Prince Edward Island Nocturnal Owl Survey 2001 Annual Report

2001.PDFDecember 18, 2001
P.O. Box 6227 17 Waterfowl Lane
Sackville, NB E4L 1G6 Phone (506) 364-5047
Fax (506) 364-5062 Email: [email protected]
Wildlife Conservation Fund Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment
PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey ii Whittam 2001
Please cite as: Whittam, B. 2001. Prince Edward Island Nocturnal Owl Survey 2001 Annual Report. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada (Atlantic Region), Sackville, NB. 17 pages. PHOTO: Perry Greico
PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey iii Whittam 2001
Table of Contents Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
Methods ............................................................................................................................. 2
Goal 2: Location information............................................................................... 6
Goal 4: Volunteer participation........................................................................... 7
Appendix A: Owls detected on each route in 2001...................................................17
PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey Page 1 Whittam 2001
Introduction Owls are excellent indicators of environmental health, as they are high on the food chain and are thus vulnerable to many environmental disturbances such as toxic chemicals and habitat loss (Takats et al. 2001). Some owl species have specialized habitat requirements, such as the Barred Owl that depends upon large diameter (mostly hardwood) trees with cavities for nesting. As a result, the Barred Owl is highly susceptible to changes in abundance of large cavity trees due to forest management activities (Mazur and James 2000). As a result, the Barred Owl can be used as an indicator of sustainable forest management. Monitoring the Barred Owl in PEI is therefore of considerable importance to forest managers and conservationists in the province. That being said, monitoring owls is not an easy task. They are secretive, primarily nocturnal and roost in concealed locations during the day (Takats et al. 2001). Consequently, PEI’s owl populations are not adequately monitored through existing programs (e.g. Breeding Bird Survey, Christmas Bird Counts). Playback of tape-recorded songs has been used to census a variety of bird species, and is a particularly useful technique for secretive, nocturnal birds like owls that cannot otherwise be reliably censused (Takats et al. 2001). Due to the territorial behaviour of owls, songs broadcast within an owl's territory may elicit a vocal or visual response by the resident owl in an attempt to defend its territory against an intruder. This method can be used to survey a number of owl species, and is particularly useful for detecting Barred Owls (Francis and Whittam 2000). Finally, owl surveys lend themselves well to volunteers, as most areas have relatively few species and volunteers can be trained easily to differentiate common species. In Canada, volunteer owl surveys have been established in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia (reviewed by Takats et al. 2001). Bird Studies Canada manages the owl survey in Ontario (Badzinski et al. 2001) and British Columbia (Cannings 2001), and has been heavily involved in the development of the North American guidelines (Takats et al. 2001). Current owl surveys follow the North American guidelines by using a standardized protocol consisting of two minutes of silent listening per stop, with each route consisting of at least 10 stops spaced at least 1.6 km apart. Most regions have also adopted a playback protocol targeting species of particular interest to their region (e.g. Barred, Boreal, Saw-Whet and Great Grey Owls in Ontario). Playback helps increase the power of a survey to detect owl population trends, and also helps ensure the continued interest of volunteers. In Ontario, five years of data were used to determine the best protocol for monitoring Barred Owls (Francis and Whittam 2000). In PEI, two species of owls are currently ranked by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (ACCDC) as extremely rare to uncommon (S1, S2 or S3). ). These are Long-eared and Short-eared owl (both S1S2). Boreal Owls are listed as possibly breeding but with no definite evidence. Obtaining new records of these species through a volunteer owl survey would help clarify their status in PEI and ensure that adequate habitat exists for these uncommon species. The PEI Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment and Bird Studies Canada partnered in 2001 to develop and implement a long-term owl monitoring program in PEI. The objectives of this project are:
1. To determine population trends of owls in PEI; 2. To gather location information on rare or little-known owl species in PEI; 3. To determine habitat preferences of owl species in PEI; and 4. To involve volunteer birders from across PEI in active wildlife monitoring. In this report, I present the results of the first year of the PEI Nocturnal Owl survey. The results are necessarily simple given that no trends can be calculated until several years of data have been collected; nonetheless, information on distribution and number of owls detected is presented.
