DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Restoration Plan for Common Loon and Other Birds Impacted by the Bouchard Barge 120 (B-120) Oil Spill, Buzzards Bay Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Restoration Plan for Common Loon and Other Birds Impacted by the Bouchard Barge 120 (B-120) Oil Spill, Buzzards Bay Massachusetts and Rhode Island FINAL RESTORATION PLAN for COMMON LOON (Gavia immer) and OTHER BIRDS IMPACTED BY THE BOUCHARD BARGE 120 (B-120) OIL SPILL BUZZARDS BAY MASSACHUSETTS and RHODE ISLAND June 2020 Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Lead Administrative Trustee) Executive Summary In April 2003, the Bouchard Barge‐120 (B‐120) oil spill (the Spill) affected more than 100 miles of Buzzards Bay and its shoreline and nearby coastal waters in both Massachusetts (MA) and Rhode Island (RI). Birds were exposed to and ingested oil as they foraged, nested, and/or migrated through the area. Species of birds estimated to have been killed in the greatest numbers included common loon (Gavia immer), common and roseate terns (Sterna hirundo and Sterna dougallii), and other birds such as common eider (Somateria mollissima), black scoter (Melanitta americana), and red‐throated loon (Gavia stellata). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) (acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (acting through the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs [EEA]), and the State of Rhode Island serve as the natural resource Trustees (Trustees) responsible under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.) for ensuring the natural resources injured from the Spill are restored. As a designated Trustee, each agency is authorized to act on behalf of the public under State1 and/or Federal law to assess and recover natural resource damages, and to plan and implement actions to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the natural resources or services injured or lost as a result of an unpermitted discharge of oil. After more than 5 years spent assessing impacts to natural resources resulting from the Spill, in November 2010, the Trustees and the Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc., the Tug Evening Tide Corporation and the B. No. 120 Corporation, the Responsible Parties for the Spill, negotiated a mutually agreeable settlement for a portion of natural resource damages, including shoreline and aquatic resources, piping plovers, and lost natural resource uses. In January of 2018, the Trustees and Responsible Parties negotiated a second consent decree for the remaining natural resources injured as a result of the Spill, which included common loon, common and roseate terns, and all other affected bird species. The purpose of restoration is to make the public “whole” for injuries resulting from the Spill by implementing one or more restoration actions that return injured natural resources and services to baseline conditions and compensate for interim losses. Through the development of Draft and Final Restoration Plans consistent with guidance in OPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321‐ 4347), the Trustees identify and evaluate preferred restoration alternatives and provide the public with an opportunity for review and comment. Restoration of shoreline and aquatic resources, lost recreational uses and piping plovers was addressed in prior restoration plans (NOAA et al. 2014; USFWS et al. 2012). This Final Restoration Plan (RP) is intended to provide compensatory restoration for injuries to common loon and all other remaining bird species affected by the Spill, with the exception of common and roseate 1 MA General Law Chapter 21E, Section 5 and Chapter 21A, Section 2A, and RI General Law, Section 46‐12.5.1. 2 terns. A separate restoration plan for common and roseate terns and other shorebirds will be prepared following additional restoration project alternative analyses for those species. Throughout the injury assessment and restoration planning process, the Trustees consulted with Federal and State wildlife agency experts, as well as organizations and individuals familiar with common loon and other injured bird species. These experts and organizations provided input on injury estimations and potential restoration alternatives. The Draft RP was provided to the public in August 2019 for a 60‐day comment period to both fully explain the injury assessment process and gain additional input from the public on the proposed restoration alternatives. The Trustees also held an informational public meeting and webinar on September 12, 2019. The Trustees received written comments from more than 20 individuals during the comment period, and a number of verbal questions and comments at the public meeting. The Trustees appreciate the time and effort that the public expended to review and comment on the document. The Trustees have reviewed and considered all of the comments. A summary of the comments and the Trustees’ responses is provided in Section 5. A complete copy of each written comment is provided in Appendix A: Comment Letters and a transcript of the public