DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Management Indicator Species Southern Region Population and Habitat Trends Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Revised and Updated May 2003 i CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Documentation of Management Indicator Species Selection ......................................... 1 Management Indicator Species Habitat Relationships............................................. 8 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Habitat Monitoring and Evaluation ............. 10 Forestwide Management Indicator Species Population Trend Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 13 White-tailed Deer.......................................................................................................... 15 Black Bear..................................................................................................................... 19 Eastern Wild Turkey..................................................................................................... 23 Ruffed Grouse............................................................................................................... 27 Bobwhite Quail ............................................................................................................. 31 Gray Squirrel................................................................................................................. 34 Bog Turtle ..................................................................................................................... 37 Yellow Lady’s Slipper .................................................................................................. 40 Mountain Pitcher Plant ................................................................................................. 41 Dusky Salamander ........................................................................................................ 43 Acadian Flycatcher ....................................................................................................... 45 Fish................................................................................................................................ 47 Rainbow Trout........................................................................................................ 53 Brown Trout ........................................................................................................... 54 Brook Trout............................................................................................................ 56 Redeye Bass ........................................................................................................... 62 Yellowfin Shiner and Turquoise Darter................................................................. 65 Coosa Darter........................................................................................................... 68 Indigo Bunting .............................................................................................................. 69 Pileated Woodpecker .................................................................................................... 71 Red-cockaded Woodpecker .......................................................................................... 74 Summary/Conclusion........................................................................................................ 77 References......................................................................................................................... 78 TABLES Table 1 - Management Indicator Species Groupings.......................................................... 8 Table 2 - Management Indicator Species by Successional Stages ..................................... 9 Table 3 - Percentage of Forested Acres by Forest Wildlife Habitat Communities on Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests.................................................................. 10 Table 4 - Management Indicator Species Monitoring Plan .............................................. 14 Table 5 - Estimated Deer Densities per Square Mile for Mountain Wildlife Management Areas, Chattahoochee National Forest...................................................................... 18 Table 6 - Estimated Deer Densities for Piedmont and Ridge and Valley Wildlife Management Areas ................................................................................................... 18 Table 7 - Trends for Deer Populations, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1970 & 1995 ..................................................................................................................... 19 Table 8 - 1999 North Georgia Bear Harvest Summary .................................................... 22 Table 9 - Trends for Bear Population Densities, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1970 & ii 1995........................................................................................................................... 22 Table 10 - Summary of Turkey Hunt Data, 1985–2001 ................................................... 25 Table 11 - Wild Turkey Production Index (Number of Poults/Observer), 1985–2000... 26 Table 12 - Trends in Wild Turkey Densities, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1970 & 1995........................................................................................................................... 26 Table 13 - Ruffed Grouse Observational Surveys, 1989–99 ............................................ 