i

STATUS OF THE LONG-BILLED CURLEW

IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

byRichard J. Cannings

Wildlife Working Report No. WR-96

March 1999

ii

British Columbia, Canada’s most westerly province, has a bounty of biological

diversity. British Columbia’s snowclad peaks, rain-drenched forests, arid

grasslands, all sizes of rivers, lakes, and wetlands, and a long and rugged coast

provide habitats for more species of living organisms than are found anywhere

else in Canada. However, this very diversity means that there is much to be

discovered about these organisms — their distribution, abundance, habitat

requirements, and interrelationships with their environment. Increasing our

knowledge of this biodiversity will help us with the complex task of sustainably

managing our land and waters.

In 1992, the Provincial Government initiated a co-operative biodiversity

research program with funding from the Corporate Resource Inventory Initiative,

the British Columbia Ministries of Forests (Research Branch), Environment,

Lands, and Parks (Wildlife and Habitat Protection Branches), and Tourism and

Culture (Royal B.C. Museum); and the Forest Resource Development Agreement

(FRDA II).

In 1995, the Ministry of Forests Research Branch and the Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks developed a biodiversity research and extension

strategy, with the assistance of the provincial research community. This strategy

was presented to Forest Renewal BC (FRBC), who provided funding for a

program beginning in 1995. The goal of the extension component of this pro-

gram is to extend information to scientists, resource managers, and the public

through biodiversity publications. These publications are intended to increase

awareness and understanding of biodiversity, promote the concepts and impor-

tance of conserving biodiversity, and communicate provincial government

initiatives related to biodiversity. We hope that they will be used as tools for the

conservation of British Columbia’s rich, living legacy.

For more information contact:

B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, P.O. Box 9374, Stn.

Prov. Govt., Victoria, BC V8W 9M4

or

B.C. Ministry of Forests Research Branch, P.O. Box 9519 Stn. Prov. Govt., Victoria, BC

V8W 9C2

or

Royal B.C. Museum, P.O. Box 9815, Stn. Prov. Govt., Victoria, B.C. V8W 9W2

STATUS OF THE LONG-BILLED CURLEW IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

by

Richard J. Cannings, R.P.Bio.

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

Wildlife Branch

Victoria, B.C.

Wildlife Working Report No. WR-96

March 1999

ii

“Wildlife Working Reports frequently contain preliminary data, so conclusions based on thesemay be subject to change. Working Reports receive little review. They may be cited in publications,but their manuscript status should be noted. Copies may be obtained, depending upon supply,from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, P.O. Box 9374 Stn. Prov.Govt., Victoria, BC V8W 9M4.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication DataCannings, Richard J. (Richard James)Status of the long-billed curlew in British Columbia

(Wildlife working report ; no. WR-96)

Includes bibliographical references: p.11ISBN 0-7726-3847-0

1. Curlews – British Columbia. I. British Columbia. Wildlife Branch. II. Title. III. Series.

QL696.C48C36 1999 598.33 C99-960127-X

©Province of British Columbia 1999

This project has been funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. This fund wascreated to preserve, restore, and enhance key areas of habitat for fish and wildlife through-out British Columbia. Hunters, anglers, trappers and guides contribute to HCTFenhancement projects through licence surcharges. Tax-deductible contributions toassist in the work of HCTF are so received.

FOREWORD

In cases where a Wildlife Working Report or Bulletin is also a species’ status report, it may contain a status recommendedby the author for the species. This recommended status is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflectthat of the Wildlife Branch. Official status designation will be made by the Wildlife Branch in consultation withexperts, and the data contained in the status report will be considered during the evaluation process.

iii

ABSTRACT

The Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) has suffered significant population declines and range contractionover the last 150 years, and remains a species of concern through much of its breeding range. Populations on the GreatPlains are apparently more threatened than those in intermontane regions. Long-billed Curlews breed on open grasslands,but will also use ploughed and planted fields during migration, brood-rearing, and even nesting seasons. They preferhabitats with very short grass for nesting, and are quite tolerant of heavy grazing pressure, often preferring grasslands thathave been grazed or burned, or even those covered with invasive cheatgrass. Long-billed Curlews are relatively long-livedbirds with low annual productivity; breeding sucess often depends on climatic conditions more than other influences.The British Columbia population has declined in some areas such as the Okanagan, but is increasing in others, notablythe Rocky Mountain Trench, and is probably stable in the most important breeding grounds on the Chilcotin Plateau.

The Long-billed Curlew is on the BC Environment Blue List of vulnerable species, primarily because of its relianceon dry grassland habitat. These grasslands have been affected by grazing for over 130 years and in many areas arethreatened by urban and agricultural encroachment. It is recommended that the Long-billed Curlew remain on the BCEnvironment Blue List.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. I would like to thank Tom Ethier and Orville Dyer of theMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, in Penticton for arranging the funding.

Essential data were provided by Sydney Cannings and Leah Ramsay at the British Columbia Conservation DataCentre (BC Environment, Victoria) and R. Wayne Campbell of the Wildlife Branch, Victoria. Anna Roberts, PennyOhanjanian, and Tracey Hooper all gave valuable information and expert advice. Further information came from JackBowling (Prince George), Allison Chutter (Merritt), Rick Howie (Kamloops), Anne de Jager (Creston), Nancy Krueger(Prince George), Madelon Schouten (Princeton), Chris Siddle (Vernon), Elsie Stanley (McBride), Julie Steciw (BCEnvironment, Williams Lake) and Joanne Vinnedge (Fort St. James).

The production of this final report (extension project) was made possible through the funding support of ForestRenewal British Columbia (FRBC) and the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Publicationproduction coordination and final editing were provided by G.F. Harcombe.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

GENERAL BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Reproductive Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Species Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Behaviour/Adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

HABITAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Breeding Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Migration and Wintering Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Habitat Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

LEGAL PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

LIMITING FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Urban and Agricultural Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Fire Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Illegal Shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Introduction of Alien Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Predation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Climatic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Population Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Breeding and non-breeding ranges of the Long-billed Curlew in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Figure 2. Breeding range of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Clutch size distributions of British Columbia and Oregon Long-billed Curlew nests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Table 2. Ecoprovinces, ecoregions and ecosections, biogeoclimatic zones, and broad ecosystem units with

Long-billed Curlew breeding habitat in British Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

vi

INTRODUCTION

The Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) is thelargest shorebird in North America. It breeds across theprairies and intermontane grasslands of western NorthAmerica, and has suffered significant declines in boththe extent of its breeding range and population size overthe last 150 years (De Smet 1992). Early ornithologistsin British Columbia remarked on population declines asearly as the turn of the century (Brooks 1918, Brooks andSwarth 1925, Munro and Cowan 1947). The Long-billedCurlew is on the BC Environment Blue List of vulnerablespecies, primarily because of its reliance on dry grass-land habitat. These grasslands have been impacted bygrazing for over 130 years and in many areas are threatenedby urban and agricultural encroachment (Pitt and Hooper1994, Hooper and Pitt 1995).

De Smet (1992) prepared a status report for theLong-billed Curlew in Canada, resulting in a Vulnerablestatus being assigned to the species by COSEWIC.Previous studies in British Columbia have dealt with thecurlew’s populations and ecology in the Chilcotin region(Ohanjanian 1987, Hooper and Pitt 1996) and East Kootenayregion (Ohanjanian 1985, 1986, 1992). Management guide-lines for curlews in British Columbia have been outlinedby Hooper and Cooper (1997) and Fraser et al. (n.d.), aswell as in the articles mentioned above. The species hasbeen relatively well studied on its breeding grounds(e.g. Allen 1980, Redmond and Jenni 1986, Pampush andAnthony 1993), but little has been written on its migrationand wintering ecology.