meeting is provided in Appendix B: Public Meeting and Webinar Transcript. The Final RP has been prepared by the USFWS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Rhode Island, with administrative assistance from NOAA, acting as the Lead Administrative Trustee. In the Final RP, taking into consideration the comments received, the Trustees have provided additional information, made corrections (where necessary), and adjusted the proposed funding amounts for selected alternatives. In summary, with respect to common loon restoration, the Trustees have added an additional management option for restoration (Reducing Individual Common Loon Mortality by Rescue and Rehabilitation of Stranded Birds), expanded the area of restoration implementation to include New York, and shifted $500,500 in funding from COLO‐1 (Common Loon Restoration through Translocation and Captive Rearing) to COLO‐2 (Common Loon Restoration through Artificial Nest Sites, Signage and Wardening, Protection of Breeding Habitat, and Reducing Individual Common Loon Mortality by Rescue and Rehabilitation of Stranded Birds and Reducing Exposure to Lead Tackle). The Trustees have also emphasized that the majority of funding for COLO‐2 will be focused on northern New England and New York. To implement Other Birds restoration, the Trustees have allocated $274,000 from Habitat Protection in Rhode Island (OB1‐RI) to Habitat Protection in Massachusetts (OB1‐MA). The preferred restoration alternatives include specific restoration projects in two categories of injured birds: (1) common loon; and (2) other birds injured during the Spill. A suite of projects (e.g., translocation, rafts, signs and wardening, breeding habitat protection, and reducing individual common loon mortality by rescue and rehabilitation of stranded birds, and through reducing lead exposure with lead tackle exchange programs and public outreach) was selected to restore the loss to common loon; and two alternatives (habitat protection and common eider nest site management) were chosen to restore the loss to other bird species. The USFWS, the 3 Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of Rhode Island selected the following restoration alternatives and funding levels: Trustee Project ID Number Preferred Restoration Activity Funding/Contribution Common Loon Restoration COLO‐1 Common Loon Restoration through Translocation $2,499,500 and Captive Rearing Trustee Management and Oversight $185,000 $2,684,500 COLO‐2 Common Loon Restoration through Artificial Nest Sites, Signage and Wardening, Protection of Breeding Habitat, and Reducing Common Loon Mortality through Rescue and Rehabilitation of Stranded $3,685,500 Individuals and Decreasing Exposure to Lead Fishing Tackle Other Birds Restoration OB‐1 Habitat Protection OB‐1MA Massachusetts $774,000 Cuttyhunk Island, Gosnold, MA OB‐1RI Rhode Island $1,000,000 OB‐1RI‐1 Lamoia Parcel, Warren, RI ($400,000) OB‐1RI‐2 Other RI property ($600,000) OB‐2MA Common Eider Nest Site Management $100,000 Total1 $8,244,000 1. Total includes current interest earned on settlement funds; additional interest may be allocated to projects as well as trustee administrative and oversight costs. Copies of the Final RP can be downloaded at http://fws.gov/newengland (Accessed April 30, 2020) or requested by mail at the address below: USFWS Attention: Molly Sperduto 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 [email protected] 4 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.2. Need for Action ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.3. Overview of Incident .................................................................................................................... 9 1.4. Natural Resource Damage Assessment ...................................................................................... 10 1.5. Coordination ............................................................................................................................... 13 1.5.1. Trustee Council Organization and Activities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Point Reyes National Seashore Bird List
    Birds of Point Reyes National Seashore Gaviidae (Loons) Alcedinidae (Kingfishers) Podicipedidae (Grebes) Picidae (Woodpeckers) Diomedeidae (Albatrosses) Tyrannidae (Tyrant Flycatcher) Procellariidae (Shearwaters, Petrels) Alaudidae (Larks) Hydrobatidae (Storm Petrels) Hirundinidae (Swallows) Sulidae (Boobies, Gannets) Laniidae (Shrikes) Pelecanidae (Pelicans) Vireonidae (Vireos) Phalacrocoracidae (Cormorants) Corvidae (Crows, Jays) Fregatidae (Frigate Birds) Paridae (Chickadees, Titmice) Ardeidae (Herons, Bitterns, & Egrets) Aegithalidae (Bushtits) Threskiornithidae (Ibises, Spoonbills) Sittidae (Nuthatches) Ciconiidae (Storks) Certhiidae (Creepers) Anatidae (Ducks, Geese, Swans) Troglodytidae (Wrens) Cathartidae (New World Vultures) Cinclidae (Dippers) Accipitridae (Hawks, Kites, Eagles) & Regulidae (Kinglets) Falconidae (Caracaras, Falcons) Sylviidae (Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers) Odontophoridae (New World Quail) Turdidae (Thrushes) Rallidae (Rails, Gallinules, Coots) Timaliidae (Babblers) Gruidae (Cranes) Mimidae (Mockingbirds, Thrashers) Charadriidae (Lapwings, Plovers) Motacillidae (Wagtails, Pipits) Haematopodidae (Oystercatcher) Bombycillidae (Waxwings) Recurvirostridae (Stilts, Avocets) Ptilogonatidae (Silky-flycatcher) Scolopacidae (Sandpipers, Phalaropes) Parulidae (Wood Warblers) Laridae (Skuas, Gulls, Terns, Skimmers) Cardinalidae (Cardinals) Alcidae (Auks, Murres, Puffins) Emberizidae (Emberizids) Columbidae (Pigeons, Doves) Fringillidae (Finches) Cuculidae (Cuckoos, Road Runners, Anis) NON-NATIVES Tytonidae (Barn Owls)
