South Puget Sound and Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Pigeon Guillemot Breeding Surveys DRAFT Monitoring Report

Transcription

1 South Puget Sound and Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Pigeon Guillemot Breeding Surveys Prepared for: Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Citizen Stewardship Committee Prepared By: Terence Lee Nisqually Reach Nature Center November 2018

2 1 Publication Information This monitoring report describes the research and monitoring study of pigeon guillemot breeding surveys conducted in the summers of in South Puget Sound including the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve. This project has been funded wholly or in part by National Estuary Program (NEP) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under assistance agreement # PC-00J90701 through the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report will be available at: Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Aquatic Reserves website as well as the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve (NRAR) webpage found at and on the Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC) website Author and Contact Information Terence Lee Scientific Technician Nisqually Reach Nature Center 4949 D Milluhr Dr NE Olympia, WA terencelee@nisquallyestuary.org Reviewed by: Daniel Hull Executive Director Nisqually Reach Nature Center nrnc@nisquallyestuary.org

3 2 Acknowledgements The protocols and procedures are derived from the work of the Whidbey Island Pigeon Guillemot Research Group (currently known as the Guillemot Research Group). We thank them for their guidance and collaboration. In particular, we thank Frances Wood and Govinda Rosling for their assistance. We also thank our partner Scott Pearson at the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for continual guidance on refining protocol and procedures. We thank Dr. Sarah Converse of University of Washington/Washington Fish & Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit for her advice on refining the data sheet to make it more statistically robust. Surveys, data entry, quality control, and report writing were made possible by an amazing group of interns and volunteers. The following interns have helped immensely: Spencer Johnson, Alison Flury, Karla Kelly, Rachel Hardin, Adam Green, Robin Bazan, Alex Durney, William Wiskes, Keith Adams, Justin Brown, Emily Wilke, and Emily Cain. Editorial assistance was provided by volunteer Judy Murphy and Daniel Hull, Executive Director, Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Volunteer Anne Mills who founded this project continued to provide instrumental assistance with volunteer recruitment, training, and coordination as well as conducting surveys, performing quality control, and data analysis. Financial support via a grant from the Rose Foundation has been critical for supporting the citizen science programs of the Nisqually Reach Nature Center. Surveys were conducted with trained citizen science volunteers. We would like to recognize the efforts of the following individuals who aided us between 2016 and 2018: Colleen Allender Stu Atwood Sharon Bergquist-Moody Erika Bowers Justin Brown Brienna Brownawell Michele Burton Peggy Butler Susan Campbell Cindy Coble Leslie Cushman Leslie Demich Alex Durney Cindy Eaton Eva Fitz Alison Flury Jawad Frangieh Woody Franzen Robin Bazan Raegan Goff Joy Gold Jeniphr Grant Adam Green Gail Griswold Jane Groppenberger Matthew Haney Rachel Hardin Diane Haslund Jack Havens Lianne Heckman Kristina Hill Delena Holcer Katitza Holthaus Riley Hoyle-Dodson Juli Hoza Sue Huseby Ann Ingham Bob Ingham Nikki Johnson Spencer Johnson Wendy Johnson Elinor Jordan Angela Kaurin Shelly Kaurin Karla Kelly Sally Kirouac Lisa Knorowski Laura Koerber Laura Kraig Ann Lamb Rocky Lamb Ben Lamirand Matt Lamirand Zack Lamirand

4 3 Jeffrey Lee Bill Langford Carol Langford Wendy Lippmann Meloy Mayer Judy McGinty Jeanne McGoldrick Dawn McHugh Connor McNutt Merry McNutt Mike Melton Nora Mena Mikeline Meurs Hal Michael Pam Michael Pat Michael Anne Mills Bonnie Mills Bobbie Moody Paul Moody Matthew Morassutti Susan Morgan Judy Murphy Bianca Olds Judy Olsen Carol Paschal Deborah Petersen Kathy Prosser Rudy Prosser Judy Pust Mike Raitt Edith Rice Maria Ruth Sue Salo Melody Saminski Pamela Saminski Tracey Scalici Saima Scott Toby Seiler Leslie Sikora Larry Siminski Suzanne Simons Ross Skinner Ursula Smircich Brad Smith Cathy Smith Gary Squires Bert Stevens Cathy Tarabulski Beverly Thompson Jozi Tolle Susie Vanderburg Vicki Voss Lois Ward Lesley Williardson Jim Witte

5 4 Table of Contents Publication Information 1 Author and Contact Information 1 Acknowledgements 2 Table of Contents 4 Figures, Tables, Photos, and Appendices 5 Figures 6 Tables 6 Photos 6 Appendices 6 Abstract 7 Introduction 7 Project Background 7 Reserve Background 8 Goals and Objectives 9 Methods 10 General Description 10 Citizen Science Training 11 Field Data Collection 11 Survey Site Locations 12 Results and Discussion 16 General Results Results 16

6 Discussion Results Discussion Results Discussion 28 General Discussion 29 Recommendations and Improvements 30 Implemented Recommendations from Year 4 (2016), Year 5 (2017), and Year 6 (2018) 30 Future Improvements and Developments 33 Possible Future Uses of this Data 33 References 34 Appendix A: Data Sheet 35 Appendix B: Data Collection Protocols Used 37 Appendix C: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 39

