DOCSLIB.ORG

Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon March, 2012 Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls Draft EIS Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xviii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... xxi S.1 Background ............................................................................................................ xxi S.2 Purpose of and Need for the Action .................................................................... xxiii S.3 Description of the Proposed Action ..................................................................... xxiii S.4 Considerations Used in Developing the Alternatives .......................................... xxiv S.4.1 Number of Study Areas ................................................................................ xxiv S.4.2 Distribution of Study Areas .......................................................................... xxiv S.4.3 Type of Study ................................................................................................ xxv S.4.4 Removal Method ......................................................................................... xxvii S.5. The Alternatives................................................................................................. xxvii S.5.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................................. xxviii S.5.2 Action Alternatives ..................................................................................... xxviii S.5.2.1 Alternative 1 ....................................................................................... xxviii S.5.2.2 Alternative 2 ....................................................................................... xxviii S.5.2.3 Alternative 3 ......................................................................................... xxix S.5.2.4 Alternative 4 ......................................................................................... xxix S.5.2.5 Alternative 5 ......................................................................................... xxix S.5.2.6 Alternative 6 .......................................................................................... xxx S.5.2.7 Alternative 7 .......................................................................................... xxx S.6. Action Area ......................................................................................................... xxxi S.7. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. xxxi S.7.1 Effects on Barred Owl .................................................................................. xxxi S.7.2 Effects on Northern Spotted Owls .............................................................. xxxiii S.7.3 Effects on Ongoing Spotted Owl Demographic Study Areas .................... xxxiii S.7.4 Effects on Other Species ............................................................................. xxxiii S.7.5 Effects on the Social Environment ............................................................. xxxiv S.7.6 Effects on Recreation and Visitor Use ........................................................ xxxiv S.7.7 Effects on the Economy .............................................................................. xxxiv S.7.8 Effects on Study Costs ................................................................................. xxxv Table of Contents Page i Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls Draft EIS S.7.9 Effect on the Cultural Environment ............................................................. xxxv Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of and Need for Action .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Action .......................................................................... 6 1.4 General Description of the Proposed Action ............................................................ 6 1.5 Decisions to be Made ................................................................................................ 7 1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 7 1.7 Permits and Consultations......................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................... 10 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Considerations Used in Developing the Alternatives ............................................. 10 2.1.1 Number of Study Areas ................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Distribution of Study Areas ............................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Type of Study ................................................................................................... 12 2.1.3.1 Demographic Study Approach ................................................................. 12 2.1.3.2 Occupancy Study Approach .................................................................... 