BREEDING STATUS

AND POPULATION

TRENDS OF SEABIRDS

IN ALASKA, 2013

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

AMNWR 2014/03

BREEDING STATUS AND POPULATION TRENDS OF SEABIRDS IN ALASKA, 2013

Compiled By:

Donald E. Dragoo, Heather M. Renner and David B. Ironsa

Key words: Aethia, Alaska, Aleutian Islands, ancient murrelet, Bering Sea, black-legged kittiwake, Cepphus, Cerorhinca, Chukchi Sea, common murre, crested auklet, fork-tailed storm-petrel, Fratercula, Fulmarus, glaucous-winged gull, Gulf of Alaska, hatching chronology, horned puffin, Larus, Leach’s storm-petrel, least auklet, long-term monitoring, northern fulmar, Oceanodroma, parakeet auklet, pelagic cormorant, Phalacrocorax, pigeon guillemot, Prince William Sound, productivity, red-faced cormorant, red-legged kittiwake, rhinoceros auklet, Rissa, seabirds, Synthliboramphus, thick-billed murre, tufted puffin, Uria, whiskered auklet.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceAlaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge

95 Sterling Highway, Suite 1Homer, Alaska, USA 99603

January 2014

_____ Cite as: Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and D. B. Irons. 2014. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2014/03. Homer, Alaska.

aDragoo (don_dragoo@fws.gov) and Renner (heather_renner@fws.gov), Alaska Maritime NWR, Homer; Irons (david_irons@fws.gov), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska USA 99503

When using information from this report, data, results or conclusions specific to a location(s) should not be used in other publications without first obtaining permission from the original contributor(s). Results and conclusions general to large geographic areas may be cited without permission. This report updates previous reports.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

i

Executive Summary

Data are collected annually for selected species of marine birds at breeding colonies on the far-flung Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and at other areas in Alaska, to monitor the condition of the marine ecosystem and to evaluate the conservation status of species under the trust of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The strategy for colony monitoring includes estimating timing of nesting events, rates of reproductive success and population trends of representative species of various foraging guilds (e.g., offshore diving fish-feeders, diving plankton-feeders) at geographically dispersed breeding sites. This information enables managers to better understand ecosystem processes and respond appropriately to resource issues. It also provides a basis for researchers to test hypotheses about ecosystem change. The value of the marine bird monitoring program is enhanced by having sufficiently long time-series to describe patterns for these long-lived species.

In summer 2013 data were gathered on northern fulmars, storm-petrels, cormorants, kittiwakes, glaucous-winged gulls, murres, ancient murrelets, auklets and/or puffins at eight annual monitoring sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR. In addition, data were gathered at other locations which are visited intermittently or were part of a research or monitoring program off refuges.

Timing of breeding (Table A)

l Statewide, the mean hatch date was early for 33% of species, average for 54% and late for 13%.

l Storm-petrels hatched early in Alaska in 2013, whereas least auklets hatched later than normal.

Table A. Regional and statewide seabird breeding chronologya compared to averages for past years within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only regions for which there were data from 2013 are included.

a Codes: “E” and red cell color indicate hatching chronology was > 3 days earlier than the average for sites in this region. “A” and yellow cell color indicate hatching chronology was within 3 days of average. “L” and green cell color indicate hatching chronology was > 3 days later than the average for sites in this region.bFTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, LHSP=Leach’s storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull, COMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, ANMU=ancient murrelet, PAAU=parakeet auklet, LEAU=least auklet, WHAU=whiskered auklet, CRAU=crested auklet, HOPU=horned puffin, TUPU=tufted puffin.

Region FTSPb LHSP RFCO BLKI RLKI GWGU COMU TBMU ANMU PAAU LEAU WHAU CRAU HOPU TUPU

SE Bering E E A E E L E E E L A E

SW Bering L A L A A L A E A AN. Gulf ofAlaska A E L A E A A

Alaska E E A A E L A A E A L A E A A

ii

Table B. Regional and statewide seabird breeding productivity levelsa compared to averages for past years within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only regions for which there were data from 2013 are included.

a Codes: i and red cell color indicate productivity was > 20% below the average for the region. 1 and yellow cell color indicate productivity was within 20% of average. h and green cell color indicate productivity was > 20% above the average for the region.bFTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, LHSP=Leach’s storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, PECO=pelagic cormorant, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull, COMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, ANMU=ancient murrelet, PAAU=parakeet auklet, LEAU=least auklet, WHAU=whiskered auklet, CRAU=crested auklet, HOPU=horned puffin, TUPU=tufted puffin.

Recent population trends (Table C)

l Statewide, 12% of species showed declining trends, 69% were stable and 19% increased between 2004 and 2013.

l Between 2004 and 2013, northern fulmars declined in all regions where they were monitored.