7 6 Figures, Tables, Photos, and Appendices Figures Figure 1: Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve and surrounding areas map. Figure 2: Map of South Sound Pigeon Guillemot breeding survey colony locations. Figure 3: Typical survey site; exposed sedimentary bluff with moderate sized holes preferred by PIGU (photo). Figure 4: Prey composition of deliveries to chicks Figure 5: Prey composition of deliveries to chicks Figure 6: Prey composition of deliveries to chicks Figure 7. Prey composition percentages by year. Figure 8. Highest number of PIGU at sites monitored for all three reported study years. Tables Table 1: Sites monitored for Table 2: Survey sites and active burrows Table 3: Observed fish deliveries at each site Table 4: Survey sites and active burrows Table 5: Observed fish deliveries at each site Table 6: Survey sites and active burrows Table 7: Observed fish deliveries at each site Photos Cover - Rosling, G., nd. Pigeon Guillemot on rock. Figure 3 - NRAR, nd. Typical survey site; exposed sedimentary bluff with moderate sized holes preferred by PIGU. Appendices Appendix A: Data Sheets Appendix B: Data Collection Protocols Used Appendix C: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

8 7 Abstract South Puget Sound and Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Pigeon Guillemot Breeding Surveys Monitoring Report The Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Citizen Stewardship Committee conducted pigeon guillemot surveys beginning in 2013 through 2018 in South Puget Sound including the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve to document number of adults observed, burrow occupancy, chick feeding, disturbances, and seasonal changes at 54 sites. Each week from June through September for an hour at a time, the highest number of pigeon guillemots (PIGU) were counted at each site along with burrow visits, fish deliveries, and disturbances. Methods were adapted from those used by the Guillemot Research Group, formerly the Whidbey Island Pigeon Guillemot Research Group. The purpose of the monitoring is to collect baseline data for South Puget Sound as part of a larger regional effort to detect trends and changes in PIGU populations. Introduction Project Background The Pigeon Guillemot (PIGU) is an Alcid breeding widely in Puget Sound. PIGU are inch black seabirds with a white wing patch containing with a black slash and red feet and mouth lining. The Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) Puget Sound Environmental Monitoring Program (PSEMP) Marine Birds Workgroup selected the Pigeon Guillemot as a vital sign species because these birds are Puget Sound dependent throughout the year. Pigeon Guillemots are one of the key marine bird indicators in Puget Sound; the vitality of their population can serve as a measure of environmental health, biodiversity, habitat condition, and climate change (Pearson and Hamel, 2013). Pigeon Guillemots are common in the waters of the NRAR during the summer breeding season and forage in nearshore waters. Past and current studies have also identified the presence of Pigeon Guillemots throughout the Sound in the fall, winter and spring seasons (Nysewander, et al, 2005; Puget Sound Seabird Survey, 2018). They are burow nesters and utilize high bluffs along the shoreline. A previous study of Pigeon Guillemot breeding colonies and populations indicated a strong preference towards sand/clay bluffs as nesting habitat (Evenson et al., 2003). Populations in South Puget Sound were found to be relatively stable over time, but smaller on average as compared to other marine waters in Washington. Breeding and non-breeding Pigeon Guillemots mingle as a group on the water, on the beach, and on the bluffs near the burrows. The birds show strong social interactions including vocalizing, synchronized flying, billing, and mating. Both male and female birds incubate eggs and care for chicks. Chicks typically hatch in late June and fledge in August.

9 8 This pigeon guillemot survey project is intended to establish a baseline for detecting changes and trends. Acquired baseline data can be used for natural resource damage assessment, natural resource management, and protection of critical habitats and protected species. Reserve Background The Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve (NRAR) is part of the WDNR Aquatic Reserves Program. It is designated as an educational, environmental, and scientific reserve. Educational reserves are accessible areas of aquatic lands typical of selected habitat types which are suitable for educational projects. Environmental reserves are areas of environmental importance, sites established for the continuance of environmental baseline monitoring, and/or areas of historical, geological or biological interest requiring special protective management. Scientific reserves are sites set aside for scientific research projects and/or areas of unusually rich plant and animal communities suitable for continuing scientific observation (WDNR, 2011). The NRAR encompasses approximately 14,826 acres (6,000 hectares) of state-owned and DNR-managed tidelands and bedlands. The ownership of adjacent lands is diverse: Tolmie State Park, the Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, local park districts, and private, tribal, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), military, city, and county lands. There are nearly 39 miles (63 km) of shoreline adjacent to the reserve, the majority being privately owned. The NRAR area is shown in Figure 1.

10 9 Figure 1: Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve and surrounding areas map. (Source, WDNR, 2011) Goals and Objectives

11 10 The goals of the pigeon guillemot breeding surveys in South Puget Sound, near the NRAR, are to: 1) Provide a baseline for detecting changes and trends in local pigeon guillemot populations. 2) Create a dataset of: The number of Pigeon Guillemot breeding sites throughout South Puget Sound. The number of active burrows. Total breeding population within the area. Prey type delivered to chicks. Time of fish deliveries and burrow visits. Nesting disturbances. 3) Continue vital monitoring efforts by educating and training volunteers to monitor Pigeon Guillemot breeding sites. In order to accomplish the goals above, the following objectives are necessary to be accomplished: Train and retain a team of volunteers to identify and monitor active breeding burrows of Pigeon Guillemots. Record weekly observations of Pigeon Guillemot behaviour during the breeding season at 30 or more sites. Distribute data and results to appropriate local and state agencies and the public, via website and other outreach, such as presentations to community groups. Data collected during this study is also intended to be applied to natural resource damage assessment in the event of an oil spill or other anthropogenic catastrophe, and used for aquatic reserve management. Methods General Description This project documents Pigeon Guillemot breeding ecology at colonies throughout South Puget Sound. Monitoring methods were based on those established by the Guillemot Research Group, formerly Whidbey Island Pigeon Guillemot Research Group. These modifications were made to facilitate uniform data collection, while retaining key elements to ensure that this monitoring was comparable to other pigeon guillemot breeding surveys. Monitoring uses scientifically and statistically sound methods to ensure that data are comparable across monitoring sites, other similar monitoring studies, and monitoring years. The protocols used for this project are detailed in the QAPP. Quality assurance and quality control measures are implemented in all project steps. Breeding surveys were conducted weekly for one hour by 9 am at each site. Data collected includes: high number of PIGU counted during the survey hour high number of PIGU at beginning, middle and end of the survey hour time and number of burrow visits both with and without prey type of prey delivered

