[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I P_ 2 1make - COSA ZON ENIOMNAL USRPR COASTAL EEVRNETUS SURVES Y N Ir ~~~~~~~WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME - December,1L975 STATE OF WASHINGTON DANIEL ~J. EVANS, GOVERNOR MARINE SHORELINE FAUNA OF WASHINGTON By: Randall L. Easton, Editor December 1975 This volume is one of the outputs of the Coastal Zone Environmental Studies Program and was prepared under a cooperative agreement between the Washington State Department of Game and Ecology. The preparation of this document was aided by the Washington State Department of Ecology through a federal grant from the Office of Coastal Zone Management under the National Oceanographic and Atmospheri~c Administration of the United States Department of Commerce, as authorized by the United State Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. pro~~t~ZCf , U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 MARINE SHORELINE FAUNA OF WASHINGTON A Status Survey Edited by Randall L. Eaton Contributors: J. David Brittell Judith M. Brown Randall L. Eaton Carol A. Starika Washington's Departments of Game and Ecology Olympia, Washington 1975 MARINE SHORELINE FAUNA OF WASHINGTON A Status Survey Contents Page Preface, by Carroll Rieck. .....................vil Foreword .. Introduction............................. I Background and Methodology...................... 2 Status categories. .......................2 Selection of species: criteria and considerations........ 8 Interpretation of the Fact Sheets. ..................10 Future Plans ..............................17 The Fact Sheets Birds Yellow-billed loon. ....................20 Short-tailed albatross. .................. 24 Le.ysan albatross. .....................28 Tasmanian white-capped albatross. .............32 Pale-footed shearwater. ..................35 New Zealand shearwater. ..................38 Slender-billed shearwater. .................42 Black-vented shearwater. ..................45 Southern fork-tailed petrel. ................48 Oregon leach petrel .. ...................51 Northern red-billed tropic bird . .............. White pelican . ....................... California brown pelican. .................64 Northern blue-footed booby. ................68 Anthony's green heron. ...................71 Cattle egret. .......................75 Page Common egret ........... 80 Snowy egret. . ......... . . . . . . ..84 Whistling swan ........... 88 Trumpeter swan ........... 94 Western Canada goose . .... .. .102 Aleutian Canada goose . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . 106 American brant . . . . ....... ... ...... 111 Emperor goose ..... ................. 115 Ross's goose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . .. 119 Northern fulvous tree duck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Black duck . . . . . . . . . . . * . .......... 126 European wigeon . .. . .... .130 Redhead . .................... . 135 Ring-necked duck ............... . .... 140 Canvasback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . 44 Oldsquaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Harlequin duck ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Pacific common eider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 King eider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Black scoter . . . ...... . . ....... 165 Hooded merganser . ....... ...169 Turkey vulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 California condor. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Northwestern sharp-shinned hawk . . . . . 184 Golden eagle ....... 188 Northern bald eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193 Osprey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Gyrfalcon. . . . . . .......... 207 Peregrine falcon . ......... ....211 Page Peale's peregrine falcon .................. 217 Arctic peregrine falcon .................. 221 Black pigeon hawk ............ 225 Western pigeon hawk .....228 Mountain quail ..... . .............. 232 Lesser sandhill crane ...237 Greater sandhill crane.242 248 Yellow rail. . . ...28 Black oystercatcher *................ 251 Western snowy plover .................... 255 Mountain plover ..259 Dotterel . ......................... 262 American golden plover .265 Ruddy turnstone .270 Long-billed curlew .. 274 Solitary sandpiper ..................... 278 Western willet � � ..281 Rock sandpiper ....................... 284 Sharp-tailed sandpiper ................. .287 White-rumped sandpiper .290 Baird's sandpiper . . ... ................293 Semipalmated sandpiper .................... 297 Stilt sandpiper ....................... 300 Buff-breasted sandpiper ..303 Marbled godwit ........................ 307 Bar-tailed godwit .311 Hudsonian godwit .314 Glaucous-winged gull ..................... 317 Western gull ..... 321 Page Herring gull . .......325 Thayer's gull .......... 328 California gull ........... 331 Ring-billed gull ......................33 Caspian tern . ............339 Marbled murrelet. ............... 345 Ancient murrelet ......................349 Cassin's auklet . ..353 Rhinocerous auklet........ 358 Tufted puffin . . . . . 364 Band-tailed pigeon........370 Great horned owl ....................... 374 Arctic horned owl ...................... 377 Snowy owl ..... ...............380 Western burrowing owl . .......384 Spotted owl .....................389 Saw-whet owl .................. 393 Pileated woodpecker .......... ..........397 Purple martin ..................401 Skylark . . .................... Yakutat fox sparrow .................. 408 Yakutat song sparrow ................... 410 Lapland longspur ...................412 Snow bunting ..................415 Mammals Keen's brown bat ..................419 *422 Long eared bat .......... Silver-haired bat ...... ................ 425 Red bat . . . . ................... 429 Page Hoary bat . . . . . .................... 432 Townsend's meadow mouse ................ 436 Baird's beaked whale .................... 439 Stejneger's beaked whale ..442 Hubb's beaked whale ..................... 444 Goose-beaked whale ......... ... . ... .... 446 Sperm whale . ....... 449 Pygmy sperm whale ............... 454 Striped dolphin ....................... 457 Common dolphin .. 459 Northern right-whale dolphin ................ 463 Pacific white-sided dolphin ................ 466 Risso's dolphin.. 469 False killer whale ..472 Killer whale ........................ 475 Short-finned pilot whale .........479 Harbor porpoise .......... 482 Dall porpoise .*..... 485 Gray whale .............. 488 Fin whale ..494 Sei whale . . . . . . ..498 Minke whale ..................... 502 Blue whale ..505 Humpback whale ..510 Black right whale ..515 Marten . . . . ..519 Fisher ........ 523 Sea otter ............ ... 527 Northern fur seal ..533 California sea lion .*538 Northern sea lion *..542 Harbor seal . . . ........................546 Northern elephant seal .*551 Columbian white-tailed deer .555 Other species Olympic mudminnow. .......................565 Olympia oyster.570 Appendix A: Maps of Washin'ton's Shoreline. ...............574 Appendix B: Species with Apparently Satisfactory Status. .........579 Appendix C: Species with Undetermined Status ................584 Appendix D: Questionnaire. ........................586 Appendix E: Summary of Potentially Threatened and Threatened Species of Washington's Shoreline .. ........................592 About the Contributors .. .........................594 PREFACE by Carroll A. Rieck, Supervisor Nongame Wildlife Program This manuscript is remarkable in that it was accomplished by four young wildlife biologists in about a four month period. The project received their personal commitment and priority. The project was always charged with a spirit of urgency because it was the Game Department's first disciplined examination of some threatened species. Though the Game Department offered leadership and organizational advice, this report is essentially the original work of these four biologists. The subject of threatened species is filled with emotion and vested interest. Hopefully the authors were not influenced, or any demands made that certain species be classified as threatened or not. On any piece of writing, the author hopes for a symbolic work of quality. If quality is related to the talent of the authors, this manuscript should be a milestone.. We think that this manuscript has a chance to become such a symbolic milestone about some of Washington State's valuable wildlife. The greatest single element that filled this writing project with a sense of urgency was a mutual team belief that the environment is in some trouble, and that attention must be called to that fact to correct it. Certainly the major problem facing nongame wildlife is a loss of habitat. Hardly a week goes by without a phone call about some imperiled heron rookery, bald eagle nest, or other species competing for space with man's development. Amongst Department of Game employees, there is a difference of opinion on the extent of habitat degradation. It cannot be discounted that many species have benefited from a change in habitat. Deer, bear, grouse, bandtailed pigeons, and mountain goats, for instance, generally benefit under modern forest management practices. My reference points lie with a world-wide habitat crisis. Here are some examples. In Zambia, Africa, where I recently worked, the land was in a serious stAte of degradation resulting from shifting agriculture (farming for about six years until depleted, then move on), continuous man-made fires, vii overpopulation of big game animals in R-eserves, and overpopulation of humans in the fertile river valleys. I recall while visiting a Chewa tribal chief, his remark that the adjacent Katete River had been a perennial river ten years ago (1961), but now it only flowed annually during the rainy season. The observance of fish weirs on the dry river bed was testimony to a fish protein supply that no longer existed. Similar habitat degradation in the United States was begun by the pioneers and settlers. Their land use policy consisted of the "THREE X's" - Xplore, Xploit and Xhaust. Norm Knott, formerly Chief of Land Management, Department of Game, often used this illustration in his speeches. At a Waterfowl Council Meeting in Pittsburg in 1975, Assistant Interior Secretary Nat Reed made note that, "Over two thirds of the entire Mississippi River Delta Bottomland Hardwoods, one of the most important waterfowl wintering areas in the nation, have already been destroyed . . . as a result of private and public drainage and clearing enterprises. For all practical purposes, the Hardwoods will be eliminated as viable for waterfowl by 2000. At the lower end of the Pacific Flyway, over 90 percent of the original wetland habitat has been converted to agricultural production." In Washington State, Helmut K. Buechner described (in Research Studies of the State College of Washington, June 1953) some biotic changes in the State of Washington, particularly during the century 1853-1953. He commented that, "Dramatic as have been the changes through geologic time, none . . . can compare with the changes wrought by white man in so short a time." A few examples mentioned by Buechner are: The extirpation of two large, magnificent species - the California condor and whooping crane. The elimination of the white pelican as a breeding bird. The catastrophic reduction in the sharptail grouse population resulting from cultivation of the rich Palouse prairies. The extirpation of the sea otter. In 1953 Buechner mentioned how the rich soils of the Palouse region had been plowed to the edges of highways and to the brinks of rocky canyons, often with little regard for soil erosion and the future productivity of the land. Since then, agricultural experts report that wheatlands in the Palouse Hills were more eroded than centuries-old farmlands in India and the Middle East. viii The above examples of land degradation have been brought about by expanding human populations and their needs. It has occurred to me that humans presently manage hunted wildlife species to keep them in line with their food supply and carrying capacity, but little is done to bring human populations in line with carrying capacity compatable with other animal species and their habitats. Since humans are a part of the marine shoreline areas in common with other animal species, I asked the four-member team to submit Homo sapiens to the same critical examination as given to all the other animal species. Is man a threatened species? Their considered opinion was that man's future is undecided. Two persons listed the status ofHomo sapiens as satisfactory, and two listed the status as unknown. It is a common saying that no human civilization has persisted. Even though Indian people adjacent to marine areas are said to be more numerous now than in pre-Columbian times, the original culture has disappeared. The Ozette villages on the ocean coast have disappeared, and it is said that only a few descendants of Ozette Indians still exist on adjacent reservations. Whether or not man or other animal species persist will depend on the availability and quality of habitat. Nongame'theory embraces the philosophy that threatened species can never be preserved on a species by species basis . . . there are too many. Whole ecosystem preservation must be substituted to save the component animals and plants, including humans. The Skagit eagles cannot be saved by only reserving mature maples and cottonwoods essential for perching trees. The salmon, their main food supply, must also be saved by protecting the health of the watershed. If that is protected, osprey and pileated woodpeckers as well, will be saved. Finally then, are we too much purveyors of doom? Will loss of habitat and wildlife also lead to the extinction of man? The answer of Helmut K. Buechner in 1953 is worth repeating: "To adequately meet the challenges of the next century, trained biologists, informed legislators, and an enlightened public awareness of the significance of changes will be essential. This public responsibility cannot be neglected if the State of Washington is to continue in all the wealth and beauty with which it is so richly endowed". It is an encouraging signal that the Department of Ecology contracted the Department of Game to survey Washington's marine shoreline fauna, with an eye for its protection in this era of rapid change and human development. ix FOREWORD To lose a species of animal or plant is as great a loss as a treasured piece of art; to destroy a species is as serious a crime as to destroy a masterpiece. The world was shocked that such a wonderful creation as the Pieta could be demolished by one hand. Fortunately, Michelangelo's work was restorable. With each passing species, who is identified as the culprit? We do not bring to task the guilty party; we are sorry, perhaps, but few of us deplore the vacuum. It is indeed sorry that man so encompasses himself with frills and trappings that he no longer perceives the wholeness of the universe, his interdependence with all things. The folly of western man is indeed the very perceptual mode which brought him to world domination. The motivation and means (technology) to turn every acre and resource into someone's profit has become questionable. Have we finally glimpsed the philosophy of Aldo Leopold? Will we extend the social ethic to the land? The recent ecology fad hinted a growing awareness of the land as more than a production base. Land can produce for man and still be perceived and used as more. It must be understood that each acre, each section, county, state and country, are intricate pieces of a greater and potentially sustaining whole. Without such awareness, the future of mankind is in doubt. Moreover, the true quality of existence is at stake. The redemption inherent in man's sensitive relationship with wildness, and in the final analysis, himself, is the very crux of quality living. Ecological awareness necessitates a shift of the broadest order in perception. Spontaneous outgrowths of yet unexplored processes are adapting us to a changing world. Examples are the current popularity of eastern wisdom, the growing cooperation between peoples of formerly hostile nations, the emphasis on broadening consciousness and the general shift in individual values from materialism to spiritualism. The capability of western civilization to escape from decades of linear perception, and adopt holistic attitudes and philosophies is in itself proof of new theories of social behavior developed from observation of animal societies. We are not mimicking other species, rather, we are dis- covering that the same laws govern all living species; man is no exception. His greatest wisdom, it will finally tell , is inherent and the product of the same forces that shape animal life. In other words, we are changing our view of ourselves and our relationships to the land because we know that there really is no other choice. The warning is not new, but increasingly we find that non-human life is either directly related to human survival, or, equally important, we have much to learn from non-human life. And beyond these values, wild things and wildness have become the most redeeming re-creational (the hyphen is for emphasis) pursuits of our society. To the millions of American birdwatchers, hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, and the like, the chorus and sight of Canada geese winging southward is an annual inspiration, upon which it would be foolish to place a dollar value. Or, to quote Robert Frost, an authority on small natural events which alter our everyday lives, "The way a crow shook down on me The dust of snow from a hemlock tree Has given my heart a change of mood And saved some part Of a day I had rued." Ten years ago as I walked through Seattle's University District, I could not believe my ears--the faint cry of geese or dogs barking in the distance? I scanned the sky above the buildings and there appeared a small flock of Canadas. In sheer amazement I pointed upwards and said outloud, "Look! Canada geese!" A few passers by glanced at me, fewer at the sky. None stopped, and I felt embarassed. Today it is a different, better world. Last week as the geese honked overhead, many eyes went skyward, and ears listened as the throng blessed us in passing. There is reason for hope. The world is ours for the taking, the making and the using wisely. I for one believe we must and we shall overcome the dangers of false imaginings, and bring about a long-lasting, harmonious relationship with the wild world around us. In so doing, we must learn from the past to build a wholesome future. A sorry example for America is the passenger pigeon. While it numbered in the many thousands when overshooting w as curtailed and protective measures were adopted, trends had already taken over to doom the species forever. In those days man was more ignorant of the uniqueness of each living form, and failed to consider subtle but critical factors such as specific nesting require- ments or behavior. The passenger pigeon was a colonial nesting species that had evolved complex mating patterns. Only when a high density of birds were congregated would courtship and mating ensue. The destruction and loss of required nesting habitat coupled with reduced densities of birds on mating grounds caused extinction. Though men came to the pigeon's rescue they were too late owing to ignorance of the pigeon's needs. This hard lesson has been and is still being repeated; around the world about one species or race of wildlife is becoming extinct each year. Not only do we require adequate knowledge of each species, for example its behavior and eco'logy, we must also have the capability of rectifying problems faced by a species before it is too late. Had we been more skilled at the time in keeping and breeding wild birds in captivity, the passenger pigeon might still have made it. The know why was there, the know how was not. But know how is not enough. Public awareness of the values and benefits of wildlife--as food, as biocontrol agents that regulate pests, as models for management of human and domestic animal life, and as a fundamental ingredient to recreation and the human spirit--constitutes the know why. xi! More than ever before, mankind is in a position to exterminate or preserve his natural heritage for whatever purposes he assigns. More than ever before, men express a commitment to maintain the diversity of life as an end in itself. The majority of wildlife conservation work is conducted by professional wildlife managers of state and federal agencies. Accordingly, the now widespread sentiment in America towards all wildlife and wilderness is being responded to by agencies entrusted with wildlife management for the public good. State game authorities are developing programs of research and management for species not taken as game or fur. While nongame programs are still in their infancy, Washington is in the forefront, as epitomized by this study. Through a joint effort between Washington's Departments of Ecology and Game, the first stage of extensive inventory of Washington's wildlife has just been completed, the results of which are presented here. The report reflects the beginning of a new age in American wildlife and a great hope for the people of Washington and their wildlife. Nowhere else is there more potential for the truly good life, living in harmony and enjoying the environment. XHIi INTRO DUCT ION THE SHORELINE Washington State is exceptionally fortunate to have an extensive, shoreline resource of many uses and values. There are 300 sea coast miles and 2,000 miles of inland marine shores (Bauer, 1975). The shore complex, as an integrated geo- logic and hydraulic whole, -is not a line; it may extend from inches to miles. As Bauer (1975) said, "...we need to visualize the shore as a critical membrane between all land and water bodies." The delicate and dynamic nature of the shore has been abused. Due to its major recreational interest, accretional shore forms such as points, spits, dry berm beaches, and all open and closed estuaries are considered as endangered resources of the first order (Bauer, 1975). How the marine shorelands are used and managed affects the flora and fauna associated with or dependent upon the shorelands. In 1971, the Washington Legislature passed the Shorelines Management Act, which arose primarily out of public concern and the Washington Environmental Council. The Act calls for policies and guidelines for a program to protect the state's water resources and provides a management system under the Department of Ecology. Included as resources to be protected against adverse affects are the land, its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters and their aquatic life. It is the responsibility of the Washington Department of Game (hereafter referred to as Game) to manage all wildlife of the state. At the request of the Department of Ecology, Game agreed to conduct a survey of the status of wildlife associated with marine shorelines of Washington. Game contracted with Ecology to review existing published and unpublished literature as well as inter- view knowledgeable individuals on marine shoreline fauna. The survey concentrated on all marine shoreline waters of Washington. Existing and accessible data were reviewed and compiled into a series of fact sheets for each species; including: abundance; distribution; seasons of occurrence; breeding status;s nesting, resting and feeding habits; and, habitat requirements. Where possible, population dynamics are discussed. Criteria were established to designate status for each species reviewed. The effects of human disturbance and factors associated with decline, if any, have been identi- fied. Recommendations for management in Washington, including further research were made. This report should provide concrete data to the Department of Ecology for environmental impact assessments of proposed developments and land-uses. At the same time, it provides Game with useful summaries of shoreline wildlife. A major objective for Game is to establish priorities for its nongame program, including management of threatened species. An important spinoff would be the stimulation of university and amateur research in aspects of the biolog~y and conservation of nongame species of questionable status. BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY A team of two men and two women were hired to accomplish the project ob- jectives. All four persons had wildlife degrees; one with advanced training served as informal leader, developed methodology, and accomplished final editing. In addition to team members, considerable Department of Game personnel and resources were brought into play to accomplish project goals. Status Categories Initially an exhaustive literature search was performed on the subject of endangered and threatened species to develop reference points and orient the four team members. An unusual amount of misunderstanding and conflict exists in this field. The main problem appears to be a lack of suitable defi- nitions, and a variance in nomenclature from state to state, agency to agency. -2- Species Status Terms The following list illustrates the various status categories: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered A native endangered species is any species or subspecies of vertebrate, mollusk, or crustacean which the Secretary of Interior, after consultation with appropriate affected states or other knowledgeable persons, determines to be in danger of extinction within the territory of the United States. The name of a species whose status is said to be endangered has been entered in the Federal Register. Threatened A native threatened species is any species or subspecies vertebrat'e, mollusk, or crustacean which the Secretary of Interior determines is likely to become an endangered species. Such a species may have once been considered endangered, has recovered to some degree, but still has not yet recovered enough to become a viable component of the ecosystem. The name of a species whose status is said to be threatened will be entered in the Federal Register. Status Undetermined Any species or subspecies of vertebrate, mollusk or crustacean whose status is considered to be "undetermined" has been suggested by the Secretary of Interior as possibly endangered. There is not enough information on hand to determine the status of a species so classified and more information is needed. Peripheral A peripheral species or subspecies is one whose occurrence in the United States is at the edge of its natural range and which is threatened with extinction within the United States although not in its range as a whole. Special attention is necessary to assure retention in our nation's fauna. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Protected All of the birds, except upland gamebirds, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 under International Conventions with Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada), with Mexico and, in -3- the near future, Japan. However, snipe, which are upland game- birds, are protected by the Act with taking permitted in accordance with annual Federal regulation, the same as for waterfowl. Under the Act's articles: ". . . no person may take from the wild, other- wise acquire, possess, sell, purchase, transport, import, export, or dispose of any protected birds, alive or dead, or their parts, nests or eggs, except in accordance with. . "Federal regulations In addition, the amendments now give the U.S. Government the authority to arrest individuals caught taking the following endangered species: American peregrine falcon, brown pelican and Aleutian Canada goose. Some species among the protected families, such as crows, may require population control in certain nuisance situations. Provision is also made for use of certain raptors. in the field sport of falconry. Marine Mammal Protection Act Protected The Marine Mammal.Protection Act of 1972 established the Marine Rm~rmal Commission and set up a program for the conservation and protection of all marine mammals. The term "marine mammal" under this Act means any mammal which is morphologically adapted to the marine environment, including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia, Pinnipedia and Cetacea, or primarily inhabitants of the marine environment--such as the polar bear; and, for the purposes of the Act, includes any part of any such marine mammal, including its raw, dressed, or dyed fur or skin. Washington Department of Game Game or Furbearer A game or furbearing species is subject to protection and regu- lation by the Department. It may be taken at certain times. Protected A protected species is one which may not be taken at any time unless it threatens human life or seriously damages private property. Not Protected A species not protected is one for which no license is required to take it, and which may be taken at any time. -4- Wildlife Society One term is used by the Washington Chapter of the Wildlife Society in its brochure entitled "Rare Mammals of Washington" authored by J. Burton Lauckhart. Rare A rare mammal is one that has always been present but in very low numbers. Although there is no immediate crisis, it is important that rare forms be observed closely and, where possible, steps be initiated to preserve specialized habitats for some species. National Audubon Society One term is used by the National Audubon Society in its "Blue List of North American Birds." Blue-listed A blue-listed species is one more common and often more wide- spread which for any number of reasons, known or unknown, appears to be suffering in all or part of its range from non-cyclical decline. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Four terms are used in the Red Data Book published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Survival Service Commission, located in Morges, Switzerland. Endangered In immediate danger of extinction: continued survival unlikely without the implementation of special protective measures. Rare Not under immediate threat of extinction, but occurring in such small numbers and/or in such a restricted or specialized habitat that it could quickly disappear. Depl eted Although still occurring in numbers adequate for survival, the species has been heavily depleted and continues to decline at a rate which gives cause for serious concern. Indetermi nate Apparently in danger, but insufficient data currently available on which to base a reliable assessment of status. Needs further study. The difficulty of assigning status is not merely semantic. It has proven virtually impossible to clearly define what constitutes threatened or endangered status. Rarity is not necessarily to be equated with unsatisfactory as many species occur naturally at low densities. On the other hand, when everything else is equal for two species, it is wise to devote conservation attention to the rarer one as it is more likely to suffer or become extinct first. But the "numbers game" is never the entire story in evaluating the relative probability of future extinction of a species. Orians (1975) distinguishes between those species whose preservation will be reasonably assured by properly safeguarding their required habitats, and those species that are unusually vul- nerable for other reasons and for which special protection in addition to habitat preservation will be required. Many existing classifications of status are entirely relative in nature, for example, rare, common, occasional, not common, infrequent or abundant. They are useful when comparisons are being made, such as species X is more common or less abundant than species Y; however, the use of such terms as "not uncommon" as a sole designation of status really imparts little or no information. Desiq- nations such as unique, peripheral, declining and stable actually are descriptive, and we have used these where appropriate in addition to our five ultimate categories. We chose the following categories: accidental; unknown; satisfactory; poten- tially threatened with extinction; and, threatened with extinction. In the following definitions, species refers to any species, subspecies, race or population. A species classified as threatened in Washington is also threatened in any part of the state, including the shoreline if it occurs there. On the other hand, some species or populations classified as threatened in the shore- line are satisfactory elsewhere, for example, eastern Washington. The objective of Game, Ecology and the U.S. Department of the Interior, is to maintain threatened populations of species wherever they occur. Threatened Those species in danger of extinction in the marine shorelines or throughout their range in Washington. Potentially Threatened Those species which are likely to become threatened with extinction in the for- seeable future in the marine shorelines or throughout their range in Washington. Satisfactory Those species of regular occurrence which do not appear potentially threatened or threatened at this time in the marine shorelines or throughout their range in Washington. Unknown Those species which occur in the shore- lines but for which there is insufficient information to classify in any of the above categories. Acci dental Those species for which there are only exceptional records or sightings in the shorelines of Washington. It can be seen from the above charts that our potentially threatened category roughly corresponds with the U.S. Department of Interior's "threatened", just as our threatened category corresponds with the I.U.C.N.'s and U.S.D..'s "endangered" category. -7- Selection of Species: Criteria and Considerations The criteria for species to be investigated included occurre nce or depen- dence at any time upon marine shorelands and associated areas of land and water. The capabilities of Game personnel are limited mostly to vertebrates, especially birds and mammals, which comprise most species in this report. However, two selected species of fish and invertebrate were included. The Department of Ecology is conducting similar projects which emphasize fishes and invertebrates of the shorelines. There are about 464 nongame wildlife species in Washington state as follows: Birds. ..........................287 Mammals. .........................126 Reptiles and amphibians. .................44 Nationally endangered or threatened fishes. .......7 There are an additional 63 wildlife species which are hunted, none which are endangered but some of which are unique. Initially, it was necessary to overview the 527 wildlife species according to statewide distribution, as now known, and identify those that may occur in the shoreline. It has been customary among ornithologists to ignore the conservation status of a species in an area, state or country if it does not breed there. Many of our questionnaires were returned without being completed because, as the respondents noted, the particular species is only a migrant, non-resident, or non-breeding in Washington. While the residential or breeding status of a species is significant, what is of major relevance to this survey is a species' conservation status. Until recently, if a species did not reside and breed within a state, but was a winter resident, its conservation status was related to where it spent the summer breeding. As recent ecological studies have demonstrated, the status of some species is determined by the quality and quantity of habitat in their wintering range. Migrating species, those which only pass through a state but neither breed nor winter there, are often ignored in status surveys. As any portion of a migratory range could be absolutely critical to a population, we included those species that use Washington's shoreline areas any time of the year, even if only briefly. When the major range of a population lies outside of a state, but at least one population resides even occasionally in the state, the species is considered peripheral . Peripheral populations are often overlooked in conservation surveys but there are a number of reasons why they should be studied and managed. Esthe- tically and scientifically they tend to be more interesting and informative. From a conservation point of view, they are more likely to die out, especially if the populations are small or disjunct. But for the very reasons that they are more vulnerable, they also are capable of adapting more quickly to changing environments, including those caused by man. It is not unlikely that a major, continuous population could disappear from its present range due to human pertur- bation or natural causes only to later be recolonized by individuals from smaller, peripheral populations. Altogether, then, peripherality is in and of itself no reason for lack of attention. In keeping with federal mandate as to threatened species, any population, no matter how small or peripheral, should be preserved. Accordingly, we have included such species as the Caspian tern and consider them important elements of Washington's shoreline fauna. Where to draw the line on what species to survey is highly debatable. On the one hand, professional and amateur bird-watchers feel that the bird fauna of Washington is fairly well known. Species recorded only once or a few times in the state are not normally considered as occurring here except as accidentals or vagrants. We have noted under most accidentally occurring species that management is unwarranted as it is virtually impossible. We included accidental species to draw attention to their possible occurrence and to encourage collection of data indicative of potential trends. A few of the accidental sapecies, for example, the short-tailed albatross, are endangered everywhere. As a threatened population -9- declines to the brink of extinction, management ceases to be directed at the populational level, but rather at the surviving individuals. Thus, however infrequently such as species uses an area, we need to know the whereabouts of individual animals. At the early part of this century, the short-tailed albatross used the offshore coastal waters of Washington as a summer range, but did not breed here. Today it is rarer everywhere and considered accidental off Washington. Any shifts in numbers of short-tailed albatrosses could indicate an increase or decline in the species, or a change in the role of Washinaton's waters to the survival of the species, in which case management could be desirable. INTERPRETATION OF THE FACT SHEETS Each fact sheet is headed with the most widely used common name of the species. Below are additional common names in general usage; seldom more than three are listed. Some species have virtually dozens of common names, but for most species surveyed, the common names we include are often more standardized than the scientific name, in italics. Scientific nomenclature is continually in a state of flux and disagreement, thus, the reader may not always find uniformity between the scientific names used here and in other works. The order and family names are more uniformly accepted, and should be used as the initial guide for locating a species in references such as field guides or extensive natural history works. Most fact sheets refer to species, but some refer to subspecies, which are the equivalent to races or distinctive breeds of a species. The trend today is to lump subspecies together; however, for conservation, it is sometimes more realistic to deal with subspecies when the latter constitutes one or more unique populations with special habitat requirements or special management needs. An example is the Canada goose, a species with many distinct subspecies, several of which have their own, separate distributions or migratory routes. As a consequence, certain subspecies such as the Aleutian Canada goose must be dealt with individually. -10- Distinguishing Characteristics. A brief but normally adequate description of the species or subspecies is provided for those individuals who wish to identify a specimen from notes, observation or in the hand. This section is of limited use to most professional biologists or wildlife managers. Parentheses around a number in the text are the reader's guide to the liter- ature from which information was collected in the survey. The numbers cited cor- respond with the references at the very end of the fact sheet. The reader is en- couraged to use the references to pursue his interest in a species. More general works, such as field guides to identification or books on the mammals or birds of Washington, are available at many public libraries and bookstores. More technical references, such as professional journals and scientific books are usually limited to university and college libraries, or, they can be acquired through the state library in Olympia. Habitat. Habitat refers to where an animal lives. In a broader view, habitat is all the environmental requirements of a species, including where it breeds, feeds, rests and hides, the food it consumes and so on. Most of the fact sheets include the latter items. Every species has a set of specific environmental requirements, and in many cases the absence or inadequacy of one or more of these needs is what limits the distribution and abundance of the species in an area. The job of the wildlife manager is to assess what habitat components limit a species; manipulation of habitat is one method of regulating the numbers of animals at a desired level. Many species are threatened because of loss of habitat, as indicated under the section Factors Associated with Decline. Others are increasing due to favorable changes in habitat, for example gulls, which feed on human garbage. Former and Present Distribution. To manage a species, it is necessary to know where it occurs in the state. The change in distribution of a species may indi- cate its recent history as affected by environmental changes. However, some species naturally shift their range in the state, or in and out of the state periodically. The former distribution of many species in Washington is based on more limited observations by a few earlier naturalists and should not necessarily be taken as complete. Birds are more readily observed than most mammals, and present distributions of the vast majority of birds are thoroughly documented by professional and lay ornithologists. The present distribution of mammals is less certain as they tend to be nocturnal, secretive and difficult to observe. If a reader has made sightings or has knowledge of any species' occurrence in the shoreline areas of the state not mentioned here, it would be appreciated if he or she would contact the Game Department. Such information is especially important for these species which are classified under Status as accidental, unknown, potentially threatened or threatened. Estimated Numbers and Population Trends. The number of individuals and any changes in population size are two of the most important considerations for assigning status and establishing management objectives for a species. These data are extremely difficult to collect. Moreover, few species are studied enough to know their numbers and population trends. The most common deficiency responsible for unknown status is a lack of population information or lack of agreement by authorities. The largest single problem in management of nongame species is simply our ignorance of their biology and the status of their populations. It should be recognized that some species naturally exist at relatively low densities, or because Washington does not naturally provide optimal habitat, a peripheral species in the state may always be relatively uncommon. Also, other species exhibit extreme fluctuations from season to season or from year to year. When population declines below such natural fluctuations occur the species or statewide population may be in trouble. Each species in Washington should be regu- larly monitored to detect potentially serious declines; this is one function which is too extensive for the Game Department. Amateur naturalist groups, such as Audubon Societies, perform a critical service to Game and the public by censusing and reporting populations. More cooperation along these same lines is needed regarding marine mammals. Breeding Performance in the Wild. The reproductive biology of a species is a critical parameter in evaluating its potential for recovery from unusual losses, whether natural or caused by man. The level of breeding success in a given year or set of years often indicates a change in habitat quality. Breeding performance may indicate a low or high density of animals and population trends. Given adequate habitat and lack of disturbance, most populations produce a surplus on an annual basis. Number and Breeding Potential in Captivity. When a species is threatened in the wild and either does not exist or breed in confinement, its status is doubly poor. Zoos are important as centers for the study and propagation of threatened species. The breeding capability of a species in captivity can be a guarantee against its extinction. Through captive propagation and restockinci, several species, including the American bison and the Nene goose of Hawaii have been saved from extinction and reestablished in the wild. Currently, cooperative restocking programs between the federal government, conservation organizations and zoos are striVing to improve the wild status of several birds of prey. Such a program, Project Babe, is under- way at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo. Some species adapt well to captive and semi- natural conditions, while others do not tend to survive or reproduce. A few species included in our survey could be propagated in captivity in case restocking becomes desirable. Also, as mentioned for the Columbian white-tailed deer, studies conducted in captivity are necessary to acquire information for management of wild populations. Status. The first item listed under status in each fact sheet refers to the internationally recognized classification as given by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature or the I.U.C.N. The national status refers to that given by the U.S. Department of Interior or U.S.D.I. -13- The second item refers to various references from the literature and inter- views as to the authority's opinion of the species' status in Washington or elsewhere. The third item under status requires more detailed explanation, as follows. The opinions of experts as to the conservation status of a particular species is possibly the most reliable information for a team such as ours to assign current status. An improved technique (Sparrow and Wight, in press) for assessing the knowledge and judgement of experts was used (Appendix D) to acquire numerical scores of status. The questionnaire is designed for completion by experts; it quantifies biological and environmental factors related to conservation. The objective is to establish a priority list of species for management and research. In general,, the higher the score, the more priority s~iould be given the species'- in management or research. The score is computed in two parts, the total, fol- lowed by the portion checked as unknown. An unknown response is weighted to equal the highest rated known response. The assumption is that when nothinq is known about a critical factor, such as population concentration, the species deserves high priority in research. When we are ignorant of a species, the best policy is to assume the worst about its status and rank it accordingly. The scores provide a relative comparison of status of different species. However, a whale's score should not be compared with a song bird's score; rather, similar species should be compared. In many cases, none or only one expert completed the quiz, while in a few, several experts were located who cooperated. A single score for a species is not necessarily to be taken as representative of all expert opinion; however, at some future date, the same expert may be quizzed again, and if his more recent score is quite different, this probably indicates a definite change in the species' status. The quantified scoring method has a number of biases. Exactly who is quali- fied as an expert is a subjective matter. There are many field or lay persons -14L- qualified to assess status and population trends, but who could not decipher the questionnaire. Also, we were often unable to contact certain experts, or they were unable to respond. As our survey is the first, real test of this ap- proach to establish priorities for management of endangered species, its validity is unknown. We have relied on it as only one, limited source in making status eval uations. Item four, our final evaluation of species status in the shoreline or the state, was based on all information. These designations are subjective which is entirely necessary as ultimately human judgement is the best indicator. Of course, there will be disagreement on our choices. Many will argue that a species classified by one of us as unknown, should have been designated as threatened or sati sfactory. Wherever the existing information as we have presented impressed us as in- conclusive, we gave the species an unknown status. Hopefully, future research. and further, existing information that was unavailable or inaccessible may lead to modifications of status. All status designations are tentative and under continual review. Factors Associated with Decline, If Any. In most instances, mortality factors are included along with apparent decline factors if any exist for the species. Care should be exercised by keeping in mind that all species incur usually high mortality even if they are extremely abundant and increasing in numbers. Almost all the game species included in the survey, most of which are water- fowl, are intensively managed and maintained at relatively abundant levels. Mor- tality from hunting is not normally a factor causing decline, and if in the excep- tional case it appears to be, corrective adjustments are made by federal and state game agencies. It is true that in a few species, including some birds of prey or nonhunted waterfowl such as swans, a few hunters accidentally or maliciously kill individuals. At least in Washington, losses caused by hunting have not been shown to be a factor associated with decline of any species. -1 5- As is indicated in the respective fact sheets, the factors most consistently associated with decline are related to loss or alteration of habitat caused by man. The challenge before Game is to design effective management plans which permit the continued coexistence of all wildlife species with the people of Washington and their industries and activities. Resistance to Human Disturbance and Development. Man's interaction with the en- vironment is the single factor most affecting the status of wildlife everywhere. A species' resistance to human disturbance and land-uses is a measure of its need for management. A few species of wildlife adapt and thrive in human altered environments. Closely mowed lawns favor robins in our cities, and pollution ~has increased the number of gulls throughout western Washington. Populations of other species such as colonial nesting birds can be decimated by people who visit nesting areas during the breeding season. Still other species are influenced both by direct interference and alteration of habitat. The spotted owl is declining as a result of disturbance at the nest by hikers and overzealous birdwatchers coupled with modern forestry practices which eliminate old-growth timber, used for nests. While greater regulation of recreationists is necessary to maintain certain species, manipulation or protection of habitat is necessary for most species. Federal and state agencies are working with timber companies to protect critical habitat areas for the spotted owl. Without information on the response of a given species to human disturbance and development, wise manage- ment of the species in areas used by man is impossible. For many species, know- ledge of resistance to man and altered environments is lacking or indecisive; further research is required in such cases. Protective Measures Taken and Response to Management. The management already ap- plied to a species may or may not be effective. Regulation of human activities in certain areas or at certain times of the year, control of the level of harvest for sport or subsistence hunting, acquisition of breeding or migrating habitat and so on, may be required or intensified. In some cases, education of the public -16- or a segment of it achieves needed protection. In others, more enforcement is desirable. Game continually evaluates previous and ongoing management in an effort to ensure sufficient protection of the state's wildlife. Management Recommendations. Depending on the particular species and its biology and status in Washington's shoreline, recommendations have been made for future management. The majority of species require additional research if they are to be fully understood. Even for a common species with satisfactory status, research may be desirable to evaluate its impact'ion a threatened species as they may compete for limited food or cover. Species that may be extremely limited in range, for example the Olympic mudminnow, could be transplanted elsewhere as a conservation step. Public awareness of the plight of some species could lead to improvement in status. When there are conflicts of interest between a segment of the public and the well-being of wildlife, concern expressed by enough people in the state could solve the problem. An example is Protection Island, a critical nesting area for species of oceanic birds. While Game has secured some of the prime nesting habitat, the presence of private homes on the island may lead to mass destruction of birds by cats and dogs. The restraint or prohibition of pets on such islands may be required to protect bird species ill-equipped to cope with ground predators which normally never occur on islands. If sufficient citi- zen pressure is exerted, regulations can be effected which will maintain nesting colonies. This report makes numerous recommendations for research and management of wildlife in Washington. In order of priority, set by the status of species and available funding, management recommendations will be achieved by the Game Depart- ment and in cooperation with other state and federal agencies, universities and private conservation organizations. FUTURE PLANS Game and Ecology renewed t1,heir contract to further survey threatened wildlife of the marine shorelands. Work performed under the renewed contract -1 7- will entail a more detailed study of species that appear to be threatened or potentially threatened. An examination of their habitat will be undertaken and the habitat types and components necessary for survival will be clearly defined if possible. The trends of the status of habitat will be evaluated using the same methodology as for the species fact sheets. Shoreline habitats should be classified as to their status, relative importance to shoreline fauna, and cri- tical relationships to threatened and potentially threatened species. The resul- ting product will be better compiled fact sheets than exist for the fauna of any other region in Washington State. Game's future plans include a status survey to cover the entire region of the state. