RESULTS OF THE 1986 SEABIRD MONITORING PROGRAM AT CAPE LISBURNE,

ALASKA

By :

G. Vernon Byrd

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge 202 Pioneer Ave .

Homer , Alaska 99603

Key Words: Cape Lisburne , Chukchi Sea, thick-billed murre, common murre , black-legged kittiwake , population trends, reproductive success

ARLIS Alaska Resources

Ltbrary & Jnformat•on Services Ane .. ..,. ~ •• .J~•~A

September 1986

1

RESULTS OF THE 1986 SEABIRD MONITORING PROGRAM AT CAPE LISBURNE,

ALASKA

By: G. Vernon Byrd

I. Purpose

Since 1984 annual one-week trips have been made to the Ann

Stevens-Cape Lisburne subunit of the Alaska Maritime NWR to --.

evaluate the status of nesting kittiwakes"-<md murres ..... _Prior to

1984, ~.~:baseline ' data . were gathered. -~~during .::::.extensive ... studies

(Springer- and Roseneau 1978, -··springer et al; .. i 979,.~--springer.. et

al. 1985a ·, -Springer et. al •. 1985b); Therefore . it is· now~ possible

to get a. general idea of the status of populations by measuring

several parameters at about the time of hatching. Objectives of

these .. short trips include determining:~~boom"-- or J'bust" -· ·

reproductive success for kitti'Wakes-,- -numbers of · murres--and

kittiwakes using monitoring plots, and some of the possible

causes (e.g. food habits, sea temperatures) of observed differen-

ces. By continuing to collect data annually at Cape Lisburne it

should be possible to understand how populations respond to

changes in the marine environment. Cape Lisburne is an important

site in the refuge-wide monitoring system because it is the only

location sampled regularly in the Chukchi Sea. Furthermore,

populations there have remained relatively stable, while murre

populations further south have declined. Thus Cape Lisburne is an

important control site in the overall monitoring effort.

2

II. Activities

July 26

July 27

July 28

July 29

Itenerary

Partly cloudy, wind 15-20 NE

Alan Springer and I arrived at Cape Lisburne about 15:30 h. After checking into quarters at the Air Force site~ we prepared our gear for the work. We patched the inflatable boat stored at the site and had to. let it dry overnight.

Intermittent heavy rain, wind 25-35 SW

Weather precluded use of the boat.- We walked a1ong the beach to the point between First .Beach and Tiny Beach •. It was not possible to round the point-because it· projects into the·sea. We discovered that the Air.Force was blasting-sections of cliff on the refuge to obtain large rock for runway maintenance.

Intermittent rain, wind 20-30 SW

The morning and early afternoon were spent determining the exact·location of the quarry relative_to the refuge boundary.- Also birds were counted at plots near the blasting site to compare with information from 1976-1977. In the evening the wind abated and we launched the boat for a trip to Kittiwake Beach. Plots used to estimate kittiwake reproductive success were surveyed. We also went offshore and collected murres and kittiwakes for food habits analyses. We began processing specimens.

Rain, wind 20-30 SW

We finished processing specimens about 04:00 h, so we slept later than usual. In the afternoon we went to First Beach to count birds in plots near the quarry again.

3

July 30

July 31

Aug 1 • ··-::

Intermittent rain, wind 15-20 W

Seas were down a bit, so we launched the boat to collect more birds and to take plankton tows and sea water temperatures. We also went to Kittiwake Beach to count birds on some of the population plots. A sample of kittiwake

"chicks was weighed. In the evening we processed -specimens.

Partly cloudy, wind .5 N\~

We took the boat to. Kittiwake Beach .to count birds on the remaining population plots. We · also counted birds in plots. on First Beach·"'"'::-· ~ ·again. _

Partly. Cloudy, -wi~Q -~0, N\.J ~~,;;;<~--

In the morningcwe~;t;to·r~d.-equipment-. We_ departed..-7-~: Cape Lisburne -.at 13:00 '11''

Plans ..... for the 1986 visit to-Cape-Lisburne included- ·replicate

counts-.- of birds on our primary "short-visit" monitoring . plots-,.,~--

(65,66,-70, 72),. but poor weather made it ~impossible.·to:: regularly.:..-.:: -·

reach -the -plotS. -Therefore· the. plois were -Censused. On•c onl.y_ one: ~::·:.~.

day each, although counts were made by eaeh of us at least once,

and if the counts diverged more than 10%, additional counts were

made to discount anomalous· totals. Similar counts were averaged.