12 11 disturbances to PIGU present weather conditions and general tide level names and contact of volunteers and number of volunteer hours Citizen Science Training Since inception of this project, the Nisqually Reach Nature Center provided training for volunteers from Thurston County. Similar trainings have also been held in Pierce (Anderson Island) and Mason (Harstine Island) Counties as well. To date 110 volunteers have received training in the classroom, field, or both. Classroom sessions lasted an average of four hours. Training included background information about pigeon guillemots, breeding habitat, data collection, and data entry. Field orientations have also been provided to show volunteers the location of sites and associated burrows as well as to provide further explanations on the finer details of conducting surveys. Field Data Collection From June through August, one hour surveys are conducted weekly at each site for at least 10 consecutive weeks. The survey schedule differs slightly from that of the Guillemot Research Group starting the first full week of June to account for early activity at some sites. Various factors can lead to less than the minimum number of surveys conducted including: early breeding, inactivity, or lack of volunteers. Three types of data were collected: 1. Population data - Counts of PIGU are taken at the beginning of the survey, at the middle, and at the end. Throughout the survey hour, a tally of the highest number of birds observed at a given point in time is recorded. This may or may not coincide with one of the three counts. Emphasis is placed on counting only birds that are associating with the site being monitored. 2. Burrow data - Times when birds enter or leave burrows are recorded as are fish deliveries. Fish are identified to general types (gunnel, sculpin, other) with times for each type recorded separately. All times are segregated by burrow number. 3. Disturbance data - Events that can cause unnatural changes in behavior are categorized by type and duration. Start and end times for each event are recorded as applicable. The field data sheet and the protocol used may be found in the Appendices A and B. Field data is then entered online by volunteers at: Surveys are conducted primarily from shore with the exception of sites on Ketron Island, which are only accessible by boat. Visual observations of birds and burrow activity are typically augmented by the use of binoculars and/or spotting scopes (exclusive to non-breeding surveys). In order to minimize disturbance and influence on the PIGUs, volunteers typically sit off to the side, positioned in such a manner that it is possible to simultaneously monitor all the burrows and activity on the water.

13 12 Survey Site Locations Altogether, 57 sites were selected for monitoring. Not all sites were surveyed each year and not all sites were completely surveyed each year. Sites were chosen by conducting site visits and making visual observations of birds in the immediate vicinity of burrows, birds visiting burrows, or fish deliveries. Sites are typically characterized by high banks with exposed faces pockmarked with burrows of varying sizes. The smallest burrows are used by swallows while kingfishers use medium small burrows with PIGUs using medium to large burrows. Table 1 shows survey efforts across the three years and the total number of survey locations monitored each year. Figure 2: Map of South Sound Pigeon Guillemot breeding survey colony locations (Lee, 2018).

14 13 Figure 3: Typical survey site; exposed sedimentary bluff with moderate sized holes preferred by PIGU (NRAR, nd). Table 1: Sites monitored for (data extracted from annual reports at ). Site Name Andy s Marine Park South X* Andy s Marine Park West X** Beachcrest East X* Beachcrest West X X X Big Fish Trap X X X Briscoe Point X X X Burfoot Park X X X Burfoot - Extended X* X Butterball Cove South A X X X

15 14 Butterball North X** X Cole Point X Edgewater A X* Edgewater B X* Edgewater C X* Edgewater D X* Fern Creek X* Flapjack X X X Flapjack - Extended X* Gull Harbor X* X Harstine Pointe Lagoon X* Hearthfire X* X Higgins Cove X X X Hope Island NE X* Jarrell Cove State Park X* Ketron Ferry X X Ketron SE X** X Ketron SW X X Lyle Point X X X Mill Bight A X X X Mill Bight B X X X Mill Bight B - Extended X* X Mill Bight C X X X Priest Point Park X* X Sandy Point X* Elizan A Tower X* Elizan A North X X X Elizan A South X** X Elizan B X X Elizan C X X Totten@Legacy X X X Walnut Rd A X X X Walnut Rd A - Extended X* Walnut Rd B X X X Walnut Rd C X X X Young's Cove A X X X Young's Cove A West X*

16 15 Young's Cove B X X X Young's Cove C X X X Young's Cove D X X X Young's Cove E X X X Young's Cove F X X X Zangle Cove A X X X Zangle Cove B X* X X Zangle Cove C X* X Zittels Marina X Total Notes: * A new site beginning in the respective year. ** A site which skipped one year from previous monitoring and then reactivated.

17 16 Results and Discussion Results and discussion for each season are presented below with each separated by year, starting with Results for survey dates, status and number of active burrows and highest PIGU count are shown in Table 2 (2016), Table 4 (2017) and Table 6 (2018). Observed fish deliveries are shown in Table 3, (2016), Table 5 (2017), and Table 7 (2018). Graphs showing percentage of prey type are found in Figure 4 (2016), Figure 5 (2017), and Figure 6 (2017). General Results Data collection during years 4-6 was inconsistent for a variety of reasons such as lack of volunteers, access, tides, or weather. Explanation for derivation of totals in Tables 2, 4, and 6: Determination of the high count was made by accounting for potential overlap between nearby colonies as well as sites without sufficient data. High counts at colonies comprised of multiple sites were determined by using the greatest of the high counts from all the sites within each colony. This estimate may still be on the liberal end, as PIGUs included in high counts were not always associated with the site for which they were counted. Adjustments were made for colonies with sites where double counting likely occurred. At colonies with sites immediately adjacent to one another, such as Walnut Rd. where the entire colony is only 300 feet long, volunteers each counted all birds at the colony. Therefore, we used the highest count at only that site, and did not include high counts from the other sites. In this case, the count for either A or B was used. For the Butterball Cove colony, only the higher count of the two sites (north and south) is used. Birds overlap and there are no clear landmarks to delineate boundaries between sites. Volunteers are counting all visible birds in the entire colony. At Young's Cove A, Young s Cove A West, and B, volunteers observed birds that spent some time in B, seemed to focus their interest in Site A. Birds were frequently passing through B to A. Site A was the only one with burrow activity, so counts for this site were used. At Young's Cove C and D, birds typically congregate together and move between site, so that it is extremely difficult to separate the birds into two distinct groups. Again, we used the highest count of the two sites. Other areas of the Young s Cove colony including E and F as well as Flapjack, an adjacent colony were not combined and so birds for each individual site were used. At Zangle Cove, the same group of birds moved continually between A, B and C. We used highest count of the three sites. All high counts were excluded from the adjusted total for sites which had insufficient data (less than five surveys).

