-
extracted text
-
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A BOUNDARY EXPANSION OF THE
NISQUALLY DELTA IMPORTANT BIRD AREA TO INCLUDE THE
SHORES AND BLUFFS OF ANDERSON ISLAND, WASHINGTON
By
Lindsay K. Raab
A Thesis:
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
September 2010
© 2010 by Lindsay K. Raab. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
By
Lindsay K. Raab
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
__________________________________
Alison Styring, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
____________________________________
Gerardo Chin-Leo, Ph. D
Member of the Faculty
____________________________________
Donald E. McIvor, M. S.
Science Coordinator, Audubon Washington
September, 2010
ABSTRACT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A BOUNDARY EXPANSION OF THE
NISQUALLY DELTA IMPORTANT BIRD AREA TO INCLUDE THE
SHORES AND BLUFFS OF ANDERSON ISLAND, WASHINGTON
Located in the southern Puget Sound region, the Nisqually Delta Important Bird Area
(IBA) encompasses 1,625 ha of land with habitats ranging from estuarine, freshwater, grassland
and riparian zones. The area is an important stopover point on the Pacific Flyway migration route,
and concentration of birds can reach over 9,000 during winter months. The current boundary of
the Nisqually Delta IBA supports a high diversity of birds, particularly dabbling ducks. The
purpose of this research was to determine if the boundary of the current IBA should be extended
to include the shoreline and high bluffs of nearby Anderson Island.
In order to be designated as an IBA by the State IBA Technical Committee of Audubon
Washington, an area must meet one or more of the following Criteria: 1) A site supports large
concentrations of species of conservation concern, or supports several species of conservation
concern in substantial numbers; 2) A site for species assemblages associated with a
representative, rare or threatened natural habitat; 3) Long-term avian monitoring occurs in the
area; 4) Species of conservation concern congregate in the area while breeding, or during
migration or winter. Methods used to study this potential IBA boundary expansion consisted of a
trial Christmas Bird Count on Anderson Island, Puget Sound Seabird Surveys from two sites on
the island, and data collection and analysis from various sources such as Washington Department
of Natural Resources and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
This study supported an expansion of the current Nisqually Delta IBA with support for all
four Crieria. The expansion request mirrored the proposed Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve
boundary that includes the shores and bluffs of Anderson Island and other shorelines in the
vicinity, as well the deep waters of the Reach. An extended IBA would provide overall ecological
connectivity of relatively pristine and representative habitats including high bluffs, tidal flats, salt
marshes and deep waters. It would encompass riparian, estuarine and nearshore habitats, all vital
to growing and migrating juvenile salmonids such as Federally listed Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Due to ample food supply and diverse, relatively undisturbed
aquatic habitats, an extended IBA would support a higher diversity of bird species, particularly
diving ducks, alcids, grebes and loons. The area within the proposed extended boundary appears
to be particularly important to several species of conservation concern. The significant amount of
high bluffs provides prime nesting habitat for Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba). Surf
Scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) are common to the area, perhaps due to the abundant food
sources such as Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi). Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) have been documented in parts of the area, theoretically using the Nisqually River
as a corridor between potential nesting grounds at Mount Rainer National Park and foraging
waters of southern Puget Sound. In conclusion, an expanded IBA, albeit non-regulatory, would
officially recognize and further protect important aquatic bird habitats within the Nisqually Reach
region.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Important Bird Areas in Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Nisqually Delta Important Bird Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Proposed Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Status of Puget Sound Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Evidence for Birds at Risk in Puget Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Anderson Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Puget Sound Seabird Survey Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Andy’s Marine Park survey site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Ferry dock survey site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Christmas Bird Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Other Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Puget Sound Seabird Surveys on Anderson Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Anderson Island Christmas Bird Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Other Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Criterion 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Criterion 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Criterion 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Criterion 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pigeon Guillemot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Marbled Murrelet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
iv
Surf Scoter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Importance of Waterbirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
APPENDIX A
Letter to Audubon Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
APPENDIX B
Map of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . 64
APPENDIX C
Bird Species List for Nisqually Reach Aquatic Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
APPENDIX D
Marine Mammals and Bats in the Nisqually Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
APPENDIX E
Fish in the Nisqually Reach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
APPENDIX F
Invertebrates in the Nisqually Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
APPENDIX G
Tahoma Audubon Society Field Trip Data from Nisqually Reach Region . . . . . . . 78
APPENDIX H
Raw Data for Puget Sound Seabird Surveys at Anderson Island Sites, 2010 . . . . . .81
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The current boundary of the Nisqually Delta IBA, highlighted in orange . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Washington’s 74 Important Bird Areas, highlighted in orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3. Cumulative percent of foraging guilds detected during pre and post-Brown Farm
dike removal bird surveys at the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 4. Land use and management of the Nisqually Reach Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 5. Puget Sound, Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 6. Anderson Island in South Puget Sound, Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 7. Puget Sound Seabird Survey Sites with selected labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 8. Anderson Island Puget Sound Seabird Survey locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 9. View from Puget Sound Seabird Survey site at Andy’s Marine Park on Anderson
Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 10. Shoreline to the north of the ferry dock survey location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 11. Pelagic, Double-crested and Brandt’s Cormorants roost with a gull . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 12. Average mean density of all marine bird species from winters in 1993 - 2006,
2008 - 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 13. Average mean density of all marine bird species from summers 1992 - 1996 . . 27
Figure 14. Bald Eagle observations from winters 1993 - 2005 and springs 1992 - 1998 . . . 28
Figure 15. Bald Eagle observations documented from monthly surveys at the Nisqually
National Wildlife Refuge, Sept. 2009 - March 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 16. Relatively low percentage of shoreline modification in the Nisqually Reach, with
the exception of the western shoreline of Pierce County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 17. The majority of shorelines in the Nisqually Reach are sand beaches and flats . 31
Figure 18. Many pocket estuaries exist along shorelines in the Nisqually Reach . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 19. Presence of geoduck population in the Nisqually Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 20. Abundance of non-floating kelp in the Nisqually Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
vi
Figure 21. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species
Program fish data for the Nisqually Reach region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 22. Pigeon Guillemot winter and summer observations in the Nisqually Reach from
1992 - 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 23. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species
Program bird data for the Nisqually Reach region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 24. Pigeon Guillemot in breeding plumage at the ferry dock Puget Sound Seabird
Survey site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 25. Washington State Pigeon Guillemot range map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 26. Pigeon Guillemot average summer density in South Puget Sound, 1992 - 1996 . 41
Figure 27. Pigeon Guillemot average winter density in South Puget Sound, 1993 - 2006,
2008 - 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 28. Marbled Murrelets rafting at sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figure 29. Marbled Murrelet density in Washington State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 30. Male Surf Scoter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 31. Average winter density of Black Scoters, Surf Scoters and White-winged Scoters
combined, 1993 - 2006, 2008 – 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 32. Washington State Surf Scoter range map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 33. Surf Scoter full range map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 34. Pacific herring spawning grounds in Puget Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Puget Sound Seabird Survey summary statistics for the study area surrounding
Anderson Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 2. Species list from December 20, 2009 Christmas Bird Count on Anderson Island . 21
Table 3. Data collection for analysis of Important Bird Area Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 4. Observations of selected marine bird species in the proposed extended Important
Bird Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would especially like to thank my advisor, Alison Styring, whose love for birds
intrigued me in the first place. I am so glad that Alison sought me out when she first learned
about this project one year ago, as it is now very special to me. She has assisted me with seabird
identification, helped me though methodology of ornithological field work, and supported me
throughout the research and writing process for this thesis. I am also very grateful for the
guidance of my other thesis readers Gerardo Chin-Leo and Don McIvor. During the revision
process, Gerardo asked me lots of questions that helped me think differently about some of my
content. He also provided excellent advice on the organization of this paper. Don was a steadfast
supporter throughout this entire year-long project. From day one, he was teaching me about
Important Bird Areas and was always available and willing to answer my questions. His revisions
in the end encompassed big picture questions as well as small details. I deeply appreciate all his
time and support. I would also like to thank Jerry Johannes, naturalist and resident of Anderson
Island. It was Jerry who originally came up with the hypothesis for an extended Nisqually Delta
Important Bird Area and he was continuously full of information that greatly supported this
project.
I am also full of gratitude for the consistent field assistance from my research partners
Govinda Rosling and Maureen Thompson. I simply could not have done the Puget Sound Seabird
Surveys without them. I’d also like to thank Tahoma Audubon members Diane Yorgason-Quinn
and Faye McAdams Hands, Evergreen students Samantha Sadosky and Jeff Anderson (and his
wife Laura), and Anderson Island residents Ann Dasch, Carol Paschal and Jane Groppenberger
for the company and assistance during various field work days throughout this project.
I would also like to thank the following people for the consistent support throughout my
research: Krystal Kyer, Tahoma Audubon; Adam Sedgely, Seattle Audubon; Kelley Turner, US
Geological Survey; Jean Takekawa, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Phil Kelley, Black Hills
Audubon, Joe Evenson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Kyle Murphy,
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Betty Bookheim, Washington DNR;
Michael Grilliot, former intern at Washington DNR; Daniel Hull, Nisqually Reach Nature Center;
Art Wang, Tahoma Audubon; Scott Pearson, WDFW; John Pierce, WDFW; Sarah Garmire,
Anderson Island; Mason Reid, Mount Rainer National Park, and John Richardson, Joint Base
Lewis-McChord.
And finally, I’d like to express my deepest gratitude toward my family and friends for
their much needed and constant support from the beginning to the end of this study. Mom, Dad,
Erin, Marie, Rachel, Christina, Cathy, Kathleen- thank you for your patience, encouragement and
love that saw me through the completion of this thesis.
ix
INTRODUCTION
Like many conservation programs, the Important Bird Area (IBA) program focuses
specifically on recognizing and conserving prime bird habitat. Birdlife International initiated the
IBA program in Europe in 1985, and Audubon Society in the US adopted it in 1995 (Wells et al.,
2005). The IBA program’s main purpose is to identify, conserve and monitor critical bird habitat.
It is a place-based conservation initiative that aims to recognize the top 10% of prime bird habitat.
It takes a proactive approach by supporting not only rare and endangered species and habitat, but
non-endangered species and habitat as well (D. McIvor, Audubon Washington, Science
Coordinator, personal communication, September 24, 2009). Once these priority bird habitats
have been identified, the IBA program helps ensure proper management and monitoring of bird
habitat and populations (Wells et al., 2005). Land designated as an IBA provides refuge for birds
during vital life processes such as breeding, migrating and wintering (Cullinan, 2001). In order to
be designated as an IBA, an area must meet one or more of the following four criteria listed in
Important Bird Areas in Washington: Criteria for Site Selection (Audubon Washington, 2008):
1. “Sites supporting significant populations of species of conservation concern in
Washington . . . includes sites that have the largest concentrations of these
species or those with several of these species present in substantial numbers”
(relative to overall numbers in Washington and species range; p. 2). In order to
define significant populations, different thresholds are listed for each species of
conservation concern.
2. “Sites for species assemblages associated with a representative, rare or threatened
natural community type in Washington” (p. 4). Sixteen community types are
listed as representative, rare or threatened.
3. “Sites important for long-term avian research or monitoring” (p. 6). Long term is
considered 10 years or more. This criterion is a contributor; it cannot be the sole
criterion for justifying an IBA designation (D. McIvor, personal communication,
September 24, 2009).
4. “Sites where birds regularly concentrate in significant numbers when breeding or
during migration or winter” (p. 6). This criterion is broken down into several
different scenarios with thresholds depending on the type of birds the area holds.
The purpose of this work was to determine if the boundary of the Nisqually Delta IBA
should be extended to include the shores and bluffs of Anderson Island, Washington. The area in
the extended boundary must meet one or more criteria of a state-level IBA in order to justify a
1
request to the Washington State IBA Technical Committee to expand the boundaries of the
current Nisqually IBA (Fig. 1). Anyone can nominate an IBA to the Committee. The process
involves data collection, research and a considerable amount of paperwork. If it is accepted at the
state-level, it will be further assessed to determine if it should be considered an IBA at a
continental or global level (D. McIvor, personal communication, September 24, 2009). See
Appendix A for the letter that was sent by the author to the Committee on September 3, 2010.
Fig. 1. The current boundary of the Nisqually Delta IBA, highlighted in orange (McIvor, 2009).
Important Bird Areas in Washington
In 1997, Audubon Washington partnered with Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) to initiate state-level IBAs in Washington (Cullinan, 2001). Currently, there
are 74 IBAs in Washington located on both public and private lands (Fig. 2; Audubon
Washington, 2010). Both aquatic and terrestrial IBAs are represented, and habitat types range
from grassland or coniferous forest to brackish marsh or marine waters. Each IBA site will
2
ultimately have its own conservation management plan written specifically for its habitat and
anthropogenic threats (Cullinan, 2001).
Fig. 2. Washington’s 74 Important Bird Areas, highlighted in orange (McIvor, 2009).
Nisqually Delta Important Bird Area
The Nisqually Delta IBA is located in Thurston County and was designated as an IBA in
2001, nominated by Audubon Society Member Lisa Godina of Olympia, Washington (Godina,
2001; Cullinan, 2001). The 1,625 ha IBA includes estuarine, freshwater and saltwater marshes,
non-native grassland, and riparian habitat types, and boasts over 9,000 waterfowl during fall
migration (US Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2010; Cullinan, 2001). The area is especially
important for a variety of wintering waterfowl, seabirds, wading birds, and shorebirds. Wintering
Dunlins (Calidris alpina) use the tideflats, and breeding Band-tailed Pigeons (Patagioenas
fasciata) are attracted to the mineral springs in the area. Ninety percent of the site is managed for
conservation and wildlife-related recreation, and is within the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), Nisqually State Wildlife Area and some tribal and private lands (Cullinan, 2001).
The Nisqually Delta IBA has gone through many changes within the last few years.
Implementation of the Nisqually NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) began in 2009
and will continue over the next 15 years (see Appendix B for a map of the plan; US Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2005). This restoration project will return the area to its historic, natural state of
mainly estuary and floodplains, and is the largest tidal marsh restoration project in the Pacific
3
Northwest. The main goals of the CCP were to reconstruct the dike system to restore more than
70% of the diked area for estuarine habitat with tidal flow and salt water marshes, restore and
enhance the remaining freshwater and riparian habitats, and expand the Refuge to over double its
current size. In October 2009, the removal of the long-standing Brown Farm Dike inundated
roughly 300 ha of the Refuge. Water level, salinity and temperature are carefully monitored (US
Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2010). The habitat changes are expected to positively impact
many species, particularly juvenile salmonids, such as Federally listed Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) that spend about a month in the estuary growing and acclimating to
salt water before migrating to open sea (Ellings & Hodgson, 2007). A post restoration fish study
has been initiated, led by the Nisqually Indian Tribe (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005; J.
Takekawa, Nisqually NWR Manager, personal communication, August 18, 2010).
Many different groups participate in avian monitoring in the Nisqually IBA. US
Geological Service (USGS) staff have been performing annual and monthly surveys for the past
year (K. Turner, USGS Restoration Biologist, personal communication, July 21, 2010). Students
and other citizen scientists have surveyed Luhr Beach for the past three years (Hull, 2008).