Table C. Regional and statewide seabird population trendsa between 2004 and 2013 within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only sites for which there were data from at least two years (at least 5 years apart) within the target decade are included.

aCodes: i and red cell color indicate a negative population trend of ≥3% per annum for this site or region. 1 and yellow cell color indicate no population trend. h and green cell color indicate a positive population trend of ≥3% per annum for this site or region.bNOFU=northern fulmar, FTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, STPE=unspecified storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, PECO=pelagic cormorant, UNCO=unspecified cormorant, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull, COMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, UNMU=unspecified murre, PIGU=pigeon guillemot, LEAU=least auklet, RHAU=rhinoceros auklet, TUPU=tufted puffin.

Productivity (Table B)

l Statewide, productivity was below average in 25% of species, average in 69% and above average in 6% of species in 2013.

l Statewide, pelagic cormorants had high productivity, whereas glaucous-winged gull, thick-billed murre, parakeet auklet and crested auklet success was low in 2013.

Region FTSPb LHSP RFCO PECO BLKI RLKI GWGU COMU TBMU ANMU PAAU LEAU WHAU CRAU HOPU TUPU

N. Bering/Chukchi i

SE Bering 1 1 h 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 h

SW Bering i 1 i 1 i i 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 h

Gulf of Alaska i h 1 1 1 i 1 i 1

Alaska 1 1 1 h 1 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 1 i 1 1

Region NOFUb FTSP STPE RFCO PECO UNCO BLKI RLKI GWGU COMU TBMU UNMU PIGU LEAU RHAU TUPU

N. Bering/Chukchi i i i 1 h 1

SE Bering i 1 1 h h 1 1 1 1 1 i h 1

SW Bering i h h 1

Gulf of Alaska i 1 h h 1 1 1 1

Southeast 1 1 1 1 i h i

Alaska i 1 1 1 h i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h h 1

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................i

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

Methods ........................................................................................................................................................3

Results ............................................................................................................................................................5 Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) ..............................................................................................5 Populations ..........................................................................................................................5

Fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata) .............................................................................6 Breeding chronology ...........................................................................................................6 Productivity ..........................................................................................................................6 Populations ..........................................................................................................................9

Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) ............................................................................10 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................10 Productivity ........................................................................................................................10 Populations ..........................................................................................................................9

Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)...................................................................................13 Productivity ........................................................................................................................13 Populations ........................................................................................................................15

Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) ...............................................................................17 Productivity ........................................................................................................................17 Populations ........................................................................................................................15

Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) ......................................................................................19 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................19 Productivity ........................................................................................................................19 Populations ........................................................................................................................22

Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris) ......................................................................................24 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................24 Productivity ........................................................................................................................24 Populations ........................................................................................................................27

Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens) ....................................................................................28 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................28 Productivity ........................................................................................................................28 Populations ........................................................................................................................31

iv

Table of Contents (continued)

Common murre (Uria aalge) ..........................................................................................................32 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................32 Productivity ........................................................................................................................32 Populations ........................................................................................................................35

Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) ...................................................................................................38 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................38 Productivity ........................................................................................................................38 Populations ........................................................................................................................35

Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) .............................................................................................41 Populations ........................................................................................................................41

Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) ..............................................................................42 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................42 Productivity ........................................................................................................................42

Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula) .................................................................................................43 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................43 Productivity ........................................................................................................................43

Least auklet (Aethia pusilla) ...........................................................................................................46 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................46 Productivity ........................................................................................................................46 Populations ........................................................................................................................46

Whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea) ...............................................................................................49 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................49 Productivity ........................................................................................................................49

Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella) ..................................................................................................50 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................50 Productivity ........................................................................................................................50 Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) .................................................................................53 Populations ........................................................................................................................53

Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata) ..........................................................................................55 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................55 Productivity ........................................................................................................................55

v

Table of Contents (continued)

Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) ................................................................................................58 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................58 Productivity ........................................................................................................................58 Populations ........................................................................................................................61

Summary tables ............................................................................................................................................62

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................65

References ...................................................................................................................................................65