18 Results Table 2: Survey sites and active burrows Location SiteCode Survey Dates Status of Site Active Burrows Highest Bird Count Beachcrest BeCr 6/08-8/10/16 Inactive 0 18 Big Fishtrap A BiFiA 6/12-8/12/16 Active 2 12 Briscoe Point BrPt 6/11-8/31/16 Active 8 24 Burfoot Park BurPk 6/07-8/16/16 Active 4 13 Butterball Cove South BubaS 6/11-9/09/16 Active 6 20 Cole Point E CoPtEAI 6/07-8/16/16 Active 3 19 Flapjack Point FlJaA 7/01-8/19/16 Active 3 14 Gull Harbor GuHa 6/24/-8/11/16 Active 5 18 Harstine Pointe Lagoon HaPtLa 6/11-7/10/16 Inactive 0 3 Higgins Cove HiCoAI 6/11-8/12/16 Active 2 20 Ketron Ferry Ketfer 8/21-9/02/16 Inactive 0 9 Lyle Point LyPtAI 6/12-8/24/16 Active 4 28 Mill Bight A MilBtA 6/10-8/30/16 Active 2 12 Mill Bight B MilBtB 6/10-8/30/16 Active 2 15 Mill Bight C MilBtC 6/10-8/16/16 Inactive 0 7 Elizan A TotElzA 6/25-9/03/16 Active 1 5 Elizan C TotElzC 6/10-8/09/16 Active 1 6 Legacy LegSh 6/10-8/09/16 Active 1 6 Walnut Rd A WalRdA 7/01-7/18/16 Inactive 0 14 Walnut Rd B WalRdB 6/29-7/13/16 Active 2 12* Walnut Rd C WalRdC 7/03-7/19/16 Active 1 14* Young's Cove A YoCoA 6/10-8/18/16 Active 3 11 Young's Cove B YoCoB 6/10-8/19/16 Active 1 9 Young's Cove C YoCoC 6/10-8/18/16 Active 1 9 Young's Cove D YoCoD 6/10-8/18/16 Active 2 10 Young's Cove E YoCoE 6/10-8/02/16 Active 2 12 Young s Cove F YoCoF 6/10-8/12/16 Active 1 8 Zangle Cove ZaCoE 6/01-8/25/16 Active 1 9 Zittels Marina ZiMa 6/12-8/19/16 Inactive 0 6 Raw Totals Adjusted Totals 337** Notes: * Birds observed at this site are included in a colony total in another row. Indicates a colony with multiple sites for which the highest bird count is used.

19 18 ** An adjusted estimate of 337 birds accounts for overlap and duplication in volunteer bird count reported from colonies with sites in close proximity. Table 3: Observed fish deliveries at each site Location Gunnel Sculpin Other Date of First Date of Last prey Fish Delivery Fish Delivery Beachcrest Big Fishtrap A Briscoe Point /11/16 7/09/16 Burfoot Park /21/16 7/19/16 Butterball Cove South A /25/16 9/02/16 Cole Point E /15/16 7/13/16 Flapjack Beach /01/16 7/28/16 Gull Harbor /05/16 7/10/16 Harstine Pointe Lagoon Higgins Cove /08/16 7/29/16 Ketron Ferry Lyle Point /03/16 7/27/16 Mill Bight A /28/16 7/19/16 Mill Bight B /26/16 8/09/16 Mill Bight C Elizan A /19/16 8/19/16 Elizan B Elizan C /10/16 6/28/16 Legacy /28/16 7/19/16 Walnut Rd A Walnut Rd B /13/16 7/13/16 Walnut Rd C /03/16 7/19/16 Young's Cove A /22/16 8/02/16 Young's Cove B /10/16 6/22/16 Young's Cove C /17/16 7/15/16 Young's Cove D /06/16 7/15/16 Young's Cove E /25/16 7/28/16 Young s Cove F Zangle Cove /16/16 7/15/16 Zittel s Marina Totals /10/16 9/02/16

20 19 Figure 4: Prey composition of deliveries to chicks Discussion Monitoring efforts continued to build toward achieving the goals and objectives of this project in this fourth season. In the 2016 study, major progress was made toward achieving the first goal, to create a dataset for the number of breeding sites, the number of breeding pairs, and an estimate of the total population size. Three new sites (not monitored in 2015, see Table 1) were documented in 2016 as Gull Harbor, Harstine Point Lagoon, and Zangle Cove B. Six sites from 2015 were not monitored in 2016: Amsterdam Bay, Butterball North, Compass Rock, Ketron SE, and Elizan A South. The annual total of Pigeon Guillemots observed decreased by 14% (from 392 birds in 2015 to 337 birds in 2016, see Table 2). The value of 337 birds was adjusted from the original total of 363 to more accurately reflect the high bird count without duplication or overlap from colonies with sites in close proximity. The number of active burrows (reflecting the number of breeding pairs) also decreased by 14% (from 67 burrows in 2015 to 58 in 2016). Gunnels represented nearly two thirds of the observed fish deliveries, with sculpins accounting for just over a quarter and other types of fish rounding out the total.