Migratory Bird Division of US Fish and Wildlife Service staff also performs an annual winter
waterfowl survey in the Refuge each January. Nisqually NWR staff has been monitoring bird
populations using aerial surveys since 1975. Some species, such as wigeons and grebes, have
declined in recent years (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005; J. Takekawa, personal
communication, July 30, 2010). A colony of nesting Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) was at a
maximum of 101 nests in 1994, yet have dropped to as low as just three nests in 2001, likely due
to eagle predation. Gulls have also declined slightly in recent years, perhaps due to a nearby
landfill closure in 2000. Other species, such as geese, terns and cormorants appear to fluctuate
from year to year (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005).
The 2009 dike removal is expected to positively impact many bird species, particularly
waterfowl that tend to prefer estuarine areas, such as America Wigeon (Anas americana),
Northern Pintail (Anas acuta), Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) and Northern Shoveler (Anas
clypeata). Although the comparison of bird density between pre and post-dike removal is hard to
derive from Fig. 3 below, it is clear that the site hosts a large number and diversity of birds,
particularly dabbling ducks. Phil Kelly, avid birder and field trip leader of Black Hills Audubon
Society and Washington Ornithological Society, leads weekly bird walks at the Nisqually NWR.
In his opinion, waterfowl numbers are up and raptor numbers are down since the dike removal.
4
However his observations are only from this past year, and long-term trends are unclear at this
point (P. Kelly, personal communication, June 23, 2010).
Fig. 3. Cumulative percent of foraging guilds detected during pre and post-Brown Farm dike
removal bird surveys at the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (US Fish and Wildlife Service et
al., 2010).
Proposed Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve
Part of the Nisqually Delta IBA lies within the boundary of a proposed aquatic reserve
for the Nisqually Reach. The overall goal of the Aquatic Reserves Program is to identify, protect
and enhance Washington State’s aquatic resources. The Program was initiated by Washington
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 2002 in order to designate state-owned aquatic
ecosystems with native and unique habitats and species for increased site-based protection and
conservation management (Bloch & Palazzi, 2005). Sites must meet specific ecological criteria,
such as presence of priority species such as Killer whale (Orcinus orca), Olympia oyster (Ostrea
lurida) and Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). The method for evaluating a site for
aquatic reserve status is a multi-step, lengthy process that includes nomination of a site, DNR
review, development of a management plan, State Environmental Policy Act review, and a final
decision by the Commissioner of Public Lands. DNR has no regulatory control over the state’s
aquatic resources, and therefore partnerships are formed with local tribes, WDFW and other
interested parties to enforce or encourage actions developed out of site-specific management
plans. Examples of DNR-managed activities include consulting on low-impact community dock
construction, insertion of mooring buoys, and monitoring and research of wildlife (Bloch &
Palazzi, 2005).
5
Daniel Hull, Executive Director of the Nisqually Reach Nature Center (NRNC) submitted
the aquatic reserve proposal application to Washington State DNR in 2008. Currently NRNC and
other partners such as the Nisqually Indian Tribe and Nisqually NWR are drafting an aquatic
reserve management plan that will help ensure protection of roughly 7,000 ha of state-owned
aquatic lands (as reviewed by Hull, 2008). The draft management plan is scheduled to be
finalized by the end of summer 2010, and will then go through the State Environmental Policy
Act public review process. A decision on the aquatic reserve designation of the site will likely be
made sometime in September or October, 2010 (K. Murphy, Washington DNR Aquatic Reserves
Program Manager, personal communication, July 14, 2010). The proposal is justified by the
relatively undeveloped and unarmored shorelines, abundant marine vegetation, variable sized
sediment from silt to cobble, depth strata ranging from intertidal to over 600 feet, and the mix of
freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats, allowing for high biodiversity of life (Appendices C-F;
as reviewed by Hull, 2008). The proposed aquatic reserve boundary would ecologically connect
the Nisqually estuary to the surrounding nearshore habitat, both vitally important for juvenile
salmon species in the area (Ellings & Hodgson, 2007).
The Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Program Technical Advisory Committee
recommended that the aquatic reserve designation in the Nisqually Reach of Thurston and Pierce
Counties (that partially overlaps the current Nisqually Delta IBA) should stretch from the
shoreline of Tolmie State Park across Puget Sound to the south shoreline of McNeil Island to the
eastern shoreline south of Steilacoom, bordered on the south by the Nisqually NWR, and on the
west by the shoreline where the NRNC is located, north to the State Park. The aquatic reserve
boundary would extend upstream in the Nisqually River and McAllister Creek and would also
include the shorelines of Anderson, Eagle and Ketron Islands and the deep waters of Nisqually
Reach (Van Cleve et al., 2009a; as reviewed by Hull, 2008). The legal description is pending
survey completion by Washington DNR (K. Murphy, personal communication, July 27, 2010).
Multiple entities own the land in the proposed boundary (Fig. 4) and land uses of the area include
wildlife conservation, recreation, fishing, hunting, aquaculture, and residential (as reviewed by
Hull, 2008; Godina, 2001).
6
Fig. 4. Land use and management of the Nisqually Reach Region (Grilliot, 2010).
Status of Puget Sound Ecosystem
The Nisqually Reach is a small fraction of “Puget Sound country” which in its entirety
spans 10,000 square miles, and hosts a high diversity of life (Fig. 5; Kruckeberg, 1991; pg. xvii).
The actual waters of the Puget Sound range about 2,000 square miles (Nysewander et al., 1993)
and are bordered by the Cascade Mountains to the east, Olympic Mountains to the west; Frasier
River delta to the north, and low hills to the south. The 2,000-mile-long shoreline, surrounded by
forest and dominated by steep cliffs, is home to many plants, animals and humans alike
(Kruckeberg, 1991).
The human population of Puget Sound has grown over time, and is projected to continue
to grow. In 1960, the population of the 12 counties that make up the Puget Sound region was
about 1.8 million people. By 2008, that number had increased to 4.4 million. Population of the
Puget Sound region is projected to reach 5.1 million by 2020 (Office of Financial Management,
State of Washington, 2009). Largely due to anthropogenic influences, the Puget Sound ecosystem
is currently in a state of disarray. According to a 2008 Water Quality Assessment, only 30% of
7
Washington’s water bodies are up to standards (Susewind, 2008) and over 500 streams, lakes and
rivers across the Puget Sound region are impaired. Hundreds of species are of conservation
concern, mainly due to the millions of pounds of toxic contaminants entering the Sound each year
(Department of Ecology, State of Washington, 2010; Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2010). In response to major threats to the ecosystem, several initiatives such as the
Puget Sound Partnership, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, and People for Puget Sound
have formed with a goal to clean up and restore the habitats within Puget Sound by 2020. With
the elimination of pollutants entering the Sound, halt of destruction of natural habitats, and
increased stewardship and monitoring to promote ecological sustainability, this goal is attainable
(People for Puget Sound, 2010).
Fig. 5. Puget Sound, Washington State (Google, 2010).
Evidence for Birds at Risk in Puget Sound
Overall marine bird populations have declined in the Puget Sound region in the past 25
years (Nysewander et al., 2005a). Protection of critical bird habitat is necessary to sustain certain
Puget Sound bird populations, such as Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba), Marbled Murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) and Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata). Puget Sound is one of
the most important wintering areas for migratory birds in the Pacific Northwest (Wahl et al.,
1981) and aids as an important resting point on the Pacific Flyway migration route (US Fish and
8
Wildlife Service, 2005). Waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, raptors and pelagic seabirds are
particularly vulnerable due to major threats posed on wetlands (Hancock, 1984).
Wetlands are particularly prone to threats such as development, fragmentation, dredging
and overexploitation (Groom et al., 2006; Hancock, 1984). Urban sprawl threatens Puget Sound
wetland habitats as the population continues to rise. Benthic ecosystems are likely physically
disturbed when activities such as dredging occur. Further, ecosystems under or near dredged
material disposal sites may experience many deleterious effects such as habitat burial or toxic
contamination (as reviewed by Hull, 2008). Aquaculture may impact fish and invertebrate species
numbers, habitats, and ecosystem processes through physical disturbance and overexploitation.
Therefore, marine birds are threatened by restricted food supply and potential change in
migratory patterns (as reviewed by Hull, 2008). Habitat loss, fragmentation and destruction are
primary reasons for population declines in waterbirds (Parnell et al., 1988). Other anthropogenic
effects such as human disturbance, pollutants in water, accidental by-catch, plastic ingestion, and
oil spills also largely threaten waterbird populations (Good et al., 2009; Petry & Fonseca, 2002;
and as reviewed by Carney & Sydeman, 1999).
Anderson Island
Anderson Island is a small island of less than 2,400 ha with a relatively undeveloped
shoreline ranging about 14 miles (Fig. 6; Van Cleve et al., 2009b; Heckman, 1967). It is only
accessible by ferry or boat, and is the southernmost island in the Puget Sound, located in Pierce
County. In 1841, Commander Charles Wilkes of the US Expedition named Anderson Island in
honor of Alexander Caulfield Anderson, the chief trader of Hudson's Bay Company (Heckman,
1967). The first settlers, of Scandinavian descent, came to the island around 1870. One hundred
years later, there were only about 100 year-round residents on the island (Heckman, 1967). In
1990, there were 548 residents. In the year 2000, that number had jumped to 2416 people living
on the island, with about 750 houses (Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis, Univ. of
Missouri Outreach & Extension, 2000). Many of the residents only stay on the island during the
summers, and therefore anthropogenic effects are relatively low during winter months.
Regardless of the recent increase in population on Anderson Island, the shoreline remains
relatively undeveloped, with the exception of Oro Bay. The west side shoreline is particularly
pristine, with several pocket estuaries and undeveloped bluffs (Van Cleve et al., 2009b). Lake
Florence and Lake Josephine, two inner island lakes on the east side, provide habitat for a wide
9
range of species such as Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Osprey (Pandion
haliaetus) and American Coot (Fulica americana).
Development is limited on Anderson Island for several reasons. Restricted access to the
island has limited the degradation of habitats on and near the island. The large amount of high
bluffs, particularly on the east side, limits the number of houses that have and can be built. Land
preservation on the island via the Parks Department, Cascade Land Conservancy, and zoning
regulations further protect the island from development. The intact, relatively undisturbed marine
vegetation of the nearshore habitat surrounding the island will become even more important for
juvenile salmonids as their numbers increase due to the Nisqually River watershed and delta
restoration (J. Johnannes, Anderson Island resident and Naturalist, personal communication,
August 16, 2010; Ellings & Hodgson, 2007).
Fig. 6. Anderson Island in South Puget Sound, Washington.
10
METHODS
In order to investigate marine bird density, seasonal assemblages, and avian monitoring
in the area (Criteria 1, 3 and 4) the author’s methods were ten Puget Sound Seabird Surveys from
two sites on Anderson Island, a trial Christmas Bird Count, and analysis of other data from
various sources. The author generated maps of priority birds and fish species within the Nisqually
Reach area using Geographical Information System (GIS) software. The author also analyzed the
Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve proposal (Hull, 2008) and associated maps (Grilliot, 2010) to
assess the types and quality of habitats, as well as the status of species and ecological processes
within the area (Criteria 1, 2 and 4). Futher investigation on bird species concentrations,
assemblages, diversity, and on-going avian monitoring projects in the proposed extended
Important Bird Area (IBA) was needed to make a definitive assessment. This work addresses the
need for further investigation.
Puget Sound Seabird Survey Project
In 2007, Seattle Audubon began an organized effort called the Puget Sound Seabird
Survey (PSSS) project to monitor nearshore seabirds in central and southern Puget Sound. The
aim of the PSSS project is to develop baseline data on counts and density of wintering nearshore
marine birds in the Puget Sound. During the 2009-2010 PSSS season, citizen scientist volunteers
performed bird surveys once a month from October to April at 68 waterfront locations across the
Sound (Fig. 7).
11
Fig. 7. Puget Sound Seabird Survey Sites with selected labels (Seattle Audubon Society, 2010).
At each survey location, the volunteers established a site to take their observations. This spot
should be held consistent throughout the survey season, and ideally from year to year. It should
be a prime lookout point on or near the shoreline where surveyors can easily envision a half circle
when looking out at the water. During the survey, volunteers record the species of each marine
bird observed rafting on the water during a 15-30 minute period, along with its compass bearing,
distance measurement and gender if possible. Other recorded observations include presence of oil
on male Buffleheads (Bucephala albeola), number of walkers, dogs and boats in the area during
the survey, presence of raptors overhead, and weather and tide conditions (Seattle Audubon
Society, 2009).
The PSSS citizen science project was in its third year when two new sites on Anderson
Island were established directly due to this work. The first was located on the ferry dock, 47
degrees 17'81" N, and 122 degrees 67.83" W. The other was at Andy’s Marine Park, 47 degrees
14'65" N, 122 degrees 73'34" W. Because this work is considered a case study, the Anderson
Island PSSS sites were not chosen at random. The PSSS work on Anderson Island began in
January 2010 and ended in May 2010. The January survey was a trial run, and was done on the
second Saturday of the month instead of the first. The May survey was done on the first Saturday
12
of the month, however the official PSSS season was over. The recommended tide time window
was used in both cases. Exact protocol was followed for the February, March and April surveys
(Seattle Audubon Society, 2009).
The study area of 2,262 ha of marine waters surrounding the island (Fig. 8) was derived
by multiplying the top bound of the 95% confidence interval of the average visible distance from
the shoreline from each of the ten surveys (1,004 m) by the shoreline distance (22,531 m). Using
a weighted average of bird species data from each site, extrapolated results can be used as rough
estimates of certain bird species within the study area (see Results section). Using Seattle
Audubon’s Bird Web as a guide, species specific survey data were not used in the weighted
average to calculate the estimates if a bird species was listed as uncommon or rare for that month
in the Puget Trough region (Seattle Audubon Society, 2008). Rough estimates of species
documented during the PSSS were compared to thresholds for each species of conservation
concern that are set forth as guidelines as to whether an area meets Criterion 1for a state-level
IBA (Audubon Washington, 2008).
13
Fig. 8. Anderson Island Puget Sound Seabird Survey locations (bathymetry data from Marine
Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).
14
Andy’s Marine Park survey site
Researchers entered the site using a back entrance to get to the Andy’s Marine Park
survey site. From visible endpoint to endpoint, the shoreline measured 610.5 m, or 0.379 mi. This
distance was calculated using a standard pace. The shoreline distance was multiplied by the 1,004
m (top bound of the 95% confidence interval of the average visible distance) to equal 61.3 ha
total area for this site. The survey location is on the beach of the park, with towering bluffs
standing about 30-50 ft high, stretching in both directions (Fig. 9). Many holes within bluffs were
apparent, and bird fecal matter was observed near two of the holes during the May survey. The
holes may have been nesting sites for Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba) or Belted
Kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon).
Fig. 9. View from Puget Sound Seabird Survey site at Andy’s Marine Park on Anderson Island.
Photo by Govinda Rosling.