29 Table 14 - Trends in Ruffed Grouse Densities, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1970 & 1995........................................................................................................................... 30 Table 15 - Bobwhite Quail Heard, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1989–90 ................. 32 Table 16 - Bobwhite Quail Heard, Oconee National Forest, 1989–90............................. 32 Table 17 - Trends in Bobwhite Quail Densities, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1970 & 1995........................................................................................................................... 34 Table 18 - Hunting Pressure and Harvest Levels for Squirrels in Georgia by Licensed, Resident Hunters, 1984–99....................................................................................... 36 Table 19 - Trends for Gray Squirrel, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1970 & 1995.......................................................................................................................... 37 Table 20– Summary of Bog Turtle Captures at ......................................................... 38 Table 21 - Population Trends for Mountain Pitcher Plants, 1980–99 ............................. 42 Table 22 - Number of Known Populations of Dusky Salamander On or Near National Forest Lands.............................................................................................................. 44 Table 23- Average Density of Young-of-Year and Adult Trout, Georgia Rainbow Trout Streams, 1991-2002 .................................................................................................. 49 Table 24 - Average Density of Young-of-Year and Adult Trout, Georgia Brown Trout Streams, 1991-2002 .................................................................................................. 50 Table 25 - Average Density of Young-of-Year and Adult Trout, Georgia Brook Trout Streams, 1991-2002 .................................................................................................. 51 Table 26 - Average Density of Young-of-Year and Adult Trout, Georgia Sympatric Trout Streams, 1991-2002 .................................................................................................. 52 Table 27 – Density (#/Hectare)of Brown Trout Collected from Chattooga River, 1986– 98............................................................................................................................... 55 Table 28 - Brook Trout Streams on Chattahoochee National Forest ................... 58 Table 29 – Number of Trout Collected and Biological Assessment Scores for Headwater Streams of the Hiwassee River Watershed, Chattahoochee National Forest, 1995. 61 Table 30 - Number of Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Redeye Bass Collected on Jacks and Conasauga Rivers*, 1995 - 2001.............................................................. 63 Table 31 – Number of Redeye Bass, Brown Trout, and Rainbow Trout Collected on Mountaintown Creek, 1988–98 ................................................................................ 63 Table 32 – Number of Redeye Bass Collected in Oostanaula Drainage, 1969–92 ......... 64 Table 33 – Number of Turquoise Darters and Yellowfin Shiners Collected on West Fork Chattooga*, 1989–92 ................................................................................................ 66 Table 34 – Number of Yellowfin Shiner Collected in Stekoa Creek, 1994 .................... 66 Table 35 – Number Yellowfin Shiner and Turquoise Darter Collected in the Chattooga Drainage, 1986–88.................................................................................................... 67 Table 36 – Number of Yellowfin Shiner and Turquoise Darter Collected in Middle Broad Stream, 1986–88 ............................................................................................ 67 Table 37– Number of Yellowfin Shiner and Turquoise Darter
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide
    Fisheries Across the Eastern Continental Divide Abstracts for oral presentations and posters, 2010 Spring Meeting of the Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society Asheville, NC 1 Contributed Paper Oral Presentation Potential for trophic competition between introduced spotted bass and native shoal bass in the Flint River Sammons, S.M.*, Auburn University. Largemouth bass, shoal bass, and spotted bass were collected from six sites over four seasons on the Flint River, Georgia to assess food habits. Diets of all three species was very broad; 10 categories of invertebrates and 15 species of fish were identified from diets. Since few large spotted bass were collected, all comparisons among species were conducted only for juvenile fish (< 200 mm) and subadult fish (200-300 mm). Juvenile largemouth bass diets were dominated by fish in all seasons, mainly sunfish. Juvenile largemouth bass rarely ate insects except in spring, when all three species consumed large numbers of insects. In contrast, juvenile shoal bass diets were dominated by insects in all seasons but winter. Juvenile spotted bass diets were more varied- highly piscivorous in the fall and winter and highly insectivorous in spring and summer. Diets of subadult largemouth bass were similar to that of juvenile fish, and heavily dominated by fish, particularly sunfish. Similar to juveniles, diets of subadult shoal bass were much less piscivorous than largemouth bass. Crayfish were important components of subadult shoal bass diets in all seasons but summer. Insects were important components of shoal bass diets in fall and summer. Diets of subadult spotted bass were generally more piscivorous than shoal bass, but less than largemouth bass.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director
