british columbia birds · a birdfinding guide to the calgary region, edited by ... the british...

Volume 4, 1994 British Columbia Birds ISSN 1183-3521

CONTENTS

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

BIRDS AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRESydney G. Cannings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3

YELLOW RAIL IN YOHO NATIONAL PARKPeter Sherrington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

COMMON RAVEN CATCHING TROUTPeter Sherrington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

BOOK REVIEWS:

INTERACTIONS OF HUMANS AND BALD EAGLES ON THE COLUMBIARIVER ESTUARY, by Kevin McGarigal, Robert G. Anthony, and Frank B. IsaacsReviewed by Stephen R. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20

A BIRD FINDING GUIDE TO THE CALGARY REGION, edited byJoan F. McDonaldReviewed by Allen Wiseley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21

THE BIRDER'S GUIDE TO MONTANA, by Terry McEneaneyReviewed by Allen Wiseley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22

1994 DIRECTORY OF CANADIAN ORNITHOLOGISTSReviewed by Edward H. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24

QUIZ BIRDAlvaro Jaramillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND EDITOR'S COMMENTS 29

B. C. FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS BIRD RECORDS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT: 1993Gary S. Davidson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

MOBBING OF A COMMON RAVEN BY MIGRANT ROSY FINCHESJohn M. Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

BIRDS OF OREGON STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION, edited by Jeff Gilligan,Dennis Rogers, Mark Smith and Alan Contreras and written by twenty-threecontributing authorsReviewed by Dennis P. Vroman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24

THE BIRD/MASTER OF FLIGHT, by Colin Harrison with Howard LoxtonReviewed by Martin K. McNicholl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25

Volume 4. 1994 British Columbia Birds

BIRDS AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE

Sydney G. Cannings Conservation Data Centre, Wildlife Branch

B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 780 Blanshard Street

Victoria, B.C. V8V 1x4

THE CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE

The British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC) is a centralized, computerized data bank that is designed to provide an objective source of information on rare and endangered plants, animals and plant communities (Cannings 1991). It was begun in 1991 as a joint project of the provincial government (B.C. Environment), the Nature Trust of B.C., the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Nature Conservancy (U.S.A.), with funding from government, industry and private founda- tions. It is now fully funded by the provincial government as a program within the Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

At the heart of the CDC is a complex computer software system of more than 30 inter-related files, designed over the past 20 years by the Nature Conservancy (U.S.A.); paper files and maps also form key components. Five permanent staff and varying numbers of temporary staff gather and interpret the information. The permanent staff members are:

Program Co-ordinator: Andrew Harcombe Zoologist: Syd Cannings Botanist: George Douglas Plant Community Ecologist: currently vacant Data Manager: Sharon Hartwell

The major features of the system are:

1) The information is organized and computerized for easy access and sorting.

2) The work is focused. Concentrating primarily on rare and endangered species focuses limited time and resources where they are needed most urgently, making what would have been an impossibly large job (keeping track of everything) feasible. Work is also concentrated on particular taxonomic groups; to date, the CDC is tracking only vertebrates, vascular plants and plant communities. However, priority lists of invertebrates and non-vascular plant (e.g. moss) species have been developed recently and work will begin soon to enter occurrence records of some of these groups.

3) It is ongoing and dynamic. The data collecting process is a continuous, iterative one. Once the initial data input is relatively complete, the CDC can monitor sites of concern to ensure that the information is both current and relevant.

4) It is networked with 80 other similar centres throughout North, Central and South America, all of which use the same computer software and methodology to assess status and organize data. For example, we can review the global status of the White-headed Wood- pecker' by asking the Nature Conservancy's central database to report on state and provincial ranks throughout its range.

ACTIVITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CDC

Simply put, we ask and attempt to answer the following questions:

1) What are the rare and endangered plants, animals, and ecosystems of British Columbia?

Our first task is to assign every species and ecosystem (plant community) a rank from 1 (rarest or most threatened) to 5 (not currently of conservation concern), based on an objective set of criteria established by the Nature Conservancy (Appendix 1 ; Harcombe 1994). These elements of biological diversity (species, communities, etc.) are ranked both provincially and globally so that their conservation priority can be represented clearly and accurately. Elements with provincial ranks from 1-3 are considered endangered, threatened or rare and are therefore "tracked" by the CDC. For animals, species with provincial ranks of 1 or 2 are placed on the provincial Red List of potentially endangered or threatened species, and those with a rank of 3 are put on the Blue List of potentially vulnerable species (Harper et al. 1994).

Over the past couple of decades, several lists and ranking systems that attempt to highlight species of

[' Scientific names of ranked bird species are listed in Table 1.1

British Columbia Birds Volume 4, 1994

conservation concern in an objective manner have been developed. The resulting overabundance of such lists has probably caused some confusion among the interested public. The provincial Blue List, for example, has no direct link with the continent-wide Blue List published in past years by American Birds (Arbib 1979; Tate 1981, 1986). That list was an informal one designed to highlight bird species that were not on national or international official endangered lists, but were nonetheless worthy of concern because of real or perceived population declines. Earlier (pre-1993) versions of the provincial Red and Blue lists were developed on the basis of an objective but rigid numerical scoring system (B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch 1979; B.C. Wildlife Branch 1991; Munro and Low 1980). This system worked for larger vertebrates, but was not adaptable to smaller vertebrates, invertebrates or plants (Harcombe 1994). Weber (1 980) independently proposed a list of 34 rare and endangered bird species for the province, and commented on some of the criteria used in the Wildlife Branch's ranking system.

At the national level, the conservation status of birds (as well as that of other vertebrates and vascular plants) is considered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). COSEWIC commissions status reports on species of concern and assigns them as Endangered, Threatened, Vulnerable or Not at Risk .(Munro 1994). Species that have not had accepted reports written do not appear on the list.

All bird species and some subspecies in British Columbia have now been assigned conservation/rarity ranks by our staff in consultation with various experts. John Cooper was contracted to write detailed rank evaluations for the red-listed and blue-listed species. His review indicated that 88 species or subspecies of birds are uncommon or vulnerable enough to be tracked by the CDC; two more are considered to be extirpated (Table 1). Figure 1 presents a graphical summary of the ranks of all bird species and tracked subspecies in the province. The rank evaluation form for Lewis' Woodpecker' is presented as an example in Appendix 2. The ranking guidelines, which spell out the scoring for various factors considered during ranking, are detailed in Appendix 3.