This status report was commissioned by the BCEnvironment Wildlife Branch to assess the present statusof the Long-billed Curlew throughout British Columbia.This report attempts to synthesize all population estimates,relevant details of the life history of the species and factorsthat may influence its distribution and population size inBritish Columbia. Information regarding the distributionof Long-billed Curlews in British Columbia came from theBritish Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC), theBritish Columbia Nest Record Scheme (BCNRS), andfrom local naturalists.

DISTRIBUTION

Two subspecies are currently recognized, a northernraced (N.a. parvus) breeding in Canda and the northernUnited States, and the nominate race further south(Cannings 1998).

North America

The Long-billed Curlew formerly bred from centralBritish Columbia east to southern Manitoba and south to

northeastern California and north Texas (AmericanOrnithologists Union 1983). It has since been extirpatedfrom much of the eastern part of this range, includingManitoba, southeastern Saskatchewan, Michigan,Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, eastern Nebraska,eastern Kansas and coastal Texas (De Smet 1992). Itwinters primarily along coasts from central California(rarely north to southwestern British Columbia) andwestern Florida south through Mexico, with small numbersfound south to Costa Rica (American Ornithologists Union1983, De Smet 1992) and Venezuela (McNeil et al.1985). Curlews formerly wintered along the Atlantic coastof North America, but these populations apparentlyvanished with the disappearance of birds breeding eastof the Mississippi (De Smet 1992).

British Columbia

The breeding range in British Columbia extends through-out the dry grasslands of the province, north at least tothe Riske Creek area (Campbell et al. 1990) and McBride(E. Stanley, pers. comm.). The breeding populations aresomewhat disjunct, being centred in the following areas:

1. East Kootenay – 42 pairs in three concentrations–Grasmere/Tobacco Plains (12 pairs), St. Mary’s Prairie/Wycliffe (9 pairs), and Skookumchuck Prairie (21pairs) (Ohanjanian 1985, 1986, 1992).

2. Creston – grain fields from Duck Lake south to the USborder (at least 4 pairs, CDC data, Van Damme 1996).

3. South Okanagan-Similkameen – Osoyoos north toPenticton, with concentrations at the north end ofOsoyoos Lake (Road 22 and South Okanagan WildlifeManagement Area), Inkaneep Indian Reserve east ofOliver, White Lake and Chopaka. (25 pairs estimated,pers. obs.)

4. North Okanagan – Swan Lake and the north end ofOkanagan Lake north to Grindrod and east to Lumby.(counts of 61 birds in 1982, but only 9 in 1995,Siddle 1995)

5. Thompson-Nicola – Chase east to Cache Creek (exactlimits unknown), with concentrations around Lac duBois, Beresford, Douglas Lake and the StumplakeCreek drainage south to the Guichon Ranch (50 pairsestimated R. Howie, pers. comm.)

6. Fraser-Chilcotin-Cariboo – The Fraser Valley fromLillooet north to 40 km south of Quesnel and theChilcotin Valley west to Alexis Creek, perhaps toRedstone or even Chilanko Forks (Anna Roberts pers.comm.); concentrations around Dog Creek, AlkaliLake, Riske Creek, Hanceville and Alexis Creek (100pairs estimated, T. Hooper, pers. comm.). Migrants

1

often seen in San Jose valley from Williams Lake(Sugarcane) southeast to Lac La Hache, but no evidenceof nesting there (Anna Roberts, pers. comm.).

7. McBride – a relatively new population; birds firstseen in 1978, regular in spring since 1982 (about 25pairs, Elsie Stanley pers. comm.).

The breeding populations in the Rocky MountainTrench (East Kootenay and McBride) and Creston areasapparently represent a relatively recent range extensionsince the mid-1970s (Penny Ohanjanian, Elsie Stanleypers. comm.). Pairs of Long-billed Curlews have beenseen in Vanderhoof every spring from 1994 to 1997 (NancyKrueger, Joanne Vinnedge, pers. comm.), suggesting that anew breeding population may exist in that area as well.Similarly, there have been a number of recent sightingsof curlews in the Prince George area (Jack Bowling,pers. comm.).

Apparently suitable habitat exists in several placeswithout evidence of breeding curlews, including thegrasslands northeast of Princeton and south of NicolaLake. There is only one sight record of migrant curlewsnear Princeton (Madelon Schouten, pers. comm.), anda few records of curlews between Merritt and Nicola Lakethat may have been breeding (Allison Chutter, pers.comm.). Long-billed Curlews have been reported duringthe breeding season from grasslands and fields in theKettle Valley between Bridesville and Midway but thereis no evidence of breeding there. Some of these areasmay lack curlews because the habitat is too hilly, not flator gently rolling as the curlews prefer (Hooper and Pitt1996).

Migrants have been seen in suitable habitat through-out southern British Columbia, including very smallnumbers more or less annually along the south coast(Campbell 1972).

2

Figure 1. Breeding and non-breeding ranges of the Long-billed Curlew in North America.

Solid lines outside these ranges show the extent of the former ranges (modified after De Smet 1992). Small numbers ofcurlews winter south to Costa Rica and Venezuela as well (McNeil et al. 1985).

Dark grey = breeding range Light grey = non-breeding

Figure 2. Breeding range of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia.

Sightings of non-breeding birds are marked with a solid square. Numbers refer to breeding areas mentioned in the text:1, East Kootenay; 2, Creston; 3, South Okanagan; 4, North Okanagan; 5, Thompson-Nicola; 6, Fraser-Chilcotin;7, McBride. (Grey = breeding range)

3

GENERAL BIOLOGY

Reproductive Capability

Long-billed Curlews first breed at an age of 2-3 years forfemales or 3-4 years for males, and adult birds probablylive to an age of 10 years on average (Redmond and Jenni1986). There are no data as to the frequency of breeding,although territory holders likely attempt to breed annually.If a nest is predated or otherwise abandoned, the pair doesnot usually renest. This is partly due to a lack of timebecause of the long nesting and fledging periods combinedwith an early migration typical of shorebirds, but mayalso involve physiological constraints. Laying takes 6 days,incubation 28 (Allen 1980), and fledging 41 to 45 days(Fitzner 1978), for a total of 75 to 78 days. British Columbia

clutches are initiated in April or the first half of May;most starts occur in the third week of April (Cannings etal. 1987). Young from a typical nest would thus first flyin early July, when the southerly migration of adults isstarting; these young birds may not leave until later inJuly or early August.

Clutch size in British Columbia (Table 1) varies from2 to 5 eggs, with a mean of 3.5 and a median of 4 (BCNRS);nests in the Columbia Basin of Oregon had an even higherpercentage of four-egg clutches (Pampush and Anthony1993). Redmond and Jenni (1986) found that 42% ofclutches on their Idaho study area were lost to predationor other causes, and 60.8% of chicks died before fledging.Breeding pairs in Idaho produce an average of 0.5 fledgedyoung per pair each year (Redmond and Jenni 1986).