    North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Gordon Myers, Executive Director March 1, 2016 Honorable Jimmy Dixon Honorable Chuck McGrady N.C. House of Representatives N.C. House of Representatives 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 416B 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 304 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Senator Trudy Wade N.C. Senate 300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 521 Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 Dear Honorables: I am submitting this report to the Environmental Review Committee in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765). As directed, this report includes a review of methods and criteria used by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on the State protected animal list as defined in G.S. 113-331 and compares them to federal and state agencies in the region. This report also reviews North Carolina policies specific to introduced species along with determining recommendations for improvements to these policies among state and federally listed species as well as nonlisted animals. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me by phone at (919) 707-0151 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Gordon Myers Executive Director North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Report on Study Conducted Pursuant to S.L. 2015-286 To the Environmental Review Commission March 1, 2016 Section 4.33 of Session Law 2015-286 (H765) directed the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to “review the methods and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the state protected animal list as defined in G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lloyd Shoals
    Southern Company Generation. 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE BIN 10193 Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 404 506 7219 tel July 3, 2018 FERC Project No. 2336 Lloyd Shoals Project Notice of Intent to Relicense Lloyd Shoals Dam, Preliminary Application Document, Request for Designation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Request for Authorization to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Bose: On behalf of Georgia Power Company, Southern Company is filing this letter to indicate our intent to relicense the Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2336 (Lloyd Shoals Project). We will file a complete application for a new license for Lloyd Shoals Project utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations found at 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed Process, Plan and Schedule for the ILP proceeding is provided in Table 1 of the Preliminary Application Document included with this filing. We are also requesting through this filing designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and authorization to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are four components to this filing: 1) Cover Letter (Public) 2) Notification of Intent (Public) 3) Preliminary Application Document (Public) 4) Preliminary Application Document – Appendix C (CEII) If you require further information, please contact me at 404.506.7219. Sincerely, Courtenay R.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Survey for Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia
    Blacktail Redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum) from Oothkalooga Creek Fish Survey for Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia Prepared by: DECATUR, GA 30030 www.foxenvironmental.net January 2018 Abstract Biological assessments, in conjunction with habitat surveys, provide a time-integrated evaluation of water quality conditions. Biological and habitat assessments for fish were conducted on 3 stream segments in and around Calhoun, Gordon County, Georgia on October 3 and 5, 2017. Fish, physical habitat, and water chemistry data were evaluated according to Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR), Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) – Fisheries Section protocol entitled “Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in Georgia”. All of the water quality parameters at all sites were within the typical ranges for streams although conductivity was somewhat high across the sites. Fish habitat scores ranged from 80 (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek) to 132.7 (Oothkalooga Creek). Native fish species richness ranged from 6 species (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek) to 17 (Oothkalooga and Lynn Creeks). Index of biotic integrity (IBI) scores ranged from 16 (Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek; “Very Poor”) to 34 (Lynn Creek; “Fair”). Overall, the results demonstrate that Oothkalooga and Lynn Creeks are in fair condition whereas the Tributary to Oothkalooga Creek is highly impaired. Although the data are only a snapshot of stream conditions during the sampling events, they provide a biological characterization from which to evaluate the effect of future changes in water quality and watershed management in Calhoun. We recommend continued monitoring of stream sites throughout the area to ensure that the future ecological health of Calhoun’s water resources is maintained.