The park also hosts a small lagoon, which lies behind where the researchers stood during
the surveys. The lagoon is about 2-4 ha in size. The beach between the bluffs is made up of rocks
and cobble with several large pieces of driftwood spread about. There is only one house visible
from where the researchers stood, sitting above the bluff to the right of the site (if looking out
toward the Sound). The site is heavily wooded behind the shoreline. Tree density is about one
every 5-10 meters, and the mature trees in the area are roughly 70-160 years old (tree aging
methods used from Van Pelt, 2007). The understory is comprised of plants ranging from Stinging
15
nettle (Urtica dioica), Evergreen and Red huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum and V. parvifolium),
Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), Salal (Gaultheria shallon), Indian-plum (Oemleria
cerasiformis), Sword fern (Polystichum munitum), Braken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Giant
horsetail (Equisetum telmatiea), Scouring-rush (Equisetum hyemale) and Salmonberry (Rubus
spectabilis). The canopy, quite typical of western Washington, is comprised of Western redcedar
(Thuja plicata), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and Red
alder (Alnus rubra).
Ferry dock survey site
The ferry dock is one of the most developed parts of the shoreline of Anderson Island.
The area is made up of a concrete dock with a building and deck. There is a staircase on the side
leading down to the rocky beach. The survey area was 1151.7 m or 0.716 mi from endpoint to
endpoint, almost twice the size of Andy’s Marine Park survey site (also measured using a
standard pace). The shoreline distance was multiplied by 1,004 m (top bound of the 95%
confidence interval of the average visible distance) to equal 115.63 ha total area for this site. The
shoreline is thinly lined with trees and shrubs (Fig. 10) including Scotch Broom (Cytisus
scoparius), Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), Trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), English holly
(Ilex aquifolium) in addition to many of the same species present at Andy’s Marine Park. Several
downed logs and large rocks lay near the retaining wall, and pieces of driftwood are scattered
across the beach. Eight large pillars stand in the water, available for docking the ferry boat.
During the surveys, several of the pillars served as common roosting places for all three species
of cormorants, Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) and several species of gulls (Fig. 11). Barn
Swallows (Hirundo rustica) and Rock Pigeons (Columba livia) were also common near the dock
area.
16
Fig. 10. Shoreline to the north of the ferry dock survey location. Photo by Lindsay Raab.
Fig. 11. Pelagic, Double-crested and Brandt’s Cormorants roost with a gull. Photo by Lindsay
Raab.
17
Christmas Bird Count
In an effort led by the National Audubon Society, each year for the past 110 years during
the time period of two weeks before and two weeks after Christmas, citizen scientists have taken
part in Christmas Bird Counts (CBC) across the Americas. Put simply, groups of bird enthusiasts
go out on a day during the time frame and count the number of bird species and individuals
observed. Each group focuses on a specific geographical area within a 15 mile diameter circle.
The “Count Compiler” is usually an expert birder and leads the group. That person is also in
charge of entering the data online. The CBC effort is the longest-running wildlife survey project
in history and there are now over 2,000 CBCs that occur annually. The main objective of CBC is
to monitor and assess the status of bird populations over time (National Audubon Society, 2010).
On December 20, 2009, a group of nine citizen scientists performed an unofficial CBC on
Anderson Island from 7:30 am – 2:30 pm. The weather was mostly cloudy in the morning, with
light rain from about 8:00 – 8:30 am. There was light to moderate fog all morning. The sun came
out from about 12:00-1:30 pm, and it became fairly windy around 1:30 pm. The temperature
ranged from 45-55˚ F throughout the time period. The route was as follows: Ferry dock (7:308:30 am), Interlachen Park (8:30-9:00 am), Marina (9:00-9:45 am), Ann Dasch’s house (9:4510:30 am), Andy’s Wildlife Park salt marsh (10:30-11:15 am), old store with dock on EckensteinJohnson Rd. (11:15-11:45 am), Jerry Johnannes’ house (11:45 am-1:15 pm, includes a break for
lunch), Andy’s Marine Park beach and trail (1:15-1:45 pm), Johnson Historical Farm ponds and
garden (1:45-2:30 pm). A total of 55, possibly 56, species were seen that day (see Results section
for species list and counts). The goal of the trial CBC was to determine if several species of
conservation concern assembled in substantial numbers in the area, possibly for breeding,
migrating or wintering (Criteria 1 and 4).
Other Data
Data such as maps, tables and graphs were created or compiled from a variety of sources
including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species
(PHS) Program, WDFW Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program (PSAMP),
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Aquatic Reserves Program and
various chapters of the Audubon Society. WDFW PHS Program has been collecting data on
important animal species and wildlife habitat for over 30 years. Data is maintained using GIS
software. These data only represent what has been reported and documented by WDFW in a
computer database and certain habitat and species may occur in areas not currently known to
18
WDFW. Maps of WDFW PHS data on priority bird and fish species were created by the author
and are located in the Discussion section and were used to assess IBA Criteria 1, 2 and 4.
WDFW PSAMP is aimed at documenting and reviewing marine bird densities across the
Puget Sound (Evenson et al., 2009). Aerial surveys using a transect method began in 1992.
Summer surveys ended in the southern Puget Sound after the summer of 1996 (Nysewander et al.,
2005a). Winter surveys began in 1993 in the southern Puget Sound region and are conducted
during the months of December and January. The winter survey effort is still going on each year,
with the exception of a reduced effort in 2007 due to budget cuts (J. Evenson, WDFW PSAMP
Biologist, personal comminication, July 14, 2010). The author created five maps in this paper
using the PSAMP Marine Density Atlas tools online (Evenson et al., 2009) and were assessed for
IBA Criteria 1 and 4.
The application for the proposed Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve (Hull, 2008), species
lists (Appendices C-F) and several maps, created by Washington DNR Aquatic Reserves Program
Associate staff (Grilliot, 2010), were assessed for Criteria 1, 2 and 4. The bird data from Tahoma
Audubon Society field trips on Anderson Island and nearby locations were reviewed for Criterion
1 (Appendix G). Several other data sources such as Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge,
Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, Seattle Audubon, Birds of
North America Online and several reports and journal articles were also reviewed to analyze the
IBA criteria.
19
RESULTS
Puget Sound Seabird Surveys on Anderson Island
A total of 28 bird species were observed during the Puget Sound Seabird Surveys (PSSS)
on Anderson Island. Due to the PSSS protocol, only the seabirds rafting on the water were
officially counted, however all birds during the surveys at the two Anderson Island sites were
noted, regardless of the bird’s behavior (see Appendix H for raw data). The following bird count
statistics are estimates derived from extrapolated PSSS results of the rafting birds, and can be
used to get a general idea of the number of birds potentially using the study area surrounding the
island (Table 1). These extrapolated results should be considered with minor reservations because
topography and bathymetry surrounding Anderson Island are inconsistent. However, the locations
of the PSSS sites capture a range of depths and due to plentiful prime bird habitat surrounding the
island, it is likely that these estimates represent close to actual numbers for these species.
Table 1. Puget Sound Seabird Survey summary statistics for the study area surrounding Anderson
Island
Common Name
Density/10 ha
Standard
Estimate for
Threshold
Error/10 ha
Study Area +/needed for
Standard Error
State-level
IBA***
Pacific Loon
0.07
0.04
17 +/- 8
1200
Common Loon
0.07
0.03
17 +/- 7
60
Horned Grebe
0.11
0.04
24 +/- 11
1000
Red-necked
0.29
0.27
66 +/- 61
45*
Grebe
Western Grebe
0.46
0.28
105 +/- 63
120*
Surf Scoter
0.42
0.10
96 +/- 22
600
Bufflehead
0.22
0.14
50 +/- 32
1400
Common
0.32
0.16
73 +/- 37
750
Goldeneye
Barrow’s
0.10
0.08
23 +/- 18
255
Goldeneye
Red-breasted
2.04
1.97
462 +/- 445
250*
Merganser
Mew Gull
0.04
0.03
10 +/- 6
300
Glaucous-winged
0.08
0.04
17 +/- 8
570
Gull**
Unidentified Gull
0.14
0.06
31 +/- 14
N/A
Pigeon Guillemot
0.22
0.14
51 +/- 32
235
*Estimate for the study area + standard error meets the threshold for a state-level IBA
**Includes Glaucous-winged Gull x Western Gull hybrid data
*** Source: Audubon Washington, 2008
20
Anderson Island Christmas Bird Count
A total of 1,113 birds were observed throughout the trial Christmas Bird Count (CBC) on
Anderson Island. Dunlin (Calidris alpine), Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) and European
Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) were the most common. Fifty five species were observed during the
Christmas Bird Count (possibly 56 species, depending on whether the seven unidentified
goldeneyes were Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) or Barrow’s Goldeneye (B.
clangula). None of the species counts came close to meeting the threshold needed for a state-level
IBA (Audubon Washington, 2008), although these data are from just one day, with limited access
to marine viewing sites. Perhaps with averages of daily counts over time, some of these species
counts would meet state-level IBA thresholds.
Table 2. Species list from December 20, 2009 Christmas Bird Count on Anderson Island
Number
Common Name
Scientific Name
Count
1
Common Loon
Gavia immer
2
2
Horned Grebe
Podiceps auritus
55
3
Red-necked Grebe
Podiceps grisegena
2
4
*Western Grebe
Aechmophorus occidentalis
4
5
Double-crested Cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
9
6
Pelagic Cormorant
Phalacrocorax pelagicus
16
7
Great Blue Heron
Ardea herodias
4
8
Canada Goose
Branta canadensis
5
9
Eurasian Wigeon
Anas penelope
1
10
American Wigeon
Anas americana
85
11
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
20
12
Ring-necked Duck
Aythya collaris
11
13
Surf Scoter
Melanitta perspicillata
55
14
White-winged Scoter
Melanitta fusca
1
15
Bufflehead
Bucephala albeola
115
16
Common Goldeneye
Bucephala clangula
20
17
Unidentified Goldeneye (Barrow’s or
Bucephala islandica or B.
7
Common)
clangula
18
Hooded Merganser
Lophodytes cucullatus
6
19
Common Merganser
Mergus merganser
6
20
Red-breasted Merganser
Mergus serrator
1
21
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
5
22
Red-tailed Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
4
23
American Kestrel
Falco sparverius
1
24
Unidentified RaptorAccipiter striatus or
2
Sharp-shinned Hawk or Merlin
Falco columbarius
25
Spotted Sandpiper
Actitis macularius
1
26
Dunlin
Calidris alpina
300
27
Western Gull
Larus occidentalis
2
28
Glaucous-winged Gull
Larus glaucescens
15
21
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Pigeon Guillemot
Cepphus columba
Rock Pigeon
Columba livia
Mourning Dove
Zenaida macroura
Anna’s Hummingbird
Calypte anna
Belted Kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyon
Downy Woodpecker
Picoides pubescens
Northern Flicker
Colaptes auratus
Pileated Woodpecker
Dryocopus pileatus
Steller’s Jay
Cyanocitta stelleri
Northwestern Crow
Corvus caurinus
Common Raven
Corvus corax
Black-capped Chickadee
Parus atricapillus
Chestnut-backed Chickadee
Parus rufescens
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Sitta canadensis
Bewick’s Wren
Thryomanes bewickii
Winter Wren
Troglodytes troglodytes
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Regulus satrapa
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Regulus calendula
American Robin
Turdus migratorius
Varied Thrush
Zoothera naevia
European Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
Spotted Towhee
Pipilo maculatus
Song Sparrow
Melospiza melodia
White-crowned Sparrow
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Dark-eyed Junco
Junco hyemalis
Red-winged Blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
House Finch
Carpodacus mexicanus
Unidentified Finch (American
Carduelis tristis or
Goldfinch or Pine Siskin)
Carduelis pinus
*Observed from the ferry, closer to Steilacoom than Anderson Island.
2
4
3
4
4
1
5
1
5
20
1
1
11
5
1
6
30
4
16
2
110
9
13
3
11
6
5
75
Other Data
Main sources for data used in this paper are Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program, WDFW Puget Sound Assessment and
Monitoring Program (PSAMP), Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Aquatic Reserves Program, Tahoma Audubon, and Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
Maps, species lists and information from these sources and more are located throughout the
Discussion section or in an Appendix. Table 3 summarizes selected resulting information used to
assess Important Bird Area (IBA) criteria.
22
Table 3. Data collection for analysis of Important Bird Area Criteria
Source
Data
WDFW PHS Program
WDFW PSAMP
Washington DNR Aquatic
Reserves Program
Tahoma Audubon
Nisqually NWR
Nisqually NWR
Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP)
Author created two maps from
GIS data for priority bird and
fish species in the Nisqually
Reach region.
Author created five maps
using PSAMP Marine Bird
Atlas data and tools online.
Author compiled ecological
maps, species lists, site
observations, and aquatic
reserve proposal information.
Field trip data located in
Appendix G.
Author incorporated monthly
and annual survey data into
bird species list located in
Appendix C.
Author incorporated map of
Nisqually NWR CCP plan in
Appendix B, and bird species
data into species list located in
Appendix C.
Criterion or Criteria
assessed
1, 3, 4
1, 3, 4
1, 2
1
1
1, 2, 4
23
DISCUSSION
After an extensive amount of data collection and research, the Nisqually Delta Important
Bird Area (IBA) boundary extension request appears justifiable, and if approved, the extension
should mirror the proposed boundary for the aquatic reserve in the Nisqually Reach region. An
expanded IBA would connect the Nisqually River delta with the nearshore habitat of Anderson
Island and other shorelines in the area. The two habitats are ecologically connected in terms of
energy cycling and nutrient flow via fish. Hundreds of salmon exit the Nisqually estuary each
year as fry seeking food and shelter in the marine vegetation, such as eelgrass (Zostera marina)
and non-floating kelp (Laminaria sp., Egregia menziesii and other species), in the nearshore
habitat of Anderson Island (Ellings & Hodgson, 2007) providing ample food for waterbirds in the
area. An expanded Nisqually IBA would encompass virtually every habitat represented in the
Puget Sound including estuarine, freshwater, marsh, grassland, and riparian habitat types, the
deep marine waters of the Nisqually Reach, as well as tidal lands, pocket estuaries, sandy
shoreline and high bluffs of Anderson, Ketron, Eagle Islands and the south shoreline of McNeil
Island (as reviewed by Hull, 2008). The Nisqually IBA currently supports many species of
dabbling ducks and shorebirds (US Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2010) while an extended IBA
would encompass more habitat types and therefore a more diverse range of species of
conservation concern, particularly diving ducks, grebes, loons, cormorants and alcids. The
expanded IBA would represent a large, relatively undisturbed native habitat supporting high
biodiversity of waterbird species (Appendix C; as reviewed by Hull, 2008).
Analysis of data from various sources such as Washington Department Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) and Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) support that the
proposed extended IBA may meet all four Criteria, particularly Criterion 2. For simplicity
reasons, the four IBA criteria are listed again and an explanation follows to explain how the data
may support each Criterion.
Criterion 1
Criterion 1 states: “sites supporting significant populations of species of conservation
concern in Washington . . . includes sites that have the largest concentrations of these species or
those with several of these species present in substantial numbers” (relative to overall numbers in
24
Washington and species range; Audubon Washington, 2008, pg. 2). Table 4 summarizes the
highest counts of actual observations of certain species during this research.