Methods Random route selection The Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment provided a map of the province divided into 10 x 10 km squares. I attempted to place one route per square, applying the following rules:
1. Squares that were less than 1/3 covered with land (i.e. greater than 2/3 water) were not used in the process.
2. A 10 x 10 mini-grid was created on a sheet of transparency. This grid covered one 10 x
10 km square. Two random numbers from 0-10 were chosen to locate a point on the 10 x 10 grid. This point marked the vicinity of the starting point of the route. The starting point was placed on the road closest to that point. Only roads that were considered driveable in April (i.e. generally no clay roads) were chosen.
3. The direction of travel was often limited (because the road ended 2 km to the north,
meaning that south was the only direction left to travel), but when it wasn’t, we randomly chose the direction of travel. Once the road and direction was chosen, that road and direction were followed, if possible, for the duration of the survey (18 km). In other words, no turns were taken unless necessary (i.e. unless a t-junction was reached).
4. When a turn was required, the direction was chosen randomly.
5. Routes did not have to stay within the 10 x 10 km square; these squares were used solely
to determine the starting points of routes.
6. Routes could not overlap, or run parallel within 4 km of each other.
7. Once one random route per square was chosen, three non-random routes were designed to accommodate three additional volunteers.
Scouting Routes Volunteers were asked to use the following criteria to judge the suitability of each route:
1. The route should pass through mostly-forested habitat. If the route is on a road that is heavily settled with many houses or farms, it may not be suitable. Dogs often respond to the owl playback and make it difficult to hear any owls that might be calling back.
2. The road(s) followed on the route should be permanent roads, which will likely be
available for surveying in future years. Roads should be accessible in April.
3. The route should follow secondary roads with little traffic and sufficient safe points for stopping. Generally, a road that has constant traffic is not suitable for the owl survey, as it is neither safe nor easy to hear owls when cars and trucks are constantly passing.
Whenever possible, stops were placed 2 km apart; however, if this meant that a stop fell in a residential area or large open field, volunteers were encouraged to move that stop to the nearest available forest along the roadside. Each stop was described in relation to the surrounding habitat (or nearby landmarks such as 911 residental numbers or intersections) and the mileage (with respect to the start point) was noted (e.g. stop 3 would be 4 km from the start point). Volunteers were also encouraged to GPS each stop if they had access to a GPS. For stops which were not GPSed, a data entry technician estimated the location using Quo Vadis topographic map software (QVN Navigator; www.qvn-canada.com). Volunteer Recruitment Almost all volunteers for the PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey were employees of the PEI-FAE and recruited by a staff person. Names, mailing addresses, email addresses and route preferences of all volunteers were added to the “Owl Surveyors” database in Filemaker Pro (see below, Database Structure). Volunteer Training Volunteers received a “Guide for volunteers” describing how to conduct the survey. The guide also contained some information on owls of the maritimes, including a description of typical vocalizations. Volunteers also received a training CD with calls of Barred, Great Horned, Long- eared, Northern Saw-whet, Boreal, Eastern Screech and Short-eared owls, as well as other nocturnal birds (American Woodcock, Common Snipe) and early spring frogs (Spring Peeper and Wood Frog). Volunteers were encouraged to familiarize themselves with the calls of owls and other nocturnal wildlife in preparation for the survey.