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the persons listed at. the end of fact sheets. Carroll Rieck, Garry Garrison, 1John Patterson and Fred Martinsen of the Game Department were especially helpful throughout the project. Murray Walsh of Ecology also provided direction and constructive criticism. Rollin Sparrowe of the Missouri Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit kindly allowed us to use the questionnaire submitted to experts. REFERENCES Bauer, W. 1975. Shore resource overview. In: Washington Environmental Atlas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Orians, G.H. 1975. The ecosystem perspective in environmental quality. In: Washington Environmental Atlas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Sparrowe, R. and H-. Wight. In press. Setting priorities for the endangered species program. Transaction of the 40th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. -18- THE FACT SI{ES I~~~~~~~~~~~~-9 YELLOW-B ILLED LOON Common names: Yellow-billed loon Scientific name.- Gavia adamsii White-billed northern diver Gray Great white-billed diver Order: Gaviiformes Family: Gaviidae Distinguishing characteristics: Largest loon, with heavy light-colored bill, lower edge in profile having an abruptly upturned angle, culmen almost straight. Head has a purple gloss; chin, throat, and lower neck, decidedly purplish, not conspicuously defined against the rest of the head; white patch of throat and sides of neck composed of fewer, coarser, vertical white streaks. Habitat: The yellow-billed loon inhabits tundra lakes in summer and inlets, bays, and open marine waters the rest of the year (6) . Its nest is a tuft from which the grass is removed or else is composed of wet peat completely wreathed with fresh green willows, situated about two feet from water. The nest may be just a simple scrape or maybe a more elaborate structure. it feeds on small fish and other aquatic animals. Former distribution: Its former breeding range was from northwestern Alaska, east along the Arctic coast to Liverpool and Franklin Bays and from lakes in the interior of northern Mackenzie; also from northeastern Siberia west to Yensei River and Taimur Peninsula (2). Eggs were taken from Point Hope, Point Barrow, and Salmon River, Alaska, and at the delta of the Mackenzie River. Its wintering range is largely unknown, although reported from4 China to Japan in small numbers and on the northwest coast of Norway from Tromso southward; also reported at Commander Islands, Great Britain, Upper Austria and Italy. One was found on Westport Beach, Washington in 1934 (3). -20- Yellow-billed loon 2 Present distribution: Presently, the yellow-billed loon is found in the Arctic, north of the tree limit, from northern U.S.S.R. to northwestern Canada; it winters south to Eurasia and southeastern Alaska (6). In the west it summers in northern Alaska, northwestern Canada (south to Great Slave Lake), south along the coast to southeastern Alaska (Alexander Archipelago), rarely to Vancouver Island. In Washington it winters on the coast, being rare over open salt water (9). One yellow-billed loon was sighted on the Sunrise Beach Road, Thurston County in 1973 (Game Department files). Another was sighted at Port Angeles in March, 1971, and another at Hood Canal in November 1973 by E. Peaslee (pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: Two eggs are laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. It is an uncommon visitor to Washington (R. Woods, pers. comm. 1971). It winters along the coast of British Columbia in winter and there are records of dead birds along the Washington coast in winter (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: Eskimos kill loons for food; many are killed accidentally in fish nets which are placed in bays or rivers near the coast, less often at large inland lakes (5). -21- Yellow-billed loon 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: No information. Protective measures taken and response to management: No information Management recommendations: As this is an extremely accidental species in Washington, management is unwarranted. References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1963. Life Histories of North American Diving Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 4. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Parmelee, D.F., H.A. Stephens, and R.H. Schmidt. 1967. The Birds of Southeastern Victoria Island and Adjacent Small Islands. Queen's Printers, Ottawa, Canada. 6. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 7. Pough, R.H. 1951. Audubon Waterbird Guide. Doubleday, Page, and Co., Garden City, New York. 8. Snyder, L.L. 1957. Arctic Birds of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 9. Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. Persons interviewed: Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 -22- Yellow-billed loon 4 Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Evelyn Peaslee 907 E. Broadway Seattle, Washington 98102 Other authorities: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 David Manuwal School of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -23- SHORT-TAILED ALBATROSS Common name: Short-tailed albatross Scientific name: Diomedea aZbatrus. Pallas Order: Procellariformes Family: Diomedeidae Distinguishing characteristics: Adult: mainly white, but head and neck washed with yellowish; tail and most of wings dusky; primaries with yellow shafts; bill and feet yellowish. Young: plummage sooty brown, darker on head and neck; primary shafts yellowish. Length 33-37 inches; wing 22-23 inches. Habitat: The short-tailed albatross' habitat is mainly marine, evidently con- centrated around upwellings of cold water; it breeds on oceanic islands (14). Its nest is a mound of earth a few inches high and two feet in diameter with a concave tip, found on relatively unvegetated, fairly level terrain (14). The short-tailed albatross feeds largely on squid, also on scraps thrown out from whaling ships. Former distribution: Formerly the short-tailed albatross was found regularly in the Northern Pacific except during its breeding season: off the coast of western North America to California and eastern Asia to Japan (6). In Washington, it was a casual visitor in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and along the coast. Present distribution: This albatross breeds only on the islands of Torisha, south of Japan; migrating north to the Bering Sea, east and south past California, west to Torishma (13). It summers offshore in Washington but does not breed here (16). Estimated numbers and populations trends: What was once a common bird in the North Pacific was reduced to the point of extinction by 1953 when only 23 adults were recorded on the breeding grounds (9,12). By 1962, however, 47 short-tailed albatross were recorded on Torishma (4) and by 1967, there was a world population of 63 birds (17). Today there are approximately 75-100 short-tailed albatross world-wide (17); the population appears to be holding more or less steady now. Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid every other year. -24- Short-tailed albatross 2 Numbers in captivity: Unknown, however, it is thought to be very low as alba- trosses have never been known toD survive in captivity. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Endangered nationally and internationally. 2. It is probably near extinction or nearly so (7, 13, 151. Formerly abundant, it is now almost exterminated (14). It is rare on a world basis (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: The decline of Arctic whaling was detrimental to the short-tailed albatross as they were no longer able to depend on the refuse from the boats for food (8). Plummage hunters severely reduced their numbers (8), and before they could sufficiently recover from this, volcanic erruptions covered the breeding grounds destroying much of the re- maining population and making the survivors temporarily homeless (13, 17). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Man was at one time beneficial to the short-tailed albatross, as he provided them with an abundant food supply of waste from whaling ships. Man later decimated the breeding population on the Bonin Islands for feathers. Protective measures taken and response to management: In 1933, the islands of Torishma were made into a sancturary, but the number of short-tailed albatross continued to decline until 1953 when there were only 23 adult birds (13, 17). Today, however, the population has increased to at least 75 albatrosses and appears to be holding steady (17). Management recommendations: The breeding grounds should remain under absolute protection; while this species is only accidental in Washington, complete protection is warranted. Short-tailed albatross 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Check List-lBirds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma. 2. Alexander, W.R. 1954. Birds of the Ocean. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 3. Anonymous. 1957. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds. Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore. 4. Anonymous. 1974. Short-tailed albatross. National Wildlife 12:32-42. 5. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels, Pelicans and their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Grosvenor, G. and A. Wetmore. 1939. The Book of Birds. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 9. Gruchy, C.G., A.A.R. Dykes, and R.H. Bowen. 1972. The short-tailed albatross recorded at Ocean Station Papa, North Pacific Ocean, with notes on other birds. Canadian Field Naturalist 86(3):28-7. 10. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Cambridge. 11. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 12. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 13. Littlewood, C. 1972. The World's Vanishing Birds. Arco Publishing Co., New York. 14. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 15. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 16. Reed, C.A. 1915. The Bird Book. Doubleday, Page and Co., Garden City. 17. Sanger, G. 1972. The recent pelagic status of the short-tailed albatross (Diomeda albatrus). Biological Conservation 4(3): 189-193. 18. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. -26- Short-tailed albatross 4 Persons interviewed: Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Center Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Other authorities: David Manuwal Gordon Alcorn Dennis Paulson Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -27- LAYSAN ALBATROSS Common name: Laysan albatross Scientific name: Diomedea immutabilis' Rothschild Order: Procellariiformes Family: Diomedeidae Distinguishing characteristics: Head, neck, rump, upper tail coverts, and under- parts, white; spot before eye sooty black; back, wings and end of tail, dark sooty brown; under wing coverts blackish-brown and white, irregularly mingled; bill grey, darker at base and tip; base of mandible pale yellow; feet fleshy pink. Length 32 inches; wingspan 18.5 inches. Habitat: The Laysan albatross is found in pelagic and offshore waters throughout the northern Pacific, concentrating at upwellings of cold water (11). It breeds on oceanic islands, preferring areas inside the periphery, such as openings among bushes or other areas sheltered from winds where vegetation is low, sparse or absent. The nest is a slightly raised mound with a shallow basin in the top of the ground, lined with weeds, sticks, and debris, and can be found on grass, coral rubble, or patches of sand between clumps of vegetation. The Laysan albatross feeds on squid and seeds and swallows indigestible matter such as pumice stone, plastic, nuts, wood, sponge, line, squid beaks, pebbles, and hard plastic tools (9). Former distribution: The Laysan albatross formerly bred on the islands north- west of the Hawaiian group in the Pacific Ocean (3) and on Marcus Island. It ranged through the Pacific Ocean east to the coast of Lower California, north to almost 40� N and west to the Bonin Island (3). Present distribution: The northern boundary for the range of the Laysan albatross is the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea; Kurile and Japanese Islands con- stitute the western border; the North American continent makes up the eastern boundary; and the sourthern border is marked by equatorial waters of low salinity and low productivity (7). The Laysan albatross congregates in four areas: (1) east of Japan; (2) south of the western Aleutians; (3) off the coast of North America; (4) near large, eastern islands of Hawaii. It winters offshore in Washington (15). -28- Laysan albatross 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: There are approximately 1,500,000 individuals worldwide (6). Breeding performance in the wild: The Laysan albatross reaches sexual maturity at four to six years. The adults breed annually, laying only one egg and will not request if this egg is destroyed. Incubation requires 64.4 days and then the chick is dependent on the parents for 165 days. A lone parent cannot successfully raise the chick. Numbers in captivity: Unknown. Laysan albatrosses have been kept in captivity for unknown periods of time (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975) Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. It is rare off the Washington coast (15). It is an uncommon visitor of the coast (R. Woods, pers,. comm. 1975). World-wide status is fairly good; it is a regular visitor off the Washington shore (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: Direct destruction by man: feather hunters killed over 300,000 on Laysan Island in 1909 (12). After stripping the bodies for feathers, the carcasses were sold for fertilizer (3). To prevent albatrosses from causing collisions on the runways of Midway Island, 18,000 birds were killed. Egg harvesters also decimated their numbers. Rabbits introducted by man destroyed the vegetaion, eliminating the albatross' habitat (10). Antennae on Midway Atoll in the North Pacific may destroy one-sixth of the world's albatrosses, reducing their effective reproduction by two-thirds (6). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Albatrosses are extremely resistant to human presence--on Midway Island, the albatross nest in yards, oblivious to dogs, children, bicycles, and baseball games (2). Man's desire for grass and shade trees has definitely favored the albatross (8). However, the Laysan's resistance to development is not as good. They collide with airplanes -29- Laysan albatross 3 and cause serious accidents. Many are killed on guywires. Development results in loss of habitat. Thousands are killed annually by the Japanese in their gill nets (8). Protective measures taken and response to management: The albatross' breeding grounds are protected in the Hawaiian Island Refuge (3). Vegetation was replanted on Laysan Island and with the increase in plant life has come an increase in bird life. Management recommendations: On Midway, brightly colored streamers should be attached to cables; the concrete at old airports should be broken up to provide more nesting sites and to lure the albatross from the vicinity of the active airports (6). Any further military or economic encroachment upon the Hawaiian Island National Wildlife Refuge should be prohibited. Also, on Midway, magnified bird distress calls may work to frighten the albatrosses away from the runways when planes leave. The public should be made aware of the albatross' status, especially boating people who are out in its territory (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). No manaqement recommendations are warranted in Washinqton at this time. References: 1. Alexander, W.B. 1954. Birds of the Ocean. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 2. Anonymous. 1964. Gooney birds. Audubon Magazine 66:154-159. 3. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Booth, E.S. 1971. Birds of the West. College Press, Keene, Texas. 5. Buchheister, C. 1964. The albatross of Midway. Audubon Magazine 66:84-85. 6. Fisher, H. 1966. Midway's deadly antennas. Audubon Magazine 68:220-223. 7. Fisher, H. and J.R. Fisher. 1972. The oceanic distribution of the Laysan albatroos, Diomeda immutabilis. Wilson Bulletin 84 (1):7-27. 8. Frings, H. and M. Frings. Some biometric studies on the albatrosses of Midway Atoll. Condor 63(4):304-312. 9. Kenyon, K.W. and E. Kridler. Laysan albatross swallows indigestible matter. Auk 86(2):339-343. 10. Laycock, G. 1970. Haunted sands of Japan. Audubon Magazine 72:42-49. 11. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 12. Pearson, T.G. 1917. Birds of America. The University Press, New York. -30- Laysan albatross 4 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Rice, D.W. and K.W. Kenyon. 1962. Breeding cycles and behavior of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses. Auk 79(4):517-567. 15. Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. Persons interviewed: Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Activity Support Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Other authorities: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 David Manuwal School of Forest Resources Univeristy of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -31- TASMANIAN WHITE-CAPPED ALBATROSS Common name: Tasmanian white-capped Scientific name: Diomedia cauta cauta albatross Gould Order: Procellariformes Family: Diomedeidae Distinguishing characteristics: Head and neck nearly white, the sides of the head pale gray, merging into a white cap; dark brown patch in front of the eye; bill mostly grayish, yellow nailed. Upperparts: upper back slate gray in fresh plummage, the feathers have paler margins; lower rump, back, and upper tail coverts are white. Tail slatey; feet pale gray, somewhay dusky on the joints and to some extent on webs; nails pale horn-colored; wing under surface dark, mostly brownish or blackish. Length 36 inches; wingspread 8 feet; weight 8.5 pounds. Habitat: Habitat is mainly marine. Nesting requirements are unknown. This albatross feeds on blubber, large fish, barnacles, crustaceans, and squid. Former distribution: One adult female was collected about 39 miles off the mouth of the Quillayute River, Washington, in 1952 (4). One was sighted about 39 miles west of the Quillayute River mouth on the Olympic seacoast of Washington (2). Present distribution: This albatross breeds on the islands in Brass Strait, southeast Australia (4). It is an accidental migrant off the coast of Washington in the fall (1,5). Estimated numbers and population trends: No information. Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid per set; nests are usually colonial. Numbers in captivity: No information. -32- Tasmanian white-capped albatross 2 Breeding performance in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. It is accidental off the coast of Washington (1). It is a fall migrant off the coast of Washington (5). One accidental record for Washington (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975) 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: No decline is evident. Resistance to human disturbance and development: No information. Protective measures taken and response to management: No information. Management recommendations: As this species is extremely accidental on the Washington coastline, management is not warranted at this time. References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington. 2. Anonymous. 1957. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds. Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Anonymous. 1952. A record of the Tasmanian white-capped albatross in American North Pacific water. Auk 69:458. 4. Palmer, R. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. -33- Tasmanian white-capped albatross 3 Persons interviewed: Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Other authorities: David Manuwal Sqchool of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compied by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. - 34- PALE-FOOTED SHEARWATER Common name: Pale-footed shearwater Scientific name: Puffinus Flesh-footed shearwater carneipes Gould Order: Procellariiformes Family: Procellaridae Distinguishing characteristics: A chocolate-brown shearwater; bill fleshy-white with a line down the center and the tip brown; feet yellowish-flesh color; length 19.5 inches; wing 12.5 inches. Habitat: Apparently, this is near offshore, rather than a pelagic species, breeding at stations near south subtropical convergences and migrating north to the analogous zone of the North Pacific and Indian oceans (6). The pale-footed shearwater nests in burrows dug in bare or vegetated earth. Nests are especially numerous under trees. The burrow is usually 4.5 feet long and has a chamber at the end with a sparse lining of vegetation; the entrance is kept clogged with dead grasses. The pale-footed shearwater feeds on small crustaceans, fish, and c~ephalopods. Former distribution: The pale-footed shearwater formerly bred in the Australian and New Zealand seas on Breaksea, North, White, and Solitary Islands, and perhaps others in that region (3). It migrated northward to the Pacific Ocean between breeding seasons, to Japan and California probably regularly but sparingly. It migrated around the Pacific, traveling down the east side; it was found off British Columbia in 1953 (6). No records were found for Washington, although it was thought to migrate down the entire coast. Present distribution: The shearwater breeds off the islands of Australia and New Zealand; it is a rare visitor to the western United States (7). It has been seen off the Monterey Peninsula in the winter and off the coast of British Columbia; it may occur along the entire Pacific coast (4). This is a rare summer visitor off the coast of Washington (8). Estimated numbers and population trends: it is rare along the Pacific coast (4); uncommon off the coast of Washington in summer (R. Woods pers. comm., 1975). It is a regular visitor from late spring through fall in low numbers 10-15 miles off the Washington coast; there are probably less than 100 pale-footed -35- Pale-footed shearwater 2 shearwaters in Washington waters at any one time (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid per set; the pale-footed shearwater reaches sexual maturity at five years. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. The pale-footed shearwater is rare along the Pacific coast (4); uncommon migrant off the Washington coast (R. Woods, pers. comm. 1975); rare off the Washington shoreline (8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status is unknown in Washington; it appears to be a rare migrant off the coast of Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: No decline is evident at this time. Resistance to human disturbance and development: No information. Protective measures taken and response to management: No information. Management recommendations: The public should be made aware of the shearwater's presence in Washington waters and educated as to its requirements. Breeding islands should be protected and gill netting within 50 miles of these islands should be prohibited (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962, Checklist Btrds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alexander, W.B. 1954. Birds of the Ocean. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 3. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Booth, E. 1971. Birds of the West. College Press, Keene, Texas. 5. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T.r Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -36- Pale-footed shearwater 3 6. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 7. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 8. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson, 1972. Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. Persons interviewed: Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Other Authorities: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 David Manuwal School of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -37- NEW ZEALAND SHEARWATER Common names: New Zealand shearwater Scientific name: Puffinus bulleri Salvin Gray-backed shearwater Order: Procellariiformes Family: Procellaridae Distinguishing characteristics: Mantle gray, in striking contrast to black on head; tail and lesser wing coverts gray, tipped with white; outer primaries black with two-thirds of inner webs white; cheeks mottled grayish- white; lower parts and upper wing coverts white. Length 16.5 inches; wing 11.3 inches; tail 5.2 inches. Habitat: This species inhabits a restricted range in the immediate vicinity of the subtropical convergence across the width of the whole north and south Pacific; most records are well off the shore along continental coasts (6). The New Zealand Shearwater nests in colonies in burrows; they either refurbish old burrows or build new ones. Burrows are found on seaward slopes, inland under rocks and in crevices; the chamber at the end of the burrow has a scant nest of twigs, roots, and leaves. It feeds on squid and crustaceans. Former distribution: The New Zealand Shearwater bred in the New Zealand Sea, the only recorded breeding site was on Mokohina Island, New Zealand (2). Its range extended across the south Pacific Ocean to the coast of California. It was recorded off the coast of Washington and Oregon around 1943 (5). Present distribution: This shearwater breeds on North Island, New Zealand; being a regular fall visitor in small numbers off California (mainly off Monterey in October); it is also casual off Oregon and Washington coasts (7). It is a fall migrant only offshore Washington (8). -38- New Zealand shearwater 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: Actual numbers are unknown. Bent described this shearwater as one of the rarest (2). It is considered a common fall visitor off the Washington coast by R. Woods (pers. comm. 1975). It is increasing in abundance off of Washington according to (o Sanger (pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. According to Gabrielson (3) this shearwater is the rarest and least known of all the shearwaters, being a rare bird anywhere in the North Pacific; a common fall visitor off the Washington coast (R. Woods, pers. comm. 1975); also considered regular, but not abundant, off the Washington shore (1). 3. Questionnaire results: no response. 4. Status is unknown for Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: No decline is evident at this time. Resistance to human disturbance and development: No information� Protective measures taken and response to management. No information. Management recommendations: As the New Zealand shearwater is only a casual visitor to Washington, management policies are not warranted at this time. -39- New Zealand shearwater 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Washington. 2. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 5. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 6. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 7. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 8. Wahl, T. and DoR. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. Persons interviewed: Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 -40- New Zealand shearwater 4 Other authorities: David Manuwal School of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -41- SLENDER-BILLED SHEARWATER Common name: Slender-billed shearwater Scientific name: Puffinus Kurile shearwater tenuirostris Muttonbird Temminck Order: Procellariformes Family: Procellaridae Distinguishing characteristics: Small shearwater; bill relatively small and slender; plumage sooty or blackish except for paler throat and white under wing coverts; bill and feet dusky. Wing 10-11 inches; tail 3.2-3.6 inches. Habitat: The slender-billed shearwater is found in marine waters, breeding on islands. In breeding and migration, it may frequent inshore waters close to land in large flocks (10). In Arctic Alaskan waters, it is found among ice floes. The slender-billed shearwater nests in colonies; it drills its burrows between clumps of tussock grass, among bower spinach, or sometimes among rocks in the shelter of saltbush (10). The burrow is from 1.5 to 6 feet long (average is 2 to 4 feet) and is lined with broken grass stems. The slender-bill shear- water feeds on herring, crustaea, plankton, small pelagic fish, cephalopods, and whale refuse. Former distribution: Formerly the slender-billed shearwater was found in the Pacific Ocean, chiefly coastwise, north in the summer to Katzebue Sound, breeding in the Southern Hemisphere and also probably on the Aleutians (4). In Washington, it is a summer and early fall visitor-- sometimes abundant off the west coast, also of probable occurrence on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Present distribution: Presently the slender-billed shearwater breeds on the islands of southern Australia. It ranges north to the Aleutians (some through the Bering Sea to the Arctic Ocean) and thence south off the coast to Baja California (11). It is a common fall and winter migrant along the west coast of Washington, well off shore (3;12; G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: The slender-billed shearwater is one -42- Slender-billed shearwater 2 of the two most common seabirds in the North Pacific (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). It is an uncommon migrant off the Washington coast (R.Woods, pers. comm. 1975). It is rare over salt water along the coast of Washington but common in the fall and winter along the Washington shore (3). Breeding performance in the wild: The female first breeds when she is five to seven years old and the male breeds for the first time when six to eight. One egg is laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. It is rare along the Washington coast (12). It is an uncommon migrant off Washington shores (R. Woods, pers. comm. 1975). It could be affected by offshore activity in Washington (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status is unknown in Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: The slender-billed shearwater was formerly slaughtered in great numbers for its feathers, oil and flesh. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Japanese gill netters kill 214,000 to 715,000 seabirds annually. Other disturbances are unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: The slender-billed shear- water is protected by Tasmanian law except for a short open season in March (6). Management recommendations: More information is needed on this species, not only in Washington waters, but throughout its complete range, before management can be effected. References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and their Allies. Dover Publications, Boston. -43- Slender-billed shearwater 3 3. Booth, E.S. 1971. Birds of the West. College Press, Keene, Texas. 4. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 6. frosvenor, G. and A. Wetmore. 1939. The Book of Birds. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 7. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 8. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles. 9. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle, 10. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 12. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. Persons interviewed: Other authorities: Ralph Woods Gordon Alcorn Washington Game Department Department of Biology 1100 E. College Way University of Puget Sound Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Tacoma, Washington 98416 Gerald Sanger David Manuwal National Marine Fisheries School of Forest Resources Naval Activity Support Building University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98115 Seattle, Washington 98195 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -44- BLACK VENTED-SHEARWATER Common names: Black-vented shearwater Scientific name: Puffinus puffinus Manx shearwater opisthomeZlas Coues Common shearwater Order: Procellariformes Family: Procellaridae Distinguishing characteristics: Upperparts sooty-black; sides of head dark far below eye, freckled where they shade into thewhite of the under surface; under wing coverts white; bend of wing axillaries mottled blackish; flanks and under tail coverts black; bill blackish, yellowish, or reddish brown at sides; feet yellowish flesh-color; outer toe brownish-black. Length 12 inches; wing 9 inches; tail 3.8 inches. Habitat: The black-vented shearwater is an off-shore bird (9). It is a colonial nester which digs burrows in soil or grassy islets, cliff slopesor ledges and in slopes or about ledges of summits of hillsides. Chambers of burrows are lined with varying amounts of dry or green vegetation. Eggs are laid at the end of the burrow about five to six feet deep. The black-vented shearwater feeds on small fish. Former distribution: Formerly, the black-vented shearwater was found in the Pacific Ocean, breeding on the islands off Lower California, migrating north in the summer along the coast to Vancouver Island(4). In Washington, it was not common in late summer months off the west coast. Present distribution: Now the black-vented shearwater breeds on the Pacific Islands off Baja California, dispersing along the Gulf of California, north along the Pacific coast, casually to Vancouver Island (9). It is a very uncommon fall migrant off the shore of Washington (1; R. Woods, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: It is one of the most abundant shear- waters off the Pacific coast (3). It is rare off the Washington coast (1). The few shearwaters off the Washington coast are probably stragglers (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). -45- Black-vented shearwater 2 Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid per set; they reach sexual maturity at five years or older. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. A very uncommon migrant off the Washington shore (R. Woods, pers. comm. 1975). A scarce fall migrant off the Washington coast (1); occasionally recorded off the Washington coast (8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status is unknown for Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: No decline is evident at this time. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: None. Management recommendations: More research is needed on the distribution and life habits of this species off the Washington shore. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alexander, W.B. 1954. Birds of the Ocean. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 3. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels, Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Grosvenor, G. and A. Wetmore. 1939. The Book of Birds. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 7. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -46- Black-vented shearwater 3 8. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. l, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 9. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Persons interviewed: Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activities Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Other authorities: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology Univeristy of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 David Manuwal School of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -47- SOUTHERN FORK-TAILED PETREL Common name: Southern fork-tailed petrel Scientific name: Oceanodroma furcata Gray fork-tailed petrel plumbea Peale Order: Procellariformes Family: Hydrobatidae Distinguishing characteristics: Body light bluish-gray, fading to white on chin, throat, and under tail coverts; bend of wing, quills, and space around eye dusky. Length 8-9.2 inches; tail 3.75-4 inches, forked for about one inch. Habitat: The southern fork-tailed petrel is an open sea, cold water species. It nests in burrows found in open sites, and, at more southerly stations, under or among trees. The nest is a small enlargement in the burrowwhich is sometimes lined with a little dried grass. Food items consist of plankton, fish, crustaceans, and oily substances from the water surface. Former distribution: The petrel formerly bred in the north Pacific Ocean on islands off the coast of Oregon and Vancouver Island, moving northward on the American side of the Aleutians (5). It was seen near Cape Flattery in Washington; its breeding range included the Olympic coast, but no colonies were discovered. In 1934, Kitchin recorded this species as being sparingly distributed on the Washington coast (7). Present distribution: The fork-tailed petrel is found on the islands off the coast from Alaska to northern California, wintering south to San Diego (4). It is resident, breeding regularly off the shore of Washington (9); one petrel was sighted off Westport, Washington in 1971 by E. Peaslee (pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: Actual numbers and population trends are not known; however, Bent described the fork-tailed petrel as being one of the most widely distributed and most universally common species of Procellariiformes (3). It is very common off Washington, according to G. Sanger (pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. -48- Southern fork-tailed petrel 2 Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally 2. This is rather a rare migrant and winter visitor to Washington from October to March along the west coast (6). Alcorn says this petrel is a summer resident along the coast and is accidental in Puget Sound (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status for coastal Washington appears to be satisfactory. Factors associated with decline, if any: No decline is evident at this time. Resistance to human disturbance and development: No information. Protective measures taken and response to management: No information. Management recommendations: Coastal islands should be kept free from human disturbance as the burrows of this species are easily trampled. References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1957. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds. Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrel and Pelicans and their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Booth, E.S. 1971. Birds of the West. College Press, Keene, Texas. 5. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 8. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. -49- Southern fork-tailed petrel 3 - 9. Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. Persons interviewed: Evelyn Peaslee 907 E. Broadway Seattle, Washington 98102 Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Other authorities: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 David Manuwal School of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -50- OREGON LEACH PETREL Common name: Oregon leach petrel Scientific name: Oceanondroma Beal's petrel leucorhoa beal Emerson Order: Procellariformes Family: Hydrobatidae Distinguishing characteristics: Uniform sooty brown, washed with bluish slate-gray on head, throat, chest, and neck, the gray most pronounced on head and chest; forehead, chin and upper throat, decidedly ashy; greater and median wing coverts edged with ashy; upper tail coverts white with black shafts; lateral lower coverts edged with whitish; retrices black with White at the base. Habitat: This petrel frequents areas of cold upwelling water with high regions of polar convergence in higher latitudes in both the Atlantic and Pacific (8). The Oregon leach petrel nests in a slight enlargement of an underground burrow, sometimes lined with a small amount of dried grass. Burrows can be dug in open fields or under brush, boulders, stumps, or in banks. Food items consist of fish, small crusteceans, mollusks, oily sub- stances from the water surface, and refuse from vessels. Former distribution: The Oregon leach petrel bred on the Pacific coast islands from extreme southern Alaska southward along the coast of British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and California (2). The petrel was breeding in large colonies on the islands off the coast of northern Washington around 1934 (6). Present distribution: The petrel breeds from Alaska to the Farallon Islands of California, wintering south to southern California, well offshore (3). This species breeds regularly on offshore islands of Washington, also sum- mers in this vicinity (9). It is found accidentally in Puget Sound (1). Oregon leach petrel 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: Dawson (5) estimated the number of Oregon leach petrels on the offshore islets of Washington to be 100,000. It is now very common off the Washington coast (G. Sanger, pers. comm. 1975). Population trends are unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: One egg is laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. A summer resident along the Washington coast, breeding abundantly an several of the rocky off-shore Islets; occurring occasionally in Puget Sound (5). Wahl and Paulson (9) record it as being uncommon off the Washington coast and Alcorn (1) considers it a summer resident off the Washington shore. 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status appears to be satisfactory off the coast of Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: No decline is evident at this time. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The threshold to human disturbance is unknown; however, they collide with lighthouses, are trapped in gill nets, have their borrows trampled by humans, and were at one time eaten by Indians. Protective measures taken and response to management: No information.j Management recommendations: This species seems to be maintaining itself sufficiently off the Washington coast. Periodic monitoring of the popula- tion to detect changes in status is recommended.I -52- Oregon leach petrel 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Booth, E. 1971. Birds of the West. College Press, Keene, Texas. 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattleo 6. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 7. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 8. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven. 9. Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. Persons interviewed: Ralph Woods Washington Game Department 1100 E. College Way Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Gerald Sanger National Marine Fisheries Naval Support Activity Building Seattle, Washington 98115 Oregon leach petrel 4 Other authorities: David Manuwal School of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -54- NORTHERN RED-BILLED TROPIC BIRD Common name: Northern red-billed Scientific name: Phaethon aethereus tropic bird mesonauta Peters Order: Pelecaniformes Famly: Phaethontidae Distinguishing characteristics: A slender white seabird, sexes similar in coloration and size although central tail feathers average longer in male than in female. Adults: plumage is primarily black and white; inner secondaries black; back and rump barred with black; black patch through cheek. The bill is stout and red; central tail feathers are slender and greatly elongated. Immatures have broader, closer barring on back and wings; no central streamers; orange-yellow bill. Habitat: Primarily pelagic and seldom seen close to shore; attracted to warmer seas and oceans. Breeding is somewhat colonial on rocky and remote islands. Nests are placed at random height above the water in crevices and holes on the sides of steep cliffs overhanging the water. Eggs are laid on bare rock or soil and occasionally in cavities in the trunks of trees. Feeds primarily on crustaceans, fish and squids. Former distribution: Similar as present distribution, below. Present distribution: An inhabitant of both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and occurs as far north as the Lesser Antilles on the eastern coast of the United States and southern California on the western coast. "Bed on islands of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the tropical and subtropical North Atlantic" (7:p.78). -55- Northern red-billed tropic bird 2 A single specimen was recorded in Washington waters, taken by a fisherman from Westport, Grays Harbor County, on June 18, 1941 (5,6). Estimated numbers and population trends: At present, the population appears to be normal and the range unchanged (8). Breeding performance in the wild: I egg per clutch during the breeding season of March to April. Numbers appear to be restricted due to lack of available nesting sites; vacant sites of collected pairs reoccupied within a few days (8). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered accidental in Washington (1,3,7) 3. Questionnaire scores; no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline: At Cape Verdes, eggs and birds are taken as food and in the past many skins were taken for the millinery trade. Also taken for human consumption, and feathers for adornment in Micronesia (8). Resistance to human disturbance and development: The majority of the breeding colonies remain isolated and thus free from interference (8). Protective measures taken and response to management: Protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the northern red-billed tropic bird would be unwarranted in Washington due to its accidental occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. -56- Northern red-billed tropic bird 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. PaDers No. 44:4]4-473. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alexander, W.B. 1954. Birds of the Ocean. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 3. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 4. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Flahaut, M.R. 1947. Red-billed tropic bird taken at Westport, Washington. Murrelet 28:6. 6. Flahaut, M.R. 1947. Identification of red-billed tropic bird taken in Washington State. Murrelet 28:22. 7. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press. Seattle. 8. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds I. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publication, New York. Persons interviewed: None. Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -57- WHITE PELICAN Common name: White pelican Scientific name: Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Gmel in Order: Pelecaniformes Family: Pelecanidae Distinguishing characteristics: Huge white water bird, sexes similar in coloration, males slightly larger in size. Adults: plumage is almost entirely pure white, except primaries and majority of secondaries black. Long flattened bill has a very conspicuous yellow gular pouch, and in the breeding season an upright horny process on the upper mandible; feet are orange. Immatures are similar to adults, but feathers on back of head are gray; bill and feet duller. Habitat: During the breeding season it occurs on interior lakes in *both tree- less and forested country. The remainder of the year the white pelican occurs primarily on lakes and other sizable areas of fresh water providing safe roosting places on isolated islands; also occurs on shallow coastal bays, estuaries, inlets, and beaches in both brackish and salt waters during migration. The white pelican is a colonial nester, usually nesting on low lying, bare and stony islands or gravel bars that are remote from man's activities and yet in the vicinity of shallow marshes which supply fish. Nesting locations require flat or gently sloping ground without obstructions that would impede flight, and loose earth suitable for heaping into nest-mounds (19). Stable water levels are essential in providing inaccessible nesting islands and hence less exposure to mammalian predation (9,17,24). The nest is on the ground, usually a depression but sometimes a structure built above gro und of sticks, weeds and available rubbish. Nests are occasionally built on trampled masses of vegetation in marshes. PelIi cans feed prima rilIy on rough f is h, amphibi an s (frogs and salIamanders) , and crustaceans. Studies have shown that the fishes taken include large numbers of minnows, and that most of the larger species captured are slow-moving, non- game fish of little commercial or sport value (19). Former distribution: The overall range has not changed greatly, but populations are now much more localized, due to loss of breeding grounds; only 7 major White pelican 2 colonies remain in North America (19). Until the early 1930's the white pelican bred regularly on lakes in eastern Washington, primarily the Moses Lake area. Present distribution: Primarily a bird of western and central North America, the white pelican winters along the southern coasts of California southward to Guatemala. It breeds locally from southwestern and central Canada south to southern California, including northern Utah, northwestern Wyoming, southern Montana and the Dakotas. Non breeding birds are widespread during the summer. In Washington, the white pelican is a spring and fall migrant primarily east of the Cascade Mountains, but it also occurs west of the Cascades. It is a "scattered summer resident in the lower and central Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington. It does not now appear to breed in Washington" (15:p. 57). Estimated numbers and population trends: B. Thompson (24) in 1933 estimated that the breeding population of white pelicans in seven major nesting colonies to be 30,000; indicating that 20,000 to 25,000 pelicans were breeding in the United States. The results of a study by Lies and Behle (16) in 1966 suggested that there had been a decline in these seven major nesting colonies to 19,560 breeding pelicans in 1963 and 19,860 in 1964. Lies and Behle gave the total continental breeding population for 1963 as 36,200 (33,870 birds in the United States and 2,330 birds in Canada) and for 1964 as 40,067 (35,745 birds in the United States and 4,322 birds in Canada). The total breeding and nonbreeding adult population of white pelicans was estimated by Lies and Behle to be 44,220 in 1963 (40,365 birds in the United States and 3,855 birds in Canada) and 45,100 in 1964 (39,146 birds in the United States and 5,964 birds in Canada). K. Vermeer (25), however, in 1970 felt that Lies and Behle had underestimated Canada's population of breeding white pelicans and estimated the total breeding population to be 30,000 birds for the years 1967-1969. E. Boeker (6) in 1972 indicates a larger 1971 breeding population in Canada than Vermeer reported for 1967-69. The breeding population through 1972 of the white pelican in the United States was estimated at 33,690 birds by N. Sloan (22) which compares with a breeding population of 33,870 birds suggested by Lies and Behle in 1966. In general, the white pelican population is fairly stable but below that of pre-settlement times; individual colonies have exhibited major fluctuations due -59- White pelican 3 to human persecution. Recovery is usually rapid with protection (19). The current population in Washington is unknown although white pelicans are occasionally seen in small flocks during migration and in flocks of up to 20 or more during the summer in eastern Washington. Breeding performance in the wild: I to 4 eggs per clutch with 2 eggs being usual; incubation is by both sexes. The incubation period is unknown. It took 29 days for pelican eggs to hatch under a domestic hen (19). The breeding season is May and June; 50% mortality of nestlings is common (19). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Regular spring and fall migrant; rare summer resident (12); summer resident in eastern Washington, casual in western Washington (2); "rare'' bird in Oregon (17); throughout the west, the feeling is that the white pelican should remain on the Blue List (4). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is potentially threatened with extinction; current population of migrating and non-breeding birds remains relatively constant, although not as numerous as previous years; not currently a breeding bird within the state and breeding areas outside of Washington are greatly restricted. Factors associated with decline, if any: The primary cause of the decline in the population of white pelicans is the loss of suitable breeding habitat through land reclamation and irrigation projects (19), often augmented by years of drought. Actual destruction of the breeding colonies by acts of human violence has been an important factor in the past (24) along with persecution during migration and in fishing areas due to the white pelican's noticable consumption of fish. Cases have been cited in which human residents placed pigs on nesting islands to fatten them on the pelican's eggs and young (23). Egg collectors and plume hunters have done great damage in the past (24). Another big factor in the .