1

Introduction

This report is the latest in a series of annual reports summarizing the results of seabird monitoring efforts at breeding colonies on the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and elsewhere in Alaska (see Byrd and Dragoo 1997, Byrd et al. 1998 and 1999, Dragoo et al. 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2006-2013 for compilations of previous years’ data). The seabird monitoring program in Alaska is designed to keep track of selected species of marine birds that indicate changes in the ocean environment. Furthermore, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility to conserve seabirds, and monitoring data are used to identify conservation problems. The objective is to provide long-term, time-series data from which biologically significant changes may be detected and from which hypotheses about causes of changes may be tested. The Alaska Maritime NWR was established specifically to conserve marine bird populations and habitats in their natural diversity and the marine resources upon which they rely and to provide for an international program for research on marine resources (Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act of 1982). The monitoring program is an integral part of the management of this refuge and provides data that can be used to define “normal” variability in demographic parameters and identify patterns that fall outside norms and thereby constitute potential conservation issues. Although approximately 80% of the seabird nesting colonies in Alaska occur on the Alaska Maritime NWR, marine bird nesting colonies occur on other public lands (e.g., national and state refuges) and on private lands as well. The strategy for colony monitoring includes estimating timing of nesting events, reproductive success, population trends and prey used by representative species of various foraging guilds (e.g., murres are offshore diving fish-feeders, kittiwakes are offshore surface-feeding fish-feeders, auklets are diving plankton-feeders, etc.) at geographically dispersed breeding sites along the entire coastline of Alaska (Figure 1). A total of nine sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR, located roughly 300-500 km apart, are scheduled for annual surveys (Byrd 2007), and at least some data were available from most of these in 2013. Furthermore, data are recorded annually or semiannually at other sites in Alaska (e.g., Cape Peirce, Togiak NWR). In addition, colonies near the annual sites are identified for less frequent surveys to “calibrate” the information at the annual sites. Data provided from other research projects (e.g., those associated with evaluating the impacts of invasive rodents on marine birds) also supplement the monitoring database. In this report, we summarize information from 2013 for each species; i.e., tables with estimates of average hatch dates and reproductive success, and maps with symbols indicating the relative timing of hatching and reproductive success at various sites. In addition, historical patterns of hatching chronology and productivity are illustrated for those sites for which we have sufficient data. Population trend information is included for sites where adequate data have been gathered.

2

Figure 1. Map of Alaska showing the locations of seabird monitoring sites summarized in this report. Text color indicates geographic regions.

500

KMN

Cape

Lisb

urne

Cape

Peir

ceSt

. Pau

l I.

St. G

eorg

e I.

Buldi

r I.

Koniu

ji I./U

lak I.

Aikta

k I.

Roun

d I.

Chow

iet I.

E. A

matul

i I.Midd

leton

I.Princ

e Willi

am S

ound

St. L

azar

ia I.

Nor

ther

n Be

ring/

Chu

kchi

Sout

heas

tern

Ber

ing

Nor

ther

n G

ulf o

f Ala

ska

Sout

hwes

tern

Ber

ing

Sout

heas

t Ala

ska

Kisk

a I.

Hall I

.

Puale

Bay

3

Methods

Data collection methods generally followed standardized protocols (e.g., USFWS 2013). Timing of nesting events and productivity usually were based on periodic checks of samples of nests (frequently in plots) throughout the breeding season, but a few estimates of productivity were based on single visits to colonies late in the breeding season (as noted in tables). Hatch dates were used to describe nesting chronology. Productivity typically was expressed as chicks fledged per egg, but occasionally other variables were used (Table 1). Population surveys were conducted for ledge-nesting species at times of the day and breeding season when variability in attendance was reduced. Most burrow-nester counts were made early in the season before vegetation obscured burrow entrances. Deviations from standard methods are indicated in reports from individual sites which are appropriately referenced.

Table 1. Productivity parameters used in this report.Species Productivity Value Storm-petrels Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs) Cormorants Chicks Fledged/Nest (Total chicks fledged/Total nests)Glaucous-winged gull Hatching Success (Total chicks/Total eggs)Kittiwakes Chicks Fledged/Nest (Total chicks fledged/Total nests)Murres Chicks Fledged/Nest Site (Total chicks fledged/Total sites where egg was laid)Ancient murrelet Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)Auklets (except RHAU) Chicks Fledged/Nest Site (Total chicks fledged/Total sites where egg was laid)Rhinoceros auklet Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)Puffins Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)

This report summarizes monitoring data for 2013, and compares 2013 results with previous years. For sites with at least two years of data prior to 2013, site averages were used for comparisons. For chronology, we considered dates within 3 days of the long-term average to be “normal”; larger deviations represented relatively early or late dates. For productivity, we defined significant deviations from “normal” as any that differed by more than 20% from the site or regional average. Population trends were analyzed using linear regression models on log-transformed data (ln) to calculate the slope of the line. The resultant slope is equivalent to the annual rate of population change. A trend was defined as any change greater than or equal to a three percent per annum increase or decline (≥3% p.a.). Population counts were analyzed using two time frames: 1) data from all available years, and 2) data from the last decade (2004-2013 for this report). A percent per annum change was calculated for each data set during both time periods, if sufficient data were available. We also summarized seabird phenology and productivity, as well as population trends (from 2004-2013), by region and for the entire state. Chronology was calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. The chronology was averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a value for each species, thus producing one statewide value for each species. Productivity was calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. The productivity was averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a value for each species. Species productivities were then

4

averaged to calculate a statewide value for each species. Population trends were calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. Trends (line slopes) were averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a regional value for each species. Only sites for which there were data from at least two years (at least 5 years apart) between 2004 and 2013 were included.