Playback equipment Volunteers were required to use a CD player that passed a simple test to determine whether or not the Barred Owl calls on the playback CD were audible at 400 metres when played at maximum volume without causing undue distortion (under ideal conditions: in an open area with no wind or precipitation). The Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment provided two Panasonic RXD11 Portable Stereo CD Players for volunteers to use. Survey protocol The survey protocol was very similar to the protocol used in central Ontario (Badzinski et al. 2001), and was also based on the North American guidelines (Takats et al. 2001). The protocol used in PEI was the same as that used in New Brunswick (Whittam 2001) for reasons of simplicity. Volunteers were encouraged to complete their route in teams of two or more. Surveys were completed once in the period between 7 April and 15 May. Surveys began one half hour after sunset, and generally finished before midnight. Volunteers were referred to their local paper for sunset times. Volunteers recorded general weather conditions at the start and finish of their route, along with the date and time (start and finish) when their survey was conducted. At each stop, volunteers played the broadcast CD that contained a standardized playback protocol (Figure 1). This protocol was about 13 minutes long and began with 2 minutes of silent listening (as per the North American guidelines; Takats et al. 2001), followed by a 30-second Boreal Owl playback, then 2 more minutes of silent listening, then four sets of Barred Owl playback (each 30 seconds long) separated by silent listening periods. (In central Ontario, five sets of Barred Owl calls are played). Boreal Owl playback is used because both Northern Saw- whet Owls and Boreal Owls are known to respond (Francis and Whittam 2000). The playback CD was produced and donated by Wildlife Technologies Inc., and consisted of high-quality digital recordings. At each stop, volunteers recorded the time and odometer reading. When an owl was detected, they noted when it was detected (i.e. during which listening period), and estimated the general direction to the owl (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW) and the distance to the owl (in categories: (<200m, 200-500m, 500-1000m, and >1000m) at the point when it first began to call. This information will be used in the future to link habitat information at georeferenced stops with owl information. Volunteers were also asked to indicate their level of certainty with respect to distance and direction estimates for the majority of owls detected (i.e. very confident, confident, or uncertain). Volunteers also noted if they believed an owl to be the same individual as detected at a previous station. Volunteers counted the number of vehicles that passed, and estimated the noise level (from 1 to 4) at each stop. They were also asked to comment on any additional species heard (e.g. snipe, woodcock, frogs).
Further information on the survey protocol is available in the document, “Prince Edward Island Nocturnal Owl Survey, Guide for Volunteers”. Data Quality When data were missing or recorded incorrectly, the data entry technician contacted the volunteer to try to fill in the missing data. When volunteers recorded rare species (Boreal Owl, Short-eared Owl), they were contacted to determine their degree of confidence in their observation. When volunteers were unsure of their observation, the record was modified to “Unknown Owl”. Database Structure The same database was used for both the New Brunswick Nocturnal Owl Survey (Whittam 2001) and the PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey. I used the database structure suggested in the Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl Monitoring in North America (Takats et al. 2001). With the help of John Chardine at the Canadian Wildlife Service (Sackville), I developed the following tables using the program Filemaker Pro:
• route.db - specific information on each route, including route number, name, closest town, and latitude and longitude of start point;
• owl surveyors.db - name, address, and route assignment for each volunteer;
• stop descriptions.db - latitude & longitude, odometer reading, and general description of
each stop;
• survey.db – containing information specific to the conditions of each survey, including weather at start and finish, date, start and end time, volunteer name, type of equipment used, and volunteer confidence in distance/direction estimates;
• stations.db - containing information specific to each of the ten stations per route,
including time, traffic count, noise level and comments;
• owls.db - information on each owl, including species, interval first heard calling, distance, direction, and whether or not it was believed to be a duplicate. Each owl was recorded as a separate record regardless of whether or not it was found on the same stop as another owl.
All tables were linked as suggested in Takats et al (2001).
Results Twenty routes were chosen randomly across the province, and 3 additional routes were chosen non-randomly. Twenty-two routes were run by 30 volunteers in 2001 (Figure 2).
Of the 22 routes run in 2001, 15 routes had at least one owl, and a total of 89 owls of five species were detected (Table 1). An average of 4.05 ± 1.16 owls were detected per route. Routes with owls detected anywhere from 1 to 25 individual owls, and 1 to 4 species of owls. The largest proportion of Barred Owls were detected after playback (Table 2). In fact, 13.5% of all Barred Owls detected were first recorded in the last listening period, after the fourth (and final) Barred Owl playback. Similarly, 27.3% of all Boreal Owls were detected after the Boreal Owl playback (although 36.4% of Boreal Owls were calling spontaneously during the first minute of silent listening; Table 2). Northern Saw-whet Owls and Great Horned Owls were detected across all periods relatively equally (Table 2). Appendix A gives details on number of owls of each species found on each route in Prince Edward Island in 2001. Figures 3-6 illustrate the distribution and relative abundance of the four most common four owl species (Barred, Boreal, Great Horned and Northern Saw-whet). Direction was reported for 80/89 owls. Each direction category was reported fairly equally (Table 3), and 67% of observers were “very confident” in their estimates of direction, whereas 33% were only “confident”. No observers reported being “uncertain” of their direction estimates. Distance was reported for 81/89 owls. The majority (33.3%) of owls were reported to fall into the “>1000m” category (Table 4). Most volunteers reported that they were “very confident” in their estimates of short distances (e.g. <200m), but became less confident or even “uncertain” with increasing distances (Table 4).
