Executive summary



New York State Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Thirty-Year Recovery PlanMalerie MuratoriSpring 2020A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Wildlife Concentration, at Paul Smith’s CollegeCover illustration by Hannah LongmuirExecutive summary The barn owl, (Tyto alba) is found on all continents except Antarctica, making it one of the most widely distributed bird species. They are cavity nesters and vole specialists which exhibit great flexibility in prey selection and nesting habitats, despite this, barn owls have become rare in North America and towards the northern limits of its range in New York State. Primary conservation issues for barn owls in New York include 1.) The degradation and loss of grassland habitat through agricultural intensification, and consequent reduction in prey base 2) The effective removal of nesting and roost sites by conversion of old open barns into closed, steel buildings and the removal of trees for field expansion 3) Increased rates of vehicle collision in response to increasing road density and traffic volume 4). Instances of secondary poisoning through ingestion of prey items contaminated by anticoagulant rodenticides such as bromadiolone and brodifacoum (Stone et al, 1999). This 30-year management plain aims to protect, conserve and restore Barn owls and the grasslands on which they depend in New York State. Objectives to reach this goal include 1.) Increasing nesting success by 5% per year during the first 10 years of the plan 2.) Increasing state barn owl population by 2% annually throughout the 30-year plan 3.) Increasing the number of monitored barn owl nest boxes on private property by 5 boxes annually within the first 10 years of the plan 4.) Reducing Barn Owl road mortality in New York State by 2% per year within the first 20 years of the plan 5.) Reducing instances of all secondary wildlife killings by second generation anticoagulant rodenticides by 100% statewide 6.) Reducing instances of barn owl fledgling capture by 50% during the 30-year plan. In the increase of nesting success, 4,000 ha of suitable habitat on private lands participating in the landowner incentive program will be identified and 20 nest boxes will be installed each year at identified adequate nesting sites within the first 10 years of the plan. In the increase of statewide population an average of 200 acres of privately owned grasslands will be registered annually through the landowner incentive program and managed in accordance with grassland bird BMPs. In increasing nest boxes on private property, informational brochures will be published via the NYSDEC website and surveys will be administered to agricultural landowners. In addition, volunteer nest box programs will be created to involve citizens in conservation efforts. In reducing road mortality, 30 peak Barn owl road mortality zones across the state will be identified for which to manage via the planting of median vegetation, erection of signs, and development of deterrents. The reduction of SGAR mortality will be attained through the registration of all Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides as restricted use pesticides and the implementation of safer alternatives to rodent control. The reduction of fledgling capture will be attained through the increase in availability of information. The combined efforts of each objective should serve to increase nesting barn owl populations in New York State to a self-sustainable and ecologically functioning levelTABLE OF CONTENTS TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc38807168 \h 2INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc38807169 \h 4NATURAL HISTORY PAGEREF _Toc38807170 \h 5IDENTIFICATION PAGEREF _Toc38807171 \h 6RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION PAGEREF _Toc38807172 \h 8HABITAT PAGEREF _Toc38807173 \h 9DIET AND FORAGING PAGEREF _Toc38807174 \h 10NUTRIENT INTAKE AND REQUIREMENTS PAGEREF _Toc38807175 \h 11REPRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc38807176 \h 11BREEDING PAGEREF _Toc38807177 \h 11NESTING PAGEREF _Toc38807178 \h 12DEVELOPMENT PAGEREF _Toc38807179 \h 12LIFE HISTORY PAGEREF _Toc38807180 \h 13STRATEGY PAGEREF _Toc38807181 \h 13MORTALITY PAGEREF _Toc38807182 \h 13COMPETITION PAGEREF _Toc38807183 \h 14POPULATION DECLINE IN NEW YORK STATE PAGEREF _Toc38807184 \h 14AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION PAGEREF _Toc38807185 \h 15HABITAT LOSS AND DEGREDATION PAGEREF _Toc38807186 \h 15LOSS OF NESTING SITES PAGEREF _Toc38807187 \h 16AN UNSTABLE PREY BASE PAGEREF _Toc38807188 \h 16SECONDARY RODENTICIDE POISONING PAGEREF _Toc38807189 \h 17ROAD MORTALITY PAGEREF _Toc38807190 \h 18DISTURBANCE AND HARASSMENT PAGEREF _Toc38807191 \h 19PROTECTION PAGEREF _Toc38807192 \h 19ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE PAGEREF _Toc38807193 \h 20SOCIOCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE PAGEREF _Toc38807194 \h 21PROMINENT THREATS PAGEREF _Toc38807195 \h 22Goal: PAGEREF _Toc38807196 \h 22Objective 1.) PAGEREF _Toc38807197 \h 22Objective 2.) PAGEREF _Toc38807198 \h 24Objective 3.) PAGEREF _Toc38807199 \h 28Objective 4.) PAGEREF _Toc38807200 \h 30Objective 5.) PAGEREF _Toc38807201 \h 32Objective 6.) PAGEREF _Toc38807202 \h 33CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc38807203 \h 34ACKNOWLEGEMENTS PAGEREF _Toc38807204 \h 35LITERATURE CITED PAGEREF _Toc38807205 \h 35APPENDIX A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…38APPENDIX B ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40APPENDIX C …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41 INTRODUCTIONThe barn owl (Tyto alba), is a highly distributed bird of prey, inhabiting all continents (except Antarctica) and many islands (Mummert et al, 2009). Barn owls breed in open habitats including marshes, grasslands, and agricultural fields (NYSDEC, 2014). Barn owls are secondary cavity nesters; suitable nest sites vary from open barns and storehouses, to crevices in cliffs to man-made nest boxes (NYSDEC, 2014). Despite this species adaptability in prey selection and in nesting habitats, barn owl populations are diminishing North America and in the northern limits of its range in New York State (NYSDEC, 2014). Decline in populations results from changing agricultural practices (Walk et al, 2010). Agricultural landscapes provide abundant foraging areas for voles (Microtus spp.), for which the barn owl is a specialized feeder, however these areas have been largely transformed to row crop fields which support fewer prey (Walk et al, 2010). Concurrently, the conversion of open wooden barns to closed metal structures and the removal of rows of trees and buffers eliminates potential nesting sites (Walk et al, 2010). New York populations are declining an alarming rate; within the past 20 years, the Breeding Bird Atlas recorded a 78% decrease in state inhabitance, with records nearly vanishing from upstate (McGowan and Corwin, 2008). The second Breeding Bird Atlas (2000-05) reported occurrence in only 28 survey blocks, accounting for less than 1% of the state (McGowan and Corwin 2008). The remaining state population is concentrated on long island and Staten Island where the use of man-made nest boxes has become critical for its persistence (McGowan and Corwin, 2008).Barn owl population restoration has been widely attempted, with mixed success. Since 1974, a reintroduction project in Erie County performed by Hawk Creek Wildlife, Inc. has released over 220 captive-raised barn owls however ultimately failed to establish a breeding population (NYSDEC, 2014). For the past two years, wildlife students at SUNY Cobleskill have constructed nest boxes for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in which boxes installed in proximity to campus have been readily adopted (NYSDEC, 2014).NATURAL HISTORYBarn Owls are a highly variable cosmopolitan species and the world’s most widely distributed bird, found nesting on many islands and all continents except Antarctica. (Mummert et al, 2009). Barn owls are remarkable birds of prey, their haunting cries and ghostlike appearance have led to their assimilation into myth and folklore and have earned them many nicknames, including the “ghost owl” (Mummert et al, 2009). Barn owls are classified in the order Strigiformes and belong to the family Tytonidae, which also includes bay-owls, masked owls, sooty-owls, grass-owls (Walk et al. 2010). Thirty-six subspecies of the barn owl are recognized worldwide. (Walk et al. 2010). Barn owl fossils have been found in the southwestern United States, Europe and South America dating this species back to roughly 2.5 million years (Walk et al. 2010).IDENTIFICATIONThe barn owl is a pale-colored owl