Table 4. Observations of selected marine bird species in the proposed extended Important Bird
Area
Common
Species
Month
Year
Count
Source
Name
Status*
Common
Resident
June
2009
30
1
Murre
Pigeon
Resident
May
2010
44
2
Guillemot
RedWintering
Jan.
2010
97
3
breasted
Visitor
Merganser
Surf Scoter
Wintering
Dec.
2009
55
5
Visitor
Horned
Winter
Dec.
2009
55
5
Grebe
RedWintering
Mar.
2010
25
4
necked
Visitor
Grebe
Western
Wintering
Mar.
2010
25
4
Grebe
Visitor
Brandt’s
Resident
Jan.
2010
7
4
Cormorant
DoubleResident
Feb.
2010
11
4
crested
Cormorant
Pelagic
Resident
Dec.
2009
16
5
Cormorant
Sources:
1
Aquatic Reserves Technical Committee site visit, June 9, 2009
2
Boat survey around Anderson Island, May 13, 2010
3
Puget Sound Seabird Survey, Andy’s Marine Park, Anderson Island, 2010
4
Puget Sound Seabird Survey, Ferry Dock, Anderson Island, 2010
5
Christmas Bird Count, Anderson Island, Dec. 20, 2009
*Information from Bird Web (Seattle Audubon Society, 2008)
When considering the study area surrounding the island derived from the Puget Sound
Seabird Survey (PSSS) sites, the estimate plus a standard error for three species, Red-breasted
Merganser (Mergus serrator), Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) and Western Grebe
(Aechmophorus occidentalis) all meet this Criterion (Table 1 in Results section). However,
because these estimates were extrapolated PSSS data from the two Anderson Island sites, they
assume bird density is uniform within the study area. These estimates are for the PSSS study area
25
surrounding Anderson Island, not the entire area included in the extended boundary request. If
this data was extrapolated for the entire area within the requested boundary extension, bird
density estimates would be much higher.
Eighty three marine bird species have been observed across the Sound during Puget
Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program (PSAMP) surveys, including ducks, alcids, loons,
grebes and more. Density of marine birds in the Nisqually Reach is substantially higher in the
winter, with several cell densities greater than 1,000 birds per square km. Fig. 12 and 13 represent
survey density data from both winter and summer surveys respectively.
Fig. 12. Average mean density of all marine bird species from winters 1993 - 2006, 2008 - 2009.
Species breakdown as follows: dabbling ducks and geese (33%); diving/sea ducks (31%); gulls
(12%); shorebirds (13%); grebes and loons (4%); alcids (2%); and cormorants (2%) (Evenson et
al., 2009).
26
Fig. 13. Average mean density of all marine bird species from summers 1992 - 1996. Species
breakdown as follows: gulls and terns (73%); alcids (10%), ducks and geese (8%), cormorants
(4%), great blue herons (2%), and other species (2%) (Evenson et al., 2009).
When considering the diverse range of aquatic habitats within the entire proposed
expanded IBA (including the current boundary) 134 bird species are represented (Appendix C)
the majority of them are of conservation concern. Federal and State threatened Marbled Murrelets
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) are particularly important inhabitants to at least a portion of the
area within the proposed extended boundary. The Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional
Monitoring Program (2008) estimates roughly 15-45 Marbled Murrelets forage in the waters
surrounding Ketron Island. This estimate ties or surpasses the global-level IBA threshold of 15
(no state-level threshold is listed for this species). Marbled Murrelets are further discussed under
Criterion 4 on pg. 42.
Data from Washington WFDW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS), Washington DNR
(Fig. 14), US Geological Service (USGS) survey data (Fig. 15) and PSSS data from Anderson
Island (Appendix H) support that Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are common to the
area. In general, it is a sign of a healthy ecosystem when top predators, such as Bald Eagles, are
in abundance. Although IBAs do not tend to support protecting territorial birds that tend to
disperse at low densities, (Cullinan, 2001) it is important to note that top predators persist on
27
Anderson Island because of the abundant food sources and suitable habitat. Waterbirds such as
juvenile cormorants, Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba) and Great Blue Herons (Ardea
herodias) are likely food sources for Bald Eagles on the island (Anthony et al., 1999; S. Garmire,
Anderson Island Community Club President and island resident, personal communication, April
19, 2010).
Fig. 14. Bald Eagle observations from winters 1993-2005 and springs 1992-1998 (Grilliot, 2010).
28
Fig. 15. Bald Eagle observations documented from monthly surveys at the Nisqually National
Wildlife Refuge, Sept. 2009 - March 2010 (US Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2010).
In sum, the area within the proposed extended IBA likely meets many of the state-level
thresholds for many species such as Red-breasted Merganser, Red-necked Grebe, Western Grebe
and Marbled Murrelet. The chance of meeting additional species thresholds increases if the
current IBA is considered as well. Expanded avian monitoring efforts within the Nisqually Reach
could further define counts for local marine bird populations.
Criterion 2
Criterion 2 states: “sites for species assemblages associated with a representative, rare or
threatened natural community in Washington” (Audubon Washington, 2008, pg. 4). The
extension boundary for the current Nisqually Delta IBA is best justified by this Criterion because
of its extensive marine/estuarine foraging sites and rocky coastlines (high bluffs), both listed as
rare or threatened habitats. These habitats within the area of the proposed extension are
representative of relatively undisturbed native habitats with diverse ecosystems (Fig. 16-18).
Pocket estuaries within the area likely house juvenile salmon and forage fish as they grow (Fig.
19; Ellings & Hodgson, 2007). The habitats within the area are prime seabird and marine
mammal foraging grounds due to high diversity of invertebrates and fish (Appendices C-F).
29
Extensive mud flats provide habitat for mollusks such as geoducks (Panopea generosa; Fig. 20)
and abundant non-floating kelp provides habitat for fish, as well as food for some waterbirds (Fig.
21). The site is remarkably less degraded than other parts of the Puget Sound (as reviewed by
Hull, 2008) and the nearshore habitat is an extremely important area for juvenile salmonids, such
as Federally listed Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Puget Sound steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss). The small fry find refuge in marine vegetation such as eelgrass and nonfloating kelp when exiting the Nisqually River system (Ellings & Hogdson, 2007; Murphy et al.,
2000). The marine vegetation also plays an important role as a Carbon sink in the face of global
warming, and regulates temperature by providing shade for benthic species and substrate (Dring,
1992).
Fig. 16. Relatively low percentage of shoreline modification in the Nisqually Reach, with the
exception of the western shoreline of Pierce County (Grilliot, 2010).
30
Fig. 17. The majority of shorelines in the Nisqually Reach are sand beaches and flats (Grilliot,
2010).
31
Fig. 18. Many pocket estuaries exist along shorelines in the Nisqually Reach (Grilliot, 2010).
32
Fig. 19. Presence of geoduck population in the Nisqually Reach (Grilliot, 2010).
33
Fig. 20. Abundance of non-floating kelp in the Nisqually Reach (Grilliot, 2010).
WDFW PHS data portrays an abundance of forage fish such as surf smelt (Hypomesus
pretiosus) and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) in the Nisqually Reach (Fig 21).
During a bird survey conducted on a boat of Anderson Island shoreline and nearshore habitat on
May 13, 2010, fisherman Shawn White was impressed with the high abundance of “bait fish” that
showed on his underwater monitor. During the one hour survey, 46 Pacific harbor seals (Phoca
vitulina), 44 Pigeon Guillemots, five unidentified cormorants, five loons and many other seabirds
were foraging in the area’s prime aquatic habitat. The area is also important for several
anadromous fish species (Appendix E) which utilize freshwater rivers and streams for spawning,
estuary and sheltered marine habitat for growing and acclimating, and open ocean for the
majority of their adult life (Ellings & Hodgson, 2007; Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2000a).
34
Fig. 21. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program fish
data for the Nisqually Reach region “Forage fish” represent Pacific sand lance and surf smelt.
(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species).
35
Criterion 3
Criterion 3 states: “sites important for long-term avian research or monitoring” (Audubon
Washington, 2008, pg. 6). Although many bird enthusists live on the island, there has been no
official, consistent long-term avian monitoring of the shoreline habitat on Anderson Island.
Although, it is likely that the PSSS sites that were established during the 2009-2010 season will
continue to be surveyed next season as well. However, WDFW PHS Program has been
documenting reports of sitings of priority bird species in the state, including shorelines within
proposed area, for over the past 30 years. WDFW PSAMP has been annually surveying the entire
Sound, including the nearshore and deep water habitats within proposed area, for over fifteen
years. If the Nisqually Reach is designated as an aquatic reserve, a request to increase avian
monitoring in the area can be recommended as a priority action to Washington DNR Aquatic
Reserves Program staff.
Criterion 4
Criterion 4 states: “sites where birds regularly concentrate in significant numbers when
breeding or during migration or winter” (Audubon Washington, 2008, pg. 6). The site likely
matches sub-category 4iv: “the site is known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, at least 50
seabirds, in either marine or terrestrial (nesting) areas . . . [s]eabirds include albatrosses, fulmars,
shearwaters, storm-petrels, jaegers, and alcids” (Audubon Washington, 2008, pg. 6). Nesting and
foraging habitats are available in the area for several alcid species. During the Aquatic Reserves
Technical Advisory Committee assessment survey in June 2009, roughly 30 Common Murres
(Uria aalge) were observed in the Nisqually Reach. Pigeon Guillemots also congregate on and
near the island (Fig. 22), likely using the high bluffs for nesting sites. Further, Marbled Murrelets
have also been documented in the area (Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring
Program, 2008).
Fig. 23 portrays PHS data on priority bird species locations on and near Anderson Island
and the Nisqually Delta. Breeding seabird locations in the map represent alcid breeding colony
locations from a 1989 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) survey (Speich & Wahl, 1989).
Considering the island has not changed much over the past 50 years (S. Garmire, personal
communication, April 19, 2010) the data portrays the long-term importance of the area in terms
of alcid breeding habitat. The following discussion focuses on three species of marine birds (two
alcids and one diving sea duck), and how the Nisqually Reach habitat characteristics fulfill one or
more of the species’ life stage requirements.
36
Fig. 22. Pigeon Guillemot winter and summer observations in the Nisqually Reach from 1992 –
2006 (Grilliot, 2010).
37
Fig. 23. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program bird
data for the Nisqually Reach region (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority
Habitats and Species).
38
Pigeon Guillemot
Pigeon Guillemots (hereafter guillemots) are medium sized alcids, standing roughly 13
inches tall with a wingspan of about 23 inches. They are non-sexually dimorphic and have mostly
white plumage during their non-breeding period, and all turn black with a white wing patch while
breeding (Fig. 24; Sibley, 2003).
Fig. 24. Pigeon Guillemot in breeding plumage at the ferry dock Puget Sound Seabird Survey
site. Photo by Govinda Rosling.
Washington guillemots tend to nest in crevices on the shoreline of marine waters, often using
burrows in high bluffs as nesting sites (Morse et al., 2003). Clutch size can range from 1-2 eggs,
with an average of about 1.5 eggs per nest. Guillemots usually lay their eggs during May through
mid-July, and hatching occurs from the end of June to early August (Vermeer et al., 1993). They
are one of the only alcids with a common brood size of two instead of one, and therefore
reproductive success is relatively more of challenge for this species, especially with high levels of
predation or limited food supply (Vermeer et al., 1993). Their tendency to nest near foraging sites
may help enable guillemots to be able to raise two chicks (Speich & Wahl, 1989). They primarily
forage on benthic fish in relatively shallow nearshore waters (Ewins, 1993; Speich & Wahl,
1989). Small fish such as blennies and sculpins make up the bulk of their diet (Emms & Verbeek,
1991) but they supplement their diet with mollusks and crustaceans as well (Seattle Audubon
Society, 2008).
39
Guillemots are common throughout the year in the Puget Sound (Fig. 25; Seattle
Audubon Society, 2008).
Fig. 25. Washington State Pigeon Guillemot range map © BirdWeb.org (Seattle Audubon
Society, 2008).
Seattle Audubon (2008) states that guillemots are more common in the Puget Sound during
winter months however PSAMP data reveals that they are more common during summer in the
Nisqually Reach (Evenson et al., 2009) most likely due to high nest site availability and abundant
food resources in the area. Overall mean density of guillemots during summer PSAMP surveys
from 1992-1996 are shown in Fig. 26. There are muliple transects with density indices of 25-50
birds/square km in the area of the extended boundary request. The transect on the west side of
Ketron Island displays a density of greater than 50 birds/square km (Evenson et al., 2009).
Guillemots are not quite as prevalent in the area during winter months (Fig. 27) although the
transect at the north end of Anderson Island has an average of greater than 10 birds/square km.
This data indicates that some of the area within the proposed extended boundary offers abundant
nesting sites and food sources during the breeding season. During the May PSSS, nine guillemots
were observed at Andy’s Marine Park, several of them vocalizing high-pitched whistles, possibly
indicating a nesting site nearby (Morse et al., 2003; Sibley, 2003). During an unofficial May
bird survey, 44 guillemots were observed throughout the waters within approximately 100 m
40
from Anderson Island shoreline. However, this survey was done from a small motorized fishing
boat and therefore it is possible that some birds were counted more than once due to individual
movements during the hour-long survey.
Fig. 26. Pigeon Guillemot average summer density in South Puget Sound, 1992 - 1996 (Evenson
et al., 2009).
41
Fig. 27. Pigeon Guillemot average winter density in South Puget Sound, 1993 - 2006, 2008 2009 (Evenson et al., 2009).
Marbled Murrelet
The Marbled Murrelet (hereafter murrelet) is considered Federally and State Threatened
by USFWS and falls under the 2010 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List
Endangered Category. It is a roundish alcid with black and white plumage during the nonbreeding period (Fig. 28) and all dark brown plumage during the breeding period. Murrelets
prefer mature, old-growth coniferous forest for nest sites (Rodway et al., 1993; Binford et al.,
1975). They tend to nest on moss-covered large branches of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis),
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) at low elevation
within forest with multi-layered canopies (Hamer & Nelson, 1995). During the incubation
period, parent murrelets switch off sitting on the nest roughly every 24 hour hours, while the
other mate of the breeding pair flies to nearby marine waters to forage for food (Bradley, 2002).
They have been recorded to travel distances over 120 km from their nest to reach foraging waters
(Whitworth et al., 2000). In the past century, murrelets have shifted to a lower-trophic level diet
due to declines in fisheries, specifically affecting pre-breeding diets and leading to lower
reproduction rates (Becker & Beissinger, 2006).
42
Murrelets were not observed during the PSSS, likely due to their low numbers, cryptic
plumage (Binford et al., 1975) and low light movements (Rodway et al.,1993). However, one to
three murrelets per square km have been documented foraging in a roughly 15 square km area of
water within the proposed IBA boundary extension surrounding Ketron Island (Fig. 29;
Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, 2008). Held largely by a sole
landowner, Ketron Island is virtually undeveloped (as reviewed by Hull, 2008) and contains
many coniferous trees that may provide nesting sites for murrelets. Recent radar detections of
murrelets flying through the Nisqually corridor between Mount Rainer National Park and South
Puget Sound indicate that the birds are more likely using the 8,000 ha of old growth forest on the
west side of the mountain in the National Park as nest sites, although no nest surveys have been
done in the Park (M. Reid, Mt. Rainer National Park Wildlife Ecologist, personal communication,
August 2, 2010).