13 2.1.3.3 Site-Specific Study Approach .................................................................. 14 2.1.3.4 Invasion Study Approach ......................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Method of Removal ......................................................................................... 16 2.1.4.1 Lethal Removal ........................................................................................ 16 2.1.4.2 Nonlethal Removal .................................................................................. 17 2.1.4.3 Combined Removal ................................................................................. 17 2.1.5 Availability of Pretreatment Data .................................................................... 17 2.2 Alternative Descriptions ......................................................................................... 18 2.2.1. No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 18 2.2.2. Elements Common to All Action Alternatives ............................................... 19 2.2.2.1. Type of Study ........................................................................................... 19 2.2.2.2 Methods of Removal ................................................................................. 20 2.2.2.3 Duration of the Study ................................................................................ 22 2.2.3 Action Alternatives .......................................................................................... 23 2.2.3.1 Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 25 2.2.3.2 Alternative 2 ............................................................................................. 27 Table of Contents Page ii Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls Draft EIS 2.2.3.3 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................. 28 2.2.3.4 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................. 30 2.2.3.5 Alternative 5 ............................................................................................. 32 2.2.3.6 Alternative 6 ............................................................................................. 34 2.2.3.7 Alternative 7 ............................................................................................. 36 2.2.3.8 Summary of Action Alternatives ............................................................. 39 2.3 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ........................... 40 2.3.1 Site-Specific Study Approach .......................................................................... 40 2.3.2 Invasion Study ................................................................................................. 40 2.3.3 Targeted Partial Removal of Barred Owls ....................................................... 41 2.3.4 Reproductive Interference ................................................................................ 41 2.3.5 Studies of Species Interaction without Removal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rare Birds of California Now Available! Price $54.00 for WFO Members, $59.99 for Nonmembers
    Volume 40, Number 3, 2009 The 33rd Report of the California Bird Records Committee: 2007 Records Daniel S. Singer and Scott B. Terrill .........................158 Distribution, Abundance, and Survival of Nesting American Dippers Near Juneau, Alaska Mary F. Willson, Grey W. Pendleton, and Katherine M. Hocker ........................................................191 Changes in the Winter Distribution of the Rough-legged Hawk in North America Edward R. Pandolfino and Kimberly Suedkamp Wells .....................................................210 Nesting Success of California Least Terns at the Guerrero Negro Saltworks, Baja California Sur, Mexico, 2005 Antonio Gutiérrez-Aguilar, Roberto Carmona, and Andrea Cuellar ..................................... 225 NOTES Sandwich Terns on Isla Rasa, Gulf of California, Mexico Enriqueta Velarde and Marisol Tordesillas ...............................230 Curve-billed Thrasher Reproductive Success after a Wet Winter in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona Carroll D. Littlefield ............234 First North American Records of the Rufous-tailed Robin (Luscinia sibilans) Lucas H. DeCicco, Steven C. Heinl, and David W. Sonneborn ........................................................237 Book Reviews Rich Hoyer and Alan Contreras ...........................242 Featured Photo: Juvenal Plumage of the Aztec Thrush Kurt A. Radamaker .................................................................247 Front cover photo by © Bob Lewis of Berkeley, California: Dusky Warbler (Phylloscopus fuscatus), Richmond, Contra Costa County, California, 9 October 2008, discovered by Emilie Strauss. Known in North America including Alaska from over 30 records, the Dusky is the Old World Warbler most frequent in western North America south of Alaska, with 13 records from California and 2 from Baja California. Back cover “Featured Photos” by © Kurt A. Radamaker of Fountain Hills, Arizona: Aztec Thrush (Ridgwayia pinicola), re- cently fledged juvenile, Mesa del Campanero, about 20 km west of Yecora, Sonora, Mexico, 1 September 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife of the North Hills: Birds, Animals, Butterflies