5

Results

Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)

Figure 2. Trends in populations of northern fulmars at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Per

cent

of

max

imum

(62

3 bi

rds)

0

100

Northern fulmar, Chowiet I. -0.7% p.a. (-4.4% p.a.)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(48

7 bi

rds)

0

100

Northern fulmar, Hall I. +0.2% p.a. (-7.3% p.a.)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(14

2 bi

rds)

0

100

Northern fulmar, St. Paul I. +1.3% p.a. (-0.9% p.a.)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(23

50 b

irds

)

0

100

Northern fulmar, St. George I. -1.6% p.a. (-16.5% p.a.)

6

Fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata)

Table 2. Hatching chronology of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 16 Jul (18)a 16 Jul (16)a Howie et al. 2014aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 3. Reproductive performance of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.55 5 (44)b 0.73 (26)b Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.82 14 (68) 0.81 (13) Howie et al. 2014aFledged chick defined as being alive at last check in August or September.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

7

Figure 3. Hatching chronology of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aik

tak

(16

Jul)

St.

Laza

ria (1

1 Ju

l)

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

FTS

PH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

-

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

8

Figure 4. Productivity of fork-tailed storm-petrels (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

FTSP

Prod

uctiv

ity

Buld

ir (0

.73)

Ula

k (0

.61)

Aikt

ak (0

.81)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.70)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

9

Figure 5. Trends in populations of storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 0

.20)

0

100

Storm-petrels, Aiktak I. +1.7% p.a. (+0.7% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(61

5 bu

rrow

s)

0

100

Fork-tailed storm-petrel, E. Amatuli I. +0.4% p.a. (+2.3% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 2

.60)

0

100

Storm-petrels, St. Lazaria I. -0.1% p.a. (-1.9% p.a.)

10

Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa)

Table 4. Hatching chronology of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 17 Jul (5)a 1 Aug (16)a Howie et al. 2014aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 5. Reproductive performance of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.61 5 (69)b 0.73 (26)b Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.82 14 (83) 0.84 (13) Howie et al. 2014aFledged chick defined as being alive at last check in August or September.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

11

Figure 6. Hatching chronology of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

LHS

PH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Aik

tak

(1 A

ug)

St.

Laza

ria (3

1 Ju

l)

-

000

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

000

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

12

Figure 7. Productivity of Leach’s storm-petrels (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

LHSP

Prod

uctiv

ityBu

ldir

(0.7

3)

Aikt

ak (0

.84)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.70)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

13

Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)

Table 6. Hatching chronology of red-faced cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average Reference St. Paul I. 27 Jun (16)a 30 Jun (23)a Thomson and Romano 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 7. Reproductive performance of red-faced cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 1.92 2 (24)a 1.28 (28)a Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 1.29 4 (52) 1.21 (16) Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 0.57 NAb (7) 1.50 (8) Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 1.33 NA (9) 0.75 (8) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 0.13 3 (125) 1.33 (3) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.bNot applicable or not reported.

14

Figure 8. Productivity of red-faced cormorants (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

1.51

- 2.

00

1.01

- 1.

50

0.51

- 1.

00

0.01

- 0.

50

<0.0

1

2.01

- 2.

50

2.51

- 3.

00

2013

RFC

OPr

oduc

tivity

St. P

aul (

1.28

)

St. G

eorg

e (1

.21)

Ula

k (1

.44)

Aik

tak

(0.7

5)

Buld

ir (1

.50)

Cho

wie

t (1.

33)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

00.

00.

51.

01.

52.

02.

53.

03.

5

7580

8590

9500

0510

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

00.

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

Figure 9. Trends in populations of cormorants at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(61

bir

ds)

0

100

Pelagic cormorant, Hall I. -3.6% p.a. (-8.0% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(34

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Red-faced cormorant, St. Paul I. -0.1% p.a. (+21.3% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Red-faced cormorant, St. George I. -1.3% p.a. (-22.0% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(14

9 bi

rds)

0

100

Pelagic cormorant, Cape Peirce +0.2% p.a. (+3.9% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(17

7 ne

sts)

0

100

Cormorants, Ulak I. -10.0% p.a. (-33.5% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

0

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(34

5 bi

rds)

100

Cormorants, Aiktak I. +2.2% p.a. (+16.0% p.a.)

16

Figure 9 (continued). Trends in populations of cormorants at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

98 n

ests

) 100

Pelagic cormorant, Middleton I.-3.1% p.a. (+32.7% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(29

7 ne

sts)

0

100

Pelagic cormorant, St. Lazaria I.+4.7% p.a. (+1.4% p.a.)

17

Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus)

Table 8. Reproductive performance of pelagic cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Nest Plots Average ReferenceCape Peirce 1.60 11 (72)a 1.16 (27)a M. Swaim Unpubl. DataRound I. 1.33 2 (42) 1.42 (12) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataBuldir I. 1.15 NAb (34) 0.99 (23) Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 1.20 NA (15) 0.97 (11) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 1.33 NA (24) 0.51 (2) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.bNot applicable or not reported.

