evaluating the biological consequences of bald eagle nest
TRANSCRIPT
W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks
CCB Technical Reports Center for Conservation Biology (CCB)
2010
Evaluating the biological consequences of Bald Eagle nest loss Evaluating the biological consequences of Bald Eagle nest loss
and removal: Calvert Cliffs Case Study 2009 report and removal: Calvert Cliffs Case Study 2009 report
B. D. Watts The Center for Conservation Biology, [email protected]
Elizabeth K. Mojica The Center for Conservation Biology, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Watts, B.D. and E. K. Mojica. 2010. Evaluating the biological consequences of Bald Eagle nest loss and removal: Calvert Cliffs Case Study 2009 report. CCBTR-10-02. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 6 pp.
This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CCB Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
EVALUATING THE BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF BALD EAGLE NEST LOSS AND REMOVAL:
CALVERT CLIFFS CASE STUDY
2009 Annual Report for Federal Fish and Wildlife Eagle Scientific Collecting Permit MB207511‐0
Bryan D. Watts, PhD Elizabeth K. Mojica
Center for Conservation Biology College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University
January 20, 2010
Recommended Citation:
Watts, B.D. and E.K. Mojica. 2010. Evaluating the biological consequences of Bald Eagle nest loss and removal: Calvert Cliffs Case Study 2009 report. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-10-02. College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, Williamsburg, VA. 6 pp.
The Center for Conservation Biology is an organization dedicated to discovering innovative solutions to environmental problems that are both scientifically sound and practical within today’s social context. Our philosophy has been to use a general systems approach to locate critical information needs and to plot a deliberate course of action to reach what we believe are essential information endpoints.
1
Background Permitted removal of an active Bald Eagle nest tree has been rare within the United States. For the few
cases that have been permitted, follow up information that would be required to evaluate the biological consequence of removal has not been collected. For sites where nesting substrate is limiting, nest tree removal may constitute the loss of the breeding territory, forcing the pair to settle elsewhere if unoccupied habitat is available. However, for sites that support additional suitable habitat to accommodate nesting Bald Eagles, the biological consequence of removing an abandoned or active nest tree is not clear. If the pair relocates within the vicinity, territory continuity is maintained and there may be minor or no impact to reproductive rates. Given the ongoing increase in the continental breeding population along with the growing demand for invasive forms of land use, the number of requests to remove active nest trees is expected to increase in the near term. Information that helps to formulate policy in these cases is currently needed.
Our study site encompasses property owned by Constellation Energy (Constellation) and UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC (UniStar), in Calvert County, Maryland. The site is situated along the western shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and supports extensive tracts of mature hardwoods close to water. The property includes approximately 4.5 km of Chesapeake Bay shoreline and is adjacent to both the Flag Ponds Nature Park and the Calvert Cliffs State Park. The property contains 4 Bald Eagle breeding territories which were all active during the 2009 breeding season. A construction project planned on the UniStar tract includes a recently established eagle territory at Camp Conoy (Fig 1). The planned construction, proximity to the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, and additional breeding habitat supported within and surrounding the site make this study area an ideal candidate for a case study focused on the biological consequences of nest tree removal within a territory that supports additional habitat.
We proposed removing an active nest tree at Camp Conoy and monitoring of the pair and surrounding habitat to evaluate the biological consequences of removal on the continuity of the Camp Conoy breeding territory and reproductive performance. This single case study will add considerably to what we know about the outcome of nest removal on a site with additional nesting habitat and will help to inform current policy and future management decisions in similar cases. We propose to execute the case study in three phases including 1) Pre‐removal monitoring, 2) Nest tree removal and habitat modifications, and 3) Post‐removal monitoring.
The Federal Fish and Wildlife Eagle Scientific Collecting Permit MB207511‐0 was issued on March 26, 2009 to The Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) at the College of William and Mary to remove the nest at Camp Conoy and initiate evaluation of the biological consequences of bald eagle nest loss and removal as a condition of the eagle permit.
2
Figure 1. Bald Eagle nesting territories at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Calvert Co., MD.