Data.c·· on kittiwake. reproductive success were· collected only· from

the plots on the north shore of the Cape, because rough seas

precluded taking the boat around the point. Birds, plankton, and

sea water temperatures were collected in the normal fashion (see

. "Trip Report--Kotzebue and Cape Lisburne, 1985", a memorandum to

the Refuge Nanager, Alaska Maritime NWR, dated September 9, 1985

for an explaination of methods and rationale).

4

Unexpectedly we discovered quarrying activities on the refuge,

therefore, we decided to ·count birds in all plots near the

blasting site on First Beach (see Fig. 1 for locations) to see if

numbers had changed appreciably since 1977-1978, the first time

these plots were censused. Since boat travel was not required to

reach this area, we were able to make replicate counts in 1986 to

estimate the mean number of birds using the plots.

J -III. Results ~ ___ :.

General Moni taring ·:.·: r~.:;

-Murre Nesting ·Phenology an9 ·Populations:-~-

On July- · 28 we estimated that· 10% of· the murre . nest .. sites we

examined- -had -small--: chicks,,. __ the ·remainder still had eggs. . .

Therefore, :-:the :...peak --:.of hatching pro]?ably~.occurred during the

"' .... _.s"'"~:;:itc~..;;""'~;;.~·-.o~-_:;.~•=-=,· = -~~~tirst·=week of::.August~ _;>Based~on the size of the ·largest·chick.we -­

saw, hatching :began.::.:-approximat:ely: -~uly · '24.- . This _·earliest-,:

hatching date and the peak of hatching are similar to other

"early" years at Cape Lisburne (Springer et al. 1985c). -

Counts of murres in plots 65,66, and 72 were roughly similar in

1985 and 1986,-but a much lower count was obtained for plot 72 in

1986 (Tables 1 and 2). As a result the sum of the sample counts

for 1986 was lower than in 1985, but it was higher than the

. overall 9-year average (Table 2). Changes among years of single

counts are difficult to interpret because hourly, daily, and

yearly variation in attendance at cliffs may be substantial. In

5

addition, accurately counting murrcs in the sample plots at rApe

Lisburne is difficult because the cliffs are high and counts are

made from a narrow beach directly below the plots. Prior to

1984, counts were made from an inflatable boat offshore. This

provided a better viewing angle, but the unstable platform made

accurate counting difficult. Considering the potential for

inaccuracy, strong conclusions ·should not be drawn from

differences in counts. Nevertheless, popul8tion trends of a

substantial proportion should- .be. obvious··:' if sudi trends "·exist.,·:,-;:.:-::.

None are suggested by the data. ~~.

Ki ttfwake· Nesting· Phenology -and- Populations·- ·- • ~

Nearly 60% of the nests that contained either eggs or chicks on

July 28, had chicks. · This indicates the peak of hatching

probably:. occurred during the last week of July,_:·This is·similar---c:-~

to other "early" years at Cape Lisburne (Spring~r.: et--al;- 1985b). cc: ~.

Counts of individual· kittiwakes and-kittiwake nests in 1986 at

monitoring plots 65, "56; 70, and 72 indicated an overall increase ··

since 1985 (Tables 1 and 3) if sums of all plots ~re used to make

comparisons. There was variation among plots with large

increases in plot 65 and 72 but a substantial decrease in counts

at plot 70. The number of kittiwakes counted in all plots in

1986 was nearly double the sum in 1977, but nest counts were only

slightly higher (Table 3). It is not clear why the(e is so much

variation in counts among years, but in spite of this, it seems

clear that kittiwake populations at Cape Lisburne are not

6

declining. In fact they may be continuing to increase slightly

as they did from 1977 to 1979--based on counts of the entire

colony (Springer et al. '1985b).

Kittiwake Reproductive Success

------------------------------Of 100 nests checked in four study areas in 1986, 67% contained

at least one egg or chick {Table 4). Successful nests contained

an averag,e ··{)f_}_!_4_ eggs i>r chicks on July _2tj 1 _ and ac_ti ve __ ~_nests ______ ..

. -productiYity.:..d:·emaine.d -· lower :.than during : th~ period::- 1979-1983-~

(Tab-le· ---s):--- -:.=.:: ·· -- " . -· ·-· .. -

Environmental ·Conditions and Food ·Habits·--·

--------------------------------------~-

~~_;:_.Poor · sea conditions· restricted the time .. we· could ·spend measuring .. . ~-

· ~ceanograph;tc -~-parameters.: ::~.7-The . single" water, ·ter.~perature 'we~ 0 .

obtained (9 "·C);·- on July 30~ was substantial-ly ... higher than ·the 0

average recorded iii 1985 (5. C). Probably due to the warmer water

temperatures, . whi.ch-.infl uence . the entire ·food web{·~. sand lance·

were present .. near--Cape Lisburne in 198b (see Springer .et al.