18

Figure 10. Productivity of pelagic cormorants (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

1.51

- 2.

00

1.01

- 1.

50

0.51

- 1.

00

0.01

- 0.

50

<0.0

1

2.01

- 2.

50

2.51

- 3.

00

N

2013

PEC

OPr

oduc

tivity

C. P

eirc

e (1

.16)

Roun

d (1

.42)

Buld

ir (0

.99)

Aik

tak

(0.9

7)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.77)

Mid

dle

ton

(0.5

1)C

how

iet (

0.51

)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

00

00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

000

00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

19

Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)

Table 9. Hatching chronology of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 9 Jul (38)a 17 Jul (29)a Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 9 Jul (24) 16 Jul (28) Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 15 Jul (32) 7 Jul (25) Kohley and Herman 2014Chowiet I. 16 Jul (96) 17 Jul (17) Henschen et al. 2013E. Amatuli I. 14 Jul (238) 12 Jul (15) A. Kettle Unpubl. DataaSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table10. Reproductive performance of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Nest Plots Average ReferenceC. Lisburne 0.04b 2 (93)c 0.61 (31)c Dragoo et al. 2013St. Paul I. 0.06 17 (370) 0.27 (33) Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 0.12 5 (179) 0.20 (37) Klostermann et al. 2013Cape Peirce 0.33 14 (457) 0.19 (30) M. Swaim Unpubl. DataRound I. 0.18 2 (50) 0.22 (14) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataBuldir I. 0.07 7 (208) 0.16 (25) Kohley and Herman 2014Chowiet I. 0.01 11 (334) 0.20 (19) Henschen et al. 2013E. Amatuli I. 0.50 11 (556) .35 (25) A. Kettle Unpubl. DataPr. Will. Snd. 0.44b NAd (28,111) 0.22 (28) D. Irons Unpubl. DataaTotal chicks fledged/Total nests.bShort visit.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.dNot applicable or not reported.

20

Figure 11. Hatching chronology of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

BLK

IH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

St.

Pau

l (17

Jul

)

St.

Geo

rge

(16

Jul)

Bul

dir (

7 Ju

l)

Cho

wie

t (17

Jul

)

E. A

mat

uli (

12 J

ul)

--+

=

=

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510 -2

0

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

21

Figure 12. Productivity of black-legged kittiwakes (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

C. L

isb

urn

e (0

.61)

St. P

aul (

0.27

)

St. G

eorg

e (0

.20)

C. P

eirc

e (0

.19)

Ro

un

d (0

.22)

Bu

ldir

(0.1

6)

Ko

niu

ji (0

.48)

Mid

dle

ton

(0.1

5)

Ch

ow

iet

(0.2

0)

Pr. W

illia

m S

nd

. (0.

22)

E. A

mat

uli

(0.3

5)

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

BLK

IP

rodu

ctiv

ity1.

01 -

1.25

00

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

00

00.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

000

00

0

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

000

00

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

00.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510 0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

00

0

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

00

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

000

0000

0000

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

22

Figure 13. Trends in populations of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(10

69 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Cape Lisburne+3.4% p.a. (+2.8% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(37

4 bi

rds)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Hall I.-5.8% p.a. (-16.4% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(29

39 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, St. Paul I.-1.9% p.a. (+1.5% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(18

82 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, St. George I.+0.1% p.a. (-2.5% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

06 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Cape Peirce-2.6% p.a (+5.7% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Round I.-1.9% p.a. (-0.2% p.a.)

23

Figure 13 (continued). Trends in populations of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(41

00 n

ests

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Buldir I.+3.0% p.a. (+4.7% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(33

21 b

irds

)

Black-legged kittiwake, Koniuji I.-0.5% p.a. (+8.3% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(48

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Chowiet I.-0.5% p.a. (+3.8% p.a.)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(13

26 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Puale Bay-0.7% p.a. (N/A)

Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(32

,501

nes

ts)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Pr. William Snd.+1.7% p.a. (+2.9% p.a.)

24

Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris)

Table 11. Hatching chronology of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceSt. George I. 6 Jul (89)a 16 Jul (32)a Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 10 Jul (4) 11 Jul (22) Kohley and Herman 2014aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 12. Reproductive performance of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.16 5 (19)b 0.25 (33)b Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 0.25 8 (310) 0.24 (37) Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 0.15 2 (27) 0.19 (25) Kohley and Herman 2014aTotal chicks fledged/Total nests.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

25

Figure 14. Hatching chronology of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

R

LKI

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

St.

Pau

l (19

Jul

)

St.