The Long-billed Curlew is territorial, but territoriestend to be clumped. Hooper and Pitt (1996) foundbreeding densities of one pair per 125-218 ha on their5000-ha Chilcotin study area. On a smaller area (1929ha) at the same site, Ohanjanian (1987) estimated abreeding density of one pair per 47-48 ha; Hooper andPitt’s estimate for the same area ranges from 92-148 haper pair for 1990, 1991 and 1992. Ohanjanian (1992)calculated breeding densities of one pair per 20-30 ha ofsuitable habitat at Skookumchuck Prairie in 1985, 1986and 1992. The large differences between Ohanjanian’sand Hooper and Pitt’s estimates may be due to dif-ferences in calculating the area of suitable habitat usedto calculate the densities.

Nesting density in Idaho was calculated as one pairper 11.9-57.5 ha, with a mean of one pair per 40 ha(Redmond and Jenni 1986). Nests are 250 to 500 mapart in optimal sites in southern Washington (Allen 1980).

Species Movement

Long-billed Curlews are migratory (see Figure 1), returningto their British Columbia breeding grounds in lateMarch and early April and leaving for wintering areas inlate July and early August (Cannings et al. 1987, Campbellet al. 1990). Small flocks of curlews are often seen onbreeding areas in May and early June, well after nestinghas begun; these are likely young, non-breeding birds(Allen 1980, Campbell et al. 1990). There are no stagingsites in British Columbia that are known to be used reg-ularly (Campbell et al. 1990), although large flocks areoccasionally seen (e.g. Alkali Lake, 4 April 1968–100,Sophie Riedamann; Alkali Lake, 18 July 1978–79, AnnaRoberts; Dog Creek plateau, 7 June 1995–107 and 12June 1995–114, Hooper and Cooper 1997).

Allen (1980) reported staging flocks gathering insouthern Washington in early June, with flocks of upto 100 birds present by mid-June. These staging flocks

peaked in size on 17 June with 250 birds, then decreasedas the birds migrated out of the area for the next twoweeks. By July, only a small group of juveniles was stillpresent. The migration chronology is likely similar inBritish Columbia, though perhaps later towards thenorthern edge of the range in the Chilcotin. Hooper andPitt (1996) give August 11 as the latest date curlewswere present on their Chilcotin study area. There arevery few records of Long-billed Curlews in BritishColumbia after mid-August (Campbell et al. 1990).

A single bird has wintered at Blackie Spit in southSurrey from 1990 to 1997. Not including sightings ofthat bird, 48 recent (1982 through 1995) coastal recordsrange from April through October, with 18 in April, 12 inMay, 2 in June, 4 in July, 7 in August, 3 in September and2 in October.

The highest breeding concentrations are in theFraser-Chilcotin region, from Big Creek, Dog Creek andAlkali Lake north to the Junction Range and east throughRiske Creek and Hanceville to Alexis Creek. The onlyarea in this region with any form of habitat protection isthe Junction Provincial Park (formerly the JunctionWildlife Area), which protects nesting habitat for threeor four curlew pairs. A new provincial protected area atChurn Creek may contain curlew breeding habitat aswell. Other breeding sites that are protected are the Lacdu Bois area near Kamloops (provincial park), WhiteLake near Okanagan Falls (Nature Trust property), andthe South Okanagan Wildlife Management Area north ofOsoyoos Lake. In all, these areas protect nesting habitatfor approximately 10 to 15 pairs of curlews.

Behaviour/Adaptability

Food – Curlews in southern Washington ate largebeetles and other insects; they spent much time probingunderground, presumably for burrowing insects and larvae(Allen 1980). Timken (1969) and Sadler and Maher

4

Table 1. Clutch size distribution of British Columbia and Oregon Long-billed Curlew nests. British Columbia (BC)data is from the British Columbia Nest Records Scheme, Oregon (OR) data from Pampush and Anthony (1993).

Clutch Size Number of BC Frequency in BC Number of OR Frequency in OR nests (%) nests (%)

2 4 12.9 1 0.93 7 22.5 10 8.94 19 61.3 101 90.25 1 3.2 0 0

(1976) report curlews eating small bird nestlings (larksand buntings), but this is likely an uncommon occur-rence. Ohanjanian (1985, 1992) states that earthwormsare important prey for curlews in the East Kootenay,especially in early spring (early April). As the seasonprogressed, feeding became more efficient on adjacentnative grasslands, where the curlews foraged for beetlesand grasshoppers (Ohanjanian 1992).

Campbell (1972) reported that a late migrant femalecollected on 27 April 1972 at the Vancouver InternationalAirport had 31 earthworms and 17 beetles in its stomach.On the wintering grounds in coastal California, curlewsforage on burrow-dwelling crustaceans such as mudcrabs (63%), mud shrimp (7%) and ghost shrimp (26%)(Stenzel et al. 1976).

Disturbance – Long-billed Curlews seem rathertolerant of human disturbance in terms of minor habitatdegradation and change. The use of agricultural sites suchas alfalfa fields, grain fields and hay meadows forforaging and even nesting indicates considerable adapt-ability. Curlews are tolerant of burned rangeland, andmay even benefit from wildfires set on grasslands in latesummer. Such events would not affect nesting, which isover by late June, and apparently produce high-qualitynesting habitat the following spring (Redmond andJenni 1986). Fluctuating water table levels may affectbrood-rearing habitats, but no data are available.

HABITAT

Breeding Habitat

Long-billed Curlews nest on grasslands, preferring dry,short-grass habitats to lusher pastures (Pampush andAnthony 1993). Hooper and Pitt (1996) provide a detailedanalysis of curlew nesting habitat in the Riske Creekarea, stating:

Curlews were most common on gently sloping,high-elevation, north-facing sites. Curlews werealso most abundant on sites with short, openvegetation, low shrub cover, high grass cover,and reduced patchiness of bare ground. Curlewnumbers increased with spring and summergrazing levels....Highest curlew breeding den-sities were on north-facing sites averaging 940 melevation, with a slope of 3∞, May-June vegetationheight of 5-8 cm, vegetation vertical cover of 14-22%, grass cover of 41%, and shrub cover of0.3%. Curlew densities were also highest on siteswith spring grazing levels averaging 1.4 AU/ha1.

High curlew breeding densities in the Chilcotin were alsoassociated with high insect larvae biomass.

In Alberta, maximum breeding densities are found onmoderately grazed grasslands on sandy loam (Semenchuck1992). In southern Washington, Allen (1980) found 15nests (71%) in cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)/Sandberg’sbluegrass (Poa sandbergii) fields and 6 nests (29%) inpure cheatgrass fields. Cheatgrass heights in nestingfields were less than 10 cm. Redmond and Jenni (1986)and Pampush and Anthony (1993) found that curlews inthe Columbia Basin of Idaho and Oregon were concen-trated on sites with pure cheatgrass cover. Cole and Sharpe(1976) found that curlews were restricted to grazed siteson sandhills prairie in Nebraska. Nests are placed on rel-atively flat areas (Allen 1980).

Broods are reared in habitats where vegetation ishigher, presumably important for shading the smallchicks and providing cover from predators (Allen 1980).Wetter meadows are often chosen at this time (Canningset al. 1987), perhaps providing more appropriate foodfor the juveniles, which are often feeding themselves(Allen 1980).

In British Columbia, breeding habitat is found inthe Southern Interior, Southern Interior Mountains andCentral Interior Ecoprovinces (Table 2) (definitions inDemarchi 1996). Natural breeding habitat is essentiallyrestricted to the very dry subzones (xh, xm and xw) ofthe Bunchgrass (BG), Ponderosa Pine (PP), and InteriorDouglas-fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zones (see Meidingerand Pojar 1991 for a description of these zones). Breedingalso occurs in agricultural habitats in otherwise unsuitablebiogeoclimatic zones, such as the Interior Cedar-Hemlock Zone at Creston and the Sub-boreal Spruce Zone atMcBride.