    Wildlife of the North Hills: Birds, Animals, Butterflies Oakland, California 2005 About this Booklet The idea for this booklet grew out of a suggestion from Anne Seasons, President of the North Hills Phoenix Association, that I compile pictures of local birds in a form that could be made available to residents of the north hills. I expanded on that idea to include other local wildlife. For purposes of this booklet, the “North Hills” is defined as that area on the Berkeley/Oakland border bounded by Claremont Avenue on the north, Tunnel Road on the south, Grizzly Peak Blvd. on the east, and Domingo Avenue on the west. The species shown here are observed, heard or tracked with some regularity in this area. The lists are not a complete record of species found: more than 50 additional bird species have been observed here, smaller rodents were included without visual verification, and the compiler lacks the training to identify reptiles, bats or additional butterflies. We would like to include additional species: advice from local experts is welcome and will speed the process. A few of the species listed fall into the category of pests; but most - whether resident or visitor - are desirable additions to the neighborhood. We hope you will enjoy using this booklet to identify the wildlife you see around you. Kay Loughman November 2005 2 Contents Birds Turkey Vulture Bewick’s Wren Red-tailed Hawk Wrentit American Kestrel Ruby-crowned Kinglet California Quail American Robin Mourning Dove Hermit thrush Rock Pigeon Northern Mockingbird Band-tailed
    [Show full text]
  • Disaggregation of Bird Families Listed on Cms Appendix Ii
    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 2nd Meeting of the Sessional Committee of the CMS Scientific Council (ScC-SC2) Bonn, Germany, 10 – 14 July 2017 UNEP/CMS/ScC-SC2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II (Prepared by the Appointed Councillors for Birds) Summary: The first meeting of the Sessional Committee of the Scientific Council identified the adoption of a new standard reference for avian taxonomy as an opportunity to disaggregate the higher-level taxa listed on Appendix II and to identify those that are considered to be migratory species and that have an unfavourable conservation status. The current paper presents an initial analysis of the higher-level disaggregation using the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World Volumes 1 and 2 taxonomy, and identifies the challenges in completing the analysis to identify all of the migratory species and the corresponding Range States. The document has been prepared by the COP Appointed Scientific Councilors for Birds. This is a supplementary paper to COP document UNEP/CMS/COP12/Doc.25.3 on Taxonomy and Nomenclature UNEP/CMS/ScC-Sc2/Inf.3 DISAGGREGATION OF BIRD FAMILIES LISTED ON CMS APPENDIX II 1. Through Resolution 11.19, the Conference of Parties adopted as the standard reference for bird taxonomy and nomenclature for Non-Passerine species the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Non-Passerines, by Josep del Hoyo and Nigel J. Collar (2014); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Bird Species Checklist
    6 7 8 1 COMMON NAME Sp Su Fa Wi COMMON NAME Sp Su Fa Wi Bank Swallow R White-throated Sparrow R R R Bird Species Barn Swallow C C U O Vesper Sparrow O O Cliff Swallow R R R Savannah Sparrow C C U Song Sparrow C C C C Checklist Chickadees, Nuthataches, Wrens Lincoln’s Sparrow R U R Black-capped Chickadee C C C C Swamp Sparrow O O O Chestnut-backed Chickadee O O O Spotted Towhee C C C C Bushtit C C C C Black-headed Grosbeak C C R Red-breasted Nuthatch C C C C Lazuli Bunting C C R White-breasted Nuthatch U U U U Blackbirds, Meadowlarks, Orioles Brown Creeper U U U U Yellow-headed Blackbird R R O House Wren U U R Western Meadowlark R O R Pacific Wren R R R Bullock’s Oriole U U Marsh Wren R R R U Red-winged Blackbird C C U U Bewick’s Wren C C C C Brown-headed Cowbird C C O Kinglets, Thrushes, Brewer’s Blackbird R R R R Starlings, Waxwings Finches, Old World Sparrows Golden-crowned Kinglet R R R Evening Grosbeak R R R Ruby-crowned Kinglet U R U Common Yellowthroat House Finch C C C C Photo by Dan Pancamo, Wikimedia Commons Western Bluebird O O O Purple Finch U U O R Swainson’s Thrush U C U Red Crossbill O O O O Hermit Thrush R R To Coast Jackson Bottom is 6 Miles South of Exit 57.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Abundance and Habitat Use of Varied Thrushes