Geo

rge

(16

Jul)

Bul

dir (

11 J

ul)

-=

0

-25

-1301325

7580

8590

9500

0510

-25

-1301325

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-25

-1301325

7580

8590

9500

0510

26

Figure 15. Productivity of red-legged kittiwakes (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

RLK

IPr

oduc

tivity

St. P

aul (

0.25

)

St. G

eorg

e (0

.24)

Buld

ir (0

.19)

00

00

0.00.25.50.75

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

.00

.25

.50

.75

7580

8590

9500

0510

0.00.25.50.75

7580

8590

9500

0510

27

Figure 16. Trends in populations of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(18

0 bi

rds)

0

100

Red-legged kittiwake, St. Paul I.-4.4% p.a. (-6.2% p.a.)

Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

84 b

irds

)

0

100

Red-legged kittiwake, St. George I.+0.5% p.a. (+0.9% p.a.)

Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(10

95 n

ests

)

Red-legged kittiwake, Buldir I.+2.3% p.a. (+7.5% p.a.)

28

Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens)

Table 13. Hatching chronology of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 1 Jul (5)a 24 Jun (13)a Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 19 Jul (5) 11 Julb (18) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 30 Jun (30) 4 Julb (7) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 14. Reproductive performance of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Hatching No. of Long-term Site Successa Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.43 NAb (45)c 0.45 (15)c Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.02 4 (327) 0.53 (18) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 0.54 3 (81) 0.55 (6) Henschen et al. 2013aTotal chicks/Total eggs.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate hatching success and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

29

Figure 17. Hatching chronology of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

GW

GU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

Aik

tak

(11

Jul)

St.

Laza

ria (4

Jul

)

Cho

wie

t (4

Jul)

+

Bul

dir (

24 J

un)

+-

00

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

30

Figure 18. Productivity of glaucous-winged gulls (hatching success) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

GW

GU

Pro

duct

ivity

Bu

ldir

(0.4

5)

Aik

tak

(0.5

3)C

ho

wie

t (0

.55)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.56)

00

0

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

31

Figure 19. Trends in populations of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses). “N/A” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

68 b

irds

)Glaucous-winged gull, Aiktak I. +0.7% p.a. (-1.0% p.a.)

Year1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

0

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(22

5 ne

sts)

100

Glaucous-winged gull, Chowiet I. -0.7% p.a. (+2.3% p.a.)

Year1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

0

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

5 bi

rds)

100

Glaucous-winged gull, Puale Bay -3.1% p.a. (N/A)

Year1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(12

1 ne

sts)

0

100

Glaucous-winged gull, St. Lazaria I. +8.5% p.a. (+2.0% p.a.)

32

Common murre (Uria aalge)

Table 15. Hatching chronology of common murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 29 Jul (33)a 4 Aug (26)a Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 30 Jul (78) 4 Aug (29) Klostermann et al. 2013Chowiet I. 25 Jul (143) 22 Jul (17) Henschen et al. 2013E. Amatuli I. 21 Aug (197) 11 Aug (19) A. Kettle Unpubl. DataaSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 16. Reproductive performance of common murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-term Site Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.64 3 (129)b 0.50 (26)b Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 0.62 5 (177) 0.50 (29) Klostermann et al. 2013Round I. 0.27 3 (70) 0.19 (12) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataBuldir I. 0.00 1 (4) 0.45 (16) Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.00 1 (23) 0.21 (17) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 0.45 9 (254) 0.51 (19) Henschen et al. 2013aSince murres do not build nests, nest sites were defined as sites where eggs were laid.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

33

Figure 20. Hatching chronology of common murres at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

CO

MU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

St.

Pau

l (4

Aug

)

St.

Geo

rge

(4 A

ug)

Cho

wie

t (22

Jul

)

E. A

mat

uli (

11 A

ug)

St.

Laza

ria (1

2 A

ug)

-=

-+

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

000

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

34

Figure 21. Productivity of common murres (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

CO

MU

Pro

duct

ivity

St. P

aul (

0.50

)

St. G

eorg

e (0

.50)

Ro

un

d (0

.19)

Bu

ldir

(0.4

5)A

ikta

k (0

.21)

Ch

ow

iet

(0.5

1)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.51)

N

N

.00.25.50.751.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

00

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

000

000

0000

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00.25.50.751.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

35

Figure 22. Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(39

57 b

irds

)

0

100

Murres, Cape Lisburne+2.7% p.a. (+2.1% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(38

75 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, Hall I.-1.8% p.a. (-1.9% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(30

14 b

irds

)

0

100

Thick-billed murre, Hall I.-2.6% p.a. (+4.0% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(39

03 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, St. Paul I.-3.3% p.a. (0.0% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(10

,223

bir

ds)

0

100

Thick-billed murre, St. Paul I.-1.6% p.a. (+2.0% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(32

39 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, St. George I.-0.6% p.a. (-0.1% p.a.)