2) Exactly where are these rare or endangered plants, animals and ecosystems?

Every occurrence of tracked species or communities is recorded in as much detail as possible and mapped at a 1:50,000 scale on topographic maps. Each of these maps makes up one of the small grids on the maps in "The Birds of British Columbia" (Campbell et al. 1990). Our goal is to record the location as precisely as possible, preferably within 100 m.

Each occurrence is cross-referenced to administrative features, such as regional district, municipality, or forest district; and to ecological features, such as biogeoclimatic zone (and subzone, variant), provincial ecosection, water- shed, elevation, and habitat -- and each is tied to a specific source (published or unpublished). To date, over 4000 detailed records of animals, plants and ecosystems have been transcribed and mapped for the province. Each of these records may represent many individual sight or collection records at a particular location.

Because the main purpose of the CDC is to locate critical sites on the ground for rare species, vagrants and "accidental" birds are not tracked, since their appearances are unpredictable. Most species on the CDC tracking list are rare breeding birds, and only breeding sites are recorded in the data bank. However, areas where migrant and winter concentrations appear consistently are also recorded. For example, both breeding and major wintering sites of Western Grebe', are tracked. If the concentrations are significant, they can be tracked on their own merit, even if the species in question is common. For Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri), major migration concentrations will be tracked as part of "shorebird concentration sites. "

Some observers are concerned that their observations, if recorded in the CDC data bank, may lead to disturbance or even destruction of some of the birds or their habitats (Cannings 1991). To avoid this problem, the CDC can put an electronic "data sensitivity" flag on each site that could be considered at risk to such abuse. The valuable data are then in the system so that they can be used to protect sensitive areas and species, but at the same time can be held back from general release. For example, we could alert road planners if their route was going to affect a falcon eyrie, but would not release the site information to birders or falconers.

3) Are the sites of rare species or ecosystems protected in an appropriate manner?

Each occurrence record in a protected area (e.g., a park, ecological reserve or wildlife management area) is cross-referenced electronically to a protected areas file so that one can see at a glance if this species is in immediate need of conservation action or if it is protected adequately.

4) What are the highest priority unprotected sites?

In addition to ranking the conservation priority of the elements in question, the size and viability of each occurrence can be ranked as well. Using these ranks in combination, different sites can be compared, based on

Volume 4, 1994 British Columbia Birds

TABLE 1

B.C. CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE BIRD TRACKING LIST

English subspecies names are in parentheses; these are descriptive, rather than official names.

The modifiers "B" and "Nu refer specifically to breeding and non-breeding status respectively; e.g. for Bald Eagle, both breeding sites and wintering concentrations are being tracked by the CDC, whereas only Snow Goose wintering concentrations are being tracked. Generally speaking, those species with no modifiers are being tracked on the breeding grounds only.

SPECIESISUBSPECIES GLOBAL PROVINCIAL RANK RANK

Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocomx penicillatus (Northern) Pelagic Cormorant Phalacrocorax pelagicus pelagicus American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Green Heron Butorides virescens Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Brant Branta bernicla Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Queen Charlotte) Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Fenuginous Hawk Buteo regalis Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus (American) Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum (Peale's) Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus pealei Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus (Vancouver Island) White-tailed Ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus saxatilis Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus (Columbian) Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus brevipes Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Hudsonian Godwit Limosa heamastica Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus California Gull Lams californicus Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Common Murre Uria aalge Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia

British Columbia Birds Volume 4. 1994

TABLE 1 (continued)

B.C. CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE BIRD TRACKING LIST

GLOBAL PROVINCIAL RANK RANK

Marbled Murrelet Bmchyramphus marmoratus Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus ~ntiquus Cassin's Auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus Tufted Puff in Fratercula cirrhata Homed Puffin Fratercula corniculata Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Barn Owl Tyto alba Flammulated Owl Otus jlammeolus (Coastal) Western Screech-Owl Otus kennicottii kennicottii (Interior) Western Screech-Owl Otus kennicottii macfarlanei (Vancouver Island) Northern Pygmy-Owl Glaucidium gnoma swarthi Burrowing Owl Speotyto cuniculanh Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis Short-eared Owl Asio jlammeus (Queen Charlotte) Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus brooksi White-throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis (Western) Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus thymideus (Rocky Mountain) Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliae (Queen Charlotte) Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus picoideus White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax jlaviventn's Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii (Streaked) Homed Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Purple Martin Progne subis (Queen Charlotte) Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri carlottae Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Sprague's Pipit Anthus spmgueii Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Canada Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens (Sagebrush) Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri breweri (Pacific) Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus (Islands) Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator carlottae

Volume 4. 1994 British Columbia Birds Paee 7

the number, element rank (e.g., the provincial rank of a species, listed in Table 1) and viability rank (exemplified for Cassin's Auklet' in Appendix 4) of the occurrences within them. Because disparate elements like lilies, grassland and woodpeckers are ranked under the same criteria, one can compare the conservation priorities for different sites relatively objectively.

HOW THIS INFORMATION IS USED

Information from the CDC can be used:

To establish protection priorities for government agencies and non-government organizations.

To contribute to proactive processes such as provincial, regional, and municipal land use plans.

To assist the environmental impact assessment process, industry will be able to use this information proactively in designing development projects and governments will be able to make informed decisions on these land development proposals.

To inform natural resource managers in industry and government.

THE CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE AND BIRDERS

The periodic monitoring of every site of concern, which is the key to the ongoing relevance and success of the CDC, is a huge, if not impossible, task for the five CDC staff members. The CDC will therefore be dependent on the birding community to provide up-to-date information on birds of conservation concern. In fact, some birders are already key information sources. The sort of information we need is very similar to the information birders have been submitting to the "Birds of British Columbia" book project (Campbell et al. 1990). except that we would like the location to be described as precisely as possible -- preferably so that we can map it within 100 m.

I would like to emphasize that the CDC is NOT competing with or replacing the Provincial Bird Sight Record File, the B.C. Nest Records Scheme (Myres et al. 1957; Campbell et al. 1990), or any computer data base that supersedes them. Those programs are designed to record information on the general distribution and biology of all the bird species in the province, and have been invaluable in increasing our understanding of birds in general. The species we are tracking (Table 1) make up a very small fraction of the data that comprise those data banks. At the CDC, we are tracking these selected species in much more detail.

t Red List Blue List

Provincial rarity rank

lgure 1: Tbe dish.ibutlon of rauks of the bird ~peeica and rubspecfa of B.C. Tbe rank codca are explained In Appendix 1.