    [Show full text]
  • 17A a STUDY.Pdf
    ISSN: 2319-8753 International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization) Vol. 3, Issue 1, January 2014 A STUDY OF AVIFAUNAL DIVERSITY AND INFLUENCES OF WATER QUALITY IN THE UDHAYAMARTHANDAPURAM BIRD SANCTUARY, TIRUVARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, INDIA V. Ramamurthy1, R. Rajakumar2 Assistant Professor, P.G. and Research Department of Biochemistry, Marudupandiyar College, Thanjavur – 613 403, Tamil Nadu, India1 Assistant Professor, P.G. and Research Department of Biotechnology, Marudupandiyar College, Thanjavur – 613 403, Tamil Nadu, India2 Abstract: The diversity of wetlands is intermediary zones between permanently aquatic and dry terrestrial eco-systems. Wetlands require collaborated research involving natural, social and inter disciplinary studied to understanding the various components such as monitoring of water quality, socio-economic dependency, biodiversity and other activities as an indispensable tool for formulating long term conservation strategies. The physico-chemical parameters of one of the major habitats for birds, the wetlands are known to influence congregation of migratory and resident species of birds. The present study deals with the interactions between these abiotic factors and bird diversity of the Udhayamarthandapuram bird sanctuary, Tamil Nadu, India for a period of August 2011 to March 2012. During these study periods the water birds were grouped into five categories namely diving birds, swimming birds, small waders, large waders and aerial foragers. During each visit waterfowl survey was carried out and water samples were also collected to document the seasons. The variations in bird aggregations as well as physico-chemical factors are discussed. Most of the abiotic factors were significantly influenced for the density, diversity and richness of the water bird groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cycle of the Common Loon (Brochure)
    ADIRONDACK LOONS AND LAKES FOR MORE INFORMATION: NEED YOUR HELP! lthough the Adirondack Park provides A suitable habitat for breeding loons, the summering population in the Park still faces many challenges. YOU CAN HELP! WCS’ Adirondack Loon Conservation Program Keep Shorelines Natural: Help maintain ~The Cycle of the this critical habitat for nesting wildlife and 7 Brandy Brook Ave, Suite 204 for the quality of our lake water. Saranac Lake, NY 12983 Common Loon~ (518) 891-8872, [email protected] Out on a Lake? Keep your distance (~100 feet or more) from loons and other wildlife, www.wcs.org/adirondackloons so that you do not disturb them. The Wildlife Conservation Society’s Adirondack Going Fishing? Loon Conservation Program is dedicated to ∗ Use Non-Lead Fishing Sinkers and improving the overall health of the environment, Jigs. Lead fishing tackle is poisonous to particularly the protection of air and water loons and other wildlife when quality, through collaborative research and accidentally ingested. education efforts focusing on the natural history ∗ Pack Out Your Line. Invisible in the of the Common Loon (Gavia immer) and water, lost or cut fishing line can conservation issues affecting loon populations entangle loons and other wildlife, often and their aquatic habitats. with fatal results. THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY IS Be an Environmentally Wise Consumer: GRATEFUL TO ITS COLLABORATORS FOR THEIR Many forms of environmental pollution SUPPORT OF THE LOON PROGRAM: result from the incineration of fossil Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks - fuels, primarily from coal-fired power The W!ld Center plants and vehicles, negatively affecting www.wildcenter.org A guide to the seasonal Adirondack ecosystems and their wild NYS Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • LOONS and GREBES [ ] Common Loon [ ] Pied-Billed Grebe---X
