of information. The public comment period extends from 1 June to 1 September 2001. Copies of the status report are available at Department regional offices, the Olympia headquarters, in electronic format below, and available for reading at public libraries. The Department will hold public meetings on these proposals. Meeting times and places will be published when they are scheduled. After the public comment period, the Department will prepare final reports and recommendations and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documents. These will be available for a 30-day comment period beginning 15 October. Pending federal de-listing of the bald eagle, the final recommendation will be presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission at the December 7-8 2001 meeting. Please provide your comments and information by 1 September 2001. Send e-mail comments to [email protected] or mail written comments to: Endangered Species Section Manager Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, WA 98501-1091 You may download the draft bald eagle plan, or proposed revised habitat protection rule by clicking on the highlighted text below: • Draft Bald Eagle Status Report • Proposed revisions to Bald Eagle Habitat Rule For a hard copy, please check the box(es) here: DRAFT Washington State Status Report for the Bald Eagle Prepared by Derek W. Stinson, James W. Watson, and Kelly R. McAllister Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, WA 98501-1091 June 2001 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix I). In 1990, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix I). The procedures include how species listing will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, public review and recovery and management of listed species. The first step in the process is to develop a preliminary species status report. The report includes a review of information relevant to the species’ status in Washington and addresses factors affecting its status including, but not limited to: historic, current, and future species population trends, natural history including ecological relationships, historic and current habitat trends, population demographics and their relationship to long term sustainability, and historic and current species management activities. The procedures then provide for a 90-day public review opportunity for interested parties to submit new scientific data relevant to the status report, classification recommendation, and any State Environmental Policy Act findings. During the 90-day review period, the Department holds two public meetings: one in eastern Washington and one in western Washington. At the close of the comment period, the Department completes the Final Status Report and Listing Recommendation for presentation to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Final Report and Recommendation are then released 30 days prior to the Commission presentation for public review. This is the Draft Status Report for the Bald Eagle. Submit written comments on this report by 1 September 2001 to: Derek Stinson, Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091. The Department will present the results of this status review to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for action at the December meeting. This report should be cited as: Stinson, D. W., J. W. Watson, and K. R. McAllister. 2001. Draft Washington State status report for the Bald Eagle. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 90 pp. Cover illustration by Darrell Pruett TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES .....................................................vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................ vii Acronyms Used in the Report ......................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................viii TAXONOMY ...................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION..................................................................... 1 DISTRIBUTION.................................................................... 1 NATURAL HISTORY ............................................................... 3 Reproduction ................................................................. 3 Territoriality ........................................................... 3 Mating behavior........................................................ 3 Nesting and brood rearing ................................................ 3 Movements and Dispersal....................................................... 4 Migration............................................................. 4 Dispersal and Fidelity ................................................... 6 Diet and Foraging............................................................. 6 Behavior .................................................................... 8 Winter feeding......................................................... 8 Soaring............................................................... 8 Communal roosting..................................................... 8 Interspecific relationships ................................................ 9 Longevity, Survival, and Mortality ................................................ 9 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 11 Home Range................................................................ 11 Nesting Habitat.............................................................. 11 Perch Trees................................................................. 13 Foraging Habitat............................................................. 13 Roosting Habitat............................................................. 14 POPULATION STATUS ............................................................ 15 Decline, Protection and Recovery in North America................................. 15 Washington: Past ............................................................ 17 Estimate of historical population .......................................... 17 Washington: Present.......................................................... 19 Nesting density ....................................................... 21 Occupancy rate ....................................................... 22 June 2001 iii Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Productivity rate ....................................................... 23 Nest success rate ...................................................... 24 Lower Columbia River and Hood Canal .................................... 25 Winter population ..................................................... 25 Washington Population: Future ................................................. 27 HABITAT STATUS ................................................................ 28 Past ....................................................................... 28 Present..................................................................... 28 Foraging habitat....................................................... 28 Nesting, perching and roosting habitats..................................... 29 Land ownership....................................................... 30 Future ..................................................................... 33 LEGAL STATUS .................................................................. 34 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................... 35 Surveys.................................................................... 35 Nesting Surveys....................................................... 36 Mid-winter Bald Eagle Surveys........................................... 36 Bald Eagle Management Plans.................................................. 36 Roost management plans................................................ 38 County generic plans ................................................... 38 Plan conditions........................................................ 39 Amendments ......................................................... 40 Compliance .......................................................... 40 Research ................................................................... 40 Habitat Acquisition ........................................................... 41 Miscellaneous Activities ....................................................... 41 Landowner contributions ...............................................
Recommended publications
  • WDFW Washington State Status Report for the Bald Eagle

