Jeannette and I had quite a day of birding today. It began at home, with some feeder-watching. Once again, Dark-eyed Juncos (40-50) were around en mass, along with our continuing two Fox Sparrows and single Song Sparrow. Today, however, they were joined by a single American Tree Sparrow, which, quite surprisingly, was a “Yard Bird” for us. When we bought the house, the property was mature woods and lawn - nothing in between. Now, the mowed lawn area has been reduced about 75% and the up-and-coming brush is beginning to provide some good sparrow habitat. The four species of sparrows today was our highest total in the 2+ years we lived here. That’s sure to change, however.

After an hour at the Bradbury Mountain Hawkwatch (only 1 Red-shouldered Hawk and 1 Sharp-shinned Hawk), the winds had switched to the west and increased, so we headed over to Florida Lake Park for some snowshoeing. Now, I don’t mind snow in April, but to have to snowshoe into the park from the road was just ridiculous! Our effort, however, was rewarded with a nice mix of birds on the lake (which was only about 20% open): 35 American Black Ducks, 20 Mallards, 12 Hooded Mergansers, 8 Wood Ducks, 4 Ring-necked Ducks, 4 Common Goldeneye, 3 Great Blue Herons, and a pair of Canada Geese but expectedly little in the woods.

After lunch, we headed down to Scarborough Marsh as the tide was reaching its high for the day. Our goal was simply to see some of the recent arrivals. Not having birded here in a few weeks, a number of species have shown up – and have been frequently reported, but I haven’t seen them yet this year. Although I don’t keep an official “Year List,” it’s always nice to spot one’s “First of Year” individuals. This mission was a success, with my “First of Year” Great Egrets (4 at Dunstan Landing and off Eastern Rd), Snowy Egrets (2 at Dunstan Landing), Glossy Ibis (3 at Dunstan Landing and along Pine Pt Rd), Lesser Scaup (8 at Seavy’s Landing and Prout’s Pond), and Pied-billed Grebe (2 at Prout’s Pond) Plus, I saw many more Green-winged Teal (76 total) and Killdeer (18 total), than I have seen to date.

We also had quite a few great birds. These included what appears to be a hybrid Redhead (mixed with either a Ring-necked Duck or a Scaup), a “Eurasian” Green-winged Teal, a “Eurasian” x “American” Green-winged Teal hybrid, a Rough-legged Hawk, a Peregrine Falcon, and an American Coot. I posted details about these sightings – including my notes on the fascinating hybrid Redhead – to the Maine-birds listserve earlier this evening. Here’s the link to it on birdingonthe.net for those who are interested. I also strongly suggest heading down to Prout’s Pond to take a look at this Redhead mutt. It’s really a unique and beautiful bird. I've certainly never seen one. Good thing I forgot my camera today (which I am still kicking myself for!) - although that could be the reason for all of the good birds!

Switching gears now, I want to share this article sent to me by Bob Duchesne (and posted here with his permission). I think his message is critically important, as Tuesday is shaping up to be a contentious day in Augusta – and one that may have significant impacts on birds and conservation in Maine. So please take a moment to read and hear Bob’s message:

"Maine law now protects three types of significant wildlife habitat thanks to legislation passed in 2006. But those protections are coming under attack as real estate developers and property rights advocates try to roll back the new rules.

"It all started in the late 80s when Maine consolidated much of its environmental and wildlife protection into the Natural Resources Protection Act. Twenty years ago, the Department of Environmental Protection was instructed to identify and protect several specific types of habitat that were experiencing major declines due to encroaching development. These included vernal pools, shorebird staging areas, and waterfowl and wading bird nesting areas. As originally conceived, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife was ordered to map all of these habitats so that DEP could establish reasonable buffers. Unfortunately, the mapping requirement proved to be far too costly to implement and for two decades the mandate remained unmet.

"Then it slowly dawned on policy makers: why waste a lot of money mapping areas that were not likely to be developed? Why not establish a protocol for identifying critical habitat at the time new development was proposed, and then work out rules for consulting with DEP to avoid or minimize adverse impacts? So that's what the Legislature did. The new rules set a standard for identifying which vernal pools are truly significant and required consultation with DEP if development was to occur within 250 feet of one. The rules did not actually prevent development. They just required a more cautious and disciplined approach. The rules also set a 250 foot buffer zone around significant shorebird areas and waterfowl nesting areas. Once again, development in these zones is not excluded. The law merely requires a permit and a site evaluation if detrimental encroachment can not be avoided otherwise. This common sense approach was approved almost unanimously by the Legislature.

"However, opponents got their foot in the door when controversy began to brew in Washington County. It turns out that a large proportion of North America's shorebirds funnel through the Downeast mudflats every year where they are especially vulnerable to human disturbance. Many of these mudflats and salt marshes are extensive, and the new 250 foot setbacks raised howls of protest. Real estate and development lobbyists quickly seized the opportunity to try and roll back protections for all habitats throughout the state. On Tuesday, April 10, the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee will hear a handful of bills that seek to decrease or remove the buffer areas altogether, thus defeating two decades of work on reasonable protections for significant wildlife habitat.

"Not all the bills are detrimental; some will explore compromise. Additional work has been done over the last year to figure out if some of the buffer zones can be reduced without significant harm. For vernal pools and waterfowl habitat, the answer appears to be "no." Scientists and policymakers also remain firm in their belief that shorebird roosting areas are too sensitive to withstand compromise. Besides, in Washington County, many roosting areas are on islands, spits, and salt marshes where they are naturally buffered from development anyway, or are already protected by public ownership or land trusts. From Rockland to Kittery, shorebird habitat is found less on mudflats and more on salt marshes such as Weskeag and Scarborough Marshes and in beach areas already buffered by laws protecting sand dunes. The committee will reconsider whether shorebirds need as much buffer on their feeding areas where they have more discretion to move around and avoid disturbance. Any compromise on buffers for feeding areas would make minimal difference to the southern half of the state while recognizing the true impact on the northern coast.

"For those who believe that significant wildlife habitat needs protection, it is crucial to attend the hearings on Tuesday, April 10th and voice those concerns. It is certain that lobbyists and property rights advocates will attend in force, trying to intimidate the Legislature into back peddling on habitat protection. The hearings will begin at 1pm in Room 214 of the Cross Office Building next to the State House.

"Incidentally, for those reading this article after April 10th, stay tuned. Historically, whenever changes occur to land use laws in response to genuinely recognized problems, a portion of the population adapts quickly. Others are just naturally slower to change unwise habits. The issue will likely remain controversial for some time to come."