    FOOD ABUNDANCE AND HABITAT USE OF VARIED THRUSHES NEAR REDWOOD FOREST EDGES By Gregory G. Brown A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science In Natural Resources: Wildlife October, 2007 ABSTRACT Food abundance and habitat use of Varied Thrushes near redwood forest edges Gregory G. Brown Previous research suggests that Varied Thrushes (Ixoreus naevius) in redwood forests (Sequoia sempervirens) are sensitive to forest edges and are unlikely to breed in small forest fragments. Food abundance is likely to vary at the forest edge, and has been linked to habitat use and edge avoidance in some other forest-interior passerines, particularly other ground foraging insectivores. To determine the degree to which Varied Thrushes avoid forest edges, and how this might be influenced by food abundance, I monitored third-order habitat selection of individual birds using radio telemetry, and sampled relative abundance of ground-dwelling invertebrates with pitfall traps across edge gradients in redwood forests of north coastal California. In addition, I measured vegetation structure and other habitat variables that may vary near forest edges and influence Varied Thrush habitat use either directly or through effects on invertebrate distribution. I predicted that Varied Thrush habitat use would be associated with invertebrate abundance, with both decreasing in proximity to forest edges, and increasing in proximity to streams. Of the 10 Varied Thrushes monitored, only two used locations significantly farther from the edge than expected, and overall there was no clear pattern of edge avoidance or preference for streams in the birds studied.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Sep 2018 Lists of Victims and Hosts of the Parasitic
    version: 21 Sep 2018 Lists of victims and hosts of the parasitic cowbirds (Molothrus). Peter E. Lowther, Field Museum Brood parasitism is an awkward term to describe an interaction between two species in which, as in predator-prey relationships, one species gains at the expense of the other. Brood parasites "prey" upon parental care. Victimized species usually have reduced breeding success, partly because of the additional cost of caring for alien eggs and young, and partly because of the behavior of brood parasites (both adults and young) which may directly and adversely affect the survival of the victim's own eggs or young. About 1% of all bird species, among 7 families, are brood parasites. The 5 species of brood parasitic “cowbirds” are currently all treated as members of the genus Molothrus. Host selection is an active process. Not all species co-occurring with brood parasites are equally likely to be selected nor are they of equal quality as hosts. Rather, to varying degrees, brood parasites are specialized for certain categories of hosts. Brood parasites may rely on a single host species to rear their young or may distribute their eggs among many species, seemingly without regard to any characteristics of potential hosts. Lists of species are not the best means to describe interactions between a brood parasitic species and its hosts. Such lists do not necessarily reflect the taxonomy used by the brood parasites themselves nor do they accurately reflect the complex interactions within bird communities (see Ortega 1998: 183-184). Host lists do, however, offer some insight into the process of host selection and do emphasize the wide variety of features than can impact on host selection.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT BOOK Listed Alphabetically by Last Name Of
    ABSTRACT BOOK Listed alphabetically by last name of presenting author AOS 2019 Meeting 24-28 June 2019 ORAL PRESENTATIONS Variability in the Use of Acoustic Space Between propensity, renesting intervals, and renest reproductive Two Tropical Forest Bird Communities success of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) by fol- lowing 1,922 nests and 1,785 unique breeding adults Patrick J Hart, Kristina L Paxton, Grace Tredinnick from 2014 2016 in North and South Dakota, USA. The apparent renesting rate was 20%. Renesting propen- When acoustic signals sent from individuals overlap sity declined if reproductive attempts failed during the in frequency or time, acoustic interference and signal brood-rearing stage, nests were depredated, reproduc- masking occurs, which may reduce the receiver’s abil- tive failure occurred later in the breeding season, or ity to discriminate information from the signal. Under individuals had previously renested that year. Addi- the acoustic niche hypothesis (ANH), acoustic space is tionally, plovers were less likely to renest on reservoirs a resource that organisms may compete for, and sig- compared to other habitats. Renesting intervals de- naling behavior has evolved to minimize overlap with clined when individuals had not already renested, were heterospecific calling individuals. Because tropical after second-year adults without prior breeding experi- wet forests have such high bird species diversity and ence, and moved short distances between nest attempts. abundance, and thus high potential for competition for Renesting intervals also decreased if the attempt failed acoustic niche space, they are good places to examine later in the season. Lastly, overall reproductive success the way acoustic space is partitioned.