Migration and Wintering Habitat

Migrating Long-billed Curlews usually stop over inupland habitats very similar to breeding habitat (Johnsgard1981). Ohanjanian (1985) mentions that early migrantsin the East Kootenay tend to forage on alfalfa fields, wherethey feed on earthworms. When foraging on alfalfa fieldswet with rain or sprinkler irrigation, curlews could obtainthree times the number of food items than on adjacentnative grasslands (Ohanjanian 1992). On the BritishColumbia coast, Campbell (1972) reports curlews froma variety of shoreline habitats, predominantly mudflats.

Wintering curlews are found in shallow water habitatsin both inland and coastal situations (Johnsgard 1981).Along coasts, they normally feed on tidal flats duringlow tide and roost on nearby wetlands at high tide(Root 1988).

5

1 AU/ha=Animal Unit/hectare, or one cow-calf pair per hectare of grassland through the spring grazing period.

6

Table 2. Ecoprovinces, ecoregions and ecosections1, biogeoclimatic zones2, and broad ecosystem units3

with Long-billed Curlew breeding habitat in British Columbia. Question marks indicate areas withapparently suitable habitat but no definite breeding records.

* categories indicate that breeding occurs there only in cultivated fields.

Ecoprovince Ecoregion Ecosection

Southern Interior Northern Cascades Okanagan RangeOkanagan Highland Southern Okanagan BasinThompson-Okanagan Plateau Southern Okanagan Highland

Northern Okanagan BasinNorthern Okanagan HighlandNorthern Thompson UplandSouthern Thompson UplandThompson Basin

Southern Interior Mountains Southern Rocky Mountain Trench East Kootenay TrenchUpper Fraser Trench*

Northern Columbia Mountains* Southern Columbia Mountains*Central Interior Fraser River Plateau Cariboo BasinSub-boreal Interior* Fraser Basin* Nechako Lowland*

Biogeoclimatic Zone Subzone

Bunchgrass Very Dry Hot BGxhVery Dry Warm BGxw

Ponderosa pine Dry Hot PPdhVery Dry Hot PPxh

Interior Douglas-fir Very Dry Hot IDFxhVery Dry Warm IDFxwVery Dry Mild IDFxmDry Mild* IDFdm?Dry Cool* IDFdk?

Interior Cedar-Hemlock Very Dry Warm ICHxwDry Warm ICHdwMoist Mild ICHmm

Sub-boreal Spruce Dry Warm* SBSdwMoist Cool* SBSmk

Broad Ecosystem Unit

AB Antelope-brush Shrub/grasslandBS Bunchgrass-Grassland SteppeCF Cultivated Field*ME MeadonSS Big Sage Shrub/grasslandWL Wetland

1 Demarchi 19962 Meidinger and Pojar 19913 BC Ministry of Forests 1997

Habitat Trends

Habitat loss was rapid and substantial on the Great Plainsin the 1800s. In British Columbia, serious habitat losshas been largely restricted to the Okanagan and Thompsonvalleys. In the Okanagan, the transformation of grass-lands to orchards and vineyards began at the turn of thecentury and continues to this day, especially with regardsto vineyards. Recent housing developments have addedto the impact of agriculture, and less than 40% of the lowelevation Okanagan grasslands remain (Cannings et al. 1998).Several hundred hectares of possible curlew habitat in theThompson and Fraser valleys have been converted to ginsengproduction and are now totally unsuitable for curlews.

Elsewhere in the southern interior of British Columbia,agricultural developments on grasslands are primarilyfor alfalfa, grains and other field crops. Long-billedCurlews seem to tolerate these activities, especially incentral British Columbia, and may have even benefitedwith the clearing of lowland forests in the upper Fraserand North Thompson valleys.

Very little of British Columbia’s grasslands are pro-tected by Crown Land designations such as parks, eco-logical reserves or wildlife management areas. Only 10to 20 pairs of curlews in British Columbia nest on landthat has some sort of environmental protection. JunctionProvincial Park near Riske Creek provides some pro-tection over 410 ha of curlew habitat, but supports only1-3 pairs of curlews (Hooper and Pitt 1996), and theSouth Okanagan Wildlife Management Area near Osoyooshas a similar population. The Nature Trust of BritishColumbia holds a grazing lease over federal CrownLands at White Lake that might contain one or two curlewterritories. A new protected area at Lac du Bois will containsome curlew territories and another at Churn Creek mayprotect curlews as well, but in general more protectedareas need to be designated on British Columbia grasslands.

In all, less than ten percent of the Long-billed Curlewpopulation in the province nests on lands with any degreeof protection. There are nine pairs of curlews nesting onCrown Land in the Skookumchuck Prairie area (Ohanjanian1992). All Crown Land in the province with breedingcurlews should be designated to provide complete pro-tection against development but allow non-destructiveactivities such as fall grazing. Most of the BritishColumbia curlew population nests on private lands, anda concerted programme of public education and stew-ardship would be a great benefit to the species.

POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS

De Smet (1992) estimated that the Long-billed Curlewpopulation in British Columbia was between 300 and

500 birds. Considering the population estimates given inthe section on British Columbia distribution on page 4,an minimum population estimate of 500 birds (250 pairs)seems reasonable. Hooper and Pitt (1996) conserva-tively estimated the population on their Chilcotin studyarea (Gang Ranch north to Riske Creek and west toHanceville) to be 135 in 1991 and 170 in 1992, andElsie Stanley estimated the McBride population to bearound 25 pairs in 1996. Ohanjanian (1992) counted 42pairs in the East Kootenay area in 1992, up from 31 in1986. Most of the latter increase occurred on the St.Mary’s Indian Reserve (from one up to six pairs) and atGrasmere/Tobacco Plains (from 9 up to 12 pairs).

Historically, populations in the Okanagan Valleyapparently declined in the early 1900s (Brooks 1918).Yocom (1956) reports a similar pattern in Washington,where populations declined in eastern Washington afterEuropean settlement and attendant intensive agriculture,then increased somewhat on poorer quality lands (channeledscablands) as small-holding farms reverted to largeranches in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Pampush andAnthony (1993) suggest that a drastic reduction in breedingpopulations in the Columbia Basin occurred in the 1970swhen hundreds of thousands of hectares of shrub-steppevegetation were converted to circle-pivot irrigation systems.

Counts by the North Okanagan Naturalists Clubindicated a sizable population in the north end of the valley(Vernon to Enderby) in the early 1980s, with a direct countof 61 birds and an estimate of the overall population of120 birds in 1982 (Siddle 1995). Counts in 1995, however,suggest a significant drop in numbers, with only 9 birdsseen (Siddle 1995). In the south Okanagan, numbers atWhite Lake have fluctuated between zero and 8 pairs overthe last 20 years, and these fluctuations apparentlyoccurred in the early 1900s as well (Cannings et al. 1987,pers. obs.). Populations in the Thompson Valley andCariboo-Chilcotin have likely been more or less stable, buthard data are lacking. Populations in the Rocky MountainTrench have clearly increased in the last 25 years fromonly a few individuals to over 40 breeding pairs(Ohanjanian 1992).