Only those subspecies which are red-listed or blue-listed are included in t h e tallies.


As the CDC zoologist, I would like to set up a network of volunteers who "adopt" one or more occurrence site($ and monitor these on an annual basis. For example, if you know of a site where one or more Lewis' Woodpeckers nest nearby, you could send us an annual update on which nests were used. For breeding sites, these monitoring records could be handled through the Nest Records Scheme as long as the exact location of the nest was recorded.

I urge all active birders concerned with the long-term health of our bird fauna to get involved in this big, exciting project! Please phone me at (604) 387-6250 (free through Inquiry B.C. from anywhere in the province), or write me at the B.C. Conservation Data Centre, Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 780 Blanshard Street, Victoria, BC V8V 1x4. Technojunkies can contact my e-mail address which is [email protected]. We shall soon have a home page on the internet -- look for it at the Wildlife Branch's home page at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/.

The Wildlife Branch has published a series of colour brochures on species and ecosystems at risk in British Columbia. Birds covered to date are American White Pelican', Burrowing Owl' and Sage Thrasher'. Free copies are available from us.

Birders or other naturalists who wish access to CDC information for a particular project should write the Data Manager at the address indicated above, send us a fax at (604) 387-0293 or send me an e-mail message.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Martin McNicholl, Rob Butler and Mary Taitt for their detailed comments and encouragement.

LITERATURE CITED

Arbib, R. S. 1979. The blue list for 1980. American Birds 332330433.

British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1979. Preliminary plan for the designation of threatened and ei~dangered species in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria.

British Columbia Wildlife Branch. 1991. Wildlife species evaluation list. Appendix 2, pp. 69-105 in Managing wildlife to 2001 : a discussion paper. Wildlife Branch, B.C. Environment, Victoria.

Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser and M. C. E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. 2 volumes. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria.

Cannings, S. [G.] 1991. The British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. B. C. Naturalist 29(3):4.

Harcombe, A. 1994. Describing rarity: the ranking dilemma and a solution. pp. 11-15 in L. E. Harding and E. McCullum (Eds.). Biodiversity in British Columbia: our changing environment. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, B.C.

Harper, W., S. [G.] Cannings, D. Fraser and W. T. Munro. 1994. Provincial lists of species at risk. pp. 16-23 in L. E. Harding and E. McCullum (Eds.). Biodiversity in British Columbia: our changing environment. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, B.C.

Munro, W. T. 1994. National criteria for the designation of endangered and threatened species. pp. 23-25 in L. E. Harding and E. McCullum (Eds.). Biodiversity in British Columbia: our changing environment. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, B.C.

Munro, W. T. and D. J. Low. 1980. Preliminary plan for the designation of threatened and endangered species in British Columbia. pp. 65-73 in R. Stace- Smith, L. Johns and P. Joslin (Eds.). Threatened and endangered species and habitats in British Columbia and the Yukon. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria.

Myres, M. T., I. McTaggart-Cowan and M. D. F. Udvardy. 1957. The British Columbia Nest Records Scheme. Condor 59:308-310.

Tate, J. 1981. The blue list for 1981: the first decade. American Bi rd 35:3-10.

Tate, J. 1986. The blue list for 1986. American Birds 40:227-236.

Weber. W. C. 1980. A proposed list of rare and endangered bird species for British Columbia. pp. 160-182 in R. Stace-Smith, L. Johns and P. Joslin (Eds.). Threatened and endangered species and habitats in British Columbia and the Yukon. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria.


APPENDIX 1

THE CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE

RANKING SCHEME

Each element is ranked at two levels: global (G) and provincial ("subnational") (S). The global rank is based on the status of the element throughout its entire range, whereas the provincial rank is based solely on its status within British Columbia. The status of an element is indicated on a scale of one to five; the score is based primarily on the number of extant occurrences of the element, but such other factors as abundance, range, protection, and threats are also considered if the information is available. In addition to the ranks 1-5, there are several letter ranks, as defined below.

1 = Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (five or fewer extant occurrences or very few remaining individuals) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation or extinction.

2 = Imperiled because of rarity (typically six to 20 extant occurrences or few remaining individuals) or because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extirpation or extinction.

3 = Rare or uncommon (typically 21-100 occurrences); may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances; e.g., may have lost extensive peripheral populations.

4 = Frequent to common (more than 100 occurrences); apparently secure, but may have a restricted distribution; or there may be perceived future threats.

5 = Common to very common; demonstrably secure and essentially ineradicable under present conditions.

A = An element (usually an animal) that is considered accidental or casual in the province; a species that does not appear on an annual basis.

E = An exotic or species introduced to the province.

H = Historical occurrence; usually not verified in the last 40 years, but with the expectation that it may be rediscovered some day.

R = Reported from the province, but without persuasive documentation for either accepting or rejecting the report.

RF = Reported in error, with this error persisting in the literature.

U = Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the element; uncertainty spans a range of four or five ranks.

X = Apparently extinct or extirpated, without the expectation that it will be rediscovered.

Z = Occurs in the province, but as a diffuse, usually moving population; difficult or impossible to map static occurrences.

? = Limited information is available or the number of extant occurrences is estimated.

In addition to the above ranks, there are four letter qualifiers sometimes used in conjunction with them:

B = Breeding; the associated rank refers to breeding occurrences of mobile animals.

N = Non-breeding; the associated rank refers to non- breeding occurrences of mobile animals.

Q = Taxonomic validity of the element is not clear or in question.

T = Designates a rank associated with a subspecies or population at the global level.

British Columbia Birds Volume 4. 1994

APPENDIX 2

PROVINCIAL RANKING FORM FOR LEWIS' WOODPECKER

EXEMPLARY SITE: VASEUX LAKE

RANKING FACTORS:

Estimated number of occurrences: D

Comments: Widespread, but sparsely distributed in the lower slopes and valleys of southern British Columbia.

Abundance: B

Comments: Population size is estimated to be between 700 and 1200 pairs (Siddle and Davidson 1991), but the East Kootenay was not surveyed in that study.

