Abundance of Shorebirds at Willapa Bay, Washington

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Abundance of Shorebirds at Willapa Bay, Washington ABUNDANCE OF SHOREBIRDS AT WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON JOSEPH B. BUCHANAN and JOSEPH R. EVENSON, Cascadia Research Collective,218•/• W. FourthAvenue, Olympia, Washington 98501 There is a growingbody of literaturedocumenting large concentrations of shorebirdsat winteringsites or migratorystaging areas along the Pacificcoast of North America. In the PacificNorthwest, such areas include the Fraser River delta (Butler 1994, Vermeer et al. 1994), Puget Sound (Buchanan 1988a, Evensonand Buchanan1995), GraysHarbor (Herman and Bulger 1981), WillapaBay (Widrig 1979), andbeaches of the outercoast (Buchanan 1992). Someof thesesites support numbers of shorebirdsthat qualify them as regionallyor internationallyimportant sites in the Western Hemisphere ShorebirdReserve Network (I. Davidsonpers. comm.). Others comprise clustersof smallersites that togethersupport substantial numbers of birds (Evensonand Buchanan1995). Identifyingthe role these sites play in supportingwintering and migrantshorebirds is an importantstep in develop- ing conservationstrategies to protectshorebirds and their habitats. Prior researchon shorebirduse of Willapa Bay has been limited.At LeadbetterPoint, Widrig (1979) conductedmultiple shorebird surveys but only over a singleyear. Becauseshorebird abundance can vary both from year to year (Buchanan1988a) and within a year (Evensonand Buchanan 1995), both intensiveand long-termstudies are essentialfor assessing populationtrends. The objectiveof thisstudy was to estimatethe abundance of shorebirdsat WillapaBay, Washington,to identifyimportant candidate siteswithin Willapa Bay for future monitoringefforts. Here we present resultsof ground-and aerial-basedcounts of shorebirdsduring winter, spring,and autumnfrom 1991 to 1995 that documentthis site as among the mostimportant to shorebirdson the westcoast of North America. STUDY AREA WillapaBay is on the outer coast of Washingtonstate between Grays Harbor andthe Columbia River mouth. It coversabout 420 kmz and is fed by the Cedar, North,Willapa, and Palixrivers in the northand the Nemah,Naselle, and Bear riversin the south(Figure 1). A long,narrow peninsula (North Beach Peninsula) dominatedby lowdunes, pastures, and woodlands separates the mainbody of thebay from the Pacific Ocean. Of theseveral salt marshes around the bay, the largestare at the mouthsof the WillapaRiver to the northand the Bear River to thesouth. Low tide (0.0 m)exposes about 200 kmz of mudfiats. Numerous sandshoals are exposedduring all but the highesttides; there are no dredge- spoilislands in the bay.Two areas,Leadbetter Point and the BearRiver/Lewis Unit fiat, are withinWillapa National Wildlife Refuge. METHODS Our countsinvolved a combinationof aerial and ground-basedefforts. BecauseWillapa Bay is largeand accessto manyareas is limited,surveying 158 WesternBirds 28:158-168, 1997 ABUNDANCE OF SHOREBIRDS AT WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON + •+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pacific Kilometers Ocean Figure1 WillapaBay, showingthe locationof sitescovered by groundand aerial surveysfor shorebirdsbetween 1991 and 1995. Lightstippling, intertidal foraging and roostinghabitats. shorebirdsadequately from the groundis difficult.For thisreason, on each surveywe madecounts from a smallairplane flying at a heightof about60 to 70 m. These aerial countswere the basisof our primaryestimates of shorebirdabundance in the estuary.We also made aerial countsof birds (primarilySanderlings) on outerNorth Beachon five occasions;the beach coveredby the countswas 37 km long. 159 ABUNDANCE OF SHOREBIRDSAT WILLAPA BAY,WASHINGTON Groundcounts were madeby a total of 18 observers(median 5 per seasonalcount) who countedshorebirds at eightprimary sites: Tokeland, CedarRiver, North