1985c~foi:' · a~_:discussion :of ~food web:: dynamics) ...

Twenty-two black-legged kittiwakes, 17 thick-billed murres, and b

common murres were collected in 1986. Most of the kittiw~kes and

common murres contained remains of sand lance, but 'thick-billed

murres contained more sculpins and other small fish.

Interestingly, very little plankton was caught in the vertical

7

tows. Several sand lance from kittiwake stomachs were preserved

for later analysis to determine what they were eating.

Summary

In 1986 murre numbeis on monitoring plots were slightly lower

than in 1985, but they still remained above the long-term average

at Cape Lisburne. This population has apparently remined

relatively stable since at least 1976. -

higher in 1986 than in 1985, and populations may -be increasing.

Nesting phenology was relativeiy early for kittiwakes ::1nrl murres

in 1986. Probably due to moderately warm sea temperatures, sand

lance were present near Cape Lisburne at the time of our visit.

In years when this valuable seabird prey item is common,

_productivity tends to be high. '-..

parameters we measured as indicators of reproduCEive·'-success-

higher than in the past two years. Rev~rfheless, success

remained lower thaQ_in the late 1~70's and early 1Y80's, warmer

years when sandlance were more abundant.

Impacts of Blasting on Populations of Seabirds Nesting Nearhy

As discussed in an earlier memorandum (Subj: Rock blasting by the

Air Force at Cape Lisburne, dated August 7, 1986), the Air Force

-had extended the area from which they obtain lRrg~ rock for

maintaining the seawall at their runway. TI1e loc~tion of the

rock extraction, which includes blasting, was found to be on the

8

... .

refuge (see Fig. 1 for locations).

As indicated in the earljer memorandum, we have no evidP.nce of

loss of eggs or chicks at nest site~ near the blasting locatjon

although several blasts have bP.en observed (Alan Springer and

Vernon Byrd pers. obs.). Since the earlier memor.::~ndum wa!'>

submitted, it has been possible to obtain data, from previous

years on the number of birds present at plots near the blasting

site (see Taole 6). As shown, there has been no appare~t· decline . ·--~- -~-·--- ¥--:: '::-_;__::...::::- -:""""~~ -:-_:....:.__ .. -- -·-·· ,._..,;:;.:::..,__.'

in murres or kittiwakes near the blasting site. ;.ievertheless, it

is difficult to draw strong conclusions without a study designed

to detect changes due to disturbance.

References

· Roseneau ~ · · D.G., A.M. Spring~r, E.C. Murphy, and M.I. Springer. 1985a. · Population and trophies studies 6£ seabirds in the northern Dering and eastern Chukchi seas, 1981. U.S. Dept. of Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Final Rep. 30:-1~58:~---~-.,--,- -· - __ :... _:_:::_=·===

Springer, AJ·1. and D. G. Roseneau. 1978. -:Ecological:::Stadi:Ss ,crf--:--·=-:::-::-=·- -::-­colonial ·seabirrls at Cape Thompson and Cape ·Lisburne, Alaska. Page!'> ti39-96C in En vir. .1\ssess. Alaskan Cont. Shelf, Annu. Rep. Prin. Invest., Vol. 2. Hl.._l/NOAt\ OCSHP, Boulder, CO.

Springer, A.H., D.G. Roseneau, and l-1. Johnson. 1979. EcoJogical studies of colonial seabirds at Cape Thompson and Cape Lisburne, ·Alaska. Pages 517-574 in Envir. Assess. Alaskan Cont. Shelf, Annu. Rep. Prin. Invest., Vol 2. BLH/i~OAA

·OCSEAP, Houl~er, CO.

Springer, A.M., E.C •. Hurphy, D.G. 1.\oseneau, and M.I. Springer. l9t55b. Population status, reproductive ecology, and trophic relationships of seabirds in northwestern Alaska. U.S. Dept. of Cominer., NOAA OCSEAP Final Rep. 30:127-242 •

Springer, A.M., D.G. Roseneau, B.A. Cooper, S. Coopez:, P. ~lartin, A.D. Mcguire, E.C. l'lurphy, and G. van Vliet. 1985c Popula­tion and trophies studies of seabirds in the northern Bering and eastern Chukchi seas, 1983. U.S. Dept. of Commcr., NOAA OCSEAP Final J(ep. 30:243-3US.

Table -1. Counts of birds on st mly plots nt Cape Lisburne in lRte-July 1~86.

a b c Plot !Jate Time :-lurres ~!-legged Kittiwak~

d e f b5 3() 153() 1976 61:.! (''''") .;).t..L..