Range: C

Comments: Range has been contracting; now extirpated in the Georgia Depression ecoregion. Distributed widely at lower elevations in the southern interior; found regularly as far north as Williams Lake.

Trend: B

Comments: Thought to be declining due to habitat loss and competition with European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) (Siddle and Davidson 1991; Cannings et al. 1987).

Protected occurrences: C

Comments: Numbers of nest sites in small provincial parks, ecological reserves and national wildlife areas.

Threats: B

Comments: Habitat loss through cutting of snags, removal of riparian forests, and general urbanization threatens populations, particularly in the Okanagan Valley. Impact of competition with European Starlings remains uncertain.

RANK AND REASONS:

Provincial rank: S3 (Revision date: 2 January 1994) Reasons: Low population size; species restricted to

habitats under extreme pressure from human development. Declines and regional extirpations have occurred already. Snag-dependent nester.

NEEDS:

Inventory needs: Inventory protected areas to determine numbers protected from habitat loss. Inventory the Southern Rocky Mountain Trench north to Golden.

Protection needs: Protect several areas of old-growth ponderosa pine and cottonwood riparian habitat in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys.

Stewardship needs: Develop a snag management plan for snag-dependent species. Research effects of competition for nest sites with European Starlings. Develop a Ponderosa Pine management plan.

REFERENCES:

Cannings, R. A., R. J. Cannings and S. G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley. Royal B.C. Museum, Victoria.

Siddle, C. and G. Davidson. 1991. Status of the Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. Unpublished report, B.C. Environment, Wildlife Branch, Victoria. 1

Other considerations: Snag-dependent nester.

EDITION: 15 November 1992. COOPER, J. M.


APPENDIX 3

PROVINCIAL RANKING FORM GUIDELINES

ESTlMATED NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES:

ABUNDANCE:

A: fewer than 1000 individuals. B: 1000-3000 individuals. C: 3000-10,000 individuals. D: more than 10,000 individuals.

TREND:

A: declining rapidly. B: declining. C: stable. D: increasing.

PROTECTED:

A: believed that none are protected. B: at least one protected EO (element occurrence). C: several protected EOs. D: many protected EOs. U: unknown.

RANGE: THREAT:

A: very small range, less than 3% of territory. B: narrow range, less than 10% of territory. .

C: moderately widespread, less than half of temtory. D: widespread, more than half of territory.

A: very threatened -- species or community directly exploited or threatened by natural or human- caused forces.

B: moderately threatened -- habitat or community lends it self to alternate use.

C: not very threatened -- self-protected by unsuitability for other uses.

D: unthreatened.


APPENDIX 4

CASSIN'S AUKLET OCCURRENCE SPECIFICATIONS

OCCURRENCE SPECIFICATIONS:

Nesting colonies tracked. An.occurrence is defined as a colony isolated from other colonies by more than 2 km.

OCCURRENCE RANK SPECIFICATIONS:

A: Colony greater than 10,000 pairs; numbers stable and threats manageable.

B: Colony of 10,000 to 100,000 pairs; numbers stable and threats manageable.

C: Colony of 1,000 to 10,000 pairs with stable numbers and manageable threats; or with greater numbers but declining because of introduced predators or other factors.

D: Colony of fewer than 1,000 pairs, or with 1,000 to 10,000 pairs, but numbers declining because of introduced predators or other factors.


MOBBING OF A COMMON RAVEN BY MIGRANT ROSY-FINCHES

by John M. Cooper* LGL Environmental Research Associates Ltd.

9768 Second Street Sidney, B.C. V8L 3Y8

Mobbing or harassment of predatory birds by other birds occurs under a variety of circumstances. Functional explanations for mobbing include:

1) advertising recognition of the predator;

2) cultural transmission leading to avoidance of an area by the mobbers; and

3) forcing the predator to leave by harassment (Curio 1978). Mobbing of predatory birds by passerines occurs most frequently during the breeding season, when parent birds defend nesting areas, eggs and young from predators.

Raptors are mobbed more often by passerines when hunting in the air or when carrying prey than when perched or soaring (Hamerstrom 1956; Cade 1967; Kruuk 1976; Watson 1977; Bildstein 1982). Corvids are often the victims of mobbing by smaller passerines during the breeding season, because they commonly prey on passerine eggs and young (Goodwin 1976). Mobbing of corv ids occurs infrequently during non-breeding periods. In this note, I describe a case of migrant Gray-crowned Rosy-Finches (Leucosticte tephrocotis) mobbing a lone Common Raven (Corvus corm) during early autumn.

Between 22 and 25 September 1992, I observed migrant birds moving through alpine areas in the Cayoosh Range (50" 30'N 122" 22'W), southeast of Lillooet, British Columbia. On 22 September, I was positioned for three hours at 2,450 m. elevation, in a small and rocky knife-edged pass between two peaks. Small numbers of migrant Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus) , American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), Bohemian Waxwings (Bombycilla gamlus) and Mountain Bluebirds (Sialia cumcoides) were moving through the pass during early afternoon.

I observed a lone Common Raven flying parallel to the mountain side, about 50 m. below and 100 m. west of my position. The raven called twice as it approached. A flock of approximately 500 small passerines then lifted off the ground about 200 m. to the east and 100 m.

* current address: Sirius Environmental Research, 1278 Laurel Road, R.R. 3, Sidney, B.C. V8L 5K8.

below my position. The flock rapidly gained elevation and flew towards the raven. Most birds within the flock flew erratically, creating a mass swirling effect. The flock then encountered the raven, seemingly enveloping it in a mass of milling birds. The flock then changed direction to follow the raven for about 10 seconds as it continued its direct flight eastward. No birds were observed to strike the raven; nor did the raven appear to respond to the mobbing by changing course or speed.

After disengaging from the raven, the flock flew directly to the pass in which I was positioned and began to land on the ground. As the flock landed, the birds flew in rapid clock-wise circles around the pile of rocks in which I was sitting, again creating a swirling whirlwind effect. As the flock settled, a Sharp-shinned Hawk bulleted past my shoulder and plunged downhill in an attempt to capture a bird. The flock flushed immediately and then flew off to the west, most flying out of sight. At this time, I identified the birds as Gray-crowned Rosy- Finches. A few remained perched on rocks beside me for several minutes.