Data from the North American Breeding Bird Surveyshow a general decline in Long-billed Curlew numbersfrom 1966 through 1994, particularly from 1971 onward(Sauer et al. 1995). Most of this decline is apparently onthe Great Plains; populations in the intermontane regionsseem to be more or less stable, with increasing populationsin Idaho and the Columbia Plateau. Breeding Bird Surveydata from British Columbia are too scanty for analysis, butthe overall population trend seems to be at least stable,with some areas decreasing and others increasing.

7

LEGAL PROTECTION

The Long-billed Curlew and its nests and eggs are pro-tected in Canada and the United States from hunting andcollecting under the Federal Migratory Birds ConventionAct of 1994. In British Columbia it is also protectedunder the Wildlife Act of 1982. Implementation of biodi-versity guidelines and the Identified Wildlife Manage-ment Strategy under the Forest Practices Code of BritishColumbia Act may provide habitat protection for Long-billed Curlews on Crown Land.

LIMITING FACTORS

Urban and Agricultural Developments

Habitat loss has been one of the most serious problemsfor Long-billed Curlews over most of their range, partic-ularly on the Great Plains. On the Canadian prairies,between 76% and 99% of the native grasslands have beenlost, primarily to agricultural development (Pitt andHooper 1994). Habitat loss has been significant for BritishColumbia populations of the Long-billed Curlew only inthe Thompson and Okanagan Valleys. This loss ofhabitat in southern British Columbia may have beencounterbalanced by the clearing of land for field cropssuch as alfalfa and grains in formerly forested valleys,such as the upper Fraser near McBride and the NorthThompson in the Clearwater area. These fields are com-patible with curlew habitat needs, as long as short-grasshabitats are available for nesting from March throughlate May. These more northern areas now supportcurlew populations where there was little if any habitatavailable 50 years ago. Ohanjanian (1992) felt that, in theEast Kootenay, alfalfa fields were beneficial in someways in providing high quality early spring foragingopportunities, but were inappropriate for nesting habitatand any further loss of native grasslands would be detri-mental to the curlew population there.

Grazing

Most studies of Long-billed Curlew habitat show apositive effect of grazing on curlew breeding densities(e.g. Redmond and Jenni 1986, Hooper and Pitt 1996).This is likely because grazing produces the short grassand open ground favoured by curlews for predator detectionand chick mobility. Heavy grazing during the breedingseason may be detrimental however, since trampling bylivestock can be a significant source of nest loss (Redmondand Jenni 1986).

Fire Suppression

Fire suppression has undoubtedly had a negative effecton Long-billed Curlew habitat in British Columbia, boththrough direct loss of grassland habitat through forestencroachment and through the growth of tall grasses andshrubs that are generally avoided by curlews. Redmondand Jenni (1986) note that curlew breeding densitieswere very high in an area burned the previous summer.Ohanjanian (1992) found that curlew populations increasedafter patches of encroaching forests were removed. Inthe East Kootenay, curlews will only use grassland areasat least 250 m across (Ohanjanian 1992), but in theChilcotin they may require larger open areas (Hooperand Cooper 1997).

Illegal Shooting

Unregulated hunting has been blamed for the widespreaddecline of Long-billed Curlews in the 1800s (Bent 1929).The same market hunting pressures that wiped out theEskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) effectively cut Long-billed Curlew numbers in half (Bent 1929, Pampush 1980).Curlews have been protected in North America since1917, but illegal shooting is still an occasional cause ofmortality. Redmond and Jenni (1986) attributed thedeaths of three adults in their Idaho study to small-calibergunshot wounds, and suspected shooting in another threedeaths. No data is available from British Columbia onthis issue.

Introduction of Alien Species

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is one of the commonestand most invasive alien plant species present in the drygrasslands of British Columbia. Interestingly, Long-billed Curlews seem to prefer areas infested with cheat-grass to natural bunchgrass habitats for nesting, perhapsbecause the short cheatgrass allows the curlews to detectpredators from a greater distance (Allen 1980, Redmondand Jenni 1986, Pampush and Anthony 1993). On theother hand, areas infested with other invasive species,particularly the knapweeds Centaurea diffusa and Centaureamaculata, and older plantings of crested wheatgrass,Agropyron cristatum, are likely avoided by curlewssince the thick growth and height of these plants wouldinhibit movement on the ground and hamper visibility(Ohanjanian 1992).

8

Pesticides

Blus et al. (1985) document one adult curlew mortalityin northern Oregon attributed to ingestion of chlordane,suggesting that the bird encountered the chemical on itswintering grounds in Mexico, where chlordane was stillin use. They also found that eggs from northern Oregonshowed some eggshell thinning presumably because ofDDE residues, but the thinning was not serious enoughto cause any mortality. No data is available from BritishColumbia on this issue.

Predation

No data on predation of Long-billed Curlews in BritishColumbia are available in the literature, though predationis likely to be similar to that in adjacent jurisdictions.

Allen (1980) lists coyotes (Canis latrans) andBlack-billed Magpies (Pica pica) as the most importantnest predators of curlews in southern Washington, followedby Common Ravens (Corvus corax), Gopher Snakes(Pituophis catenifer) and perhaps Badgers (Taxidea taxus).Tremaine (1975) also cites Gopher Snakes as predatorsof curlew nests. Redmond and Jenni (1986) found thatBadgers were especially serious predators when curlewsnested in an area of high groundsquirrel abundance,whereas dogs and Coyotes were important predators atother sites.

Allen (1980) stressed that predators could find nestsmore easily if they were visited frequently by humans.Redmond and Jenni (1986) recommend that PDB crystals(mothballs) be sprinkled across the route walked to acurlew nest to reduce mammalian predation.

Young birds are taken by Long-tailed Weasels (Mustelafrenata) and a variety of raptors including Swainson’sHawks (Buteo swainsoni), Ferruginous Hawks (Buteoregalis) and Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus) (Allen1980). Redmond and Jenni (1986) found that raptorswere responsible for 73% of all losses of young birds.

Climatic Effects

Allen (1980) and Redmond and Jenni (1986) all foundsignificant differences in breeding success from year toyear that they attributed to climatic effects. Allen (1980)suspected that a dry winter resulting in poor grassgrowth reduced the concealment of nests and thus indi-rectly caused a dramatic increase in Coyote predation.On the other hand, the dry winter may have reducedalternate prey for Coyotes (e.g. mice), forcing theCoyotes to turn to birds nests for food. Redmond andJenni (1986) found, however, that highest chick mor-tality occurred in a year of abnormally heavy spring

rains. They speculated that the lush vegetation resultingfrom the rain either hampered chick movement and madethem more vulnerable to predation or that the vegetationhid small mammal prey and forced the raptors to huntyoung birds such as curlews. Perhaps a more direct resultof heavy rains would be their chilling effect; wet chicksmay well die quickly from hypothermia. A highincidence of fatal aspergillosis in chicks reported byRedmond and Jenni (1986) may have been weather-related. Redmond and Jenni (1986) also noticed threefatal cases of egg dehydration after drought conditionsone spring.

SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SPECIES

Around the world, curlews and their ringing calls aresymbols of wide open spaces and wild grasslands. Theyare large, conspicuous birds – the Long-billed Curlew isthe largest sandpiper in the world – and thus much soughtafter and appreciated by birders and other wildlifeenthusiasts. Several species in the genus are criticallyendangered, including the Eskimo Curlew in the NewWorld and the Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)in the Old World. The rampant trade in feathers at the turnof the century as well as the market value of wild birds formeat drove many species to extinction or near extinction.This widespread destruction of bird populations led to theMigratory Birds Convention Act of 1917.