21 Results Table 4: Survey sites and active burrows Location Site Code Survey Dates Status of Site Active Burrows Highest Bird Count Andy's Marine Park South AMPS 6/06-9/10/17 Active 3 21* Andy's Marine Park West AMPW 6/06-8/15/17 Active 1 17* Beachcrest BeCr 7/24-8/23/17 Active 1 14 Big Fishtrap A BiFiA 6/06-8/16/17 Inactive 0 6 Briscoe Point BrPt 6/11-8/13/17 Active Burfoot Park BurPk 6/06-8/15/17 Active 5 14 Butterball Cove South BubaS 6/10-8/26/17 Active 4 27* Butterball North BubaN 6/04-9/26/17 Active 4 17* Flapjack FlJa 6/09-8/13/17 Active 4 16 Gull Harbor GuHa 6/13-8/11/17 Active 3 16 Hearthfire HeFi 6/09-8/11/17 Inactive 0 8 Higgins Cove HiCoAI 6/07-7/20/17 Active 1 12 Hope Island NE HIslNE 6/03-7/23/17 Inactive 0 3 Jarrell Cove State Park JaCoSP 6/12-6/20/17 Active 4*** 4*** Ketron Ferry Ketfer 6/09-8/22/17 Inactive 0*** 24*** Ketron SE KetSE 6/02-7/17/17 Active 3 16 Ketron SW KetSW 6/02-7/17/17 Active 6 32 Lyle Point LyPtAI 6/18-8/17/17 Active 4 17 Mill Bight A MilBtA 6/05-8/24/17 Active 1 16 Mill Bight B MilBtB 6/05-8/17/17 Active 2 26 Mill Bight C MilBtC 6/29-8/13/17 Inactive 0 3 Priest Point Park PrPtPk 6/24-7/15/17 Inactive 0*** 3*** Sandy Point SdyPt 6/08-9/09/17 Active 3 22 Elizan A Tower TotElzAT 7/20-8/24/17 Active 1 7 Elizan A North TotElzAN 6/08-8/24/17 Inactive 0 4 Elizan A South TotElzAS 8/17-8/24/17 Inactive 0*** 2*** B TotElzB 6/08-7/26/17 Inactive 0 3 Elizan C TotElzC 6/08-7/19/17 Inactive 0 3

22 21 TotElzLg 6/08-8/14/17 Active 2 4 Walnut Rd A WalRdA 6/19-8/22/17 Active 3 32* Walnut Rd B WalRdB 6/08-8/22/17 Active 3 31* Walnut Rd C WalRdC 6/08-8/16/17 Active 1 31* Young's Cove A YoCoA 6/09-8/13/17 Active 2 9 Young's Cove B YoCoB 6/09-8/04/17 Active 1 6 Young's Cove C YocoC 6/06-8/16/17 Active 1 8 Young s Cove D YocoD 6/06-8/08/17 Active 2 10 Young s Cove E YocoE 6/09-8/04/17 Active 2 14 Young s Cove F YocoF 6/09-8/04/17 Active 1 5 Zangle Cove A ZaCoA 6/05-9/14/17 Active 1 6 Zangle Cove B ZaCoB 6/18-8/20/17 Inactive 0 5 Total **Adjusted Total Notes: * Birds observed at this site are included in a colony total in another row. Indicates a colony with multiple sites for which the highest bird count is used. ** An adjusted estimate of 359 birds accounts for overlap and duplication in volunteer bird count reported from colonies with sites in close proximity to one another. *** Excluded due to insufficient data (i.e. less than 5 surveys conducted during the breeding season). Table 5: Observed fish deliveries at each site Location Gunnel Sculpin Other prey Date of First Fish Delivery Date of Last Fish Delivery Andy's Marine Park South /01/17 8/12/17 Andy's Marine Park West /11/17 7/25/17 Beachcrest /24/17 8/09/17 Big Fishtrap A Briscoe Point /02/17 7/22/17 Burfoot Park /13/17 7/25/17 Butterball Cove South /08/17 8/12/17

23 22 Butterball North /02/17 9/14/17 Flapjack /23/17 7/14/17 Gull Harbor /13/17 8/06/17 Hearthfire Higgins Cove Hope Island NE Jarrell Cove State Park Ketron Ferry Ketron SE /05/17 7/17/17 Ketron SW /12/17 7/17/17 Lyle Point /15/17 7/20/17 Mill Bight A /08/17 8/04/17 Mill Bight B /29/17 8/13/17 Mill Bight C Priest Point Park Sandy Point /23/17 8/11/17 Elizan A Tower /26/17 7/26/17 Elizan A North Elizan A South B Elizan C /06/17 8/04/17 Walnut Rd A /10/17 8/07/17 Walnut Rd B /28/17 7/28/17 Walnut Rd C /07/17 7/07/17 Young's Cove A /14/17 7/28/17

24 23 Young's Cove B Young's Cove C /14/17 8/01/17 Young s Cove D Young s Cove E /16/17 7/16/17 Young s Cove F Zangle Cove A /31/17 8/30/17 Zangle Cove B Total /13/17 9/14/ Discussion Figure 5: Prey composition of deliveries to chicks In the 2017 season, major progress was made toward expanding the South Puget Sound Pigeon Guillemot dataset. New sites added to the 2017 study included Andy s Marine Park South, Burfoot - Extended, Hearthfire, Hope Island NE, Jarrell Cove State Park, Mill Blight B - Extended, Priest Point Park, Sandy Point, Elizan A Tower, and Zangle Cove C. Surveys were conducted at 43 sites by 76 volunteers. Five previously surveyed sites were not surveyed this year: Amsterdam Bay, Cole Point, Compass Rock, Harstine Pointe Lagoon, and Zittels Marina. Harstine Pointe Lagoon and Zittels Marina did not have active burrows. The total number of Pigeon Guillemots observed increased by 73 individuals (from 336 birds in 2016 to 359 birds in 2017). This represents a 20% increase, which can be partially attributed to an increase in the number of sites surveyed. The value of 359 birds was adjusted from the original total of 532 to more