36

Figure 22 (continued). Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(23

,596

bir

ds)

0

100

Thick-billed murre, St. George I.+0.5% p.a. (+0.2% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

90 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, Cape Peirce-1.5% p.a. (+0.6% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(14

32 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, Round I.+0.6% p.a. (-0.4% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(32

03 b

irds

) 100

Murres, Buldir I.+8.6% p.a. (+4.8% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(37

71 b

irds

) 100

Murres, Ulak I.+2.0% p.a. (-2.7% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(57

32 b

irds

) 100

Murres, Koniuji I.+7.1% p.a. (+6.5% p.a.)

37

Figure 22 (continued). Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(31

01 b

irds

) 100

Murres, Aiktak I.-4.3% p.a. (-3.6% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(42

83 b

irds

)

0

100

Murres, Chowiet I.+1.2% p.a. (+0.9% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(97

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Murres, St. Lazaria I.-0.8% p.a. (+0.5% p.a.)

38

Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia)

Table 17. Hatching chronology of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 31 Jul (98)a 5 Aug (28)a Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 27 Jul (109) 1 Aug (32) Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 17 Jul (18) 18 Jul (25) Kohley and Herman 2014Chowiet I. 21 Jul (59) 20 Jul (16) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 18. Reproductive performance of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.52 15 (348)b 0.45 (28)b Thomson and Romano 2013St. George I. 0.58 10 (308) 0.52 (32) Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 0.58 8 (199) 0.68 (25) Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.00 4 (9) 0.27 (12) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 0.32 6 (148) 0.42 (18) Henschen et al. 2013aSince murres do not build nests, nest sites were defined as sites where eggs were laid.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

39

Figure 23. Hatching chronology of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

TBM

UH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

St.

Pau

l (5

Aug

)

St.

Geo

rge

(1 A

ug)

Bul

dir (

18 J

ul)

Cho

wie

t (20

Jul

)

St.

Laza

ria (1

0 A

ug)

==

- -

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

40

Figure 24. Productivity of thick-billed murres (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

TBM

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

St. P

aul (

0.45

)

St. G

eorg

e (0

.52)

Bu

ldir

(0.6

8)A

ikta

k (0

.27)

Ch

ow

iet

(0.4

2)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.47)

N

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

000

000

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

41

Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba)

Figure 25. Trends in populations of pigeon guillemots at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(75

bir

ds)

Pigeon guillemot, Buldir I.-2.6% p.a. (N/A)

Year1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(66

25 b

irds

)

0

100

Pigeon guillemot, Pr. William Snd.-3.3% p.a. (+1.5% p.a.)

Year1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(13

4 bi

rds)

0

100

Pigeon guillemot, St. Lazaria I.-0.1% p.a. (-3.4% p.a.)

42

Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus)

Table 19. Hatching chronology of ancient murrelets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 30 Jun (36)a 4 Jul (16)a Howie et al. 2014aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 20. Reproductive performance of ancient murrelets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledged/Egga Plots Average ReferenceAiktak I. 0.77 NAb (202)c 0.78 (16)c Howie et al. 2014aTotal chicks fledged/Total eggs.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

43

Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula)

Table 21. Hatching chronology of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 3 Jul (12)a 4 Jul (21)a Kohley and Herman 2014Chowiet I. 1 Jul (13) 5 Jul (8) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 22. Reproductive performance of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-term Site Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.36 NAb (50)c 0.54 (21)c Kohley and Herman 2014Chowiet I. 0.33 NA (55) 0.37 (8) Henschen et al. 2013aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

44

Figure 26. Hatching chronology of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

PAAU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

Buld

ir (4

Jul

)

Cho

wie

t (5

Jul)-

=

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

45

Figure 27. Productivity of parakeet auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

PAA

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bu

ldir

(0.5

4)

Ch

ow

iet

(0.3

7)

.00

.20

.40

.60

.80

1.00

9196

0106

11

0.0

0

.20

.40

.60

.80

1.00

9196

0106

11

46

Least auklet (Aethia pusilla)

Table 23. Hatching chronology of least auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceSt. George I. 24 Jul (12)a 16 Jul (5)a Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 1 Jul (26) 27 Jun (23) Kohley and Herman 2014aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 24. Reproductive performance of least auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. George I. 0.64 NAb (64)c 0.71 (5)c Klostermann et al. 2013Buldir I. 0.59 NA (76) 0.59 (24) Kohley and Herman 2014aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

Figure 28. Trends in populations of least auklets at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(13

38 b

irds

) 100

Least auklet, St. George I.+0.2% p.a. (+9.3% p.a.)