River, Willapa River, Palix River, Bear River/Lewis Unit, East North Beach Peninsula,and LeadbetterPoint. Ground countswere usedto estimatethe proportionsof speciesnot identifiedfrom the air.Thus, dependingon theseason, ground observers determined the species compo- sition of groupsof look-alikespecies, including the Greater and Lesser yellowlegs;Whimbrel, Marbled Godwit, and Long-billedCurlew; Western Sandpiper,Least Sandpiper,and Dunlin; and Red Knot and dowitchers. Proportionsderived from ground counts of particularsites or regionsof the bay were appliedto the correspondingunidentified species groups from aerialcounts of theseregions, then regional totals were summed to provide baywideestimates. Aerial counts alone were used to estimatepopulations of the Black-bellied Plover. Ground counts alone were used for all other species,which consequently were underestimated because of partialcover- age of the bay by this method. Becausethe mainobjective of thesecounts was to identifyimportant sites forfuture monitoring efforts, they were usually made only once each season (Table1). Countswere made during rising or fallingtides generally within four hoursof hightide. The logisticalconstraints noted above necessitated conductingthe groundcounts at siteswhere shorebirds aggregated immedi- atelyprior to and/or afterhigh tide. Consequently, aerial counts covered the entireshoreline whereas ground counts covered only the areasof major concentrationsof birds.Our scheduledflights were occasionallypostponed Table 1 Dates of Shorebird Counts at WillapaBay, Washington,1991-1995 Aerial Ground Winreft 28 Nov 1992 21-22 Nov 1992 4 Dec 1993 22 Nov-4 Dec 1993 31 Dec 1993 28-29 Dec 1993 21 Dec 1994 21-30 Dec 1994 9 Feb 1995 28 Jan-9 Feb 1995 Spring• 27 Apr 1991 27 Apr 1991 27, 30 Apr 1993 25 Apr-1 May 1993 26 Apr, 1 May 1994 28, 30 Apr 1994 Autumn 30 Aug 1993 15-20 Aug 1993 •Two complete(aerial and ground)counts were con- ducted in the winters of 1993-94 and 1994-95. •Twoflights were made in the springsof I993 and I994; each pair of flightscoincided with a single groundcount. 160 ABUNDANCE OF SHOREBIRDS AT WlLLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON becauseof adverseweather conditions, and thereforesome ground counts duringwinter and springwere not made on the sameday as the aerial counts.Nonetheless, we believethat the estimatesof the proportionsof speciesderived from these counts are reliablebecause the numberof species duringwinter was low and did not vary appreciably within the bay,and most groundcounts in springwere made on or withintwo daysof the aerial counts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SpeciesAccounts Black-belliedPlover (Pluvialis squatarola). This was the secondmost numerous speciesin winterin all threeyears and generallythe fourthmost numerous species duringmigration (Tables 2 and3). The totalof 4049 countedon 21 December1994 included3848 roostingon outerNorth Beach at hightide, the highestknown winter countat a singlesite in Washingtonstate (Paulson 1993). SemipalmatedPlover (Charadrius semipalmatus). The irregularityof thisspecies in Washingtonin winter(Buchanan 1992) is reflectedin our results(Table 3). The SemipalmatedPlover is locallydistributed in all seasons. Killdeer(Charadrius vociferus). The Killdeerwas observedin low numbersin all seasons(Table 3). Widrig(1979) sawvery few Killdeersat LeadbetterPoint during any season. GreaterYellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca).The GreaterYellowlegs is a regularly occurringwinter residentin estuarinehabitats in the PacificNorthwest (Buchanan Table 2 SeasonalHigh Countsof Black-belliedPlovers, Dunlins, Western Sandpipers,and Short-billedDowitchers at PrimaryCensus Sites in Willapa Bay, 1991-1995 Winter Spring Black- Black- Short- bellied bellled Western billed Site Plover Dunlin Plover Dunlin Sandpiper Dowitcher Tokeland 415 2,320 35 832 3,603 300 Cedar River 67 450 8 756 4,844 1,780 North