25 24 accurately reflect the high bird count without duplication or overlap from colonies with sites in close proximity. The number of active burrows, which reflects the number of breeding pairs, increased from 58 to 75 between 2016 and 2017; a 29% increase. The 2017 prey composition, shown in Figure 5, consisted of 71.0% gunnels, 22.5% sculpin, and 6.5% other fish. Other fish included, but were not limited to, perch, cod, ratfish, or in some instances fish that were observed but could not be identified. A fish was classified as unknown when birds were too distant or the prey delivery occurred so quickly that it was not possible to clearly see what kind of fish was delivered to the burrow. While striking in terms of magnitude, the ratio of gunnel to sculpin was within the normal range. Compared to the previous year, the percentage of gunnels increased, while percentages of sculpins and other fish decreased.

26 Results Table 6: Survey sites and active burrows Location Site Code Survey Dates Status of Site Active Burrows Highest Bird Count Beachcrest West BeCrW 6/07-8/21/18 Active 2 19 Beachcrest East Be CrE 7/30-8/15/18 Active 1*** 9*** Big FishtrapA BiFiA 6/05-8/07/18 Active 1 16 Briscoe Point BrPt 6/09-8/19/18 Active 8 19 Burfoot Park BurPk 6/05-9/19/18 Active 5 10 Butterball Cove South BubaS 6/07-8/19/18 Active 6 33* Butterball North BubaN 6/06-8/08/18 Inactive 0 16* Edgewater A EdgeA 6/06-8/14/18 Active 1 12 Edgewater B EdgeB 6/07-8/23/18 Active 4 26 Edgewater C EdgeC 6/07-8/08/18 Active 1 12 Edgewater D EdgeD 6/07-8/09/18 Active 1 7 Flapjack Point FlJa 6/06-8/15/18 Active 4 15 Hearthfire HeFi 6/07-8/12/18 Inactive 0 3 Higgins Cove HiCoAI 6/07-8/02/18 Active 1 5 Ketron SE KetSE 6/14-6/14/18 Inactive 0*** 10*** Lyle Point LyPtAI 6/08-8/16/18 Active 5 27 Mill Bight A MilBtA 6/08-8/17/18 Active 2 24 Mill Bight B MilBtB 6/08-8/23/18 Active 2 18 Mill Bight C MilBtC 7/12-7/12/18 Inactive 0*** 3*** Priest Point Park PrPtPk 6/06-8/11/18 Inactive 0 0 Elizan A North TotElzAN 6/07-8/09/18 Inactive 0*** 4*** TotElzLg 6/27-8/19/18 Active 2 5 Walnut Rd A WalRdA 6/06-8/11/18 Active 1 41 Walnut Rd B WalRdB 6/06-8/17/18 Active 3 28* Walnut Rd C WalRdC 6/06-8/17/18 Inactive 0 28* Young's Cove A YoCoA 6/08-9/08/18 Active 2 10 Young s Cove A West YoCoAW 6/22-8/08/18 Inactive 0 8 Young's Cove B YoCoB 6/27-7/12/18 Inactive 0*** 3***

27 26 Young's Cove C YocoC 6/04-8/20/18 Active 2 9 Young s Cove D YocoD 6/04-8/20/18 Active 1 9 Young s Cove E YocoE 6/06-9/08/18 Active 2 6 Young s Cove F YocoF 6/27-8/11/18 Inactive 0 5 Zangle Cove A ZaCoA 6/08-8/05/18 Active 1 12 Zangle Cove B ZaCoB 6/11-8/09/18 Inactive 0 9 Zangle Cove C ZACoC 6/08-8/05/18 Active 1 5 Total **Adjusted Total Notes: * Birds observed at this site are included in a colony total in another row. Indicates a colony with multiple sites for which the highest bird count is used. **An adjusted estimate of 332 birds accounts for overlap and duplication in volunteer bird count reported from colonies with sites in close proximity to one another. See Survey methodology for rationale for each site. ***Excluded due to insufficient data (i.e. less than 5 surveys conducted during the breeding season). Table 7: Observed fish deliveries at each site Location Gunnel Sculpin Other prey Date of First Fish Delivery Date of Last Fish Delivery Beachcrest West /20/18 8/07/18 Beachcrest East /07/18 8/07/18 Big Fishtrap /03/18 7/24/18 Briscoe Point /14/18 7/07/18 Burfoot Park /12/18 9/04/18 Butterball Cove South A /15/18 8/08/18 Butterball Cove North Edgewater A /11/18 8/03/18 Edgewater B /27/18 8/08/18 Edgewater C Edgewater D /30/18 6/30/18

28 27 Fern Creek /29/18 7/28/18 Flapjack /13/18 7/04/18 Hearthfire Higgins Cove Ketron SE Lyle Point /29/18 8/02/18 Mill Bight A /05/18 8/03/18 Mill Bight B /28/18 8/03/18 Mill Bight C Priest Point Park Elizan A North Elizan A South Elizan B Elizan C Legacy Walnut Rd A /19/18 7/22/18 Walnut Rd B /06/18 8/03/18 Walnut Rd C /03/18 8/09/18 Young's Cove A /12/18 8/24/18 Young s Cove A West Young's Cove B Young's Cove C Young's Cove D /18/18 7/24/18 Young's Cove E /01/18 8/15/18 Young's Cove F Zangle Cove A /06/18 7/11/18