    [Show full text]
  • California Native Plants That Attract Birds Plant These Natives to Attract Birds to Your Garden
    California Native Plants that Attract Birds Plant these natives to attract birds to your garden Genus/Species Part Used When Specific Birds Acacia Greggii Seeds Summer Mourning Dove Atriplex species Leaves/Seeds Sum/Fall Finches, Quail, Sparrows, Towhees Abies concolor Leaves All-year Blue Grouse, Red Crossbill, Clark's Nutcracker Pygmy Nuthatch Acer macrophyllum Seeds/Buds/Flowers Spr/Sum/Fall Evening Grosbeak, many others Acer negundo Same as macrophyllum in all categories Achillea borealis. Seeds Summer Goldfinches Adenostoma fasciculatum Seeds Summer Goldfinches Alnus rhombifolia Nesting Spring Warblers Seeds Summer Pine Siskin, Goldfinches Buds Spring Cedar Waxwings Alnus rubra Same as rhombifolia all categories Amelanchier alnifolia Fruits Summer Many Species Antirrhinum multiflorum Flowers/Seeds Spring/Sum Hummingbirds & seed eaters Aquilegia species Flowers Spring/Sum Hummingbirds Arbutus menziesii Fruit Fall Band-tailed Pigeon, Varied Thrush, Long Tailed Chat Arctostaphylos species Fruit Sum/Fall Jays, Grosbeaks, Mockingbirds, Fox Sparrow Flowers Late Win/Early Sp. Hummingbirds Artemisia species Leaves All-Year Sage Grouse, Quail Flowers /Seeds Spr/Sum /Fall Towhee Asclepias species Stems, nests Spring Orioles Aster species Seeds Fall Finches, Sparrows Baccharis species Seeds Sum/Fall Finches, Sparrows Beloperon californica Flowers Spr/Sum Hummingbirds, Finches, Sparrows Ceanothus species Seeds Sum/Fall Quail Cephalanthus occidentalis Seeds Sum/Fall Ducks Cercis occidentalis Seeds/Flowers Spr/Fall Hummingbirds, Gold Finches Cercocarpus
    [Show full text]
  • Gastropoda E Bivalvia.Key
    Mollusca 1 Quem são: Mexilhões, lulas, polvos, caramujos, lesmas etc. Cerca de 100.000 espécies viventes descritas e 70.000 espécies fósseis. 2 Aplacophora 3 Monoplacophora 4 Polyplacophora 5 Gastropoda 6 Bivalvia 7 Cephalopoda 8 Scaphopoda 9 LETTER RESEARCH , , yielded nearly identical topologies within Mollusca, except for relation-1 1–3,10 ships among basal gastropods and placements of the sea slug oxidase I c Gastropoda Pleurobranchaea and the bivalve Mytilus (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Pleistomollusca , Unnamed f , Scott R. Santos Fig. 5). High leaf stability scores for all OTUs (Supplementary Table4 3) . doi:10.1038/nature10382 10 a . Moreover, Mollusca was and strong support for most nodes suggest all OTUs were represented 3 Bivalvia Aculifer Institute of Zoology, Johannes Gutenberg by sufficient data to be reliably placed. Remarkably, branch lengths 4 . Unfortunately, because of varying 6 , Achim Meyer 3 were relatively uniform; cephalopods did not show long branches as Conchifera recovered most major lineages mono- 1–3,10 1 previously reported in analyses of 18S and 28S . Scaphopoda 00 MONTH 2011 | VOL 000 | NATURE | 1 Scaphopoda Bivalvia Monoplacophora Gastropoda Cephalopoda . Morphology has been interpreted to divide Neomeniomorpha Chaetodermomorpha Polyplacophora Conchifera 4 has been widely debated. Some workers have con- 1 4,9 All major lineages of Mollusca were monophyletic with strong , Diasoma and Cyrtosoma hypotheses allying bivalves to yielded similar results, namely that bivalves were not e 2 , Andrea B. Kohn 5 5 f support (bs 100%, pp 1.00). Importantly, there was strong3 Cephalopodaa Department of Biology and Centre for Geobiology, University of Bergen, P.O. Box 7800, NO- support at all deep nodes, although the node placing Scaphopoda Mollusca 2 Testaria Morphological and traditional molecular phylogenetic approaches Molecular investigations of molluscan phylogeny have relied Cyrtosoma Diasoma have failed to robustly reconstruct mollusc phylogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Worcester County Birdlist