    WDFW Washington State Status Report for the Bald Eagle

    STATE OF WASHINGTON October 2001 WashingtonWashington StateState StatusStatus ReportReport forfor thethe BaldBald EagleEagle by Derek W. Stinson, James W. Watson and Kelly R. McAllister Washington Department of FISH AND WILDLIFE Wildlife Program WDFW 759 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix I). In 1990, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix I). The procedures include how species listing will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, public review and recovery and management of listed species. The first step in the process is to develop a preliminary species status report. The report includes a review of information relevant to the species’ status in Washington and addresses factors affecting its status including, but not limited to: historic, current, and future species population trends, natural history including ecological relationships, historic and current habitat trends, population demographics and their relationship to long term sustainability, and historic and current species management activities. The procedures then provide for a 90-day public review opportunity for interested parties to submit new scientific data relevant to the draft status report and classification recommendation. During the 90-day review period, the Department held three public meetings to take comments and answer questions. The Department has now completed the final status report, listing recommendation and State Environmental Policy Act findings for presentation to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.
  • Paralabrax Nebulifer) in Nearshore Waters Off Northern San Diego County

    Paralabrax Nebulifer) in Nearshore Waters Off Northern San Diego County

    ROBERTS ET AL.: FEEDING HABITS OF BARRED SAND BASS CalCOFI Rep., Vol. XXV, 1984 THE FEEDING HABITS OF JUVENILE-SMALL ADULT BARRED SAND BASS (PARALABRAX NEBULIFER) IN NEARSHORE WATERS OFF NORTHERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY DALE A. ROBERTS‘, EDWARD E. DeMARTINI’, AND KENNETH M. PLUMMER2 Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara, California 93106 ABSTRACT pelecipodos y peces epibent6nicos. Estas observa- The feeding habits of juvenile-small adult barred ciones no concuerdan con estudios previos, 10s cuales sand bass (Purulubrax nebulifer) are described, based consideran a la anchoveta del norte, Engruulis mor- on 165 specimens 123-523 mm standard length (SL) dux, como el elemento mas importante en la dieta de collected between San Onofre and Oceanside, Califor- P. nebulifer de tallas similares a las analizadas durante nia, at depths ranging from 8 to 30 m. Collections esta estudio. La dieta de P. nebulifer pequeiios (< 240 were made during an annual cycle from March 1981 to mm de longitud esthndar) es distinta debido a la pre- March 1982. sencia de crustaceos (misidaceos y antipodos gamir- The diet of the barred sand bass indicates that it idos), mientras que 10s ejemplares grandes (> 320 forages in close proximity to the substrate. Brachyuran mm LE) consumieron presas grandes como Porich- crabs, mysids, pelecypods, and epibenthic fishes were thys notutus (80-160 mm LE) y Octopus. P. nebulifer the most important prey. These findings are contrary de talla mediana (240-320 mm LE) contenian en su to previous studies, which found northern anchovy est6mago presas similares a las consumidas por 10s (Engruulis mordux) to be of major importance in the ejemplares grandes y pequeiios.
  • Review of Analysis of Fish Remains at Chumash Sites

    Review of Analysis of Fish Remains at Chumash Sites

    A Review of the Analysis of Fish Remains in Chumash Sites Noel Van Slyke Abstract The paper begins with a review of techniques that can be used to analyze fish remains in archaeological sites. The remains can be used to identify the fish species and to estimate such details as fish size and weight, minimum number of individuals represented, and season of capture, and to make judgments about fishing techniques and subsistence patterns. The review of analysis techniques is followed by a discussion of the analysis that has been reported for fish remains from Chumash sites. The paper concludes with comments on the analysis of fish remains from Chumash sites. The inspiration of this paper came from a Christmas present. The present was the book Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast, by Jon M. Erlandson (1994). I was impressed by the level of analysis of fish remains and faunal remains in general. I had previously read earlier reports where the level of analysis was more basic. The topic for this paper then evolved as an attempt to review the change in analysis of fish remains over the years and to look at where further analysis of earlier data might be promising. The Analysis of Fish Remains The basis of all analysis of fish remains is species identification. Once the species have been identified other areas of analysis such as quantification, estimates of size, seasonality consid- erations, exploitation, and subsistence evaluation can be investigated. Identification Identification is the primary step in fish remains analysis. Identification of the species allows other analyses to proceed such as quantification, size estimation, seasonality, and exploitation.
  • Common Fishes of California