Of the three explanations for mobbing proposed by Curio (1978), the incident reported here was most likely an attempt: 1) to harass an aerial predator into leaving the area, or 2) to advertise that the predator had been recognized. I believe that the latter possibility, that of advertisement, is the most likely explanation for this bizarre behaviour. Certainly, the raven was aware of the flock's existence, but apparently, paid little attention to it. Rosy-finches exhibit a socially coordinated escape response from predators which is related to their nomadic distribution patterns (Swenson et al. 1988; Lima 1993). Mobbing of the raven was not likely harassment because the advantage in causing a predator to leave an area would be low when the mobbing birds were migrating and were not likely to be present in the same area again. Although Gray-crowned and Brown-capped (Leucosticte australis) Rosy-Finches are known to attack corvids and raptors near nests (Twining 1940; Johnson 1965; Hendricks 1977), mobbing is not universal even at nests (Dixon 1936). Twining (1940) reported a case of mobbing by Gray-crowned Rosy-Finches "late in the season," while Leffingwell and Leffingwell (1931) reported mobbing in Washington in winter to be infrequent and "not very enthusiastic."


Indirect evidence supporting my contention that the raven was mobbed for advertisement purposes was provided by other observations in the vicinity. During an aerial survey of the Cayoosh Range two days previously, I saw several large flocks (200-400 individuals) of rosy- finches flying in alpine habitat, indicating that many birds were migrating. During four days of ground observations, Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) hunting in alpine areas were observed several times to flush flocks of migrant rosy-finches and American Pipits (Anthus rubescens) from the ground. Mobbing of eagles was not observed, but the migrant passerines were clearly responding to the approach of the eagles. As mentioned above, migrant rosy-finches were apparently being hunted by migrant Sharp-shinned Hawks, and American Kestrels were also present. The fact that a flock of rosy-finches responded to the approach of a predatory species that would not likely be a major threat during non-breeding seasons (e.g. Common Raven), or during any season (e.g. Golden Eagle), suggests that the birds were reacting to the approach of any potential avian predator. If migrant rosy- finches were targeted frequently by migrant Sharp- shinned Hawks, then the birds may be sensitive to the approach of any predatory bird. Thus, such an approach would cause alarm within the flock and provoke an escape response, even though there was little chance that any predation would occur.

Further observations of the responses of migrant rosy- finches to potential predators are needed to document the extent to which this species will engage in mobbing behaviour.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Observations reported here were made during field work conducted for LGL Environmental Research Associates, Ltd., Sidney, British Columbia. Ken Morgan and Paul Hendricks reviewed an earlier draft and greatly improved the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Bildstein, K. L. 1982. Responses of Northern Harriers to mobbing passerines. Journal of Field Ornithology 53:7-14.

Cade, T. J. 1967. Ecological and behavioral aspects of predation by the Northern Shrike. Living Bird 6:43- 86.

Curio, E. 1978. The adaptive significance of avian mobbing. I. Teleonomic hypotheses and predictions. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 48: 175-1 83.

Dixon, J. B. 1936. Nesting of the Sierra Nevada Rosy Finch. Condor 38:3-8.

Goodwin, D. 1976. Crows of the World. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.

Hamerstrom, F. 1956. The influence of a hawk's appetite on mobbing. Condor 59: 192-1 94.

Hendricks, D.P. 1977. Brown-capped Rosy Finch nesting in New Mexico. Auk 94:384-385.

Johnson, R. E. 1965. Reproductive activities of rosy finches, with special reference to Montana. Condor 82: 190-205.

Kruuk, H. 1976. The biological function of the gull's attraction toward predators. Animal Behaviour 24:146-153.

Leffingwell, D. J. and A. M. Leffingwell. 1931. Winter habits of the Hepburn Rosy Finch at Clarkston, Washington. Condor 33: 140-147.

Lima, S. L. 1993. Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on escape from predatory attack: a survey of North American birds. Wilson Bulletin 105:l-47.

Swenson, J. E., K. C. Jensen and J. E. Toepfer. 1988. Winter movements by Rosy Finches in Montana. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:157-160.

Twining, H. 1940. Foraging behavior and survival in the Sierra Nevada Rosy Finch. Condor 42:64-72.

Watson, D. 1977. The Hen Harrier. Poyser, Berkhamsted, U.K.


YELLOW RAIL IN YOHO NATIONAL PARK

Peter Sherrington R.R. 2

Cochrane, Alberta TOL OW0

During the spring of 1994, I was part of a team conducting a breeding bird survey as part of a wildlife study in support of the Ecological Land Classification for Yoho National Park, British Columbia. Several species found were new to the park, and the breeding status of several more was revised significantly. These records will be incorporated into the final report and the more significant findings may be published subsequently. The following sighting warrants more immediate publication.

On the morning of 10 June 1994, I was conducting breeding bird transects on the floodplain of the Kicking Horse River, about 800 m. west south-west of the Ottertail Viewpoint on Highway 1 and about 10 km. south of Field. The area being studied that morning was a VL1 Ecosite, defined by Achuff et al. (1993) as an ecosection incorporating wetland soils and vegetation occurring on fluvial landforms in the Montane Ecoregion, dominated by sedge fen.

The first transect at 05:30 yielded the expected Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) , Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) and Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) in marginal wet willows. I then moved west south-west to near the centre of an extensive sedge meadow to start the second transect of the day at 05:55. One minute into the transect, I heard the soft tik-tik tik-tik-tik of a Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) no more than 5 m. away, but to my consternation the calls lasted only 5 seconds and were not repeated during the rest of the 10 minute transect period. At the completion of the transect, I spent another 10 minutes searching for the bird and vocally imitating its call. Although the sedge was still relatively low and sparse, there was no subsequent sign nor sound of the bird, so I continued with the morning's work.

As the day progressed, I became less and less sure of what I had heard. I have heard Yellow Rails many times previously; in fact, there is a regular breeding location less than 5 km. from my house north-west of Calgary. However, the call was so short and so soft that I began to doubt my identification.