    [Show full text]
  • Acknowledgments
    Acknowledgments Many people contributed to the various sections of this report. The contributions of these authors, reviewers, suppliers of data, analysts, and computer systems operators are gratefully acknowl- edged. Specific contributions are mentioned in connection with the individual chapters. Chapter 1 Chapter 4 Authors: Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Jack Holcomb, Team co-leader, John Greis, USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Chapter 5 Southern Research Station Lloyd W. Swift, Jr., USDA Forest Service, Richard Burns, USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Morris Flexner, U.S. Environmental Chapter 2 Protection Agency Authors: Richard Burns, USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Bill Melville, U.S. Environmental Southern Research Station Protection Agency Jim Harrison, Team co-leader, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 6 Gary Kappesser, USDA Forest Service Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Dave Melgaard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chapter 7 Jeanne Riley, USDA Forest Service Patricia A. Flebbe, USDA Forest Service, Lloyd W. Swift, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station Southern Research Station Jack Holcomb, USDA Forest Service Chapter 3 Jim Harrison, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Harrison, U.S. Environmental Lloyd W. Swift, USDA Forest Service, Protection Agency Southern Research Station Geographic Information System Liaison (graphic and database development): Dennis Yankee, Tennessee Valley Authority Neal Burns, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Wang, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Don Norris, USDA Forest Service Many people, in addition to the authors and their colleagues, contributed to the preparation of this report. Special thanks are given to the people who worked on various sub-teams and to the many reviewers and scientists who helped along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • * This Is an Excerpt from Protected Animals of Georgia Published By
    Common Name: CHEROKEE DARTER Scientific Name: Etheostoma scotti Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: Etheostoma coosae Family: Percidae Rarity Ranks: G2/S2 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: Threatened Description: The Cherokee darter has a rounded snout, a distinct dark bar beneath the eye, and 7-8 dorsal blotches that may fuse with the 7-8 lateral blotches. The lateral blotches elongate into slightly oblique greenish-olive bars in breeding males. The anterior lateral line pores are usually outlined in black. Breeding males have an anterior red window and a single broad reddish band in the first dorsal fin, red in the second dorsal fin, and a green-edged anal fin. The caudal fin may also be edged in green dorsally and ventrally. Adult size of the Cherokee darter is 40-65 mm (1.6-2.6 in) total length. A recent population genetic study of the Cherokee darter identified three distinct evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) that are geographically separated. These ESUs are genetically distinct from one another, suggesting isolation from one another for at least tens of thousands of years. A male from the Richland Creek system (lower ESU) is pictured above. A male from the uppermost ESU and a female from the middle ESU are shown at the bottom of this account. Similar Species: The Cherokee darter belongs to the subgenus Ulocentra, commonly known as snubnose darters. Two other snubnose darters occur in the upper Coosa River basin, the Coosa darter (E. coosae) and holiday darter (E. brevirostrum). Breeding males of the three snubnose darters can be distinguished based on fin pigmentation: the Coosa darter has five discrete bands in the first dorsal fin; the holiday darter has a red band appearing over bluish or gray pigment in the second dorsal fin and anal fin; the Cherokee darter has a red wash in both the first and second dorsal fins, without banding (except lower ESU).
    [Show full text]
  • 678.973.2437 770.493.8862 AAS Goes to Colombia
    April 2010 Volume XXXVI, Issue 4 ATLANTA AUDUBON SOCIETY AAS Goes to Colombia INSIDE By Ted Reissing GOS Guided Tour..................2 Now that the narco-terrorists have been brought under control, birders are flocking back to Colombia. First Time Birders ................2 With almost 10% of the world’s bird species (more than twice as many as can be found in the entire U.S.) and about 75 endemics, this country is a natural target for listers. In addition, the top bird Annual Report ......................3 conservation group in the country, ProAves, has developed a series of 15 preserves to protect specific birds and created lodging facilities to house visitors. Because of all these developments, AAS put Field Notes - January ..........4 together a trip to do some serious birding in Colombia and the