While the Long-billed Curlew escaped the near-totaldestruction inflicted on the Eskimo Curlew, it is a speciesof concern throughout much of its range. It has disap-peared from most of its range in eastern North America,both on the breeding grounds east of the MississippiRiver and the wintering grounds along the Atlanticcoast. The Audubon Society placed it on the Blue List ofspecies with noncyclic population declines in 1981 and1982 (Tate 1981; Tate and Tate 1982). COSEWIC con-siders the Long-billed Curlew Vulnerable in Canada(De Smet 1992), similar to its Blue List designation inBritish Columbia. Alberta has placed it on its Red List. Thespecies is listed as S2 in Washington (L. Ramsay, pers.comm.), essentially a threatened status, but is listed asS3 (vulnerable) in Idaho, Oregon and California.

Long-billed Curlews share their grassland ecosystemswith many other threatened and endangered species.More than one-third of the birds and mammals listed byCOSEWIC in Canada are grassland and parkland species,and 40 of the 147 vertebrates on the BC Environment Redand Blue lists are grassland specialists (S. G. Cannings,pers. comm.). With its large size and loud calls, the Long-billed Curlew is a strong symbol of the grassland ecosystemand its threatened status; it is now the symbol of the BritishColumbia Grassland Council.

9

RECOMMENDATIONS/MANAGEMENTOPTIONS

Habitat Management

Long-billed Curlews need a mosaic of grasslandhabitats – dry, open grasslands for nesting and moister,shrubbier habitats for brood-rearing– and any manage-ment prescription designed to produce such a mix wouldserve curlews well. Many of the other threatened andendangered species found on British Columbia grasslandshave different habitat preferences in terms of seral stageand species composition. Grasshopper Sparrows andSharptailed Grouse, for instance, prefer lightly grazedareas of high grass, while Sage Thrashers require rela-tively dense stands of large sagebrush. Managing for allthese species will be challenging.

Fields planted to alfalfa or grains are readily usedby curlews, but more data are needed on when and howthese habitats are used and the breeding success of pairsusing them.

The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy containsthe following recommendations for Long-billed Curlewmanagement in its General Wildlife Measures section:

• Do not construct roads unless there is no other prac-ticable option ... Limit road use during the breedingseason (March 15-July 15)

• Areas can be grazed to a level that produces lowprofile vegetation (less than 30 cm) very early in thespring (before April 15) or in summer and fall (afterJuly 15). However fall grazing is the preferablestrategy, thereby avoiding the range damage thatmay result from turning cattle out too early.

• Avoid seeding with crested wheatgrass. Where suchseeding occur, they should be managed by grazingto maintain low profile vegetation.

• Do not establish recreational trails

• Grasslands that have been converted to crestedwheatgrass pastures should be revegetated to nativebunchgrasses where the habitat capability is high.

• Do not allow site to be converted to crop land.

• Manage the forest fringe to minimize or reverseforest encroachment using slashing or other suitablemethods.

These guidelines also include a recommendation thatfire not be used in nesting areas. Presumably, this meansduring the nesting season, since fall burning can produceexcellent curlew habitat (Redmond and Jenni 1996).

Grazing – Long-billed Curlews seem to tolerate rel-atively high grazing levels at certain times– they aresensitive to heavy grazing during nesting, so fall grazingmay be preferable. Dry grasslands should generally notbe grazed in summer in British Columbia to allow bunch-grasses to store energy for the fall-winter dormant periods.Areas sown to crested wheatgrass should be grazed heavilyin the fall to reduce residual grass (Ohanjanian 1992).

Fire – Redmond and Jenni (1986) report a markedincrease in breeding densities after a late-summer firethe previous year. Ohanjanian (1992) characterized firesuppression as a serious threat to the open grasslandhabitat favoured by curlews, but also found that curlewswill use areas after the removal of encroaching forestscreated grassland openings more than 250 m across.Where appropriate, prescribed burns may be a highlydesirable management tool to create habitat mosaics.

Alien plant species – Nesting Long-billed Curlewsat least tolerate and seem to even prefer cheatgrasshabitats to those of native bunchgrasses, since theyprovide low, open cover that is ideal for nest placementand movement of young. On the other hand, knapweedsare probably highly detrimental to curlew habitat sincethey would obscure vision and restrict the movement offeeding birds, particularly young. Ohanjanian (1992)found that curlews nested in crested wheatgrass (Agropyroncristatum) habitats shortly after planting, but avoidedthose areas in future years after the grass grew tall andretained high residual vegetation. Control of invasivespecies would likely benefit curlew nesting.

Habitat Protection

More areas of grassland habitat need to be protectedfrom development throughout the range of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. There is some oppor-tunity to protect grasslands on Crown Lands, particularlyin the East Kootenay at Skookumchuck Prairie and nearGrasmere (Ohanajanian 1992). Some federal CrownLand contains prime curlew habitat, including the militaryreserve on Becher’s Prairie near Riske Creek and theNational Research Council property at White Lake inthe Okanagan. However, much of the curlew habitat inthe province is on private lands, so protection would haveto take the form of stewardship agreements, includingenvironmental convenants on the property, and somelimited land acquisition by agencies such as the NatureTrust of British Columbia.

10

Public Education

The Long-billed Curlew is a large, striking bird that wouldbe an ideal symbol for programmes promoting the con-servation of grasslands in British Columbia. Sinceprivate lands are a major part of curlew habitat in theprovince, stewardship programmes that provide infor-mation to landowners on threatened species such as curlewswill have to be an integral part of any management plan.

Future Research

Studies should be undertaken to examine the habitat useand viability of populations breeding in agriculturalhabitats at the northern end of the species’ range(e.g. McBride, Clearwater, Vanderhoof). It would beextremely useful to know how productive these popu-lations are and what agricultural practices are mostamenable to nesting success. Studies are also needed inareas of intense development pressures such as theOkanagan Valley (e.g. Armstrong, Oliver) to ascertaindetails of habitat use and develop meaningful man-agement strategies.

Population Surveys

While Long-billed Curlew populations in the Chilcotinand East Kootenay regions are relatively well known(Ohanjanian 1992, Hooper and Pitt 1996), those in otherareas have rarely been surveyed. An accurate estimate ofthe curlew populations in the Thompson, Nicola andOkanagan valleys is clearly needed.

Ideally, annual monitoring programmes should beset up to get at least a relative abundance index from allbreeding areas. These surveys should be carried out tothe standards listed by Ohanjanian (1992:35); thesestandards are somewhat more rigorous than thoseoutlined in the RIC survey standards for shorebirds.

EVALUATION

Considering recent population declines in the OkanaganValley and perhaps in the Kamloops area, and the con-tinued loss of grassland habitat throughout the province,the Long-billed Curlew should be considered vulnerable,and remain on the provincial Blue List. It should remainon the Blue List until:

• surveys indicate a stable or increasing provincialpopulation.

• significant areas of curlew breeding habitat in nativegrasslands are protected throughout the province.This is especially important in the Okanagan, Nicolaand East Kootenay areas where little, if any, grasslandhabitat is presently protected. At least three areas pro-tecting more than 25 pairs of curlews each should beprotected through designation of Crown Land, con-servation covenants on private land, or acquisition ofimportant habitats.

• management strategies based on data from localstudies are implemented to maintain breeding popu-lations throughout the province.