29 28 Zangle Cove B Zangle Cove C Total /12/18 9/04/18 Figure 6: Prey composition of deliveries to chicks Discussion In the 2018 season, major progress was made toward expanding the South Puget Sound Pigeon Guillemot dataset. New sites added for 2018 monitoring included Beachcrest East, Edgewater A, B, C, & D, Fern Creek, Flapjack - Extended, Walnut Rd A - Extended, and Young s Cove A West. Surveys were conducted at 37 sites by 61 volunteers. Eleven sites surveyed in 2017 were not surveyed in 2018: Andy s Marine Park South & West, Gull Harbor, Hope Island NE, Jarrell Cove State Park, Ketron Ferry, Ketron SW, Sandy Point, Elizan A Tower, and Elizan B & C. Seven sites with five or more surveys completed did not have active burrows. The total number of Pigeon Guillemots observed in 2018 decreased by 27 individuals ( from 359 birds in 2017 to 332 birds in 2018). This represents an 8.6% decrease. The value of 332 birds was adjusted from the original total of 466 to more accurately reflect the high bird count without duplication or overlap from colonies with sites in close proximity. The number of active burrows, which reflects the number of breeding pairs, decreased from 75 to 59 between 2017 and 2018; a 22% decrease. Gunnels once again emerged as the most common prey item. However, the percentage of gunnel deliveries observed was higher in 2018 than in Although it seemed unusual, the ratio of gunnel to sculpin is still within the 70th percentile. Compared to the previous year, the percentage of gunnels increased, while percentages of sculpins and other fish decreased.

30 29 General Discussion The goal of establishing a baseline dataset to evaluate trends as stated in the QAPP has been partially accomplished. To date, we have six years of data, however, as evidenced in Table 1, not all sites were consistently surveyed. Anderson Island is a locale that has proven challenging to recruit and retain volunteers for. More effort will be required to resume monitoring at a number of sites. Multiple key sites have been identified (Andy s Marine Park, Lyle Point, Sandy Point) and will be prioritized in coming years. These sites are deemed important, because PIGUs are frequently observed using the breeding habitat on an annual basis by birders and beach goers. NRNC staff have observed birds at these locations during transit while conducting other surveys or during site visits for reasons other than to conduct breeding surveys. Additional monitoring for all sites would create a more robust dataset. Gunnels are the most common prey of choice across all years of this study (Figure 7). They are almost always observed at least three times as often as sculpin. The composition appears to increase by 10% from 2016 to 2017, but levels off the following year. This stability in prey composition suggests that Pigeon Guillemot prey species have remained at equally healthy levels during this study period. More data is needed to detect any long term changes and trends. More consistent data collection across all sites would give a more complete picture of the prey composition throughout the region. Another interesting facet of the prey composition is why the PIGUs prefer gunnel to sculpin. They are both benthic fish that utilize similar habitats and are often found in the same areas. A study of Mandt s Black Guillemots found in the Arctic showed that reproductive success was tied to prey type; diets high in cod resulted in greater success while diets high in sculpin resulted in greater failure (Waters, 2017). The sculpins represented a poor diet choice due to the bony nature of the fish and difficulty in digestion. Retreating sea ice as a result of rapid climate change led to decreased availability of cod, which forced the guillemots to seek less desirable prey. Although both birds and prey are different species, the similarity could explain why PIGUs prefer gunnels to sculpins. Studying the lipid content of the local PIGU prey could yield further insights into preference towards gunnels. Additionally, the pressure of climate change could potentially have an effect on prey availability in Puget Sound as waters become warmer. Whether this would have an effect on gunnels is unknown and bears further investigation. It also highlights the importance of more research to determine whether or not gunnels will continue being the preferred prey item.

31 30 Figure 7. Prey composition percentages by year. The number of pigeon guillemots observed for sites surveyed at least 10 weeks for all three years generally did not vary much (Figure 8). This indicates some level of stability, but more data is needed to verify whether that is true or not. Initial analysis could be conducted for sites with at least five years of data. Documenting physical habitat changes at the breeding sites would also help explain why the number of birds observed changes from year to year. If there is a decrease in available burrows, the number of birds would change unless they could adapt in different ways such as different breeding pairs utilizing burrows at different times during the season or potentially finding different habitats elsewhere.

32 31

33 32 Recommendations and Improvements A number of recommendations were made over the years to improve spatial coverage, training, data collection, and quality control. The implementation of some of these recommendations increased the number of sites monitored, provided better trained volunteers, improved data quality, and more enhanced quality control measures. There remain some recommendations to be fully implemented or considered, and some clarifications to be made. Recommendations for the following year were included in reports at the end of each season using results of informal survey evaluation and debrief. Implemented Recommendations from Year 4 (2016), Year 5 (2017), and Year 6 (2018) The following recommendations were implemented: YEAR 4 (2016) Provide additional on-site mentoring and training for volunteers to ensure surveys are consistently conducted according to protocol and that data forms are filled out correctly. Continue regional networking to provide consistent and usable data for stakeholders. Enter data into the database promptly. Database entry will have routine quality control. Review survey forms promptly for errors and/or other issues and resolve problems promptly to minimize confusion later when analyzing the data. Continue regular check-ins and establish regional leads to improve coordination and ensure adequate coverage of sites. Add database entry training for team leads. YEAR 5 (2017) Provide additional on-site mentoring and training for new and less experienced volunteers to ensure surveys are consistently conducted according to protocol and that data forms are filled out correctly. New volunteers and volunteers who request it will be paired with the intern or an experienced volunteer who will provide mentoring. Perform quality control of the data weekly. Review data sheets promptly for errors and/or other issues and resolve problems promptly to minimize confusion later when analyzing the data. Establish team leads and continue regular check-ins to improve coordination, ensure adequate coverage of sites and facilitate timely data submission. Team leads will be selected for reliability, attention to detail, promptness, and accuracy of data entry, and ability to lead and guide volunteers. Team leads will be responsible for conducting quality control of data in the field prior to submission. Continue regional networking to provide consistent and usable data for stakeholders and to also continue discussions with PSEMP and WIPGRG regarding a regional database. Provide database entry training for all volunteers.