with a distinct heart-shaped facial ruff earning them a striking ghost-like appearance (Walk et al, 2010). On average, females are larger than males, averaging a length of 33-40 cm compared to, 32-39 cm for males (Walk et al, 2010). Mass ranges between 420-700g for females and 400-560g for males (Walk et al, 2010). Average adult wingspan for barn owls is between 104-120cm (Solymar, 2010). Barn owls have large heads with dark eyes, and they lack ear tufts; they stand on long slender legs which are sparsely feathered and reach beyond their tail in flight, which is short and square in shape (Solymar, 2010). Barn owls’ wings are long and rounded. Their flight has been described as “slow, buoyant, and exceptionally quiet” (Walk et al, 2010). The heads and backs of barn owls are caramel-colored, and their wings and backs are ornately mottled with specks of black, white and gray; the face and underside plumage of barn owls is white and sexually dimorphic, as females typically have more beige coloring and black mottling than males (Walk et al, 2010).Fig. 1. Adult Barn Owl (Tyto alba) ? Matt Davis/Macaulay LibraryBarn owls are notorious for their call, a long drawn out high-pitched scream often given as warning calls when their nest is approached and distress calls when threatened (Walk et al, 2010). However, barn owls exhibit a variety of other vocalizations as well, purring can be exhibited by mated pairs and are produced both by females begging for food and by males inviting females to inspect possible nesting sites; other sounds include mobbing calls and greeting calls, as well as territorial bill-snapping and hissing produced by nestlings when the nest is approached (Walk et al, 2010). When approached, barn owls will also demonstrate a variety of physical threat displays such as shaking, wing spreading, head wagging, and feather ruffling (Martin et al, 2011).RANGE AND DISTRIBUTION Barn Owls are globally distributed, absent only from extreme northern latitudes and in parts of, Indonesia, New Zealand and the West Indies (Martin et al, 2011). Barn owls inhabit open environments in both temperate and tropical biomes, they do not inhabit alpine, polar, or heavily forested areas (Mummert et al, 2009). Individual home ranges, which may overlap significantly with neighboring barn owls, vary greatly in size, ranging from 151 ha (0.6 sq. mi) to 3174 ha (12.3 sq. mi) (Martin et al, 2011). Nest densities in regions where populations thrive average one pair per 2 to 5 km2 (Walk et al, 2010). Whether or not barn owls are migratory remains unknown; birds that are mistaken for migrants are most likely dispersing juveniles (Walk et al, 2010). Adult barn owls are sedentary, nesting at the same site from year to year, and roosting in their territories during the winter months (Walk et al, 2010). Fig 2. Range of the barn owl in North America (Birds of North America Online 2013).The northern range limit of barn owls is influenced by the harshness of winter weather, placing New York at the northernmost boundary of their range. In New York, the barn owl is considered both resident and migratory (NYSDEC, 2014). However, due to population declines the species now rare across the entire state; Remaining breeding populations are concentrated in the Coastal Lowlands (NYSDEC, 2014).Fig 3. Barn owl occurrence in New York State during the second Breeding Bird Atlas (McGowan and Corwin 2008).HABITATPrior to European settlement and the subsequent agricultural deforestation, North American barn owls likely foraged in tallgrass prairies and nested in nearby oak savannas (Walk et al, 2010.) Today, barn owls appear in open grasslands, agricultural fields, and marshes (Martin et al, 2011). Barn owls will nest in hollow trees and in dens on cliffs and buffs as well as Barns, silos, grain bins, belfries, and abandoned buildings (Walk et al, 2010). Barn Owls will also willingly adopt artificial nest boxes (Wendt et al, 2017). The availability of appropriate foraging habitat and a stable prey base are the primary variables which constitute a suitable nesting site (Martin et al, 2010). Barn owls generally tolerate human proximity but prefer to nest in areas where ambient noise is kept to a minimum (Almasi et al. 2015). Nests are constructed from bits of broken-down pellets and are often placed on the floor of the cavity or building (Walk et al, 2010). Nest sites are commonly reused, either by its original occupants or other nesting pairs of barn owls (Walk et al, 2010). In some areas, availability of appropriate nesting sites is the primary limiting factor of barn owl abundance (Martin et al, 2011). The foraging habitat utilized by barn owls is a mosaic of open cover types such as grassland, with scattered trees and areas of cultivation, owls may also forage in or near buildings (Jong, 2009). In open agricultural fields, accessibility and availability of small rodents is depends on vegetation height, crop type, and agricultural intensity (Almasi et al, 2015). Perennial grasslands, including pastures and hay fields, maintain greater abundances of small mammals and voles than row crop fields which consequently provides superior foraging habitat for barn owls (Walk et at, 2010).DIET AND FORAGING Barn owls are vole (Microtus sp.) specialists, although mice, shrews and moles are also consumed (Martin et al, 2011). Non-mammalian prey may include birds, reptiles, amphibians, and large insects, but are consumed rarely (Martin et al, 2011). Owls swallow their prey whole, and indigestible fur and bones are later regurgitated in the form of an “owl pellet” which can be utilized to examine the owl’s diet (Martin et al, 2011).Barn owls are remarkably adapted to catching prey during the nighttime, they possess exceptional low-light vision, an acute sense of hearing, and a near silent flight, lending them the capacity to pinpoint and capture prey in almost total darkness (Walk et al, 2010). Their facial disk channels sound into their ears, which are asymmetrically oriented on each side of their head; allowing the owls to gauge how far away a sound is. (Martin et al, 2011) Barn owls are areal hunters and are capable of slow flight, hovering, and lifting heavy prey (Solymar et al, 2010). Barn owls range an average of 2 km from nest sites to forage, with some birds regularly hunting over 3 km from their nest sites (Jong, 2009). NUTRIENT INTAKE AND REQUIREMENTSEstimates for adult barn owl nutrient intake ranges from 50 to 150 grams per day which is equivalent to one to three voles (Solymar et al, 2010). From barn owl pellets collected from several locations in Ohio by from 1979-1981, Colvin (1986), identified a total of 12,589 individual prey items, composed of 21 different mammal species. Colvin (1986) found that two species, the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) composed 84.1% of all prey and 87.8% of mammalian prey with the meadow vole comprising 63.9% of all prey and 75.7% of mammalian prey. From this data, Colvin (1986) estimated that roughly 600 voles could be consumed by a brood of 6 young owls from hatching through fledging at 10 weeks of age.Colvin (1986) also noted that smaller prey items such as the white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and house mouse (Mus musculus) were far more abundant in the environment however, they were taken by owls in fewer numbers then would occur by chance, suggesting that barn owls utilize an energy efficient hunting strategy in which they select for larger prey items such as meadow voles over smaller prey. REPRODUCTIONBREEDINGBarn owls breed between February and August (Almasi et al, 2015). Barn Owls are typically monogamous and will retain the same mate for several breeding seasons (Martin et al, 2011). Activity becomes increasingly concentrated around the breeding site during early breeding season, with an associated reduction in the size of the hunting range (Pringle et al, 2016). Pairs will spend increasing amounts of time together and frequently roost together (Mummert et al, 2009). Although pairs do not defend foraging territories, they will actively defend their nests from other owls (Martin et al, 2011).NESTING Females begin nesting in late March and can lay between 2 and 11 eggs per clutch (Almasi et al, 2015). Studies suggest that average date for the first egg being laid has become earlier, shifting by roughly half a day per year between 2002 and 2007 as a result of changing climate (Pringle et al, 2016). The incubation period lasts 29-34 days and during this time, the male owl will provide food for the brooding female. Males will forage within an area of 250 ha surrounding the nest when hunting for brooding females and their nestlings (Walk et al, 2010). Females lay eggs at intervals of 