Objectives Our objectives for eagle research at Calvert Cliffs were:
1. To remove the existing eagle nest tree at Camp Conoy that is within the limit of development for the planned Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 project.
2. To modify other trees within the Camp Conoy nest territory to encourage the eagle pair to establish a new nest outside the limit of development.
3. To monitor a nest pair after nest loss and confirm use of a modified tree as a replacement nest.
3
Phase 1: PreRemoval Monitoring
2009 Breeding Season The eagle breeding territories at Calvert Cliffs were monitored by two observers in a 172 Cessna plane
flying approximately 200‐500’ above the nest. Presence of adult eagles, nest contents, and condition of each nest structure were recorded. A late season snow storm in early March 2009 caused wide‐spread nest failures in many areas of the Bay (Watts & Byrd unpub. data). Three of the four nests failed as a result of this storm during the incubation or early brooding stages including the nest at Camp Conoy (Table 2.).
Table 2. Productivity data for eagle nests on Calvert Cliffs during the 2009 breeding season.
Nest Occupied Active Productivity
North Y Y 1 chick +
1 addled egg West Y Y 0 South Y Y 0 Camp Conoy Y Y 0
Phase 2: Nest Tree Removal and Habitat Modifications
Nest Tree Removal The Virginia Pine supporting the eagle nest at Camp Conoy was cut down on October 26, 2009 as
authorized under permit MB207511‐0. The nest structure was destroyed on impact with the ground and all contents were manually scattered in the adjacent woods (Fig 2). No eagles, eggs, or young were seen in or around the nest during cutting activities.
Figure 2. Left to Right: Safety meeting on October 26 before initiation of tree work; Nest destroyed on impact with ground after nest tree cut.
4
Nest Tree Habitat Modifications Extensive ground and aerial surveys were conducted in May and June 2009 to identify candidate
replacement nest trees outside the limit of development for the planned Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 project. Preliminary evaluations of the forest stands within the Camp Conoy territory and outside of the other three eagle territories identified five candidate areas for ground and aerial surveys (Fig 3). Surveys revealed a majority of the forest stands available were too young to have the large open canopy structure eagles prefer for nesting. A stand of trees in Section 1 along the bay shoreline was the only area with enough mature trees and topographic relief to provide adequate replacement nest sites. Ten candidate nest trees were identified along the shoreline (Table 1, Fig 4.)
Figure 3. Habitat enhancement areas at Calvert Cliffs for proposed habitat modifications to attract eagles into candidate nest trees.
5
Table 1. Candidate nest trees for the Camp Conoy eagle territory. Each tree was labeled with a metal tree tag.
Species Tag No. Latitude LongitudeTulip Poplar 770 38.4293 ‐76.4337Chestnut Oak 771 38.4277 ‐76.4316Tulip Poplar 772 38.4269 ‐76.4312Tulip Poplar 773 38.4266 ‐76.4315Tulip Poplar 774 38.4266 ‐76.4316Tulip Poplar 775 38.4265 ‐76.4316White Oak 776 38.4265 ‐76.4316Chestnut Oak 777 38.4290 ‐76.4341Chestnut Oak 778 38.4285 ‐76.4347Chestnut Oak 779 38.4286 ‐76.4347
Figure 4. Candidate trees for the Camp Conoy eagle pair.
Arborists from Bartlett Tree Experts, under the guidance of CCB staff, selectively removed limbs from candidate nest trees on October 26th and November 3rd. The 10 candidate nest trees had one or more of these characteristics: (1) crown structure to hold a nest or (2) position on the edge of a cliff, forest edge, or in the supercanopy. Each candidate tree was evaluated individually to determine the best branch location for a nest. Candidate trees were trimmed and shaped to provide easier access for eagles into the tree. At most sites, nearby trees were topped to open the canopy of the candidate nest tree (Fig 5).
6
Figure 5. Left to Right. A Bartlett arborist climbs a tulip poplar to perform selective trimming; a chestnut oak after limbs were selectively cut from the canopy to allow open access to eagles.
