DOCSLIB.ORG

ENSR Letter Format 1 [Temp]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ENSR Letter Format 1 [Temp] TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Study Overview.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................1-2 2.0 Study Area...................................................................................................................................................2-1 3.0 Methods.......................................................................................................................................................3-1 3.1. Literature Review and Personal Communications ........................................................................3-1 3.2. Database Queries...........................................................................................................................3-1 3.3. Field Surveys.................................................................................................................................3-3 3.3.1. General Survey Methodology..........................................................................................3-3 3.3.2. Transect Surveys..............................................................................................................3-3 3.3.3. Northern Goshawk, Owl, and Gray Wolf Calling Surveys..............................................3-3 3.3.4. Habitat Assessment..........................................................................................................3-4 3.3.5. Data Recording................................................................................................................3-5 4.0 Survey Results.............................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2. Wildlife Species Survey ................................................................................................................4-1 4.3. Northern Goshawk, Owl, and Gray Wolf Calling Surveys ...........................................................4-2 4.3.1. Northern Goshawk...........................................................................................................4-2 4.3.2. Other Hawks....................................................................................................................4-3 4.3.3. Owls.................................................................................................................................4-3 4.3.4. Wolf .................................................................................................................................4-3 4.3.5. Species of Concern ..........................................................................................................4-4 4.4. Wildlife Habitat Assessment .........................................................................................................4-9 4.4.1. Wetlands ........................................................................................................................4-10 4.4.2. Uplands..........................................................................................................................4-11 5.0 Likely Impacts to Wildlife Species and Habitat From the Proposed NorthMet Mine Project....................5-1 5.1. Habitat Loss and Modification and Wildlife Species Impacted....................................................5-1 5.1.1. Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................5-2 5.1.2. Uplands............................................................................................................................5-3 5.1.3. U.S. Forest Service Management Indicator Habitats.......................................................5-4 5.1.4. Habitat Fragmentation and Travel Routes .......................................................................5-5 5.2. Land Use and Noise.......................................................................................................................5-5 5.3. Acid Mine Drainage ......................................................................................................................5-6 5.4. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ...........................................................................5-6 5.4.1. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................5-6 5.4.2 State-listed Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................5-7 5.4.3 State Species of Concern .................................................................................................5-7 5.4.4 Federal Species of Concern .............................................................................................5-8 5.4.5 Other Species of Concern ................................................................................................5-9 5.5. Best Management Practices and Reclamation.............................................................................5-14 6.0 References...................................................................................................................................................6-1 NorthMet Mine Summer 2004 Wildlife Study i February 8, 2012 05461-002-400 APPENDICES A Common and Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Given in the Report.............................................A-1 B Agency and Organization Contacts............................................................................................................B-1 C Superior National Forest Regional Forester Sensitive Species..................................................................C-1 LIST OF FIGURES 2-1 Location Map..............................................................................................................................................2-2 3-1 Survey Transects and Bait and Calling Stations .......................................................................................3-14 4-1 Habitat Data.................................................................................................................................Back Pocket LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Ages of Forest Stand Types ........................................................................................................................3-6 3-2 Habitat Classification..................................................................................................................................3-7 