2–3 days, resulting in asynchronous hatching and a defined within-brood age hierarchy (Almasi et al, 2015). Young within a brood may range in age from 10-14 days (Walk et al, 2010) This strategy ensures the survival of at least the eldest, as when food becomes scarce, the older and stronger chicks will always be fed and when food is ample, all chicks will be able to feed (Marin et al, 2011). DEVELOPMENTAfter hatching, both parents will provide food for their young, with only the female responsible for feeding (Martin et al, 2011). Barn owls are altricial, they are born blind and featherless and are entirely reliant on their parents for survival (Walk et al, 2010). Young barn owls grow quickly, exceeding the mass of adults around 4 weeks of age, and later losing weight before fledging (Walk et al, 2010). At two weeks of age, the young are capable of swallowing whole mice, standing upright and walking (Walk et al, 2010). Young barn owls reach their peak mass, around day 35 and adult plumage begins to grow (Walk et al, 2010). The first flight occurs between 50-60 days; at this point, fledglings will remain near the nest whilst learning to fly and hunt (Almasi et al, 2015). Their parents still provide food for the following few weeks until they become fully independent after 80 days (Martin et al, 2011). In their first autumn, juveniles will emigrate up to 1,900 km from their nest site in search of territories of their own (Walk et al, 2010).LIFE HISTORY STRATEGYthe barn-owl demonstrates r-selected traits such as a large brood size, the capacity for more than one brood per year, the potential to nest in almost any month, and a short maturation time (Colvin 1985). The barn owls’ r-selected nature coincides with an r-selected prey base, which allows for rapid increase in number if adequate foraging habitat and suitable prey are available (Martin et al, 2011). Under favorable conditions, the barn owl’s r-selected reproductive strategy is what makes this species so widely distributed (Walk et al, 2010).MORTALITYBarn owls, unlike other owl species, have an unusually high annual mortality, which coincides with their high reproductive output (Walk et al, 2010). A wild barn owl’s lifespan averages 1.4 years; in northern temperate regions first-year mortality typically exceeds 65% (Marti et al. 1997). Marti (1997) documented that as many as 85% of adults survived no more than one breeding season. Given their short average life span, the challenge of finding a mate at such a low density may be further repressing population recruitment (Walk et al, 2010). To counter this high mortality rate, barn owls are capable of nesting at as young as 7 months and producing 2 or more broods within a single nesting season (Marti et al, 1997). When females double-brood, the second clutch is initiated 75-80 days after the first, sometimes with the young from the first clutch still inhabiting the nest. (Marti et al, 1997).COMPETITIONAs cavity nesters, barn owls encounter heavy competition for suitable nesting sites. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) will contend for nest cavities in human structures, trees, and nest boxes (Walk et al, 2010). Raccoons are also responsible for egg and nestling depredation and owls will mob mammalian predators in defense of their nests (Walk et al, 2010). Barn owls can likely evict European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) or rock pigeons (Columba livia) which often inhabit nest boxes (Walk et al, 2020).Great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) also pose a considerable threat of predation to both adults and nestlings and were responsible for the mortality of nearly half of captive released barn owls (Walk et al, 2010). When found during the daytime, crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) will often mob and harass barn owls (Walk et al, 2010).Barn owls may experience competition for voles or other prey, but it is not considered to be a limiting factor. During winter months, Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus), long-eared owls (Asio otus), and Northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), utilize the same grasslands foraging habitat as barn owls (Walk et al, 2010). Territorial disputes have been documented between captive released barn owls and long-eared owls, but have not been observed involving other species (Walk et al, 2010). POPULATION DECLINE IN NEW YORK STATE The first Breeding Bird Atlas, utilizing population data from 1980- 1985 documented barn owl residency in 126 survey blocks in New York, which represents approximately 2% of the State (NYSDEC, 2014) The second Breeding Bird Atlas, utilizing data from 2000-2005, reported occupancy in only 28 survey blocks, which is less than 1% of the state. (NYSDEC, 2014). With records all but disappearing from upstate, this data accounts for a 78% decline statewide. During this period, the costal lowlands documented a 66% decline (NYSDEC, 2014) Current new York state population is listed as declining (NYSDEC, 2014) In 2010 Canada listed the barn owl as endangered, and populations in North America are estimated to be declining at a rate of 3% per year (Hindmarch et al, 2012). AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION Overall, it is presumed that changes in land-use are most important factors affecting grassland bird abundance across the globe (NYSDEC, 2014). The intensification of farming began during the 1950’s and 1960’s, producing higher yields at the expense of natural habitat loss, simplification of the landscapes, expansion of field sizes, increased chemical inputs and loss of crop diversity; agricultural expansion is responsible for worldwide losses in biodiversity and poses an exceptionally significant threat to grassland birds (Kross, 2015). Currently, agriculture represents over 40% of global land area (Wendt et al, 2017).HABITAT LOSS AND DEGREDATIONBrennan, (2005) writes that the decline in grassland bird populations likely began “the time that John Deere's steel plow first broke prairie sod.”, It is estimated that 80% of North America’s grassland ecosystems have been lost since the mid-1800s (Brennan et al, 2005). Additionally, less than 0.1% of tallgrass prairie still remain on fertile soil (Brennan et al, 2005). The conversion of the North American grasslands to high-intensity agricultural landscapes is a significant part of the crisis facing grassland birds such as Barn owls. Concurrently, since the mid 1940’s in the northeastern US, eastward expansion has reversed as many smaller, private agricultural plots have been abandoned, returning to deciduous forest, inhospitable to grassland birds (NYSDEC, 2014). Barn owls are highly susceptible to habitat fragmentation; patch size and configuration of successional forests and croplands play a key role in barn habitat selection (Brennan et al, 2005). From 1940 to 1986, hay field area decreased from 12.6 to 7.1 million ha in 18 Northeastern states, thereby decreasing the amount of open foraging habitat available to barn owls (NYSDEC, 2014). At the same time, hay fields transitioned to alfalfa, a cover type not utilized by grassland birds, increasing its usage from 20-60% (NYSDEC, 2014). Aspects such as infrequent fire, drought, overgrazing, woody plant, and invasive grasses have further degraded agricultural habitats (Brennan et al, 2005).LOSS OF NESTING SITESThe most cited cause for barn owl declines has been the loss of nesting and roosting sites, occurring from urbanization and changing agricultural practices. As technology has advanced and agriculture has increased in scale many wooden structures and open-air barns have disappeared from the landscape or have transitioned to steel and have been screened off to prevent rock dove nesting. Rows of trees and buffers once common in small-scale agriculture have also been cut down, further degrading Barn Owl habitat (Martin et al, 2011). Temporal changes in habitat conditions may also render once-suitable nesting locations uninhabitable. In New York, hay cropping is the primary disturbance to nesting sites, the NYSDEC (2014) reports that 100% of nests affected by mowing were either abandoned or destroyed, younger nestlings faced a higher rate of mortality in the face of hay-cropping than did older nestlings. After the destruction or disturbance of a nest site, barn owls are often unable to relocate due to behavioral or physiological limitations, or because there is no longer enough time left in the nesting season to produce a second brood, therefore temporal changes in habitat may also reduce reproductive success and function as an ecological trap (Hindmarch et al, 2012). In addition, hay fields today are cropped earlier in the season than they were during the 1940s and 1950s, coinciding directly with peak breeding season (NYSDEC, 2014).AN UNSTABLE PREY BASEMaintaining stable prey populations is critical for the management of the highly productive barn owl (Colvin, 1985). Harvest activities are primarily responsible for sudden declines in small mammal populations (Martin, 2010). When selecting for nesting locations, barn owns may deem certain habitats suitable as harvesting activities have not yet taken place and therefore prey is plentiful, however when rodent populations decline following harvesting and the consequent removal of their food and cover, daily survival rate of barn owls declines as nesting locations become isolated from food resources (Martin, 2010).SECONDARY RODENTICIDE POISONINGBecause?of?their?acute?toxicity,?Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SGARs) pose a severe risk of unintentional?poisoning?to wildlife.?After?assessing scores of evidence,?the EPA?determined?that SGARs?“have?greater?potential?to?adversely affect non-target wildlife, especially birds than first generation anticoagulants” death (Center for Biological Diversity, 2014).A 23-year Canadian study identified rodenticides as the leading cause of extensive declines in grassland birds across the United States (NYSDEC, 2014). The study concluded that the correlation between lethal pesticides and population declines was nearly four times stronger than temporal changes in cropped pasture (NYSDEC, 2014). From 1971 through 1997, the NYS wildlife pathology lab documented 51 cases of secondary poisoning of wildlife in New York by SGARs— with all but two of these cases occurring within the last 8 years. Brodifacoum was linked to 80% of the instances (Stone et al, 1999). SGARs?were?developed?in?response?to?the emergence of rodent populations resistant to?first generation anticoagulant poisons such as warfarin (Center for Biological Diversity,2014). SGARs,?including?brodifacoum,?bromadiolone,?difenacoum and difethialone are?potent anticoagulants?capable of delivering a lethal dose within a single feeding, however it can take up to seven days for death do occur (Center for Biological Diversity,2014). SGARs are currently the most widespread rodenticides, they function?by?inhibiting?the?liver?from?utilizing vitamin?K?in the production of ?blood?clotting?enzymes resulting in widespread hemorrhaging (Center for Biological Diversity,2014). ?Because rodents which consume?SGARs?will?not?instantly?succumb?to?lethal?hemorrhaging,?they may feed?on?bait?over?a?several days,?amounting?a?more‐than lethal?dose?accumulating within the body,??predators?which consume these rodents ingest a dose well above the amount needed to kill (Center for Biological Diversity,2014). Shawyer (1987) documented a ‘‘mass mortality’’ at a Hampshire farm in 1981 involving red fox (Vulpes vulpes), buzzard (Buteo buteo), tawny owl (Strix aluco), and magpie (Pica pica), which ensued baiting with brodifacoum. Shawyer (1987) also documented poisonings of barn owls resulting from the use of brodifacoum and bromadiolone between 1982 and 1985. Of the 145 barn owls found dead, 10% were found to contain detectable amounts of brodifacoum (Shawyer, 1987). Stone (1999) suggests that wildlife poisonings by anticoagulants in the United States is much more prevalent than literature implies.ROAD MORTALITYroadways impact the ecology of roughly 15–20% of the United States (Boves et al, 2012). Vehicle collisions are the most common cause of direct human-induced wildlife mortality, surpassing hunting in the 1960s, vehicles kill an estimated 80 million birds annually in the US alone (Boves et al, 2012). In a study along Interstate 84 in Idaho, Boves (2012) documented barn owls to be highly susceptible to roadway mortality, outnumbering any other species killed during the study. Consistent with other findings, a greater proportion of juveniles were killed than adults (Boves, 2012). Juveniles experience this disproportionately higher mortality as they undertake natal dispersal movements, which increases the likelihood of encountering roads (Boves 2012). Barn owls may additionally utilize roadways to hunt. Boves (2012) noted that vehicles carrying grain along roadways were often left uncovered, and as a result, roadside grain spills were a frequent occurrence. This, coupled with the thermal properties of roads act as an attractant for rodents upon which barn owls feed (Boves, 2012) During winter months, roadways are often the only snow-free areas in which barn owls can hunt, as they are poorly adapted to hunting in the snow (Boves, 2012). From this study, Boves (2012) calculated a 2-year adjusted mortality rate of 2.88–5.99 owls/km/year in Southern Idaho and predicted that a mortality rate of greater that 27% of juvenile barn owls would be enough cause for population decline. In addition to road mortality, air traffic collisions are also common, JFK airport reported 113 barn owl airstrikes from 1979 to 1995 (NYSDEC, 2014)DISTURBANCE AND HARASSMENTAlthough Barn Owls are tolerate human activity near their nest sites, during the nesting season, disturbance should be kept to a minimum as owls will abandon their nest if disturbance occurs during the initial nesting period (Solymar et al, 2010). Moreover, well-meaning, but uneducated members of the public may mistake healthy fledgling birds as young that have been abandoned by their parents and remove them from the wild in attempt to either provide care themselves or bring them to a wildlife rehabilitator (Solymar et al, 2010).PROTECTIONBarn owls are currently federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which renders the “taking, killing, or possessing of any migratory bird species unlawful” (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703-712). Passed in 1918, the act states, “It is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg or any such bird, unless authorized under a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior” (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703-712). The act defines “take” as to: “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703-712).Barn owls are also listed as protected under New York State law, which states that the species “may not be hunted or taken at any time” (New York Natural Heritage Program, 2020). Barn owls have received a state conservation status rank of S1S2, listing them as critically imperiled, more information is required to assign them either an S1 or S2 ranking (New York Natural Heritage Program, 2020).ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCEAgricultural damage by rodents results in a percent yield reduction in double-digits across the globe (Kan et al, 2013). This significant damage represents the limited success of standard rodent-control techniques such as trapping, tillage, sanitation, and use of rodenticides. In addition to crop loss, rodents carry food borne pathogens which pose food safety risks (Kross et al, 2016). Use of rodenticides is often futile due to unpredictable population outbreaks, rapid colonization, and the developing resistance to certain compounds; furthermore, farmers often consider rodenticides to be too expensive (Kan et al, 2013). Research suggests that the Barn owls may offer a more cost-effective and sustainable alternative to rodenticides (Kan et al, 2013). In California, the viticulture industry produces $61.5 billion annually and serves as a vital part of the state’s economy (Tillman, 2012). Vineyards are attractive habitat to early-successional species such as the California vole (Microtus californicus) and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) which pose significant threats to grapevines through damage they inflict on developing root systems and irrigation (Tillman, 2012). These agricultural pests are estimated to cause economic losses in all crops between 5 and 11.3% (Kross et al, 2016). Utilizing pellet and nest box occupancy data in Yolo county, CA, Kross (2016) documented that of the 1,044 prey items identified in barn owl pellets in the California Central Valley, 99.5% were from species that are considered agricultural pests, and that barn owls occupied over half of available nest boxes. Comparing pellets of barn owls across 5 vineyards in North San Luis Obispo County, CA, Tillman (2012) reported that California voles amounted to 31% of total prey items found, while pocket gophers comprised 18% diet, 33% of the diet consisted of several mouse species and 18% consisted of other species. Utilizing data from alfalfa fields in Kibbutz, Israel, Kan (2013) estimated that barn owls’ pest control contributions amount to 10%, yielding a net-pro?t increase of more than $200/ha per year and demonstrating that barn owls can provide a