Discussion GOAL 1: Owl Population Trends It will take several years before we can determine whether or not the survey adequately monitors owl populations in Prince Edward Island. Given the small number of routes compared to other surveys (23, versus 92 in New Brunswick, 110 in Central Ontario, and 88 in Northern Ontario), it may be difficult to ever achieve enough survey power to adequately detect trends. It may be necessary to combine the PEI data with the NB data (and other data from the Maritime provinces) to examine trends on a regional basis. In comparison, the Ontario Nocturnal Owl Survey has been ongoing for seven seasons. In 2000, the Ontario survey concluded that with its current protocol (which is very similar to PEI and NB, except that playback consists of five sets of Barred Owl calls compared with four in PEI and NB), a 20% decline over a 10-year period could be detected for Barred Owls, as well as a 30% decline for Northern Saw-whet Owls and Boreal Owls. These numbers are based on 86 routes run in central Ontario in 2000 (Badzinski et al. 2001). If we combine PEI (23) and NB (92) routes, we can probably expect to have similar survey power to that achieved in Ontario, at least for Barred Owls. Comparing number of Barred Owls detected in the three provinces, we can see that New Brunswick had the fewest routes with Barred Owls, and, for those routes that had Barred Owls, fewer were detected per route compared with both Ontario and PEI (New Brunswick: 64% of routes, 2.96/route; Ontario: 71% of routes, 4.2/route; PEI: 50% of routes, 4.05/route).
GOAL 2: Location information I am currently in the process of georeferencing each stop along every route. Once this task is complete, I will send a complete list of all owls detected (and their location based on the stop where they were detected) to the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre to add to their Element Occurrence database. With respect to rare species, the first year of the survey resulted in 11 new locations for Boreal Owls and one new record for Short-eared Owls. No Long-eared Owls were detected. Barred Owls were more likely to be detected on the eastern half of the province (Figure 3), which is similar to what was found during the breeding bird atlas (Erskine 1992). This may correspond to the larger proportion of upland forest in this part of the province. Great Horned and Northern Saw-whet owls (Figures 4 & 5) were detected only on those routes in the eastern part of the province, whereas Boreal Owls (Figure 6) were somewhat more likely to be detected on routes in the western part of the province, perhaps corresponding to the presence of bog habitat. GOAL 3: Habitat information Volunteers almost always recorded the distance and direction to all owls reported. They were almost always “very confident” in estimating direction to owls, and confidence in estimating distance generally declined with greater distances. Once stops are fully georeferenced (see above), owl data can be linked with habitat information at each stop for a landscape level analysis of owl habitat selection. GOAL 4: Volunteer Participation The first year of the Prince Edward Island Nocturnal Owl Survey was conducted primarily by employees of the PEI-FAE. It would likely not be very difficult to get more volunteers involved in the project, given the successful recruitment of surveyors in nearby New Brunwick (Whitttam 2001). The difficulty will be in finding additional routes for these surveyors. It will probably be difficult to add additional routes to PEI in a random fashion, given the road limitations. If more routes are wanted in this province, they may have to be selected in a non-random fashion. More CD players are also required; these will be purchased in 2002 thanks to the PEI Wildlife Conservation Fund. Effects of playback The initial results of this survey indicate that playback of Barred Owl calls has a strong impact on the detection rate of this species (Table 2), as has been found in previous studies (Francis and Whittam 2000). Boreal Owls also seemed to respond fairly well to playback, although with only 11 detections recorded, this conclusion is somewhat weak. Increasing the amount of playback used for Boreal Owls may result in an increase in the number of Boreal Owls detected, although it is doubtful that this increase will be enough to adequately survey the species given the small number of detections. Northern Saw-whet Owls did not appear to respond to Boreal Owl
playback (as has been found previously in Ontario; Francis and Whittam 2000), and Great Horned Owls were detected throughout the survey period (apparently irrespective of playback). Conclusions The first year of the Prince Edward Island Nocturnal Owl Survey was a success based on the number of routes run, the number of owls detected, and the overall positive response of volunteers. A number of records of rare owls were recorded, and these will be deposited with the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data for incorporation into their Element Occurrence database. Owl population trends cannot be estimated until a number of years of data are available, and may have to be estimated on a regional, rather than provincial, basis; otherwise, it may be difficult to achieve survey power similar to that found in Ontario: i.e. for Barred Owls, a 20% decline over a 10-year period, and for Northern Saw-whet Owls, a 30% decline over a 10-year period.