6b 3U 1uJO 1533 03 (3<.1) 70 31 1130 146u 273 (174) 72 31 lL~O l:L53 5oS (Jt>4)

68 -30 1700 2172 (265) 69 28 2100 1087 57 (42)

g . ( 325) "::_::;'.:-=-:~ 74 ~ _:·var -~~..:.~~var 1502 48c -·-1,_~ • ...._"

·"var ·:c:,.;-var "(,H ~ 282 :~· .. ~;; 2 (1) __ / "'! •. --- ... ,'

53 -. 0 -·-var -"'-'""·'"var ::'_) _________________ ....... _ _.:~..;..-;;.;:...;;;.. __________________________________________ _ a

Date in-July· ::-- ~:-· b

Approxima tef·-beginning of--counts,-· ADT eipres·sed-us- militar-Y- ti:ne c Thick-billed ahd common r.mrres combined · -~ :,.:·

d Plots 65,66, 70, an.i 72 are a sub!'>et-·.uscd on11uaUy to .. evaluate populationc· trends. Plots 63. and 69-- hav.e·:... not :~been 7•counted. annually:~ ·

·· About"~·330 murres,· visible only from a.boal: (not-Tromfhe beach=-.o--':.~-·­::.;.,._~_?=_ ~~="-:_:::=~·observation·:' fJoint.:.:·used · sirice··-.1984) · were ·added to, allo\• "_,. __

::':=::?"!...:_:.~·~'-

comparisons -with pre-198·4 data.--.~-' . f -

Nests in parentheses

& --· Plots 76,75,~ and 74 are nearest to the-r6ck blas~ing location along· First- Beach·.-- Plot -16 is· closest ·to the blasting;;-- Counts were mad'e on several different days-(dates- and. tirnes listed as variable in the table)~ -and finmbers for birds are means of the replicate counts (see Appendix A).

llJ

·. ---., -~~e,-:~ ·- -- -=·-.. - ...

a Table 2. Counts of murres at selected plots at Cape Lisburne,

1976-1986.

---------------·-------------------------------------------------Plot

Year 65 66 70 72 Sum ______________ ... ____ ....., _______ ...... ________ ..._ _____ .,:_ _____________________ _

1976 1275 1250 900 750 4175

1977 2010 1335 1205 ($45 5395 b

1978

1979 ----~· 1915 1568 - -__ --1290. 960 5733 ··: -~

~ .. ~~ .... 198U ~ ·_;c_· 2160 - -·--·1750 1580 930 6420 --.. ~ -.. ··•

1981 2208 ~wr""• ""••" 1450 -· 1135 642 5435 --

19o2 >

19CJ3 - - - 2236 1820 1Y53 985 6994 - -..

c 1Y84 2130 1325 1240 690 5385

~

1985 2139 1723 2014 1024 ..... ,6900- ···--

1986 ·---· 1()76 1533 1466 . __ , .. 1253 .. ·.·- 6228 :.:_;_:..:_:.: --· • .J

-mean 2005 .. 152b ·---- 1420 89{) 5851 -d

CV 14.7 13.4. 26.3 21.2 15.2 ----------------------------------------------------------------

c

d

No counts made

This piot was counted from the beach-in 1984,1985, and 1986, but from a boat in previous years. In 1986 it was noticed that the boat counts included an area not visible from the beach. That area contained 330 murres on July 30, 1986, so this total was added to 'the beach counts made 19o4-19o6 for comparisons with earlier years.

coefficient of variation [(standard deviation/mean)x 100]

11

=="'r' -,;.-_ .~:.:.:.--·-

-

Table 3. Counts of kittiwakes at selected plots at Cape Lisburne, 1977-lf.J86.

------------------------------------------------------------------Plot

--------------------------------------Year 65 66 70 72 Sum . ------------------------------------------------------------------

a 11.)77 247(~47) 5lJ(50) 296(291) :04(259) &67(847)

b 197b 340(---) 47(-) 3U2(--.:..) loY(---) b78(---)

1979 371(336) 51(37) 352(172) 204(183) 978(728)

198U '

1981 310(272) 43(40) 116( 113) 128( 118) 597(543) --- . - -· -- ---- - - .. -· -.