profitable pest control service to farmers and a safer alternative to rodenticide use.SOCIOCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Due to their widespread appeal, barn Owls have become an ambassador for grassland conservation. Many people are fascinated by owls, often portrayed as wise or mystical. Owls occur prominently in American pop culture, featured in films and book series such as Harry Potter, or The Guardians of Ga’hoole. The response that raptor educational groups such as Whispering Willow Wildcare receives at public venues such as schools and libraries when a captive Barn Owl is shown, is one of awe and enthusiasm. Birdwatching is also a popular hobby among Americans, according to the findings of the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation ,more than 45 million people participate in birdwatching at and away from home (Phillips et al.) The general public exhibits a desire to aid in the conservation of migratory birds through continued annual participation in citizen-based science programs such as Nestwatch and the Breeding Bird Survey (Phillips et al.)PROMINENT THREATSAs of now, the most detrimental aspects contributing to barn owl population decline include 1) Degradation and loss of grassland habitat through agricultural intensification, and consequent reduction in prey base (Colvin 1985,) 2) The effective removal of nesting and roost sites by transition from open barns to closed, steel buildings, and the removal of trees for field expansion (Martin et al, 2011) 3) Increased rates of vehicle collision in response to increasing road density and traffic volume (Boves et al 2012) 4)) Instances of secondary poisoning through ingestion of prey items contaminated by anticoagulant rodenticides such as bromadiolone and brodifacoum (Stone et al, 1999).Goal: To protect, conserve and restore Barn owl populations and the grassland habitats on which they depend in New York State. Objective 1.) Increase nesting success by 5% per year during the first 10 years of the planAction 1.1) Using GIS technology, identify 4,000 ha of suitable habitat on private lands participating in the landowner incentive program within the first 10 years of the plan. Suitable habitat will be identified utilizing criteria found on Appendix B. Suitable habitat is represented by a suitability score of greater than 7. Suitable habitat should be identified within the counties of confirmed or probable residency; these counties include Bronx, Clinton, Delaware, Livingston, Nassau, Otsego, Queens, Richmond, Suffolk, Ulster, Warren, and Wayne (McGowan and Corwin 2008). Suitable habitat includes pastures, grasslands, hayfields, marshes, wetlands and other open grassy habitats that support an ample prey base (Walk et al, 2010). Adequate nesting sites must contain no less than 20 ha of suitable habitat (Solymar et al, 2010). Nest box sites must be located areas where ambient noise and human disturbance are kept to a minimum (Almasi et al, 2015) Nest box sites must be located a minimum of 1 km away from roadways or railways (Pringle et al, 2016).Action 1.2.) 20 nest boxes will be installed each year at identified adequate nesting sites within the first 10 years of the plan. Boxes should be erected a minimum of 12 feet from the ground facing an easterly direction towards an open area (Barn owl Box company, 2020) Boxes should be fitted with a bed of hardwood; mulch, cedar, sawdust, and wood shavings should be avoided (Barn owl Box Company, 2020). If a wooden pole is being used to mount the box, the pole should be wrapped with a 24″ piece of sheet metal, beginning at about three feet up, to act as a predator guard (Barn owl Box Company, 2020). No more than two boxes should be placed within each 20ha plot, boxes should be placed a minimum of 100 yards apart (Barn Owl Box Company, 2020).Action 1.3.) Monitor nest boxes for signs of occupancy bi-annually, once in summer and once in winter, during the full 30-year plan. Report evidence of barn owl nesting to the NYS DEC (Walk et al, 2010). Signs of occupancy include a white ring around the entrance and scratch marks produced by owls exiting and entering the box (Barn Owl Box Company, 2020). Other possible signs of use include pellets hanging from the drainage holes and whitewash on and around the box (Barn Owl Box Company, 2020).Action 1.4.) Maintain and repair deployed boxes yearly. Vacant boxes should be cleaned out using a trowel once a year during August or September (Barn Owl Box Company, 2020). During the cleaning, the box should be inspected for damage, and the appropriate repairs performed, the hinges may be oiled to prolong the boxes serviceable life (Barn owl Box company, 2020). After cleaning a new layer of fresh wood chips should be added (Barn owl Box Company, 2020). Boxes should not be cleaned if nesting owls are present (Barn Owl Box Company, 2020).No Action) The effective removal of suitable nesting and roosting sites through changing agricultural practices is a prominent contributor to the decline of barn owl populations in New York State (Martin et al, 2011). The implementation of nest boxes is the most cost-effective method of offsetting the loss of nesting sites as they can be made quickly, cheaply, and are readily adopted by barn owls (Martin et al, 2011). Without access to suitable nesting structures, barn owl reproductive output may be reduced furthermore, and exposure to temporally unstable nesting sites may increase the chances of nest abandonment (NYSDEC, 2014).Final courses of Action) Actions 1.1 will be implemented immediately, lenience will be given up to 500ha. Upon the identification of suitable habitat, actions 1.2 will be implemented on the plot. Actions 1.3 and 1.4 will be ongoing throughout the 30-year plan. ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL) Success will be measured by the number of annually occupied nest boxes, the number of nesting barn owl occurrence reports and the number of counties with nesting barn owls, and (Walk et al, 2010). Assessments will be made at the end of each year; if the number of occupied nest boxes for each year should be >25% for nesting success to increase. If nest box occupancy is >25% the implementation and management of nest boxes should continue as planned without need for reassessment for unoccupied boxes. If percent occupancy is <25%, habitat quality surrounding unoccupied nest boxes should be reassessed for suitability and positioning of boxes may be readjusted. If nest boxes remain unoccupied the following breeding season of readjustment, boxes should be moved to an area of higher scoring habitat suitability, or to an area of known occupancy. As unsuccessful boxes are reevaluated the implementation of new boxes and their monitoring should continue as planned. Objective 2.) Increase state barn owl population by 2% per year throughout the 30-year plan Action 2.1.) Maintain New York’s 8 currently state-owned grasslands in accordance with grassland bird BMPs (All Years).Grassland Bird BMPs include but are not limited to: the restriction of disturbance via planting, mowing, harvesting or utilizing any other machinery from April 23, to August 15, in accordance with the nesting season (NYSDEC, 2013).the reduction of any unnecessary noise disturbance such as the use of snow mobiles, ATVs, motorized vehicles or fireworks from November 1, to March 1, in accordance with the wintering period (NYSDEC, 2013).Mowing must be performed between August 16, and October 1 (NYSDEC, 2013).Between August 16 and November 1 of the first year of management, habitat fragmentation should be reduced by eliminating shrubs, hedgerows, and trees within property boundaries (NYSDEC, 2013).Between August 16 and November 1, for years 1-5 woody vegetation and hedgerows within and surrounding the field should be eliminated. Hedgerows fragment habitat and function as corridors for predators, thereby degrading the quality of the site for breeding (NYSDEC, 2013).Mowing should be performed as early within the mowing window as conditions allow. At least 1/3 of mowed vegetation should be left on site after each mowing to provide nesting habitat and material for birds as well as providing habitat for a stable prey base (NYSDEC, 2013).For years 1-5, if the total acreage of the field is 30 acres or more, divide into 1/3s when mowing, if field is less than 30 acres divide into 1/2s when mowing. Mow the first 1/2 or 1/3 of the grassland to a height no shorter than 8 inches. Rotate the portion mown every year (NYSDEC, 2013).If present, the following species, may require spot-mowing after August 15th of any year to control their infringement: brown or spotted knapweed, burdock, goldenrods, or pale swallow-wort, (NYSDEC, 2013)Managed grassland