    Common Fishes of California

    COMMON FISHES OF CALIFORNIA Updated July 2016 Blue Rockfish - SMYS Sebastes mystinus 2-4 bands around front of head; blue to black body, dark fins; anal fin slanted Size: 8-18in; Depth: 0-200’+ Common from Baja north to Canada North of Conception mixes with mostly with Olive and Black R.F.; South with Blacksmith, Kelp Bass, Halfmoons and Olives. Black Rockfish - SMEL Sebastes melanops Blue to blue-back with black dots on their dorsal fins; anal fin rounded Size: 8-18 in; Depth: 8-1200’ Common north of Point Conception Smaller eyes and a bit more oval than Blues Olive/Yellowtail Rockfish – OYT Sebastes serranoides/ flavidus Several pale spots below dorsal fins; fins greenish brown to yellow fins Size: 10-20in; Depth: 10-400’+ Midwater fish common south of Point Conception to Baja; rare north of Conception Yellowtail R.F. is a similar species are rare south of Conception, while being common north Black & Yellow Rockfish - SCHR Sebastes chrysomelas Yellow blotches of black/olive brown body;Yellow membrane between third and fourth dorsal fin spines Size: 6-12in; Depth: 0-150’ Common central to southern California Inhabits rocky areas/crevices Gopher Rockfish - SCAR Sebastes carnatus Several small white blotches on back; Pale blotch extends from dorsal spine onto back Size: 6-12 in; Depth: 8-180’ Common central California Inhabits rocky areas/crevice. Territorial Copper Rockfish - SCAU Sebastes caurinus Wide, light stripe runs along rear half on lateral line Size:: 10-16in; Depth: 10-600’ Inhabits rocky reefs, kelpbeds,
  • The Plainfin Midshipman's Soundscape at Two Sites Around Vancouver Island, British Columbia

    The Plainfin Midshipman's Soundscape at Two Sites Around Vancouver Island, British Columbia

    Vol. 603: 189–200, 2018 MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Published September 17 https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12730 Mar Ecol Prog Ser The plainfin midshipman’s soundscape at two sites around Vancouver Island, British Columbia William D. Halliday1,2,*, Matthew K. Pine1,2, Aneesh P. H. Bose3,4, Sigal Balshine3, Francis Juanes2 1Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 0E9, Canada 2Department of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia V8P 5C2, Canada 3Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada 4Present address: Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Institute of Biology, 8010 Graz, Austria ABSTRACT: The soundscape is an integral habitat component for acoustically sensitive animals. In marine environments, noise pollution from anthropogenic activities is pervasive, potentially leading to negative consequences for marine animals. To understand the impacts of noise pollu- tion, one must first understand the soundscape in which these animals live. Using autonomous passive acoustic recorders, we examined the soundscape of plainfin midshipman fish Porichthys notatus at 2 breeding sites around Vancouver Island, Canada. Plainfin midshipman humming was recorded every night for the 4 wk long recording period; it was a main driver of sound pressure levels, adding more than 6 and 17 dB on average (SE ± 0.8) at each site in the 80 Hz octave band. The fundamental frequency of the hum was temperature-dependent and varied between 76 and 111 Hz. At one site (Ladysmith Inlet), sound pressure level was consistently higher than at the other site (Brentwood Bay), and these differences appeared to be related to anthropogenic noise rather than to plainfin midshipman humming.
  • 655 Appendix G