Fig. 28. Marbled Murrelets rafting at sea. Photo by Rick Bowers.
43
Fig. 29. Marbled Murrelet density in Washington State (Northwest Forest Plan Interagency
Regional Monitoring Program, 2008).
44
Surf Scoter
The Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata ; hereafter scoter) is an open-water, benthicforaging sea duck and is the most common scoter in the Puget Sound region, especially from
October to May (Seattle Audubon Society, 2008). Scoters are sexually dimorphic birds with
distinctive triangular bills and wedge shaped heads. Males are mostly black with two white headpatches and a bright orange and white bill (Fig. 30). Females have a slightly less colorful bill and
are mostly gray (Sibley, 2003). Populations of scoters in Puget Sound and across North America
are in decline (Nysewander et al., 2005b). In response, WDFW hunting regulations have
changed the bag limit from four to two scoters per day (Yuasa, 2010).
Fifty five scoters were observed during the Christmas Bird Count (CBC) on Anderson
Island. Although scoters were not seen in large numbers during the Anderson Island PSSS,
individuals of the species were consistently observed on the waters surrounding the island each
month from January to May (Appendix H). In Puget Sound, scoters tend to forage in the
nearshore shallow waters, especially those areas associated with eelgrass (as reviewed by
Buchanan, 2006). They depend on marine waters during their non-breeding period, typically
August to May (Fig. 31; Morse et al., 2003). While some non-breeders remain residents of Puget
Sound year-round (Fig. 32), most scoters migrate north to inland lakes of Canada to breed, some
leaving as early as March (Fig. 33). After breeding, scoters migrate to coastal Alaska,
Washington, Oregon or back to Puget Sound to molt (Seattle Audubon Society, 2008; as
reviewed by Buchanan, 2006). Their aquatic diet and flightless molting period makes scoters
particularly vulnerable to toxic effects of pollutants (as reviewed by Savard et al., 1998). Scoters
can be used as an indicator species because they are prone to bioaccumulation of organochlorines
and heavy metal contaminents within marine and freshwater ecosystems (Eagles-Smith et al.,
2009; Henny et al., 1991).
45
Fig. 30. Male Surf Scoter. Photo by Gerrit Vyn.
Fig. 31. Average winter density of Black Scoters, Surf Scoters and White-winged Scoters
combined, 1993 - 2006, 2008 - 2009 (Evenson et al., 2009).
46
Fig. 32. Washington State Surf Scoter range map © BirdWeb.org (Seattle Audubon Society,
2008).
47
Fig. 33. Surf Scoter full range map. Breeding range of this species is still uncertain; dotted lines
represent probable breeding range limits (Birds of North America Online).
The diet of scoters during their non-breeding period was initially thought to be primarily
mollusks (Morse et al., 2003). Recent evidence suggests that scoters also depend heavily on softbodied prey, such as Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) roe during spawning season (Anderson et
al., 2008). In general, the spawning season for Washington herring begins in late January and
ends in early April. Eggs are deposited on marine vegetation, such as eelgrass and kelp,
commonly 0-10 ft in tidal elevation, and hatch about 14 days later (Stick & Lindquist, 2009;
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1997). An overall habitat shift among Surf Scoters
and White-winged Scoters has been observed in nearby Baynes Sound region, with 82% Surf
Scoters moving within 2 km of active herring spawning sites (Lok et al., 2008). Herring spawning
48
sites may provide a prime site for aggregation and mating among certain sea duck species
(Rodway et al., 2003). Foraging on accessible, energy-rich herring eggs may play a vital role in
scoters’ preparation for breeding, migration and reproduction (Alisaukas & Ankney, 1992).
Squaxin Pass and Wollechet Bay are two documented herring spawning grounds in the vicinity of
Anderson Island (Fig. 34; Stick & Lindquist, 2009). Due to threat of shoreline development,
documented herring spawning grounds are protected by Washington Administrative Code
Hydraulic Code Rules and managed by WDFW and local tribes (Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, 1997). Further research is needed to investigate potential aggregations of scoters in
these spawning areas.
49
Fig. 34. Pacific herring spawning grounds in Puget Sound (Stick & Lindquist, 2009).
50
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Importance of Waterbirds
Acting as both predators and prey, waterbirds play an important balancing role in marine
ecosystems. Waterbirds are often used as indicator species of overall health of an ecosystem
(Paillisson et al., 2002). Their trophic level makes them prone to bioaccumulation of
contaminants (Eagles-Smith et al., 2009). Colonial waterbirds are particularly sensitive to
ecosystem changes and disturbance (as reviewed by Carney & Sydeman, 1999). High biodiversity
is functionally important in processes of ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and water
purification. Overall biodiversity increases level of resilience of an ecosystem to catastrophic
events such as oil spills or tropical storms (Chapin et al., 1997).
Marine birds also play an important role in Washington State’s economy. Wildlife
watching in general provides over 21,000 jobs in the state of Washington and about 1.7 billion
dollars are spent each year on wildlife watching activities (Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 2000b). Avid bird watchers, often attracted to waterbirds, filter money through the
economy via travel expenses and birding equipment. Hunting of marine birds, particularly ducks
is a popular tradition and an important cultural and economical component as well. Aesthetics of
birds are also appreciated by many hunters and non-hunters alike.
Recommendations
In addition to the Nisqually Delta Important Bird Area (IBA) extension request, several
recommendations have been developed as a result of this study. First, there should be increased
monitoring of other marine vegetation besides eelgrass and non-floating kelp in order to further
understand marine vegetation composition and track changes overtime. Second, there should be
increased avian monitoring in the Nisqually Reach via boat and land; the only current long-term
monitoring in the area is via aerial surveys. Data from increased waterbird monitoring could
assist in improved management strategies for the area. Third, there should be an inventory of
Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) roe in the nearshore habitat surrounding Anderson Island. This
has never been done before, and it would be useful knowledge in terms of further understanding
seabird-herring relationships. Finally, regarding the Puget Sound Seabird Survey protocol, it
should be required (not optional) to record all waterbirds in the area during the survey, regardless
of its behavior. For example, a cormorant viewed roosting on a man-made piling should be
documented and counted in the official results.
51
Summary
The IBA extension request is justified by evidence for all four IBA Criteria. The current
Nisqually Delta IBA and area within the proposed extension represents a large, relatively
undisturbed, rare and natural habitat, vitally important for juvenile salmon, an ample food source
for many waterbirds (as reviewed by Hull, 2008). High bluffs and abundant forage fish provide
prime breeding habitat for Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus columba); tidal flats rich with abundant
mollusks and several nearby Pacific herring spawning sites provide prime winter and premigratory habitat for Surf Scoters (Melanitta perspicillata); and nearby coniferous old growth
forest and abundant fish stocks within the Nisqually Reach provide prime nesting and foraging
habitat for Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus). The current Nisqually Delta IBA
and the area within the proposed extension harbors a variety of aquatic habitats that have been
documented to hold 134 bird species over time, many of conservation concern, including Bald
Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) and Western Grebe
(Aechmophorus occidentalis). With bird and fish habitat quality and quantity declining at
alarming rates, it is important to recognize and conserve the prime habitats that remain.
Preservation and management of the Nisqually Reach is likely to benefit the South Puget Sound
ecosystem as a whole (Sinclair et al., 1995). Expanding the Nisqually Delta IBA to include the
Nisqually Reach has no foreseen drawbacks, and it will supplement the proposed aquatic reserve
designation. An expanded IBA is likely to bring more attention to the area’s overall importance to
marine animal and plant populations in the Puget Sound.
52
REFERENCES
Alisaukas, R. T., & Ankney, C. D. (1992). The cost of egg laying and its relationship to nutrients
in waterfowl. In B. D. Batt, A. D. Afton, M. G. Anderson, C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson,
& e. a. J. A. Kadlec, Ecology and Management of Breeding Waterfowl (pp. 30-61).
Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Anderson, E. M., Lovvorn, J. R., & Wilson, M. T. (2008). Reevaluating marine diets of Surf and
White-winged Scoters: Interspecific differences and the importance of soft-bodied prey.
The Condor , 285-295.
Anthony, R. G., Miles, A. K., Estes, J. A., & Isaacs, F. B. (1999). Productivity, diets, and
environmental contaminents in nesting Bald Eagles from the Aleutian Archipelago.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , 18 (9), 2054-2062.
Audubon Washington. (2008). Important Bird Areas in Washington. Retrieved March 1, 2010,
from Audubon Washington: Science:
http://wa.audubon.org/science_IBAWashington_SelectionCriteria.html
Audubon Washington. (2010). Science, Important Bird Areas. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from
Audubon Washington: http://wa.audubon.org/science_IBA.html
Becker, B. H., & Beissinger, S. R. (2006). Centennial decline in the trophic level of an
endangered seabird after fisheries decline. Conservation Biology , 20 (2), 470-479.
Binford, L. C., Elliott, B. G., & Singer, S. W. (1975). Discovery of a nest and the downy young
of the Marbled Murrelet. The Wilson Bulletin , 87 (3), 303-319.
Birds of North America Online. (n.d.). Maintained by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved
August 3, 2010, from http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna
Bloch, P., & Palazzi, D. (2005). Aquatic Reserve Program Implementation and Designation
Guidance. Retrieved August 16, 2010, from Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Aquatic Reserves Program:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_rsve_guidance.pdf
Bradley, R. W. (2002). Breeding ecology of radio-marked Marbled Murrelets Brachyramphus
marmoratus in Desolation Sound, British Columbia. Masters Thesis, Simon Frasier
University, 1-86.
Buchanan, J. B. (2006). Nearshore Birds in Puget Sound. Olympia, Washington: Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Carney, K. M., & Sydeman, W. J. (1999). A review of human disturbance on nesting colonial
waterbirds. Waterbirds , 22 (2), 68-79.
Chapin, F. S., Walker, B. H., Hobbs, J., Hooper, D. U., Lawton, J. H., Sala, O. E., Tilman, D.
(1997). Biotic control over functioning of ecosystem services. Science , 277 (2), 500504.
53
Cullinan, T. (2001). Important Bird Areas of Washington. Olympia, Washington: Audubon
Washington.
Department of Ecology, State of Washington. (2010). Saving Puget Sound. Retrieved 15 2010,
July , from Department of Ecology, State of Washington:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/index.html
Dring, M. J. (1992). The Biology of Marine Plants. New York, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Eagles-Smith, C. A., Ackerman, J. T., DeLaCruz, S. E., & Takekawa, J. Y. (2009). Mercury
bioaccumulation and risk to three waterbird foraging guilds is influenced by foraging
ecology and breeding stage. Environmental Pollution , 157, 1993-2002.
Ellings, C. S., & Hodgson, S. (2007). Niqually River estuary baseline fish ecology study: 20032006. Olympia, Washington: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge and Nisqually Indian
Tribe.
Emms, S. K., & Verbeek, N. (1991). Brood size, food provisioning and chick growth in the
Pigeon Guillemot Cepphus Columba. The Condor, 93, 943-951.
Evenson, J.R., D. Nysewander, B. Murphie, and T. Cyra (2009). Marine bird densities from the
inland marine waters of Washington as captured by PSAMP efforts 1992-2006, 20082009. Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound Assessment and
Monitoring Program, and Wildlife Resources Data Systems,Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/psamp/
Ewins, P. J. (1993). Pigeon Guillemot (Cephus columba). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from The
Birds of North America Online: http://0bna.birds.cornell.edu.cals.evergreen.edu/bna/species/049
Godina, L. M. (2001). Nisqually Delta . Important Bird Areas in Washington, General Site
Nomination and Data Collection Form . Unpublished.
Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M. A., & Broadhurst, G. (2009). Ghosts of the salish sea: Threats
to marine birds in Puget Sound and the Northwest straits from derelict fishing gear.
Marine Ornithology , 37, 67-76.
Google. (2010). Google Earth. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from Image US Geological Service, Data
SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO: http://nisquallydeltarestoration.org/
Grilliot, M. (2010). Aquatic Reserves Status Proposed. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from Nisqually
Reach Nature Center: http://www.nisquallyestuary.org/aquatic.htm
Groom, M., Meffe, G. K., & Carroll, C. R. (2006). Principles of Conservation Biology.
Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Hamer, T. E., & Nelson, S. K. (1995). Characteristics of Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees; USDA
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. USDA Forest Service.
Hancock, J. (1984). The Birds of the Wetlands. New York: Library of Congress.
Heckman, H. (1967). Island in the Sound. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
54
Henny, C. J., Blus, L. J., Grove, R. A., & Thompson, S. P. (1991). Accumulation of trace
elements and organochlorides by Surf Scoters wintering in the Pacific Northwest.
Northwestern Naturalist , 43-60.
Hull, D. (2008). Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved June 26, 2010,
from Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Proposal:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_ac_nisquallyreach_proposal.pdf
Kruckeberg, A. R. (1991). The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. Seattle, Washington:
University of Washington Press.
Lok, E. K., Kirk, M., Esler, D., & Boyd, W. S. (2008). Movements of Pre-migratory Surf and
White Winged Scoters in response to Pacific herring spawn. Waterbirds , 31 (3), 385393.
Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program,
and Wildlife Resources Data Systems, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(n.d.). Received June 3. Bathymetry for Puget Sound, GIS layer from Joe Evenson,
Marine Biologist.
McIvor, D. (2009). Science Coordinator, Washington Audubon Society. Received Fall 2009.
Morse, B., Aversa, T., & Opperman, H. (2003). Birds of the Puget Sound Region. Olympia: R. W.
Morse Company.
Murphy, M. L., Johnson, S. W., & Csepp, D. J. (2000). A comparison of fish assemblages in
eelgrass and adjacent subtidal habitats near Craig, Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research
Bulletin , 7, 11-21.
National Audubon Society. (2010). The 110th Christmas Bird Count: Citizen Science in Action.
Retrieved from Audubon: http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/index.html
Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring Program. (2008). Marbled Murrelet
Reports and Publications. Northwest Forest Plan Interagency Regional Monitoring
Program. Retrieved July 16, 2010, from:
http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/murrelet/WA_PSU_density_00_07_detailed.pdf
Nysewander, D. R., Evenson, J. R., Murphie, B. L., & Cyra, T. A. (2005a). Report of marine bird
and marine mammal component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, for July
1992 to December 1999 period. Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program.
Nysewander, D. R., J.R. Evenson, B. M., Cyra, T., Kraege, D., Hall, B., & Lambourn., D.
(2005b). Scoter Satellite Telemetry Project in Puget Sound. Retrieved July, 18, 2010
from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/psamp/scoters/
Nysewander, D., Stein, J., & Jefferies, S. (1993). Implementation Plan for Marine Bird,
Waterfowl, and Marine Mammal Monitoring in the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program. Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife
Management Division.