habitats will be assigned an annual habitat suitability score in accordance with Appendix B following the first year of management (Walk et al, 2010).Action 2.2.) Expand designated grassland focus areas by 6,000 for management in accordance with Grassland bird BMPs within the 30-year plan. Additional areas of privately owned grasslands should be managed through the landowner incentive program in accordance with grassland bird BMPs, enrollment should average 200 acres annually. Protection may also include easement, acquisition, or dedication as a or Land & Water Reserve or Nature Preserve (NYSDEC, 2013). Eligible applicants for the program must?own?at?least?25?acres?of?contiguous?grassland or shrubland?located?within?one?of?New York’s?grassland?focus?areas (NYSDEC, 2013). New York’s designated Grassland Focus areas are listed as the following: Area 1 is located in Western New York, Area 2 is located in the Southern Tier, Area 3 is located in the Finger Lakes Region, Area 4 includes portions of both the Central Leatherstocking region and the Mohawk River Valley, Area 5 is located in the St. Lawrence River Valley Area 6 includes the Ft. Edward Grasslands IBA, Area 7 includes the Shawangunk Grasslands, Area 8 is located in central Long Island and includes portions of the Long Island Pine Barrens (USDA). Grant amounts are based on the accepted acreage of habitat and enrolled in the program. 25 acres, is the minimum grant amount, paid over five years at a rate of $110/acre (NYSDEC, 2013).Fig 4. NYS Landowner Incentive program grassland focus areas, 2018Action 2.3.) Install, monitor, and maintain additional nest boxes in grassland focus areas and report evidence of barn owl nesting to the NYSDEC.No action.) The loss of grasslands, and consequent reduction in rodent populations and owl hunting opportunities is one of the most prominent threats that has led to barn owl population declines (Colvin, 1985) As grassland habitats are continually degraded by agricultural expansion resulting in fragmentation, and temporal instability, prey bases are depleted, and the quality of foraging habitat is reduced (Martin, 2011). These effects are all major contributors to barn owl population declines and barn owl populations cannot be effectively managed without suitable foraging habitat. Final Courses of Action) Actions 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 will be enacted immediately ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL) Success will be measured through the annual acreage of land enrolled in the Landowner Incentive program and the annual habitat suitability scores assigned to managed grasslands in accordance with Appendix B (Walk et al, 2010) as well as the number of annually occupied nest boxes, the number of reports of barn owl nesting activity and the number of counties with nesting barn owls (Walk et al, 2010). Should the total acreage of land designated as grassland bird habitat enrolled though the landowner incentive program fail to meet 200 acres a year, management efforts will be placed more intensively on state owned land to increase habitat suitability score to a minimum score of 7. Other programs for private land management may be reassessed and implemented in addition to the New York Landowner Incentive program including but not limited to: The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and/or The Conservation Reserve Program (NYSDEC, 2013). Objective 3.) Increase the number of monitored barn owl nest boxes on private property by 5 boxes per year within the first 10 years of the plan Action 3.1) Develop and distribute an educational pamphlet on barn owls and their conservation to New York Residents inhabiting counties of known barn owl residence (listed above) and post an electronic version to the NYSDEC’s webpage public outreach sector, as well as publishing information in the DEC’s monthly newsletter, DEC Outdoor Discovery, and the DEC’s online magazine, Conservationist (NYSDEC). (year 1) (Walk et al, 2010)Action 3.2.) Publish biennial reports on population recovery progress to the NYSDEC’s webpage public outreach sector, as well as publishing information in the NYSDEC’s monthly newsletter, DEC Outdoor Discovery, and the DEC’s online magazine, Conservationist (NYSDEC). (years 2-30) (Walk et al, 2010) Action 3.3) Engage Volunteer groups, such as scout troops, 4-H clubs, Audubon societies, and Future Farmers of America chapters, in nest box construction and monitoring. Starting in early March, groups will be responsible for visiting their assigned box on a once weekly basis to determine whether it is being used, and by what species of bird. Observations will be reported each week via email and data sheets will be filled out and filed for each group at the end of the season. Information for volunteer groups should be published in the DEC’s Citizen Participation Handbook which will provide a basic guide for what you can expect, how to get involved and how to stay informed during the project (NYSDEC). (Years 5-30) Action 3.4) Host educational programs regarding the barn owl recovery program at the DEC’s Environmental Education Centers. Programs will include information surrounding barn owl’s natural history, role in their environment, economic and environmental importance, and information regarding the recovery program as well as how to become involved. Programs may feature live captive barn owls deemed non-releasable from rehabilitation programs as a method of connecting the audience to the target species. Action 3.5) Develop and distribute a survey (Appendix C) to New York agricultural landowners and companies regarding the perceived benefits of using barn owls as a form of biological pest control. This survey will provide several opportunities for agricultural landowners to reflect on their practices and their effectivity. The survey will also provide valuable information regarding the prevalence of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in New York agriculture, as well as the current usage of barn owl nest boxes and their occupancy (Year 1).No action.) Public support is a crucial aspect in the conservation of many threatened and endangered species. Connecting the audience to the target species is crucial for fostering a sense of empathy and stewardship towards the species. A well-informed public base will be more apt to participate in nest box monitoring programs or enroll in landowner incentive programs. Without the support of the public the barn owl recovery program will be losing crucial financial support, as well as failing to foster a safer environment for nesting wild barn owlsFinal Course of Action) Actions, 3.4 and 3.6 will be enacted immediately, action 3.1 will be uploaded electronically. Action 3.2 will be enacted during the second year of the plan. Action 3.5 will not be enacted/ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL) Success will be measured though the annual number of barn owls reports from citizens, the number of nest boxes mounted annually on privately owned land, the number of annual reports of barn owls nesting on private lands as well as the number of nest boxes annually maintained and observed by volunteer groups, and the number of surveys returned to the DEC. After the first five years of the plan, should public involvement in barn owl recovery incentives have increased by no more than 10% in each category than what was projected at the beginning of the plan, The informational brochure developed in Action 3.1 may be mailed out, Action 3.5 may be implemented and other methods of community outreach may be reevaluated. Incentives for installing barn owl nest boxes on properties may be considered as well such as distributing and installing boxes to willing participants free of charge. Objective 4.) Reduce Barn Owl road mortality in New York State by 2% per year within the first 20 years of the planAction 4.1) Identify 30 zones of peak barn owl road mortality across the state for which to manage (Boves et al, 2012). Zones will be identified via ArcGIS technology using the density function and imputing data regarding population and road density as well as data regarding reported collisions (Year 1).Action 4.2) Modify peak mortality zones during years 1-10 through the implementation of mitigation strategies including but not limited to:Construct barriers or plant tall median vegetation, to discourage birds from ?ying low across the roadway (Boves et al, 2012)Install signs reducing speeding limits and alerting drivers to the presence of owls (Boves et al, 2012).plant and maintain right of way and median vegetation that is unappealing to voles and small mammals to deter owls from hunting along roadways (Boves et al, 2012)develop visual, aural or perch deterrents to lessen the appeal of medians and roadsides as foraging habitat (Boves et al, 2012)Action 4.3) Mandate all vehicles transporting grain across the state to be covered to reduce the chances of highway grain spills which attract rodents to the roadways (Boves et al, 2012). Report all grain spills to the NYSDEC and DOT. Action 4.4.) Upon instance of collision, report all barn owl mortalities the NYSDEC Final Course of Action) Actions 4.1 and 4.4 will be implemented immediately. Action 4.2, a, c, and d will be implemented following the completion of action 4.1. Action 4.3 will not be implemented. ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL) Success will be measured through the total number of areas of peak mortality managed annually for collision mitigation as well as the annual number of barn owl collisions. The number of modified areas should reach 15 by year 5 and 30 by year 10. Should the number of barn owl collisions decrease by less than 20% after the first 5 years of management actions 4.2 b may be implemented and the number of highway grain spills should be monitored to determine if this is a variable that increases probability of roadway mortality. Objective 5.) Reduce instances of all secondary wildlife killings by second generation anticoagulant rodenticides by 100% statewide Action 5.1.) Apply criteria?for?classification?as?a?restricted?use?pesticide?set?forth?by?N.Y.?Environmental ConservationLaw?§?33-0101(42)?and?6?NYCRR?§?326.1(w)?to?all?second-generation?anticoagulant?rodenticides,?including?brodifacoum,?bromadiolone,?difethialone and difenacoum and take?regulaory?action?pursuant?to?Article?33?of?the?New?York?Environmental?Conservation?Law?and?6?NYCRR Part?326?to?classify?all?Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides?as?restricted use?pesticides?and?include them on the list?of?pesticides?that?may?not?be?“sold,?distributed, purchased,?possessed,?or used?for?any?purpose?in?New?York?State”?(6?NYCRR?§?326.2(c)).Action 5.2) Through modification of USDA guidelines, encourage agricultural practices to implement safer alternatives to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides including but not limited to:Trapping methods such as electronic traps, snap traps, and?live catching trapsNon- Anticoagulant rodenticide alternatives such as Bromethalin, Zinc phosphide and CholecalciferolFirst generation Anticoagulant rodenticides such as Warfarin, Diphacinone and ChlorophacinoneNo Action.) Brodifacoum has been linked to 80% of the incidents of secondary wildlife rodenticide poisonings analyzed by the New York State Wildlife Pathology lab from 1971 – 1977 (Stone et al, 1999). Due to?their?high potency,?SGARs?pose?a?high?risk?for?unintentional?poisonings?of?wildlife, pets, and children.? Without regulation, SGARs will continue to pose a well-documented risk, not only on an ecological scale, but on an anthropocentric scale as well. Final Course of Action) Action 5.2 will be enacted immediately and action 5.1 will be brought to the New York State Legislature at the start of session with the goal of being implemented within the first 5 years of the plan. ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL) Success will be measured though the annual number of SGAR related mortalities in barn owls identified by the NYS wildlife pathology lab. These numbers should be at 0 following the implementation of action 5.1. Should these numbers be any greater than 0, legal enforcement penalizing the distribution, sale, or possession should be strengthened. Should the bill petitioning for the reclassification of SGAR’s fail to pass the NYS senate the bill will be revised to place a tax on SGAR’s to encourage the use of alternative rodenticides and rodent management techniques with the goal of being implemented within years 5-10 of the plan. Objective 6.) reduce instances of barn owl fledgling capture by 50% during the 30-year plan Action 6.1) Discourage public interference with fledglings, and educate that interference is only warranted when fledglings are in immediate and obvious danger and need to be relocated to the nearest safe location. Instruct that fledglings should be taken from the wild and brought to rehabilitators only if they are injured (Solymar et al, 2010) Information regarding what to do regarding a fledgling should be published on the DEC’s online Environmental notice bulletin along with a list of reliable state-licensed wildlife rehabilitators when services are required (NYSDEC) (all years)No Action) Fledgling birds are among the most common of wildlife “kidnapping” cases brought to state licensed rehabilitators. Their vulnerable appearance mixed with misinformation that parents will not care for them as a result of human intervention leads to numerous healthy birds being taken from the wild. Young hand-reared bird have decreased chances of return to the wild as it is difficult for birds in captivity to become proficient hunters. These animals are best left in the wild under their parents care where they can learn the necessary skills to survive. If nothing is done to better educate the public, healthy birds will continue to be taken from the wild, decreasing their chances of survival upon release, or their chances of release at all. ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL) Success will be measured through the number of healthy fledgling barn owls brought unnecessarily into licensed wildlife rehabilitators and reported to the NYS DEC. Should this number fail to decline after the first 5 years of the plan different, but more costly methods of public outreach may be considered including the mailing of informational brochures to New York State residents in counties of barn owl inhabitance. CONCLUSION With the implementation of this management plan, The New York State Barn owl is projected to grow from approximately 52 nesting pairs (McGowan 2008) to a stable population of approximately 1,200 individuals within 30 years (appendix 2). Habitat loss and instability, loss of suitable nesting sites, and high rates of road mortality and secondary rodenticide poisonings have all proven to be prominent threats to barn owl populations statewide. Through the combined use of scientific literature and models, a set of actions have been developed in accordance to these threats including the implementation of supplementary nest boxes on private and public lands, the expansion of private and public grasslands managed for grassland birds, increase in public outreach and education, highway modifications, and restricted use of SGAR’s. Through the implementation of these actions, the New York State barn owl population is projected to return to a self-sustaining and ecologically functioning level and prove, beneficial, not only to barn owls, but to other grassland birds through better habitat management and restricted use of SGARS, as well as state economy through increased agricultural outputs and food safety by reduced rodent populations, as well as increased tourism brought by the birding community seeking opportunities to see this magnificent bird in its natural habitat. ACKNOWLEGEMENTSI would like to thank Professors Jorie Favreau and Ross Conover for their aid in revision of this plan, and providing me with the knowledge needed to complete this degree, Autmn Tallant and Keith Ahrens, for their friendship and support during the difficult online portion of this project, and Joyce Perry, for introducing me to the world of wildlife rehabilitation and Raptor education and instilling in me the passion for grassland birds and their conservation.LITERATURE CITED Almasi, B., P. Béziers, A. Roulin, and L. Jenni. 2015. Agricultural land use and human presence around breeding sites increase stress-hormone levels and decrease body mass in barn owl nestlings. Oecologia 179:89–101.Altwegg, R., M. Schaub, and A. Roulin. 2007. Age‐Specific Fitness Components and Their Temporal Variation in the Barn Owl. The American Naturalist 169:47–61.Boves, T. J., and J. R. Belthoff. 2012. Roadway mortality of barn owls in Idaho, USA. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1381–1392.Brennan, L. A., and W. P. Kuvlesky. 2005. Invited Paper: North American Grassland Birds: An Unfolding Conservation Crisis? Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1–13.Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Earthjustice, New York City Audubon, Raptors are the Solution. 2014. Petition to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to Regulate Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides as Restricted Use Chemicals. 1-38. Colvin, B. A., E. B. McLean. 1986. Food Habits and Prey Specificity of the Common Barn Owl in Ohio. OHIO J. SCI. 86(1):76-80Education. 