34 33 Make further improvements to the online data entry system to facilitate easier input, viewing, editing, and managing. Initiate scouting of previously identified breeding colonies as shown in the WDFW Puget Sound Seabird Catalog to evaluate potential survey sites. Recruit more volunteers for Anderson Island, Ketron Island and Harstine Island sites to ensure survey completeness. Strengthen efforts to conduct winter/non-breeding surveys, particularly September through January, to provide a better sense of Pigeon Guillemot whereabouts and activity outside of the breeding season. YEAR 6 (2018) Continue exploring options for long-term data storage and data visualization. Explore options for additional extended morning surveys and/or mid-day or afternoon survey data which may yield information about patterns and frequency of feeding. Hire interns for fall and winter terms. This should result in earlier compiling and analysis of data and release of results, provide earlier feedback and reward to volunteers for their efforts, and allow planning for the following season to begin earlier. Post past seasons reports on NRNC website and/or create a 2 page high interest summary for the public. Pair new volunteers and those who request it with the intern or an experienced volunteer who will provide additional mentoring. Facilitate a more efficient process for submitting electronic copies of field data sheets to ensure all data is accounted for. Provide database training, probably at two venues. Change the non-breeding database user interface to obtain more complete anecdotal observations. Develop a standard for the minimum number of surveys in order for data to be included in statistical analysis. The following recommendation from previous years were not implemented but will be implemented or reconsidered in the future: Sharing findings of this project with the public can be achieved by developing a GIS map. The following recommendations were made at the end of YEAR 6 (2018) and will be implemented in YEAR 7 (2019): Continue exploring options for long-term data storage and data visualization. Explore options for additional extended morning surveys and/or mid-day or afternoon survey data which may yield information about patterns and frequency of feeding. Conduct preseason surveys on a more consistent basis to ensure completeness.

35 34 Hire interns for fall and winter terms. This should result in earlier compiling and analysis of data and release of results, provide earlier feedback and reward to volunteers for their efforts, and allow planning for the following season to begin earlier. Post past seasons reports on NRNC website and/or create a 2 page high interest summary for the public. Pair new volunteers and those who request it with the intern or an experienced volunteer who will provide additional mentoring. Facilitate a more efficient process for submitting electronic copies of field data sheets to ensure all data is accounted for. Add a table or a column to a table showing number of completed surveys for each site. Provide database training, probably at two venues. Change the non-breeding database user interface to obtain more complete anecdotal observations. Develop a standard for the minimum number of surveys in order for data to be included in statistical analysis. Future Improvements and Developments We plan to collect 10 or more years of data that will establish a strong dataset of population, breeding sites, breeding pairs, and prey patterns. We hope this data can be analyzed for trends and patterns or red flags that might indicate any trouble for PIGU populations. We continually add new breeding sites as they are discovered when volunteers can be recruited to conduct surveys at these sites. Some sites are discontinued when survey data indicates the sites are not currently active ford at least one full season. Recruiting new volunteers is an ongoing effort. We plan conduct advanced research to learn more about other facets that are not currently being addressed or have only received cursory attention. Pre-season surveys are one of those activities that would provide insight into how early some sites become active and when chicks at those sites are hatching. Conducting surveys during other times of day may yield information on how much burrow activity occurs outside of normal survey times. We are also initiating efforts to learn more about the population dynamics by starting a pilot banding project. This would allow us to learn about male to female ratios, population age structure for a single breeding colony, and site fidelity. We have chosen not to change major methods in the protocols without discussions with other area PIGU surveys, especially Whidbey Island Guillemot Group, who have been the lead on the survey for many years. We hope to keep the survey methods consistent region-wide, so regional analysis is more feasible. Possible Future Uses of this Data Ongoing annual surveys will allow comparisons from year to year. In doing so, changes in population abundance and distribution may be detected. If detected, causes could be potentially evaluated and investigated. Additionally these surveys will fill existing data gaps. Synchronicity of data will allow for advanced data analysis by regional researchers. These surveys may also be used in any Natural Resource Damage Assessment in the event of an oil spill or other environmental disaster. The NRAR CSC

36 35 should review the results to evaluate what value the data may have to NRAR and how these surveys can be used to improve management of the aquatic reserve.

37 36 References Evenson, J. R., D. R. Nysewander, M. Mahaffy, B. L. Murphie, and T. A. Cyra Status, abundance, and colony distribution of breeding pigeon guillemots ( Cepphus columba ) from the inland marine waters of Washington State, as documented by PSAMP efforts, in Proceedings from Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. Lee, T., Map of South Sound Pigeon Guillemot breeding survey colony locations. Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve, nd. Typical survey site; exposed sedimentary bluff with moderate sized holes preferred by PIGU (photo). Nisqually Reach Nature Center, Quality Assurance Project Plan. Available at L_0201UPDATE.pdf Nysewander, D.R., J.R. Evenson, B.L. Murphie, and T.A. Cyra Report of marine bird and mammal component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, for July 1992 to December 1999 period [Unpublished report]. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program. 181 pp. Retrieved November 18, 2018 from: Pearson, S.F. and N.J. Hamel Marine and terrestrial bird indicators for Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Puget Sound Partnership, Olympia, WA, 55 pp. Available at _Final.pdf Puget Sound Seabird Survey, Map of observations of Pigeon Guillemots in Puget Sound Available from Rosling, G., nd. Pigeon Guillemot on rock (shared personal photo). Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Management Plan. Available from:

38 37 Appendix A: Data Sheet Below is the two-sided data sheet used in this project for standardized record keeping between observers:

39 38 Associated data sheets remain on file at the NRAR.

40 39 Appendix B: Data Collection Protocols Used

41 40