River 240 3,915 100 1,890 12,110 5,190 WillapaRiver 5 13,510 100 2,970 16,830 12,460 BetweenWillapa R. and Palix R. 6 3,120 180 2,481 14,059 2,345 PalixRiver 35 8,800 84 1,191 6,749 4,380 Between Palix R. and Nemah R. 15 2,160 85 2,586 10,344 1,465 NemahRiver 205 8,150 300 2,400 9,600 4,000 BearRiver 210 27,260 300 12,300 36,900 5,000 E. North Beach peninsula 50 5,115 65 2,554 3,831 680 LeadbetterPoint 54 3,935 125 7,930 5,070 4,425 161 ABUNDANCE OF SHOREBIRDS AT WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON Table •3 Numbersof ShorebirdsCounted or Estimatedat WillapaBay, Washington, 1991-1995 Winter Spring Autumn Species 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1991 1993 1994 1993 Black-belliedPlover • 415 881 4,049 918 653 245 205 SemipalmatedPlover b 12 0 0 27 122 264 98 KilldeeP 0 6 1 0 0 2 4 GreaterYellowlegs • 84 42 97 40 160 275 65 LesserYellowlegs a 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Willetb 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 SpottedSandpiper • 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 Whimbrela 4 9 3 0 82 27 229 Long-billedCurlew d 0 67 70 0 8 1 0 Marbled Godwitd 0 303 462 0 115 51 70 Largesandpiper spp. 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 RuddyTurnstone • 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 Black Turnstone• 28 26 29 1 0 7 1 Red Knot• 0 0 0 0 177 1 0 Sanderlingd 372 135 16 0 0 6 2 WesternSandpiper • 80 e 258 82,575 55,195 49,615 8,976 LeastSandpiper • 0 22 235 1 e 150 374 Dunlina 47,017 69,850 27,120 7,525 29,720 41,640 0 Long-billedDowitcher • 50 94 61 0 0 0 0 Short-billedDowitcher • 0 0 0 23,865 8,900 16,595 153 Dowitcherspp? 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 CommonSnipe b 10 2 0 0 1 1 0 øDirectaerial count of the entirebay. bNumbercounted from the groundonly; total for somespecies may under-represent actual number of birds present. CDirectaerial count of the entire bay unless ground count revealed Lesser Yellowlegs, in which case proportionalcounts were used. dNumberprojected from proportions of similarspecies counted during surveys on theground (see Methods). ePresent but not counted. 1988b). The countfrom winter 1994-95 appearsto be the highestwinter count yet made in the region(Table 3; Paulson1993, Buchananunpubl. data). LesserYellowlegs (Tringa
Recommended publications
  • To View the Apr/May Issue of the Sandpiper (Pdf)
    The andpiper APRIL/MAY 2018 Redwood Region Audubon Society www.rras.org S APRIL/MAY FIELD TRIPS Every Saturday: Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary. Sunday, April 8: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife carpooling available. Walks generally run 2-3 hours. All These are our famous, rain-or-shine, docent-led fi eld trips at Refuge. This is a wonderful 2-to 3-hour trip for people ages, abilities and interest levels welcome! For more the Marsh. Bring your binocular(s) and have a great morning wanting to learn the birds of the Humboldt Bay area. It information, please contact Melissa Dougherty at 530-859- birding! Meet in the parking lot at the end of South I Street takes a leisurely pace with emphasis on enjoying the birds! 1874 or email [email protected]. (Klopp Lake) in Arcata at 8:30 a.m. Trips end around 11 a.m. Beginners are more than welcome. Meet at the Refuge Walks led by: Cédric Duhalde (Apr 7); Cindy Moyer (Apr Visitor Center at 9 a.m. Call Jude Power (707-822- 3613) Saturday, April 14: Shorebird Workshop, Part 14); Michael Morris (Apr 21); Christine Keil (Apr 28). If you for more information. III at Del Norte Pier. Meet at 10 a.m. to watch the are interested in leading a Marsh walk, please contact Ken rising tide at the foot of W. Del Norte St. bring in waves Burton at [email protected]. Sunday, April 8: Shorebird Workshop, Part II of godwits, willets, turnstones, and curlews. Tide will turn at South Spit. First we’ll look for beach-loving around noon; we hope to see a good show by then.