2020. Education - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. <; Accessed 30 Mar 2020.Hindmarch, S., E. A. Krebs, J. E. Elliott, and D. J. Green. 2012. Do landscape features predict the presence of barn owls in a changing agricultural landscape? Landscape and Urban Planning 107:255–262.Installation and Placement. 2017. Barn Owl Box Company. <; Accessed 30 Mar 2020.Jong, J. D. 2009. The Recovery of the Barn OwlTyto albain Friesland, Northern Netherlands: Population Growth in Relation to Landscape Features. Ardea 97:445–452.Kan, I., Y. Motro, N. Horvitz, A. Kimhi, Y. Leshem, Y. Yom-Tov, and R. Nathan. 2013. Agricultural Rodent Control Using Barn Owls: Is It Profitable? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96:733–752.Kross, S. M., R. P. Bourbour, and B. L. Martinico. 2016. Agricultural land use, barn owl diet, and vertebrate pest control implications. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 223:167–174.Marti, C. D. 1997. Lifetime reproductive success in Barn Owls near the limit of the species range. Auk 114:581-592.McGowan, K. J. 2008. The second atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca.Martin, J. M., R. N. Raid, and L. C. Branch. 2011. Barn Owl (Tyto alba). Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of FloridaMigratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703-712, 2004Mummert, D., J. Flickinger, M. Giazzon, R. Fritzky, T. Colt, and T. Hoppe. 2009. Barn Owl Conservation Initiative. Pennsylvania Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Management Project Annual Report. 1-11Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. Grassland Focus Areas | NRCS New York. <; Accessed 30 Mar 2020.News. 2020. News - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. <; Accessed 30 Mar 2020.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 2014, Species Status Assessment, , accessed 2/22/20 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 2013, Landowner?Incentive?Program?Grassland?Protection?and?Management?Pre?application instructions, Division of Fish Wildlife and Marine Resources, 1-25New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 33, Restricted Pesticides, 6 CRR-NY 326.1, 2019New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 33, Restricted Pesticides, 6 CRR-NY 326.2, 2019New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 33, Restricted Pesticides, 33-0101(42), 2019New York Natural Heritage Program. 2020. Online Conservation Guide for Tyto alba. Available from: . Accessed April 30, 2020.Phillips, T. and J. Dickenson. Tracking the Success of North America’s Breeding Birds Through Public Participation in Nestwatch. Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics 633–640Pringle, H., G. Siriwardena, and M. Toms. 2016. Informing best practice for mitigation and enhancement measures for Barn Owls. BTO Research Report 692, BTO, Thetford, UK.Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, and D. J. Ziolkowski. 2013. The North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966–2011: Summary Analysis and Species Accounts. North American Fauna 79:1–32.Restrictions on Rodenticide Products. 2017. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. <; Accessed 30 Mar 2020.Shawyer, C. R. 1987. The barn owl in the British Isles. The Hawk Trust, London, UK, 113 pp.Solymar, M. N., J. D., McCracken, J. Brownlee, A. McConnell, R. Gould. 2010. Recovery strategy for the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1-33Stone, W. B., J. C. Okoniewski, and J. R. Stedelin. 1999. Poisoning Of Wildlife With Anticoagulant Rodenticides In New York. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35:187–193.Walk, J. W., T. L. Esker, and S. A. Simpson. 1999. Continuous Nesting of Barn Owls in Illinois. The Wilson Bulletin. III(4):572-573Wendt, C. A., and M. D. Johnson. 2017. Multi-scale analysis of barn owl nest box selection on Napa Valley vineyards. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 247:75–83.APPENDIX A 30 Year Population Model for Barn Owls in New York StateBarn owl population matrix for New York State, data derived from McGowan (2008), Marti (1997), and Altwegg (2007)Stage-Based Transitional Model for Barn Owls in New York State, data derived from Marti (1997) and Altwegg (2007)Elasticity Matrix for Barn Owls in New York State, data derived from McGowan (2008), Marti (1997), and Altwegg (2007)Sensitivity Matrix for Barn Owls in New York State, data derived from McGowan (2008), Marti (1997), and Altwegg (2007)New York State Barn Owl Population Projection With implementation of Management Plan (Orange) and Without Management (Blue) 30 years after 2020. Data derived from NYSDEC (2014), McGowan (2008), Marti (1997), and Altwegg (2007)APPENDIX BNew York State Barn Owl Habitat Suitability MatrixSuggested scoring of factors affecting habitat suitability for barn owls in New York State adapted from Illinois Management plan (Walk et al, 2010). Areas scoring >7 are most likely to benefit barn owls.APPENDIX C Perceived Benefits of Barn Owls as Biological Pest Control This survey is created to interact with our stakeholders, agricultural landowners, and to gage their perceptions on the importance of barn owl research in New York state and their perceived effectivity as biological pest control. This Survey will be distributed to farms and agricultural practices across the state. While unbiased, the survey provides several opportunities for agricultural landowners to reflect on their practices and their effectivity. The survey will also provide valuable information regarding the prevalence of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in New York agriculture, as well as the current usage of barn owl nest boxes and their occupancy. Population data is sorely needed for New York State and this survey can help to provide information regarding sightings or signs of habitation.Barn Owls as Biological Rodent Control in New York State Agriculture This questionnaire is designed to assist with developing future research projects relating to barn owls as rodent predators in agricultural ecosystems. the information gathered from this survey will be used to develop future research and inform potential funding sources about grower interest1.Please tell us your farm or company name2.How long have you worked as a farmer in New York State?3.How many companies or farms have you worked for in the past?4.How many of those companies or farms have utilized barn owl nest boxes?5.How did you first hear about using barn owl nest boxes as a natural rodent control method?news articlemagazine internet sourcescientific paperother agricultural companies Barn owl Box company other 6.What methods does your farm/company use to control rodents?traps first generation anticoagulant bait (warfarin, chlorophacinone) second generation anticoagulant bait (difenacoum, brodifacoum, bromidiolone) non- anticoagulant rodenticide (bromethalin, cholecalciferol) burrow builder sound and ultrasound devices glue boards predator control- barn cats predator control- barn owls other 7.what agricultural practices does your farm/ company use?conventional organic sustainable other 8.what agricultural products does your farm/company produce?dairy cattle and calves applescorn for grainsweet corngrapes hay floriculture other 9.Does your farm/company utilize barn owl nest boxes?YesNo10.Please tell us how important you believe the following research actions arenot important at allsomewhat unimportant Neutralsomewhat important very important tracking barn owls to better understand where they huntquantifying the number of rodents removed by barn owls Finding the best habitat to erect nest boxes in so that barn owls are most likely to use themStudying factors that impact barn owl population growthUnderstanding the impacts of rodenticides on barn owls Quantifying the economic pros and cons of erecting barn owl boxes in vineyards11.Let us know the degree to which you agree with the following statementsstrongly disagree DisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly agreebarn owls are effective method at reducing rodent damage to crops on my land I am willing to place or move barn owl nest boxes to suitable nesting locations on my landSetting up barn owl nest boxes is good for the owls and contributes to positive public relations Utilizing barn owl nest boxes has a legitimate value in an integrated pest management plan to help control rodent pests12. please tell us how often you observe the followingdaily weekly monthly rarely never how often do you see barn owls on your land?how often do you signs of barn owls (dead rodents, pellets)how often do you check or clean nest boxes on your land ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download