    LOONS and GREBES [ ] Common Merganser [ ] Common Loon [ ] Ruddy Duck---x OWLS [ ] Pied-billed Grebe---x [ ] Barn Owl [ ] Horned Grebe HAWKS, KITES and EAGLES [ ] Eared Grebe [ ] Northern Harrier SWIFTS and HUMMINGBIRDS [ ] Western Grebe [ ] Cooper’s Hawk [ ] White-throated Swift [ ] Clark’s Grebe [ ] Red-shouldered Hawk [ ] Anna’s Hummingbird---x [ ] Red-tailed Hawk KINGFISHERS PELICANS and CORMORANTS [ ] Golden Eagle [ ] Belted Kingfisher [ ] Brown Pelican [ ] American Kestrel [ ] Double-crested Cormorant [ ] White-tailed Kite WOODPECKERS [ ] Acorn Woodpecker BITTERNS, HERONS and EGRETS PHEASANTS and QUAIL [ ] Red-breasted Sapsucker [ ] American Bittern [ ] Ring-necked Pheasant [ ] Nuttall’s Woodpecker---x [ ] Great Blue Heron [ ] California Quail [ ] Great Egret [ ] Downy Woodpecker [ ] Snowy Egret RAILS [ ] Northern Flicker [ ] Sora [ ] Green Heron---x TYRANT FLYCATCHERS [ ] Black-crowned Night-Heron---x [ ] Common Moorhen Pacific-slope Flycatcher [ ] American Coot---x [ ] NEW WORLD VULTURES [ ] Black Phoebe---x Say’s Phoebe [ ] Turkey Vulture SHOREBIRDS [ ] [ ] Killdeer---x [ ] Ash-throated Flycatcher WATERFOWL [ ] Greater Yellowlegs [ ] Western Kingbird [ ] Greater White-fronted Goose [ ] Black-necked Stilt SHRIKES [ ] Ross’s Goose [ ] Spotted Sandpiper Loggerhead Shrike [ ] Canada Goose---x [ ] Least Sandpiper [ ] [ ] Wood Duck [ ] Long-billed Dowitcher VIREOS Gadwall [ ] [ ] Wilson’s Snipe [ ] Warbling Vireo [ ] American Wigeon [ ] Mallard---x GULLS and TERNS JAYS and CROWS [ ] Cinnamon Teal [ ] Mew Gull [ ] Western Scrub-Jay---x
    [Show full text]
  • Commentaries
    COMMENTARIES The Water Repellency of Water-bird Feathers ARIE M. RIJKE• Elowson (1984) analyzed the physico-chemical or, by incorporatingEq. 1: principles involved in the water repellency of textile fabrics.Based partly on measurementsof the feather Ws, = %a (1 + cos 0). (2a) structureof 14 water-bird species,she concludedthat Adam (1956) pointed out that if a surfaceis rough or the "textile model" cannot be applied reliably to porous,large contactangles may causedrops to en- feathers, and does not account for the spread-wing trap air in the hollows and interstices,thereby form- behavioral differencesamong water birds. I present ing additional air-liquid interfaces.This will causea a rebuttal to Elowson's critique centering on three considerableincrease in contact angle becausethe main issues. work of adhesion between liquid and air is essen- First,the physicalprinciples of the water repellen- tially negligible. The work of adhesionbetween a cy of porous surfaces,originally applied to treated liquid and a poroussurface, W•, is analogousto Eq.2: textile fabricsto explain the mechanismof water re- pellency,generally have been acceptedin the orni- Wps,= f•(3'• - %,) + (1 - f2)3'•, (3) thologicaland textile-processingliterature (Moilliet 1963;Clark 1969; Kennedy 1969, 1972; Siegfried et where f• is the area of solid-liquid interface and f• al. 1975;Mahoney 1984). Elowson argued that textile that of liquid-air interface per unit macroscopicsur- fabrics and feather substructure are too dissimilar to face area. Substitutionof Eqs. 1 and 2a then yields justify comparison.More specifically,Elowson con- (Cassie and Baxter 1944): sideredthe conditionof parallel, perfectly cylindri- cal rows of rami and barbules essential for the valid- cos0^ = f•cos0 - f•, (4) ity of the "textile model" to predict the water where 0a is now the apparent contact angle as in- repellencyof feathers.Because the rami and barbules creasedby the formation of air-liquid interfaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Report
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO THE REPORT ON THE ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT OF THE “CONSTRUCTION OF THE KARCINO-SARBIA WIND FARM (17 WIND TURBINES)” OF 2003 Name of the undertaking: KARCINO-SARBIA Wind Farm (under construction) Contractor: AOS Agencja Ochrony Środowiska Sp. z o.o. based in Koszalin Arch. No. 52/OŚ/OOS/06 Koszalin, September 2006 Team: Bogdan Gutkowski, M.Sc.Eng.– Expert for Environmental Impact Assessment Appointed by the Governor of the West Pomerania Province Marek Ziółkowski, M.Sc. Eng. – Environmental Protection Expert of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry; Environmental Protection Consultant Dagmara Czajkowska, M.Sc. Eng. – Specialist for Environmental Impact Assessment, Specialist for Environmental Protection and Management Ewa Reszka, M.Sc. – Specialist for the Protection of Water and Land and Protection against Impact of Waste Damian Kołek, M.Sc.Eng. – Environmental Protection Specialist 2 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 II. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT ..................................................... 9 1. Location and adjacent facilities....................................................................................................... 9 2. Modifications to the project .......................................................................................................... 10 3. Technical description of the project ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Birds of the Estero Bay Area