1982

1983 460(--) 50(--) 316(---) :no(--) 1036(---)

1984

1985 456(266) 61(45) . 419(252) 240(144) 1176(707)

1986 612(322) 83(39) 273(174) 5t>5(3G4) 1553(599)

mean 399(289) 55(42) 296(200) 26:1(214) 1-Q~~p4~) __ c " cv 30.3(13.3) 24.5(12.5) 31.3(35.2) 57.2(46.6) 29.4(lo.6)

------------------------------------------------------~----------a

Number of individuals follm>'ed by number of nests in parentheses b

No data available. c Coefficient of variation [(standard deviation/mean)xlOO]

12

~

- ·--- -..:~.::--.:::::-

-~·-~--· ~~~" ~~;;-w·,~. •

Table 4. Reproductive success of black-legged kittiwakes at Cape Lisburne in 1986.

·status of nests

Study Area Empty 1 egg 2 eggs egg/chick 1 chick 2 chicks

a

b

Overall~sample size = 100 nests ·­

Eggs pr::~~chicks/ active nest = ·0:. 91

% nesfs::with eggs or:-;ehicks:.:::.67.0 ~ __ , __ ;;

Mean c1utch.or brood·.about .. the. b~

time o.f ·hatching/successfuL.:-riest = 1.36

In parentheses are the numbers of the "population" plots within which the particular "productivity" plots_named Tiny Beach. etc. occur.

Successful nest = nest with an egg or chick.

13

a Table 5. Productivity of black-legged kittiwakes nt Cape Lisburne,

1976-1986.

Year Eggs or chicks/ successful nest

Eggs or chicks/ nest attemj)t _____________________ _. ________________________ ...,~ _______ ...;. ________ ._ _____ _

1971.> l.G (j .1

l9Ti - 1.1 o.u

1'37d 1.2 O.b '-

1Y79 l.d l.d -- . -

1Y80 1.6 .. 1.5

19tH 1.7 1 'J .J

b 1Y82

1983 1.7 1.6

1984 1.3 (0.1

1985 :...:="" ·. 1.1 0.2

1986 - .... ' 1.4 U.9 - -----------------------~--------------------------------------------------

a -

b

Productivity expressed as eggs or chicks/successful nest -ca nest ~­containing· an egg or a chick when we examined it) and /nest attempt, or active nest (a structure to which nest material was added ~n the current year). -

No data available.

14

Table 6. Comparisons of counts of murres and kittiwakes in various years near the rock blasting site at Cnpe Lisburne.

l-1urres . Bl.-leg. Kittiwakes (nests) . . . --------------------------·

Plot 197& 19&6 1977 I9o6 ---------------------------------------------------------~-------

a b 74 1340·- 1502 ---(174) 48o(325) ____ ·

75 260 28& 0 2(1) c

76 . :;<}'f elv""i::'·,/' 53 0 0 -

. ------------------------------------------------------------= ''<'< -~-.,...,

. a ...

b

c

No count.of:adults~·but "sites"·were counted (see Springer ~nd Roseneau 1978). -' ~ · ·

Nests .. -,in parentheses.· -A nest was any. structure to. '"hich .nest --'-- · materi-al had been added-in the. current year.

No count available, but A. Springer. (pers_._ comm.) remembers that very few murres were present in this area ia 1978. ~

15

Appendix A. Counts of kittiwakes and rnurres in plots on first Beach, within 3UU m of the blasting site at Cape Lisburne in l9b6.

a b c Plot Date Time TRI•1U COfvltJ

Total murres

Bl-legged Kitthrak~

-----------------------------------------------------------------74 28 1130 91'.1 175

29 1615

31 190i.J 11'13 '1.57

mean 1U5v 216

75 ;2a ~11oo - • 229 10

29 1600 --'- 258 - 12

31 · Hs4o

mean 244 11

76 28 --1045 ·: ~. 40 4

29 ···1545 42 l{j

31 .. 1e3o - 61 3 e

31 . 2000 53 0

mean 49 4

d 1294

d 156~

d 1tJ50

150.:2

239

270

336

288

'•4 52

64

53

53

4~5 (316)

:s:n (32·~)

502 (:.;:t;<j)

4oo (3:L5)

1

2 (0)

4 (1)

2 (l)

0

0

0

G

0 ---------------------------------------------------------------a

Date in July b Approximate time count began,·ADT expressed in military time.

c TEI'fU=thick-billed murre, COHU=common murre

d

e

Includes an estimated 200 unidentified murres visible only from a boat (not from the presently used beach observation point) but within original plot boundaries.

Plot counted twice on 07/31 to evaluate fluctuations according to time of day.

16

Figure 1. Map of Cape Lisburne showing locations referred to in the report.

J,/

'I I I• I I. '1. ~ i .

•

fook P

I ·M "I L .E.

N

i' ~·l

·-~ •: .... -:A~~;~>:~'· :-::·~~~r~:;:.:t?'~~~~~%~~7::;?.\Y'~:--}'~-~:~·t. ':