REFERENCES

Allen, J.N. 1980. The ecology and behavior of the Long-billed Curlew in southeastern Washington. Wild.Monogr. 73:1-67.

American Ornithologists Union. 1983. Check-list ofNorth American birds, 6th ed.

Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North Americanshorebirds. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. No. 146. 412pp.

Blus, L.J., C.J. Henny, and A.J. Krynitsky. 1985. Organo-chlorine-induced mortality and residues in Long-billed Curlews from Oregon. Condor 87:563-565.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1997. Species andplant community accounts for identified wildlife(Forest Practices Code of British Columbia). B.C.Minist. For. and B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands andParks, Victoria, BC. 171pp.

Brooks, A.C. 1918. Brief notes on the prevalence ofcertain birds in British Columbia. Can. Field-Nat.31:139-141.

Brooks, A.C., and H.S. Swarth. 1925. A distributionalchecklist of the birds of British Columbia. PacificCoast Avifauna 17:1-158.

Campbell, R.W. 1972. Coastal records of the Long-billed Curlew for British Columbia. Can. Field-Nat.86:167-168.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan,J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, M. C. E. McNall. 1990.The birds of British Columbia, Vol. 2. Royal BritishColumbia Mus., Victoria, BC. 636pp.

11

Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings and S.G. Cannings. 1987.The birds of the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia.Royal British Columbia Mus., Victoria, BC. 420pp.

Cannings, R.J. 1998. The birds of British Columbia: ataxonomic catalogue. BC Minist. Environ., Landsand Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC., 252pp.

Cannings, R.J., E. Durance and L.K. Scott. 1998.South Okanagan Ecosystem Recovery Plan:Scientific Assessment. BC Environ., Penticton, BCunpubl. draft.

Cole, T. and R.S. Sharpe. 1976. The effects of grazingmanagement on a sandhills prairie community. III.Breeding bird density and diversity. Proc. Nebr.Acad. Sci. Affil. Soc. 86:12.

Demarchi, D.A. 1996. An introduction to the ecoregionsof British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environ., Landsand Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. Draft rep.

De Smet, K.D. 1992. Status report on the Long-billedCurlew Numenius americanus in Canada. Comm.on the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can. 28pp.

Fitzner, J.N. 1978. The ecology and behavior of theLong-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) insoutheastern Washington. Ph.D. Thesis,Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Fraser, D.F., T.Hooper and L.R. Ramsay. n.d.Preliminary species management plan for the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. Wildl. Branch,BC Environ., Victoria, BC.

Hooper, T.D., and J.M. Cooper. 1997. Managing forhigh priority identified wildlife species in theCariboo Region: a problem analysis. BC Environ.,Williams Lake, BC.

Hooper, T.D., and M.D. Pitt. 1995. Problem analysis forChilcotin-Cariboo grassland biodiversity. B.C.Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.Wildl. Bull. No. B-82. 106pp.

———. 1996. Breeding bird communities and habitatassociations in the grasslands of the Chilcotinregion, British Columbia. Canada-British ColumbiaPartnership Agreement on Forest ResourceDevelopment: FRDA II.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers andsnipes of the world. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln,NB. 393pp.

McNeil, R., J.R. Rodriguez and F. Mercier. 1985. Winterrange expansion of the Long-billed Curlew (Numeniusamericanus) to South America. Auk 102:174-175.

Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems of BritishColumbia. B.C. Minist. Forests, Victoria, BC. 330pp.

Munro, J. A. and I. McT. Cowan. 1947. The bird fauna ofBritish Columbia. B.C. Prov. Mus., Spec. Pub. No. 2,Victoria, BC.

Ohanjanian, I. A. 1985. The Long-billed Curlew, Numeniusamericanus, on Skookumchuck Prairie: status reportand enhancement plan. B.C. Fish and Wildl. Branch,Cranbrook, BC. 52pp.

———. 1986. The Long-billed Curlew in the eastKootenay: status report and enhancement schedulefor Skookumchuck Prairie. B.C. Fish and Wildl.Branch, Cranbrook. 24pp.

———. 1987. Status report and management recom-mendations for the Long-billed Curlew (Numeniusamericanus) on the Junction. B.C. Fish and Wildl.Branch, Williams Lake, BC. 24pp.

———. 1992. Numbers, distribution and habitat dynamicsof Long-billed Curlews in the East Kootenay. Wildl.Branch, BC Environ., Cranbrook, BC. 41pp.

Pampush, G.J. 1980. Status report on the Long-billedCurlew in the Columbia and northern Great Basins.US Fish and Wildl. Serv., Portland, OR. 55pp.,Unpubl. rep.

Pampush, G.J., and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Nest success,habitat utilization and nest-site selection of Long-billed Curlews in the Columbia Basin, Oregon.Condor 95:957-967.

Pitt, M.D., and T.D. Hooper. 1994. Threats to biodi-versity of grasslands in British Columbia. Pages279-292 in L.E. Harding and E. McCullum, eds.,Biodiversity in British Columbia. Environ. Can.,Vancouver, BC.

Redmond, R.L., and D.A. Jenni. 1986. Population ecologyof the Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)in western Idaho. Auk 103:755-767.

12

Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds.Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 312pp.

Sadler, D.A.R., and W.J. Maher. 1976. Notes on theLong-billed Curlew in Saskatchewan. Auk 93:382-384.

Sauer, J.R., B.G. Peterjohn, S. Schwartz, and J.E. Hines.1995. The Grassland Bird Home Page. Version95.0. Patuxent Wildl. Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Semenchuck, G.P., ed. 1992. The atlas of breeding birdsof Alberta. Fed. Alberta Nat., Edmonton, AB. 390pp.

Siddle, C.R. 1995. North Okanagan Long-billed Curlewcensus. Report to BC Environ., Penticton, BC.

Stenzel, L.E., H.R. Huber and G.W. Page. 1976.Feeding behavior and diet of the Long-billedCurlew and Willet. Wilson Bull. 88:314-332.

Tate, J. 1981. The Blue List for 1981. Am. Birds 35:3-10.

Tate, J., and D.J. Tate. The Blue List for 1982. Am.Birds 36:126-135.

Timken, R.L. 1969. Notes on the Long-billed Curlew.Auk 86:750-751.

Tremaine, M.M. 1975. Life at an avocet nest. Audubon77:68-75.

Van Damme, L.M. 1996. Creston Valley: Checklist ofbirds. Nelson Nat., Nelson, BC.

Yocom, C.F. 1956. Re-establishment of breeding popu-lations of Long-billed Curlews in southeasternWashington. Wilson Bull. 68:228-231.

13

14

Wildlife Working Reports may be cited, but the preliminary nature of the data they contain should be noted. Working Reports 1-39 (andothers) are presently out of print, but photocopies may be available through the Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parksor other agencies. Titles of Working Reports 1-35 are available on request.

WR-40 Wolf-prey dynamics. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by B.C. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Faculty ofForestry, University of British Columbia and the Northwest Wildlife Preservation Society. February 1989. 188pp.

WR-41 Caribou research and management in B.C.: proceedings of a workshop. R.Page, ed. November 1988. 275pp. (Also printedas WHR-27)

WR-42 Trapping in British Columbia - a survey. R. Reid. January 1989. 55pp.

WR-43 Biophysical habitat units of the Lower Halfway study area: expanded legend. E.C. Lea and L.E.H. Lacelle. December 1989.33pp.

WR-44 Long range habitat planning: proceedings. M. Fenger and V. Stevens, eds. March 1990. 49pp.