    Common Birds of the Estero Bay Area Jeremy Beaulieu Lisa Andreano Michael Walgren Introduction The following is a guide to the common birds of the Estero Bay Area. Brief descriptions are provided as well as active months and status listings. Photos are primarily courtesy of Greg Smith. Species are arranged by family according to the Sibley Guide to Birds (2000). Gaviidae Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Occurrence: Common Active Months: November-April Federal Status: None State/Audubon Status: None Description: A small loon seldom seen far from salt water. In the non-breeding season they have a grey face and red throat. They have a long slender dark bill and white speckling on their dark back. Information: These birds are winter residents to the Central Coast. Wintering Red- throated Loons can gather in large numbers in Morro Bay if food is abundant. They are common on salt water of all depths but frequently forage in shallow bays and estuaries rather than far out at sea. Because their legs are located so far back, loons have difficulty walking on land and are rarely found far from water. Most loons must paddle furiously across the surface of the water before becoming airborne, but these small loons can practically spring directly into the air from land, a useful ability on its artic tundra breeding grounds. Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Occurrence: Common Active Months: November-April Federal Status: None State/Audubon Status: None Description: The Pacific Loon has a shorter neck than the Red-throated Loon. The bill is very straight and the head is very smoothly rounded.
    [Show full text]
  • (USDA) Forest Service Working with Partners for Bird Conservation
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Appendix A Working with Partners for Bird Conservation Bird Conservation Accomplishments Published 2004 This appendix lists the bird conservation accomplishment projects by USDA Forest Service Deputy Areas: National Forest Systems, Research and Development, State and Private and International Programs. This is not a complete set of the many bird conservation actions that have been or are currently being implemented across Forest Service Deputy Areas. It represents bird conservation accomplishment projects from the administrative units that replied at the time of the request. Projects started before fiscal year 2000 that are ongoing or conducted annually (beyond 2002) are reported as “ongoing” or “annually”, with the date of inception included (when known). I. National Forest Systems Region 1 (R-1): Northern Region Regionwide Accomplishments Partnership Enhancement • Partners in Flight (PIF) and Bird Conservation Region (BCR) Plans. Forest Service biologists throughout the Northern Region participated in the development of PIF and BCR plans for Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Active participation is ongoing with PIF working groups, BCR coordinators, joint venture meetings, and other activities that promote bird conservation. Partners in these efforts include the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks (MFWP), Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1 (Idaho Fish & Game), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Potlatch Corp., Plum Creek Timber Co., local Audubon Society Chapters, and the Universities of Montana and Idaho. Ongoing since FY1993. • Montana Sage Grouse and Sagebrush Conservation Strategy. The Northern Region participated in the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks-led effort to develop a statewide sage grouse and sagebrush conservation strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • For Creative Minds
    For Creative Minds The For Creative Minds educational section may be photocopied or printed from our website by the owner of this book for educational, non-commercial uses. Cross- curricular teaching activities, interactive quizzes, and more are available online. Go to www.ArbordalePublishing.com and click on the book’s cover to explore all the links. Loon Fun Facts A loon is a large water bird that looks something like a duck, but is not related to a duck at all. Loons belong to a family of ancient birds, at least 20 million years old. The best-known species is the common loon (Gavia immer). The common loon is the state bird of Minnesota. Loons spend almost all of their lives on water, and come on land only to mate, build their nest, and to incubate their eggs. Scientists think loons may live as long as 30 years. Who do you know who is about 30 years old? Does that seem old to you? The common loon Is that a long time is famous for the for a bird? black and white pattern of its summer feathers, and its many eerie, unmistakable calls. Loons eat small fish, insects, snails, crayfish, frogs, and salamanders. Underwater, loons almost always use their feet to move, not their wings. What parts of your body do you use to swim? Loons’ webbed feet (adapted for swimming) are set so far back on their bodies that it is difficult for them to walk on land. Loons are able to fly at speeds of 60 to 90 miles (96.5 to 145 km) per hour.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Loon in New York State
