Marine bird colony and at-sea distributions along the Oregon coast: Implications for marine spatial planning and information gap analysis (original) (raw)

Abstract

Increasingly diverse interests in commercial and recreational use of marine resources are creating new challenges for coastal ocean management. One concern of increased offshore use and development off the Oregon coast is the potential impact on marine bird populations. We summarized the primary surveys of seabird breeding colonies and at-sea distribution along the Oregon coast to describe spatial patterns in species distribution and identify gaps where additional data are needed. The abundance of breeding birds during the summer (over 1 million in total, primarily Common Murre Uria aalge and Leach's Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa) is greatest in northern and southern Oregon due to the availability of breeding habitat on large offshore rocks and islands. While there are fewer breeding colonies along sandy shorelines, the adjacent coastal waters are still frequented by breeding birds and nonbreeding migrants, but generally in lower densities during summer. Seabird density, and likely potential interaction with offshore structures, is greatest nearshore and steadily declines to lowest levels beyond the outer continental shelf. Dynamic soaring species, however, which have a greater potential to interact with taller structures such as wind turbines, tend to be more common on the middle to outer shelf. Species composition also changes dramatically among seasons. Low flying (< 30 m above sea level) diving species dominate in most seasons, however, which has potential conservation implications for interactions with structures above and below the water's surface. Given the abundance of storm-petrels, increased light pollution is also a concern for these and other nocturnal, phototactic species. Dramatic declines or redistributions have occurred at some breeding colonies, indicating long-term planning should consider changing habitat requirements. The greatest data needs currently include fall/winter/spring at-sea distribution, summer distribution off southern Oregon, and more accurate estimates and monitoring of burrow-nesting seabirds. Oregon's coastal waters provide habitat for a large portion of breeding and nonbreeding marine birds along the U.S. west coast and a thorough knowledge of their spatial distribution, seasonal abundance, and migration corridors is critical for well-informed marine spatial planning.

Figures (14)

Table 2. Total offshore vessel survey days and total kilometers surveyed per month between latitude 42.000 N and 46.250 N during 2003 to 2009.

Table 2. Total offshore vessel survey days and total kilometers surveyed per month between latitude 42.000 N and 46.250 N during 2003 to 2009.

Figure 2. Densities (#km™“) of Marbled Murrelets in the nearshore (< 3 nm state boundary) along the north, central, and southerr Oregon coast. Data from Strong (2009).

Figure 2. Densities (#km™“) of Marbled Murrelets in the nearshore (< 3 nm state boundary) along the north, central, and southerr Oregon coast. Data from Strong (2009).

Figure 3. At-sea distribution of shearwaters and albatrosses off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling is May — June) 2003-2009. The 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown. See Fig. 1 for all areas surveyed.

Figure 3. At-sea distribution of shearwaters and albatrosses off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling is May — June) 2003-2009. The 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown. See Fig. 1 for all areas surveyed.

Figure S1. (A) A t- sea distribution of C ommon Murres off the Oregon Coast, M arch — August (core annual sampling May — June 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of murre breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure S1. (A) A t- sea distribution of C ommon Murres off the Oregon Coast, M arch — August (core annual sampling May — June 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of murre breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure $2. (A) At-sea distribution of alcids (Alcidae: murres, guillemots, puffins, auklets) excluding Common Murres off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling May — June) 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of other alcid (excluding murres) breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure $2. (A) At-sea distribution of alcids (Alcidae: murres, guillemots, puffins, auklets) excluding Common Murres off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling May — June) 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of other alcid (excluding murres) breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure $3. (A) At-sea distribution of other cormorants (Brandt’s, Pelagic, Double-crested) off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling May — June) 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of cormorant breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure $3. (A) At-sea distribution of other cormorants (Brandt’s, Pelagic, Double-crested) off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling May — June) 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of cormorant breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure S4. (A) A is sea distribution of gulls and tems off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling May — June) 2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of gull and tern breeding coloni along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Figure S4. (A) A is sea distribution of gulls and tems off the Oregon Coast, March — August (core annual sampling May — June) 2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of gull and tern breeding coloni along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (29)