    [Show full text]
  • Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist
    Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist Arcata, Humboldt County, California (Updated Fall 2014) The following list of 327 species was updated by Rob Fowler and David Fix in 2014 from the list they compiled in 2009. Data came from sightings entered in eBird; Stanley Harris's Northwest California Bird (2005, 1996, 1991); historical records in North American Birds magazine and its supporting unpublished Humboldt County summaries; the 2006 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Elias Elias); the 1995 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Kristina Van Wert); and personal communications with many birders. Formatting by Camden Bruner. Call the Northwest California Bird Alert at (707) 822-5666 to report or hear reports of rare birds! Abbreviations: A - Abundant; occurs in large numbers C - Common; likely to be found U - Uncommon; occurs in small numbers, found with seearching R - Rare; expected in very small numbers, not likely to be found Ca - Casual; several records, possibly may occur regularly Ac - Accidental; 1-3 records, not reasonably expected to occur Sp - Spring (Marsh - May) S - Summer (June to mid-July) F - Fall (mid-July through November) W - Winter (December through February) Here Waterfowl: Breeds Spring Summer Fall Winter _____ Greater White-fronted Goose R R R _____ Emperor Goose Ac _____ Snow Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Ross's Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Brant U Ac U R _____ Cackling Goose A U C _____ Canada Goose C C C C yes _____ Tundra Swan Ca Ca _____ Wood Duck U U U U yes _____ Gadwall C C C C yes _____ Eurasian Wigeon R U R _____
    [Show full text]
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment
    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List
    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List The target species list (species to be surveyed) should not change over the course of the study, therefore determining the target species list is an important project design task. Because waterbirds, including shorebirds, can occur in very high numbers in a census area, it is often not possible to count all species without compromising the quality of the survey data. For the basic shorebird census program (protocol 1), we recommend counting all shorebirds (sub-Order Charadrii), all raptors (hawks, falcons, owls, etc.), Common Ravens, and American Crows. This list of species is available on our field data forms, which can be downloaded from this site, and as a drop-down list on our online data entry form. If a very rare species occurs on a shorebird area survey, the species will need to be submitted with good documentation as a narrative note with the survey data. Project goals that could preclude counting all species include surveys designed to search for color-marked birds or post- breeding season counts of age-classed bird to obtain age ratios for a species. When conducting a census, you should identify as many of the shorebirds as possible to species; sometimes, however, this is not possible. For example, dowitchers often cannot be separated under censuses conditions, and at a distance or under poor lighting, it may not be possible to distinguish some species such as small Calidris sandpipers. We have provided codes for species combinations that commonly are reported on censuses. Combined codes are still species-specific and you should use the code that provides as much information as possible about the potential species combination you designate.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Environmental Assessment: Kent Island Restoration at Bolinas Lagoon
    DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON Marin County Open Space District and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District August 2012 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: KENT ISLAND RESTORATION AT BOLINAS LAGOON PREPARED FOR Marin County Open Space District Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 499-6387 and US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 1455 Market St San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 503-6703 PREPARED BY Carmen Ecological Consulting Grassetti Environmental Consulting Peter R. Baye, Coastal Ecologist, Botanist August 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Document Structure ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................3 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................3 2.2 Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................................3 2.3 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • List of Shorebird Profiles
    List of Shorebird Profiles Pacific Central Atlantic Species Page Flyway Flyway Flyway American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) •513 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) •••499 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) •488 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) •••501 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)•490 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) •511 Dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.)•••485 Dunlin (Calidris alpina)•••483 Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemestica)••475 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)•••492 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ••503 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)••505 Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva) •497 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)••473 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)•••479 Sanderling (Calidris alba)•••477 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)••494 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)•••507 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)•509 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) •••481 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) ••515 All illustrations in these profiles are copyrighted © George C. West, and used with permission. To view his work go to http://www.birchwoodstudio.com. S H O R E B I R D S M 472 I Explore the World with Shorebirds! S A T R ER G S RO CHOOLS P Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Description The Red Knot is a chunky, medium sized shorebird that measures about 10 inches from bill to tail. When in its breeding plumage, the edges of its head and the underside of its neck and belly are orangish. The bird’s upper body is streaked a dark brown. It has a brownish gray tail and yellow green legs and feet. In the winter, the Red Knot carries a plain, grayish plumage that has very few distinctive features. Call Its call is a low, two-note whistle that sometimes includes a churring “knot” sound that is what inspired its name.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised July 11, 2000