Phase 3: Postremoval Monitoring
2010 Breeding Season A survey of the Calvert Cliffs property and the surrounding shoreline was conducted on December 8, 2009. One adult was present in the Camp Conoy territory on a structure on the ball field approximately 100 m from where the nest was removed. A fourth‐year plumage eagle was seen perched on one of the trees trimmed in November along the shoreline. A new nest within the Camp Conoy territory was not located during the survey. The other three territories on the Calvert Cliffs property were occupied with significant nest repairs completed on all nests (fresh sticks or grass lining in nest).
Future Work Aerial surveys are scheduled to continue through March 2010 to locate and monitor eagle nests within the construction limit of development and buffer zone. If a nest within the Camp Conoy territory is not found in spring 2010, we will assume the pair will not breed this season. Aerial nest searching will resume in late fall 2010 to locate and monitor nesting activities for the 4 eagle territories during the 2011 breeding season.
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE - MIGRATORY BIRD PERMIT OFFICE
(See attached addresses)
SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING - ANNUAL REPORT PERMITTEE: ____________________________________________________________ PERMIT NUMBER:_________________________
ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________ REPORT FOR CALENDAR YEAR: _______________ _______________________________________________________________ REPORT DUE DATE: ___________________________
City State Zip Code ___ Check here if reporting a change of name, address, or contact information PHONE: ______________________ Email: __________________________________________
Office Use Only Date Completed Report rec’d in Regional Office ______/_____/_______ Initials: ________
INSTRUCTIONS: Type or print the information requested below for all birds taken or held under your permit during the year covered by this report and return the completed report to the above address by the due date. Use of this form is not mandatory, but the same information must be submitted. A supplemental sheet is available if needed. Filing an annual report is a condition of your permit. Failure to file a timely report can result in permit suspension. If you had no activity under your permit during the report year, state “No activity” on the form. (50 CFR parts 13, 21, & 22) ►►Please group your entries first by Species, then by State, County, and Month. Provide a subtotal for each species collected by State. See example below. (* Do not include birds captured under a Federal Bird Banding or Marking Permit.)
MAKE SURE YOU SIGN & DATE THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT BELOW BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR REPORT.
WHERE & WHEN COLLECTED QUANTITY SPECIES
(Common Name) State County Month Lethal Collection
Viable Eggs Collected
Trap & Retain
Trap & Release*
Trap & Relocate
Example: American Robin VA Fairfax Jun 2 0 0 1 1 American Robin VA Loudon Jul 3 7 0 1 1 Species Total VA - - 5 7 0 2 2
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information in this report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement herein may subject me to the criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Signature: Date:
Form 3-202-1 Rev 11/2007 OMB No. 1018-0022 Expires 11/30/2010
SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET - SCIENTIFIC COLLECTING ANNUAL REPORT
PERMITTEE: PERMIT NUMBER: REPORT YEAR: _________ SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE NO: ____ (* Do not include birds captured under a Federal Bird Banding or Marking Permit.)
WHEN & WHERE COLLECTED QUANTITY
SPECIES (Common Name) State County Month Lethal
CollectionViable Eggs
Collected Trap & Retain
Trap & Release*
Trap & Relocate
Form 3-202-1 Rev 11/2007 OMB No. 1018-0022 Expires 11/30/2010
FEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PERMIT REPORT Paperwork Reduction Act, Privacy Act, and Freedom of Information Act – Notices
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), please be advised: 1. The gathering of information on fish and wildlife is authorized by:
(Authorizing statutes can be found at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html and http://www.fws.gov/permits/ltr/ltr.shtml.) a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668), 50 CFR 22;
b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), 50 CFR 21; c. General Provisions, 50 CFR 10; d. General Permit Procedures, 50 CFR 13; and e. Wildlife Provisions (Import/export/transport), 50 CFR 14. 2. Information requested in this form is purely voluntary. However, submission of requested information is a condition of your permit under the above laws. Failure to provide all
requested information may be sufficient cause for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to revoke your permit. Response is not required unless a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number is displayed on form.