55
Office of Financial Management, State of Washington. (2009). Washington State Population
Information for Growth Management. Retrieved July 27, 2010, from Office of Financial
Management, State of Washington: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/gma/default.asp
Office of Social and Economic Data Analysis , Univ. of Missouri Outreach & Extension . (2000).
MCDC Demographic Profile 3, 2000 Census, Anderson Island, WA 98303. Columbia:
Missouri Census Data Center.
Paillisson, J. M., Reeber, S., & Marion, L. (2002). Bird assemblages as bio-indicators of water
regime management and hunting disturbance in natural wet grasslands. Biological
Conservation , 106 (1), 115-127.
Parnell, J. F., Ainley, D. G., Blokpoel, H., Cain, B., Custer, T. W., Dusi, J. L., Kress, S., Kushlan,
J. A., Southern, W. E., Stenzel, L. E., Thompson, B. C. (1988). Colonial waterbird
management in North America. Colonial Waterbirds , 11 (2), 129-169.
People for Puget Sound. (2010). Save Our Sound. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from People for Puget
Sound: http://pugetsound.org/
Petry, M. V., & Fonseca, V. S. (2002). Effects of human activities in the marine environment on
seabirds along the cost of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ornitologia Neotropical , 13, 137142.
Rodway, M. S., Regehr, H. M., Ashley, J., Clarkson, P. V., Goudie, R. I., Hay, D. E., Smith, C.
M., Wright, K. G. (2003). Aggregative response of Harlequin Ducks to herring spawning
in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology , 81 (3), 501514.
Rodway, M. S., Regehr, H. M., & Savard, J.-P. L. (1993). Activity patterns of Marbled Murrelets
in old-growth forest in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. The Condor , 95
(4), 831-848.
Savard, J.-P. L., Bordage, D., & Reed, A. (1998). Surf Scoter, Melanitta perspicillata. Retrieved
July 14, 2010, from The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.); Ithaca: Cornell
Lab of Ornithology: http://0bna.birds.cornell.edu.cals.evergreen.edu/bna/species/363/articles/introduction
Seattle Audubon Society. (2010). Puget Sound Seabird Survey site locations. Retrieved from
Science Manager Adam Sedgley on April 20, 2010.
Seattle Audubon Society. (2009). Puget Sound Seabird Survey Protocol. Retrieved from
http://www.seattleaudubon.org/sas/Portals/0/Science/Puget_Sound_Seabird_Survey/PSS
S_Protocol_09-10.pdf
Seattle Audubon Society. (2008). Bird Web. Retrieved July 9, 2010, from
http://www.seattleaudubon.org/birdweb/
Sibley, D. A. (2003). The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. New York:
Chanticleer Press.
Sinclair, A. R., Hik, D. S., Schmitz, O. J., Scudder, G. G., Turpin, D. H., & Larter, N. C. (1995).
Biodiversity and the need for habitat renewal. Ecological Application , 5 (3), 579-587.
56
Speich, S. M., & Wahl, T. R. (1989). Catalog of Washington Seabird Colonies. Washington, DC:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Stick, K. C., & Lindquist, A. (2009). 2008 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program, Fish Management Division.
Susewind, K. (2008, June 20). 2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment. Retrieved July
15, 2010, from Department of Ecology, State of Washington:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/EPASubmittalLetter.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2005). Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. Olympia, Washington: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1.
US Fish and Wildlife Service; Nisqually Tribe; Ducks Unlimited; US Geological Service. (2010).
Retrieved June 23, 2010, from Nisqually Delta Restoration:
http://nisquallydeltarestoration.org/index.php
Van Cleve, B., Styring, A., Smith, J., Floberg, J., Bloch, P., Myers, D., Hull, D., Johnannes, J.,
Mumford, T. (2009a). 2009 Technical Advisory Committee Recommendations, Proposed
Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from Washington State
Department of Natural Resources:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_ac_nisquallyreach_2009tac_rcmd.pdf
Van Cleve, B., Strying, A., Smith, J., Floberg, J., Bloch, P., Murphy, K., Bookheim, B.,
Mumford, T., Hull, D., Myers, D. (2009b). 2009 Technical Advisory Committee Site
Visit Notes, Nisqually Reach. Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Olympia, Washington.
Van Pelt, R. (2007). Identifying Mature and Old Forests in Western Washington. Olympia,
Washington: Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Vermeer, K., Morgan, K. H., & Smith, G. E. (1993). Nesting biology and predation of Pigeon
Guillemots in the Queen Charlotte Island, British Columbia. Colonial Waterbirds , 16
(2), 119-127.
Wahl, T. R., Speich, S. M., Manuwal, D. A., Hirsch, K. V., & Miller, C. (1981). Marine bird
populations of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and adjacent waters in 1978
and 1979. Seattle, Washington: Washington University, Seattle. College of Forest
Resources.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2010). Wildlife Management, Endangered
Species. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildlife/management/endangered.html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species. (n.d.) Digital Data
for Anderson Island and Vicinity. Olympia, Washington. Received from Data Release
Manager Lori Guggenmos on April 13, 2010.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2000a). Chum Salmon. Retrieved August 1, 2010,
from Chum Salmon Life History: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/chum/chum-3.htm
57
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2000b). Watchable Wildlife Industry. Retrieved
July 18, 2010, from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/watchwld/watchwld.htm
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (1997). Herring. Retrieved 12 2010, July , from
Forage Fish Biology: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/forage/herring.htm
Wells, J. V., Niven, D. K., & Cecil, J. (2005). The Important Bird Areas program in the United
States: Building a network of sites for conservation, state by state. USDA Forest Service
Gen Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, 1265-1269.
Whitworth, D. L., Nelson, S. K., Newman, S. H., VanVliet, G. B., & Smith, W. P. (2000).
Foraging distances of radio-marked Marbled Murrelets from inland areas in southeast
Alaska. The Condor , 102 (2), 452-456.
Yuasa, M. (2010). General duck hunting season begins on Oct. 16. The Seattle Times, Retrieved
August 18, 2010 from:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2012625279_outn15.html
58
APPENDIX A
Letter to Audubon Washington
Washington State IBA Technical Committee
c/o Don McIvor
Audubon Washington
129 Old Twisp Hwy
Twisp, WA 98856-9773
September 3, 2010
To: Washington State IBA Technical Committee:
I am a graduate student at The Evergreen State College in the Master of Environmental Studies
program. My thesis, titled Evidence to Support a Boundary Expansion of the Nisqually Delta
Important Bird Area to include the Shores and Bluffs of Anderson Island, Washington is
enclosed.
I am writing this letter to request an expansion of the current boundary of the Nisqually Important
Bird Area (IBA). There are two options for an expanded IBA. The first (Option 1) is laid out in
my enclosed thesis, and suggests a boundary expansion that would mirror the proposed aquatic
reserve for the Nisqually Reach. The other option (Option 2) suggests a smaller expansion; to
expand the current IBA boundary northward to include part of the Nisqually Reach, and the
bluffs, shoreline and waters within one kilometer of Anderson Island. The two options are
discussed further below.
Option 1
The proposed IBA boundary expansion extends the current IBA roughly 6000 ha and mirrors the
proposed aquatic reserve boundary for the Nisqually Reach (which overlaps with the current
IBA). The legal description for the proposed aquatic reserve is pending. Depending on that
description, the proposed extended IBA may go beyond the aquatic reserve proposal to include
the high tide shorelines and bluffs of Anderson Island, Ketron Island, Eagle Island, southern end
of McNeil Island and segments of Thurston County and Pierce County. An extended IBA would
provide overall ecological connectivity of relatively pristine and representative habitats including
high bluffs, tidal flats, salt marshes and deep waters (support for Criterion 2; see Figure 1).
Therefore, it would support a greater diversity of bird species, particularly alcids, grebes and
cormorants (Table 1). The area is also vitally important for juvenile salmon that exit the Nisqually
River system as young fry and seek food and refuge in the marine vegetation of the nearshore
habitat of Anderson Island and nearby shorelines before migrating out to sea, providing an ample
food supply for waterbirds in the area.
59
Figure 1. Shoreline habitat types within the Nisqually Reach region (Grilliot, 2010).
Table 1. Observations of marine birds in the proposed extended IBA
Species
Species Month Year Count Types
Data
Name
Status
of
Quality
Birds
Horned
Grebe
Rednecked
Grebe
Western
Grebe
Brandt’s
Cormorant
Doublecrested
Cormorant
Pelagic
Cormorant
Principal
Data
Collector
Source
Criteria
W
Dec.
2009
55
A
Good
Raab
5
1
W
Mar.
2010
25
A
Good
Raab
4
1
W
Mar.
2010
25
A
Good
Raab
4
1
R
Jan.
2010
7
A
Good
Raab
4
1
R
Feb.
2010
11
A
Good
Raab
4
1
R
Dec.
2009
16
A
Good
Raab
5
1
60
Surf
Scoter
Redbreasted
Merganser
W
Dec.
2009
55
A
Good
Raab
5
1
W
Jan.
2010
97
U
Good
Raab
3
1
1
4iv
2
4iv
Common
R
June
2009
30
A
Good
Styring
Murre
Pigeon
R
May
2010
44
B
Good
Raab
Guillemot
Sources:
1
Aquatic Reserves Technical Committee site visit, June 9, 2009
2
Boat survey around Anderson Island, May 13, 2010
3
Puget Sound Seabird Survey, Andy’s Marine Park, Anderson Island, 2010
4
Puget Sound Seabird Survey, Ferry Dock, Anderson Island, 2010
5
Christmas Bird Count, Anderson Island, Dec. 20, 2009
The area within the proposed extended boundary appears to be particularly important due to the
significant amount of high bluffs providing prime nesting habitat for Pigeon Guillemots (Cepphus
columba). Surf Scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) are common to the area, perhaps due to the
abundant food sources such as Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) roe. Marbled Murrelets
(Brachyramphus marmoratus) have been documented in parts of the area, theoretically using the
Nisqually River as a corridor between potential nesting grounds at Mount Rainer National Park
and foraging waters of the South Puget Sound (support for Criteria 1 and 4iv).
The majority of extended IBA is open marine waters of the state (roughly 85%). The remaining
15% of the area consists of pocket estuaries, shorelines, bluffs and aquatic tidelands owned by
Washington Department of Natural Resources, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fort Lewis, Burlington Northern Railroad, National Oyster
Company, Tolmie State Park and numerous private entities. A draft management plan for the
proposed aquatic reserve is scheduled to be finalized by the end of late summer, and then will go
through the State Environmental Policy Act public review process. A final decision on the
aquatic reserve designation of the site will likely be made sometime in September or October,
2010. If the designation is approved, the aquatic reserve will be managed by Washington
Department of Natural Resources (as reviewed by Hull, 2008).
Land uses of the area include wildlife conservation, recreation, fishing, hunting, aquaculture, and
residential. Conservation lands in the vicinity include Tolmie State Park (42 ha), Fort Lewis
(20,000 ha Douglas-fir forest, 8,200 ha prairies and open grassland, 1,500 ha oak woodland and
oak-mixed woodland, 1,800 ha wetland) Mount Rainer National Park (95,000 ha), Nisqually
National Wildlife Refuge (1,200 ha), Anderson Island Parks (130 ha), McNeil Island wildlife
refuge (1,200 ha) and parts of Thurston and Pierce County shorelines. Threats are listed and
ranked in Table 2.
61
Table 2. Threats to birds in the Nisqually Reach
Threat
Level
Storm water runoff
High
Joint Base Lewis/McChord
sewage treatment plant at Solo
Point
Aquaculture
High
Shoreline development
Medium
Hunting
Low/Medium
Dredged material disposal site
Low
High
Notes
Impervious surfaces and high
rainfall events cause a variety
of contaminants to wash into
Puget Sound.
Discharges a large amount of
treated and/or raw sewage into
the Sound.
National Oyster Company
(located in the current IBA
boundary) and several private
aquatic operations may cause
damage to natural benthic
communities.
Development particularly
threatens the shoreline and
nearshore habitat of McNeil
Island. It has remained largely
undeveloped due to the State
Corrections Center that was
first built on the island in the
late 1800s. However, the
prison is in the process of
closure, and therefore the
natural and pristine state of the
ecosystem is at risk.
Waterfowl hunting is allowed
in certain areas within the
Nisqually Delta and Reach.
Regulations for decreased bag
limits allow for relatively low
risk to overall population
numbers.
Regulations ensure relatively
low impact to overall
ecosystem.
Option 2
This proposed extension would expand the current Nisqually Delta IBA directly northward to
include the part of the Nisqually Reach between the current IBA and Anderson Island, as well as
the bluffs, shoreline and nearshore habitat surrounding Anderson Island out to one km. This
option would expand the current IBA roughly 1,500 ha. The extended area is about 80% open
marine water (owned by DNR), and the remaining 20% is high bluffs and nearshore habitat
including pocket estuaries, tidal flats and shoreline (mostly owned by private entities and the
Anderson Island Parks Department). This expansion would also ensure ecological connection
between the Nisqually Delta and the nearshore habitat of Anderson Island. However, the foraging
area with documented sightings of Marbled Murrelets is not included in this option. Further, the
62
other shorelines in the area (that are not included in this option) are most likely important for
juvenile salmon as well.
The nearby conservation lands are the same as the first option. Threats change slightly; the
dredged material disposal site is not included in the proposed boundary for Option 2 (however it
is still very nearby). The threat of shoreline development on Anderson Island is low due to zoning
regulations and lack of developable land due to high bluffs and existing houses. Threats due to
aquaculture, storm water runoff, sewage treatment plant discharge, and hunting remain the same
level, regardless of the option.
There are pros and cons to both options described above. I personally recommend Option 1
because the entire Reach represents prime bird habitat, and it holds many species of conservation
concern, several in significant numbers, including Marbled Murrelet. Option 1 would supplement
the proposed aquatic reserve designation in the area to further protect and recognize prime aquatic
habitats within southern Puget Sound.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Feel free to contact me at 612-3099932 or raablk@gmail.com. I appreciate all of your time and efforts.
Thank you,
Lindsay Raab
Graduate Student
Master of Environmental Studies Program
The Evergreen State College
References:
Grilliot, M. (2010). Aquatic Reserves Status Proposed. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from Nisqually
Reach Nature Center: http://www.nisquallyestuary.org/aquatic.htm
Hull, D. (2008). Washinton State Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved June 26, 2010,
from Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve Proposal:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_ac_nisquallyreach_proposal.pdf
63
APPENDIX B
Map of Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (US Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2005).
64
APPENDIX C
Bird Species List for Nisqually Reach Aquatic Habitats
The 134 species listed below have been observed in the Nisqually Reach region and can be
associated with aquatic habitats including estuary, mudflats, salt and freshwater marshes, pond,
riparian, rocky or sandy beach, nearshore, or open marine water (according to Bird Web, Seattle
Audubon, 2008). Data compiled by author in cooperation with Washington State Department of
Natural Resources Aquatic Reserves Program staff in 2010.