    655 Appendix G

    APPENDIX G: GLOSSARY Appendix G-1. Demersal Fish Species Alphabetized by Species Name. ....................................... G1-1 Appendix G-2. Demersal Fish Species Alphabetized by Common Name.. .................................... G2-1 Appendix G-3. Invertebrate Species Alphabetized by Species Name.. .......................................... G3-1 Appendix G-4. Invertebrate Species Alphabetized by Common Name.. ........................................ G4-1 G-1 Appendix G-1. Demersal Fish Species Alphabetized by Species Name. Demersal fish species collected at depths of 2-484 m on the southern California shelf and upper slope, July-October 2008. Species Common Name Agonopsis sterletus southern spearnose poacher Anchoa compressa deepbody anchovy Anchoa delicatissima slough anchovy Anoplopoma fimbria sablefish Argyropelecus affinis slender hatchetfish Argyropelecus lychnus silver hachetfish Argyropelecus sladeni lowcrest hatchetfish Artedius notospilotus bonyhead sculpin Bathyagonus pentacanthus bigeye poacher Bathyraja interrupta sandpaper skate Careproctus melanurus blacktail snailfish Ceratoscopelus townsendi dogtooth lampfish Cheilotrema saturnum black croaker Chilara taylori spotted cusk-eel Chitonotus pugetensis roughback sculpin Citharichthys fragilis Gulf sanddab Citharichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus speckled sanddab Citharichthys xanthostigma longfin sanddab Cymatogaster aggregata shiner perch Embiotoca jacksoni black perch Engraulis mordax northern anchovy Enophrys taurina bull sculpin Eopsetta jordani
  • Bald Eagles, Oyster Beds, and the Plainfin Midshipman: Ecological Intertidal Relationships in Dabob Bay

    Bald Eagles, Oyster Beds, and the Plainfin Midshipman: Ecological Intertidal Relationships in Dabob Bay

    Bald Eagles, Oyster Beds, and the Plainfin Midshipman: Ecological Intertidal Relationships in Dabob Bay Photo by Keith Lazelle Prepared by: Heather Gordon Peter Bahls Northwest Watershed Institute 3407 Eddy Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 October 2018 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ................................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................. 7 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Bald Eagle observation ........................................................................................................... 7 Habitat survey and nest search................................................................................................ 8 Additional data collection ..................................................................................................... 10 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................
  • Fishes-Of-The-Salish-Sea-Pp18.Pdf

    Fishes-Of-The-Salish-Sea-Pp18.Pdf

    NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18 Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis Theodore W. Pietsch James W. Orr September 2015 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Professional Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce Papers NMFS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D. Sullivan Scientifi c Editor Administrator Richard Langton National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Service Maine Field Station Eileen Sobeck 17 Godfrey Drive, Suite 1 Assistant Administrator Orono, Maine 04473 for Fisheries Associate Editor Kathryn Dennis National Marine Fisheries Service Offi ce of Science and Technology Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 178 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 Managing Editor Shelley Arenas National Marine Fisheries Service Scientifi c Publications Offi ce 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, Washington 98115 Editorial Committee Ann C. Matarese National Marine Fisheries Service James W. Orr National Marine Fisheries Service - The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS (ISSN 1931-4590) series is published by the Scientifi c Publications Offi ce, National Marine Fisheries Service, The NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series carries peer-reviewed, lengthy original NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, research reports, taxonomic keys, species synopses, fl ora and fauna studies, and data- Seattle, WA 98115. intensive reports on investigations in fi shery science, engineering, and economics. The Secretary of Commerce has Copies of the NOAA Professional Paper NMFS series are available free in limited determined that the publication of numbers to government agencies, both federal and state. They are also available in this series is necessary in the transac- exchange for other scientifi c and technical publications in the marine sciences.
  • 655 Appendix H

    655 Appendix H

    APPENDIX H: FISH AND MEGABENTHIC INVERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGES Appendix H-1. Fish Recurrent Groups ............................................................................................ H1-1 Appendix H-2. Fish Site and Species Clusters .............................................................................. H2-1 Appendix H-3. Invertebrate Assemblages ...................................................................................... H3-1 Appendix H-4. Combined Fish and Invertebrate Assemblages ................................................... H4-1 Appendix H-5. Changes in Functional Organization of the Communities Relative to Oceanic Regimes ................................................................................................................... H5-1 H-1 Appendix H-1. Fish Recurrent Groups Full taxonomic information is available in Appendix G. Therefore, only common names are referenced here. Group 1 (Bay and Inner Shelf Sand Bass Group) Group 1 consisted of barred sand bass and spotted sand bass(Figure 1). The group occurred at 9 stations with a depth range of 2-6 m, and a mean depth of 4 m (Table 1). Group 1 did not have affinities with other recurrent groups or associate species. Barred sand bass is predominantly a soft-bottom species but is also associated with rocks and rocky reefs in shallow water. It occurs primarily on the inner shelf zone of the coast but also occurs in bays and harbors. Spotted sand bass is primarily a soft-bottom fish but is more common in estuaries than on the soft-bottom of the coastal Inner Shelf Zone. Like the barred sand bass, the spotted sand bass is also associated with hard structures. In bays and harbors, these may include rocks, hard debris, and/or pier pilings. Group 2 (Bay,Harbor, and Inner Shelf Benthic Croaker Group) Group 2 consisted of yellowfin croaker and black croaker, both of which cruise near the bottom in search of food (Figure 1).
  • Species List-Includes Birds (Pdf)