results of this outing are highlighted Field Trips.............................5 here. Delta flies directly from Atlanta to Bogotá daily and the four-hour A Million Thanks..................6 flight arrives just after 9 PM (there is no time change when we are on standard time). If you do start in Colombia’s capital city, an Volunteer Opportunities.......6 early morning visit to a local park can reveal eight to 10 good lifers Conservation Days...............6 including the endemic Bogotá Rail. From there it is usually about an eight-hour motor trip to one of the major preserves. For this tour Merritt Island.......................7 we chose El Paujil, the prime site for the critically endangered Blue-billed Curassow. Very few outsiders have seen this bird in the Bird Journal ........................7 wild, but after a couple of days of climbing steep trails in 95°F and Blue-billed Curassow Sculpting Birds....................8 Photographer: ProAves 90% humidity, we were fortunate to see two birds that flew directly over our heads.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Field March - May 2011
    vol. 76 • 1 – 2 THE ORIOLE 37 FROM THE FIELD MARCH - MAY 2011 Note: The appearance of observations in this section does not suggest verification or acceptance of a record. Observations of “Review Species” need to be documented and a rare bird report submitted to the Georgia Checklist and Records Committee (GCRC) for consideration. Temperatures throughout the period remained slightly above average, with some notable extremes including a record March temperature of 90 ºF in Brunswick on the 22nd, the lowest May temperature since 1945 of 37 ºF in Athens on the 5th, and a record May high of 104 ºF in Waycross on the 23rd. Precipitation was equally variable across the state, with the north receiving 200-300% of the average rainfall for March and April, less than 25% of the average in the east for April, and less than 10% of the norm in the southwest. It was a record season for tornadoes, causing widespread damage, power outages, and at least 35 deaths. The storm system on 26-28 April may have been responsible for the appearance of a late inland White-winged Scoter in Columbus, and a string of interesting sightings at Lake Lanier including 2 Pacific Loons, a Laughing Gull, and 2 Caspian Terns. Abbreviations: ACOGB - Annotated Checklist of Georgia Birds, 2003, Beaton, G. et al., GOS Occ. Publ. No. 14; AIC - Andrews Island Causeway and spoil site, Glynn Co.; AP - American Proteins settling ponds, Forsyth Co.; AWMA - Altamaha Waterfowl Management Area, McIntosh Co.; BCL - Bartow Co. Loop, a cluster of sod farms, plus cattle ponds on Brandon Farm Road and Taff Road, west of Cartersville, Bartow Co.; BUENWR - Bradley Unit of the Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, Stewart Co.; CBC - Christmas Bird Count; CINS - Cumberland Island National Seashore, Camden Co.; CLRL - Carter’s Lake Re-regulation Lake area, Murray Co.; COP - Centennial Olympic Park, Fulton Co.; CRNRA - Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area; CSU - Cochran Shoals Unit of the CRNRA, Cobb Co.; ELHLAF - E.L.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Field August·Novem Ber 2013
    62 THEORJOLE vol. 78 • 1- 4 FROM THE FIELD AUGUST·NOVEM BER 2013 Nore: The appearance of observations in this section does not suggest verification or acceptance ofa record. Observations of Review Species need to be documented and a rare bird report submitted to the Georgia Checklist and Records Committee (GCRC) for consideration. Fall 2013 brought a spate of interesting sightings, including the first state record of Tropical Kingbird in Clarke Co. and the third record of White.faced Ibis in Sumter Co. followed by the discovery of a Say's Phoebe there the next day. At the coast, an adult Northern Goshawk and Snow Bunting delighted a lucky few on Little St. Simons Island. A very success ful pelagic trip from St Mary's found multiple Black·capped Petrels, 7 Brown Boobies, and a Long·tailed Jaeger, while inland birders were treated to a remarkable 3 Sabine's Gulls at Lake Hartwel I. Abbreviations: ACOGB - Annotated Checklist of Georgia Birds, 2003, Beaton, G. et al., GOS Occ. Publ. No. 14; AIC - Andrews Island Causeway and spoil site, Glynn Co.; AP - American Proteins settling ponds, Forsyth Co.; AWMA - Altamaha Waterfowl Management Area, Mcintosh Co.; BCL - Bartow Co. Loop, a cluster of sod fur ms and cattle ponds on Brandon Farm Road and Taff Road, west of Cartersville; BUENWR - Bradley Unit of the Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, Stewart Co.; CBC - Christmas Bird Count; CCWA - Clayton Co. Water Authority, Clayton Co.; CI NS - Cumberland Island National Sea~hore , Camden Co.; CLRL - Carter's Lake Re-regulation Lake area, Murray Co.; COP - Centennial Olympic Park, Fulton Co.; CRNRA - Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area; CSU - Cochran Shoals Unit of the CRNRA, Cobb Co.; GI - Gould's Inlet, St.
    [Show full text]