-60- White pelican 4~ decline of white pelicans is continual human interference from visitors to nesting colonies often leading to desertion of the entire colony. In Washington the exact cause 6f the breeding population decimation is unknown; however it is speculated to be the result of direct human persecution on the breeding grounds. Resistance to human disturbance and development: For breeding the pelican requires islands surrounded by permanent water and isolation from man(19). Irrigation projects often cause fluctuation of water levels, resulting in heavier predation by terrestrial predators. The adults often desert the nests during human interference, thus eggs and young are destryoed through exposure to elements or enemies; continued disturbance may cause abandonment of a colony (19). Protective measures taken and response to mangement: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: With the spread of civilization the future of present colonies is precarious without stringent protection (19). In-depth research should be done to determine the exact breeding habitat of the white pelican in Washington. Since breeding habitat is very critical throughout the range of the species, any increase in usable breeding sites in Washington could be of great importance. This should be a high priority since (a) nesting locations outside of Washington are minimal; (b) the white pelican once occurred regularly as a breeding bird in eastern Washington; and, (c)'it represtents an uncommon family of birds in Washington. Pelicans are attractive to the public. Public awareness is critical; persecution by fishermen is unwarranted since food is generally rough fish of little, if any, economic importance. Indiscriminate shooting must be eliminated. References: .1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. 0cc. Papers 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 37 no, 2. Alcorn, G.D;. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. 0cc. Papers 44:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. -61- White pelican 5 3. Alexander, W.B. 1954. Birds of the Ocean. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. 4. Arbib, R. 1974. The Blue List for 1975. American Birds 28(6):969-1064. National Audubon Society. 5. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Petrel and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Boeker, E.L. 1972. A survey of white pelican nesting colonies in 1971. American Birds 26(1):24,125. 7. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 8. Edson, J.M. 1912. White pelicans at Bellingham Bay, Washington. Condor 14:225 9. Evans, R.M. 1972. Some effects of water level on the reproductive success of the white pelican at East Shoal Lake, Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 86(2):151-153. 10. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 11. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 12. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 13. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 14. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 15. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 16. Lies, M.F. and W.H. Behle. 1966. Status of the white pelican in the United States and Canada through 1964. Condor 68(3):279-292. 17. Marshall, D.B. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon-lil. Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station. Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 18. MacMannama, Z.V. 1944. Records of white pelican, sawwhet owl, and barn owl in Whatcom County. Murrelet 25:29. 19. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds 1. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 20. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. -62- White pelican 6 21. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 22. Sloan, R.F. 1973. Status of breeding colonies of white pelicans in the United States through 1972. Inland Bird Banding News 45(3):83-96 (Taken secondarily from summary presented in June 1973 issue of Wildlife Review.) 23. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 24. Thompson, B.H. 1933. History and present status of the breeding colonies of the white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. Contribution of Wildlife Division, Occasional Paper No. 1. 25. Vermeer, K. 1970. Distribution and size of colonies of white pelicans, Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, in Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 48:1029-1032. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -63- CALIFORNIA BROWN PELICAN common name: California brown Scientific name: Pelecanus occidentaZis pelican ca 1ifornicus Ridgway Order: Pelecaniformes Family: Pelecanidae Distinguishing characteristics: A large, dark gray-brown water bird; sexes alike. Adults in summer: pouch reddish, framed with white plumage extending from the head onto the neck; head mainly white, crown tinged with yellow; very dark brown hindneck. Upper parts of body silvery gray, narrowly streaked with brown; under parts brownish, streaked on sides with white. Adults in winter: similar to adults in summer but neck completely white, tinged with yellowish on crown and throat. Immatures are uniformly dull brown on upper parts, darker on back; underparts whitish, tinged with brownish gray on sides. Habitat: Primarily shallow waters of coasts and islands, almost exclusively along salt water; on small inlets, tidal rivers, or open beaches (14). Birds nest in island colonies. Nests are any of the following: 1) shallow scrape or hollow in soil, with sparse lining of feathers; 2) bulky structure of soil and debris, with few or no sticks and cavity at top lined with a few feathers (often used year after year with fresh material added); 3) arboreal nest in trees or bushes made of sticks, weeds, and trash (14). Feeds primarily on small trash fish, which have no sport or commerical value, and crustaceans; occasionally will act as a scavenger feeding on almost any type of animal matter, including offspring. Former distribution: Although greatly reduced in numbers, the former distribution is similar to the present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeds on islands along the Pacific coast of North America from Santa Barbara Islands southward to the Galapagos Islands. The California brown pelican 2 California brown pelican is known as a wanderer between nesting seasons and thus occurs along the Pacific coast as far north as southern British Columbia. In Washington it occurs along the Pacific coast from the Columbia River north to Puget Sound; although it has been recorded in eastern Washington near Yakima (5,6,14). Estimated numbers and population trends: The minimum population for Mexico and California is over 100,000 (2). The current number of brown pelicans utilizing Washington's coastline is unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: Age of first reproduction is 2 years; I to 4 eggs per clutch, normally 3. Incubation lasts approximately 4 weeks; one replacement clutch if original clutch is disturbed. There is a high mortality among preflight birds due to predation by older young, trampling and other injuries inflicted by adults, and since hatching evidently occurs over a span of days, the smallest chick presumably has the least opportunity to get adequately fed (14). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. U.S.D.I. lists the status as threatened nationally. 2. Casual fall and winter visitant (11); a casual visitor in the fall and early winter (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is Potentially threatened with extinction, due to drastically reduced numbers within the state and the consistent breeding failures outside of the state. Factors associated with decline, if any: Suffered decline locally in the late 1800's and early 1900's from disturbances on the breeding grounds; number of breeding localities has been reduced through encroachment of civilization (14). Recently, -65- California brown pelican 3 there has been poor reproductive success due to collapse of thin-shelled eggs, which is suspected to be a result of food contamination with DDE and/or other pollutants (2). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Quickly becomes tolerant of man when not persecuted (14). Due to feeding habits along the continental shelf, the Calf ornia. brown pelican is strongly effected by pollutants being discharged from the mouths of rivers. Protective measures taken and response to management: State, federal and private cooperative research has been directed toward analysis of the thin eggshell condition and resulting poor reproductive success. Waste discharges from industrial plants are being corrected, and population surveys are being made by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (2). A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Encourage strict regulation of pesticide usage and discharge of chemical wastes into marine waters. Eliminate indiscriminate shooting of California brown pelicans through public awareness of valuable non-game species. Research should be done on the ecology of the brown pelican in Washington (age structure, habitat, etc.). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. 0cc. Papers 44:414-473. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publ. 114, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 3. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton, Miff lin and Co., Boston and New York. 4. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans4 and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Bowles, J.H. 1922. The California brown pelican in the state of Washington. Condor 24:32. 6. Bowles, J.H. 1922. Notes from Tacoma, Washington. Murrelet 3:7. -66- California brown pelican 4 7. Bowles, J.H. 1933. California brown pelican seen near Tacoma, Washington. Murrelet 14:16. 8. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 9. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 10. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 428 pp. 11. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 12. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 13. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers. Port Angeles, Washington. 14. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds I. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 15. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 16. Schreiber, R.W. and R.W. Risebrough. 1972. Studies of the brown pellican. Wilson Bulletin 84(2):119-135. 17. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -67- NORTHERN BLUE-FOOTED BOOBY Common name: Northern blue-footed Scientific name: SulZa nebouxii nebouxii booby Milne-Edwards Order: Pelecaniformes Family: Sulidae Distinguishing characteristics: A large brown and white sea bird with a pointed tail; sexes similar. Adults: head and neck gray; back and wings brown with flecks of white on back; white patch on upper back; under parts white. Bill long and stout, feet, legs and bill, blue. Immature birds have brownish head. Habitat: Occurs relatively close to shore in warm coastal waters; occasionally fishes in shallow coves. Nest is on the ground on fairly level terrain where there is little or no vegetation, defecation by incubators forms circle of waste (5). Feeds primarily on fish, but also on squid. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeding range is from the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Peru, north along the coast of Mexico to the Gulf of California. Winters primarily near its breeding grounds and southward to Chile. There is occasional coastwise wandering or dispersal of prebreeders (5). Accidental in Washington, a single sub-adult individual of unknown sex collected near Everett on September 23, 1935 (4). Estimated numbers and population trends: Populations are steady (4). Breeding performance in the wild: I to 3 eggs per clutch with eggs laid at intervals of several days; not strictly colonial. Northern blue-footed booby 2 Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an accidental wanderer (3,6) in Washington. 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline: Guano hunters take some adults and eggs as food, in addition to upsetting breeding birds during active digging (5); overall effect on population unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The majority of the nesting colonies are isolated, and the populations are steady (5). Protective measures taken and response to management: Protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the northern blue-footed booby would be unwarranted in Washington due to its accidental occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded, as this would facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 2. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 4. Larrison, E.J. 1945. Blue-footed booby in the Pacific Northwest. Murrelet 26(3):45. 5. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds I. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. -69- Northern blue-footed booby 3 6. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 7. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. Persons interviewed: None. Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. ANTHONY'S GREEN HERON Common name: Green heron Scientific name: Butorides virescens anthonyi Mearns Order: Ciconiformes Family: Ardeidae Distinguishing characteristics: A small green heron; sexes similar. Adults: top of head and crest dark green or black; sides of head and neck deep chestnut. Throat and front portion of neck white, streaked with brown. Back, tall, and most of wings glossy green; elongated plumes on back. Belly bluish gray. Bill greenish black with some yellow at base; legs and feet yellow. Immatures are similar to adults but have no plumes; underparts are white streaked with brown. Bill and legs are pale yellow. Habitat: Typically located along the edges of slow moving fresh water rivers and streams which are sheltered by bushes and trees; also seen on the margins of lakes, marshes, and small ponds of fresh, salt or brackish water. Nests are usually solitary; located at moderate heights in small trees; often in the branches of willows. Nest is a platform of small sticks and is often lined with smaller twigs. Feeds primarily on aquatic fauna, including minnows, sculpins, shrimp, snails, leeches, beetles, and other insects and their larvae. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, although northern border of range formerly more southerly. Present distribution: Breeds from western Washington south through the Pacific states to Mexico, and south through western Nevada, southwestern Utah, central Arizona, and New Mexico to northern Central America. Winters occasionally in Washington; primarily winters in central and southern California, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico and western Texas (14). The occurrence of the green heron in Washington has gone from questionable sight records in the early 1900's to breeding and wintering records.. Anthony's green heron 2 A good summary of the highlights of the green heron advance in Washington is given by G. Eddy (6). The green heron occurs in western Washington during the summer as both a non- breeding resident and a breeding resident in suitable habitats. During the post- breeding period in the fall, it occurs in eastern Washington irregularly and north in the Anacortes and Bellingham areas (10). Occasionally, it winters in the southwestern part of the state. Estimated numbers and population trends: In western Washington the population of green herons has increased regularly up to the present. This continual increase in population will eventually reach a peak as available habitat is utilized. The increase in numbers may be offset by a decrease in suitable habitat as more swamps are 'reclaimed' (10). Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 9 eggs per clutch; usually 4 or 5. Breeding season occurs in May; incubation lasts from 19 to 21 days; 20 being most common. Maturity is obtained after I year. Number in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an uncommon, irregular summer resident and breeder in swampy areas in western Washington; wandering in fall to eastern Washington; winters less commonly (10); of scattered and irregular occurrence west of the Cas~cade Mountains (9); fairly scarce resident in western Washington (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is satisfactory; the current population appears to be increasing. Factors associated with decline, if any: Not applicable. -72- Anthony's green heron 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: Greatly effected by loss of habitat through irrigation projects and reclamation of marshy areas. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: It is essential that the current available habitat of the green heron be protected from land reclamation projects and any unnecessary disturbance. Research on the ecology of the green heron in Washington should be undertaken. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 3. American Ornithogoists' Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 4. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Booth, E.S. 1945. Anthony green heron in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. Murrelet 26:26. 6. Eddy, G. 1951. Further notes on the green heron advance in Washington State. Murrelet 32:12. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Jewett, S.G. 1939. Anthony green heron in the state of Washington. Condor 41:33. 9. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State, University of Washington Press, Seattle. 10. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 11. Larrison, E.J. 1940. The Anthony green heron in the state of Washington. Murrelet 21:1-3. -73- Anthony's green heron 4 12. Larrison, E.J. 1947. Present status of the green heron in Washington. Condor 49-87. 13. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds I. Yale University Press, New Haven. 14. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 15. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 16. Slipp, J.W. 1942. Green heron at Tacoma, Washington. Condor 44:35-36 17. Slipp, J.W. 1944. Additional records of the green heron in the Puget Sound Basin. Condor 46:35. 18. Wotton, M. 1960. First nesting of the green heron in Washington. Murrelet 41:26. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Jack Smith Washington Game Department Grays Harbor College Rm. 318 Aberdeen, Washington 98520 Other Authorities: Earl J. Larrison J.W. Slipp Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. CATTLE EGRET Common name: Cattle egret Scientific name: Bubulcus ibis Tick heron Li nnaeus Buff-backed egret Order: Ciconiformes Family: Ardeidae Distinguishing characteristics: A small, stocky, primarily white heron; sexes similar. Adults in summer: plumage white, with elongated buffy-orange feathers an crown, breast, and shoulders. Bill yellow, orange, or reddish; legs are coral-pink or greenish yellow. Adults in winter: plumage appears less buffy on crown, breast, and shoulders; elongated feathers much shorter; bill yellow, legs greenish dark brown or black. Immatures have pure white plumage lacking buffy coloration and elongated feathers on crown, breast, and shoulders. Bill and legs are same coloration as adult~s in winter plumage. Habitat: The cattle egret is less aquatic than other herons, although it breeds in the proximity of water. It occurs in open pastures, fields, meadows, roadside ditches, vacant lots, and even on lawns (11). The cattle egret frequently associates with hoofed mammals, primarily cattle, whose grazing activities arouse insects and other prey. The nests are usually placed low in thick trees or bushes along watercourses or on islands near fresh or salt water. The nest is composed of medium to small twigs, loosely assembled, with a foundation of larger twigs. The cattle egret is a highly social species. Many pairs may nest in the same tree, sometimes hundreds. When colonizing new areas, a few pairs may nest with other heron species (11). The habit of associating with other species of herons appears to be of survival value in facilitating dispersal and establishment (14). The larger the colony the less it apparently suffers from predators (12). It was illustrated in a study done by Weber (19) that cattle egrets did not compete for nesting material or nest sites with other waterbirds nesting in the same colonies and did not exhibit notable aggression toward other species nesting nearby. The cattle egret is primarily insectivorous although an opportunistic feeder. -75- Cattle egret 2 It consumes insects, spiders, earthworms, centipedes, crawfish, free-living flatworms, amphibians, reptiles and mammals (6). The majority of its food is obtained while associating with hoofed mammals, although it also forages alone and near other animals and machines, following tractors and mowing equipment as attentively as it does cattle (6). in 1965 H-eatwole (8) quantified the efficiency of capturing prey attracted to or disturbed by grazing live- stock in Puerto Rico and noted egrets that associated with cattle obtained 1370/ as much food as nonassociated egrets and expended only 63% as much effort (6). At least in Florida, it appears that the cattle egret has nearly monopolized this formerly unoccupied, highly productive feeding niche (6). It is significant that Peterson (12), Jenni (9), and Fogarty and Hetrick (6) all suggested that there is little if any interspecific competition for available food between cattle egrets and native herons. Cattle egrets may be forced to eat some fish under certain circumstances, but they clearly did not select fish in central Florida during the summer of 1969 (6). Former distribution: The cattle egret is an Old World species which became established in the New World. It first appeared on the United States mainland in 19148 (17), although it has been speculated that it occurred earlier in the 1940's but not recognized due to its similarity to other herons (10). In 1957 it was breeding in Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina; by 1962 it was nesting in Canada (7). Present distribution: The cattle egret has spread over the North American continent and has been reported in all of the continental United States and in most southern provinces of Canada (19). It now nests in all states except Alaska, the Dakotas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, and Wyoming (6). The cattle egret is distributed sparingly along the Pacific coast of North America as far north as northwestern Washington. A few specimens have been taken on islands at the mouth of the Columbia River (1) with scattered sight records throughout western Washington. Estimated numbers and population trends: In a scant 30 years the species has probably become the most plentiful egret in North America, so much in fact, that in Florida it appears to be more numerous than all the native species of herons combined (6). It is apparently increasing in Washington, primarily in Cattle egret 3 Breeding performance in the wild: 2 to 6 eggs per clutch; usually 3. Estimates of incubation range from 21 to 26 days, probably 24 is average. Incubation is by both sexes (9). in nests where three chicks hatched, the last hatched rarely lived; the asynchronous pattern of egg-laying and hatching gives a decided advantage to the first chick (19). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered to be rapidly extending its range (2,3,11,13,15,16). "This species has come into the state in recent years and forms a small resident population. There is reason to believe that it will increase in numbers and over its range" (supplemental addition to 1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown; currently increasing and broadening its range. Factors associated with declines if any-, Not applicable. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The cattle egret is the least shy of the herons; it is little concerned with passing vehicles and the presence of people (11). It thrives in cattle-maintained pastures. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Special attention should be given to establish its distribution and population trends within the state. The potential impact of any introduced species must be fully assessed. -77- Cattle egret 4 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 3. Buerkle, U. and W.D. Mansell. 1963. First nesting record of the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) in Canada. Auk 80:378-379. 4. Crosby, G.T. 1972. Spread of the cattle egret in the western hemi- sphere. Bird-Banding 43(3):205-212. 5. Davis, D.E. 1960. The spread of the cattle egret in the United States. Auk 77(4):421-424. 6. Fogarty, M.J. and W.M. Hetrick. 1973. Summer foods of cattle egrets in north central Florida. Auk 90(2):268-280. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Heatwole, H. 1965. Some aspects of the associations of cattle egrets with cattle. Anim. Behav. 13:79-83. (secondarily from 6). 9. Jenni, D.A. 1969. A study of the ecology of four species of herons during the breeding season at Lake Alice Alachua County, Florida. Ecological Monographs 39(3):245-270. 10. Kuyt, E. 1972. First record of the cattle egret in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 86(1):83-84. 11. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds 1. Yale University Press, New Haven. 12. Peterson, R.T. 1954. A new bird immigrant arrives. National Geographic Magazine 106(2):281-292. 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Rice, D.W. 1956. Dynamics of range expansion of cattle egrets in Florida. Auk 73(2):259-266. 15. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America Golden Press, New York. 16. Rue, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Crowell Co., New York. 17. Sprunt, A. 1953. Newcomer from the Old World. Audubon Magazine 55: 178-181. 18. Sprunt, A. 1956. The cattle egret in North America-1956. Audubon Magazine 58(6):274-277. -78- Cattle egret 5 19. Weber, W.J. 1975. Notes on cattle egret breeding. Auk 92(1):111-117. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -79- COMMON EGRET Common name: Common egret Scientific name: Casmerodius albus egretta Gmelin Order: Ciconiformes Family: Ardeidae Distinguishing characteristics: A very large slender, white heron; sexes similar. Adults: plumage white, no crest on the head and neck; straight slender plumes on the back extending over the tail during the breeding season. Bill yellow-orange; legs and feet glossy black, occasionally blackish near the tip. Adults in post-breeding plumage and immatures lack the long plumes on back and bill is yellow. Habitat: Generally prefers open areas for foraging; occurs on marshes, river and lake margins, irrigated lands, ponds, shores, and mudflats in fresh, brackish and, less commonly, salt water. Colonial nesting in swampy areas, occasionally with other Ciconiformes. Nests are platforms, loosely constructed of sticks and placed in small and medium sized trees and bushes over water; generally not more than 10 to 15 feet from the ground. Feeds primarily on small aquatic forms including fish (seldom of any economic value), frogs, salamanders, snakes, snails, crustaceans, insects, and small mammals. Former distribution: The overall range has not changed greatly, although populations were greatly decimated in the early 1900's. This species once occurred on the Columbia River and farther northward (9). Dawson (6) listed the former breeding status in Washington as uncertain. Present distribution: "In the New World it breeds from Oregon, southern Idaho, southern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, southern Minnesota, extreme southern Ontario, and New Jersey south through the West Indies, Mexico, Central and South America" (8:p.39). The common egret winters from southeastern Oregon, central -80- Common egret 2 Nevada, central Arizona and central New Mexico (rarely) south (13). In recent years it appears that the common egret is extending its breeding range northward. This egret has an extensive postbreeding dispersal pattern prior to migration in the fall. In Washington, it occurs irregularly in eastern Washington's Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge (5), Whitman County and Walla Walla County (15) and very rarely in the Puget Sound area on the west side of the Cascades at Redmond (15), the Skagit Flats area (Game Department files) and repeatedly at the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge files). Estimated numbers and population trends: In the United States the low ebb in population occurred around 1902-1903, with recovery peak attained under legal protection in the mid-1930's (12). The number of common egrets visiting Washington each year is unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 6 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Rare spring, summer, and early fall straggler to Eastern Washington, may become established as a breeder; very rare in the Puget Sound area (10); peripheral bird in Oregon (11); casual winter resident in eastern Washington; casual west of the Cascade Mountains (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is unknown. It occurs infrequently within the state; a peripheral species. Factors associated with decline: At the end of the 1800's great numbers of egrets were slaughtered in the name of fashion for their breeding plumes or ulaigrettesri which were obtained from the adults during the breeding season. Thus, the birds were shot in their nesting rookeries leaving the eggs or the young unattended. In 1903 the price offered to plume hunters was $32.00 per ounce (3). Common egret 3 Since this species was given protection, and has made a subsequent recovery, a gradual decline in numbers has occurred through loss of many heronries and feeding areas by drainage and other development and drought (12). Resistance to human disturbance and development: "Egrets are highly susceptible to poisoning from pesticides, as demonstrated by large losses in the Klamath Basin in 1963" (11:p.16). Protective measures taken and response to management: The common egret is currently protected under regulations in Canada and the United States. Under this protection, it has regained much of its former range and original numbers. It is a protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Of critical importance is the preservation of favorable habitat for the common egret. This includes restrictions on land reclamation projects, protection of nesting habitats from unnecessary disturbance, prevention of contamination of the food supply from pesticides, and restriction of the destruction of forage fish populations. Elimination of indiscriminate shooting of common egret is essential. Research should be undertaken to determine if a breeding population of common egrets occurs in Washington and if so, their breeding potential in the State. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 44:414-473. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. American Ornithologists' Union. 3. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Brookfield, C.M. 1955. The Guy Bradley story. Audubon Magazine. (July-August):170-175. 5. Canaris, A.G. 1950. Sight record of American egret in eastern Washington. Murrelet 31:46. -82- Common egret 4 6. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 9. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press. Seattle. 10. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 11. Marshall, D.B. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon-III. Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 12. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds I. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 15. Rieck, C.R. 1962. A common egret in western Washington. Murrelet 43:52. 16. Rue, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Crowell Co., New York. 17. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -83- SNOWY EGRET Common name: Snowy egret Scientific name: Egretta thula Molina Order: Ciconiformes Family: Ardeidae Distinguishing characteristics: A small white heron; sexes similar. During the breeding season, adults have pure white plumage with recurved plumes extending from the interscapular region over the back and beyond the tail. Head and throat are crested. Feet are yellow; legs and bill, black, except for yellow at base of bill; lores yellow. Post breeding adult plumage and immatures lack the recurved plumes; immatures also have yellow on the back of the legs. Habitat: Frequents margins of fresh, salt, and brackish water marshes, ponds, bays and shores. Also occurs on tideflats, irrigated land or wet meadows, and dry fields. Tends to favor more sheltered locations. Colonial nesting in swampy areas, occasionally with other Ciconiformes. The nests are usually frail platforms of small sticks placed in trees or bushes which overhang the water. Occasionally uses tule stems supported by a mass of bent-over and broken down tules (6). Food is almost exclusively aquatic, consisting of small fishes, crustaceans, snakes, lizards, frogs, aquatic insects, and worms. When feeding in upland areas, grasshoppers are often consumed. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeds from northern California, southeastern Oregon, southeastern Idaho, Colorado, and the gulf coast of the United States (along the Snowy egret 2 Atlantic coast north to New Jersey) south through the West Indies and Central America to South America. Wanders farther north after the breeding season. Winters from southern California and South Carolina southward through South America. Palmer (10) suggests that the snowy egret is extending its breeding range farther north than what it was prior to the period of persecution. In Washington the snowy egret occurs irregularly in southeastern Washington in late summer following the breeding season; it has also occurred at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge files). Estimated numbers and population trends: During the first decade of this century the numbers of the snowy egret were near their lowest ebb (3). Since this time recovery has been made, although slowly, to a current population below that of pre-decimated numbers. The current population of snowy egrets seems to be more stable than that of the common egret (Casmerodius albus) (IO). Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 6 eggs per clutch with 4 to 5 eggs being normal. Incubation period is assumed to be about 18 days by Gabrielson and Lincoln (5). Jenni (8) gives 22.4 days as average incubation period; both sexes incubate. One brood is raised per year, although renesting may occur. Breeding age may be obtained as early as one year. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. Considered a peripheral bird in Oregon (9); casual visitor in southeastern Washington (I. 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is unknown. It occurs infrequently within the state; a peripheral species. Factors associated with decline if any: The snowy egret was slaughtered for its Snowy egret 3 breeding plumes or "aigrettes", which were obtained from the adults during the breeding season. Thus, the birds were shot in their nesting rookeries leaving the eggs or the young unattended. Far more snowy egrets than common egrets were killed by plume hunters because the former species was originally more numerous and more widely distributed, was much less shy and more easily killed, and, its short, delicate plumes were in greater demands. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Greatly effected by loss of habitat through irrigation projects and reclamation of marshy areas. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: It is critical that the habitat of the snowy egret be protected from land reclamation projects and any unnecessary disturbance. Elimination of indiscriminate shootings of snowy egrets is essential. Research on the general ecology and biology of the snowy egret should be undertaken to help evaluate the potential for a breeding population in Washington. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-- Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Brookfield, C.M. 1955. The Guy Bradley story. Audubon Magazine July- August: 170-175. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. -86- Snowy egret 4 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Jenni, D.A. 1969. A study of the ecology of four species of herons during the breeding season at Lake Alice, Alachua County, Florida. Ecological Monographs 39(3):245-270. 9. Marshall, D.E. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon-Ill Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 10. Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds I. Yale University Press, New Haven. 11. Peterson, T.Y. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 12. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 13. Rue, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Crowell Co., New York. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -87- WHISTLING SWAN Common name: Whistling swan Scientific name: 01cr colwnbianus 0Ord Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Cygninae) Distinguishing characteristics: A very large bird; sexes similar. Adults: plumage entirely white, although occasionally stained a rusty color on neck and head, legs, feet and bill black. Located on the lores is usually an orange or yellow spot near the eye. The presence of this yellow spot is indicative of this species, however, the lack of this spot is not conclusive. Immatures are largely ashy gray with the head and neck slightly darker; the bill is mottled with orange. In the field, the best means for distinguishing this species from the trumpeter swan (01cr buccinator) is probably the voice. The voice of the trumpeter swan is considerably deeper and of a different quality. However, this distinction requires the observer to be familiar with the calls of both species. Positive identification of collected specimens is made through examining differences in convolutions of the windpipe in the breast bone; the trumpeter swan has a loop in the windpipe. Habitat: During the breeding season they prefer small islands in shallow tundra and marshy lakes on the low northern tundras; however, the immediate vicinity of water is not necessary, as they occasionally select sites on the top of low hills considerable distances from water (20). Large lakes are utilized during the molt. Throughout the spring and fall migration and winter the whistling swan utilizes lakes, sloughs, large rivers, bays, estuaries, ponds, and occasionally fields. Marine shoreline areas are critical during severe winters when inland lakes are frozen. Nests are constructed of a variety of materials ranging from moss and grass to occasional sticks; it is usually a bulky structure on the ground and is lined with mosses, grass, and down. The diet of the whistling swan varies according to locale. They usually feed on the roots, stems, and tubers of aquatic plants. They graze extensively along the borders of lakes, ponds and rivers. A substantial amount of animal material is -88- Whistling swan 2 consumed in some areas, particularly mollusks in brackish waters. Former distribution: Very similar to present distribution although currently more local. ''According to Lewis and Clark (4: p.885-86) the swan was very abundant below the 'great narrows' of the Columbia River about the year 1805, remaining all winter, and outnumbering the larger species (evidently the trumpeter swan) 5 to 1" (10:p.99). Present distribution: It breeds primarily north of the Arctic Circle in Alaska and Canada; generally scattered widely and thinly across the northern part of North America. Wintering grounds lie chiefly on the coastal waters on both sides of the continent; on the Atlantic coast, from Massachusetts to North Carolina, occasionally as far south as Florida and the gulf states; on the Pacific coast from southern Alaska to lower California (primarily Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Utah). They are migrants on large bodies of water in interior regions. During migration the whistling swan is found throughout the state on lakes, large rivers, and salt water. During winter, they utilize the lowland lakes and saltwater shorelines in western Washington and the open waters of the Columbia and Snake Rivers in eastern Washington. Swans regularly utilize the Skagit Flats, Willapa Bay and the lower stretches of the Columbia River as wintering areas. Estimated numbers and population trends: In the early 1900's the whistling swan reached a relatively small population size. Their population has increased steadily since then. The average count for the years between 1952 and 1956 was 86,000 individuals (16). During the period from 1964 to 1969 the total population fluctuated widely: from 81,000 individuals in 1967, to 137,000 in 1968; an average of 103,000 individuals (16). Van Wormer (20) estimated the population as 100,000 in 1972. Apparently there has been a slight increase in the last few years. The population probably will exhibit a slight downward trend as human populations increase and there is a saturation of decreasing habitat (B. Lauckhart, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: 2 to 7 eggs per clutch; 4 or 5 is the most common. Repeat clutches may be laid if the eggs are lost, but rarely if the newly hatched young disappear; the chance of renesting success is small since the breeding season is short (16). Incubation lasts approximately 35-40 days. The whistling swan -89- Whistling swan 3 requires from 5 to 6 years to reach maturity of size and plumage. It does not usually establish a breeding territory or breed until the fifth or sixth summer. The reproductive rate of these swans remains relatively constant; any increase or decrease in population is attributable to a change in mortality rate (16). in the absence of shooting, mortality primarily results from accidents, starvation, adverse weather and disease (16). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Good; the average captive life expectancy is 10.5 years (16). Some individuals have been recorded as living as long as 19 years (20). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Regular migrant and occasional winter visitant (10); fairly common migrant and rare winter visitor (12). 3. Questionnaire scores: B. Lauckhart 31/10 R. Parker 32/8 4. Due to currently increasing numbers within the state, status evaluation in Washington is satisfactory. Factors associated with decline, if any: Heavily persecuted in the past through- out the majority of its range; swan skins were a regular item of commerce at trading posts (7); taken by Eskimos for sport, food (both eggs and flesh) and the down. This species is particularly prone to lead poisoning from ingestion of shot (16). Resistance to human disturbance and development: It was not as decimated in earlier years as was the trumpeter swan because of its extreme wariness and the fact that it breeds in the far north. Whistling swans seldom come into shallow marshes where cover may hide the sportsman (19). The whistling swan is relatively resistant to human disturbance. Protective measures taken and response to management: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 closed the season on both of our native swans for a period of 10 years, after which swan hunting was subject to Federal regulation (20). In 1956 a limited swan hunting season was proposed in the Pacific Flyway. It was not until 1962 that -90- Whistling swan 4 the state of Utah, despite opposition, introduced a 90-day open season on whistling swans. 1,000 single bird permits were issued each year from 1962 to 1968. In 1969 the permits were increased to 2,500 in Utah, and Nevada was alloted 500 permits; followed in 1970 by Montana with 500 permits; making 3,500 total permits in 1970. Whistling swan hunting in Utah appears to have had little, if any, effect on the swan population (20). If the population does not decline from its current level of approximately 50,000 individuals in the Pacific Flyway, the limited take is biologically acceptable and any opposition to hunting must rest on other arguments (16). The whistling swan is classified as a migratory game bird in Washington, although not a hunted species. Management recommendations: Although it is a desirable game bird in some localities, the whistling swan should not be hunted in Washington. There are understandably strong objections to hunting whistling swans in regions where trumpeter swans (which represent an initial breeding stock in the state) might be present. The small breeding population of trumpeter swans in and near Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge requires total protection. Even snow goose (Chen caerulescens) hunting has been limited in ranges of the trumpeter swan (16) to guard agains misidentification by hunters. The number of whistling swans is not sufficiently great to warrant a hunting season within the state. Indiscriminate shooting must be eliminated through public awareness of valuable non-game species. The development of non-toxic shot pellets will reduce incidence of lead poisoning. In some localities, losses have been curtailed by the elimination of shooting over critical shallow water areas, by scaring swans away from areas where the hazard is greatest, and by the provision of food and grit in certain instances (16). Gun clubs often criticize protection of the whistling swan because it destroys quantities of valuable duck food. Although this is true, swans often facilitate growth of sedges by eating the roots of perennials that tend to crowd out this highly prized duck food (7). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 41:414-473. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Balmer, A. 1937. Whistling swan at Westport, Washington. Murrelet 18:29 3. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 11. Dover Publications, New York. -91- Whistling swan 5 4. Coues, E. 1893. History of the Expedition Under the Command of Lewis and Clark. 4 volumes. (secondarily from ref. 10) 5. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 8. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 9. Guiquet, C. J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Munro, J.A. and I. McT. Cowan. 1947. A Review of the Bird Fauna of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 14. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 15. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publication, New York. 16. Scott, P. and the Wildfowl Trust. 1972. The Swans. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 17. Sloanaker, J.L. 1925. Notes from Spokane. Condor 27:73-74. 18. Smith, I.D. and D.A. Blood. 1972. Native swans wintering on Vancouver Island over the period 1969-71. Canadian Field-Naturalist 86(3):213-216. 19. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 20. Van Wormer, J. 1972. The World of the Swan. J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia. 21. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 -92- Whistling swan 6 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth floor, 1601 Second Ave. Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard Parker Washington Department of Game 515 Pacific Place #2 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -93- TRUMPETER SWAN Common name: Trumpeter swan Scientific name: OZor buccinator Richardson Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Cygninae) Distinguishing characteristics: A very large bird; sexes similar. Adults: plumage entirely white, although occasionally stained with rust on neck and head. Legs, feet, and bill black; lores black without orange or yellow spot which usually is present on the whistling swan (Olor columbianus). The bill is usually longer and broader terminally than that of the whistling swan. Immatures: mostly gray and white; feet dull yellowish brown. Pink bill with black base and tip. In the field, the best means for distinguishing this species from the whistling swan is the voice. The voice of the trumpeter swan is considerably deeper and of a different quality. However, this distinction requires the observer to be familar with the calls of both species. Positive identification of collected specimens is made through examining the differences in convolutions of the windpipe in the breast bone; the trumpeter swan has a loop in the windpipe. Habitat: During the breeding season, it occurs on marshes, lakes, and large ponds. Banko (4) listed the specific physical features of the trumpeter swan's breeding habitat requirements: I. Stable water possessing a relatively static level, not exhibiting marked seasonal fluctuations; 2. Quiet waters of lake, marsh, or slough, not waters subject to obvious current or constant wave action; 3. Shallow waters of lakes or open marsh, not so deep as to preclude considerable digging and foraging for lower aquatic plant parts, roots, tubers, etc. During winter and migration, the trumpeter swan occurs on lakes, rivers, large sloughs, mouths of rivers, and bays along the coast. Marine shoreline areas are critical during severe winters when inland lakes are frozen. The nest is usually placed on a small island, muskrat house, or along the border -'I. Trumpeter swan 2 of a marshy freshwater lake or pond. Nests are large and bulky, constructed of grass and available vegetative material and lined with down. The trumpeter swan requires a certain amount of water space in individual breeding territories, and lack of this area is one of the principal factors limiting trumpeter swan reproduction (30). It feeds on roots, tubers, rhizomes, stems, and seeds of various aquatic plants. Animal matter, such as fish, mollusks, and insects, is consumed when available along with some grit. Former distribution: The trumpeter swan must have occurred commonly within nearly every region of what is now the United States (4). It bred formerly over a wide area of North America, from,- Alaska, northern Mackenzie, and James Bay south to British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri, and as far eastward as Indiana. The wintering grounds were also extensive, lying primarily along the Atlantic coast, along the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys and around the shores of the Gulf of Mexico (25). Present distribution: Breeds locally in southern Alaska, northern British Columbia, eastern Washington, central western Alberta, Oregon, eastern Idaho, southwestern Montana, and Wyoming; also northeastern Nevada and southern South Dakota. Presently, those individuals in the southern parts of the range are relatively non-migratory (13). Those in the northern parts of the range migrate to the coasts of southeastern Alaska, western British Columbia, and occasionally to Washington. In Washington, the trumpeter swan occurs throughout the state as a spring and fall migrant; it occasionally winters at the mouth of the Columbia River, in the bays and harbors along the coast, and in the Skagit Area (DeBay Slough Area, Barney Lake, Beaver Lake, Clear Lake and surrounding areas). Estimated numbers and population trends: The continental population o~f trumpeter swans may have been as low as 100 birds in 1916, and in 1961, perhaps as high as 1,500 (22). The population has increased to approximately 5,000 at the present time (25,30). Smith and Blood (27) suggest a wintering population of trumpeter swans on Vancouver Island to be near 1,000 birds. In Washington, 100+ trumpeter swans winter in the Skagit area (Game Department files) and another large flock winters at -95- Trumpeter swan 3 Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge files). The total number of trumpeter swans wintering at the mouth of the Columbia River and other areas in the state is unknown although Willapa National Wildlife Refuge trumpeter swans may frequent the lower Columbia River. The trumpeter swan definitely appears to be increasing in Washington (31). Breeding performance in the wild: 2 to 10 eggs per clutch; usually 4 to 6. Incubation is by the female and lasts approximately 32 to 33 days; one brood each year. Although the adult stage is assumed in the third year, it appears that they do not establish territories and breed until the fifth or sixth year. Reproductive rate of swans is relatively constant; any increase or decrease in the population is therefore attributed to a change in the rate of mortality (25). In the absence of shooting, the main causes of death among swans are accident, starvation, adverse weather, and disease (25). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Very good. In captivity the trumpeter swan produced second clutches when the original clutch was removed and artificially incubated, although eggs and clutch size are smaller (25). The average captive life expectancy of a trumpeter swan is 15.6 years; the maximum is 29 years (25). Status: 1. U.S.D.I. does not currently list status (1973); in 1968, it classified the trumpeter swan as an endangered species (3). 2. Considered a spring and fall migrant throughout the state (2); very rare migrant (19). 3. Questionnaire scores: R. Parker 34/8 B. Lauckhart 37/0 4. Status evaluation in Washington is potentially threatened; appears to be definitely increasing as a migrant and winter resident along the coast and would perhaps warrant a satisfactory status in the near future. Factors associated with decline, if any: The trumpeter swan was heavily harvested for its plumage during the fur-trading period. From 1820 to 1880 the Hudson's Bay Company sold 108,000 swan skins, most of which were trumpeter swan skins (3). The trumpeter swan was less wary than the whistling swan and flew in small groups -96- Trumpeter swan 4 along the shoreline, making it easy prey for the hunter. The trumpeter swan nested in what is now well-inhabited country and thus had to compete with agriculture for habitat. Death from lead-poisoning has been recorded. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because trumpeter swans depend on the availability of ice-free water during critical winter periods human dis- turbance of marine shoreline areas can be extremely detrimental to wintering swans. Estuarine areas can be greatly effected by industrial waste disposal, land fills, dredging, harbor development, log-booming activities, residential development, and other related causes (27). Protective measures taken and response to management: Passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act placed a closed hunting season on both species of native swans for the firsttime in 1918 (11). The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 authorized the acquisition of land for waterfowl refuges. Primarily through a successful program of protection and transplantation in theNational Wildlife ]efuge system, the preservation of the trumpeter swan was accomplished (12). As part of this program, in 1963 six pinioned birds were shipped from Red Rock lakes to Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge followed by 11 additional birds in 1964 and 20 birds in 1966 (18). Subsequently, nesting has occurred by both pinioned birds and free-flying birds (18). Nine National Wildlife Refuges in nine states have established breeding trumpeter swans (12). In more recent years the hunting seasons on snow geese (Chen caerulescens) have been closed in those states within the trumpeter swanis winter range to prevent waterfowl hunters from killing trumpeter swans. The trumpeter swan is classified as a migratory game bird in Washington but is not a hunted species. Management recommendations: Accurate means of censusing the trumpeter swan population in the state are necessary. This information, along with distributional data may then be used to define critical habitat areas. Trumpeter swan wintering habitat should be acquired in the Skagit area for both resting and feeding swans. Public viewing facilities should be provided which do not interfere with the daily routine of the swans. Indiscriminate shooting must be eliminated, perhaps through increased hunter awareness and interest. The development of non-toxic pellets to ease the problem of lead poisoning is highly important. In some localities, losses have been reduced by positioning -97- Trumpeter swan 5 of shooting zones relative to refuges; by the elimination of shooting over critical shallow areas; by scaring away of swans from these areas where the hazard is greatest; and by the provision of food and grit in certain instances. (25). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1968. A winter record of the trumpeter swan in western Washington. Condor 70:185. 2. Alcorn, G.G. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 3. Anonymous. 1968. Rare and Endangered Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publication 34, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. (taken secondarily from 17) 4. Banko, W.E. 1960. The Trumpeter Swan. North American Fauna No. 63. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 5. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part I1. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Bowles, H.H. 1916. A recent record of the trumpeter swan in the state of Washington. Condor 18:171. 7. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 8. Delacour, J. 1954. The Waterfowl of the World I. Country Life, London. 9. Edson, J.M. 1926. Trumpeter swan records from the State of Washington. Condor 18:171. 10. Edson, J.M. 1935. Some records supplementary to the distributional check-list of the birds of the state of Washington. Murrelet 16:11-14. 11. Fisher, J., N. Simon, and J. Vincent. 1969. Wildlife in Danger. Viking Press, New York. 12. Fjetland, C.A. 1974. Trumpeter swan management in the National Wildlife Refuge system. Transactions of the Thirty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Pp. 136-141. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 13. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 14. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. -98- Trumpeter swan 6 15. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 16. Hull, A.V. 1939. Trumpeter swans, their management and preservation. Transactions of the Fourth North American Wildlife Conference. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 378-382. 17. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 18. Johns, J.E. and C.W. Erickson. 1970. Breeding of free living trumpeter swans in northeastern Washington. Condor 72:377. 19. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 20. Marler, G. 1948. Is the trumpeter swan to remain only a refuge bird? National Parks Magazine 22:22-25. 21. Marshall, D.B. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon--ll. Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 22. Munro, D.A. 1962. Trumpeter swans. Canadian Audubon Magazine 24(3): 15-69. 23. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds: Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 24. Rue, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Crowell Co., New York. 25. Scott, P. and the Wildfowl Trust. 1972. The Swans. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 26. Schorger, A.W. 1964. The trumpeter swan as a breeding bird in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. Wilson Bulletin 76(4)331-338. 27. Smith, I.D. and D.A. Blood. 1972. Native swans wintering on Vancouver Island over the period 1969-71. Canadian Field-Naturalist 86(3):213-216. 28. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 29. Taylor, W.P. 1923. A review of records of the trumpeter swan in the State of Washington. Wilson Bulletin 35:137-38. 30. Van Wormer, J. 1972. The World of the Swan. J.B. Lippincott Co., New York. 31. Van Wormer, R.L. 1973. Trumpeter swans wintering in southwestern Washington. Western Birds 4(4):109-110. 32. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -99- Trumpeter swan 7 Persons interviewed Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor, 1601 - 2nd Ave. Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard Parker Washington Department of Game 515 Pacific Place #2 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Joe Welch Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Illwaco, Washington 98624 -100- Trumpeter swan 8 Other authorities: C.W. Erickson J.E. Johns R.L. Van Wormer Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. WESTERN CANADA GOOSE Common name: Western Canada goose Scientific name: Branta canadensis White cheeked Canada goose occidentalis Dusky Canada goose Baird Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Anserinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized subspecies of the Canada goose; sexes similar. Adults: head and neck black with large cheek patches, usually separated byblack on throat; a white ring occasionally present at the base of the neck. Upper part of body and wings brownish gray; each feather narrowly edged with lighter coloration on tip, producing a finely barred effect. Under body almost uniformly deep chocolate brown. Lower belly, including tail coverts, white. Bill and legs black. Immatures similar to adults. Habitat: Essentially a maritime goose which frequents coastal bays and harbors and which takes its food chiefly along tidal flats and nearby meadows. Nests are depressions in the ground and are lined with moss and down, located a short distance inland from the coast and often on islands. Its food consists of both vegetable and animal matter: grains, grass sprouts, marine vegetation, snails, minnows and tadpoles. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: The western Canada goose breeds within a restricted breeding area along the western Canadian coast, from Vancouver Island, British Columbia, to Prince William Sound, Alaska and winters as far south as western Oregon and northwestern California. In Washington the western Canada goose appears as a migrant and winter resident primarily along the immediate ocean coast and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. It occurs in the vicinity of Skagit Flats and as far south on Puget Sound as Nisqually Flats. A small breeding stock is currently being established at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (J. Welch, pers. comm. 1975). -102- Western canada goose 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: The total Pacific Flyway population of western Canada geese is approximately 25,000 birds (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: 4 to 10 eggs per clutch; usually 5 or 6. Incubation is usually by the female. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: The western Canada goose has been reared in captivity; no information on breeding potential. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare spring and fall migrant (7); migrant and winter visitor along the coast; its occurrence in western Washington is far more common than present information indicates (6). 3. Questionnaire scores: R. Parker 19/0 4. Status evaluation in Washington is satisfactory. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Breeding stock has been introduced at the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. This program was initiated to replace possible loss of breeding habitat on the Copper River delta, where breeding habitat may be lost due to a rise in elevation of the delta after the Alaskan earthquake (J. Welch, pers. comm. 1975). It is classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Detailed inventories should be made to determine population numbers of the western Canada goose. As confusion is probably involved in distinguishing subspecies, there is "lumping" of information in a single category: Canada goose. Research concerned with the biology and ecology of individual subspecies within the state should be undertaken, with consideration given to the merits of managing distinct populations. -103- Western canada goose 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 3. Delacour, J. 1954. Waterfowl of the World 1. Country Life, London. 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management INstitute, Washington, D.C. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 8. Munro, J.A. and I. McT. Cowan. 1947. A Review of the Bird Fauna of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoric, B.C. 9. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons Interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98242 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game -104- Western canada goose 4 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor. 1601 - 2nd Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard Parker Washington Department of Game 515 Pacific Place #2 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Joe Welch Willapa National Wildlife Refuge llwaco, Washington 98624 Other authorities: John Chattin Paul Springer Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE Common name: Aleutian Canada goose Scientific name: Branta canadensis leucopareia Brandt Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Anserinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A small subspecies of the Canada goose; sexes similar. Adults: head and neck black; a broad white band present at the base of the neck, usually followed by a dark brown band; back of neck often sprinkled with white feathers. A large white patch often on each cheek, but not always separated by a black gular band. Upper parts of body and wings relatively dark brown, the feathers tipped with brownish white; under body dark gray with paler feather tips, sides and flanks usually darkest; lower belly white. The bill is short and high, tapering and becoming narrow at the tip, the most pointed bill of any race of Canada goose, and black. Feet and legs black; "heavy" in appearance, Immatures are similar to adults. Habitat: There is little known about the specific habitat requirements of the Aleutian Canada goose. It is a grazer and assumed to frequent coastal salt and fresh water marshes and bays and adjacent fields during migration. Former distribution: The Aleutian Canada goose formerly bred on many of the Aleutian Islands, including Amchitka, Agattu, Attu, Semichi, Atka, Unalaska, Amlia, Adak, Kanaga, Tanaga, Kiska, and Buldir (2). It migrated to Japan and along the Pacific coast of North America to California. Its wintering range was reported to be in Japan and from British Columbia to California (1,4); although current records tend to show that wintering occurs primarily in California (10) and possibly Oregon(8). The Aleutian Canada goose formerly occurred during winter in British Columbia (6) but wintering records are lacking for Washington. Formerly, some birds are said to have wintered as far south as northwestern Mexico (7). Present distribution: Currently the Aleutian Canada goose is restricted during the breeding season to Buldir Island in the Aleutian Islands; however, 41 birds Aleutian canada goose 2 reared at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, were banded and released on Agattu Island in the spring of 1974 (10). The wintering range of the Aleutian goose is primarily restricted to limited locations in California and Japan. It appears that the Aleutian Canada goose migrates south along the coast from southern British Columbia to northern California during the period from October to December (10). There has been one specimen collected in Washington, in mid-November 1971, at Willapa Bay (2). Estimated numbers and population trends: In 1973 the population was estimated to be between 250 and 300 individuals (2), which was a marked reduction from former years. Observations in the fall of 1974 at Buldir Island of the ratio of banded to unbanded birds revealed a revised estimated population of 580 Aleutian Canada geese not including the 41 birds reared at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and released on Agattu Island (3). Observations made on the spring migration areas in California by P. Springer (9) in 1975 revealed an estimated peak population of 790 birds. Breeding performance in the wild: 4 or 5 young are raised per clutch each year in the wild (2). Number in captivity: There are 104 Aleutian Canada geese at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and 32 on loan to zoos and other selected cooperators (2). The average clutch size in captivity is 6 eggs (2). Breeding potential in captivity: Excellent (2); formerly commonly kept in Japan. Status: 1. U.S.D.I. lists the Aleutian Canada goose as an endangered species. 2. Considered quite rare (9); listed as an endangered species in Oregon (8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Due to the limited number of sightings and collect specimens in the state, the status evaluation in Washington is unknown. If, however, current work better defines the migration route of this species and illustrates regular occurrence of the Aleutian Canada goose in Washington, then the status evaluation would change to threatened with extinction due to the -107- Aleutian canada goose 3 low population numbers. With the information now available it is difficult to ascertain the role Washington takes in the migration of the Canada goose. Factors associated with decline, if any: Indiscriminate killing by natives (4) and predation by introduced Arctic foxes on the breeding grounds (2,4) have resulted in a greatly reduced population of Aleutian Canada goose. The introduction of rats has been a possible contributing factor (2). Neither foxes nor rats were introduced on Buldir Island because of its relative inaccessibility, which is assumed to be the reason for the survival of the goose breeding population in this area (2). Wintering populations of Aleutian Canada geese in Japan were also decimated (4). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Attempts have been made to eliminate Arctic foxes and rats from islands formerly used as nesting localities. This has been followed by the introduction of breeding stock from available captive stock. 75 birds of three age classes were reintroduced to Amchitka Island in spring of 1971 of which there have been no confirmed recoveries to date (1973) from this release (2). 41 birds were banded and released on Agattu Island in the spring of 1974 with subsequent recoveries and observations of banded individuals near the Crescent City area in California (10). Captive breeding programs are in progress and are being continued. Banding studies of Buldir Island birds have been conducted with subsequent recoveries and observations made in California (10, P. Springer, pers. comm. 1975). Management recommendations: Of primary importance is correct identification of the Aleutian Canada goose; confusion arises in distinguishing this subspecies from other Canada geese and leads to difficulty in ascertaining its distribution outside of the Aleutian Islands. Continued banding studies are necessary to develop an understanding of the migration pattern and thus to better ascertain the occurrence of the Aleutian Canada goose in Washington. Field observations of banded birds should be carefully done so as to record the color, leg of banding and the band number if possible. The 1974 spring banded birds were banded with blue or orange bands (10). Game department personnel should be aware of the possible occurrence of the Aleutian Canada goose while making routine game checks. Aleutian canada goose 4 Research, coordinated with federal authorities, should be undertaken to determine the status of this subspecies in Washington and the hunter impact, if any, on the population. References: 1. American Ornithologist's Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 5th ed. Port City Press, Baltimore. (secondarily from 10) 2. Anonymous. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Pub]. 114. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 3. Byrd, C.V., J.L. Trapp, C.S. Craighead, C.P. Dau, and M.H. Dick. 1974. Progress report on restoration of Aleutian Canada geese in the Aleutian Islands, 1974. Aleutian Islands Natl. Wildl. Refuge (secondarily from 10). 4. Delacour, J. 1954. Waterfowl of the World 1. Country Life, London. 5. Erickson, R.C. 1968. A federal research program for endangered wildlife. Transactions of the Thirty-Third North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Hansen, H.A. and H.K. Nelson 1964. Honkers large and small. Pp. 109- 124. In J.P. Linduska (ed.) Waterfowl Tomorrow. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. (secondarily from 10). 8. Marshall, D.E. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon-Ill. Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Springer, F. 1975. Report on observations of Aleutian Canada Geese in northern coastal California, spring 1975. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Department of Biology University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 -109- Aleutian canada goose 5 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor. 1601 - 2nd Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Seivert Rohwer Washington State Museum University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Paul F. Springer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Research Station Humboldt State University Arcata, California 95521. Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. AMERICAN BRANT Common name: American brant Scientific name: Branta bernicla hrota Muller Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Anserinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A small dark goose with short neck; sexes similar. Adults: head, neck, and chest black contrasting with lighter belly; white crescent-shaped mark on both sides of neck. Back and uppers sides of wings brown with the margins of the feathers paler; wing tips blackish. Rump and tail black with white tail coverts. Belly and sides brownish gray with paler feather tips, giving a barred effect to the flanks; bill and legs black (4). Immatures are similar in appearance but lack the white neck mark. Habitat: The brant occurs mainly along salt water bays, shores, and tidal flats during spring and fall migrations and throughout the winter; concentrates in areas of eelgrass (4). It also occurs inland occasionally on large bodies of fresh water and cultivated fields. During the summer months it occurs on arctic coastal islands and primarily near the coast on river deltas, broad river valleys, vegetated uplands, and tundra lakes (4). Nests are on the ground and are situated either in loose colonies or singly; either a depression in the ground or loose mound of moss and lichens,'well lined with down. The American brant feeds mainly on aquatic vegetation; primarily eelgrass, also sea lettuce. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Breeds on the Arctic coasts of northern Eurasia and North America, overlapping the breeding range of the closely related black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans). It winters in the United States east of the Mississippi River; primarily on the Atlantic coast from New Jersey south to North Carolina. A few individuals winter along the Pacific coast from Vancouver Island, British Columbia to California; usually associated with the black brant. -11l- American brant 2 In Washington there have been scattered sightings and collected specimens from western Washington coastal waters. The American brant probably occurs rarely but regularly wherever black brant congregate (12). Estimated numbers and population trends: Once greatly reduced in population, it is now regaining its former numbers on the east coast of the United States. Numbers occurring in Washington each year are unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 8 eggs per clutch: usually 4 to 5. Incubation is by the female and lasts from 22 to 26 days; usually 23 or 24 (4). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a casual migrant (5); accidental in western Washington in fall and winter. 3. Questionnaire scores: R. Parker 20/5 4. Due to its irregular occurrence and lack of information in the state the American brant's status in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: In the 1930's the population of the American brant on the Atlantic coast was greatly reduced due to inadequate eel- grass production. Gradually the eelgrass recovered; followed by a corresponding growth in the brant population. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management pol ici'es for the American brant should correspond with those of the black brant. Whether classified as separate species or as subspecies, the American brant and black brant are of satisfactory status in their corresponding ranges; difficulty in proper identification in the field make the separation of these two brants impractical. Any sightings American brant 3 or collected specimens should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. Better methods should be developed in the inventory counts of black brant to determine the percentage of American brant present; this would lead to a better understanding of the status of the American brant in Washington. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Edson, J.M. 1935. Some records supplementary to the distributional check-list of the birds of the state of Washington. Murrelet 16:11-14. 3. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 4. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 5. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 6. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 7. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 8. Lloyd, H. 1937. Canadian eomment on waterfowl, 1936. Pp. 180-183. Transactions of the Second North American Wildlife Conference. American Wildlife Institue, Washington, D.C. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guid to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 11. Rue, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Crowell Co., New York. 12. Wilbur, S.R. and C.E. Yocum. Unusual geese in the Pacific coast state. Murrelet 52:16-19. 13. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 American brant 4 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501. Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor. 1601 - 2nd Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard Parker Washington Department of Game 515 Pacific Place #2 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. EMPEROR GOOSE Common name: Emperor goose Scientific name: Philacte canagica Sewastianov Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Anserinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A small gray goose; sexes similar. Adults: head and back of neck white; chin and throat brownish black. Remainder of plumage silvery gray except for white tail; each feather has a blackish subterminal bar and a white tip, creating a barred effect. Feet and legs are orange yellow. Bill small and not greatly elevated at base; pale yellow or flesh colored. Immatures are similar to adults but not as distinctly marked and have dusky, white- speckled head and neck. Habitat: Primarily maritime in habit, seldom leaving the shoreline area; occurs in marshes and tundra during the summer. The nests are usually located near water, either near the bank of a pond, on an island, or on a tundra tussock in a wet marshy place near the sea. Nests are hollows or depressions in the ground usually lined with moss, grass and down. Feeds mainly on animal material, including mussels, clams and other shellfish which are exposed by low tides on beaches and mudflats; occasionally feeds on vegetable matter. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeds on the coast of north-western Alaska, north-eastern Siberia, and on some islands in the Bering Sea. Winters primarily on the Aleutian Islands and along the coast of southern Alaska and as far south on the Pacific coast as California. Washington appears to be a peripheral winter range of the emperor goose. There are several records of sightings and collected specimens in the state: collected at Stanwood, 1922 (8); collected at Padilla Bay, around 1923 (8); sighted and photographed at Lake Union, Seattle, 1947-48 (14); -115- Emperor goose 2 sighted on Puget Sound near Harper, 1964 (16); sighted at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, 1969 (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge files); sighted on Cowlitz River, 1972 (Game Department files); and observed in the vicinity of the Skagit Wildlife Recreation Area (Game Department files). Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 8 eggs per clutch; usually 5 or 6. Incubation lasts for 24-25 days. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Breeding potential is unknown but it has been propagated. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare but regular winter visitor along the Pacific coast (15); casual along the ocean coast in winter, and in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound (1); rare winter visitant () 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington unknown; a peripheral species. Ear~tors-associated with decline, if any: Larcie numbers are killed every year and eggs taken by the natives on the breeding grounds (2), the total effect of which is unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the emperor goose are unwarranted in Washington due to its limited occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. -116- Emperor goose 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Bioloqy Deoartment. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Dawson, W. L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C.Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publication, New York. 6. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 8. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Birds and Mammal Society, Seattle. 10. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 12. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 14. Tirre, W.J. 1947. The emperor goose at Seattle, Washington. Murrelet 28:41. 15. Wilbur, S.R. and C.E. Yocom. 1971. Unusual geese in the Pacific coast states. Murrelet 52:16-19. 16. Wotton, M. 1964. Emperor goose in Washington. Murrelet 45:29. 17. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Emperor goose 4 Persons interviewed Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey 1023 E. Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Other authorities: John E. Chattin Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. ROSS'S GOOSE Common name: Ross's goose Scientific name: Chen rossii Cass in Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Anserinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A small white goose; sexes similar. Adults: mainly white plumage; wing tips black, grayish at base. Bill pinkish with warty protuberances at base (may.-be lacking in some females). Legs and feet pink. Immatures are similar to adults but are grayer; lack warty protuberances F ~~at base of bill. Habitat: During the breeding season the Ross's goose frequents tundra, flood plain marshes of rivers and low islands of fresh water lakes (7). In migration it occurs on large lakes, ponds, marshes, grainfields, prairies, and bays. The Ross's goose is a colonial nester (7) on islands in shallow lakes estimated to be 2 to I feet deep; the shallow water being necessary to allow for an early spring melt and subsequent protection from arctic foxes reaching the islands via ice bridges (14). Suitable nesting islands are described by Ryder (14) as rising about 10-20 feet above the lake surface and not flooding during the spring break up and as providing nest material, cover, and food during the incubation period because incubating pairs seldom leave the nesting islands and are largely dependent on island vegetation for food. The present colony distribution may reflect the availability of islands in shallow lakes (14). The nest proper varies from a hollow in the ground lined with down to considerable sized mounds of moss, grass and other material. The Ross's goose feeds primarily on sedges and grasses; also seeds, grain, and aquatic plants. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: It breeds very locally in the Canadian low Arctic (7), occurring along the Perry River. During migration the Ross's goose passes Ross's goose 2 through Alberta, southwestern Saskatchewan, western Montana, Idaho, south- eastern Oregon and northeastern California. It winters primarily in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys of California; but also in Ventura and Orange counties further south. Washington is situated west of the main flyway of the Ross's goose. Wandering migrants, usually singles, have occurred in scattered locations in eastern Washington. Estimated numbers and population trends: During the early 1950's population estimates of the Ross's goose indicated a total of 2,000 birds (9,10). In 1958, Munro (11) suggested that the population had increased to 10,000 birds.I Estimates by Dzubin (4) in 1965, based on censuses on the wintering grounds in California, placed the total population at around 31,880 individuals; although he stated that the continental population may have been as high as 44,000. Unless mortality in migration and on the wintering grounds limits them, further expansion of the Ross's goose population can be expected (14). Breeding performance in the wild: 2 to 9 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Incubation lasts for a period of 24 days (7) and it is unlikely that Ross's geese renest (11). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: The Ross's goose lives and breeds well in captivity. Incubation while in captivity has been recorded as 21 days (7) and the clutch size as 3 to 5 eggs (6). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a wandering migrant in eastern Washington (1). 3. Questionnaire scores; no response. 4. Due to the limited number of observations and collected specimens of Ross's goose in Washington the status evaluation is unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: There has been heavy human (Eskimo) predation in the past. -120- Ross's goose 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: Breeding grounds are isolated and thus relatively secure from disturbance. Protective measures taken and response to management: Although a protected bird from 1931 to 1963 small numbers of Ross's geese were taken inadvertently by hunters, both on the Canadian prairies and on the California wintering grounds (4). In all, the illegal, and now legal, hunting take has had little apparent effect on depressing the "indicated" rise of the Ross's goose population over the past six years (4). It is classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the Ross's goose would be unwarranted in Washington due to its irregular occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 41:414-473, Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 11. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Delacour, J. 1954. Waterfowl of the World 1. Country Life, London. 4. Dzubin, A. 1965. A study of migrating Ross geese in Western Saskatchewan. Condor 67(6):511-534. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 9. Hanson, H.C., P.Queneau and F. Scott. 1956. The geography, birds and mammals of the Perry River region. Arctic Inst. N. Amer., Spec. Publ. no. 3:96 pp. (secondarily from 14). 10. Lloyd, H. 1952. Bird protection in Canada. Bull. Intern. Comm. Bird Protection 6:122-124. (secondarily from 14). Ross's goose 4 11. Munro, D.A. 1958. Bird protection in Canada. Bull. Intern. Comm. Bird Protection 7:230-232. (secondarily from 14). 12. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 13. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 14. Ryder, J.P. 1969. Nesting colonies of Ross's goose. Auk 86(2):282-292. 15. Wilbur, S.R. and C.E. Yocum. 1971. Unusual geese in the Pacific coast states. Murrelet 52:16-19. 16. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor. 1601 - 2nd Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Other authorities: Paul Springer Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. NORTHERN FULVOUS TREE DUCK Common name: Fulvous tree duck Scientific name: Denrocygna bicolor hehva Wetmore and Peters Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Dendrocygninae Distinguishing characteristics: Very long-legged duck; sexes similar. Adults: head, neck, breast and' underparts uniformly rich yellowish brown, becoming lighter on throat and darkening on the crown and hindneck. Front and sides of upper neck are dull white and streaked with brown. Shoulders, reddish brown or chestnut; back and wings dark brown, with rust-tipped feathers; flanks have creamy white stripes. Tail is brown with white coverts above and below. Bill dark gray, almost F ~black; legs are bluish gray and extend beyond end of tail. Imatures are similar to adults, but without the reddish brown on shoulders. Habitat: Primarily occurs on fresh water marshes and irrigated land. During migration it occasionally occurs on brackish water along the coast. Nests are usually placed in reeds or grass at the margins of swamps and ponds and are constructed of grass and twigs, lined with down. Sometimes they are in holes in trees lined with feathers and down. It feeds primarily at night on vegetable matter: grasses, seeds, grain, and acorns. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: This species normally occurs in the southwestern part of the United States and south to South America; it also occurs in eastern Africa, India, and Ceylon. The principal breeding areas are in central and southern California and Mexico, and also in southern Nevada. It winters in the southern part of its range; rarely in southern United States. There are two records of specimens collected in the state of Washington; one was -123- Northern fulvous tree duck 2 shot on the Columbia River above Okanogan (6,10) and a specimen was collected on Grays Harbor, 17 miles from Aberdeen (from a flock of 10 birds) (4,6,10). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered accidental on the Pacific coast (7,1,6); listed on the Blue List (2). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbances and development: A very shy species. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Due to its accidental occurrence management policies for the northern fulvous tree duck are unwarranted in Washington. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Arbib, R. 1974. The blue list for 1975. American Birds 28(6):969-1064. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. -124- Northern fulvous tree duck 3 6. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 8. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 9. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 10. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: None. Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -125- BLACK DUCK Common name: Black duck Scientific name Anas rubripes Brewster Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Anatinae) Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to a very dark brown, nearly black female mallard. Adults: crown, nape and line through eye dark brown. Rest of head brownish gray, finely streaked with a dusky hue. The body is primarily dark brown; feathers have buffy borders. Wing patch purple, bordered in front and behind by black, the hindbar often has a very narrow white edge. Wing linings are white. Feathers on sides of breast of male and female usually differ; the buffy interior markings are u-shaped in males and v-shaped in females. Bill greenish yellow in male, more olive in female and often blotched with a dusky color. Legs reddish, orange or greenish. Immatures are similar to adults but the bill and feet are duller; underparts are more streaky; breast feathers lack u- or v-shaped markings (5). Habitat: The black duck frequents both salt and fresh water. It inhabits margins of lakes, ponds, pools, quiet streams, coves, bays, mudflats, marshes, irrigated land, grain fields, and open water (5). In coastal areas during times of considerable hunting pressure, black ducks spend their daylight hours on the open water or exposed mudflats. During the evening they fly into the grain stubbles or fresh water marshes to feed at night. Even when undisturbed in late summer, they are inclined to be more active in the evening than at other times (5). Both dry and wet woodland is utilized for nesting. Nests are placed on the ground in marshes, swamps or fields bordering a pond or lake; often in wooded areas, occasionally distant from water. The nest is usually concealed in low grass or reeds and is made of weeds, grass and moss well-lined with down. The black duck feeds on aquatic insects and their larvae, salamanders, tadpoles, frogs, leeches, various worms, mollusks and snails; also, the seeds of aquatic -126- Black duck 2 and land plants, roots of water plants, and grain. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, but more closely associated with east coast of the United States. Present distribution: The black duck is an eastern species, generally not found west of the Great Lakes. It breeds from northern Manitoba east to Labrador and Newfoundland and south to northern Minnesota, Wisconsion, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and eastern Virginia. In winter it is found from southeastern Canada to the lower Rio Grande Valley in southeastern Texas, the Gulf states, Florida, and Bermuda (5). The black duck has spread westward in recent years. There are several isolated reports of the black duck in Washington including a female collected 2 miles north of Port Ludlow, Jefferson County on October 30, 1946 (7) and a sighting of one individual on August 17, 1949 on an alkaline marsh near Texas Lake, Whitman County (11). Estimated numbers and population trends: Numbers appear to bib increasing in the western states, including Washington. Breeding performance in the wild: 6 to 12 eggs per clutch with 8 to 10 eggs being the average. Incubation lasts from 26 to 28 days. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Black ducks do well in captivity, but they often remain wild and are little inclined to est (4). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. Considered accidental in western Washington (I); mainly a straggler west of 1000 (8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. -127- Black duck 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: A very adaptable species to a variety of habitats. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the black duck are unwarranted in Washington due to its accidental occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. There are indications that the black dock may increase in numbers, and, if so, research on available habitat, food and space should be undertaken to assess possible competitive impacts on other species. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. American Ornithologists' Union. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part I. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Delacour, J. 1956. The Waterfowl of the World Vol. II. Country Life, London. 5. Godfrey, W.T. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 6. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Lauckhart, J. B. 1949. Blcak duck taken in Washington State. Murrelet 30:20. 8. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 9. Pough, R.H. 1957. Audubon Western Bird Guide. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York. 10. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 11. Taverner, P.A. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 12. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -128- Black duck 4 Persons Interviewed: Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -129- EUROPEAN WIGEON Common name: European wigeon Scientific name: Anas penelope Red-headed wigeon Linnaeus Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Anatinae) Distinguishing charactistics: Adult male: head and neck rusty red with creamy buff-colored forehead and crown; breast is light pinkish brown. Back, rump and sides are gray, finely crossed with wavy black lines; speculum green bordered by black, and bordered above by a large white patch. Belly white; under tail coverts and sides of upper tail coverts black. Bill is bluish gray with black tip; feet pale bluish gray with dusky webs. Adult female: head and neck creamy, heavily streaked with a dusky coloration; breast, sides, and back mottled with buff and a dusky color. Speculum dark gray or black. Bill and feet duller than those of the male. Immatures are similar to adult female. Habitat: The wigeon frequents fresh water marshes, lakes, ponds and irrigated land; also occurs on brackish and salt water in bays and on tide flats. Its mests are generally located on dry ground in the vicinity of freshwater sloughs, ponds, and marshy borders of lakes. They are constructed of available grasses, reeds, and weeds, and are lined with down. Wigeons feed primarily on vegetable matter such as green weeds, grass, aquatic vegetation and seeds; occasionally eats animal matter. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribtuion: The European wigeon is an Old World duck which breeds in Iceland and across northern Europe and northern Asia. It winters south to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Into-China, Formosa, and Japan (12); occurs regularly throughout most of North America. It is speculated by Hasbrouck (13) that the European wigeon breeds in Arctic America and migrates through North America (6). -130- European wigeon 2 In Washington the European wigeon occurs throughout the state, primarily west of the Cascade Mountains; occurs most commonly along the ocean coast and Puget Sound as a migrant. Most individuals seem toappear in late December and in the company of the American wigeon (Anas americana) (17). Estimated numbers and population trends: Total population numbers are unknown; apparently has been increasing slightly in numbers within the state for the last 20 years (17). Breeding performance in the wild: 6to 12 eggs per clutch; usually 7 or 8; incubation lasts from 24 to 25 days. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Excellent. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. Considered a rare winter visitior (16); regular winter visitor in western Washington (1); irregular fall, winter and spring visitor on both salt and fresh water throughout the state (17); casual autumn and winter visitant in the Puget Sound area (14). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The European wigeon appears to be of satisfactory status, but due to limited occurrence within the state, the status evaluation in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: An accurate census is needed to determine the -131- European wigeon 3 population of European wigeon in Washington. This species is probably more numerous on the coasts of North America than records indicate(17). Small numbers of the European wigeon are often overlooked when associated with American wigeon, thus any sightings or collected specimens should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. 0cc. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Bowles, H. H. 1915. European wigeon in Washington. Auk 32:225. 4. Bowles, H.H. 1916. Another record of the Wigeon in the state of Washington. Condor 18:129. 5. Bowles, H.H. 1918. Two more records for the wigeon in Washington. Condor 20:93 6. Bowles, H.H. 1931. The European wigeon on the Nisqually Flats near Tacoma, Washington. Murrelet 12:21-22. 7. Cannon, V. 1947. European wigeon and European teal at Seattle, Washington. Murrelet 28:13. 8. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 9. Delacour, J. 1956. The Waterfowl of the World Volume 11. Country Life, London. 10. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 11. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 12. Godfrey, W.E. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 13. Hasbrouck, E.N. 1944. Apparent status of the European wigeon in North America. Auk. 61:93-104. 14. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 15. Kempkes, J.A. 1933. European wigeon taken at Everett, Washington, Murrelet 14:15. -132- European wigeon 4 16. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 17. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 18. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 19. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 20. Swanson, C.V. 1949. Sight record of European wigeon in Eastern Washington, Murrelet 30:40. 21. Warburton, S. 1917. Another record of the European wigeon from the State of Washington. Condor 19:142. 22. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington State Department of Game 9410 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 -133- European wigeon 5 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -134- REDHEAD Common name: Redhead Scientific name: Aythya americana Pocha rd Eyton Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: Adult male: large rounded head, entirely chestnut colored; upper neck chestnut. Breast, lower neck, shoulders, rump, upper and tail coverts black. Sides and back are uniform gray with narrow white border. Bill pale blue with white ring behind black tip; legs and feet bluish-gray. Adult female: plumage dull brown except for dark brown crown and back, whitish brown coloration under chin, white belly, and-pale streak behind eye. Bill and feet duller than adult male. Immatures are similar to adult females, but grayer and more mottled. Habitat: Found primarily along the shallow margins of fresh water lakes and marshes. When occurring on coastal areas during migration, it prefers lowland freshwater lakes and ponds; occurs on brackish ponds and salt water estuaries. Typical wintering areas are large bodies of water along the coast, well protected from heavy wave action (20). Salt water habitats become more important during the day when redheards are continually disturbed by man. The nest is usually situated among emergent vegetation of shallow water, but sometimes on dry land. The nest generally is a bulky structure built of grasses, reeds, and weeds, deeply hollowed and lined with down. The redhead feeds primarily on vegetable matter: grass, acorns, wild rice, wild celery, and roots and bulbs of aquatic plants. Occasionally it consumes animal matter: tadpoles, small fishes, insects and snails. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: North America. Breeds in western North America from central British Columbia, central Saskatchewan, and central Manitoba South to central and southwestern California, central Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, southern Colorado, Redhead 2 Nebraska, southern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Winters primarily in central and southern United States and Mexico; a small number winter as far north as British Columbia. The redhead is a migrant and summer resident east of the Cascade Mountains and a migrant in western Washington; may occasionally winter within the state (21). It breeds in eastern and particularly northeastern Washington. Estimated numbers and population trends: Although populations increased in the 1940's it appears that the population has recently declined. The redhead is the most abundant nester of the diving ducks in eastern Washington (21). Breeding performance in the wild: 6 to 22 eggs per clutch; usually 10 to 15. One brood is reared each year; incubation is 22 to 24 days by the female. The breeding season is May. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: The redhead is most satisfactory in confinement (5). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an uncommon to rare migrant and summer resident (14); common migrant and summer resident (11); migrant and scarce breeder in eastern Washington, regular but not abundant migrant throughout the state (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: R. Parker 47113 4. Due to a lack of information, the status evaluation in Washington is unknown. The status is probably satisfactory relative to the available habitat but habitat is restricted and if it continues to decline its status could become potentially threatened. Factors associated with decline, if any: Remarkably tame. (I1). The breeding range is entirely within the confines of civilization, and the use of much of this habitat for agricultural purposes is said to account for the comparatively small populations of the present day (10). Habitat is often destroy'ed through land reclamation projects, through erosion from farm. landi into lakes and ponds which has caused lower productivity of aquatic plants; and through the introduction -136- Redhead 3 of carp (Game Department files). The redhead has suffered from drought in some areas (8). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: The increase in numbers of redheads in the 1940's can be accounted for, at least partly, by the protection given these birds by both state and federal laws and regulations, as well as by the establishment of waterfowl refuges where larger amounts of suitable breeding habitat were created (11). It is classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Yearly census of both migratory and native breeding redheads should be continued, as there is a definite need to more closely evaluate its status. The possibility of increasing breeding habitat in the state should be considered, including restrictions on land reclamation projects. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 41:414-472. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Delacour, J. 1959. The Waterfowl of the World 111. Country Life, London. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. 1937. The work of the Biological Survey. Pp. 145-158. Transactions of the Second North American Wildlife Conference. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 8. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 9. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. -137- Redhead 4 10. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 11. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle 12. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 13. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 14. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 15. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 16. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 17. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 18. Shillinger, J.E. and C.C. Cottam. 1937. The importance of lead poisoning in waterfowl. Pp. 398-403. Transactions of the Second North American Wildlife Conference. American Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C. 19. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 20. Weller, M.W. 1964. Distribution and migration of the redhead. Journal of Wildlife Management 28(l):64-103. 21. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Burton Lauckhart Department of Biology Washington Department of Game University of Puget Sound 3502 Pacific Avenue Tacoma, Washington 98416 Olympia, Washington 98501 Douglas A. Bellingham Richard Lichtenberg Washington Department of Game Fish and Wildlife Service 9510 Odin Way Tenth Floor. 1601 - 2nd Ave. Bothell, Washington 98011 Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game Richard Parker 1023 East Utsalady Road Washington Department of Game Stanwood, Washington 98292 515 Pacific Place #2 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Redhead 5 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -139- RING-NECKED DUCK Common name: Ring-necked duck Scientific name: Aythya collaris Donovan Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characterisitics: Adult male: feathers on crown rather long and erect, giving head triangular shape. Head and neck black; chin white; neck encircled by narrow chestnut collar. Back, scapulars, rump, upper and under tail coverts, tail, and breast black; belly white. Sides and flanks white, crossed by fine black lines gining a gray effect; conspicuous vertical white mark immediately in from of folded wing. Wings black with pearl gray speculum. Black-tipped blue bill, crossed with white ring at base and near tip. Adult female: head, neck and upper parts dull brown, darkest on crown; throat, area behind bill, and narrow eye ring white. Wing has pearl gray speculum as in male. Breat and sides brown with paler coloration on edges of feathers; belly white. Immatures are similar to adult females. Habitat: Seldom occurs on open water; prefers shallow margins of fresh water marshes, sloughs, ponds, lakes, bogs and sedge meadows; frequents larger bodies of wateriand rivers during winter, although remains close to marshy shores. Occasionally occurs on tidal estuaries and bays; prefers fresh or brackish water to strictly salt water. Builds a low nest of rushes, grasses and other available material just above the water level on low vegetated margins of bogs, ponds and sloughs; lined with dry grass and down. Diet consists of both animal and vegetable matter; aquatic vegetation, grains, seeds, mollusks, crayfish, snails, frogs, minnows, and various insects. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeds from cental and southern interior British Columbia eastward through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and southward to Washington, Michigan, northeastern New York, northern Vermont, central New Hampshire, andsouthern Maine, with isolated or sporadic breeding south to -140- Ring-necked duck 2 southern Oregon, northeastern Nevada, northwestern Montana, southern Colorado, central Nebraska, northwestern Indiana, northwestern Pennsylvania, and eastern Mass chusetts (7). Winters mainly from southern United States northward along the Pacific coast to British Columbia and along the Atlantic coast to Massachu- setts south through Mexico to Guatemala, and in the West Indies. Spring and fall migrant thoughout the state; winter resident west of the Cascade Mountains, along the lower Columbia River, and occasionally in eastern Washington; scattered summer resident and breeder primarily in eastern Washington, although found breeding west of the Cascade Mountains. Estimated numbers and population trends: The ri ng-necked duck has apparently I ~increased in numbers in Washington during recent years (1953) (9). Breeding performance in the wild: 6 to 14 eggs per clutch; usually 8 or 9. Breeds in June with incubation by the female lasting from 25 to 29 days. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Well represented in zoos and private collections although breeding potential unknown. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a fairly common migrant and winter resident (9); fairly common, though irregular, migrant and winter visitor, scattered summer resident and breeder (10); spring and fall migrant throughout the state, casual breeder (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: Carroll Rieck 10/78 (applicable to western Washington) 4. The status in Washington is satisfactory, but breeding population in coastal Washington has an unknown status. Factor associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: No information. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. -141- Ring-necked duck 3 Management recommentations: Studies should be undertaken to evaluate the breeding status and needs of the ring-necked duck in Washington. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 42: 474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma 37pp 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part I. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Delacour, J. 1954. Waterfowl of the World I. Country Life, London. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington D.C. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York.. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum , Victoria, British Columbia. 9. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shwaw, and J. W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 10. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 11. Martinsen, C.F. and C.A. Rieck. 1963. Sight records of ring-necked duck broods in western Washington. Murrelet 44:14-15. 12. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 13. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 14. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 15. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Breeding status of the ring-necked ducks in Washington. Condor 53:47-48. 16. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -142- Ring-necked duck 4 Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey. Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Carroll A. Rieck Washington Department of Game 600 No. Capital Way Olympia, Washington 98466 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -143- CANVASBACK Common name: Canvasback Scientific name: Aythya valisineria Can Wilson Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A large diving duck with long, sloping head profile. Adult male: head and neck chestnut brown, darkening on crown, base of bill, and throat. Shoulders and chest black; back, scapulars, and sides light gray. Rump and tail coverts black; tail blackish. Belly white: hind part grayish. Bill black, legs and feet grayish blue. Adult female: primarily umber brown; nearly white on chin, throat, and around eye; becoming darkest on crown and back of neck. Belly white, mottled with grayish brown. Immatures similar to adult female. Habitat: During the summer canvasbacks occur primarily on fresh water; preferring the deeper water of marshes, larger sloughs, and lakes with pondweed and vegetated margins (10). During migration and winter the canvasback frequents salt and brackish water bays, inlets, and estuaries, as well as larger lakes and sluggish parts or large rivers where open water is found. Nests are generally located in shallow water along the marshy edges of lakes and ponds and are well concealed by vegetation. The nest is usually a bulky structure of available marsh vegetation; the shallow depression in the top is lined with down. The canvasback feeds on both vegetable and animal matter: pondweeds, eelgrass, and other aquatic plants; small fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, marine worms and insects. During the salmon spawning season they are reported to feed on decaying fishes (12). Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: The canvasback breeds in western North America from east central Alaska and western continental Canada, southeastward to central Manitoba, -144- Canvasback 2 southwestern Ontario, and Wisconsin and south to northeastern California, northern Utah, northern Colorado, central western Nevada and western Minnesota. It winters from southern British Columbia, northwestern Montana and northern Colorado south to the Gulf States and Mexico. The canvasback is a migrant throughout the state. It occurs as a winter resident in the Puget Sound region, in sheltered waters along the coast, on the lower Columbia River and occasionally on open waters of lakes and rivers in eastern Washington; occasionally occurs in eastern Washington as a summer resident and breeder. Shallow, muddy bays such as Padilla and Samish Bays in northeastern Puget Sound, appear to be important canvasback habitat (L. Salo, pers. comm. 1975 and R. Jeffrey, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: The canvasback population is greatly reduced from that of former days (Game Department files), but it has never been an abundant species in Washington (5,14). Possibly, the canvasback is a cyclic species, as it has a history of population fluctuations (G. Alcorn, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: 6 to 10 eggs per clutch. The breeding season occurs in May and June with incubation ranging from 23 to 28 days; usually 24. Incubation is by the female; one brood is raised per year. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Canvasbacks do well in captivity and breed occasionally if sufficient water and space is given to them (6). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a migrant and winter resident, breeds sparingly (12); fairly common migrant and winter visitor, uncommon summer resident and breeder (15); migrant and winter resident, casual breeder (1); although far from being a rare bird, the canvasback has suffered seriousdecline in recent years and should be watched carefully; thus it should be added to the Blue List(3). 3. Questionnaire scores: R. Parker 48/9 4. The status evaluation in Washington is apparently satisfactory; the -145- Canvasback 2 canvasback should be observed closely in the future, as its status could become potentially threatened with continual loss of critical habitat. Factors associated with decline: The principle cause of reduced numbers in canvasback populations is the loss of habitat; erosion from farmed land has muddied ponds and lakes, killing valuable underwater food plants; introduction of carp has resulted in reductions in habitat; human alterations of habitat and reclamation projects have reduced habitat (Game Department files). Due to its reputation as an excellent table bird and its relatively high vulnerability, the canvasback has been over-hunted in portions of its range in the past. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The canvasback is one of the speediest of ducks in flight, a hard target, hard to kill and retrieve; and it is because of these qualities that it has withstood the hunter much better than the redhead (Aythya conericana) (20). Canvasbacks, however, appear to be vulner- able to hunting due to their inquisitive nature; with adult females and juveniles being more vulnerable than adult males (16). The canvasback has also been shown to be vulnerable to lead poisoning. Protective measures taken and response to management: Current federal restrictions appear to be effective in regulating the take of canvasbacks during the fall and winter hunting seasons (R. Jeffrey, pers. comm. 1975). It is classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: The conservation of valuable habitat is of primary importance. This includes the elimination of carp from areas which canvasback utilize, the encouragement of sound agricultural practices to reduce erosion, and careful evaluation of reclamation projects. The devlopment of non-toxic pellets to ease the problem of lead poisoning is highly important, coupled with studies directed toward rehabilitating feeding areas which show a high percentage of lead shot present. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. -146- Canvasback 3 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 42:474- University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 3. Arbib, R. 1974. The Blue List for 1975. American Birds 28(6):969-1064. 4. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Delacour, J. 1959. The Waterfowl of the World 111. Country Life, London. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. 1937. The work of the Biological Survey. Transactions of the Second North American Wildlife Conference. Pp. 145-148. 8. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 9. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 10. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 11. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 12. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 13. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 14. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 15. McAtee, W.L. 1908. Lead poisoning in ducks. Auk 25:472. 16. Olson, D.F. Differential vulnerability of male and female canvasbacks to hunting. Transactions of the Thirtieth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Pp. 121-135. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 17. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Mifflin Co., Boston. 18. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 19. Shillinger, J.E. and C.C. Cottam. 1937. The importance of lead poisoning in waterfowl. Transactions of the Second North American Wildlife Conference. Pp. 398-403. American Wildlife Institute. Washington, D.C. 20. Taverner, P.A. 1940. Birds of Canada. Musson Book Co., Toronto 21. Yocom, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -147- Canvasback 4 Persons Interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Richard L. Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor. 1601 - 2nd Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Richard Parker Washington Department of Game 515 Pacific Place #2 Mt. Vernon, Washington 98273 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Other authorities: Bill Halstead Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -148- OLDSQUAW Common name: Oldsquaw Scientific name: Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck Linnaeus Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized sea duck with remarkable vari- ation in seasonal coloration. Adult male in fall and winter: head and neck mainly white with gray cheeks and a large dark area extending from rear of cheek to side of upper neck. Back, middle tail feathers, and breast brownish black. Lower belly white, turning to gray on sides. Bill short, dark at base and pink near tip; legs and feet bluish gray. Adult male in spring and summer: head, neck, breast, and back dark brown or sooty; back and scapulars streaked with chestnut. Sharply defined gray patch on sides of hear; white eyelids. Adult female in fall and winter: head, neck, and underparts mainly white; crown, throat, and patch on both sides of head dark brown; breast grayish. Back, upper tail covers, tail. and wings dark brown. Adult female in spring and summer: similar to fall and winter plumage, except more mottled; head and neck mainly brown with white in these areas: near eye, near base of bill, and on side of neck. Adult female does not have a long slender tail, as does the male. Immatures are similar to summer adult females. Habitat: During summer the oldsquaw frequents tundra lakes and ponds, as well as coasts and islands. During the remainder of the season, it occurs primarily along ocean coasts but occasionally frequents large fresh water lakes and rivers (7). The nests are scattered over the tundra, generally situated and well concealed in grass or bushes near a pond or lake, on an island, or along the coast; occasionally found in open places and considerable distances from water. The nest is usually built on the ground in depressions or hollows lined with down. An excellent diver, the oldsquaw feeds on fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, worms. insects, larvae, and occasionally on plant matter, including pondweeds, grasses, and marine vegetation. -149- Oldsquaw 2 Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: The oldsquaw breeds on the Arctic coasts of both the New and Old Worlds, south in North America to the Aleutian Islands in the Pacific Ocean and to the shores of Hudson Bay. It winters as far south as the southern United States, central Europe, and central Asia. In North America, it winters primarily along the coast from the Aleutian Islands south to Washington (a few migrate as far south as California) and from northern Greenland to South Carolina; occasionally occurs in the interior on larger bodies of water during migration and during winter. In Washington the oldsquaw occurs as a winter resident and migrant, primarily along the ocean coast, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and on Puget Sound, frequenting the many harbors, inlets, and bays. The oldsquaw seems to prefer areas of deep water (S. Peterson, pers. comm. 1975; L. Salo, in preparation). A limited number of non-breeding oldsquaws frequent the coast in summer. Although it seldom utilizes fresh water in western Washington, it has occurred as a migrant in eastern Washington on larger lakes and rivers. Estimated numbers and population trends: The oldsquaw is very local in occur- rence and does not usually appear in large numbers (L. Salo, in preparation). Winter populations on Washington waters often fluctuate from year to year which is assumed to be due to wintering conditions outside of the state. Breeding performance in the wild: 5 to 17 eggs per clutch; usually 5 to 7. One brood per season; incubation by the female lasts approximately 24 days. Renesting does occur. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: It is evident that on a large clear piece of water the oldsquaw can be kept with little difficulty (4). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a fairly common to uncommon migrant and winter visitor (12,9); casual occurrence in eastern Washington (9). -150- Oldsquaw 3 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is satisfactory. Population fluctations within the sate are probably due to wintering conditions outside of the state and are most likely not an indication of overall change in popu- lation numbers. More accurate censusing methods should in the future show the oldsquaw to be more abundant than commonly believed. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The oldsquaw's feeding habits make it susceptible to environmental pollutants accumulated by marine inverte- brates (S. Peterson, pers. comm. 1975). Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Due to yearly variations in numbers and time of arrival, poor flavor of its flesh, thick feathers, and difficulty in retrieval, the oldsquaw is rarely taken as a hunted species in Washington. "Its unique interesting characteristics make it well worth protecting, however, entirely aside from its possible value as a game bird." (9). Studies should be directed toward the ecology and numbers of oldsquaws in Washington. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 4. Delacour, J. 1959. The Waterfowl of the World. Volume 111. Country Life, London. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wild- life Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. Oldsquaw 4 8. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 9. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 10. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Birds and Mamal Society, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Ransom, W.H. 1925. Old squaw duck taken in Franklin County, Washington. Murrelet 6:11. 15. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 16. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 17. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in. Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Person interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 -152- Oldsquaw 5 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Steve Peterson University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho Charles V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -153- HARLEQUIN DUCK Common name: Harlequin duck Scientific name: Flistrionicus Painted duck histrionic-us Linnaeus Mountain duck Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A small sea duck. Adult male: head and neck bluish black; white cresent shaped patch at base of bill, white oval ear patch, and white patch along side of neck. Black stripe down center of crown, bordered on both sides by chestnut. Incomplete narrow white collar around base of neck; long white bar on side of breast, bordered by black. Breast and shoulders are dark blue; belly sooty with chestnut sides. Metallic blue speculum. Rump and slender tail black with white spot on each side of rump. Bill bluish gray or bluish black; feet and legs bluish gray. Adult female: plumage is blackish brown or dusky, more white on belly; dark brown head and neck, with three white patches near eye. Immatures are similar to adult females. Habitat: During summer the harlequin duck occurs primarily on glacial streams and rivers; occasionally occurs on pot-hole lakes located in the higher valleys. Throughout the remainder of the year it occurs along the seacoast, often on the roughest and rockiest shores. The harlequin duck breeds mainly in single pairs, building a nest on the ground, usually near fast flowing streams; may nest in hollow trees. Ground nests are often place under clumps of bushes, under logs and debris, or recesses in rocks. The nest is built of dry weeds and grasses and is woven in a circular pattern. While inhabiting the seacoast, the harlequin duck feeds primarily on mollusks and crustaceans. While inland, the birds feed mainly on aquatic insects which occur in mountain streams. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Breeds in eastern Siberia, southern and central Alaska and -154- Harlequin duck 2 Canada south in the mountains to central California and Colorado; in eastern North America from Greenland and Iceland south to Newfoundland. Winters from the breeding range south along the coast to Korea and Japan in Asia and to central western California and Massachusetts in North America. The harlequin duck is a permanent resident in Wahington occurring during the breeding season in mountainous regions throughout the state, primarily the Cascade and Olympic mountains. As a winter resident the harlequin duck frequents primarily the coastal regions of the state and northern Puget Sound, although it does occur in southern Puget Sound; non-breeding adult birds remain on the wintering grounds throughout the summer. A portion of our winter population migrates to the north of Washington to breed () Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown; reclusive nature results in difficulty in ascertaining population numbers. Breeding performance in the wild: 5 to 10 eggs per clutch; usually 6 or 7. The breeding season occurs during April and May; incubation by the female lasts for approximately 32 days. One brood per season. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1, Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a common migrant and winter visitor in the Puget Sound region and along the entire coastline (8); a rare bird in Oregon (11). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status evaluation is probably satisfactory; however, lack of inform- ation on population size and trends warrants classification as unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because its breeding range in Washington occurs in the more isolated mountainous regions of the state, the harlequin duck is less exposed to human interference. Human habitation along the west slope of the Cascades, however, creates a possible threat to breeding locations. Harlequin duck 3 Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Methods should be developed to accurately census Washington's harlequin duck population. Studies should be directed toward a better understanding of the ecology of the harlequin ducI along with distribu- tional studies to ascertain breeding habitat requirements. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers, No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 42:474-. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 37 pp. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Gabrielson, I. N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 8. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 10. LaFave, L.D. 1955. Breeding record of western harlequin duck for Spokane, Washington. Murrelet 36:17. 11. Marshall, D.B. 1969. Endangered Plants and Amimals of Oregon-Ill. Birds. Agricultureal Experiment Station, Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis. -156- Harlequin duck 4 12. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 13. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 14. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 15. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98410 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Other authorities Dennis E. Crouch Compiled by': J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -157- PACIFIC COMMON EIDER Common name: Pacific common eider Scientific name: Somateria molZissima v-nigra Gray Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A large salt water duck. Adult male: crown and underparts including wings and tail black; a white patch at base of wings; remaining plumage, head, neck, forebreast and back, white, except for greenish patches on sides and back of head. Female: uniform mottled brown. Male's appearance in first winter is intermediate between female and first spring plumage. Habitat: A marine species, often found near low lying rocky coasts or large and small rocky islands. It may also be found along other types of shore, especially where mussel beds and reefs provide feeding grounds; occasionally uses fresh water near the coast (7). Nests are usually close to the sea in rock-sheltered situations or in depressions in low vegetation; often highly colonial. Nest material consists of plant matter, usually grasses and moss, lined with down placed in a hollow. Sometimes old nest sites are re-used (7). Feeds on marine organisms including mollusks (mussels, clams, gastropods, and a variety of smaller snail-like forms), crustaceans (crabs, shrimps, barnacles, and small shrimp-like forms), echinoderms (sand-dollars, starfish, and sea urchins), flatfish and sculpins, taking only a small amount of vegetable matter which is composed primarily of marine algae. Former distribution: Similar as present distribution, below. Present distribution: A bird of the western Artic. Breeds on the coasts of northwestern America and northeastern Asia. Winter range is primarily in the -_1 R- Pacific common eider 2 vicinity of the Aleutian Islands and the Alaska Peninsula, extending little south of its breeding range and north as far as open water extends. Birds nesting in the far north migrate only to the Aleutians, thus they are seldom seen in Washington. There have been several sightings of the Pacific common eider in Washington. Bowles (4) and Dawson (5) have recorded it in the vicinity of Nisqually Flats in the early 1900's. Sightings have been made in north Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands, and as far south as Willapa Harbor (Willapa. National Wildlife Refuge files). Washington appears to be a peripheral range of the Pacific common eider. Estimated numbers an& population trends: No information. Breeding performance in the wild: 4 to 10 eggs per clutch, with larger sets probably being exceptional. Breeding generally occurs during June with incubation by the female lasting 28 to 29 days. Only one brood per season. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. Considered an accidental winter visitor (9); accidental in western Washington in winter (1); accidental on Pacific coast (10). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington unknown; a peripheral species. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington, although not a hunted species. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the Pacific common eider would be unwarranted in Washington due to its accidental occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. -159- Pacific common eider 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 44:414-473. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check List of North American Birds. 3. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Bowles, J.H. 1906. Pacific eider in Washington. Condor 8:57. 5. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II:459-997. 6. Gabrielson, I.N., and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 9. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 10. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 12. Robbin, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Douglas A. Bellingham Biology Department Washington State Department of Game University of Puget Sound 9510 Oden Way Tacoma, Washington 98416 Bothell, Washington 98011 Carl V. Swanson Washington State Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -lKo- KING EIDER Common name: King eider Scientific name: Somateria spectabilis Li nnaeus Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (subfamily: Anthyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: A large stocky sea duck. Adult male: top of head, nape, and side of upper neck are pale bluish gray. Green patch on cheeks bordered on top by narrow white line. Rest of head, neck, fore-back, upper breast, shoulders, patch on either side at base of tall white. Lower back, scapulars, rump, tail coverts, lower breast, belly and sides black. Bill and knoblike frontal shield yellow. Legs and feet are yellow or orange with dusky webs. Adult female: stocky with warm brown coloration strongly barred with black. Immature males are dusky, with light brown head; degree of white varies as birds mature; whiter birds are older. Habitat: Essentially a salt water bird; occurs primarily on the open sea or along coastlines. During breeding season it prefers the vicinity of tundra fresh water ponds, lakes, and streams for nesting, usually remaining close enough to the coast to make frequent feeding trips. Prefers to nest near fresh water, but sometimes on flat tundra at considerable distance from water. Not colonial; nests are usually widely scattered. Nests are on the ground in a hole or depression and are heavily lined with down. Feeds primarily on animals such as mollusks (including blue mussels and razor clams), crustaceans, echinoderms (sandollars and sea urchins, small quantities of sea anemones), and small amounts of eel grass and marine algae. During breeding a larger percentage of plants and insects are consumed. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeding range is from the islands in the Bering Sea and Arctic Alaska, east on the Arctic Coast of Canada, Hudson and James Bays and northern Labrador to both coasts of Greenland; also in northern Europe. Spends -161- King eider 2 the winter as far north as it can find open water and as far south as the New England States on the eastern side of the United States and the Aleutian Islands on the Pacific coast. Immatures migrate further south in winter. Washington appears to be a peripheral range of the king eider. A specimen was collected near the Lincoln Park area of Seattle, King County in 1948 by Z. McMannama (9); two birds were seen in 1967 at Orcas Island in the San Juans (4). Estimated numbers and population trends: From all reports, the king eider is very numerous over much of its circumpolar distribution (7). Breeding performance in the wild: 4 to 10 eggs per clutch, usually 5 or 6. Incubation is by the female, generally lasting for 22 to 23 days. Young are inclined to form packs with adult females in charge (6). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: King eiders have been kept in captivity only in exceptional circumstances. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered as rare in the United States, but common in the far north (12); probably an accidental winter visitant only (8); accidental in western Washington in fall (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is unknown: a peripheral species. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. -162- King eider 3 Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the king eider are unwarranted in Washington due to its irregular occurrence. Any sighting should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers NO. 41:414-472. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. American Ornithologists' Union. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl. Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Burr, I.W. 1967. King eider (Sonateria spectabiZis) in the San Juans. Murrelet 48:7 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Godfrey, W.F. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Guiquet, D.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 8. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. McMannama, Z.V. 1948. King eider taken at Seattle, Washington. Murrelet 29:48 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 11. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 12. Robbins, C.S., B. Brunn, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98146 -163- King eider 4 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Oden Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July 1975. -164- BLACK SCOTER Common name: Black scoter Scientific name: Melanitta nigra Linnaeus American scoter Common scoter Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Aythyinae) Distinguishing characteristics: Adult males: entire plumage is black or sooty, except for the underlinings of the wings which are silvery gray. The bill is black with basal part swollen and orange; legs brownish black. Adult female: top of head and nape are dark brown; remaining parts of head gray mottled with brown. Remaining upper body is sooty brown; belly light brown. Bill is black with trace of yellow and without swollen base; legs brownish black. Immatures are similar to adult females, but paler. Habitat: Primarily occurs on salt water, not usually far from shore. Rarely found on land except during the nesting season when the common scoter utilizes freshwater lakes and larger rivers. During storms it may retreat from more open water into secluded bays and coastal rivers. Nests are usually located near tundra ponds, along larger rivers, or on islands close to fresh water, often within sight of salt water; rarely distant from water. Situated in shrubby tangles and woodland, the nest is a depression in the ground lined with grasses and down. Feeds primarily on animal matter, including mollusks, crustaceans, fishes, echinoderms and insects; occasionally utilizes vegetable matter, including pondweeds, eelgrass, and musk grass. Present distribution: The common scoter is circumpolar in distribution. It breeds in Alaska and northern continental Canada; also in Iceland, Spitsbergen, northern parts of Norway, Russia, and Siberia. In North America it winters on the Pacific coast from the Aleutian Islands to southern California, on the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to South Carolina, and small numbers on the Great Lakes (5). Black scoter 2 The common scoter occurs in Washington as a winter resident and migrant along marine waters in western Washington. Occasionally non-breeders utilize the coast during the summer. Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown; there appears to be a general lack of accurate figures of sea duck populations. Brooding performance in the wild: 6 to 10 eggs per clutch; incubation is by the female. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an uncommon migrant and winter visitor (8); winter resident and migrant (6,1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. The status in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The common scoter is extremely vulnerable to hunting pressure (10). Protective measures taken and response to management: Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: There is a definite need for research on the general biology and ecology of the common scoter in Washington. Observers should correctly identify this particular scoter. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. -166- Black scoter 3 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 5. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 6. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State Of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Birds and Mammal Society. 8. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Stott, R.S. and D.P. Olson. 1972. Differential vulnerability patterns among the species of sea ducks. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 36(3):775-783. 11. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 -167- Black scoter 4 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. HOODED MERGANSER Common name: Hooded merganser Scientific name:Lophodytes cuculZatus Hooded sheldrake Linnaeus Little fish duck Order: Anseriformes Family: Anatidae (Subfamily: Merginae) Distinguishing characteristics: A small merganser; both sexes have a crested head. Adult male: head and neck black with distinctive large white fan-shaped crest, narrowly bordered by black. Back is black with two vertical black bars extending down onto the sides of breast; black becomes dark brown on rump and tail. Sides and flanks reddish brown, finely crossed by black lines. Breast and belly white. Black bill is thin and serrated; legs and feet pale yellowish brown. Adult female: head and neck grayish brown, throat pale brown, and short reddish brown crest. Back, scapulars, rump, and tail dark brown; breast and sides are light brown, almost gray; white patch on wing. Belly white. Bill is similar to adult male, but has yellow tinge on lower part. Immatures are similar to adult females, but are paler in color and lack the developed crest. Habitat: Primarily a fresh water bird, although occasionally frequents salt water in winter. Seldom found on swift-running water; prefers small, quiet woodland lakes, ponds, and slow-moving rivers or streams. Rivers are an important component of the hooded merganser's habitat in parts of its range (11). Nests are usually situated in cavities found in trees or stumps in wooded areas near water. Distance to water is an important factor of nest-site selection. The cavity is often lined with dry grasses and down. Feeds primarily on mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic insects and their larvae; also consumes small fish, frogs, and tadpoles, and limited quantities of vegetable matter. There have been no reports of damage to the Washington fisheries by hooded mergansers (10). Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. -169- Hooded merganser 2 Present distribution: The hooded merganser breeds from southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, southern Mackenzie, Manitoba, southern Ontario, southern Quebec and New Brunswick south to Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Iowa, eastern Missouri, eastern Arkansas, and western Tennessee. It winters primarily in the continental United States; from southern British Columbia, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, the Great Lakes, New York, and Massachusetts south to northern Florida, along the gulf coast, and to Mexico; occasionally Cuba. In Washington, the hooded merganser is a permanent resident throughout the state; it occurs primarily west of the Cascade Mountains where it breeds on the fresh water lakes of the Puget Sound region; it occurs on salt water in western Washington during winter. Occasionally it occurs in eastern Washington as a migrant with scattered records of winter and summer residents. Estimated numbers and population trends: Current population numbers are unknown, due primarily to its reclusive habits. The population appears to have been reduced substantially since the early 1900's. Breeding performance in the wild: 14 to 18 eggs per clutch; usually 10 to 12. Breeding season is during April and May; incubation lasts approximately 31 days. One brood is raised per year. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an uncommon, but regular migrant and winter visitor; uncommon breeder (15); permanent resident (10, 15, 20). 3. Questionnaire scores; no response. 4. The status evaluation in Washingtion is probably satisfactory as it occurs regularly on available habitat; however, lack of information on population size and trends warrant an unknown status. Factors associated with decline, if any: Primarily habitat loss due to human development. Because of its fish eating habits, it is persecuted by sportsmen. -170- Hooded merganser 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: Much of the nesting habitat is readily accessible, and prone to disturbance. Logging practices often encouraged the elimination of beaver ponds and thus hooded merganser breeding habitat (R. Jeffrey, pers. comm. 1975). Protective measures taken and response to management: Hooded mergansers are occasionally attracted to nesting boxes. Classified as a migratory game bird in Washington. Management recommendations: Research should be directed toward developing a better understanding of the habitat requirements of the hooded merganser. This information, coupled with accurated distributional data for the species will allow better management of the hooded merganser, as its environment in western Washington is continually being threatened by development and human interference. "Since much of its environment is being altered in the Puget Sound area, its numbers perhaps could be maintained by providing suitable nest boxes in the right place" (15). All malicious shooting of the hooded mergansers should be eliminated through public awareness of the fact that they do little, if any, damage to the state fishery. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers. No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 37 pp. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl Part I. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Fitzner, R. and J.N. Fitzner. 1973. The hooded merganser in southeastern Washington. Murrelet 54(l):1o-11. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Hooded merganser 4 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 9. Guiquet, C.J. 1958. The Birds of British Columbia (6) Waterfowl. British Columbia Provincial-Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, D.W. and G.S. Hunt. 1969. Brood habitat of the hooded merganser. J. Wildl. Mgmt:33(3):605-609. 12. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 13. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Nesting of the wood duck with the hooded merganser. Murrelet 15:51. 14. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 15. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 16. Morse, T.E., J.L. Jakabosky, and V.P. McCrow. 1969. Some aspects of the breeding biology of the hooded merganser. J. Wildl. Mgmt:33(3):596-604. 17. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 18. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 19. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto 20. Yocum, C.F. 1951. Waterfowl and Their Food Plants in Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Douglas A. Bellingham Washington Department of Game 9510 Odin Way Bothell, Washington 98011 -172- Hooded merganser 5 Robert Jeffrey Washington Department of Game 1023 East Utsalady Road Stanwood, Washington 98292 N Burton Lauckhart Washington Department of Game 3502 Pacific Avenue Olympia, Washington 98501 Carl V. Swanson Washington Department of Game 2102 Cascade Place Tacoma, Washington 98466 Other authorities: Richard and Julia N. Fitzner Charles A. Pilling Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -173- TURKEY VULTURE Common names: Turkey vulture Scientific name: Cathartes aura Carrion crow Linneaeus Red-necked buzzard Order: Falconiformes Family: Cathartidae Distinguishing characteristics: Blackish-brown bird; wing coverts and linings grayish; head and neck naked and red, from livid crimson to pale cinnamon and usually with white specks; base of bill red and end dead- white; feet flesh colored. Head of female covered with grayish-brown, fur- like feathers. Length 30 inches; wingspread about six feet. Habitat: The vulture inhabits nearly any habitat except heavily forested areas (17); it is usually seen along roads and in fields (16). In the south, the vulture nests in caves, hollow logs, or hollow stumps, old hawks' nests, or on the ground in dense twiggery or brambles or unused sheds (4). In the north, it nests in caves or on cliffs; no actual structure is constructed. The nest can be found in secluded swamps, palmett "scrub" sycamore groves or on steep and sunny hillsides. The turkey vulture feeds mainly on carrion, but also takes snakes, toads, rats, mice, and young birds occassionally (12). Former distribution: It ranges through temperate North America from New Jersey, Ohio Valley, Saskatchewan region and British Columbia south to Patagoa and Falkland islands, being casual in New England (7). In Washing- ton it was a common summer resident and migrant east of the Cascades, being much less common but regular at low altitudes west of the mountains. -174- Turkey vulture 2 Present distribution: The turkey vulture breeds from British Columbia and Montana south to-Mexico; it winters from California, south Nevada, and north Mexico south (5). It is a summer resident throughout the state of Washington (1). The turkey vulture is more often seen in western than eastern Washington, being frequently sighted in Grays Harbor and Thurston Counties (J. Patterson, pers. comm. 1975). Turkey vulture nests have been located at Marysville on the COlumbia River and at Bonney Lake south of Spokane (C. Rieck, pers, comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: The turkey vulture is quite numerous throughout its range (18). In 1902, it was the most common bird in the south (4). It is common in the south (3). Breeding performance in the wild: One to three eggs, usually two, are laid per set. It is frequently found in colonies. There are records of turkey vultures living over 100 years. Numbers in captivity: There was one in Woodland Park Zoo in 1975 (W. English, pers, comm. 1975). Two were confined in Tuscon, Arizona in 1974 (10). Breeding potential in captivity: Their potential to breed in captivity is good as they readily adapt to confinement (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. The vulture is common in the southern United States (3). It is quite numerous (4). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Its status is unknown in Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: Shooting and electrocution by power lines are the major causes of mortality. Turkey vulture 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: Persecution by man due to conspicuous size and offensive nature (to some) is deleterious to the population; however, waste from farms and ranches provides ample food for the vulture. Protective measures taken and response to management: In the early 1900's the turkey vulture was protected by law in the south because of its value as a scavenger; this resulted in its being a numerous bird on the south (4). Management recommendations: None. References : 1. Alcorn, G. 1962. Checklist - Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Audubon, J.J. 1967. The Birds of America. Dover Pulications, New York. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Blanchan, N. 1902. Birds that Hunt and are Hunted. Coubleday, Page, and Co., New York. 5. Booth, E. 1971. Birds of the Pacific Coast. G.B. Putnams Sons, New York. 6. Davie, 0. 1900. Nests and Eggs of North American Birds. David McKay, Philadelphia. 7. Dawson, W. and J.H. Dowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington State. Occi- dental Publishing Co., Seattle. 8. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 9. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Cambridge, Massachusetts. Turkey vulture 4 10. Jarvis, C. and D. Morris. 1974. The International Zoo Yearbook. Zoological Soceity of London, London. 11. May, J.R. 1935. The Hawks of North America. The National Association of the Audubon Society, New York. 12. Pearson, T.G. 1961. Birds of America. The University Society, New York. 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Pough, R.H. 1951. Audubon Waterbird Guide. Doubleday, Page, and Co., Garden City, New York. 15. Reed, C.A. 1915. The Rird Book. Doubleday, Page, and Co., Garden City, New York. 16. Rue II, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York. 17. Sprunt, A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. 18. Turner, A.W. 1973. Vultures. David McKay Co., New York. Persons interviewed: Walter English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Carroll ,Rieck Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 John Patterson Washington- Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 -177- Turkey vulture 5 Other authorities: Tracy Fleming Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -178- CALIFORNIIA CONDOR Common names: California condor Scientific name: Gymnogyps californianus California vulture Shaw Order: Falconiformes Family: Catharitidae Distinguishing characteristics: Adult male: head, nearly bare, grayish-yellow to orange, usually orange, sparingly bristled with black and with a cuff of pointed black feathers with gray shaftlines at the base of the bare neck; otherwise, uniform blackish-brown except for the whitish bases to the secondaries and a few white feather ends to the basal secondary coverts on the dorsal surface and entire leading 1/3 of the under wing. Bill yellowish, reddening on the cere. Length 43-50 inches; weight 18-31 pounds; wingspan 7-9 feet. Habitat: At one time the condor ranged into open valleys and other regions where it was easily accessible, but now it is found only in the most rugged and rocky gorges and canyons of the less frequented mountain ranges (11). The eggs are laid on bare soil, gravel, or on the rocky floor of more or less inaccessible caves or crevices in a cliff or under rocks or boulders on the sides of mountain canyons. The nest may be lined with leaves and fine grass. The condor feeds on carrion. Former distribution: The condor formerly ranged north to southern British Columbia and east to Utah (9). Condors were formerly permanent residents in the Pacific Northwest (18). In Washington, it was common in the fall and winter on the Lower Columbia and west of the Cascades irregularly north to the Canadian border. Later, it extended casually into Oregon, Washington, and southeastern California (11). The condor occurred, probably both spring and fall, though principally in the latter season, east and west of the Cascades in Washington (14). According to Alcorn, it was formerly abundant on the southwest coast of Washington and irregularly north along the coast (1). -179- California condor 2 Present distribution: The condor inhabits the southern coast ranges of California from Santa Clara County south to the Transverse Mountains and north in the Sierra Nevada foothills to Fresno County, with a small population on the Baja Peninsula (3). The condor may occur incidentally in Washington (L. Mesmer, pers. comm. 1975); according to G. Clothier (pers. comm. 1975) it is no longer recorded in the state. Alcorn states that it no longer resides in Washington (1). Estimated numbers and population trends: Although formerly abundant, there are only 40-60 condors left in California (6). Their population has been declining for 40 years. Breeding performance in the wild: The California condor reaches sexual maturity at six to eight years and lays one egg every two years after that. The egg requires six weeks to hatch and then the chick is dependent on the parents for seven months or more. Condors mate for life and may not remate if one of a pair dies. Most of the remaining condors are adults, indicating there has been no significant hatch for the past five or six years (6); they may live 100 years. Numbers in captivity: There was one condor in the Los Angeles Zoo in 1973 (3). Breeding potential in captivity: Possibly as good as their potential to breed in the wild, five eggs were laid by one condor in 20 years of captivity. Two females at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. laid about two dozen eggs during several decades (3). Status: 1. U.S.D.I. lists the California condor as threatened with extinction; the I.U.C.N. lists it as endangered. 2. The condor was formerly abundant, but now is greatly reduced (9). It is becoming rare or almost extinct (10); it has been threatened with extinction for 40 years (12). According to Alcorn, the condor was formerly abundant in southwestern Washington, but is no longer a resident in the state (1). 3. Questionnaire results: no response. 4. Unknown, perhaps extinct throughout its former range in Washington. -180- California condor 3 Factors associated with decline: A low reproductive rate does not allow them to cope with any unusual losses. Development and perturbations have caused a steady decline (11). Carcasses poisoned to kill coyotes and cats, have taken their toll (9). They were killed for quills, which were used to carry gold dust (11) and are still killed today simply because they are large, conspicuous targets. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Poor; an intruder within 500 yards can cause the condor to abandon its nest. Waste from ranches provides ample food. Protective measures taken and response to management: Established in 1937, within the San Rafael Primitive Area of'Los Padres National Forest, is the 1,200 acre Condor Sanctuary. It is closed to the public all year long (16). The Sespe Wildlife Area protects its nesting grounds. In California, the penalty for taking, killing, or injurying a condor has been increased to a fine of $1,000 or one year in jail or both. Enforcement patrols in the Sespe Area have been increased. Use of poison is prohibited in federal lands within the range of the condor and air traffic is restricted above its sancturary (3). Key condor nesting areas controlled by the U.S. Forest Service are closed to firearms. In 1971, the Department of Interior refused all oil drilling rights within the condor's breeding range. A condor naturalist was appointed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and each year a survey is conducted of the remaining population by the California Department of Fish and Game (3). The Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland is experimenting with the propagation of the related South American condor in captivity (3). Apparently these measures aren't effective enough or disturbances are still occurring, as the population of condors has dropped from 60 in the 1940's to only 40 in 1963 (15). California condor 4 Management recommendations: Should have stricter enforcement of laws and educational methods should be developed which are positive, organized and overt. Buffer zones around protected lands should be established and the sanctuary should be maintained in its present state---dams and highways must not be built through or around it. This might be guaranteed by the purchase of private lands within the Sespe Condor Sanctuary and the purchase or lease of important feeding areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G. 1962, Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 17:155-199. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1920. Birds, beasts, and trees. Literature Digest 90:48-52. 3. Anonymous. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publ. 114, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 4. Atkinson, B. 1966. Those "forty dirty birds". Audubon 68:231-7. 5. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. 6, Borland, H. 1974. Take a long, last look at the condor. National Wildlife 12:34-6. 7. Buchheister, C.W. 1966. Help for the condor. American Forests Magazine 68:5 8. Buchheister, C.W. 1965. Our campaign to save the condor. Audubon 67:180. 9. Dawson, W. and J. H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 10. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. 11. Grosvenor, G. and A. Wetmore. 1939. The Book of Birds. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 12. Gruson, E. 1972. Words for Birds: A Lexicon of North American Birds with Biographical Notes. Quadrangle Books, Inc., New-York. 13. Jarvis, C. and D. Morris (eds.) 1962. International Zoo Yearbook. London Zoological Society, London. -182- California condor 5 14. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle 15. Miller, A.H., I.I. MacMillian and E. MacMillian. 1956. Hope for the California condor. Audubon 67:38-41. 16. Morse, G.A. 1965. There soars the condor. American Forest Magazine 71:27 17. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 18. Wilbur, S.R. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 90(1):196-198. Jan. 1973. Persons interviewed: Lou Mesmer Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington 98520 Glen Clothier Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington 98520 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, July, 1975. -183- NORTHWESTERN SHARP-SHINNED HAWK Common name: Northwestern sharp- Scientific name: Accipiter striatus shinned hawk perobscurur Synder Order: Falconiformes Family: Accipritidae Distinguishing characteristics: Adult male: under parts white, heavily barred with reddish-brown, upper parts nearly uniform bluish-gray; tail even or slighly notched with three or four narrow blackish bands, and narrow white tips. Adult female: similar, but duller, less blue above, less reddish below. Habitat: The northwestern sharp-shinned hawk inhabits coniferous forest mainly, but is also found on the tide flats in southern Puget Sound, and has been seen on open prairies south of Tacoma (4). Its nests are usually found in coniferous trees, but at times are also located in cottonwood, poplar and birch trees. The nest is made of sticks and twigs, being rather flat and close to the tree trunk, from 20-30 feet above the ground (6). This hawk feeds on a variety of small birds. Former distribution: The sharp-shinned hawk was formerly seen in the summer at Semiahoo, Neah Bay, in Washington (4). It was observed around the Quinault River, Mount Rainier, Shoalwater Bay, Steilacoom, Puget Sound, Rock Creek, Kittitas County, Oyster Bay and Auburn during its migration. It probably bred in the Puget Sound region and the Olympic Peninsula. Present distribution: Presently, this hawk is found on the Queen Charlotte Islands and (probably) the adjacent mainland of British Columbia (3). It is known to be on the Alexander Archipelago and the adjacent mainland of Alaska. It winters commonly, but rarely breeds, in the Puget Sound area of Washington. Sharp-shinned hawks occur in the Cascades, the wooded coastal area, and in the Northwestern sharp-shinned hawk 2 southeastern and northeastern parts of the state of Washington (R. Reynolds, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: The northwestern sharp-shinned hawk is quite common in Washington (T. Knight; S. Layman, pers. comm. 1975). It has been sighted quite regularly by E. Peaslee (pers. comm. 1975) since 1963 at various points in northwestern Washington. There is no accurate census of their numbers; they nest in remote areas and are an extremely shy bird (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: Three to five eggs, sometimes seven or eight, are laid per set. The same nest site is used two years in a row (R. Reynolds. pers. comm. 1975). Numbers in captivity: Actual numbers are not known for Washington. However, none are kept at Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in captivity: They may have a 50 percent probability of successful breeding in captivity (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. Not nationally or internationally threatened. 2. Jewett et al. classified the sharp-shinned hawk as a migrant in western Washington (4), whereas, Alcorn considers it a resident (1). No studies have shown the sharp-shinned hawk to be threatened in Washington (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). According to W. English (pers. comm. 1975), the sharp-shinned hawk is quite common in Washington. According to T. Angell (pers. comm. 1975), it is potentially threatened. 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline: Destruction of habitat resulting in the loss of prey and nesting sites can be deleterious to populations. Persecution by man and pesticides can be harmful. As the sharp-shinned hawk eats mainly insectivorous birds, it is very vulnerable to pesticides. -185- Northwestern sharp-shinned hawk 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: The sharp-shinned hawk is not readily affected by man because it inhabits remote dense woods where human con- tact is minimal. Disturbance around nests could affect the breeding pairs and may cause them to even abandon their nests at certain periods in the breeding seasons (R. Reynolds, pers. comm. 1975). Protective measures taken and response to management: Known nest sites in Oregon are being protected from timber harvesting with a no-cut zone around the nest (R. Reynolds, pers. comm. 1975). Federal laws prohibit shooting and taking of young hawks. Washington and Oregon state laws protect the sharp-shinned hawk from falconers. Management recommendations: Existing nest sites should be protected from logging and from human disturbances. An extensive study needs to be conducted on the sharp-shinned hawks of Washington to provide information on their location, habitat, and population dynamics. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Checklist-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Paper No. 17:155-199. Department of Biol6gy, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1957. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds. Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 5. Morrison, K.D. 1955. Bird protection laws show progress. Audubon 57: 222-225. 6. Sprunt Jr., A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. Persons interviewed: Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Northwestern sharp-shinned hawk 4 Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Steve Layman Yakima, Washington James O'Donnell 436 Harvard Tacoma, Washington 98401 Richard Reynolds Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 Tony Angell 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98109 .Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. GOLDEN EAGLE Common name: Golden eagle Scientific name: Aguila chrysaetos Mountain eagle Linnaeus War eagle Order: Falconiformes Family: Accipitridae Distinguishing characteristics: Adult male: dark brown except for long lanceolate golden-brown feathers of the nape. Dorsal side is usually mottled, mixed brown effect, some feathers being lighter than the others but in a random patternless way. Beak and claws, bluish-black, darkest at the tips. Cere, gape, and toes, bright yellow; eyes, dark brown. Length 32-38 inches; weight 7-14 pounds; wingspan 6-7 feet. Adult female: like male, but larger by 1/3 to 1/2 times the weight. Habitat: The golden eagle inhabits open country, hills and mountains. Its favorite haunts are arid plateaus, deeply cut by streams and canyons and rising to open or sparsely treed mountain slopes and rock crags (9). The nest is a bulky platform of sticks lined with softer material such as grass, feathers, or moss, found usually on a cliff, but occasionally in a tree. The golden eagle feeds on birds, marmots, conies, rabbits, chipmunks, squirrels, and other small mammals. Former distribution: The golden eagle formerly ranged throughout North America south to Mexico and in the southern parts of the Eastern Hemisphere (14). Its breeding range in the United States was practically restricted to mountainous parts of unsettled areas. In Washington, it was chiefly in the Cascades and ranged from Mt. Baker in the north to the Columbia River in south, east to Pullman, and west to Grays Harbor (16). Present distribution: Presently, the golden eagle ranges from the edge of the Tropics to and including the low Arctic, but not the high Arctic islands; across all of -188- Golden eagle 2 North America, Europe, and Asia (9). In Washington, it is a resident both east and west of the Cascades and is a summer visitor in the Cascades (24). Golden eagles have been found wintering in the upper Skagit, and around Sedro Wooley and Rockport (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). Nests have been located in the San Juans, although the golden eagle usually does not breed west of the mountains (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: There are less than 5,000 breeding pairs left in North America (19,21). According to the Midwinter Eagle Inventory conducted by the Game Department in January 1974, there were 26 golden eagles counted in the state of Washington. Layman reported three or four nests in the San Juans (pers. comm. 1975) and J. Adkins estimated that there are 5-10 golden eagles wintering in the San Juans (pers. comm. 1975). C. Rieck has records of 25 nests in the state (pers. comm. 137-5). According to T. Angell (pers. comm. 1975), the population seems to be stable in the state but not increasing. R. Lichtenberg considers the population to be stable in western Washington (pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: One to three eggs are laid per set; the golden eagle lives up to 30 years. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: Low, one pair bred in Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. Not nationally or internationally threatened. 2. The golden eagle is rare and becoming rare throughout most of its range; it is exceedingly rare in eastern U.S. and Canada (22). It is rapidly becoming rare in western Washington (1). According to C. Rieck (pers. comm. 1975), the golden eagle is threatened throughout Washington and especially in western Washington. R. Lichtenberg (pers. comm. 1975) considers the golden eagle to have a satisfactory status in western Washington. 3. Questionnaire scores: C. Servheen 66/44 for coastal Washington; J. Adkins 68/39. 4. The golden eagle is threatened with extinction in Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: Loss of habitat, reduction of food sources - -189- Golden eagle 3 large rodents are not as plentiful as they once were, effects of chemical pollutants, particularly chlorinated hydrocarbons, direct mortality from shooting and electro- cution, trapping and collecting for falconry, have all contributed to the decline of the golden eagle (25). Reprisal for depredation is also important: ranchers claim the golden eagle kills livestock. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Poor; man has reduced their habitat and food supply and has polluted their environment. Eagles are shot, accidentally trapped and electrocuted by powerlines, and collected for falconry. Protective measures taken and response to management: The creation of the Snake River Birds of Prey Natural Area protected a dense concentration of golden eagles: one pair every three miles (25). Federal land management agencies require that construction plans for powerlines across public lands include protection for birds of prey (19). The Bald Eagle Act of 194i0, initiated for the protection of bald eagles, was amended in 1962 to include protection for the golden eagle (13). Another amendment in 1972 increased the fine for killing or otherwise taking eagles to $5,0OQ. The golden eagle can not be hunted, sold, bought, or transported in any form; even the eggs and nests are protected. It recently became illegal in Washington to use steel traps capable of holding eagles that do not have a closed jaw spacing of at least 3116" which permits eagle escapement (WAC 232-12-310). Management recommendations: Well enforced laws in every state and better education of the public are required. Transmission towers should be designed to discourage eagles from perching on them. Wooden roosts atop poles could be built to prevent the eagles from touching the wires on take-off (19). At the same time, the middle wire should be raised 38 inches or more, so the eagle will not touch two wires simultaneously as it takes flight. Nest manipulation may be attempted: one young is removed from the nest for a short -190- Golden eagle 4 time and later switched regularly with its siblings until the "Cain and Abel" conflict period is past (25). Then the parents are allowed to raise their entire brood. In Washington, all golden eagle nests should be located and plotted on a map, and then local agents should be advised of their locality so they can be patrolled and protected (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). Possibly, areas of nests can be purchased. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Checklist- Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 17:155-199, Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alford, J.R. and E.G. Bolen. 1972. A note on golden eagle talon wounds. Wilson Bulletin 84(4):487-489. 3. Anonymous. 1955. Bird and Animal Identification Course Annual Personnel School. State of Washington Department of Game, Olympia, Washington. 4. Anonymous. 1965. The case for the golden eagle. National Parks Magazine 39:10-11. 5. Anonymous. 1963. Slaughter is tarnishing the golden eagle population. Science News Letter 84:Nov'23. 6. Audubon, J.J. 1950. Audubon's Birds of America. McMillan Co., New York. 7. Audubon, J.J. 1967. The Birds of America. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Baeur, E.A. 1966. Treasure birds. Field and Stream 70:61. 9. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 10. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications, New York. 11. Booth, E. 1971. Birds of the West. College Press, Keene, Texas. 12. Brooke, A. 1927. British Columbia notes. Murrelet 8:39. 13. Craighead, J. 1967. Sharing the lives of the wild golden eagles. National Geographic 132:420. 14. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 15. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Cambridge. 16. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -191- Golden eagle 5 17. Johnson, D.R. and W.E. Melquist. 1973. Nesting Success and Management Recommendations. University of Idaho, Moscow. 18. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 19. Laycock, G. 1961. Saving western eagles from traps and zaps. Audubon 75:133. 20. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co Boston. 21. Reilly, E. 1968. The Audubon Illustrated Handbook of American Birds. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 22. Robinson, J. 1972. Where eagles can be free. American Forests 78:24-28. 23. Sprunt, A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. 24. Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1974. Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. 25. White, C.M. 1974. Current problems and techniques in raptor management and conservation, Pp. 302-310. Transactions of the Thirty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Insitutute, Washington, D.C. Persons interviewed: Jack Adkins Steve Layman Department of Game Yakima, Washinton. 1920 Plaza View Sedro Woolley, Washington Richard Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tony Angell 10th Floor, 1601 Second Avenue Building 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98101 Seattle, Washington 98109 Carroll Rieck Wally English Washington Department of Game Woodland Park Zoo 600 N. Capitol Way 5500 Phinney Ave. N. Olympia, Washington 98504 Seattle, Washington 98103 Chris Servheen 3632 Phinney Ave. N. #6 Seattle, Washinton 98103 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, July,1975. -192- y NORTHERN BALD EAGLE Common names: Northern bald eagle Scientific name: Haliaeetus White-headed sea eagle leucocephalus Old-man alascensus Townsend Order: Flaconiformes Family: Accipitridae Distinguishing characteristics: Tarsus feathered only half way down; middle and outer toes without web; wing pointed, secondaries much shorter than primaries; tail rounded and less than two-thirds as long as wing. Length: 34.5-43 inches; wingspread 22-27 inches; tail 11.4-14.4 inches. Adults: head, neck, tail, and tail coverts snowy white, rest of plummage blackish or dark brownish; feathers edged with brown. Young: first year--completely black except for white bases of feathers showing through; second or third year--underparts mixed black and white; head and neck black, rest of upper parts mixed gray, brown, black, and white. Habitat: The bald eagle is found along seacoasts, lakes, or rivers (11). In the San Juans, it prefers islets where it occurs along the shores (C. Nash, pers. comm. 1975). The nest is a huge mass of sticks lined with various plant materials and placed high on cliffs or in huge trees (11). The same nest is reused again and again and each year it is added to until it reaches mammoth proportions. The bald eagle feeds on rabbits, gophers, small rodents, native geese, ducks, tufted puffins, gulls, oystercatchers, smelt and dead salmon. It is a useful scavenger. Former distribution: The bald eagle formerly ranged from northern Alaska, northern Mackenzie, and northern Quebec, south to Oregon and the Great Lakes (8). In Washington, it was formerly abundant west of the Cascades; however by 1909, it was a not common resident west of the Cascades and was rare or casual east of the mountains (7). According to C. Rieck (pers. comm. 1975), bald eagles were formerly present on any drainage in Washington where salmon were found. Present distribution: The bald eagle breeds from the Aleutians, Mackenzie, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland, south to southern Oregon, Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Maryland (5). It winters as far north as Alaska, northern Mackenzie, and southern Quebec. -193- Northern bald eagle 2 In Washington, the bald eagle breeds primarily west nf the Cascades, but some breeding may occur in isolated areas in eastern Washington. It is a resident in western Washington (1) and winters on the Olympic Peninsula, the San Juans, and the rivers of northern Puget Sound (9). The bald eagle also occurs in Grays Harbor and Lewis counties (9), in the Skagit, on the Cowlitz, and near Hoods Canal (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: In the lower 48 states there were 3,807 bald eagles in 1963 (14), 2,000 in 1972 (13), and less than 1,000 breeding pairs in 1974 (12). Only 637 nests were recorded in 48 states in 1974, and of these states, only eight, including Washington, contained more than 25 nests (12). However, Alaska probably still has approximately 55,000 bald eagles (12) and there has been no alarming decline in nestling numbers or productivity there for the last decade (10). The numbers of bald eagles in Washington increased from 142 in 1971, to 289 in 1972 (9). The Midwinter Eagle Inventory in January 1974 recorded 321 bald eagles in the state (Game Department files). According to R. Lichtenberg (pers. comm. 1975), 10-t5% of all the eagles in the continental United States are in Washington. Grubb found 60 nests in western Washington in 1974 (9), R. Lichtenberg (pers. comm. 1975) states that there are 105 active nests here and that 60% of these nests produce one or two young each. The population of bald eagles in Washington is fairly stable and may even be slightly increasing due to increased protection (T. Angell; J. Adkins; R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). There are 47 bald eagle nests in the San Juans and besides these 94 breeding adults there are about 50 more unmated or immature eagles in this area (C. Nash, pers. comm. 1975). Here too, the population appears stable. Breeding performance in the wild: The bald eagle reaches sexual maturity at four or five years and then lays one or two eggs every other year. They mate for life. Numbers in captivity: No information. -194- Northern bald eagle 3 Breeding potential in captivity: Poor: there are two or three accounts of bald eagles breeding in captivity. It is generally difficult to breed eagles in con- finement apparently due to their large size and territorial requirements for courtship (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. Rare, decreasing in numbers in recent years (5). Population seems to have stabilized at the moment (12). It is rare in Washington, but not endangered (Game Department files). Relatively common bird in western Washington (10). Population fairly stable in Washington (C. Nash; J. Adkins; R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). If conditions remain as they are there should be no further decreases in numbers (S. Layman, pers. comm. 1975). Potentially threatened (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: C. Servheen 62/25 J. Smith 68/10 J. Adkins 56/7 4. Status in Washington is potentially threatened. Factors associated with decline, if any: Destruction of habitat and reduction of food supply, effects of chemical pollutants, particularly of chlorinated hydro- carbons, and direct mortality by malicious shooting and electrocution (3) have all contributed to its decline in the United States. Lack of proper nest sites is a problem in Washington; the site might be suitable except for vandalism (S. Layman, pers. comm. 1975). In the San Juans, shooting is the major factor (J. Adkins, pers. comm. 1975). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Poor: activity at nest trees, actual cutting of nest trees or surrounding protective timber, electrocution, and poisoning are some of the ways man interferes with or destroys bald eagles. However, if people are properly educated, eagles and humans can live in close quarters with little or no trouble (S. Layman, pers. comm. 1975). Protective measures taken and response to management: The National Emblem Law was passed in 1940 to protect the bald eagle. The creation of the Snake River Birds of Prey Area provides a refuge in the Northwest. A cooperative eagle sanctuary was established in the valley of the Kissimmee River, Florida, which is made up -195- Northern bald eagle 4 of holdings of a number of large ranchers (14). Each has agreed to protect eagles and nests as much as possible. No nest trees will be removed until at least one breeding season has passed without eagles present. The National Wildlife Federation is buying 825 acres of cottonwoods in South Dakota as the first National Wildlife Refuge for eagles (12). The federation is also offering a reward for information on eagle outlaws and is sponsoring research in ways to eliminate electrocution. In some National Forests, trees containing eagles' nests are identified, marked, and thus protected from lumbering within a 330 feet buffer zone (14). Nests that are blown down or collapse can be successfully reconstructed by man as was demonstrated in Minnesota (6). A nest with two 28 week old eaglets blew down during a storm. The nest was rebuilt with boards, burlap, and chicken wire and topped with small sticks and moss. The young readily accepted their new home, the parents returned to the nest and the two eaglets were fledged successfully. Persons shooting, killing, trapping, or otherwise taking bald eagles can be subjected to one year in prison or a $5,000 fine for the first offense and two years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine for the second offense (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). It is illegal to use steel traps capable of holding eagles that do not have a jaw spacing of at least 3/16" to permit escapement (WAC232-12-310). Bald eagles are completely protected in Washington (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). A large area along the Skagit River where eagles concentrate has been purchased by the Game Department to protect the eagles from disturbances. The Game Department is authorized to buy more land to add to the area at Rockport. There has been a proposal to study the eagle concentration on the Nooksack River. The Forest Service is holding back growth of forest sections around nests until the young eagles have fledged. Active nests are being located on the San Juans, mapped, and the maps distributed to loggers and developers (J. Adkins, pers. comm. 1975). Management recommendations: Education of the public and stricter law enforcement within each state is needed. In addition, the middle wire on power poles should be raised 38 inches, or more, to prevent eagles -196- Northern bald eagle 5 from touching two live wires simultaneously as they take-off. Wooden posts could be built atop poles for the eagles to roost on, otherwise powerline poles should be designed to discourage eagles from alighting altogether (11). Nests could be manipulated by removal of one chick from the nest and then substituting it regularly with its siblings until the "Cain and Abel'' conflict period is past, at which time the parents are allowed to raise their entire brood (15). Wintering spots where eagles concentrate should be protected and managed. Nesting trees and all trees suitable for nesting sites should be protected, as well as preserving roosting areas (9). The use of pesticides should be kept at a minimum and persons convicted of killing eagles should be prosecuted. In Washington, indiscriminate shooting must be stopped, both by native Americans and black market feather dealers (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). Loss of birds due to pesticides and other toxins should be identified. As the majority of eagles in Washington are found on private land, it might be important to work out an agreement with the owners to prevent habitat loss. Large companies like Weyerhauser should locate and stake out existing nests as no logging zones. All nests should be located and plotted on a map, and game agents should familarize themselves with these nests. Where nests are threatened, the Game Department should buy or lease the land to protect them (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Checklist - Birds of the State of WashIintcon. Occ. Papers 17:155-199. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publ. 114, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C. 4. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of the North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwelli Idaho. 6. Dunsten, T.C. 1970. Successful reconstruction of an active eagle nest. Wilson Bulletin 82 (3):326-327. -197- Northern bald eagle 6 7. Dawson, W. and J. H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 8. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 9. Grubb, T.G. 1974. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting and production in western Washington. Masters of Science Research Paper, University of Washington. 10. Hensell, R.J. and W.A. Troyer. Nesting studies of the bald eagle in Alaska. Condor 66(4):282-286. 11. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 12. Laycock, G. 1974. Bald eagles at bay. National Wildlife 12:34-37. 13. Leinster, C. 1972. Sheepmen vs. eagles--slaughter in the sky. Life:71:36-38. 14. Sprunt, IV, A. 1963. Bald eagles aren't producing enough young. Audubon 65:32-35. 15. Sprunt Jr., A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. 16. Taber, R.D. and N.F. Payne. 1973. Current Status of Ten Uncommon Birds and Mammals in Snoqualmie National Forest and Vicinity. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 17. White, C. 1974. Current problems and techniques in raptor management and conservation. Pp. 303. Transactions of the Thirty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Persons interviewed: Tony Angell 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Walter English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney Ave. N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Steve Layman Yakima, Washington Northern bald eagle 7 Richard Lichtenberg Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth flnor, 1601 Second Avenue Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Charlie Nash Box 93 Friday Harbor, Washington 98250 Carroll Rieck Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Chris Servheen 3632 Phinney Ave. N. #6 Seattle, Washington 98103 Jack Smith Washington Game Department Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington 98520 Other authorities: Don Barry Frank Richardson Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, July, 1975. -199- OSPREY Common names: Osprey Scientific name: Pandion haliaetus Fish hawk Li nnaeus Fishing hawk Order: Falconiformes Family: Pandionidae Distinquishinci characteristics: Length 22-25 inches; weight 50-56 ounces; wingspan 5.5 feet. Adult male: white head with dark brown above the beak, more sparingly on the crown, becoming denser and mixed with rufous on the nape. Dark bar runs from the base of the beak back around the eye, joining dark dorsal plumage on the back. Otherwise, dorsally from the nape to tail, dark brown with subdued bluish or purplish iridescence; all dorsal feathers narrowly outlined in slightly lighter brown. Wings and tail barred on the primaries, secondaries, and tail quills only. Below pure white except for dark barring on primaries, secondaries, and tail. Eye yellow; feet and cere blue-gray. Adult female: like male, but with some dark, poorly defined streaking on the breast. Immature: like adults, but with whitish-buff tips to all dorsal feathers and usually with streaking on the breast slightly more defined. Feet and cere blue-gray. Habitat: The osprey is found near sizable bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and seacoasts (18). The habitat must meet three requirements: a) fish that swim slowly near the water's surface; b) an ice-free season long enough to permit reproduction; c) elevated or inaccessible sites for nest-building, or, alternatively, isolation from most sources of possible molestation during breeding period (4). An ideal habitat is a tall snag near water which permits an unrestricted view of the surrounding area (10). Old growth timber with snags and broken tree tops offers more nesting sites than even-aged stands of second growth. The nest is made of sticks, weed stalks, and similar material lined with softer material and placed almost anywhere on the ground, on old buildings, on cliffs, or in trees. -200- Osprey 2 The osprey feeds almost exclusively on fish although there have been sightings of ospreys taking other prey such as mammals, birds, frogs, snakes, reptiles, and invertebrates (1). Reasons for accepting these prey are a shortage of fish due to winter kill, or inclement weather, lack of fishing skill due to youth, or attraction of easily captured crippled or captive birds. Former distribution: The osprey formerly occurred and bred in North America from Hudson Bay and Alaska south to the West Indies and northern South America (7). It was a summer resident both east and west of the Cascades in Washington. Present distribution: The osprey now breeds from Alaska, Mackenzie, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, central Quebec, and Labrador, south to Baja California, Arizona, the Gulf Coast, and Florida, wintering from central California, southern Texas, and the Gulf Coast, south to Chile and Argentina (6). In Washington, the osprey is found both east and west of the mountains and in the Cascades (19). Although the osprey does not winter in Washington, it does breed throughout the state wherever water for fishing exists (14). It is found in the Port Gamble area, around Hoods Canal, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in the San Juan Archipelago, Greater Puget Sound, Neah Bay (19) and in the Snoqualmie National Forest vicinity; it is found in the Tieton Reservoir-Clear Lake area, the Bumping Lake area, Snoqualmie River- Snoqualmie Pass area, and along the Snohomish River (14). There are a few nests in the Olympic National Park, the Olympic Peninsula, Grays Harbor County, and on the Columbia River (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). In eastern Washington, ospreys nest In Stevens, Ferry, Chelan, and Okanogan counties, and on the Pend Oreille River (D. Johnson, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: According to Wahl and Paulson (19), the osprey is uncommon in Washington. In the Snoqualmie National Forest vicinity between 1964 and 1974, eight active nests, one inactive nest, and -201- Osprey 3 18 summer sightings of ospreys were recorded (14). During the 25 hour aerial census in 1974, nine active nests were located in this area. Although the osprey is not abundant in the Snoqualmie Forest, it does occur there and does not appear to be declining. In 1974, 94 adult ospreys and five juveniles were recorded in Washington and 47 nests were located (Game Department files). There are approximately 15 pairs of ospreys along Pend Oreille (D. Johnson, pers. comm. 1975) and there are 10 nests in Skagit and San Juan counties (J. Adkins, pers. comm. 1975). The osprey appears to be declining at the mouth of the Columbia River as the number dropped from 200 pairs in the 1940's to only 24 pairs in 1963 (5). However, according to T. Knight (pers. comm. 1975), the population of ospreys is increasing in some drainages in Washington. R. Lichtenberg also thinks that there is some increase in the number of Washington ospreys due to more public awareness (pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: Usually three eggs are laid per set and incubation takes 28-33 days. Numbers in captivity: Ospreys do not survive in captivity (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. The osprey is not threatened nationally. 2. Formerly common, now becoming rare (17). According to M. Brown (5), it is declining in Washington. Definitely threatened in Washington (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). The osprey is on the National Audubon Society's Blue List (Game Department files). The osprey is not presently threatened in eastern Washington and may possibly be increasing on the Pend Oreille (D. Johnson, pers. comm. 1975). W. Melquist's study in northeastern Washington and Idaho discovered that the osprey's reproductive success had increased from 1972 to 1973 (13). It is not threatened in the state according to J. Adkins (pers. comm. 1975). -202- Osprey 4 3. Questionnaire scores: J. Smith 514/8 for coastal population. 14. Status in Washington is potentially threatened and probably already threatened in coastal Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: Loss of nesting areas due to habitat destruction and collapse of nest trees, crow and raccoon predation on eggs, human removal of eggs, and shooting have all contributed to the decline of this species (10). Organochlorine pesticides accumulate in the osprey, causing abberent breeding behavior, embryonic deaths and eggshell thinning. High winds can cause nest failure, either the nest is blown down or the young themselves are blown from the nests and often drowned (11). Resistance to human disturbance and development: The osprey tolerates close human activity and settlement if its habitat is maintained and it is not harassed during the breeding season (4). Their food habits do not conflict with human interests. In some areas flooding by hydro-electric dams has created significant areas of new habitat for the osprey. However, people MOlest nests, steal eggs, destroy nests, and shoot ospreys (11). Protective measures taken and response to management: Due to a national ban on DDT in 1972 and prior local prohibitions, levels of DDE and DDD are decreasing in the osprey on Gardiners Island (16). Since 1966, fledging totals on the island have increased. P. Spitzer replaced contaminated eggs on Long Island with healthy eggs, which were raised by the foster parents (21). These healthy young later returned to breed on the island and thus started a new, healthier population there. Management recommendations: The ban on DDT should remain (16). Introduction of any new toxins into the environment should be avoided. Logging practices should be changed to provide more nesting sites. Old dead topped trees should be preserved and existing nests protected. Artificial nesting platforms could also be provided. More enforcement and surveillance by authorities would be beneficial. Sports fishermen should be informed that ospreys do not compete for their game fish. Contaminated eggs could be replaced with healthy ones, thus vitalizing the population (20). Osprey nest trees could be posted and a 200 feet no-cut strip could be reserved around the trees, beyond which all suitable broken top trees and -203- Osprey 5 snags should be preserved within two miles (Game Department files). Firearms should not be discharged near nests. Vehicles, snag cutting, and overnight camping should be prohibited in the vicinity of nests. Snags could be built atop large trees to increase available nesting habitat. In Washington, the osprey population is very scattered and widespread making them hard to manage (R. Lichtenberg, pers. comm. 1975). References: 1. Anonymous. 1973. Additional records of non-fish prey taken by osprey. Wilson's Bulletin 85 (4):468-470. 2. Anonymous. 1975. Oil Pollution and the Significant Biological Resources of Puget Sound, State of Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. 3. Audubon, J.J. 1967. The Birds of America. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 5. Brown, M. 1966. What future for birds of prey? Audubon 68:330-334. 6. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 7. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 8. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Cambridge. 9. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 10. Johnson, D.R. and W.E. Melquist. 1975. Osprey Nesting Success and Management Recommendations. University of Idaho, Moscow. 11. Johnson, D.R., W.E. Melquist, and G.J. Schroeder. 1975. DDT and PCB levels in Lake Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, osprey eggs. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 13(4):401-404. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Melquist, W.E. 1974. Nesting Success and Chemical Contamination in Northern Idaho and Northeastern Washington Osprey. Master of Science Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 14. Payne, N.F. and R.D. Taber. 1973. Current Status of Ten Uncommon Birds and Mammals in Snoqualmie National Forest and Vicinity. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. -204- Osprey 6 15. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 16. Puleston, D. 1975. Return of the osorey. Natural History 84:52-59. 17. Reilly, E.M. 1968. The Audubon Illustrated Handbook of American Birds. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 18. Sprunt, A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. 19. Wahl,T.R.and D.R. Paulson. 1972. Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. 20. White, C.N. 1974. Current problems and techniques in raptor management and conservation. Pp. 307-308. Transactions of the Thirty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 21. Zimmerman, D. 1974. Paul Spitzer didn't put all his eggs in one basket and eastern bird lovers will forever be grateful. Today's Health 52:4-9. Persons interviewed: Jack Adkins 1920 Plaza View Drive Sedro Wooley, Washington Don Johnson University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843 Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 I Richard Lichtenberg U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tenth Floor 1601 Second Avenue Builuing Seattle, Washington 98101 -205- Osprey 7 Jack Smith Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, July, 1975. -206- GYRFALCON Common name: Gyrfalcon Scientific name: Falco rusticolus obsoletus Gmelin Order:. Falconiformes Family: Falconidae Distinguishing characteristics: White phase: pure white below, black wingtips and three or four grayish bars across secondaries; pure white above with dark, slate-brown or blue-black markings. Beak, pale horn, nearly white, black-tipped; feet, cere, and eyelids yellow; eyes dark brown. Gray phase: greyish-white below, breast streaked with dark grey; barred grey on flanks and thighs; under wings gray, dark-tipped, closely barred; under tail closely barred. Above, slate gray or bluish-gray to pale gray; feathers closely barred; nape and crown blue-grey, streaked with slightly darker gray; sides of head streaked. Beak dark horn, darker tipped; feet, cere and eyelids, yellow; eyes dark brown. Black phase: grayish-white below, all feathers broadly streaked (except throat) and barred with blackish-brown to bluish-black. Above, dark gray or slate gray, barred with dark gray at regular intervals from the tail tip to the neck; head, dark slate with facial barrs; remainder pale gray with darker strands. Beak dark, bluish horn; feet, cere, and eyelids yellowish-orange; eyes dark brown. Habitat: The gyrfalcon inhabits arctic landscapes from sparsely treed northern rims of boreal forests to desolate fields of the interior of high Arctic islands, seacoasts and open mountains (3, 9). In Washington, it is found on open river deltas (10). It nests on rock ledges, usually under overhanging or projecting cap rock (3). The eggs may be laid on accumulations of its own pellets, or, where woody vegetation is available, the nests may be made of sticks 7). The gyrfalcon feeds mainly on grouse, ptarmigan, and rodents (5). Former distribution: Formerly, the gyrfalcon inhabited the arctic regions, -207- Gyrfalcon 2 including Greenland, migrating south rarely in the winter to the northern borders of the United States (6). It was casual in Washington in the winter. Present distribution: Presently, the gyrfalcon is circumpolar in high boreal, sub-Arctic and Arctic regions; it occurs in British Columbia and the lower Fraser Valley on the east side of Vancouver Island, and regularly on the Columbia Plateau of Washington State (3). It is also found on the river deltas of Puget Sound (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: According to T. Knight (pers. comm. 1975), the gyrfalcon is common or uncommon in Washington depending on the winter concentration north of the United States. In fact, it may possibly be in- creasing in eastern Washington due to increased agriculture and irrigation pro- viding more habitat for prey items. N. Lavers (pers. comm. 1975) considers the number of gyrfalcon in Washington, though small, to be steady, and says that their numbers may even be increasing in the western Skagit area. However, in 1971, T. Wahl (11) estimated only two or three gyrfalcons in western Washington. Breeding performance in the wild: Two or four eggs are laid per set. Incubation requires 32 to 35 days. Numbers in captivity: Very low, if any, as it is difficult to keep gyrfalcons healthy in cages, although in the Middle Ages, they were prized for falconry (4). One gyrfalcon is confined at the Woodland Park Zoo (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding potential in captivity: Not good now, however, within two years, they should be bred commonly in confinement (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). One was bred in 1974 at the Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle. Status: 1. The gyrfalcon is not threatened nationally. 2. According to T. Wahl, the gyrfalcon is rare in Washington (11). However, T. Knight (pers. comm. 1975) states that the gyrfalcon is not threatened in Washington. 3. Questionnaire scores: N. Lavers 63/48. 4. Status in Washington is unknown at the present. -208- Gyrfalcon 3 Factors associated with decline, if any: Loss of habitat, shooting, trapping, aspergillus and chronic foot diseases are all decimating factors. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Good. Artic breeding grounds are largely undisturbed by human development. Protective measures taken and response to management: The gyrfalcon, like all other raptors, are protected by Washington law. Also, the Snake River Birds of Prey National Refuge may benefit the gyrfalcon to some extent. Management recommendations: Wintering areas in Washington should be managed and protected. T. Knight (pers. comm. 1975) suggests that(l) falconers.'be allowed to take a limited number of gyrfalcons as many die of Aspergillus in the wild but they could be cured with drugs in captivity; (2) main birding areas be closed to falconers so that birdwatchers would be able to enjoy the gyrfalcon. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Checklist - Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 19:155-199. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Audubon, J.J. 1950. Audubon's Birds of America. MacMillan Co., New York. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Brown, L. and D. Amadon. 1969. The hunting hawk. Audubon 70:38-52. 5. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 6. Dawson, W. and J.H.Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington State. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 7. Grosvenor, G. and A. Wetmore. 1939. The Book of Birds. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 8. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Reilly, E.M. 1968. The Audubon Illustrated Handbook of American Birds. McGraw-Hill Book, New York. 11. Wahl, T. 1972. The status of the gyrfalcon in Washington State. Game department files. -209- Gyrfalcon 4 12. Wahl, T. and D. Paulson. 1972. Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. Persons interviewed: Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney Avenue N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Norman Lavers 873 Samish Island Road Bow, Washington 98232 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -210- PEREGRINE FALCON Common name: Peregrine falcon Scientific name: Falco peregrinus anatum American falcon Bonaparte Great-footed falcon Order: Falconiformes Family: Falconidae Distinguishing characteristics: Medium sized hawk with long, pointed wings and a long tail. Adult is slately blue above with dark bars; blackish on crown, cheeks, and "moustache" mark. Underparts white to cream buff, at times with a pinkish cast, barred on lower breast, sides, and abdomen with blackish-browD; upper breast and throat usually immaculate. Tail with six narrow dark bands and subterminal blackish bar, tipped with white. Bill, horn color; cere, toes, and tarsus yellow. Male: length 15-18 inches; wingspread 38-43 inches. Female: length 18-20 inches; wingspread 43-46 inches. Habitat: The peregrine inhabits mainly open country, sandy shores, wet coniferous forests and farmland (11). Its nest can be found on a ledge or in a cliff niche, often under an overhanging projection, or it may even lay its eggs in a hawk's old nest. The peregrine feeds on both large and small birds. Former distribution: The peregrine bred from the sub-Arctic portions of Alaska and Canada south to Baja California (except coast of southern-Alaska and British Columbia), central Arizona, and Mexico (locally), in eastern United States south to Georgia; also it bred in Ontario, southern Quebec and Maritimes Provinces of Canada (3). It was locally distributed in southern boreal forests of Canada and in Laborador. It wintered chiefly in its breeding range, but the more northern birds migrated south. Previously it nested in the eastern Columbia Basin in Washington (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Peregrine falcon 2 Present distribution: Same as former distribution, except it no longer breeds in eastern United States, nor in Ontario, southern Quebec, and the Maritime Provinces of Canada (3). Its eastern limits presently follow the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains in the United States (3). In Washington, it is a resident in the lowlands both east and west of the Cascades breeding rarely in the state (11). It has been extirpated from its lowland nesting sites; now being found only in the Olympic and the high Cascade Mountains (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: A few hundred pairs still breed in interior Alaska and in areas of northwest Canada principally along major rivers (3). White estimated only 200 pairs in the entire United States (excluding Alaska) in 1973 (12). Number of known aeries with adults in 1969-70, but not all producing young: British Columbia, 19; Alberta, 3; South Laborador, 2; California, 2; Oregon, 2; western Mexico, 14; Arizona, 2; New Mexico, 2; Utah, 0; Colorado, 6-8; Wyoming, 1; Montana, 1; Texas, 3-5 (3). Recent information is lacking for Washington, Idaho, and Nevada, but Nelson estimated only 10 to 12 pairs remaining in 1965. Possibly there are 12 nesting pairs in the Washington Cascades (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: Three to four eggs are laid per set; the peregrine reaches sexual maturity at three years. Number of pairs laying eggs and hatching success are low in the southern portion of its range; reproductive rate and numbers of breeding pairs are decreasing in larger populations (3). Numbers in captivity: Numbers in captivity are not presently known, but the number from south of the taiga in possession of falconers, zoos, and in captive breeding projects is believed to be less that 20 pairs (3). Peregrine are difficult to raise in captivity (13). Breeding potential in captivity: Potential is probably poor (3). It was very difficult to get peregrines to breed in confinement until 1973 when 20 young were hatched and reared by three pairs of peregrines at Cornell (2). The peregrine successfully reproduced in captivity in British Columbia (4). -212- Peregrine falcon 3 Status: 1. U.S.D.I. states that the peregrine falcon is extirpated as a breeding bird east of the Rocky Mountains in the United States, in Ontario, southern Quebec, and Maritimes; local declines are reported from western United States, also in the taiga in the Yukon Territory, Mackenzie District, and interior Alaska (3). The peregrine is nationally endangered. 2. It is virtually extinct as a breeding bird in the 48 contiguous states (14). It is rare in Washington (11). F. p. anatum has suffered the worst of all the peregrines (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is threatened with extinction. Factors associated with decline, if any: Cumulative effects of chlorinated pesticides obtained from prey (especially DDT and DDE) have increased adult mortality and reduced production of young by affecting reproductive mechanisms and causing eggs to become thin-shelled or otherwise non-viable (3). Habitat destruction affects their food supply, exposes them to heat, cold and direct sun (to which they are very sensitive), and exposes them to direct pressure of human presence. Also lack of water may prevent a falcon from returning to a former nest site. Man has contributed to their demise through collecting the young and adults for falconry and more directly through vandalistic shooting. During World War II, peregrine falcons were shot continuously to protect message-bearing pigeons. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Poor; they are very sensitive to human presence and habitat destruction, and collection for falconry and malicious shooting. -213- Peregrine falcon 41 Protective measures taken and response to management: Falcons are protected by federal and state laws and by a joint U.S.-Mexico law (4). The Madison Conference was held to discuss the peregrine and DDT; published findings state that the thinning of eggshells was the major cause of decline in the falcon population (4). As a result, public concern was aroused and the vermin status of all birds of prey was dropped. Propagation techniques are being studied by the Fish and Wildlife Service, zoos, private investigators and at Cornell University. The Department of Interior has created the Snake River Birds of Prey Natural Area which embraces a 33-mile stretch of the Snake River in Idaho and includes the canyon, canyon walls, and the contiguous lands up to two miles on each side of the river (13). The United Peregrine Society has developed plans for a sanctuary near Klamath Falls, Oregon (12). Here they hope to move wild birds and eggs to man-made shelters as an aide in propagation; hopefully, this will increase the number of falcons to the point where they can be reintroduced into the wild. Management recommendations: Educate the public about the status of the peregrine falcon. Agencies responsible for the preservation of the species should expand efforts in protection, and in prosecution of law violators. Methods developed for captive propagation could bolster the wild population. Washington should initiate management oriented research, and consider the establishment of strictly regulated refuges around known aeries (3). The use of food chain pesticides should be eliminated. References: 1. Anonymous. 1955. Bird and Animal Identification Course. Annual Personnel School. State of Washington Department of Game, Olympia, Washington. -214- Peregrine falcon 5 2. Anonymous. 1973. Cornell project brings peregrines back to eastern United States. Science News 104-158. 3. Anonymous. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publ. 114, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 4. Beene, F. L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. 5. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 7. Hickey, J.J. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 8. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J. W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. Peterson, R. T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Sprunt, Jr., A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. 11. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham, Washington. 12. White, C.M. 1973. Back from extinction. Time 101 :75-6. 13. White, C.M. 1974. Current problems and techniques in raptor management and conservation. Pp.306-310. Transactions of the Thirty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 14. Zimmerman, D. 1973. Man and osprey strategies for survival. National Parks and Conservation Magazine 47:16-19. Persons interviewed: Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 No. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504. -215- Peregrine falcon 6 Jack Smith Washington Game Department Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington 98520 Tony Angell 100 Crockett St. Seattle, Washington 98109 Glen Clothier Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington 98520 Cqompiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, July, 1975. -216- PEALE'S PEREGRINE FALCON Common name: Peale's peregrine Scientific name: Falco peregrinus pealei falcon Ridgeway Order: Falconiformes Family: Falconidae Distinguishing characteristics: The largest and darkest of all the peregrines. Dorsal ground color is dark, and the barring is only slightly darker than the ground color, broad and subdued. Dark gray facial bar; gray overwash on the ventral side. Undersurface more broadly barred than other peregrines, with large tear-drop markings extending to the throat on most females, these being reduced to dark shaftlines on males. Habitat: Peale's falcon inhabits open country, prairies, marshes, beaches, and wide meadows. It is not found in forests or any wooded lands (3). Its habitat varies, depending on the prey availibility and approximate conditions for their capture. This falcon nests on a cliff below which forest occurs, sometimes a hawk's former tree nest, and occasionally in the centers of large cities (11). It feeds almost entirely on birds. Former distribution: The Peale's falcon's range formerly included the Pacific coast region from Oregon to the Aleutian and Commander Islands, and it bred throughout its range (5). In Washington it was found on the western coast and in the eastern part of the Olympic Peninsula. Present distribution: Presently, Peale's falcon ranges in the islands and head- lands of the Pacific coast from Oregon northward through the Aleutian Islands to the Commander and Kurile Islands of Asia (3). Washington is on the southern edge of the Peale's falcon's breeding range, but the coast and Puget Sound region are major wintering areas (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). It also winters along the lower Columbia River and the Willamette Valley in Oregon. the majority of the falcons in Washington occur in the Washington Islands National Wildlife Refuge off the coast. -217- Peale's peregrine falcon 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: Between British Columbia and Alaska, there are an estimated 1200-1800 nesting pairs annually (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Numbers or population trends in Washington are not known. Breeding performance in the wild: Four to five eggs are laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breedinq performance in captivity: Now good, about 20 young falcons (both F. p. peaZei and f.p. anatum) are hatching and being raised at Cornell every year (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. The Peale's falcon is critically endangered in the Wnited States (14). 2. The Peale's falcon was fairly common in Washington in 1953 (8). It Ts threatened in this state according to T. Knight (pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status is unknown in Washington; however, the peripheral breeding popu- lation is so rare in Washington that it should be considered threatened. Factors associated with decline, if any: Habitat destruction and persecution by man. Malicious shooting and falconry may be endangering the Peale's falcon's population in Washington. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Poor, disturbances of nesting sites and destruction of habitat are deleterious. Man collects falcons for falconry, either legally or illegally, and shoots them in the wild. Protective measures taken and response to management: Falcons are protected by state and federal law and by a United States-Mexico treaty (3). Peale's peregrine falcons can not legally be taken for falconry in Washington (Game Department files). Due to the findings of the Madison Conference, public concern was aroused to the peregrines' plight, ending the vermin status of all birds of prey (3). Management recommendations: The public should be educated to the value of the -218- Peale's peregrine falcon 3 falcon and its requirements. Local enforcement agencies should be urged to expend greater efforts in prosecution of violators. The use of food chain pesticides should be eliminated wherever possible (13). Methods developed for propagation should bolster wild populations, for example, double-clutching techniques in which the first clutch is removed to an incubator, resulting in a pair's second laying, and then, either returning the hatched eggs to the parents for rearing with the second clutch or artificially raising the young for release. (4). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Checklist--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1955. Birds and Animals Identification Course Annual Personnel School. State of Washington Department of Game, Olympia. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Dawson W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Edson, J.M. 1939. Bird notes from northwestern Washington. Murrelet 20:22. 7. Hickey, J.J. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 8. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 11. Sprunt, Jr., A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. -219- Peale's peregrine falcon 4 12. White, C.M. 1973. Back from extinction. Time 101:75-6. 13. White, C.M. 1974. Current problems and techniques in raptor management and conservation. Pp. 306-310. Transactons of the Thirty-Ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 14. Zimmerman, D. 1972. The peregrine: America's endangered falcon. National Parks and Conservation Magazine 46:4-9. Persons interviewed: Tony Angell 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504. Evelyn Peaslee 907 Broadway East Seattle, Washington 98102 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -220- ARCTIC PEREGRINE FALCON Common name: Arctic peregrine Scientific name:Falco peregrinus tundrius falcon White Order: Falconiformes Family: Falconidae Distinguishing characteristics: Smaller than falco peregrinus anatum and is generally paler and grayer. Adult males nearly pure white below, sparsely and rather narrowly barred with black and with little or no rufous overwash. Facial bar is narrow and often seaprated from the crown by a narrow line of white feathers under the eye. Habitat: The Arctic peregrine breeds only on arctic tundra (4); however, its winter habitat varies with prey availability (2). Its nesting requirements are not known. It probably feeds chiefly on birds. Former distribution: It bred in the treeless tundra areas of Arctic Alaska, Canada, and western Greenland, migrated south chiefly through eastern and middle North America to the Gulf Coast of the United States, Middle and South America, and as far south as Argentina and Chili (1). Band recoveries indicate that southward migration along the Atlantic coast may be chiefly from breeding areas in western Greenland. Present distribution: Its general distribution is the same as former (1). The Arctic peregrine migrates through Washington in the late fall (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: Two hundred to three hundred pairs are in Arctic Alaska, perhaps a few thousand pairs are in Arctic Canada, but assumption of a large population in the Canadian Arctic Islands may be erroneous (1). There is no estimate for Washington at this time, however, migrating numbers appear to be decreasing (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). The production of fledglings per occupied nest on the Colville River, Alaska, -221- Arctic peregrine falcon 2 dropped from 1.4 in 1952 to 0.5 in 1971; 53% of the aeries on the river were unoccupied in 1970 and 1971 (1). Mean eggshell thickness for this population decreased 21.7% since 1947; egg contents averaged over 800 ppm DDE (lipid basis) and there is a highly significant negative correlation between eggshell- thickness and DDE concentration in eggs. Numbers have declined along the Thelon River in the Northwest Territories from 10 pairs in 1966 to 4 pairs in 1970. There has been no obvious decline in migrants along the Atlantic or Gulf coasts nor consistent reduction in the ratio of young to adults. However, there has been a reduction in the western Great Lakes migrants from the 1938-40 average to the five year period ending in 1967. Breeding performance in the wild: Two to three eggs are laid per set, usually three. Hatching success is decreasing; the numbers of pairs failing to breed are increasing (I). Numbers in captivity: From 150 to 200 tundra or taiga peregrines, including 15 held at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center are in captivity (1). Breeding potential in captivity: Probably poor; at least seven peregrines of all subspecies have been reared in captive breeding projects since 1966 (1). Chances for breeding in confinement are increasing; there are peregrines being raised at Cornell (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. U.S.D.I. states that the Arctic peregrine is following the same pattern that led the American peregrine to its rapid collapse in numbers (1). 2. It is rarely seen as a migrant in Washington (T. Knight, pers. comm. 1975). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is threatened with extinction. Factors associated with decline, if any: Cumulative effects of chlorinated pesticides and their breakdown products obtained from prey, especially DDT and DDE have increased adult mortality, reduced production of young, and affected reproductive mechanisms (1). Although their breeding grounds are relatively free of pesticides, they are picking these up in their wintering grounds (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975) -222- Arctic peregrine falcon 3 Resistance to human disturbance and development: Human activity near nest sites will cause falcons to abandon their nests. Man persecutes the falcon by shooting and with poisons and traps. Protective measures taken and response to management: Peregrine falcons are protected at all times by federal laws and the laws of most states and provinces (1). A treaty pertaining to wildlife between the United States and Mexico extended absolute protection to the Arctic peregrine (2). No response to protection is obvious at this time. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Canadian Wildlife Service, about 20 falconer-aviculturists, and Cornell University are studying artificial propagation techniques with peregrines (1). Management recommendations: The public should be aroused to the plight of all peregrine falcons. Artificial propagation methods should be developed. Existing laws should be better enforced. In Washington, a study is needed on the numbers and distribution of this rare migrant before it can be managed. References: 1. Anonymous. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United States. Resource Pub]. 114, bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 2. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 3. Hickey, J.J. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 4. Zimmerman, D. 1972. The peregrine: America's endangered falcon. National Parks and Conservation Magazine:46:4-9. Persons interviewed: Tony Angell 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 -223- Arctic peregrine falcon 4 Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -224- BLACK PIGEON HAWK Common names: Black pigeon hawk Scientific name: FaZco columbarius Black merlin suckleyi Ridgeway Suckley merlin Order: Falconiformes Family: Falconidae Distinguishing characteristics: Adult: bluish-black on back, tail barred; white or cream below, streaked with brown. Juvenile: back brown; tail barred and uniform dark; deep cream or buff below. Habitat: The black merlin inhabits tide flats, large lakes, river valleys, and open prairie country (7). It nests in inaccessible cavities high in dead trees. The merlin feed mostly on small birds such as house sparrows, occasionally grasshoppers and dragonflies. Former distribution: Formerly, the black merlin was found on the Pacific coast from northern California to Sitka; east at least along the eastern slopes of the Cascades and Blue Mountains in Oregon and Washington (5). It was not a common resident in western Washington. Present distribution: The black merlin migrates little; it winters primarily along the Pacific coast from Puget Sound to northern California (3). It is a resident in western Washington and a winter resident in eastern Washington (1). Estimated numbers and population trends: The merlin is common in the fall and and winter in Washington (T. Knight; W. English, pers. comm. 1975). According to T. Angell (pers. comm. 1975). the merlin is rare and declining in Washington. Breeding performance in the wild: Two to three eggs are laid per set, usually five or six. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. -225- Black pigeon hawk 2 Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that the merlin is threatened in Washington State, according to T. Knight (pers. comm. 1975). The merlin is a common winter resident in Washington (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). All raptors, including the black merlin, are potentially threatened because of their life style (T. Angell). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status is unknown in Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: Loss of habitat and prey items, along with pesticides, may be contributing to their decline (1). Trapping, no matter how often, can be deleterous to their population (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). Resistance to human disturbance and development: The black merlin has a high threshold of response to intrusion, being very resistant to the presence of man. Black merlins are collected for falconry, but the effects are not clearly understood. Protective measures taken and response to management: The black merlin is protected in Washington State; response is not known at this time. Management recommendations: A study should be made of habitat requirements and population trends in Washington. Artificial propagation and release could help (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Checklist -- Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Anonymous. 1955. Bird and Animal Identification Course Annual Personnel School. State of Washington Department of Game, Olympia. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Cambridge. -226- Black pigeon hawk 3 7. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 8. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1, Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Sprunt Jr., A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers, New York. 11. Temple, S.A. 1972. Systematics and evolution of the North American merlins. Audubon 89 (2):345-337. Persons interviewed: Tony Angell 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Tom Knight Washington Department of Game 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Steve Layman Yakima, Washington Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -227- WESTERN PIGEON HAWK Common names: Western pigeon hawk Scientific name: Falco coZumbarius bendirei Marlin Swann Order: Falconiformes Family: Falconidae Distinguishing characteristics: Underparts slately blue, feathers with black shafts; tail black, crossed with three gray-white bands; underparts cream to buff, heavily streaked with dark brown or blackish; throat white; boots reddish in old birds. Male: length 10-11.5 inches; wing 7 inches; tail 4.9 inches. Female: length 12-13 inches; wing 8.5 inches; tail 5.4 inches. Habitat: the merlin is found in open spaces or where small birds congregate in bushy cover and especially along sea marshes (10). They also utilize mixed woods, broken country, clearings, wood lots, and areas with plenty of edge (8). In western Washington, they prefer saltwater shoreline. The nest is made of sticks, twigs, and sheds of bard, and is placed in a large spruce or fir tree, or on the ground; they may also use old crows' nests instead of building their own (4). The merlin feeds mostly on birds, such as juncos, flickers, and sparrows, any species up to their own size. Former distribution: They were formerly found throughout North America, south to the West Indies and northern South America, breeding chiefly north of the United States (5). In Washington, the merlin was not common east of the Cascades and was rare west of the mountains. Present distribution: In North America, the merlin breeds from northern Cali- fornia to southern Oregon, east to Colorado, northwest across the northern states to Minnesota and Illinois, northwest to the Canadian Maritime Provinces and -228- Western pigeon hawk 2 Newfoundland; winters regularly on Alberta and Saskatchewan prairies (3). The merlin is readily seen migrating and wintering in western Washington (T. Knight; S. Layman, pers. comm. 1975). According to Alcorn (1), the merlin is a spring and fall migrant throughout the state and a winter resident in western Washington. Wahl and Paulson (13) consider it a resident both east and west of the Cascades and that it breeds regularly in the state. Two merlins were sighted on Moon Island in 1975 (J. Smith, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: The merlin is a common migrating and wintering bird in Washington (T. Knight; S. Layman; pers. comm. 1975) W. English (pers. comm. 1975) says that even though the merlin is a common winter resident in the state, it is rare in some areas. However, according to Larrison and Sonnenberg (8) and to T. Angell ( pers. comm. 1975), the merlin is a rare, uncommon visitor to Washington. Its numbers appear to be declining in the state (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). Four merlins were recorded during the Tahoma Audubon Society's 1974 Christmas Count (J. O'Donnell, pers. comm. 1975), a number similar to those in previous years. Breeding performance in the wild: Four to five eggs are laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity,: A merlin reproduced in 1974 in captivity; within a few years merlins should be breeding commonly in confinement (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. The merlin is not seen in large numbers, although they are not rare in some areas (10). It is a common winter resident in Washington, but its nesting status is notknown (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). According to T. Angell (pers. comm. 1975), it is potentially threatened in Washington. 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: Destruction of habitat is a major cause: for example, in Canada, the grasslands and parklands were altered and replaced with -229- Western pigeon hawk 3 cropland monoculture resulting in a reduction of prey and nesting habitat (14). High concentrations of hydrocarbons may be deleterious (14). Trapping just a few here and there for falconry and captive programs may be hurting the population (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Development is destroying their habitat; otherwise, human presence does not seem to bother them much. Protective measures taken and response to management: Creation of the Snake River Birds of Prey National Area will benefit this species. The merlin is protected by Washington law; response to protection is not known at this time. Management recommendations: Management of their habitat (any river delta) and their prey items will benefit themerlin in Washington (S. Layman, pers. comm. 1975). Research on their habits and numbers in the state would also be helpful. Captive propagation may help, but it is not the complete solution (T. Angell, pers. comm. 1975). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Checklist -- Birds of theState of Washington. Occ. Papers 17:155-199. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Audubon, J.J. 1967. The Birds of America. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell. 5. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton MTfflir Co. Cambridge. 7. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 8. Larrison, E.J. and K.G.:Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. -230- Western pigeon hawk 4 10. Reilly, E.M. 1968. The Audubon Illustrated Handbook of American Birds. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 11. Sprunt Jr., A. 1955. North American Birds of Prey. Harpers and Brothers. New York. 12. Temple, S.A. 1972. Systematics and evolution of the North American merlins. Audubon 89(2):325-337. 13. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson, 1972. Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. 14. White, C.M. 1974. Current problems and techniques in raptor management and conservation. Transactions of the Thirty-Ninth North American Wild- life and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Persons interviewed: Tony Angell 100 Crockett Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Tom Knight Washington Game Department 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Steve Layman Yakima, Washington (CH 8-1440) James O'Donnell 436 Harvard Tacoma Washington 98401 Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -231- MOUNTAIN QUAIL Common names: Mountain quail Scientific name: Oreortyx' pictus palmeri Plumed partridge Oberholser Mountain partridge Order: Galliformes Family: Phasianidae Distinguishing characteristics: Male: straight, narrow, and blackish crest composed of only two feathers. Chestnut throat, edged with black and separated from slate gray chest, neck and head by white line. Plain olive gray on the back, wings, and tail. Flanks, rich dark brown with conspicuous vertically oriented black and white bars. Length: 125-140 mm. (males 2 mm. longer than females); tail 19-92 mm. (4 mm. longer on male). Female: similar but duller with a shorter plume. Habitat: The mountain quail is found in dense bush, coniferous forests, around edges of mountain meadows, and sometimes on fairly high crests (7). In Washington it inhabits bushy burns and clearings, bushy canyon thickets, and areas near farms, and woodland borders (7); in the southern Puget Sound area, it prefers beaches (3). The nest is found on the ground, alongside, or under, an old log, or under thick bushes and clumps of ferns, occasionally along edges of clearings, grain fields, and meadows. The mountain quail feeds on grubs, insects, berries, and seeds. Former distribution: The mountain quail was formerly found along the Pacific coast from Santa Barbara, north to western Washington, being well established at lower levels and in the borders of cultivated districts of Cascades (3). It was probably native to Washington, but its numbers were augmented by importation at an early date. Present distribution: Presently, the mountain quail is found in western United States from southern Washington and southwest Idaho, east to Nevada and south to Baja California (7); it is also found in western Washington and western British Columbia. Mountain quail are still found around lower Puget Sound and in. southeast Washington (F. Martinsen, pers. comm. 1975). A few have been noted -232- Mountain quail 2 near Olympia and Bremerton and elsewhere in Kitsap County (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). Mountain quail have also been reported from Cow's Creek, the Grande Ronde, Snake, Asotin and Columbia river drainages; Auburn, Vashon Island, Purdue, Nisqually, Fort Lewis, and Cle Elum (D. Steele; J. Slipp; J. Stevenson, pers. comm. 1975). Estimated numbers and population trends: The mountain quail is uncommon in Washington (13); L. Wadkins (pers. comm. 1975) estimates that there are less than 1,000 mountain quail in the entire state. There has been a gradual, but definite decrease in numbers throughout southeastern Washington since 1948 (I. Buss, pers. comm. 1975). Very few are presently surviving in the Blue Mountains where they were rather common in 1948 and up to 1955. There are still a couple hundred quail around Olympia and several hundred along the Grand Ronde (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). There has been a definite decrease since the hard winter of 1968 throughout the state (D. Steele, pers. comm. 1975). Although there is only a remnant population left, the recent return of logging to lowland areas may result in an increase in numbers (C.F. Martinsen, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: 5 to 15 eggs are laid per set. Numbers in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: They do breed in captivity, but whether they reach their natural potential is not known, (J. Stevenson, pers. comm. 1975). Attempts to breed quail at Woodland Park Zoo were unsuccessful (W. English, pers. comm. 1975). Status: 1. Not nationally or internationally endangered. 2. The mountain quail is relatively rare in Washington. Although they were not originally abundant in the state, after the commencement of logging practices, they became so (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). According to C.F. Martinsen (pers. comm. 1975), they are potentially threatened in Washington. D. Steele considers this quail to be definitely threatened and almost extinct. 3. Questionnaire scores: C. Rieck 80/72. 4. The status in Washington is potentially threatened with extinction. -233- Mountain quail 3 Factors associated with decline, if any: Unrelenting habitat destruction by cutting, bulldozing, spraying, and over-grazing the bushy thickets along canyons, about farms, and at the edges of woodlands has greatly reduced their numbers in southeastern Washington (I. Buss, pers. comm. 1975). The hard winter of 1968-69 severely crippled their population (C. Rieck; D. Steele, pers. comm. 1975.) Resistance to human disturbance and development: Most habitat loss results from development and this is detrimental to the mountain quail in southeastern Washington; however, in western Washington, human intervention in the form of logging has benefitted the mountain quail. Protective measures taken and response to management: The Game Department unsuccessfully attempted to introduce the mountain quail into areas that were being logged for the second time in the North Bendarea and other places in western Washington (C. Rieck, pers. comm. 1975). Later, the game farm that had been providing the stock experienced a disease epidemic and the project was dropped. Management recommendations: Habitat should be preserved in southeastern Wash- ington and lowland early successive stage of timber and bush growth should be encouraged in western Washington. Possibly artificial propagation and restocking programs might be beneficial (L. Wadkins, pers. comm. 1975). A ban on quail hunting would not be worthwhile as the number of mountain quail shot is in- cidental (C.F. Martinsen, pers. comm. 1975). References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1962. Check List -- Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 17:155-199. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1963. Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Dawson, W. and J.H. Bowles. 1909. The Birds of Washington. Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 4. Hall, F.S. 1923. Upland game birds in the state of Washington with discussion of some general principles of game importance. Murrelet 4:3-15. 5. Hoffman, R. 1927. Birds of the Pacific States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Cambridge. 6. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -234- Mountain quail 4 7. Johnsgard, P.A. 1973. Grouse and Quail of North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 8. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Checklist of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 9. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 11. Reed, C.A. 1915. The Bird Book. Doubleday, Page, and Co, Garden City. 12. Reilly Jr., E.M. 1968. The Audubon Illustrated Handbook of American Birds. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 13. Wahl, T. and D.R. Paulson. 1972. A Guide to Bird Finding in Washington. Whatcom Museum Press, Bellingham. Person interviewed: Irven Buss Department of Zoology Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99163 Wally English Woodland Park Zoo 5500 Phinney N. Seattle, Washington 98103 Fred Martinsen Washington Department of Game 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia , Washington 98504 Carroll Rieck Washington Department of Game 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 -235- Mountain quail 5 Tom Knight Washington Department of Game 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Don Steele 2134 20th Street Clarkston, Washington 98801 Jim Stevenson Fort Lewis Tacoma, Washington 98465 Other authorities: Jim Stout Washington Department of Game 8702 N. Division Street Spokane, Washington 99218. Compiled by: Carol Ann Staricka, August, 1975. -236- LESSER SANDHILL CRANE Common name: Lesser sandhill crane Scientific name: Grus canadensis Little brown crane canadensis Linnaeus Order: Gruiformes Family: Gruidae Distinquishing characteristics: A large, gray heron-like bird; sexes similar. Adults: plumage is slaty gray or light brown; wings darker; cheeks and throat are lighter and sometimes white. Crown and lores maked and red, except for scattered black bristles; cheeks and jaw are well feathered. Immatures: head is entirely feathered;plumage rusty brown (2). The best means of distinguishing the lesser sandhill crane from the greater snadhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) is by relative size. Drewien and Bizeau (5) list possible field characteristics for differentiating between the lesser and greater subspeices: "(a) the greater subspecies is considerably taller, larger, and more massive, (b) the greater subspecies appears lighter gray than does the lesser subspecies in late fall and early winter (C.C. Littlefield, pers. comm.), and (c) Little- field found differences in head profile; the lesser has a well pronounced forehead whereas the greater has a longer, more massive bill with a less pronounced forehead similar to the profile differences found between redhead (Aythya americana) and canvasback (Aytha valisineria) ducks." Familiarity with both the lesser and greater sandhill cranes in the field would appear essential for accurate identification. Records of the sandhill crane in Washington are limited, with confusion existing over the proper identification of subspecies. The recently described Canadian subspecies (Grus canadensis rowani) (18) has not in the past been recorded in Washington although its possible occurrence should not be overlooked. The occurrence of Grus canadensis rowani would further confuse the former and current status of sandhill cranes in Washington. Habitat: During the breeding season the lesser sandhill crane occurs on extensive marshes, bogs, broad flat arctic valleys, marshy tundra, and neighboring vicinities (9). During migration it occurs on prairies, grainfields, grass- lands, marshes, and shallow margins of lakes, pools, and ponds. Nests are usually a depression in the soil, thickly lined with fine dry grass and feathers, -237- Lesser sandhill crane 2 generally situated on drier portions of grassy tundra flats or marshes. Lesser sandhill cranes are omnivorous; feeds on crustaceans, mollusks, mice, lemmings, birds and their eggs, embryos, and chicks, frogs, snakes, insects, and vegetable matter including roots, bulbs, grains, browsed vegetation, and berries. Grains consumed are: sorghum, corn, wheat, and barley (19). Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: The lesser sandhill crane breeds from northeastern Siberia and western and northern Alaska east across the high Arctic to the Baffin Islands and south to the southern mainland of Alaska, southern Mackenzie, and Hudson Bay. It winters from the southern half of California, New Mexico, and Texas south into central Mexico, and migrates in fall and winter through the western part of the North American continent. In Washington the lesser sandhill crane occurs as a spring and fall migrant throughout the state. Estimated numbers and population trends: The population appears to be increasing; more than 200,000 individuals wintered in west Texas and eastern New Mexico in 1967-8 (6). Breeding performance in the wild: I to 2 eggs per clutch; usually 2. Sexual maturity is usually reached in the fourth year; longevity is 20-25 years at the longest (15). The lesser sandhill crane is a long-lived bird with deferred breeding and a relatively low replacement rate (15). The first chick to hatch in a clutch will often attack and kill its younger sibling. Selective pressures on the ability of cranes to raise more than one young with a high probability of subsequent survival may have led to sibling antagonism as the mechanism which results in the survival of only one young in most broods. If this has become a fixed behavior pattern, it obviously places severe limitations on the reproductive potential of this species, in'that it reduces or eliminates the possibility 'of larger broods during favorable years, and the ''effective" clutch size is actually one rather than two (15). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: The sandhill crane does fairly well in captivity. -238- Lesser sandhill crane 3 Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a regular but uncommon migrant, at least west of the Cascade Mountains (10); spring and fall migrant throughout the state (1,12) rare spring and fall migrant, mostly west of the Cascades (13). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is satisfactory. Factors associated with decline: The lesser sandhill crane concentrates in large flocks and thus is more vulnerable than most species to heavy hunting pressures. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because the breeding grounds are relatively isolated, the lesser sandhill crane is not greatly exposed to human interference during the breeding season. Protective measures taken and response to management: The lesser sandhill crane was placed under protection by the Migratory Birds Convention Act in 1918. It remained protected until open hunting seasons were established in Texas and New Mexico in 1961. Since that time, additonal open seasons have been authorized in other states and provinces of Canada. Although first requested as a means to control crop depredation by migratory cranes, these seasons are now primarily utilized for recreation. Management recommendations: In Washington a basic problem is distinguishing between the two subspecies (possibly three subspecies with Grus canadensis rowani) and developing a thorough understanding of the distribution and population of the lesser sandhill crane in the state. Subsequent work should evaluate if adequate resting and "staging" locations of sufficient size and quality exist. Management policies should be developed to adequately handle crop damage com- plaints caused by migrating and "staging" cranes. Damage control could involve providing supplementary feeding areas, the utilization of automatic acetylene explodters, or providing payments for crop loss. Indiscriminate shooting of all non-game species must be eliminated. -2 39- Lesser sandhill crane 4 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington State 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Drewien, R.C. and E.G. Bizeau. 1974. Status and distribution of greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 38(4) :720-742. 6. Fisher, J., N. Simon, and J. Vincent. 1969. Wildlife in Danger. Viking Press, New York. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon. 8. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 9. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1927. Notes on little brown crane. Murrelet 8:77 12. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 13. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 14. Miller, R.S. 1973. The brood size of cranes. Wilson Bulletin 85(4): 379-546. 15. Miller, R.S., G.S. Hochbaum, and D.B. Botkin. 1972. A Simulation Model for the Management of Sandhill Cranes. Bulletin No. 80. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven. 16. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 17. Richardson, F. 1957. Sandhill cranes near Snohomish, Washington. Murrelet 38:36-37. -240- Lesser sandhill crane 5 18. Walkinshaw, L.H. 1965. A new sandhill crane from central Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 79(3):181-184. (Secondarily from 5) 19. Walkinshaw, L. 1973. Cranes of the World. Winchester Press, New York. 20. Warburton, S. 1931. Nesting of the little brown crane. Murrelet:12:3-6. 21. Yocom, C.F. and H.A. Hansen. 1960. Magnitude of crane migration in eastern Washington, 1950-1951. Murrelet 41(3):41. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Elwood Bizeau Idaho Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843 Jim Stevenson Army Forestry Section Fort Lewis, Washington Other authorities: John Chattin Henry A. Hanson Jim Odonnell Frank Richardson Charles F. Yocom Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -241- GREATER SANDHILL CRANE Common name: Greater sandhill crane Scientific name: Grus canadensis Southern sandhill crane tabida Peters Order: Gruiformes Family: Gruidae Distinguishing characteristics: A large, gray heron-like bird; sexes similar. Adults: plumage is slaty gray or light brown; wings darker; cheeks and throat are lighter and sometimes white. Crown and lores naked and red, except for scattered black bristles; cheeks and jaws are well feathered. Immatures: head is entirely feathered; plumage rusty brown (4). The best means of distinguishing the greater sandhill crane from the lesser sandhill crane (Grus canadensis canadensis) is by relative size. Drewien and Bizeau (8) list possible field characteristics for differentiating between the lesser and greater subspecies: "(a) the greater subspecies is considerably taller, larger, and more massive, (b) the greater subspecies appears lighter gray than does the lesser subspecies in late fall and early winter (C.D. Littlefield, pers. comm.), and (3) Little- field found differences in head profile; the lesser has a well pronounced forehead whereas the greater has a longer, more massive bill with a less pronounced forehead similar to the profile differences found between redhead (Aythya americana) and canvasback (Aythya valisineria) ducks." Familiarity with both the lesser and greater sandhill cranes in the field would appear essential for accurate identification. Records of the sandhill crane in Washington are limited, with confusion existing over the proper identification of subspecies. The recently described Canadian subspecies (Grus canadensis rowani) (22) has not been recorded in Washington although its possible occurrence should not be overlooked. The occurrence of Grus canadensis rowani would further confuse the former and current status of sandhill cranes in Washington. Habitat: The greater sandhill crane prefers fresh water and seldom occurs where water is saline or brackish (23). In the breeding season it occurs in fresh water marshy areas. Littlefield and Ryder (14) suggest three items as being essential components of all territories: a feeding meadow, nesting cover, and water. During the remainder of the year it frequents extensive mudflats, river -242- Greater sandhill crane 2 bars, lake and pond shores, and marshes with large areas of shallow water (23); also, grasslands and grainfields. The greater sandhill crane prefers areas with a minimum of disturbance. Nests are usually situated in large marshy areas and are entirely surrounded by water. The nest is a mass of dried vegetation in shallow water or a depression in elevated ground, lined with grass. The greater sandhill crane is omnivorous; it feeds on crustaceans, mollusks, mice and other small mammals, birds, frogs, snakes, lizards, insects, and vegetable matter, including roots, bulbs, grains, browsed vegetation, and berries. Former distribution: The greater sandhill crane originally nested in suitable habitat throughout the northern United States from the Great Lakes states west to the Pacific states and southern Canada (8). It formerly bred both east and west of the Cascade Mountains in Washington (12,23). Present distribution: The present (1972) breeding range of the greater sandhill crane extends from southern Michigan west through the northern United States in scattered colonies to Oregon and northern California and north into British Columbia (17). In winter it concentrates in restricted areas of California and the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico and neighboring Mexico; occasionally it winters in southeastern Texas and in Florida (9). In Washington, the greater sandhill crane occurs as a migrant and occasional summer resident east of the Cascade Mountains and as an occasional migrant in the western part of the state. The east-central part of the state is probably the principal flyway route in Washington for the greater sandhill crane (13). A limited number of birds may still breed in eastern Washington. Estimated numbers and population trends: In 1972 R. Miller et. al. summarized the estimated population of the greater sandhill crane: Walkinshaw (1949) compiled a list of breeding populations of greater sandhill cranes in the U.S. and estimated the total number of breeding and non-breeding birds to be between 1,300 and 1,800 with an equal number in Canada. Littlefield and Ryder (1966) estimated the total population of this subspecies to be about 10,000. Buller (pers. comm.) also estimates a total population of about 10,000 on the basis of the number of birds that winter in New Mexico. -243- Greater sandhill crane 3 Surveys done by Drewien and Bizeau (8) on the greater sandhill in the Rocky Mountains in the winter of 1970-71 suggest a population from 10,000-15,000. This equals or exceeds previous estimates of total numbers for North America (8). The greater sandhill crane definitely appears to be increasing. Breeding performance in the wild: 1 to 3 eggs per clutch; usually 2. The breeding season occurs in June; one brood is raised per year. Age of sexual maturity is estimated to be approximately 4 years; longevity between 20 and 25 years (17). The greater sandhill crane is a long-live bird with deferred breeding and a relatively low replacement rate (17). The first chick to hatch in a clutch will often attack and kill its younger sibling. Selective pressures on the ability of cranes to raise more than one young with a high probability of subsequent survival may have led to sibling antagonism as the mechanism which results in the survival of only one young in most broods. If this has become a fixed behavior patter, it obviously places severe limitations on the reproductive potential of this species, in that it reduces or eliminates the possibility of larger broods during favorable years, and the "effective" clutch size is actually one rather than two (17). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: The sandhill crane does fairly well in captivity (9). Status: 1. U.S.D.I. does not currently list status (1973); the greater sandhill crane was classified as a rare species in 1968 (3). 2. Considered a summer resident in eastern Washington (1); rare migrant and summer resident on the open plains of eastern Washington. Also west of the mountains during migration (12); migrant and occasional summer resident east of the Cascades; rare migrant west of mountains. Rare in fall, but locally common spring migrant in eastern Washington (13). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline: Low tolerance of human interference, the drainage of swamps, and the cultivation of prairies have all contributed to the decline of the greater sandhill crane. Decline in population due to loss of -244- Greater sandhill crane 4 habitat was compounded by the fact that these cranes remain in concentrated flocks and are thus more vulnerable than most species to heavy hunting mortality. Resistance to human disturbance and development: In areas where the greater sandhill crane has been subjected to continual interference, their population has declined or they have disappeared entirely (17). If nests are disturbed, eggs are sometimes lost to predators because the birds at times will stay away for an hour or more (23). The greatersandhill crane may be vulnerable to concentrations of pesticides and insecticides. Protective measures taken and response to management: Since 1930, the population of the greater sandhill crane has increased, probably due to protection on both winter and summer grounds, so that it has widened its range considerably (approximately to its former range) (23). This protection resulted from the formation of refuges by state and federal agencies and subsequent public awareness and interest. An expansion of food supplies with increased agricultural development has probably been partially responsible for recent population increases (8). It is a protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: In Washington a basic problem is distinguishing between the two subspecies (possibly three subspecies with Grus canadensis rowani) and developing a thorough understanding of the distribution and population of the greater sandhill crane in the state. Subsequent work should deal with determining the breeding potential of this species within the state and possible development of breeding habitat. Once breeding habitat is evaluated, breeding stock could be obtained from adjacent states which currently have breeding populations. Management policies should be developed to adequately handle crop damage com- plaints caused by migrating and "staging" cranes. Damage control could involve providing supplementary feeding areas, the utilization of automatic acetylene explodters, or providing payments for crop loss. Indiscriminate shooting of all non-game species must be eliminated. The effects of various pesticides on greater sandhill cranes should be investigated and carefully monitored. -245- Greater sandhill crane 5 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 3. Anonymous. 1968. Rare and Endangered Wildlife of the United States. Resource Publication 34, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. (secondarily from 15) 4. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin and Co., Boston. 5. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Buller, R.J. and E.L. Boeker. 1965. Coordinated sandhill crane study in the Central Flyway. Pp. 100-112. Transactions of the Thirtieth North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 7. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 8. Drewien, R.C. and E.G. Bizeau. 1974. Status and distribution of greater sandhill cranes in the Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 38(4):720-742. 9. Fisher, J., N. Simon, and J. Vincent. 1969. Wildlife in Danger. Viking Press, New York. 10. Gabrielson, 1. N. and S.G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon. 11. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 12. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 13. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification, The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 14. Littlefield, C.D. and R.A. Ryder. 1968. Breeding biology of the greater sandhill crane on Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Pp. 443-454. Transactions of the Thirty-Third North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 15. Marshall, D.B. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon-ll. Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. -246- Greater sandhill crane 6 16. Miller, R.S. 1973. The brood size of cranes. Wilson Bulletin 85(4): 379-546. 17. Miller, R.S., G.S. Hochbaum, and D.B. Botkin. 1972. A Simulation Model for the Management of Sandhill Cranes. Bulletin No. 80. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven. 18. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 19. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 20. Richardson, F. 1957. Sandhill cranes near Snohomish, Washington. Murrelet 38:36-37. 21. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Murrelet 38:36-37. 22. Walkinshaw, L.H. 1965. A new sandhill crane from central Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 79(3)L181-184. (secondarily from 8) 23. Walkinshaw, L.H. 1973. Cranes of the World. Winchester Press, New York. 24. Yocom, C.F. and H.A. Hansen. 1960. Magnitude of crane migrations in eastern Washington, 1950-1951. Murrelet 41(3):41. Persons interviewed: Other Authorities: Gordon Alcorn John Chattin Biology Department Henry A. Hanson University of Puget Sound Frank Richardson Tacoma, Washington 98416 Charles F. Yocom Elwood Bizeau Idaho Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho 83843 Jim Stevenson Army Forestry Section Fort Lewis, Washington Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -247- YELLOW RAIL Common name: Yellow rail Scientific name: Coturnicops noveboracensis Gmelin Order: Gruiformes Family: Rallidae Distinguishing characteristics: A very small yellowish rail; sexes similar. Adults: upper parts dark buff, mottled with brown and black, feathers on back narrowily tipped with white in wavy cross-lines; wing dusky colored, with large white patch on secondaries; throat and breast plain buff or brown; middle of belly white (2). It has a short yellow bill. Habitat: Occurs along the margins of grassy fresh water ponds; occasionally on salt water marshes. During migration may occur in meadows and hay fields. Nest is in either salt or fresh water marshes; a well-concealed cup of grass, sedge, and weeds on the ground or in a tussock. Diet is uncertain; probably feeds on small mollusks, crustaceans, insects, and seeds. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Loacally distributed in temperate North America. Breeds from southern Mackenzie, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, southern Quebec, and New Brunswick south to North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts; has bred in California. Winters from Oregon to California, and in the Gulf States. In Washington, distribution of the yellow rail is unknown; it has been recorded on the Skagit River Flats (collected specimen) (7), at Union Bay Marsh in Seattle (sight record) (8), and on Herman Slough, between South Teal Lake and Herman Lake, northwest of Othello, Washington (sight record) (5). Estimated numbers and population trends: This rail is very shy and secretive -248- Yellow rail 2 and is almost impossible to flush; probably more common than generally supposed (11,13). Breeding performance in the wild: 7 to 10 eggs per clutch. Number in captivity: No information. Status: !. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered casual in Washington (10); casual in western Washington in winter (1,8); undetermined status in Oregon (9). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown; there is limited information on the yellow rail in the state. Facotrs associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: Unknown. Management recommendations: There is a definite need for research toward better understanding the general biology and ecology of the yellow rail throughout its range, particularly in Washington. Any sightings or collected specimens should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends and to better under- stand distributional patterns. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover Publications, New York. -249- Yellow rail 3 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Oregon State College, Corvallis, Oregon. 5. Furrer, R.K. 1974. First spring sight record for the yellow rail for the Pacific Northwest. Murrelet 55(2):25-26. 6. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 8. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds:Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 9. Marshall, D.B. 1969. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon-Ill. Birds. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 11. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 12. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of Nortn America. Golden Press, New York. 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: None. Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -250- BLACK OYSTERCATCHER Common name: Black oystercatcher Scientific name: Haemnatopus bachmani Beach crow Audubon Order: Charadriiformes Family: Haematopodidae Distinguishing characteristics: Large black shorebird; sexes similar. Adults: head and neck slaty black; remaining plumage brownish black. Red bill laterally compressed, approximately twice as long as head; pink or flesh colored legs and feet. Immatures: similar to adults, but more brownish; bill dusky colored. Habitat: The black oystercatcher is a coastal bird which prefers rocky coast- lines or outlying islands;seldom seen on sandy beaches. The nest is often a depression on a bare rock lined with rock flakes or shell chips; also may be in a hollow. Situated on high gravel beaches or on rocks above the high water mark. Feeds primarily on mollusks (limpets, mussels, chitons, and young abalones), as well as crustaceans, marine worms, and insects. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution; although formerly occurred in the southern Puget Sound area and Bellingham Bay (10). Present distribution: A north Pacific bird; occurs as a year-round resident throughout its range; seldom wanders more than 30 miles from nesting area. It is a resident from the Aleutian Islands south and east along the Pacific coast of North America to central western Baja California. In Washington the black oystercatcher is a permanent resident and occasional migrant along the coastal areas of the state. It occurs as far south along the coast as Willapa Harbor and east in the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the San Juan Islands. The primary nesting areas of the black oystercatcher are on the islands and islets along the Pacific coast of the Olympic Peninsula and small islands and rocks in the San Juan Archipelago and Gulf Islands (L. Salo, inpreparation). -251- Black oystercatcher 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: Dawson (4) in 1909 estimated the total population of black oystercatchers in the state to be approximately 200 individuals. Current field work by D. Nysewander (15) suggests a similar popu- lation size. The population presently appears stable. Breeding performance in the wild: 1 to 4 eggs per clutch; usually 2 or 3. Breeding occurs between late May and July. Incubation is by both parents and lasts from 26 to 30 days. Because of the exposure, nests suffer heavy predation by crows and gulls. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a permanent but uncommon resident along the coast and on the San Juan Islands (12). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Due to the black oystercatcher's small population and greatly restricted habitat the status in Washington is potentially threatened with extinction. Factors associated with decline,if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The black oystercatcher's dependency on limited habitat causes it to be extremely vulnerable to any outside interference. Construction of coastal roads, building of beach resorts, and increased public interference has resulted in loss of usable habitat. Protective measures taken and response to management: Studies dealing with the distribution and status of the black oystercatcher along Washington's offshore islands and in the San Juan Islands are presently underway. This species is currently classified as a protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Present research to facilitate better understanding of the biology and ecology of the black oystercatcher should be continued. -252- Black oystercatcher 3 Special emphasis should be placed on determination of the effects of human interference. Research should be conducted to accurately determine and evaluate available habitat, which would facilitate protection of valuable habitat and the possible acquisition of key habitat areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Checklist - Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, Unv}iersity of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 37 pp. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part 11 Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wild- life Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.C. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Guiquet, C.J. 1962. The Birds of British Columbia (3) The Shorebirds. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 9. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 15. Small Game Management Report. 1973-1974. Game Management Division, Department of Game, Olympia, Washington. -253- Black oystercatcher 4 16. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Other authorities: David A. Manuwal David R. Nyseqander Compiled by: J. DavTd Brittell, July, 1975. -254- WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER Common name: Western snowy plover Scientific name: Charadrius Kentish plover a~exandrinus nivosus Snowy ring plover Cass in Order: Charadriiformes Family: Charadriidae Distinguishing characteristics: A small, pale "broken ringed" plover; sexes similar. Adults in summer: crown and back pale gray brown; black bar across front of crown above white forehead; black ear patch. Breast band or ring is incomplete, appearing as two dark patches, one on each side of the upper breast. The remaining under parts are white, including face and sides of head. Bill is slender and black; feet are gray. Adults in winter: black markings on upper breast and head which are present in summer change to gray brown. Immatures are similar to winter adults. Habitat: Occurs primarily on sandy dunes along the coast above the high water mark; may occur in areas where there are sand dunes away from the coast or near alkaline ponds. Also frequents sandy beaches. Nest is usually a depression in the sand or beach shingle, situated a s hort distance above the high water mark; occasionally lined with bits of broken shell. Feeds on small marine organisms including crustaceans and marine worms, insects and limited vegetable matter. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: Breeds along the Pacific coast from southern Washington south to southern Baja California, and east in alkaline basins and sand dunes to southeastern Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, California and the southwestern states. Winters along the coastal regions of its breeding range. In Washington the snowy plover is a fall and spring migrant along the coast; seldom frequents the Puget Sound region, and may occur in dune regions of eastern Washington. It breeds along the coast as far north as Grays Harbor. Occasionally winters along the coast. -255- Western snowy plover 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: 2 to 4 eggs per clutch; usually 3. Breeding season is in May and June; one brood per season. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally or internationally. 2. Considered a not common spring migrant and very scarce fall migrant; occasionally wintering; perhaps breeding sparingly (10); rare spring and fall migrant; summer resident, and occasional visitor; breeds at Copalis and Leadbetter Point (12); spring and fall migrant; a few breeding records (1); a rare Oregon bird (13); on the Blue list (3). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is potentially threatened with extinction, due to small population and limited habitat. Factors associated with decline, if any: The western snowy plover has suffered from loss of critical breeding habitat. Resistance to human disturbance and development: The sand dune areas of the state are particularly prone to mis-use by recreational activity, primarily all- terrain vehicles. Planting of vegetation to stabilize the sand could have adverse effects on this bird (13) along with the uncontrolled construction of recreational homes. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Research should be directed toward better understanding of the ecology of the western snowy plover in Washington. Special emphasis should be placed on ascertaining the specific breeding habitat -256- Western snowy plover 3 requirements and inventory of available breeding habitat. Restriction of recreational use of sand dune areas, particularly during the breeding season is important. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable shoreline, and possible acquisition of critical habitat areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 42:474- . Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 3. Arbib, R. 1974. The blue list for 1975. American Birds 28(6):969-1064. 4. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 5. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 6. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Godfrey, W.E. 1965. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 9. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds:Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Marshall, D.B. 1961. Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon -III. Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 278. Oregon State University, Corvallis. -257- Western snowy plover 4 14. Peterson, R. T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 15. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -258- MOUNTAIN PLOVER Common name: Mountain plover Scientific name: Charadrius montanus Townsend Order: Charadriiformes Family: Charadriidae Distinguishing characteristics: Similar to killdeer in size; sexes similar. Adults in summer: upper parts are grayish brown or buffy brown. Front edge of crown is dark, almost black; dark bar from base of bill to eye; conspicuous broad white forehead and eye stripe. Terminal end of tail black. Under parts are dull white with breast tinged buffy gray. Slender black bill; legs pale. Adults in winter and immatures: similar to adults in summer, but lack black markings and are more of a buffy color. Habitat: Primarily occurs on dry uplands; frequents semi-arid grasslands, desert sands, plains and plateaus. Nests are on the ground, situated anywhere on the prairie; eggs are laid in a slight hollow (10). Feeds primarily on grasshoppers, but also on crickets, beetles and flies (4). Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Breeds east of the Rocky Mountains from northern Montana and northeastern North Dakota south through the central United States (including Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and New Mexico) to western Texas. Northeastern Colorado appears to be the current stronghold for this species (6). Winters from central California, southern Arizona, and central and coastal Texas to central Mexico. Accidental along western Washington coast in winter (1). Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown; probably the mountain plover has never been extremely numerous anywhere (7). Breeding performance in the wild: 3 eggs per clutch. Occasionally, after forming -259- Mountain plover 2 an initial pairbond,a female lays one set of eggs which the male tends alone, and then lays a second clutch which she incubates (6). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an accidental species in Washington (1,8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: As with the majority of shorebirds, the mountain plover was heavily over-hunted in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because of exposed habitat, the mountain plover is vulnerable to hunters. Protective measures taken and response to management: Under current protective laws and influences, the populaton of the mountain plover is increasing (7). Management recommendations: Due to its accidental occurrence, management policies for the mountain plover are unwarranted in Washington. Any sighting or collected specimen should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. -260- Mountain plover 3 3. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin and Co., Boston. 4. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 6. Graul, D.W. 1973. Adaptive aspects of the mountain plover social system. The Living Bird 12:69-94. 7. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 8. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 9. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 10. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publication, New York. 11. Robbins, C.S., B. Brunn, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 12. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Person interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -261- DOTTEREL Common name: Dotterel Scientific name: Eudromias morinellus Linnaeus Order: Charadriiformes Family: Charadriidae Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized, stocky plover; sexes similar. Adults in summer: neck and upper parts blackish brown; crown black; white throat, cheek and conspicuous broad eye line which meets on nape. Grayish brown breast separated from chestnut colored lower breast and flanks by a white band; belly black; undertail coverts white. Legs pale orange. Adults in winter: coloration is duller, with back mottled brown and black; chestnut coloration changes to gray, but white breast band and broad eye line which meets on nape remain diagnostic. Habitat: While on its breeding grounds, the dotteral feeds on insects, snails, earthworms, seeds and other vegetable matter (2). Nests are in the highlands on stoney ridges and plateaus; a depression in the ground, unlined or sparingly lined with grasses, leaves, mosses or fragments of lichens (4). Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Breeds in the alpine tundra and low Arctic Eurasia, from Great Britain and Scandinavia to Siberia; occurs locally in the mountains of Scotland and western Alaska. Winters primarily in southern Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa. One record for Washington; a collected specimen (female) was taken at Westport, Grays Harbor County, on September 3, 1934 (3). Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: 2 to 4 eggs per clutch; usually 3. Incubation lasts for approximately 18 to 20 days; one brood per season, although renesting does occur (2). -262- Dotterel 2 Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered accidental in western Washington (1,6,7,8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is accidental. Factors associated with decline, if any: The dotterel was much sought-after as a delicacy for the table and for its feathers for fly-tying. It occurred regularly at almost the same time in spring, and it is a very tame and unsuspicious species, thus, it was mercilessly shot on the way to its breeding grounds in the north of England and Scotland (2). Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Presently, management policies for the dotterel are unwarranted in Washington due to its accidental occurrence. However, shoreline management policies would be beneficial to all species of shorebirds which occur in the state. Any sightings should be recorded to facilitate the observance of possible trends. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occasional Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Brown, D.E. 1934. Dotterel-a first record for the United States. Murrelet 15:79. -263- Dotterel 3 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 5. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 6. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 7. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 8. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 9. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. Persons Interviewed: None Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -264- AMERICAN GOLDEN PLOVER Common Name: Golden -lover Scientific name: Pluvialis dominica Bull1-head Muller Common plover Order: Charadriiformes Family- Charadriidae Distinguishing characteristics: A large plover; sexes similar. Adults in summer: upper parts, including crown and upper tail coverts, black or dusky colored, speckled with yellow and occasional white spots; white stripe extends from forehead over eye and down side of neck. Face, throat and belly, including lower tail coverts, black. Bill small, slender, and black; legs are dark bluish gray; hind toe wanting. Adults in winter: upper parts are duller, with less yellow; vague white line over eye. Underparts mottled gray brown, faintly barred with a dusky color. Immatures: simila r to adults in winter, but with more yellow on upper parts. Habitat: During migration in interior regions the golden plover occurs on short grass and stubble fields, pastures, plowed land, and fresh water shores. While migrating along the ocean coast, it prefers the drier sandy short-grass areas, although it also frequents mudflats and open beaches. During the breeding season the golden plover occurs on the relatively dry uplands, ridges, slopes, and tundra knolls, both coastal and inland (9). Nest is a shallow depression in the tundra ground, lined with grasses, leaves or pieces of lichens. Feeds primarily on insects and their larvae, including grasshoppers, crickets, and beetles; also consumes small marine fauna, berries, and seeds. Former distribution: Similar to present distribution, below. Present distribution: The golden plover breeds along the Arctic coasts of Siberia, east to North Devon Island and south to Alaska, central Mackenzie, northwest British -265- American golden plover 2 Columbia, northeastern Manitoba, and south central Baffin Island. The American subspecies (Pluvialis dominica dominica) occurs in the eastern part of this range from the Alaskan coast of the Bering Sea, and migrates south through North America to winter on the South American plains. The main spring migration in North America is up the Mississippi River Valley and across the prairie provinces; the southward fall migration occurs both along the Mississippi River Valley and over the Atlantic Ocean. Migrants occasionally occur along the Pacific coast, primarily during the fall. During the breeding season, the range of the Siberian subspecies, the Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis dominica fulva), overlaps that of the American subspecies on the Alaskan coast of the Bering Sea and extends westward across arctic Siberia to the Yamal Peninsula; it winters in southeast Asia and throughout Oceania. The Pacific golden plover is one of the world's greatest wanderers, and occurs casually on the west coast of North and South America, in Europe, and in East Africa (11). In Washington the American golden plover (Pluvialis dominica dominica) occurs as a fall migrant mainly along the coast, although it does occur in the Puget Sound region and in eastern Washington. During the spring migration it occasionally frequents the coastline. The Pacific golden plover (Pluvialis dominica fulva) occurs occasionally as a fall migrant throughout the state (I). Estimated numbers and population trends: It is doubtful that it was ever numerous in the west, either in the interior or on the west coast (19). Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 5 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Incubation is by both sexes and lasts approximately 26 days. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. -266- American golden plover 3 Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare spring migrant and a more common fall migrant (12, 15). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is satisfactory; although Washington does not lie in the main migration route of the golden plover, regular numbers occur each year. Factors affecting its decline,'if any: The golden plover was slaughtered in incredible numbers during its spring and fall migrations. In 1860 the population of this species began to decrease, due mainly to the demand created by a failing supply of passenger pigeons (3). Resistance to human disturbance and development: The breeding grounds are virtually unlimited and undisturbed. They have an off-shore fall migration route, and because their long spring flights require them to "touch down" only briefly as they travel northward across the broad interior of the continent, the golden plover has avoided extermination (11). Protective measures taken and response to management: Federal laws in the early 1900's removed the golden plover from the game bird list an d contributed to the elimination of the sale of game. Since this time, the golden plover has made a remarkable population recovery (11). The golden plover is a protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Studies should be conducted to determine the amount of usable shoreline habitat available to migrating shorebirds. It is essential that "stop-over" locations of sufficent size and quality are available during migration. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable shoreline, and possible acquisition of critical habitat areas. -267- American golden plover 4 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers. No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Allen, A.A. 1934. The giolden plover. Bird-Lore 36(5)321-332. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Drury, W.H. 1961. The breeding biology of shorebirds on Bylot Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Auk 78(2):176-219. 6. Edson, J.M. 1935. Some records supplementary to the distributional check-list of the birds of the state of Washington. Murrelet 16:11-14. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 8. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 9. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 10. Guiquet, C.J. 1962. The Birds of British Columbia (3) the Shorebirds. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria. 11. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 12. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T.Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 13. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Birds and Mammal Society, Seattle. 14. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 15. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 16. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 17. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 18. Rue, L.L. 1970. Pictorial Guide to the Birds of North America. Thomas Crowell., New York. 19. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. -268- American golden plover 5 20. Walkinshaw, L.H. Nesting of some shorebirds in western Alaska. Condor 50 (5): 220-223. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -269- RUDDY TURNSTONE Common name: Ruddy turnstone Scientific names Arenaria interpres Calico-bird Linnaeus Checkered snipe Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinguishing characteristics: A short, stocky shorebird; sexes similar in coloration, female slightly larger. Adults in summer: "head mostly white with gray stripes on crown; three broad black lines on side of head and one across the forehead. Chin and throat white; breast black with white from shoulders meeting it; belly white. Back blackish with large patches of reddish brown. White patch on shoulder and middle of back" (10:114) Bill is black, slender, and turned up at tip; orange legs. Adults in winter and immatures: entire plumge duller, with brown upper body, white belly, and mottled gray breast. Legs dull orange. Habitat: On the breeding grounds it utilizes a variety of habitats, from well vegetated tundra areas to bare rock and open places, as well as flat sandy islands and moist tundra. During migration the ruddy turnstone occurs along rocky shores, pebbly and sandy beaches, jetties, mudflats, and salt water tidelines; in the interior it frequents shores and beaches of fresh water lakes. The nest is a slight depression in the ground, usually lined with available leaves and grass. Usually found not far from the coast. Feeds on crustaceans, mollusks, and worms along the sea shore and also on grasshoppers, cutworms, caterpillars, beetles and other insects. Occasionally, vegetable matter is consumed. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Circumpolar breeding range; breeds in the high Arctic, but also occurs south to the islands in the Baltic Sea. Winters from central California and North Carolina south to the coasts of Chile and southern Brazil in South America, and from southern Europe, the southern coast of Asia, and the -270- Ruddy turnstone 2 Hawaiian Islands south to southern Africa and throughout Oceania to New Zealand and Australia. The main migration of the ruddy turnstone in America occurs along the Atlantic coast, but small numbers regularly frequent the interior and the Pacific coast. In Washington the ruddy turnstone occurs as a spring and fall migrant along the ocean coast and in the northern Puget Sound region; occasionally observed in eastern Washington. It has occurred along the coast in winter and summer. Estimated numbers and population trends: Each year the ruddy turnstone flights appear larger, and the species may soon become as numerous as it ever was (7). Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 4 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Incubation is by both sexes, although mainly by the female, and last approximately 21 to 22 days (5). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a common spring and fall migrant and rare summer and winter vistor (10); spring and fall migrant along the coast (1, 8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is apparently satisfactory; although Washington is not along the main migration route of the ruddy turnstone, regular numbers occur each year. Factors associated with decline: As with the majority of shorebirds, the ruddy turnstone was heavily over-hunted in the late 1880's and early 1900's. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because the breeding grounds are widespread and isolated, the ruddy turnstone is not greatly exposed to human disturbance during the mating season. Protective measures taken and response to management: The population of the -271- Ruddy turnstone 3 ruddy turnstone has increased rapidly as a result of protective laws (7). It is a protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Studies should be conducted to determine the amount of usable shoreline habitat available to migrating shorebirds. It is essential that "stop-over" locations of sufficient size and quality are available during migration. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable shoreline, and possible acquisition of critical habitat areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 3. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington 11:459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 4. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 6. Guiquet, C J. 1962. The Birds of British Columbia (3) the Shorebirds. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 7. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair, New York. 8. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J. W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Birds and Mammal Society, Seattle. 10. Larrison, E.J. and .K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds:.Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 12. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. -272- Ruddy turnstone 4 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -273- LONG-BILLED CURLEW Common name: Long-billed curlew Scientific name: Numenius conericanus Sickle-billed curlew Bechstein Daddy-long-legs Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinquishing characteristics: A very large shorebird. Sexes similar in coloration, females slightly larger. Adults: bill length varies greatly with age and sex. Plumage is buffy cinnamon, greatly variegated on upper parts with black and brown; head, neck, throat and breast lightly striped with dusky brown. Belly pale cinnamon; cream colored face and cream or white chin. Bill is strongly curved downward and is from 4 to 8.5 inches in length. Immatures are similar to adults. Habitat: Early in the breeding season the long-billed curlew occurs on upland prairies, sage brush flats and grassy slopes, and wanders later in the season to the margins of pools and lakes, adjacent fields, and marshes. During migration it occurs in a wider variety of habitat; rangeland, cultivated land, salt marshes, tideflats and beaches. The nest is a depression in the ground, lined with grass and weeds, and located in prairies or on grassy hillsides. It feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, worms, insects (including beetles, caterpillars, and grasshoppers), and occasionally on seeds and berries. Former distribution: The long-billed curlew has receded from the eastern and western extremes of its original range, primarily the eastern extreme; it formerly occurred as far east as Wisconsin and Illinois. In Washington it was formerly an abundant breeder east of the Cascade Mountains, especially to the Columbia River (5). Present distribution: Breeds from southern interior British Columbia, southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba south to northeastern -274- Long-billed curlew 2 California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Texas. Winters from northern California, Arizona, Texas, and Louisiana south through Mexico to Guatemala; occasionally winters in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In Washington the long-billed curlew occurs as a spring and fall migrant through- out the state, primarily in eastern Washington, although it frequents the ocean coast regularly. As a summer resident and breeder, it occurs east of the Cascade Mountains on upland bunch grass prairies and grassy slopes. The long-billed curlew breeds in fair numbers in the moist, irrigated pastures along most of the northern edge of the Kittitas Valley (15). Estimated numbers and population trends: Since the 1930's the long-billed curlew has re-established itself over much of its former range. This is due primarily to a trend toward larger land holdings and less intensive use of land (such as grazing). In the northwestern grasslands this increase has gradually occurred since 1947 (7). In Washington the long-billed curlew population is increasing (15; G. Alcorn, pers. comm. 1975). Breeding performance in the wild: 3 to 8 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Breeding season occurs in April and May; incubation is by both sexes and lasts approximately 30 days. One brood per season. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an uncommon migrant and local summer resident (10); summer resident (1); rare migrant and summer resident (9); fairly common breeding bird in central Washington (15). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington isj inknown but probably not satisfactory. Population trends should be continually evaluated, as breeding habitat is greatly influenced by human interference. Factors associated with decline, if any: Due to its large size, conspicuous habits, and reputation as excellent table fare, the long-billed curlew was severely over- -275- Long-billed curlew 3 hunted for the market. The conversion of the plains into agriculture, a process which culminated in the 1930's extirpated the long-billed curlew from vast regions (8). Resistance to human disturbance and development: The long-billed curlew's breeding habitat is continually exposed to decimation by agriculture. Protective measures taken and response to management: The long-billed curlew is, as with most other shorebirds, protected throughout the year by the migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico (9). It is a protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Research should be directed toward better understanding the status of the breeding population of long-billed curlews in Washington and toward determining the importance of the state's shoreline waters during migration. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable habitat, and possible acquisition of critical breeding and migration route habitat. Indiscriminate shooting of long-billed curlews should be eliminated. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Key to Nest and Eggs of the Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers 42:474-. University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 37 pp. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Campbell, R.W. 1972. Coastal records of the long-billed curlew for British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 86(2): 167-168. 5. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 7. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 8. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 9. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. -276- Long-billed curlew 4 10. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 12. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 13. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 14. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 15. Verner, J. 1974. Notes on the current status of some birds of central Washington. Murrelet 55(2):19-22. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416. Other authorities: Richard and Julia N. Fitzner James Verner Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -277- SOLITARY SANDPIPER Common name: Solitary sandpiper Scientific name: Tringa solitaria Solitary tattler Wilson Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinguishing characteristics: A dark-colored sandpiper; sexes similar. Adults in summer: upper parts, including upper tail coverts, very dark blackish brown with slight green tint, finely speckled with white; white eye ring. Tail is white with heavy black and white barring. Under parts white, streaked with a dusky color on breast and throat. Dark green legs. Adults in winter: similar to summer adults, but duller and less green on back; breast less streaked. Immatures: similar to adult in winter, but speckled with buffy white on upper parts and breast; sides tinged with buff. Habitat: Occurs mainly on small bodies of fresh, and occasionally on brackish water; seldom occurs on salt water. Frequents margins of rivers, sloughs, ponds, woodland pools, swamps, marshes, and drainage ditches; also frequents margins of alpine tarns. Utilizes vacant nests of other birds such as the American robin, rusty blackbird, gray jay, and cedar waxwing at various heights in both coniferous and deciduous trees (8). Feeds on small mollusks, crustaceans, worms, and insects. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Breeds from central-eastern and southern Alaska and northern Mackenzie, south and east through the northern wooded parts of Canada to northwestern British Columbia, south-central Alberta, central Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern and central Ontario, Quebec, and Labrador. Winters from Baja California, the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, and southeastern Georgia south to Argentina. In Washington the solitary sandpiper occurs as a spring and fall migrant through- out the state, including alpine meadow areas. -278- Solitary sandpiper 2 Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown. Breeding performance in the wild: 4 or 5 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Relatively little is known about the nesting habits of the solitary sandpiper. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare spring and uncommon fall migrant (10,12). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown; difficult to ascertain status due to solitary habits. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Appears to be less vulnerable to human disturbance than other shorebirds because of solitary habits and diverse habitat. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Wash in gton. Management recommendations: Research should be undertaken to better ascertain the importance of Washington in its migration route. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. 0cc. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 3. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton, Mifflin and Co., Boston. -279- Solitary sandpiper 3 4. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 5. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 6. Edson, J.M. 1935. Some records supplementary to the distributional check-list of the birds of the state of Washington. Murrelet 16:11-14. 7. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 8. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 9. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Slipp, J.W. 1943. Notes on the shore birds of Washington. Condor 45:197-99. 14. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -280- WESTERN WILLET Common name: Western willet Scientific name: Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Semipalmated tattler inornatus Brewster Stone plover Order: Charadrilformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinguishing characteristics: A large gray and white shorebird; sexes similar in coloration, female larger. Adults in summer: upper parts are mottled gray and dusky; tip of tail is gray with white upper tail coverts. Wide white band across wings contrasts with black flight feathers to create flashing black and white during flight. Belly white with brownish gray breast and sides, breast often barred with dusky; throat streaked with dusky. Bill dark, slender and straight; legs bluish gray. Adults in winter: upper parts pale gray; under parts white with gray tinge on side of neck and breast. Immatures: similar to adults in winter, but upper parts are pale brownish gray. Habitat: Occurs primarily on moist and wet meadows and grassy margins along fresh water lakes, ponds, sloughs, and ditches. During migration and winter, frequents salt water marshes, tideflats, sandy coastal beaches and dunes, Nest is a depression in the ground lined with finer grasses, weeds, and other available vegetation. Feeds on crustaceans, mollusks, and insects. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: The western willet breeds locally from eastern Oregon, Idaho, southeastern and central-eastern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and southwestern Manitoba south to northeastern California, northern Colorado, and South Dakota. Winters from the southern United States south to South America. In Washington the western willet occurs as a fall migrant and winter visitor along the ocean coast and in the Puget Sound region; occasionally occurs in eastern Western willet 2 Washington as a late spring and early fall migrant (9). Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown; never common in Washington (4). Breeding performance in the wild: 4 eggs per clutch. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare and irregular fall migrant on the coast and in the Puget Sound region (7); rare migrant in western Washington (1); rare fall migrant and winter visitor along ocean coast and in Puget Sound. Rare late spring and early fall migrant in eastern Washington (9). 3. *Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown; appears to be a peripheral species during the migration. Factors associated with decline, if any: The western willet has the detrimental habit of hovering overhead and complaining loudly when disturbed by intruders and must have presented pitifully easy targets to market-gunners (6). Western willet eggs were much sought after, as they were considered a delicacy. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Prospective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Research should be directed toward the ecology and distribution of the western willet in Washington to better ascertain the importance of Washington as part of its migration route. -282- Western willet 3 References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton, Mifflin and Co., Boston. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part II. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington. II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 6. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 7. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 8. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series. No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 9. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 11. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 12. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416. Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -283- ROCK SANDPIPER Common name: Rock sandpiper Scientific name: Calidris ptilocnernis Aleutian sandpiper Coues Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinguishing characteristics: A short-necked, stocky sandpiper; sexes similar. Adults in summer: upper parts are dark blackish brown, variegated on the edges and tips of the feathers with little white or gray and much deep rust; under parts white, blotched or spotted across breast and along flanks with gray, rust or black in variable proportions without pattern; throat paler; legs dull yellow or yellowish green (5). Adults in winter: back is almost black with purple iridescence; head and neck dark gray; breast heavily mottled with ashy gray; belly white. Habitat: Occurs primarily on reefs, rocky shores, and jetties during migration and winter. Nest is a depression in mossy tundra, scantily lined with dead leaves, grasses and feathers. Feeds on small crustaceans, mollusks, and insects. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: The rock sandpiper breeds on coastal tundra and islands on both sides of the Bering Strait; in northeastern Siberia as far south as the Kurile Islands and from central-western Alaska to the western Alaska Peninsula, the Aleutian Islands, and the Shumagin Islands, including many islands in the Bering Sea. Winters over much of its breeding range and south along the coasts of Canada and the United States to northwestern California; locally to north- western Baja California. In Washington the rock sandpiper occurs along the ocean coast, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and in the northern Puget Sound region as a spring and fall migrant and as an occasional winter resident. Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown. -284- Rock sandpiper 2 Breedinq performance in the wild: 4 or 5 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered an uncommon to rare spring and fall migrant and winter visitor (6); irregular spring and fall migrant and winter visitant (5); spring and fall migrant along the coast, casual winter resident (1). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protected measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Studies should be conducted to determine the amount of usable shoreline habitat available to migrating shorebirds. It is essential that "stop over" locations of sufficient size and quality are available during migration. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable shoreline, and possible acquisition of critical habitat areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. -285- Rock sandpiper 3 3. Godfrey, W.E. 1966, The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 4. Hall, H. M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 5. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 6. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 7. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 8. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 9. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -286- SHARP-TAILED SANDPIPER Common name: Sharp-tailed sandpiper Scientific name: Calidris acuminata Horsfield Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinguishing characteristics: A medium-sized brown sandpiper; sexes similar. Adults in summer: back is rusty brown streaked with black; crown rufous, bordered by a light colored superciliary line. Under parts are white tinged with rusty brown, darkest on breast, and streaked irregularly or spotted with black; white chin. Tail is pointed and the feathers,especially outer ones, are sharply pointed. Legs olive green or gray green. Adults in winter: similar to adults in summer, but breast buffy, lightly streaked and spotted. Habitat: Presumed to breed in sedge, grass or shrub tundra and tundra meadows (6). In migration, frequents moist grassy edges of pools and ponds, flooded fields, fresh and salt water marshes and sometimes short grnss areas along beaches. Nest is unknown. Feeds on crustaceans, mollusks, insects and limited amounts of vegetable matter. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Primarily an Asiatic species. Breeds in the tundra areas of northern Siberia. Winters from New Guinea and New Caledonia south to Australia and New Zealand. Main migratory route is along eastern Siberia and the Asiatic coast of the Pacific Ocean; also occasionally occurs along the Pacific coast of North America from Alaska to California. In Washington the sharp-tailed sandpiper occasionally occurs as a spring and fall migrant along the Pacific coast and in the Puget Sound region. Estimated number and population trends: It may be more numerous than sight records and collected specimens indicate; difficulty is involved in distinguishing this species from the more common pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos ) with which it often associates. -287- Sharp-tailed sandpiper 2 Breeding performance in the wild: Unknown. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare winter visitor (1,9); casual in migration (7,8); rare local spring and fall migrant (10). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington is unknown, due primarily to its limited occurrance within the state. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Unknown. Protective; measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Accurate observations should be made and recorded to better ascertain the number of sharp-tailed sandpipers occurring in Washington. Studies should be conducted to determine the amount of usable shoreline habitat available to migrating shorebirds. It is essential that "stop over" locations of sufficient size and quality are available during migration. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable shoreline, and possible acquisition of critical habitat areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. 0cc. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part 1. Dover Publ icat ions, New York. Sharp-tailed snadpiper 3 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909. The Birds of Washington II: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Gabrielson, I.N., and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 8. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 9. Kitchin, E.A. 1934. Distributional Check-List of the Birds of the State of Washington. Northwest Fauna Series No. 1. Pacific Northwest Bird and Mammal Society, Seattle. 10. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 11. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 12. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guid to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 13. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 14. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Persons interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER Common name: White-rumped sandpiper Scientific name: Calidris fuscicolZis Vieillot Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinouishina characteristics: A small sandpiper or "peep"; sexes similar. Adults in summer: upper parts gray and brownish buff, heavily streaked with black on crown and back. Tail feathers ashy gray, darker toward middle of tail; upper and lower tail coverts white, creating white rump. Line over eye, chin, and under parts mainly white; breast, sides, and neck buff, streaked with a dusky color. Straight black bill. Adults in winter: similar to adult in summer, but upper parts grayer; breast ashy gray or pale buff, obscurely steaked with a dusky color. Habitat: This sandpiper occurs during the breeding season on wet and moist well-vegetated tundra. During migration, it frequents muddy shores, mudflats, and sand or gravel beaches along both fresh and salt water (6). The nest is a shallow hollow in the soil or moss, lined with dry grasses or leaves, and usually situated on a tussock or mound in wet and moist grassy tundra often near marshy ponds and lake shores. Feeds on small crustaceans, mollusks, worms, insects and occasional vegetable matter. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: The white-rumped sandpiper breeds on the Arctic coast from Point Barrow, Alaska to Baffin Island and as far south as Southampton Island. It winters in southern South America east of the Andes Mountains, and migrates mainly northward through the interior of North America during the spring and southward through the interior and along the Atlantic coast in the fall. In Washington the white-rumped sandpiper occurs on both sides of the Cascade -290- White-rumped sandpiper 2 Mountains (primarily the eastern side) as a migrant. Estimated numbers and population trends: "Careful determination of all members of peep flocks may reveal this species to be somewhat more regular than it is currently known." (8:p. 120) Breeding performance in the wild: 3 or 4 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Apparently, incubation is mainly, if not entirely, by the female (6,9) and lasts approximately 22 days (9). Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered regular, but not abundant migrant (1); rare spring migrant (8). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Due to limited numbers of observations in the state, status evaluation is unknown. It may occur accidentally in Washington. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because the breeding grounds are relatively isolated, the white-rumped sandpiper is most likely not greatly exposed to human interference during the breeding season. Protective measure taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Accurate observations should better ascertain the number and distribution of white-rumped sandpipers occurring in Washington. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List--Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. -291- White-rumped sandpiper 3 2. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part 1 Dover Publications, New York 4. Drury, W.H. 1961. The breeding biology of shorebirds on Bylot Island, Northwest Territory, Canada. Auk 78(2):176-219. 5. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 6. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 7. Hall, H.N. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair, New York 8. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 9. Parmelee, D.F., D.W. Greiner and W.D. Graul. 1968. Summer schedule and breeding biology of the white-rumped sandpiper in the central Canadian Arctic. Wilson Bulletin 80(1):5-29. 10. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 11. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 12. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. 13. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. Person interviewed: Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416 Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -292- BAIRD'S SANDPIPER Common name: Baird's sandpiper Scientific name: Ca~idris bairdii Coues Order: Charadriiformes Family: Scolopacidae Distinguishing characteristics: A small sandpiper or "peep"; sexes similar. Adults in summer: upper parts gray and brownish buff, spotted and streaked with black and fine- white feather edgings, which creates scaled appearance. Rump sooty brown, feathers finely bordered with buffy brown. White belly, chin, and line over eye; breast buff, lightly streaked with a dusky color. Bill black and slender; legs black with slight olive coloration. Adults in winter: upper parts are gray and brown, obscurely spotted and streaked with a dusky color; under parts white; breast is buff. Immatures: similar to adult in winter, but feathers on back tipped with white. Habitat: During the breeding season, the Baird's sandpiper prefers areas which are drier than those in which other species of sandpipers occur: ridges, flats, and rocky slopes, both inland and coastal; occasionally in more moist areas () During migration it frequents higher, drier parts of muddy or sandy areas (often where low grass or vegetation occurs) near margins of small lakes and pools, mudflats, ditches, and beaches; both salt and fresh water. Nest is a depression in the dry tundra ground, lined with grass and leaves, generally well concealed. Feeds on crustaceans, mollusks, insects and their larvae, and occasional vegetable matter. Former distribution: Unknown. Present distribution: Breeds along the Arctic coasts of northeastern Siberia and northwestern Alaska, east through Arctic Canada to Baffin Island and northwestern Greenland. Winters locally in the mountainous western part of South America from northern Ecuador and northern Chile south to southern Bolivia and Argentina. Migrates in the spring through the interior of North America. The fall migration primarily retraces the spring route, but stragglers occur regularly on both coasts of North America. -293- Baird's sandpiper 2 In Washington the Baird's sandpiper occurs primarily as a fall, but also as a spring, migrant throughout the state, including the Olympic and Cascade mount a ins. Estimated numbers and population trends: Unknown Breeding performance in the wild: 3 or 4 eggs per clutch; usually 4. Incubation is by both sexes and usually lasts 21 days. Number in captivity: No information. Breeding potential in captivity: No information. Status: 1. Not threatened nationally. 2. Considered a rare migrant (1,11); regular but somewhat rare fall migrant in western Washington (19); uncommon fall and rare spring migrant west of the Cascade Mountains and uncommon spring and more common fall migrant in eastern Washington (10). 3. Questionnaire scores: no response. 4. Status evaluation in Washington appears to be satisfactory; although it is a straggler from it-s normal migration, it occurs regularly in adequate numbers. Factors associated with decline, if any: Unknown. Resistance to human disturbance and development: Because the breeding grounds are relatively isolated, the Baird's sandpiper is most likely not greatly exposed to human interference during the breeding season. Protective measures taken and response to management: A protected species in Washington. Management recommendations: Accurate observations should be made and recorded to better ascertain the number of Baird's sandpipers occurring in Washington. Studies should be conducted to determine the amount of usable shoreline habitat -294- Baird's sandpiper 3 available to migrating shorebirds. It is essential that "stop over" locations of sufficient size and quality are available during migration. Subsequent management policies could involve habitat rehabilitation, land-use restrictions on current usable shoreline, and possible acquisition of critical habitat areas. References: 1. Alcorn, G.D. 1971. Check List-Birds of the State of Washington. Occ. Papers No. 41:414-473. Department of Biology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma. 2. Bailey, F.M. 1904. Handbook of Birds of the Western United States. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 3. Bent, A.C. 1962. Life Histories of North American Shore Birds Part 1. Dover Publications, New York. 4. Dawson, W.L. 1909, The Birds of Washington 11: 459-997. The Occidental Publishing Co., Seattle. 5. Drury, W.H. 1961. The breeding biology of shorebirds on Bylot Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Auk 78(2):176-219. 6. Gabrielson, I.N. and F.C. Lincoln. 1959. The Birds of Alaska. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 7. Garielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover Publications, New York. 8. Godfrey, W.E. 1966. The Birds of Canada. National Museums of Canada. 9. Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. Devin-Adair Co., New York. 10. Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 11. Kitchin, E.A. 1949. Birds of the Olympic Peninsula. Olympic Stationers, Port Angeles, Washington. 12. Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds: Their Location and Identification. The Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle. 13. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 14. Reed, C.A. 1965. North American Birds Eggs. Dover Publications, New York. 15. Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Books, New York. -295- Baird's sandpiper 4 16. Slipp, K.W. 1943. Notes on the shore birds of Washington. Condor 45:197-99. 17. Taverner, P.A. 1949. Birds of Canada. The Musson Book Co., Toronto. 18. Verner, J. 1974. Notes on the current status of some birds of central Washington. Murrelet 55(2):19-22. 19. Wick, W.Q. 1958. A nine year bird list from Eliza and Protection Islands, Washington. Murrelet 39:1-9. Persons interviewed Gordon Alcorn Biology Department University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington 98416. Other authorities: James Verner Compiled by: J. David Brittell, July, 1975. -296-