    Species List-Includes Birds (Pdf)

    Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Birds List Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Occurrence Classification Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons native Snow Goose Chen hyperborea native Ross’s Goose Chen rossii native Canada Goose Branta canadensis nests locally native Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii native Brant Branta bernicla SSC native Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus native Gadwall Anas strepera nests locally native Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope native American Wigeon Anas americana native Mallard Anas platyrhynchos nests locally native Blue-winged Teal Anas discors native Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera nests locally native Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata nests locally native Northern Pintail Anas acuta nests locally native Green-winged Teal Anas crecca native Canvasback Aythya valisineria nests locally native Redhead Aythya americana SSC native Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris native Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula non-native Greater Scaup Aythya marila native Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis nests locally native Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata native White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca native Black Scoter Melanitta nigra native Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis native Bufflehead Bucephala albeola native Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula native Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica native Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullata native Common Merganser Mergus merganser native Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator native Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis nests locally native California Quail Callipepla californica
  • California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

    California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

    F.1 California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Methods Used to Evaluate Draft Marine Protected Area Proposals in the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Draft) Section 9 – Protection of Marine Birds and Mammals Draft revised January 16, 2009 Marine protected areas (MPAs) may benefit marine birds and mammals by protecting their forage base and by potentially reducing human disturbance to roosting and haul-out sites, and breeding colonies or rookeries. To evaluate the protection afforded by proposed MPAs to birds and mammals the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT): • Identifies proposed MPAs or special closures1 that contribute to protection of birds and mammals. • Identifies focal species likely to benefit from MPAs and for which data are available. • Estimates the proportion (of total numbers of individuals) of breeding bird/mammal at colonies and rookeries potentially benefiting by proposed MPAs. • Estimates the proportion of nearby foraging areas protected by MPAs, defined by evaluating protection of buffered areas around colonies. • Estimates the number of neritic foraging ‘hot spots’ protected by MPAs, defined by at- sea densities of marine birds and mammals • Estimates the proportion of estuarine and coastal beach inhabitants protected by MPAs This evaluation focuses on pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), nearshore delphinids (e.g., coastal bottlenose dolphin), and birds, including seabirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl2. Population, as used in this evaluation, refers to the number of animals that use a site for breeding or resting. Evaluations are focused on the five bioregions identified by the SAT. Evaluations include numbers of species (species diversity), numbers of individual birds or mammals, and percentages of bioregional populations breeding within individual proposed MPAs and within all proposed MPAs.
  • Multi-Level Convergence of Complex Traits and the Evolution of Bioluminescence Emily S

    Multi-Level Convergence of Complex Traits and the Evolution of Bioluminescence Emily S

    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 15 December 2020 Multi-level convergence of complex traits and the evolution of bioluminescence Emily S. Lau* and Todd H. Oakley* Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara CA 93106 Corresponding authors information: Emily S. Lau: [email protected]; Todd H. Oakley: [email protected] Keywords multi‐level convergence | evolution | bioluminescence | biological organization | complex trait ABSTRACT Evolutionary convergence provides natural opportunities to investigate how, when, and why novel traits evolve. Many convergent traits are complex, highlighting the importance of explicitly considering convergence at different levels of biological organization, or ‘multi‐level convergent evolution’. To investigate multi‐level convergent evolution, we propose a holistic and hierarchical framework that emphasizes breaking down traits into several functional modules. We begin by identifying long‐standing questions on the origins of complexity and the diverse evolutionary processes underlying phenotypic convergence to discuss how they can be addressed by examining convergent systems. We argue that bioluminescence, a complex trait that evolved dozens of times through either novel mechanisms or conserved toolkits, is particularly well suited for these studies. We present an updated estimate of at least 94 independent origins of bioluminescence across the tree of life, which we calculated by reviewing and summarizing all estimates of independent origins. Then, we use our framework to review the biology, chemistry, and evolution of bioluminescence, and for each biological level identify questions that arise from our systematic review. We focus on luminous organisms that use the shared luciferin substrates coelenterazine or vargulin to produce light because these organisms convergently evolved bioluminescent proteins that use the same luciferins to produce bioluminescence.