    THE COMMON LOON IN NEW YORK STATE For a number of years a committee of the Federation of New York State Bird Clubs has been planning a new Birds of New York State to succeed the monumental two volume work by E. H. Eaton, published by the State Museum a half century ago. This new book is not envisioned as an all-encompassing state book in the classic tradition. The day is long past for lavish volumes, liberally illus- trated, describing and portraying in detail the plumages, the habits, the life histories, and the economic importance of each species ever recorded in the state, just as if there were no other readily-available sources for this informa- tion. The committee believes that what a present-day state book should do is to concentrate on what is specifically germane to the ornithology of the state. It should be an inventory of the state list, a census of the breeding species, an estimate of populations wherever possible, a guide to the seasonal calendar of the species found in New York, an atlas of breeding ranges and migration routes, and an accounting of the unusual species that have been recorded within our boundaries. It should additionally give an accounting of the species normally to be found in the various ecological associations of the state. All this to give as accurate as possible a picture, and historical record, of the bird life of the state as it exists just prior to publication. It should certainly record changes that have taken place over the years, when known, and might even venture a prediction or two about the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Beached Bird Guide for Northern Lake Michigan
    Beached Bird Guide for Northern Lake Michigan Prepared by Common Coast Research & Conservation In association with the Grand Traverse Bay Botulism Network © 2008 Common Coast Research & Conservation How to use this guide This guide was developed to aid with the field identification of the most common waterbird species implicated in botulism E die-offs on northern Lake Michigan. The guide is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of all species you may encounter in the field. For birds not treated in this guide please document with photographs and/or submit carcasses to the nearest Michigan Department of Natural Resources Field Office for identification and/or testing for botulism (see manual). The emphasis of this guide is on differences in bill structure among the various waterbird species. The bill plates are drawn to actual size - we recommend laminating the guide for use in the field. Placing the bills of unknown species directly on the plates will facilitate identification. Please keep in mind some variation among individuals is to be expected. Photographs of unknown species are helpful for later identification. Bird Topography tarsus crown bill (upper and lower mandibles) foot bill margin cheek throat wing coverts (lesser) secondaries webbed foot lobed foot primaries (loons, ducks, gulls) (grebes) Loons and Grebes Birds with dagger-like bills Description: Adult Common Loon bill large, dagger-like, mandible edges smooth feet webbed tarsus narrow, flat Plumage variation (adult vs. juvenile): Look at wing coverts: Adult – well-defined white "windows" (see photo) Juvenile - lacks defined white "windows" Similar species: Red-throated Loon – bill smaller (rarely found) Red-necked Grebe – feet lobed, bill smaller Description: Red-throated Loon bill dagger-like, slightly upturned, mandible edges smooth feet webbed tarsus narrow, flat Similar species: Common Loon - larger; bill heavier, not upturned Red-necked Grebe – feet lobed , bill yellowish NOTE: Rarely encountered.
    [Show full text]
  • CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 1 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and Their Habitat Country Report
    CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and their Habitat Country Report - INDIA A. Introduction India situated north of the equator covering an area of about 3,287,263 km2 is one of the largest country in the Asian region. With 10 distinctly different bio geographical zones and many different habitat types, the country is known amongst the top 12 mega biodiversity countries. India is known to support 1225 species of bird species, out of these 257 species are water birds. India remains in the core central region of the Central Asian Flyway (CAF) and holds some crucial important wintering population of water bird species. India is also a key breeding area for many other water birds such as Pygmy cormorant and Ruddy-shelduck, globally threatened water birds such as Dalmatian Pelican, Lesser White-fronted Goose, Siberian crane, oriental white stork, greater adjutant stork, white winged wood duck etc. Being located in the core of the CAF, and several important migration routes the country covers a large intra-continental territory between Arctic and Indian Ocean. Being aware of the importance of the wetlands within the geographic boundary of the India for migrating avifauna, India has developed a wetland conservation programme. India currently has 19 RAMSAR sites. India has identified more than 300 sites which has the potential to be consider as the RAMSAR sites. However, being the second most populus nation in the world with agricultural economy, wetlands are one of the most used habitat with water bird and human interface. Much of the Indian landmass also being dependent to the normal monsoonal rainfall for precipitation is also subjected to extremes of drought and flood making the wetlands vulnerable to drastic ecological changes.
    [Show full text]