5-1 Habitat Classification and Acres in Lease Area and Mine Site ..................................................................5-2 NorthMet Mine Summer 2004 Wildlife Study ii February 8, 2012 05461-002-400 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Study Overview PolyMet Mining Company, Inc. (PolyMet) proposes to construct an open pit low grade polymetallic mineral mine in northern Minnesota. This project, called the NorthMet Mine and Ore Processing Facilities Project (mine project), is located in St. Louis County on the eastern end of the Mesabi Iron Range, about 60 miles north of Duluth, and 6 miles south of Babbit, Minnesota (Mine Site). PolyMet plans to mine and process polymetallic ore from the northwest portion of the Duluth Complex. The ore contains copper, nickel, gold, platinum, palladium, and cobalt. PolyMet plans to operate a processing facility at the Cliffs Erie (former LTV) mill near Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota, that will produce copper cathode, and separate platinum/palladium group metals sulfide and nickel/cobalt hydroxide concentrates, for off-site shipment and treatment. This project would impact over 3,000 acres of habitat used by wildlife, including species of concern to federal and state agencies. Habitats that would be affected by the project include conifer forest (comprised primarily of black spruce1, jack pine, tamarack, and balsam fir), deciduous forest (comprised primarily of trembling aspen and paper birch), mixed conifer/deciduous forest, riparian (dominated by speckled alder, red osier dogwood, and willow), and wetland (dominated by sedges, cat-tail, Labrador-tea, leatherleaf, and sphagnum moss). Wildlife species of concern (and federal/state status) that could be impacted include bald eagle (federal threatened), gray wolf (federal threatened and state special concern), Canada lynx (federal threatened), mountain lion (state special concern), least weasel (state special concern), northern goshawk (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] U.S. Forest Service [USFS] Region 9 sensitive species), and boreal owl (USFS Region 9 sensitive species). Loss of habitat for these species was identified as an important issue by state (Berg 2000) and federal (Vora 2000a) agencies during meetings regarding the proposed project. Several wildlife studies have been conducted in the area. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of the NorthMet Mine Site were studied as part of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Regional Copper-Nickel Study (Johnson and Lieberman 1979, Sather et al. 1979) in the late 1970s; this study included the NorthMet Mine Site. In July and August of 1999, Foth and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements
    Draft Biological Evaluation for US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared for: US Forest Service, Chippewa National Forest Minnesota Department of Natural Resources May 2014 US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation This Biological Evaluation was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, and other applicable laws and regulations. For additional information, please contact the team leader for the US Trunk Highway 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Project. Ms. Christine Brown Chippewa National Forest Address: 200 Ash Avenue NW Cass Lake, MN 56633 Phone: (218) 335-8600 TTY: (218) 335-8632 FAX: (218)335-8637 Prepared by: ______________________________________ _______________ Antony Randazzo, HDR Engineering, Inc. Date Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Kirk W. Larson, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest Reviewed by: ______________________________________ _______________ Cory Mlodik, U.S. Forest Service Date Chippewa National Forest May 2014 Signature Page Page i US Highwy 2 Passing Lane and Turn Lane Improvements Biological Evaluation Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Material
    Alcedo atthis (Common Kingfisher) European Red List of Birds Supplementary Material The European Union (EU27) Red List assessments were based principally on the official data reported by EU Member States to the European Commission under Article 12 of the Birds Directive in 2013-14. For the European Red List assessments, similar data were sourced from BirdLife Partners and other collaborating experts in other European countries and territories. For more information, see BirdLife International (2015). Contents Reported national population sizes and trends p. 2 Trend maps of reported national population data p. 4 Sources of reported national population data p. 6 Species factsheet bibliography p. 11 Recommended citation BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Further information http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/euroredlist http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/european-red-list-birds-0 http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/europe http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/ Data requests and feedback To request access to these data in electronic format, provide new information, correct any errors or provide feedback, please email [email protected]. THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™ BirdLife International (2015) European Red List of Birds Alcedo atthis (Common Kingfisher) Table 1. Reported national breeding population size and trends in Europe1. Country (or Population estimate Short-term population trend4
    [Show full text]
  • INDUS ECOREGION (English)