  1. Ainley, D. G., L. B. Spear, C. T. Tynan, J. A. Barth, S. D. Pierce, R. Glenn Ford, and T. J. Cowles. 2005. Physical and biological variables affecting seabird distributions during the upwelling season of the northern California Current. Deep-Sea Research Part II 52:123- 143.
  2. Allison, T. D., E. Jedrey, and S. Perkins. 2008. Avian issues for-offshore wind development. Marine Technology Society Journal 42:28-38.
  3. Boehlert, G. W., G. R. McMurray, and C. E. Tortorici. 2008. Ecological effects of wave energy in the Pacific Northwest., NOAA Tech. Memo. .
  4. Briggs, K. T., D. H. Varoujean, W. W. Williams, R. G. Ford, M. L. Bonnell, and J. L. Casey. 1992. Seabirds of the Oregon and Washington OCS, 1989-1990 Oregon and Washington marine mammal and seabird surveys.
  5. Carter, H. R., U. W. Wilson, R. W. Lowe, M. S. Rodway, D. A. Manuwal, J. E. Takekawa, and J. L. Yee. 2001. Population trends of the Common Murre (Uria aalge californica). Pages 33-133 in D. A. Manuwal, H. R. Carter, T. S. Zimmerman, and D. L. Orthmeyer, editors. Biology and conservation of the Common Murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: Natural history and population trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, DC. Collis, K., D. D. Roby, D. P. Craig, S. Adamany, J. Y. Adkins, and D. E. Lyons. 2002. Colony size and diet composition of piscivorous waterbirds on the lower Columbia River: Implications for losses of juvenile salmonids to avian predation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:537-550.
  6. Day, R. H. 2006. Seabirds in the northern Gulf of Alaska and adjacent waters, October to May. Western Birds 37:190-214.
  7. Day, R. H., J. R. Rose, A. K. Prichard, R. J. Blaha, and B. A. Cooper. 2004. Environmental effects on the fall migration of eiders at Barrow, Alaska. Marine Ornithology 32:13-24.
  8. Desholm, M. and J. Kahlert. 2005. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology Letters 1:296-298.
  9. Ford, R. G., D. G. Ainley, J. L. Casey, C. A. Keiper, L. B. Spear, and L. T. Ballance. 2004. The biogeographic patterns of seabirds in the central portion of the California Current. Marine Ornithology 32:77-96.
  10. Ford, R. G., G. K. Himes Boor, and J. C. Ward. 2001. Seabird mortality resulting from the M/V New Carissa oil spill incident, February and March 1999. R.G. FORD CONSULTING COMPANY, Portland.
  11. Fox, A. D., M. Desholm, J. Kahlert, T. K. Christensen, and I. K. Petersen. 2006. Information needs to support environmental impact assessment of the effects of European marine offshore wind farms on birds. Ibis:129-144.
  12. Garthe, S. and O. Hüppop. 2004. Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:724-734.
  13. Henkel, L. 2004. At-sea distribution of Marbled Murrelets in San Luis Obispo County, California. Unpubl. report to the Oiled Wildlife Care network, OWCN project no. 2268- 01, 13 pp.
  14. Kocourek, A. L., S. W. Stephensen, K. J. So, A. J. Gladics, and J. Ziegler. 2009. Burrow-nesting seabird census of The Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex, June -August 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newport, OR.
  15. Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L. Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing impacts of wind- energy development on nocturnally active birds and bats: A guidance document. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2449-2486.
  16. Langton, R., I. M. Davies, and B. E. Scott. 2011. Seabird conservation and tidal stream and wave power generation: Information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts. Marine Policy 35:623-630.
  17. Mabee, T. J. and B. A. Cooper. 2004. Nocturnal bird migration in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 85:39-47.