WR-45 Biophysical habitat units of the Mosley Creek study area: expanded legend and interpretations. E.C. Lea and R.C. Kowall.March 1990. 33pp.

WR-46 Habitat Management Section. Annual General Meeting. Yellowpoint Lodge - 1989 April 25-27. Wildlife and RecreationalFisheries Branches, Ministry of Environment. July 1990. 107pp.

WR-47 Working plan — Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study. A.N. Hamilton and J.A. Nagy. September 1990. 35pp. (Also printedas WHR-28).

WR-48 Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study. Annual progress report - year 1 (1989/90), annual working plan - year 2 (1990/91).J.A. Nagy and A.G. MacHutchon. January 1991. 44pp. (Also printed as WHR-29).

WR-49 Fort Nelson and area average winter maximum snowpack mapping. R. Chilton. July 1990. 12pp.

WR-50 Marten habitat suitability research project - working plan. E.C. Lofroth and V. Banci. January 1991. 31pp.

WR-51 Khutzeymateen Valley grizzly bear study. Annual progress report - year 2 (1990/91), annual working plan - year 3 (1991/92).A.G. MacHutchon and S. Himmer. March 1992. 36pp. (Also printed as WHR-30)

WR-52 Abundance, Distribution and Conservation of Birds in the Vicinity of Boundary Bay, B.C. R.W. Butler, ed. 1992. 132pp. (Also printes as Technical Report Series No. 155, Pacific and Yukon Region, Can. Wildlife Service).

WR-53 Status of the Clouded Salamander in British Columbia. T.M. Davis and P.T. Gregory. March 1993. 19pp.

WR-54 Status of the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake in British Columbia. M.B. Charland, K.J. Nelson, P.T. Gregory. March 1993. 23 pp.

WR-55 Status of the Shrew-mole in British Columbia. L. Kremsater, L. Andrusiak, F.L. Bunnell. March 1993. 26 pp.

WR-56 Status of the Nuttall’s Cottontail in British Columbia. D.W. Carter, A. Harestad, F.L. Bunnell. March 1993. 33 pp.

WR-57 Status of the Sharp-tailed Snake in British Columbia. D.J. Spalding. March 1993. 15pp.

WR-58 Guidelines for Technical Publications of the Wildlife Program. E. Stanlake. March 1993. 57pp.

WR-59 Status of Keen's Long-eared Myotis in British Columbia. M. Firman, M. Getty, and R.M.B. Barclay. March 1993. 29pp.

WR-60 Biophysical Habitat Units for the Tatlayoko Lake Study Area: expanded legend and interpretations. E.C. Lea and R.C.Kowall. March 1993. 22pp.

WR-61 Status of the Pallid Bat in British Columbia. K. Chapman, K. Mc Guinness, R.M. Brigham. February 1994. 32pp.

WR-62 Status of the Bald Eagle in British Columbia. D.A. Blood and G. G. Anweiler. February 1994. 92pp

WR-63 A Survey of the Bat Fauna of the Dry Interior of British Columbia. S.L. Holroyd, R.M.R. Barclay, L.M. Merk, and R.M.Brigham. March 1994. 80pp.

WR-64 Distribution and Abundance of Four Species of Small Mammals At Risk in a Fragmented Landscape. G.A. Zuleta andC. Galindo-Leal. March 1994. 80pp.

WR-65 Problem Analysis of Integrated Resource Management of Riparian Areas in British Columbia. S.L. Rautio, P. Bunnell. March1994. 26pp. (Also RRP3003-HQ Minist. of For. Res. Br.)

WR-66 A Bibliography of Selected Literature on Wildlife Trees with Annotations and Abstracts. Wildlife Tree Committee. December1994. 90pp.

WR-67 Status of the Vaux's Swift in British Columbia. K. Summers and M. Gebauer. March 1995. 24pp.

WR-68 Status of the White-throated Swift in British Columbia. K. Summers. March 1995. 24pp.

WR-69 Status of the Williamson's Sapsucker in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper. March 1995. 24pp.

WR-70 Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse in British Columbia. R. Ritcey. March 1995. 52pp.

Continued from inside back cover:

WR-71 Status of the Western Harvest Mouse in British Columbia. D.W. Nagorsen. March 1995. 32pp.

WR-72 Status of the Badger in British Columbia. A.H. Rahme, A.S. Harestad and F.L. Bunnell. March 1995. 64pp.

WR-73 Status of the Fringed Myotis in British Columbia. S.A. Rasheed, P.F.J. Garcia, and S.L. Holroyd. October 1995. 28pp.

WR-74 Status of the Western Small-footed Myotis in British Columbia. P.F.J. Garcia, S.A. Rasheed, and S.L. Holroyd. October 1995.24pp.

WR-75 Status of the Spotted Bat in British Columbia. P.F.J. Garcia, S.A. Rasheed, and S.L. Holroyd. October 1995. 24pp.

WR-76 The Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Requirements of Selected Passerine Birds of the Boreal and Taiga Plains of BritishColumbia. K.A. Enns and C. Siddle. March 1996. 54pp.

WR-77 Status of the Brewer's Sparrow (breweri subspecies) in British Columbia. M.J. Sarell and K.P. McGuinness. March 1996. 22pp.

WR-78 Status of the Green Heron in British Columbia. D.F. Fraser and L.R. Ramsay. March 1996. 28pp.

WR-79 Status of the Bay-breasted Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 36pp.

WR-80 Status of the Black-throated Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 36pp.

WR-81 Status of the Canada Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 36pp.

WR-82 Status of the Cape May Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 34pp.

WR-83 Status of the Connecticut Warbler in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 32pp.

WR-84 Status of the Philadelphia Vireo in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, K.A. Enns, and M.G. Shepard. February 1997. 32pp.

WR-85 Status of the Prairie Falcon in the Chilcotin-Cariboo region, British Columbia. T.D. Hooper. March 1997. 22pp.

WR-86 Status of the Upland Sandpiper in the Chilcotin-Cariboo region, British Columbia. T.D. Hooper. March 1997. 26pp.

WR-87 Status of the Western Grebe in British Columbia. A.E.Burger. March 1997. 40pp.

WR-88 Status of the Sprague's Pipit in British Columbia. T.D. Hooper. March 1997. 20pp.

WR-89 Status of the Purple Martin in British Columbia. D.F. Fraser, C. Siddle, D. Copley, and E. Walters. March 1997. 38pp.

WR-90 Toward a Mountain Caribou Management Strategy for British Columbia - Habitat Requirements and Sub-Population Status.K.Simpson, E. Terry, and D. Hamilton. December 1997. 27pp.

WR-91 Status of the Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. J.M. Cooper, C. Siddle, and G. Davidson. February1998. 34pp.

WR-92 An Inventory Report on the Status of Diurnal Raptors at Risk in the Southern Grasslands of British Columbia. (FerruginousHawk, Swainson's Hawk, Prairie Falcon, Peregrine Falcon). J.M. Cooper. February 1998. 24pp.

WR-93 Status of the Bobolink in British Columbia. L.M. Van Damme. March 1999. 18pp.

WR-94 An Assessment of Burrowing Owl Reintroduction in the Thompson-Nicola Region: a Summary Report (1992-97). E.E. Leupinand D.J. Low. March 1999. 32pp.

WR-95 Status of the Flammulated Owl in British Columbia. A.M. van Woudenberg. March 1999. 38pp.

WR-96 Status of the Long-billed Curlew in British Columbia. R.J. Cannings. March 1999. 22pp.