3. Disclosures outside the Department of the Interior may be made without the consent of an individual under the routine uses listed below, if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for
which the record was collected. (Ref. 68 FR 52611, September 4, 2003)
a. Routine disclosure to subject matter experts, and Federal, tribal, State, local, and foreign agencies, for the purpose of obtaining advice relevant to making a decision on an application for a permit or when necessary to accomplish a FWS function related to this system of records.
b. Routine disclosure to Federal, tribal, State, local, or foreign wildlife and plant agencies for the exchange of information on permits granted or denied to assure compliance with all applicable permitting requirements.
c. Routine disclosure to Federal, tribal, State, and local authorities who need to know who is permitted to receive and rehabilitate sick, orphaned, and injured birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; federally permitted rehabilitators; individuals seeking a permitted rehabilitator with whom to place a bird in need of care; and licensed veterinarians who receive, treat, or diagnose sick, orphaned, and injured birds.
d. Routine disclosure to the Department of Justice, or a court, adjudicative, or other administrative body or to a party in litigation before a court or adjudicative or administrative body, under certain circumstances.
e. Routine disclosure to the appropriate Federal, tribal, State, local, or foreign governmental agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing statutes, rules, or licenses, when we become aware of a violation or potential violation of such statutes, rules, or licenses, or when we need to monitor activities associated with a permit or regulated use.
f. Routine disclosure to a congressional office in response to an inquiry to the office by the individual to whom the record pertains. g. Routine disclosure to the General Accounting Office or Congress when the information is required for the evaluation of the permit programs. h. Routine disclosure to provide addresses obtained from the Internal Revenue Service to debt collection agencies for purposes of locating a debtor to collect or compromise a
Federal claim against the debtor or to consumer reporting agencies to prepare a commercial credit report for use by the FWS.
4. For individuals, personal information such as home address and telephone number, financial data, and personal identifiers (social security number, birth date, etc.) will be removed prior to any release of the application.
5. The public reporting burden on the applicant for information collection varies depending on the activity for which a permit is requested. The relevant burden for a Scientific Collecting
permit annual report is 1 hour. This burden estimate includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data and completing and reviewing the form. You may direct comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the form to the Service Information Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 222, Arlington Square, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20240.
Freedom of Information Act – Notice
For organizations, businesses, or individuals operating as a business (i.e., permittees not covered by the Privacy Act), we request that you identify any information that should be considered privileged and confidential business information to allow the Service to meet its responsibilities under FOIA. Confidential business information must be clearly marked "Business Confidential" at the top of the letter or page and each succeeding page and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary of the confidential information. The non-confidential summary and remaining documents may be made available to the public under FOIA [43 CFR 2.13(c)(4), 43 CFR 2.15(d)(1)(i)].
Migratory Bird Regional Permit Offices
FWS REGION
AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
MAILING ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION
Region 1
California, Hawaii, Idaho,
Nevada, Oregon, Washington
911 N.E. 11th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232-4181
Tel. (503) 872-2715 Fax (503) 231-2019
Email [email protected]
Region 2 Arizona, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
P.O. Box 709
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Tel. (505) 248-7882 Fax (505) 248-7885
Email [email protected]
Region 3 Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,
Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin
One Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, MN 55111
Tel. (612) 713-5436 Fax (612) 713-5393
Email [email protected]
Region 4
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 49208
Atlanta, GA 30359
Tel. (404) 679-7070 Fax (404) 679-4180
Email [email protected]
Region 5
Connecticut, District of
Columbia, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia
P.O. Box 779
Hadley, MA 01035-0779
Tel. (413) 253-8643 Fax (413) 253-8424
Email [email protected]
Region 6
Colorado, Kansas, Montana,
North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
P.O. Box 25486
DFC(60154) Denver, CO 80225-0486
Tel. (303) 236-8171 Fax (303) 236-8017
Email [email protected]
Region 7
Alaska
1011 E. Tudor Road
(MS-201) Anchorage, AK 99503
Tel. (907) 786-3693 Fax (907) 786-3641
Email [email protected]