Acknowledgements
Rosemary Curley recruited participants from the Prince Edward Island Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment, as well as several additional volunteers. Brad Potter at the PEI- FAE provided the maps included in this report. Donna Martin of Holland College organized much of the survey while on a work-study placement with PEI-FAE. The PEI-FAE also provided two CD players and covered travel costs for staff who participated in the survey. Funding was provided by the Prince Edward Island Wildlife Conservation Fund and the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). CWS also provided logistical support in the form of office space, telephone, computer and other facilities for the survey coordinator and data entry technician, for which I am extremely grateful. Thanks to Mike Russell who patiently entered all the data and phoned numerous volunteers to verify records. Sarah Chisholm helped Mike to quality-check the data entry. John Chardine generously volunteered his time to help us develop the database. Dan Busby helped create the training CD, and also commented on the protocol and answered occasional questions.
Special thanks to the staff of the Ontario Nocturnal Owl Survey (especially Debbie Badzinski) for freely sharing protocols, data, data sheets, and other survey materials. The PEI survey would not have been so well organized without the knowledge afforded to us by the Ontario survey. Finally, thanks to all the generous volunteers across Prince Edward Island who spent hours of their time driving and standing in the cold in hopes of hearing or seeing owls. Your patience paid off! Volunteers included: Marc Arsenault, E. Ross Bernard, Clare Birch, Shelley Cole, Ray Cooke, Rosemary Curley, Chris DeRoches, Randy Dibblee, Tom Duffy, Stanley Gaudet, Shawn J. Hill, Gerald MacDougall, Daniel MacDougall, Rosie MacFarlane, Wade MacKinnon, Trevor MacKinnon, Alan MacLennan, Donna Martin, J. Dan McAskill, Alan McLennon, Robin Pavnter, Brad Potter, Dennis Rix, Glenn K. Roberts, Susan Saville, Gary Schneider, Scott Sinclair, Bruce Smith, Dale Thompson, and Paul Walker.
Literature Cited Badzinski, D. S., C. M. Francis, and B. Whittam. 2001. Ontario nocturnal owl survey: 2000 final
report. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada for the Wildlife Aseessment Program, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 22 pages.
Cannings, R. J. 2001. British Columbia Nocturnal Owl Survey 2000 Season Summary. Bird
Studies Canada, British Columbia Programs. Available at: http://www.bsc- eoc.org/regional/bcowls2000.html
Erskine, A. J. 1992. Atlas of breeding birds of the Maritime provinces. Nimbus Publishing and
the Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, NS. Francis, C. M. and B. Whittam. 2000. Ontario nocturnal owl survey: 1999 pilot study.
Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada for the Wildlife Assessment Program, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 34 pages.
Mazur, K. M and P. C. James. 2000. Barred Owl (Strix varia). In The Birds of North America,
No. 508 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadephia, PA. Takats, D. L., C. M. Francis, G. L. Holroyd, J. R. Duncan, K. M. Mazur, R. J. Cannings, W.
Harris, D. Holt. 2001. Guidelines for nocturnal owl monitoring in North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird Studies Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. 32 pp.
Whittam, B. 2001. New Brunswick Nocturnal Owl Survey 2001 Annual Report. Unpublished
report by Bird Studies Canada (Atlantic Region), Sackville, NB. 21 pages.
Table 1. Number of routes on which each species of owl was detected, the total number of each species detected, and the mean (± SE) owls/route (excluding and including zeroes) in PEI in 2001. See Appendix A and Figures 3-7 for details on where owls were found.