By the time I joined the rest of the team I was almost convinced that I had experienced a habitat-induced hallucination. Nevertheless, at dusk that evening Wayne Smith, Cliff Wallis, Cleve and Ray Wershler and I were

back in the sedge meadow suitably equipped with pairs of small pebbles to imitate the bird's call. As five simulated birds spread out across the meadow, it soon became obvious that the real bird probably could not have got a tik in sideways with all the noise. Limiting the pebble tapping to one person at a time considerably increased the chance of hearing a response, but no bird co-operated. At 22:00, with mosquitoes hanging in clouds around our heads, Cliff suggested that we quit the search for that day. At that moment, Ray, who was standing about 8 m. from where I had conducted the transect in the morning, said that he could see a bird moving through the sedge near him. He took one step towards it and up flew a small, darkish bird with obvious white secondaries forming two patches on the trailing edges of the wings: a Yellow Rail! (Figure 1). The bird flew with shivering, shallow wing beats (somewhat reminiscent of a Spotted Sandpiper, Actitis macularia) and with legs dangling, low over the sedge and dropped back into the marsh about 10 m. away. We quickly surrounded the bird and had excellent views as close as about 2 m. in the relatively thin vegetation.

The overall coloration of the head was a warm buff- brown. The top of the head had a dark brown cap contrasting with a fairly thick orange-brown supercilium. The bill was fairly short and symmetrical and appeared to be uniformly dark yellow. The lores were black, and a dark eye-line stretched back to the top of the auricular area. The rest of the plumage was essentially hidden in the vegetation, but we had an impression of a dark back with contrasting buffy feather edging, and orange-brown underparts. The bird appeared to move towards its simulated call, but uttered no sound of its own. The bird was flushed once more and then left in peace.

All five observers have had extensive field experience with the species. The quality and length of the observation, together with the brief, but diagnostic, call in the morning, left none of us with any doubt about the identity of the bird. The British Columbia Field Ornithologists Rare Birds Committee agreed by accepting the report unanimously (G. Davidson pen. comm. to M. K. McNicholl 3 November 1994).

The Yellow Rail was considered hypothetical in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990) with four previous records, three involving birds that were heard


'tgure 1: Field sketch of Yellow Rail observed in late even@, 10 Juae 1995 in Yoho National Park.

only, and one of a bird seen, but without adequate documentation. The closest record to Yoho National Park was of a bird heard between 29 June and 9 July 1964 at Lake Lillian in the East Kootenay. In Alberta, the species breeds mainly in the Central Parkland Region southwest to near Calgary (Semenchuk 1992). The only records from the Rocky Mountains are of two specimens taken at Jasper early in the twentieth century (Salt and Salt 1976). A scattering of records from the foothills west of Calgary possibly suggests some extension of its range in the last decade.

The silence of the bird observed in the evening, and the fact that it appeared to move towards the sound of a simulated call suggests that the bird might have been a female. The calling bird in the morning may have been a male. Certainly the habitat appears to be ideal for Yellow Rail breeding and is widespread in the Ottertail Marshes. As Yoho is due west of the mapped breeding range of the species in Alberta, the Yellow Rail may possibly breed regularly there, filling one of the gaps in its "imperfectly known" (Bookhout 1995) breeding range.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The comments of Mary Taitt on an earlier draft helped improve the manuscript. I am grateful to members of the B.C. Field Oinithologists Bird Records Committee for their prompt review of this record.

LITERATURE CITED

Achuff, P., W. S. Taylor and L. J. Knapik. 1993. Unpublished report prepared for Yoho National Park, Canadian Parks Service, Environment Canada. Achuff Consultants, Canmore, Alberta and Pedican Lands Evaluation Limited, Edmonton.

Bookhout, T. A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Cohtmicops noveboarcensis). No. 139 in A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). The birds of North America. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington.

Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser and M. C. E. McCall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. Volume 2: nonpasserines. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria.

Salt, W. R. and J. R. Salt. 1976. The birds of Alberta with their ranges in Saskatchewan & Manitoba. Hurtig, Edmonton.

Semenchuk. G. P. (Ed.). 1992. The atlas of breeding birds of Alberta. Federation of Alberta Naturalists, Edmonton.


COMMON RAVEN CATCHING TROUT

Peter Sherrington R.R. 2

Cochrane, Alberta TOL OW0

On 22 June 1994, I was walking on the trail to the west along the south shore of Lake O'Hara, Yoho National Park, British Columbia with Joe Jazvac, a seasonal interpreter with the Canadian Parks Service. At 14:10, as we crossed the bridge across the small creek that flows north into Lake O'Hara from Mary Lake, we saw a Common Raven (Corvus corax) run down a low, moss-covered bank into a pool in the creek and emerge with a trout. We estimated that the trout was about 20 cm. long. The bird perched on the rocky lip of the pool while the fish struggled vigorously in its beak; after a few seconds, the bird dropped the fish back into the pool.

The raven then hopped a short distance to a small log by the stream, shook the water out of its plumage and wiped its bill, once on each side, on the log. Presumably this was to rid itself of fish scales andlor slime. It remained by the stream for a further 4 minutes, occasionally looking down into the water, then flew off about 3 m. to a stump west of the stream to dry off and preen.

At 14:19, the raven returned to the log by the stream and continued to watch the water closely, presumably looking for trout passing up the stream from Lake O'Hara to Mary Lake. After one minute, it quickly jumped into the pool and emerged with a 10 cm. trout which it immediately carried to the west bank, where the fish was dropped. The raven pecked at the fish on the ground, sometimes holding it down with one claw. After a short period, the bird walked briefly away from the fish towards the stream, then returned and after pecking at the fish a few more times, picked it up in its beak and swallowed it, head first. The raven immediately returned to the stream slightly above where the fish had been caught and resumed its search for more fish.

At 14:25, the raven perched on a small log-jam upstream, where it vigorously shook its feathers, and wiped its beak on a log twice on each side. This beak- wipe was then repeated, again twice on each side.

At 14:27, the bird continued upstream, peering into each pool as it progressed, until we could no longer see it from the trail.

During the next week I passed over the bridge on several occasions but did not see the raven again. Joe Jazvac, however, returned to the bridge on 28 July and reported that he again saw the raven systematically working its way up the stream looking for fish. Although no fish were caught while he watched, the whole area smelled strongly of fish, suggesting that several had been caught in the vicinity.