Common Name
Red-throated Loon
Pacific Loon
Common Loon
Yellow-billed Loon**
Pied-billed Grebe*
Horned Grebe
Red-necked Grebe
Eared Grebe
Western Grebe
Laysan Albatross**
Short-tailed Shearwater**
Leach's Storm Petrel**
American White Pelican**
Brown Pelican**
Brant's Cormorant
Double-crested Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
American Bittern*
Great Blue Heron*
Great Egret
Green Heron*
Turkey Vulture
Snow Goose
Greater White-fronted Goose
Canada x Greater White-fronted
Goose***
Canada Goose*
Cackling Goose
Brant
Trumpeter Swan
Tundra Swan
Scientific Name
Gavia stellata
Gavia pacifica
Gavia immer
Gavia adamsii
Podilymbus podiceps
Podiceps auritus
Podiceps grisegena
Podiceps nigricollis
Aechmophorus occidentalis
Phoebastria immutabilis
Puffinus tenuirostris
Oceanodroma leucorhoa
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Pelecanus occidentalis
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Phalacrocorax auritus
Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ardea herodias
Ardea alba
Butorides virescens
Cathartes aura
Chen caerulescens
Anser albifrons
Anser albifrons x Branta
canadensis
Branta canadensis
Branta hutchinsii
Branta bernicla
Cygnus buccinator
Cygnus columbianus
Notes
1, 2, 4
1, 2, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
2, 4
1, 2, 4, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
4
4
4
1, 4
4
2, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
4, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
4
4, 7
4
4
4, 6, 7
7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
6, 7
1, 2, 4, 6
4
4
65
Wood Duck*
Gadwall*
Eurasian Wigeon
American Wigeon
Mallard*
Blue-winged Teal*
Cinnamon Teal*
Northern Shoveler*
Northern Pintail*
Green-winged Teal*
Canvasback
Ring-necked Duck*
Lesser Scaup
Greater Scaup
Harlequin Duck
Surf Scoter
White-winged Scoter
Black Scoter
Long-tailed Duck
Bufflehead
Common Goldeneye
Barrow's Goldeneye
Hooded Merganser*
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Ruddy Duck
Osprey
White-tailed Kite**
Bald Eagle*
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk**
Rough-legged Hawk
Merlin**
Gyrfalcon**
Peregrine Falcon
Virginia Rail*
Sora**
American Coot*
Sandhill Crane
Black-bellied Plover**
Aix sponsa
Anas strepera
Anas penelope
Anas americana
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas discors
Anas cyanoptera
Anas clypeata
Anas acuta
Anas crecca
Aythya valisineria
Aythya collaris
Aythya affinis
Aythya marila
Histrionicus histrionicus
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta fusca
Melanitta nigra
Clangula hyemalis
Bucephala albeola
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Mergus serrator
Oxyura jamaicensis
Pandion haliaetus
Elanus leucurus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Accipiter striatus
Buteo lineatus
Buteo lagopus
Falco columbarius
Falco rusticolus
Falco peregrinus
Rallus limicola
Porzana carolina
Fulica americana
Grus canadensis
Pluvialis squatarola
4
1, 4, 6, 7
2, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
4
4
4, 6, 7
1, 2, 4, 6, 7
1, 4, 6, 7
2, 4
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
2, 4
1, 2, 4
2
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4
2, 4
2, 4
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 2, 4, 5
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
4
1, 4, 7
4
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
4
4
4
4, 7
4
4, 5, 6, 7
4
4
1, 4, 7
4
4
66
American Golden Plover**
Semipalmated Plover
Killdeer*
Black-necked Stilt**
American Avocet**
Greater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs
Willet**
Spotted Sandpiper*
Whimbrel**
Red Knot**
Sanderling**
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Baird's Sandpiper**
Pectoral Sandpiper
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper**
Dunlin
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed Dowitcher
Common Snipe***
Wilson's Snipe
Wilson's Phalarope*&**
Red-necked Phalarope
Parasitic Jaeger
Franklin's Gull**
Black-headed Gull**
Bonaparte's Gull
Heermann's Gull
Mew Gull
Ring-billed Gull
California Gull
Herring Gull
Thayer's Gull
Slaty-backed Gull**
Western Gull
Glaucous-winged Gull
Glaucous-winged x Western Gull
Glaucous Gull**
Caspian Tern
Pluvialis dominica
Charadrius semipalmatus
Charadrius vociferus
Himantopus mexicanus
Recurvirostra americana
Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Tringa semipalmata
Actitis macularius
Numenius phaeopus
Calidris canutus
Calidris alba
Calidris mauri
Calidris minutilla
Calidris bairdii
Calidris melanotos
Calidris acuminata
Calidris alpina
Limnodromus griseus
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Gallinago gallinago
Gallinago delicata
Phalaropus tricolor
Phalaropus lobatus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Larus pipixcan
Larus ridibundus
Larus philadelphia
Larus heermanni
Larus canus
Larus delawarensis
Larus californicus
Larus argentatus
Larus thayeri
Larus schistisagus
Larus occidentalis
Larus glaucescens
Larus sp.
Larus hyperboreus
Hydroprogne caspia
4
4
1, 4, 6, 7
4
4
1, 4
4, 7
4
3, 4
1, 4
4
4
1, 4, 6
1, 4, 7
4
4
4
1, 3, 4, 7
4
4, 7
4
7
4
4
4
4
4
1, 4, 6
4
1, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 4, 6, 7
7
1, 4, 7
4
4
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
1, 4, 5, 6, 7
4
1, 4, 7
67
Common Tern
Common Murre
Pigeon Guillemot
Marbled Murrelet
Ancient Murrelet**
Rhinoceros Auklet
Band-tailed Pigeon*
Barn Owl*&**
Short-eared Owl*
Vaux's Swift
Belted Kingfisher
Willow Flycatcher*
Northwest Crow
Tree Swallow*
Violet-green Swallow*
Northern Rough-winged Swallow*
Bank Swallow**
Cliff Swallow*
Barn Swallow*
Marsh Wren*
Red-winged Blackbird*
Purple Martin
American Goldfinch
Sterna hirundo
Uria aalge
Cepphus columba
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Synthliboramphus antiquus
Cerorhinca monocerata
Patagioenas fasciata
Tyto alba
Asio flammeus
Chaetura vauxi
Megaceryle alcyon
Empidonax traillii
Corvus caurinus
Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta thalassina
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Riparia riparia
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica
Cistothorus palustris
Agelaius phoeniceus
Progne subis
Carduelis tristis
4
1, 4
1, 3, 4, 5
1, 4
4
4
4
4
4, 7
4, 7
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
7
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
4, 7
1, 4, 7
4
4
4
4
4, 6, 7
4, 6, 7
1
7
*Evidence of species breeding on the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge at least once since 1975
** Listed as rare, uncommon, or not listed for the Puget Trough region for all 12 months (Seattle Audubon, Bird Web)
*** Information on this species is not on Bird Web, Seattle Audubon website
Notes:
1- Data collected from Nisqually Reach Nature Center displays and education materials
throughout years 2002-2010 by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Aquatic
Reserves Program staff.
2- Black Hills Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count Data from roughly 1994-2009. Data
received by DNR Aquatic Reserves Program staff from Black Hill’s Audubon Member George
Walter in 2010.
3- Tahoma Audubon Society’s trial Christmas Bird Count on Anderson Island, 2009. Data
collected by author.
4- Documented sighting of species in the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) at least
once since 1975. Data from Nisqually NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix E,
2005.
68
5- Puget Sound Seabird Survey data, Anderson Island Andy's Marine Park and Ferry Dock sites,
January-May, 2010. Data collected by author.
6- US Geological Survey (USGS) Delta Wide Survey at the Nisqually NWR, January, 2010. Data
received by author from Restoration Biologist Kelly Turner on July 21, 2010.
7- USGS monthly surveys at the Nisqually NWR, September 2009 - March 2010. Surveyed area
was restricted to footprint of the old dike. Data retrieved by author from the Nisqually Delta
Restoration website at http://nisquallydeltarestoration.org/science_birds.php on June 23, 2010.
69
APPENDIX D
Marine Mammals and Bats in the Nisqually Reach
Marine mammal and bat species list for proposed Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve. Data
compiled by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Aquatic Reserves Program
staff in 2010.
Common Name
Pacific Harbor Seal
California Sea Lion
Northern Sea Lion
Killer Whale
False Killer Whale
Gray Whale
Minke Whale
Harbor Porpoise
Yuma Myotis
Little Brown Myotis
Long-eared Myotis
Long-legged Myotis
Keen's Myotis
California Myotis
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Big Brown Bat
Hoary Bat
Silver-haired Bat
Scientific Name
Phoca vitulina
Zalophus californianus
Eumetopias jubatus
Orcinus orca
Pseudorca crassidens
Eschrichtius robustus
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Phocoena phocoena
Myotis yumanensis
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis evotis
Myotis volans
Myotis keenii
Myotis californicus
Corynorhinus townsendii
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus cinereus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Notes
1, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 3, 4
2, 5
2, 5
2, 5
5
5
5
2, 5
5
2, 5
2, 5
Notes:
1- Data collected from Nisqually Reach Nature Center displays and education materials
throughout years 2002 - 2010.
2- Species documented at the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Data retrieved
from Nisqually NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix E 2005.
3- Data from John Calambokidis, Research Biologist, Cascadia Research, retrieved in
2010.
4- Data from Steve Jefferies, Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Marine Mammal Program, retrieved in 2010.
5- Data from John Fleckenstein, Zoologist, DNR Natural Heritage Program, retrieved in
2010.
70
APPENDIX E
Fish in the Nisqually Reach
Fish species list for proposed Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve. Data compiled by Washington
Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Reserves Program staff in 2010.
Common Name
Pacific Lamprey
Spotted Ratfish
Spiny Dogfish
American Shad
Northern Anchovy
Pacific Herring
Surf Smelt
Pink Salmon
Chum Salmon
Coho Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Steelhead
Coastal Cutthroat
Bull Trout
Pacific Cod
Lingcod
Pacific Whiting (Hake)
Pacific Tomcod
Walleye Pollock
Plainfin Midshipman
Northern Clingfish
Tube-Snout
Three Spine Stickleback
Bay Pipefish
Brown Rockfish
Copper Rockfish
Quillback Rockfish
Redstripe Rockfish
Sharpchin Rockfish
Puget Sound Rockfish
Sablefish
Scientific Name
Lampetra tridentata
Hydrolagus colliei
Squalus acanthias
Alosa sapidissima
Engraulis mordax
Clupea harengus pallasi
Hypomesus pretiosus
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus clarki
Salvelinus confluentus
Gadus macrocephalus
Ophiodon elongatus
Merluccius productus
Microgadus proximus
Theragra chalcogramma
Porichthys notatus
Gobiesox meandricus
Aulorhynchus flavidus
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Syngnathus leptorhynchus
Sebastes auriculatus
Sebastes caurinus
Sebastes maliger
Sebastes proriger
Sebastes zacentrus
Sebastes emphaeus
Anoplopoma fimbria
Notes
4
1, 4
1, 4
1, 3, 4
1, 3
1, 2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
3, 4
2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
2, 3
2, 4
1, 4
1
1, 4
1, 4
1, 4
1, 4
4
4
2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
1, 4
1, 4
1, 4
1
1
1
1, 4
71
Kelp Greenling
Rock Greenling
White-spotted Greenling
Painted Greenling
Cabezon
Red Irish Lord
Padded Sculpin
Smoothhead Sculpin
Silverspotted Sculpin
Reticulate/Riffle Sculpin
Torrent Sculpin
Shorthead Sculpin
Coastrange Sculpin
Prickly Sculpin
Buffalo Sculpin
Pacific Staghorn Sculpin
Grunt Sculpin
Sailfin Sculpin
Tidepool Sculpin
Tadpole Sculpin
Soft Sculpin
Manacled Sculpin
Roughback Sculpin
Sharpnose Sculpin
Calico Sculpin
Northern Sculpin
Ribbed Sculpin
Slim Sculpin
Spinyhead Sculpin
Great Sculpin
Northern Spearnose Poacher
Pygmy Poacher
Tubenose Poacher
Sturgeon Poacher
Blacktip Poacher
Ringtail Snailfish
Marbled Snailfish
Shiner Perch
Hexagrammos decagrammus
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
Hexagrammos stelleri
Oxylebius pictus
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus
Artedius fenestralis
Artedius lateralis
Blepsias cirrhosus
Cottus perplexus/gulosus
Cottus rhotheus
Cottus confusus
Cottus aleuticus
Cottus asper
Enophrys bison
Leptocottus armatus
Rhamphocottus richardsoni
Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Oligocottus maculosus
Psychrolutes paradoxus
Psychrolutes sigalutes
Synchirus gilli
Chitonotus pugetensis
Clinocottus acuticeps
Clinocottus embryum
Icelinus borealis
Triglops pingeli
Radulinus asprellus
Dasycottus setiger
Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus
Agonopsis vulsa
Odontopyxis trispinosa
Pallasina barbata
Agonus acipenserinus
Xeneretmus latifrons
Liparis rutteri
Liparis dennyi
Cymatogaster aggregata
1, 4
4
1, 4
4
1, 4
1, 4
1, 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1, 4
1, 2, 4
1, 4
1, 4
4
4
4
4
1, 4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1, 4
1, 4
4
4
1, 4
1, 4
4
1
1, 2, 3, 4
72
Striped Seaperch
Pile Perch
Slender Cockscomb
High Cockscomb
Pacific Snake Prickleback
Penpoint Gunnel
Rockweed Gunnel
Crescent Gunnel
Saddleback Gunnel
Pacific Sand Lance
Arrow Goby
Bay Goby
Northern Ronquil
Pacific Sanddab
Speckled Sanddab
Arrowtooth Flounder
Starry Flounder
Rex Sole
Petrale Sole
Flathead Sole
Dover Sole
Rock Sole
Butter Sole
English Sole
Southern Rock Sole
Northern Rock Sole
Sand Sole
Slender Sole
Hybrid Sole
White Sturgeon
Bigfin Eelpout
Blackbelly Eelpout
Shortfin Eelpout
Wattled Eelpout
Snake Prickleback
Slipskin Snailfish
Showy Snailfish
Ribbon Snailfish
Embiotoca lateralis
Rhacochilus vacca
Anoplarchus insignis
Anoplarchus purpurescens
Lumpenus sagitta
Apodichthys flavidus
Apodichthys fucorum
Pholis laeta
Pholis ornata
Ammodytes hexapterus
Clevelandia ios
Lepidogobius lepidus
Ronquilus jordani
Citharichthys sordidus
Citharichthys stigmaeus
Atheresthes stomias
Platichthys stellatus
Glyptocephalus zachirus
Eopsetta jordani
Hippoglossoides elassodon
Microstomus pacificus
Pleuronectes bilineata
Isopsetta isolepis
Parophrys vetulus
Lepidopsetta bilineata
Lepidopsetta polyxystra
Psettichthys melanostictus
Lyopsetta exilis
Inopsetta ischyra
Acipenser transmontanus
Aprodon cortezianus
Lycodes pacificus
Lycodes brevipes
Lycodes palearis
Lumpenus sagitta
Liparis fucensis
Liparis pulchellus
Liparis cyclopus
1, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
4
4
4
3, 4
4
3, 4
2, 3, 4
2, 3, 4
3, 4
4
1
1, 4
1, 3, 4
1
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 4
1
1, 4
1, 4
1, 3, 4
1, 4
1, 3, 4
1
1
1, 4
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1, 3
1
1
1
73
Eulachon
Pacific Pompano
Longspine Combfish
Gray Starsnout
Pacific Spiny Lumpsucker
Big Skate
Sandpaper Skate
Longnose Skate
Sixgill Shark
Thaleichthys pacificus
Perrilus simillimus
Zaniolepis latipinnis
Asterotheca alascana
Eumicrotremus orbis
Raja binoculata
Raja kincaidi
Raja rhina
Hexanchus griseus
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Notes:
1- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Trawl Data from stock assessment
surveys 1987-2008. Data received from WDFW Marine Fish Biologist Bob Pacunski 2010.