# Routes Total # owls Mean (exc. 0) Mean (inc. 0)
Barred Owl 11 44 4.09 ± 1.60 2.00 ± 0.90
Great Horned Owl 6 15 2.50 ± 0.62 0.68 ± 0.29
Northern Saw-whet Owl 10 15 1.50 ± 0.22 0.68 ± 0.19
Boreal Owl 5 11 2.20 ± 0.58 0.50 ± 0.23
Short-eared Owl 1 1 1 0.05 ± 0.05
Unknown Owl 3 3 1 0.14 ± 0.07
Table 2. Number (percent in brackets) of owls of each species first heard calling during each silent listening period. BOOW = after the Boreal Owl playback; 1st BARR = after the first Barred Owl playback, etc. Two records where the volunteer did not record interval were necessarily excluded from these results.
1st min 2nd min BOOW 1st BARR 2nd BARR 3rd BARR 4th BARR TOTAL BARR 7 (15.9) 0 2 (4.55) 5 (11.4) 11 (25) 13 (29.5) 5 (13.5) 44 BOOW 4 (36.4) 0 3 (27.3) 1 (9.09) 0 2 (18.2) 1 (9.09) 11 NSWO 4 (28.6) 1 (7.14) 2 (14.3) 2 (14.3) 2 (14.3) 3 (21.4) 0 14 GHOW 3 (21.4) 1 (7.14) 2 (14.3) 1 (7.14) 0 4 (28.6) 3 (21.4) 14 SEOW 0 0 0 1 (100) 0 0 0 1 UNOW 0 0 0 1 (33.3) 0 1 (33.3) 1 (33.3) 3
Table 3. Number and proportion of owls reported to fall in each of the eight direction categories.
Direction # of Owls % of Owls E 13 16.25 N 11 13.75 S 5 6.25 W 5 6.25 NE 9 11.25 NW 17 21.25 SE 14 17.5 SW 6 7.5
Table 4. Number and proportion of owls reported to fall into each of the four distance categories, as well as the percent of surveyors that reported themselves to be “very confident”, “confident”, or “uncertain” of these estimates.
Distance # of Owls % of Owls Surveyor Confidence Very confident Confident Uncertain <200 14 17.28 50% 37.5% 13.5% 200-500 18 22.22 11% 78% 11% 500-1000 22 27.16 0 80% 20% >1000 27 33.33 22% 44% 33%
2 min
2 min 2 min 2 min 2 min 2 min
BARR BARR BARR BARR
Figure 1. Playback protocol utilized for the PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey. Each playback period (BOOW or BARR) was 30 sec long, for a total period of 14 minutes and 30 seconds.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
PEI Nocturnal Owl Survey Page 17 Whittam 2001 route # latitude longitude run 2001? BARR NSWO BOOW GHOW SEOW UNOW TOTAL
1 46.93963888 -64.06946388 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 46.72411 -64.13122 no 3 46.60361111 -64.02363889 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 46.68947222 -64.20108333 yes 0 0 3 0 0 1 4 5 46.60605556 -63.86597222 yes 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 6 46.50183333 -64.0385 yes 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 7 46.43091667 -63.94055556 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 46.38811111 -62.12522222 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 46.39202778 -62.30630556 yes 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
10 46.34536111 -62.46594444 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 46.26925 -62.40402778 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 46.40344444 -62.54911111 yes 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 13 46.28633333 -62.56766667 yes 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 14 46.12441667 -62.55083333 yes 1 2 0 1 1 0 5 15 46.098 -62.80619444 yes 2 0 2 3 0 0 7 16 46.19047222 -63.29594444 yes 2 2 1 3 0 0 8 17 46.39208333 -63.35777778 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 46.19736111 -62.83622222 yes 8 2 0 0 0 0 10 19 46.00711111 -62.85825 yes 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 20 46.25733333 -62.69283333 yes 19 1 0 5 0 0 25 21 46.22266667 -62.97011111 yes 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 22 46.03891667 -62.66905556 yes 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 23 46.20383333 -62.54044444 yes 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

Documents

Prince Edward Island Nocturnal Owl Survey 2001 Annual Report