    INDUS REGION It is identied amongst the 40 biologically richest ecoregions in the world. It harbours riverine forests along the River, mangrove forests in the coastal areas while desert ecosystems occupy the periphery of the ecoregion. It covers approximately 65% of the province of Sindh and occupies 18 districts of Sindh while a small northwestern part of the ecoregion extends slightly into Baluchistan. 01 NILGAI The nilgai or blue bull is the largest Asian antelope and is endemic to the Indian subcontinent. The short coat is yellow-brown in females and gradually turns blue-grey in males as they mature. There are white spots on the edges of the lips and throat. Males have 8-10 inches long horns which are straight and tilted slightly forwards. As herbivores, the nilgai prefer grasses and herbs; woody plants are commonly eaten in the dry tropical forests of India. Conservation status: Least Concern FUN FACT The nilgai is mainly diurnal (work in daytime) and more active in early morning and late afternoon. 02 ALEXANDRINE PARAKEET The Alexandrine parakeet is a medium-sized parrot named after Alexander the Great, who transported numerous birds from Punjab to various European and Mediterranean countries. Large Indian parakeet is one of the species found in Eastern Afghanistan, Pakistan, North India, Central India, East India, Nepal, and Bhutan. Conservation Status: Near Threatened Adult males have a broader black stripe across the lower cheek. It eats a variety of wild and cultivated seeds, buds, flowers, fruits, and nuts. Flocks can cause extensive damage to ripening fruits and crops like maize and jowar.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Gunung Tambora, Sumbawa, Indonesia: Effects of Altitude, the 1815 Cataclysmic Volcanic Eruption and Trade
    FORKTAIL 18 (2002): 49–61 Birds of Gunung Tambora, Sumbawa, Indonesia: effects of altitude, the 1815 cataclysmic volcanic eruption and trade COLIN R. TRAINOR In June-July 2000, a 10-day avifaunal survey on Gunung Tambora (2,850 m, site of the greatest volcanic eruption in recorded history), revealed an extraordinary mountain with a rather ordinary Sumbawan avifauna: low in total species number, with all species except two oriental montane specialists (Sunda Bush Warbler Cettia vulcania and Lesser Shortwing Brachypteryx leucophrys) occurring widely elsewhere on Sumbawa. Only 11 of 19 restricted-range bird species known for Sumbawa were recorded, with several exceptional absences speculated to result from the eruption. These included: Flores Green Pigeon Treron floris, Russet-capped Tesia Tesia everetti, Bare-throated Whistler Pachycephala nudigula, Flame-breasted Sunbird Nectarinia solaris, Yellow-browed White- eye Lophozosterops superciliaris and Scaly-crowned Honeyeater Lichmera lombokia. All 11 resticted- range species occurred at 1,200-1,600 m, and ten were found above 1,600 m, highlighting the conservation significance of hill and montane habitat. Populations of the Yellow-crested Cockatoo Cacatua sulphurea, Hill Myna Gracula religiosa, Chestnut-backed Thrush Zoothera dohertyi and Chestnut-capped Thrush Zoothera interpres have been greatly reduced by bird trade and hunting in the Tambora Important Bird Area, as has occurred through much of Nusa Tenggara. ‘in its fury, the eruption spared, of the inhabitants, not a although in other places some vegetation had re- single person, of the fauna, not a worm, of the flora, not a established (Vetter 1820 quoted in de Jong Boers 1995). blade of grass’ Francis (1831) in de Jong Boers (1995), Nine years after the eruption the former kingdoms of referring to the 1815 Tambora eruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Index and Subject Index to Volume 95
    AUTHOR INDEX TO VOLUME 95 Alrutz, R.W., 233 Joo, G-J., 316 Romero-Schmidt, H., 337 Arguelles-Mendez, C, 289 Lee, D.M., 298 Sanabria, B., 289 Baldwin, A.D., Jr., 248 Schwadron, P.A., 281 Brown, B.J., 254 Matson, T.O., 335 Sorensen, V.A., 321 McLean, E.B., 335 Stuckey, R.L., 26l Carlson, B.A., 312 Metzler, E.H., 240 Swinehart, A.L., 278 Miltner, R.J., 294 Ellis, M.S., 226 Moore, D.L., 261 Taylor, D.H., 321 Evans, R.D., 4 Thompson, T.G., 4 Odje, O.E., 331 Fickle, D.S., 226 Olive, J.H., 254 Francko, D.A., 316 Ortega-Rubio, A., 289, 337 Vega-Villasante, F., 337 Glotzhober, R.C., 233 Perry, T.E., 233 Walters, T.L., 300 Grote, M.G., 243, 274 Poly, W.J., 294 White, A.M., 335 Williams, J., 325 Hair, T.L., Jr., 248 Ramsey, J.M., 331 Williams, R.N., 226 Herdendorf, C.E., 4 Restifo, R.A., 233 Wolfe, P.J., 303 Hoggarth, M.A., 298 Rice, D.L., 298 Horn, D.J., 292 Rittenger, P., 303 Zebolcl, R.A., 240 SUBJECT INDEX TO VOLUME 95 "An Introduction to the Killbuck Marsh canadensis (Theobald), 231 Alasmidonta marginata Say, 299 Wildlife Area of Northeast Ohio," 227 cinereus Meigen, 231 Aleocharinae sp., 231 2,3-DPG phosphatase, 333 grossbecki Dyar & Knab, 231 Alisma triviale Pursh., 301 A. B. Williams Memorial Woods (OH), 282 sticticus (Meigen), 231 Alleculidae, 228 Abronia, 289 stimulans (Walker) group, 231 Allegheny Front Escarpment, 300 Acacia, 289, 337 triseriatus (Say), 231 Allen County, OH, 234 Acalymma vittatum (F.), 228 trivittatus (Coquillett), 231 Allwood Audubon Center, 234 Acer vexans (Meigen), 231 Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertner, 301 nibrum L.,
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Biology of Blue-Eared Kingfisher Alcedo Meninting Sachin Balkrishna Palkar
    PALKAR: Blue-eared Kingfisher 85 Breeding biology of Blue-eared Kingfisher Alcedo meninting Sachin Balkrishna Palkar Palkar, S. B., 2016. Breeding biology of Blue-eared Kingfisher Alcedo meninting. Indian BIRDS 11 (4): 85–90. Sachin Balkrishna Palkar, Near D. B. J. College Gymkhana, Sathyabhama Sadan, House No. 100, Mumbai–Goa highway, Chiplun 415605, Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra, India. E-mail: [email protected] Manuscript received on 30 November 2015. Abstract The breeding biology of the Blue-eared Kingfisher Alcedo meninting was studied in Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra, India, between 2012 and 2015. Thirteen clutches of four pairs were studied. Its breeding season extended from June till September. Pairs excavated tunnels ranging in lengths from 18 to 30 cm, with nest entrance diameters varying from 5.3 to 6.0 cm. The same pair probably reuse a nest across years. A typical clutch comprised six eggs. The incubation period was 21 days (20–23 days), while fledgling period was 23 days (20–27 days). Almost 40% of the nests were double-brooded, which ratio probably depends on the strength of the monsoon. Of 75 eggs laid, 66 hatched (88%), of which 60 fledged (90.9%; a remarkable breeding success of 80%. Introduction and not phillipsi. It is also found in the Andaman Islands (A. The Blue-eared KingfisherAlcedo meninting [113, 114] is m. rufiagastra), where it is, apparently, more abundant than morphologically similar to the Common KingfisherA. atthis but the Common Kingfisher, contrary to its status elsewhere in its is neither as common, nor as widely distributed, in India, as the range (Rasmussen & Anderton 2012).
    [Show full text]