  18. Naughton, M. B., D. S. Pitkin, R. W. Lowe, K. J. So, and C. S. Strong. 2007. Catalogue of Oregon Seabird Colonies. BTP-R1009-2007, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland.
  19. Nelson, P. A., D. Behrens, J. Castle, G. Crawford, R. N. Gaddam, S. C. Hackett, J. L. Largier, D. P. Lohse, K. L. Mills, P. T. Raimondi, M. Robart, W. J. Sydeman, S. A. Thompson, and S. Woo. 2008. Developing Wave Energy In Coastal California: Potential Socio- Economic And Environmental Effects. CEC-500-2008-083, California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program & California Ocean Protection Council.
  20. Nur, N., J. Jahncke, M. P. Herzog, J. Howar, K. D. Hyrenbach, J. E. Zamon, D. G. Ainley, J. A. Wiens, K. Morgan, L. T. Ballance, and D. Stralberg. 2011. Where the wild things are: predicting hotspots of seabird aggregations in the California Current System. Ecological Applications 21:2241-2257.
  21. Phillips, E. M., J. E. Zamon, H. M. Nevins, C. M. Gibble, R. S. Duerr, and L. H. Kerr. 2011. Summary of birds killed by a harmful algal bloom along the south Washington and north Oregon coasts during October 2009. Northwestern Naturalist 92:120-126.
  22. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.
  23. Strong, C. S. 1999. Marbled Murrelet monitoring research, 1999: Studies on distribution and productivity of Marbled Murrelets at sea in Oregon. Unpubl. report to the Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife. 20 pp.
  24. Strong, C. S. 2009. Seabird abundance and distribution during summer off the Oregon and southern Washington coast. Crescent Coastal Research, Crescent City, CA.
  25. Varoujean, D. H. and W. A. Williams. 1995. Abundance and distribution of marbled murrelets in Oregon and Washington based on aerial surveys Pages 327-338 in C. J. Ralph, J. Hunt, G. L., J. F. Piatt, and M. G. Raphael, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet in North America: an interagency scientific evaluation. . USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.1.
  26. Wilson, B., R. Batty, F. Daunt, and C. Carter. 2007. Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. PA37 1QA, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban.
  27. Zamon, J. E., T. J. Guy, K. Balcomb, and D. Ellifrit. 2007. Winter observations of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) near the Columbia River plume during the 2005 spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning migration. Northwestern Naturalist 88:193-198.
  28. Zamon, J. E., E. M. PHillips, and T. J. Guy. 2012. Marine bird aggregation at tidally-driven plume fronts of the Columbia River. Deep-Sea Research Part II In review. 25 96 182 17 226 44 565 26 136 194 15 62 22,951 68 23,426 27 140 180 5 74 4,317 42 2 4,760 28 55,850 8 381 310 14 1,402 167 160 1 58,294 29 99,761 44 50 346 34 754 26,767 219 7 127,982 30 109,711 172 13 304 61 718 21,500 285 2 10 132,776 31 267,201 766 486 40 3,030 21,461 157 4 12 293,157 32 194 25,600 284 16,408 14 60,144 Total 534,283 20,595 29,622 8,392 474 41,126 17,644 532,808 4,698 40 196 146 1,190,426
  29. LHSP e =Leach's Storm-Petrel, BRAC p,v =Brandt's Cormorant, DCCO p,v =Double-crested Cormorant, PECO p,v =Pelagic Cormorant, BLOY p,v =Black Oystercatcher, Gull p,v =all are Western and Glaucous-winged Gulls and hybrids except colony group #32, which also includes 400 Ring-billed Gulls, CATE p,v = Caspian Tern, COMU p,v =Common Murre, PIGU v =Pigeon Guillemot, CAAU v =Cassin's Auklet, RHAU v =Rhinoceros Auklet, TUPU v =Tufted Puffin. Figure S1. (A) At-sea distribution of Common Murres off the Oregon Coast, March -August (core annual sampling May -June) 2003-2009 (the 200 m isobath depicting the continental shelf break is shown) and (B) the distribution of murre breeding colonies along the Oregon coast (counts from 1988-2009).