Although ravens exploit a wide range of foods (Bent 1946; Goodwin 1976), I am unaware of any reference to them systematically catching live fish. Samuel S. Dickey (in Bent 1946) reported ravens "taking" minnows along a Pennsylvania stream, but implied that these were scavenged. In a summary of known foods of corvids that occur in Great Britain, Holyoak (1968) listed fish carrion, but not live fish. Goodwin (1976) did not mention fishing among foraging methods of corvids; nor were fish or fishing mentioned in any of eight papers and notes on raven food and foraging methods checked by M. K. McNicholl (pers. comm. 1 July 1995). It will be interesting to see if this behaviour is learned and adopted by other ravens in the area. I would be very interested in receiving reports of similar behaviour.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Robert W. Butler and Mary J. Taitt for helpful comments on the initial draft.

LITERATURE CITED

Bent, A. C. 1946. Life histories of North American jays, crows and titmice. U. S. National Museum Bulletin 191.

Goodwin, D. 1976. Crows of the World. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), Surrey, U.K. and Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Holyoak, D. 1968. A comparative study of the food of some British Corvidae. Bird Study 15: 147-153.


B.C. FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS BIRD RECORDS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT: 1993

Gary S. Davidson Box 294

Nakusp, B.C. VOG 1RO

The B.C. Field Ornithologists Records Committee was established in early 1992 to review records of unusual birds in British Columbia (Davidson 1993).

The purpose of the committee is two-fold: (1) to review reports of rare birds critically, and (2) to encourage thorough documentation of unusual birds. In reviewing the records, members are concerned with two issues: was the bird identified correctly?; and is there a possibility that this may be an escaped bird rather than a truly wild individual?

The committee structure is designed to give geographic representation to the entire province. The seven-person committee in 1993 consisted of two from the lower mainland (Dick Cannings and Alvaro Jaramillo), two from Vancouver Island (Barbara Begg and Derrick Marven) and three from the interior (Jack Bowling of Prince George, Gary Davidson of Nakusp and Chris Siddle of Vernon).

Two or three times per year the chairperson sends copies of rare bird reports to each of the other members. Each member must assess each record individually and return hislher decision to "accept" or "reject," along with hislher comments to the chair. A record receiving more than two "reject" votes is deemed unacceptable. A record receiving fewer than two "reject" votes is accepted immediately. A record receiving exactly two "reject" votes is recirculated to members with copies of all members' comments, and a second vote is taken.

Records reported in 1993 are summarized below. Where there were only a small number of observers, all observers' names have been listed. If such a list is too long, only the first observer and those who submitted field notes (*) have been listed. (ph.) indicates that photographs were taken. Several reports received by the committee that indicated that photos were obtained, did not actually include copies of such photos. Records 93- 14, 93-17, 93-25 and 93-26 are the only 1993 submissions for which the committee has photos. If anyone has photos of any of the other records, copies would be greatly appreciated. No names have been listed for those records which were not accepted.

The BCFO Records Committee would like to thank those observers who took the time to document unusual

sightings and to submit them either to the Committee directly or to the regional editor of Audubon Field Notes (formerly American Birds). We appreciate your efforts and hope you will continue to support our efforts by documenting Review List species in British Columbia. The current version of the review list appears in Davidson (1994).

ACCEPTED RECORDS

LITTLE BLUE HERON, Egretta caerulea (93-17) One immature, mouth of Courtenay River, Courtenay, 19 September, Doug Innes (ph., *) plus seven others. Details appear in Innes (1993).

FERRUGINOUS HAWK, Buteo regalis (93-8) One light morph adult, Mount Kobau, 4 June, Denise Brownlie (*), Chris Charlesworth (*), Gwynneth Wilson, Lesley Robertson.

MONGOLIAN PLOVER, Charadrius mongolus (93-9) One adult male in breeding plumage, Rose Spit, Queen Charlotte Islands, 22 June, Peter Hamel (*), Margo Hearne.

MONGOLIAN PLOVER (93-14) One adult male, Esquimalt Lagoon, 26-29 July, Richard Yank, Barbara Begg (*), Tim Zurowski (ph.), Ron Satterfield (*) plus at least seven others.

BAR-TAILED GODWIT, Limosa lapponica (93-3) One, Queen Charlotte Islands, 14 May, Margo Hearne (*) Note: this report was somewhat lacking in details and did not give a specific location; as a result, it was nearly rejected. Observers are encouraged to provide as much information as possible!

BAR-TAILED GODWIT (93-18) One juvenile, identified as subspecies L. I. baueri, foot of 112th St., South Delta, 22-26 September, Derrick Marven (*), Alvaro Jaramillo (*), Michael Price (*) plus at least nine others.


CURLEW SANDPIPER, Calidris fermginea (93- 16) One juvenile, Iona Island Sewage Treatment Plant, 16-28 September, Mark Wynja (*), Wayne C. Weber (*) plus at least 12 others.

SLATY-BACKED GULL, L a m schistisagus (93-26) One adult, Columbia River, Revelstoke, 18 December, and Revelstoke Landfill, 17-23 October, Patrick Sullivan (*), Orville Gordon (ph.), Doug Powell.

SLATY-BACKED GULL (93-22) One winter plumaged adult, mouth of Goldstream Creek on east side of Kalamalka Lake, Vernon, 11 November, and Vernon Landfill Site, 11, 13 and 14 November, Chris Siddle (*), Gary Davidson (*), plus at least eight others. Details of records 93-26 and 93-22 are documented inSiddle (1993). These and record 93-28 are also listed in a recent review of North American records of this species (Cornier and Savard 1994).

SLATY-BACKED GULL (93-28) One winter plumaged adult, Bums Bog Landfill, Ladner, 27 December 1993 to 26 February 1994, Alvaro Jaramillo (*), Rick Toochin, Mike Toochin, Tom Plath and Steve Metz.

LESSER BLACK-BACKED GULL, Larus fuscus (93 - 19) One breeding plumaged adult, east side of Arrow Lake at Burton, 28 September - 18 October, Gary Davidson (ph., *), Chris Siddle (*) plus many others.

ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER, Myiarchus cinerascens (93-1 2) One juvenile, Lochside Trail, central Saanich, 16 July, Gerry Ansell (*) plus nine others.

SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER, Tyrannus foflcatus (93-10) One, believed to be adult female, Iona Island, 16 June, John Luce (*), Wayne C. Weber (*), Sharon Toochin (ph.) plus many others.