    BIRD LIST OF WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACUSETTS 1931-2019 This list is a revised version of Robert C. Bradbury’s Bird List of Worcester County, Massachusetts (1992) . It contains bird species recorded in Worcester County since the Forbush Bird Club began publishing The Chickadee in 1931. Included in Appendix A, and indicated in bold face on the Master List are bird Species which have been accepted by the Editorial Committee of The Chickadee, and have occurred 10 times or fewer overall, or have appeared fewer than 5 times in the last 20 years in Worcester County. The Editorial Committee has established the following qualifying criteria for any records to be considered of any record not accepted on the Master List: 1) a recognizable specimen 2) a recognizable photograph or video 3) a sight record corroborated by 3 experienced observers In addition, any Review Species with at least one accepted record must pass review of the Editorial Committee of the Chicka dee. Any problematic records which pass review by the Chickadee Editorial Committee, but not meeting the three first record rules above, will be carried into the accepted records of the given species. Included in Appendix B are records considered problematic. Problematic species either do not meet at least one of the qualifying criteria listed above, are considered likely escaped captive birds, have arrived in Worcester County by other than self-powered means, or are species not yet recognized as a count able species by the Editorial Committee of The Chickadee . Species names in English and Latin follow the American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist of North American Birds, 7 th edition, 59th supplement, rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Invertebrate Species of Oregon
    Rare, Threatened and Endangered Invertebrate Species of Oregon August 2016 Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Portland, Oregon Scientific Name Ecoregion; Adjacent States Heritage Federal ODFW ORBIC Common Name Oregon Counties Rank Status Status List INVERTEBRATES Class Turbellaria - Flatworms Order Tricladida Kenkia rhynchida BR G1G2 SOC-- 1 A flatworm (planarian) Harn S1S2 CS Class Bivalvia - Clams, Oysters and Mussels Order Ostreoida Ostrea conchaphila CR, ME; WA G5 -- -- 3 Native oyster Linc, Till SNR Order Unionoida Anodonta californiensis BM, BR, CB, CR, EC, WC, WV; CA, ID, NV, WA + G3Q SOC-- 3 California floater (mussel) Clat, Colu, Coos?, Desc, Gran, Harn, Klam, Linn, Malh, S2 CS Mult, Sher, Wasc, Wash Anodonta nuttalliana BM, BR, CB, CR, EC?, KM, WC, WV; BC, CA, ID, NV, G4Q -- -- 3 Winged floater (mussel) WA + S1? CS Bake, Clac, Clat, Colu, Coos, Desc, Doug, Gran, Harn, Jack, Jeff, Jose, Klam, Lake, Lane, Linc, Linn, Malh, Morr, Mult, Umat, Wasc?, Wash, Whee Anodonta oregonensis BM, BR, CB, CR, EC, KM, WC, WV; AK, BC, CA, ID, G5Q -- -- 2 Oregon floater (mussel) NV, UT, WA S3? Bake, Bent, Clac, Clat, Colu, Coos, Doug, Gran, Harn, Hood, Jack, Klam, Lake, Lane, Linc, Linn, Mari, Mult, Polk, Sher, Umat, Wasc, Wash, Yamh Gonidea angulata BM, BR, CB, CR, EC, KM, WC, WV; BC, CA, ID, NV, G3 -- -- 2 Western ridged mussel WA + S2S3 CS Bake, Bent, Clac, Colu, Coos, Croo, Curr, Desc, Doug, Gran, Harn, Jeff, Jose, Klam, Linn, Malh, Mari, Morr, Mult, Umat, Unio, Wall, Wasc, Wash, Whee, Yamh Margaritifera falcata BM, BR, CB, CR, EC, KM, WC, WV; AK, BC, CA, ID, G5 -- -- 2 Western pearlshell (mussel) NV, WA + S3 Bake, Bent, Clac, Clat, Colu, Coos, Croo, Curr, Desc, Doug, Gran, Harn, Hood, Jack, Jeff, Jose, Klam, Lake, Lane, Linc, Linn, Malh, Mari, Morr, Mult, Polk, Sher, Till, Umat, Unio, Wall, Wasc, Wash, Whee, Yamh Order Veneroida Pisidium sp.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 GBBC Summary
    2016 GBBC Summary Each year we wonder if the bird watchers of the world can possibly top their past performances in the Great Backyard Bird Count. And each year we’re amazed! The 2016 GBBC was epic. An estimated 163,763 bird watchers from more than 130 countries joined in. Participants submitted 162,052 bird checklists reporting 5,689 species--more than half the known bird species in the world and 599 more species than last year! This was the 19th year for the event which is a joint project of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society with partner Bird Studies Canada. The information gathered by tens of thousands of volunteers helps track the health of bird populations on a global scale using the eBird online checklist program. Before we hit some of the highlights of this year’s count, let’s crunch a few more numbers for our popular Top 10 lists. Note that some of the numbers may still change very slightly if checklists for the GBBC dates are added through eBird. Top 10 most frequently reported species: (number of GBBC checklists reporting this species) Dark-eyed Junco by Vicki Miller, California, 2016 GBBC. Species Number of Checklists Dark-eyed Junco 63,110 Northern Cardinal 62,323 Mourning Dove 49,630 Downy Woodpecker 47,393 Blue Jay 45,383 American Goldfinch 43,204 House Finch 41,667 Tufted Titmouse 38,130 Black-capped Chickadee 37,923 American Crow 37,277 Data totals as of March 2, 2016 Note: All Top 10 species are North American, reflecting high participation from this region.
    [Show full text]