    Revised January 29, 2013 U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Upper Mississippi Valley/ Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan Version 1.0 Prepared by1: Ferenc de Szalay, Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio Doug Helmers, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia, Missouri Dale Humburg, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri Stephen J. Lewis, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota Barbara Pardo, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota Mark Shieldcastle, Ohio Division of Wildlife, Oak Harbor, Ohio May, 2000 1 Authors are listed alphabetically. Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE UMVGL REGION ................................................................................ 2 Physical Description ............................................................................................................... 2 Bird Conservation Regions ..................................................................................................... 2 Shorebird Habitats in the UMVGL ......................................................................................... 3 Human Impacts on Shorebird habitat in the UMVGL Region ............................................... 4 SHOREBIRD SPECIES
    [Show full text]
  • List of Species Likely to Benefit from Marine Protected Areas in The
    Appendix C: Species Likely to Benefit from MPAs andSpecial-Status Species This appendix contains two sections: C.1 Species likely to benefit from marine protected areas in the MLPA South Coast Study Region C.2 Special status species likely to occur in the MLPA South Coast Study Region C.1 Species Likely to Benefit From MPAs The Marine Life Protection Act requires that species likely to benefit from MPAs be identified; identification of these species will contribute to the identification of habitat areas that will support achieving the goals of the MLPA. The California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (DFG 2008) includes a broad list of species likely to benefit from protection within MPAs. The master plan also indicates that regional lists will be developed by the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT) for each study region described in the master plan. A list of species likely to benefit for the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception in Santa Barbara County to the California/Mexico border in San Diego County) has been compiled and approved by the SAT. The SAT used a scoring system to develop the list of species likely to benefit. This scoring system was developed to provide a metric that is more useful when comparing species than a simple on/off the list metric. Each species was scored using “1” to indicate a criterion was met or “0” to indicate a criterion was not met. Species on the list meet the following filtering criteria: they occur in the study region, they must score a “1” for either
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Ocean
    124° 123° 122° 121° 42° 42° 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 ° 32 41° 41 31 29 30 27 28 26 25 24 23 22 21 ° ° 40 20 40 19 18 17 16 15 PACIFIC OCEAN 14 13 ° ° 39 12 39 11 10 9 8 6 7 4 5 20 0 20 3 MILES 1 2 38° 38° 124° 123° 122° 121° Prepared for: Office of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE and ASSESSMENT DIVISION California Department Of Fish and Game National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sacramento, California Seattle, Washington Prepared by: RESEARCH PLANNING, INC. Columbia, SC 29202 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX MAP 123°00’00" 122°52’30" 38°07’30" 38°07’30" TOMALES BAY STATE PARK P O I N T R E Y E S N A T I O N A L S E A S H O R E ESTERO DE LIMANTOUR RESERVE POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE 38°00’00" 38°00’00" POINT REYES HEADLAND RESERVE GULF OF THE FARALLONES NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 123°00’00" 122°52’30" ATMOSPH ND ER A IC IC A N D A M E I Prepared for C N O I S L T R A A N T O I I O T N A N U . E S. RC DE E PA MM RTMENT OF CO Office of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE OIL SPILL PREVENTION and RESPONSE and ASSESSMENT DIVISION California Department of Fish and Game National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1.50 1KILOMETER 1.50 1MILE PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 1994 DRAKES BAY, CALIF.
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Long-Billed Curlew Numenius Americanus in Peru and Other Observations of Nearctic Waders at the Virilla Estuary Nathan R
    Cotinga 26 First record of Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus in Peru and other observations of Nearctic waders at the Virilla estuary Nathan R. Senner Received 6 February 2006; final revision accepted 21 March 2006 Cotinga 26(2006): 39–42 Hay poca información sobre las rutas de migración y el uso de los sitios de la costa peruana por chorlos nearcticos. En el fin de agosto 2004 yo reconocí el estuario de Virilla en el dpto. Piura en el noroeste de Peru para identificar los sitios de descanso para los Limosa haemastica en su ruta de migración al sur y aprender más sobre la migración de chorlos nearcticos en Peru. En Virilla yo observí más de 2.000 individuales de 23 especios de chorlos nearcticos y el primer registro de Numenius americanus de Peru, la concentración más grande de Limosa fedoa en Peru, y una concentración excepcional de Limosa haemastica. La combinación de esas observaciones y los resultados de un estudio anterior en el invierno boreal sugiere la posibilidad que Virilla sea muy importante para chorlos nearcticos en Peru. Las observaciones, también, demuestren la necesidad hacer más estudios en la costa peruana durante el año entero, no solemente durante el punto máximo de la migración de chorlos entre septiembre y noviembre. Shorebirds are poorly known in Peru away from bordered for a few hundred metres by sand and established study sites such as Paracas reserve, gravel before low bluffs rise c.30 m. Very little dpto. Ica, and those close to metropolitan areas vegetation grows here, although cows, goats and frequented by visiting birdwatchers and tour pigs owned by Parachique residents graze the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
    PACIFIC COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ILWACO, TOWN OF 530127 LONG BEACH, TOWN OF 530128 PACIFIC COUNTY, 530126 UNINCORPORATED AREAS RAYMOND, CITY OF 530129 SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE 530341 SOUTH BEND, CITY OF 530130 Pacific County PRELIMINARY: AUGUST 30, 2013 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 53049CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone Al through A30 AE B X C X Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: To Be Determined TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Coordination .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae
    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
    [Show full text]