SCRUB JAY, Aphelocoma coerulescens (93-21) One, Musqueam Park, Vancouver, 28 July 1993 - 7 April 1994, Gloria and Peter Sven (*), Alvaro Jaramillo (*), Wayne C. Weber (*), Allan Drab (ph.) plus many others.

DUSKY THRUSH, Turdus naumanni (93-1) One, Langley, 2 January to at least 9 April, John Ireland (*), Dick Cannings (*), Michael Patten plus many others. The discovery of this bird was described by MacKenzie (1993).

SIBERIAN ACCENTOR, Prunella montanella (93-27) One, Everett Crowley Park, Vancouver, 15 December, Alvaro Jaramillo (*) . Note: single observer sightings such as this sometimes pose problems for records committees; this one was accepted on the basis of the quality of the field notes submitted; as one reviewer stated, "I defy anyone to differ with this identification after reading such excellent notes." Details were published in Jaramillo (1994).

BLACK-THROATED BLUE WARBLER, Dendmica caerulescens (93-25) One first year male, frequenting several suet feeders in Nakusp, 12 December 1993 to 16 January 1994, Lucille Wells, Gary Davidson (ph., *) plus many others. Note: this bird flew into a plate glass window and killed itself on 16 January, specimen preserved, Cowan Vertebrate Museum specimen #15172, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

INDIGO BUNTING, Passerina cyanea (93-1 1) One adult male, Premier St. Landfill, North Vancouver, 13 June, John Luce (*), Mary Peete-Leslie (*), Jo Ann MacKenzie (*) plus several others.

GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE, Pipilo chlorurus (93-24) One singing male, Queen Elizabeth Park, Vancouver 21- 22 May, Gerry Ansell (*) plus at least ten others.

GREAT-TAILED GRACKLE, Quiscalus mexicanus (93-23) One probable adult female, Okanagan Landing Rd., Vernon, 5? December 1993 - 26 February 1994, Chris Siddle (ph., *), Gary Davidson (ph., *), Mary Collins, Phil Gehlen plus many others. Details of this observation were reported by Gehlen (1994).

LESSER GOLDFINCH, Carduelis psaltria (93-1 5) One adult male of the Black-backed race, C. p. psaltria, Jericho Park, Vancouver, 6 September, Michael Price (*) .

RECORDS NOT ACCEPTED

LAYSAN ALBATROSS, Diomedea immutabilis (93-7) Five, Revelstoke, 3 June.

LAYSAN ALBATROSS (93-13) One, ferry from Gabriola Island to Vancouver, 25 July.

LONG-TAILED JAEGER, Stercomrius longicaudus (93-20) One, Vancouver, 24 August.


RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD, Archilochus colubris (93-4) One, Revelstoke, 17 May.

GREAT CRESTED FLYCATCHER, Myiarchus crinitus (93-5) One, Radium Hot Springs, 22 May.

BROWN THRASHER, Toxostoma rufum (93-6) One, Wilmer, 5 June.

PHAINOPEPLA, Phainopepla nitens (93- 1) One, Stanley Park, Vancouver, 17 January.

Committee annual report for 1992. B. C. Birds 3: 18- 19.

Davidson, G. [S.] 1994. BCFO Bird Records Committee review list. B.C. FIELD ORNITHOLOGIST 4(3):6-7.

Gehlen, P. 1994. Great-tailed Grackle in British Columbia. B. C. FIELD ORNITHOLOGIST 4(l) : 17.

Innes, D. W. 1993. Little Blue Heron at Courtenay: second record for British Columbia. B. C. Birds 3:20- 21.

Jaramillo, A. 1994. Siberian Accentor -- new to Canada. Birders Journal 3: 93-98.

LITERATURE CITED

Cormier, C. and G. Savard. 1994. A Slaty-backed Gull at SaguenayILac St-Jean [:I first record for Quebec. Birders Journal 3:54-62.

Davidson, G. S. 1993. B.C. Field Ornithologists Records

MacKenzie, H. 1993. A memorable birding experience. B. C. FIELD ORNITHOLOGIST 3 (2) : 12.

Siddle, C. R. 1993. First record of a Slaty-backed Gull in the Okanagan Valley, with notes on identification. B.C. Birds 3:15-17.

BOOK REVIEWS

INTERACTIONS OF HUMANS AND BALD EAGLES ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY, by Kevin McGarigal, Robert G. Anthony, and Frank B. Isaacs. Wildlife Monographs No. 115, 1994. 47 pages, illus., softcover. Available from The Wildlife Society, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland 20814, U.S.A., $4.50 U.S.

This scientific monograph describes a two-year study involving relatively non-disruptive methods to investigate human and Bald Eagle activity patterns. The study examined how breeding Bald Eagles responded to temporary human activities in Bald Eagle foraging areas. Based on the findings of the investigation, the authors developed a model of human-eagle interactions that was used to recommend spatial and temporal restrictions of human activities around eagle high-use areas during the breeding season. The study was conducted during spring- summer 1985 and 1986 along a 98 km. stretch of the Columbia River estuary between Longview, Washington and the Pacific Ocean. Six pairs of breeding Bald Eagles were studied each year -- three of the six pairs were studied both years. Each pair was sampled three times during each breeding season, i.e. during the incubation period (23 March - 13 May), nestling period (10 May - 13 July) and postfledging period (3 July - 27 August).

Each sample consisted of two sampling periods -- a three- day control period when "normal" eagle activity patterns were monitored, followed by a three-day period during which a high-use foraging area was "disturbed" for three days.

Disturbance consisted of one of the authors sitting in a stationary boat in the centre of a high-use Bald Eagle foraging area. Observers watched Bald Eagles during control periods from a motorboat or from a land-based vehicle located at least 500 m. from the birds. During the disturbance periods, observations were apparently conducted from the same motorboat used to "disturb" the eagles. Daily observation periods, often begun at first light, were usually eight hours long, and included morning low tide, which coincided with peak foraging activities.

Normal Bald Eagle activities were monitored continuously if possible. During periods when one of the pair was incubating or brooding, only the foraging individual was watched. Later during the nestling period, both members of the pair were watched as they foraged. All observations of eagles and human activities were plotted on large scale photographs that allowed identification of individual trees, pilings and other eagle

british columbia birds · a birdfinding guide to the calgary region, edited by ... the british...

Documents