2- Data retrieved by from Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) website at
http://www.fws.gov/Nisqually/wildlife/fish_sp.html in 2010.
3- Data from Nisqually River Estuary Baseline Fish Ecology Study: 2003-2006 by Christopher
Ellings and Sayre Hodgson (October 2007).
4- Species documented at the Nisqually NWR. Data retrieved from Nisqually NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Appendix E 2005.
74
APPENDIX F
Invertebrates in the Nisqually Reach
Invertebrate species list for proposed Nisqually Aquatic Reserve. Data compiled by Washington
DNR Aquatic Reserves Program staff in 2010.
Common Name
Sea Mouse Uniden.
Scale Worm
Orange Sea Pen
Orange Sea Cucumber
White Sea Cucumber
Red Sea Cucumber
Sweet Potato Sea Cucumber
Salt And Pepper Cucumber
Speckled Sea Lemon
Rainbow Nudibranch
Common or Spot Nudibranch
California Arminid
Rosy Tritonia
Smooth Stem Sea Whip Uniden.
Mottled Orange Anemone
Gigantic Anemone
Metridium Uniden.
Sea Anemone Uniden.
Sand Rose Anemone
Scarlet Anemone
Sea Urchin Uniden.
Sponge Uniden.
Glassy Sea Squirt
Pink Short Spined Sea Star
Rose Sea Star
Sunflower Star
Slime Star
Leather Star
Vermilion Star
False Ochre Star
Morning Sun Star
Stimpson's Sun Star
Banana Starfish
Fried Egg Jellyfish
Scientific Name
Aphroditidae sp.
Halosydna brevisetosa
Ptilosarcus gurneyi
Cucumaria miniata
Eupentacta quinquesemita
Parastichopus californicus
Molpadia intermedia
Cucumaria piperata
Anisodoris nobilis
Dendronotus irus
Triopha catalinae
Armina californica
Tritonia diomedea
Virgularia sp.
Stomphia coccinea
Metridium farcimen
Metridium sp.
Order Actiniaria sp.
Urticina columbiana
Urticina lofotensis
Order Echinoidea sp.
Phylum Porifera sp.
Ascida paratropa
Pisaster brevispinus
Crossaster papposus
Pycnopodia helianthoides
Pteraster tesselatus
Dermasterias imbricata
Mediaster aequalis
Evasterias troschelii
Solaster dawsoni
Solaster stimpsoni
Luidia foliata
Phacellophora camtschatica
Notes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
75
Barnacles
Squat Lobster
Brachyuran Crab zoea
Kelp Crab
Graceful Decorator Crab
Hairy Porcelain Crab
Hermit Crabs Uniden.
Graceful Crab
Dungeness Crab
Pygmy Rock Crab
Red Rock Crab
Graceful Kelp Crab
Longhorned Decorator Crab
Cladoceran
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Amphipod
Isopod
Isopod
Copepods
Cyclopoid Copepod
Calanoid Copepod
Harpacticoid Copepod
Ostracod
Krill
Shortscale Eualid
Hippolytidae
Crangonid Shrimp Uniden.
Hooded Shrimp
Horned Shrimp
Bay Ghost Shrimp
Blue Mud Shrimp
Dock Shrimp
Sidestriped Shrimp
Opossum Shrimp
Cirripedian nauplius larvae
Mundia quadrispina
Order Decopoda
Pugettia producta
Oregonia gracilis
Pachycheles pubescens
Paguridae sp.
Cancer gracilis
Cancer magister
Cancer oregonensis
Cancer productus
Pugettia gracilis
Chorilia longipes
Cladocera
Corophium salmonis
Corophium spinicorne
Corophium sp.
Anisogammarus pugettensis
Parathemisto pacifica
Eogammarus confervicolus
Eogammarus sp.
Hyperiidae
Gnorimosphaeroma oregonese
Isopoda Uniden.
Copepoda nauplius larvae
Cyclopoid
Calanoid
Harpacticoid
Ostracod
Euphausia pacifica
Eualus suckleyi
Hippolytidae sp.
Crangonidae sp.
Cumacea sp.
Paracrangon echinata
Callianassa/Neotrypaea
californiensis
Upogebia pugettensis
Pandalus danae
Pandalus dispar
Neomysis mercedis
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1, 2
1
1
2
76
Alaskan Pink Shrimp
Shrimp
Spotted Prawn
Moon Snail
Oregon Hairy Triton
False Geoduck
Geoduck Clam
Pacific Gaper
Bent-Nose Macoma
Green Sea Urchin
Big Red Squid
California Market Squid
Squid Uniden.
Giant Octopus
Little Red Octopus
Pandalus eous
Crangon sp.
Pandalus platyceros
Polinices lewisii
Fusitriton oregonensis
Mya truncata
Panope abrupta
Tresus nuttallii
Macoma nasuta
Strongylocentrotus droebachiensi
Berryteuthis magister
Loligo opalescens
Theuthidida-Myopsida
Octopus dofleini
Octopus rubescens
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Notes:
1- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Trawl Data from stock assessment
surveys 1987-2008. Data received from WDFW Marine Fish Biologist Bob Pacunski 2010.
2- Data collected from Nisqually Reach Nature Center displays and education materials
throughout years 2002 - 2010.
77
APPENDIX G
Tahoma Audubon Society Field Trip Data from Nisqually Reach Region
The following bird data was collected in 1998, 2001 and 2005 by members of the
Tahoma Audubon Society on several different field trips to areas in close proximity to Anderson
Island (Tahoma Audubon Society, Located on Mar. 23, 2010). Additional information
documented that is not shown here includes types of pollution (if any), uses of the area, and
further observations on mammals and plants. Tahoma Audubon Society is currently inputting all
fieldtrip data into online databases. Only the most recent data from the area surrounding
Anderson Island is shown here.
A. Field Trip to Anderson Island on April 25, 1998
Time: 7:45 am – 12:45 pm
Number of people: 16
Leaders: John and Karen Parks
Miles covered: About 6 mi.
Weather: Most sunny, calm
Description of area: Slightly used; Mixture of farm fields, woods and fresh water lakes
and ponds
Total number of species identified: 69 species
BIRD LIST:
Common Loon
Horned Grebe
Western Grebe
Double-crested
Cormorant
Pelagic Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Wood Duck
Mallard
American Wigeon
Greater Scaup
Surf Scoter
Common Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Osprey
Bald Eagle
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Killdeer
Greater Yellowlegs
Spotted Sandpiper
Bonaparte's Gull
Glaucous-winged Gull
Caspian Tern
Pigeon Guillemot
Marbled Murrelet
Rock Dove
Band-tailed Pigeon
Rufous Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Downy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Pacific Slope Flycatcher
Tree Swallow
Violet-green Swallow
N. Rough-winged
Swallow
Barn Swallow
Steller's Jay
Northwestern Crow
Common Raven
Chestnut-backed
Chickadee
Bewick's Wren
Red-breasted nuthatch
Winter Wren
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
American Robin
European Starling
Orange-crowned Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Black-throated Gray
Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Spotted Towhee
Chipping Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Dark-eyed (Oregon)
Junco
Red-winged Blackbird
Brown-headed Cowbird
Purple Finch
House Finch
Pine Siskin
78
American Goldfinch
House Sparrow
B. Field trip to McNeil Island on April 28, 2001
Time: 9:30 am – 3:00 pm
Number of people: about 20-30
Checklist by: Roxy Giddings
Miles covered: Undocumented
Weather: Overcast, light rain, heavy rain, wind
Description of area: Undocumented
Total number of species identified: 38 species
BIRD LIST:
Common Loon
Eared Grebe
Brant
Canada Goose
Wood Duck
Mallard
Surf Scoter
White-winged Scoter
Bufflehead
Red-breasted Merganser
Bald Eagle
Killdeer
Glaucous-winged Gull
Rufous Hummingbird
Belted Kingfisher
Downy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Pileated Woodpecker
Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Tree Swallow
Violet-green Swallow
N. Rough-winged
Swallow
Steller’s Jay
American Crow
Chestnut-backed
Chickadee
Winter Wren
Marsh Wren
American Robin
European Starling
Orange-crowned Warbler
Savannah Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Red-winged Blackbird
C. Field Trip to Key Peninsula on March 26, 2005
Time: 8:00 am – 12:00 pm
Number of people: 7
Leader: Rolan Nelson
Miles covered: About 25 mi.
Weather: Steady rain, light wind
Description of area: Slightly used
Total number of species identified: 37 species
BIRD LIST:
Common Loon
Horned Grebe
Double-crested Cormorant
Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Mallard
American Wigeon
Greater Scaup
Harlequin Duck
Surf Scoter
White-winged Scoter
Common Goldeneye
Barrow’s Goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Common Merganser
Osprey
79
Bald Eagle
Merlin
Killdeer
Mew Gull
Glaucous-winged Gull
Rock Pigeon
Belted Kingfisher
Northern Flicker
Tree Swallow
Violet-green Swallow
Steller’s Jay
American Crow
American Robin
European Starling
Orange-crowned Warbler
Song Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Red-winged Blackbird
Pine Sisken
D. Field trip to Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge and Luhr Beach on September 15, 2005
Time: 8:00 am – 3:30 pm
Number of people: 6
Leaders: Ruth and Patrick Sullivan
Miles covered: About 63 mi.
Weather: Rain and drizzle in the morning, partly cloudy in the afternoon
Description of area: Slightly used
Total number of species identified: 81 species
BIRD LIST:
Common Loon
Pied-billed Grebe
Horned Grebe
Red-necked Grebe
Eared Grebe
Western Grebe
Double-crested Cormorant
American Bittern
Great Blue Heron
Great White-fronted
Goose
Canada Goose
Green-winged Teal
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
America Wigeon
Cackling Goose
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Surf Scoter
While-winged Scoter
Bufflehead
Hooded Merganser
Ruddy Duck
Bald Eagle
Northern Harrier
Red-tailed Hawk
Peregrine Falcon
Virginia Rail
American Coot
Black-bellied Plover
Great Yellowlegs
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
Dunlin
Long-billed Dowitcher
Wilson’s Snipe
Mew Gull
Ring-billed Gull
Black-capped Chickadee
Chestnut-backed
Chickadee
Brown Creeper
Bewick’s Wren
Winter Wren
Marsh Wren
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
American Robin
Cedar Waxwing
European Starling
Yellow-rumped Warbler
(Audubon’s)
Yellow-rumped Warbler
(Myrtle’s)
Spotted Towhee
Savannah Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Lincoln’s Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco
Red-winged Blackbird
Brewer’s Blackbird
Purple Finch
House Finch
American Goldfinch
80
APPENDIX H
Puget Sound Seabird Survey Raw Data from Anderson Island Sites, 2010.
Bald Eagle
Peregrine
Falcon
Bufflehead
0
Unidentified
Raptor
(large)
1
Unidentified
Merganser
species
0
Mallard
Surf
Scoter
Common
Goldeneye
0
Redbreasted
Merganser
97
1
0
3
8
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
1
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
2
0
0
0
0*
0
0
4
0*
Jan. 16
Andy’s
Jan. 16
Dock
Feb. 6
Andy’s
Feb. 6
Dock
Mar. 6
Andy’s
Mar. 6
Dock
Apr. 3
Andy’s
Apr. 3
Dock
May 1
Andy’s
May 1
Dock
Total
3
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0*
11
1
1
14
102
1
2
36
21
Mean
1.10
0.10
0.10
1.40
10.20
0.10
0.20
3.60
2.10
Variance
1.43
0.10
0.10
7.38
931.07
0.10
0.40
11.38
10.32
81
Barrow’s
Goldeneye
Unidentified
Goldeneye
species
Glaucouswinged
Gull
4
0
0
Mew Gull
Unidentified
Gull species
Pacific
Loon
Common
Loon
Western
Grebe
0
Glaucouswinged
Gull x
Western
Gull
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
13
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0*
0
0
0
0*
0
0
1
0*
0*
0
0
0
0*
4
0
3
0*
5
2
6
1
3
12
5
7
42
Mean
0.50
0.20
0.60
0.10
0.30
1.20
0.50
0.70
4.20
Variance
1.61
0.40
1.16
0.10
0.46
2.84
0.50
0.90
69.73
Jan. 16
Andy’s
Jan. 16
Dock
Feb. 6
Andy’s
Feb. 6
Dock
Mar. 6
Andy’s
Mar. 6
Dock
Apr. 3
Andy’s
Apr. 3
Dock
May 1
Andy’s
May 1
Dock
Total
82
Rednecked
Grebe
Horned
Grebe
Unidentified
Grebe
species
(small)
Brandt’s
Cormorant
Doublecrested
Cormorant
Pelagic
Cormorant
Unidentified
Cormorant
species
Pigeon
Guillemot
Belted
Kingfisher
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
7
7
7
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
11
7
0
0
0
Jan. 16
Andy’s
Jan. 16
Dock
Feb. 6
Andy’s
Feb. 6
Dock
Mar. 6
Andy’s
Mar. 6
Dock
Apr. 3
Andy’s
Apr. 3
Dock
May 1
Andy’s
May 1
Dock
Total
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
25
3
0
1
6
12
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0*
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0*
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
26
10
2
11
24
28
2
17
4
Mean
2.60
1.00
0.20
1.10
2.40
2.80
0.20
1.70
0.40
Variance
62.04
2.22
0.18
5.21
16.49
18.62
0.18
8.23
0.27
83
Great
Blue
Heron
Rock
Pigeon
Northwestern Northwestern
Crow
Crow or
Common
Raven
Mourning
Dove
Barn
Swallow
Canada
Goose
Unidentified
flying birds
Jan. 16
Andy’s
Jan. 16
Dock
Feb. 6
Andy’s
Feb. 6
Dock
Mar. 6
Andy’s
Mar. 6
Dock
Apr. 3
Andy’s
Apr. 3
Dock
May 1
Andy’s
May 1
Dock
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
2
0
0
20
0
0
0
1
0
25
0
0
2
6
5
5
2
25
2
20
Mean
0.20
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.20
2.50
0.20
2.00
Variance
0.18
0.93
0.72
1.61
0.40
62.50
0.40
40.00
84
*These survey data were not used in the weighted average to calculate species estimates for within the study area (see Results section) if a bird
species was listed as uncommon or rare for that month in Puget Sound on Bird Web (Seattle Audubon Society, 2008).
85