47

Figure 29. Hatching chronology of least auklets at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

LEAU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

Buld

ir (2

7 Ju

n)

Kisk

a (3

0 Ju

n)

St. G

eorg

e (1

6 Ju

l)

+

+

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

48

Figure 30. Productivity of least auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

LEA

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bu

ldir

(0.5

9)K

iska

(0.4

6)

St. G

eorg

e (0

.71)

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

49

Whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea)

Table 25. Hatching chronology of whiskered auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 21 Jun (30)a 22 Jun (22)a Kohley and Herman 2014a Sample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 26. Reproductive performance of whiskered auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-term Site Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.64 NAb (73)c 0.66 (22)c Kohley and Herman 2014aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

50

Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella)

Table 27. Hatching chronology of crested auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 23 Jun (13)a 29 Jun (23)a Kohley and Herman 2014aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 28. Reproductive performance of crested auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.50 NAb (94)c 0.66 (24)c Kohley and Herman 2014aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

51

Figure 31. Hatching chronology of crested auklets at Alaskan. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

CR

AUH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Buld

ir (2

9 Ju

n)Kisk

a (2

Jul

)

-

00

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

52

Figure 32. Productivity of crested auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

CR

AU

Pro

duct

ivity

Bu

ldir

(0.6

6)

Kis

ka (0

.57)

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

53

Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata)

Figure 33. Trends in populations of rhinoceros auklets at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 1

.06)

0

100

Rhinoceros auklet, St. Lazaria I.+4.1% p.a. (+3.8% p.a.)

54

Figure 34. Productivity of rhinoceros auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

RH

AUPr

oduc

tivity

Mid

dlet

on (0

.70)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.58)

.00.30.60.90

9498

0206

10

.00.30.60.90

9498

0206

10

55

Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata)

Table 29. Hatching chronology of horned puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 27 Jul (29)a 24 Jul (23)a Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 4 Aug (6) 1 Aug (8) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 3 Aug (42) 1 Aug (9) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 30. Reproductive performance of horned puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.51 NAa (50)b 0.45 (25)b Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.58 NA (11) 0.59 (11) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 0.16 NA (70) 0.38 (8) Henschen et al. 2013aNot applicable or not reported.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

56

Figure 35. Hatching chronology of horned puffins at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

HO

PUH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Buld

ir (2

4 Ju

l)

Aikt

ak (1

Aug

)C

how

iet (

1 Au

g)

=

==

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

57

Figure 36. Productivity of horned puffins (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

HO

PU

Pro

duct

ivity

Bu

ldir

(0.4

5)

Ch

ow

iet

(0.3

8)

Aik

tak

(0.5

9)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

8893

9803

0813

0.00.20.40.60.8

8893

9803

0813

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

8893

9803

0813

58

Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata)

Table 31. Hatching chronology of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 16 Jul (6)a 13 Jul (18)a Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 27 Jul (23) 1 Aug (16) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 27 Jul (24) 25 Jul (8) Henschen et al. 2013aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 32. Reproductive performance of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2013. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.50 NAb (11)c 0.39 (25)c Kohley and Herman 2014Aiktak I. 0.73 NA (76) 0.54 (17) Howie et al. 2014Chowiet I. 0.29 NA (49) 0.32 (7) Henschen et al. 2013aFledged chick defined as being still alive at last check in August or September.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

59

Figure 37. Hatching chronology of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (in parentheses; current year not included).

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2013

TUP

UH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Bul

dir (

13 J

ul)

Aik

tak

(1 A

ug)

Cho

wie

t (25

Jul

)

==

-

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

00

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

60

Figure 38. Productivity of tufted puffins (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (in parentheses; current year not included). Color of symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2013

TUP

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bu

ldir

(0.3

9)

Aik

tak

(0.5

4)

Ch

ow

iet

(0.3

2)

Mid

dle

ton

(0.4

4)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.52)

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

.00.25.50.751.00

8893

9803

0813

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

61

Figure 39. Trends in populations of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2004-2013, in parentheses).

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 0

.62)

Tufted puffin, Aiktak I.+0.1% p.a. (+1.2% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

9 bu

rrow

s)

0

100

Tufted puffin, E. Amatuli I.-3.2% p.a. (-2.6% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 0

.79)

0

100

Tufted puffin, St. Lazaria I.-2.2% p.a. (-5.1% p.a.)

62

Tabl

e 33

. Sea

bird

rela

tive

bree

ding

chr

onol

ogya c

ompa

red

to a

vera

ges f

or p

ast y

ears

. Onl

y si

tes f

or w

hich

ther

e w

ere

data

from

20

13 a

re in

clud

ed.

a Cod

es:

“E”

and

red

cell

colo

r ind

icat

e ha

tchi

ng c

hron

olog

y w

as >

3 d

ays e

arlie

r tha

n th

e av

erag

e fo

r thi

s site

. “

A”

and

yello

w c

ell c

olor

indi

cate

hat

chin

g ch

rono

logy

was

with

in 3

day

s of a

vera

ge.

“L”

and

gre

en c

ell c

olor

indi

cate

hat

chin

g ch

rono

logy

was

> 3

day

s lat

er th

an th

e av

erag

e fo

r thi

s site

.b F

TSP=

fork

-taile

d st

orm

-pet

rel,

LHSP

=Lea

ch’s

stor

m-p

etre

l, R

FCO

=red

-fac

ed c

orm

oran

t, B

LKI=

blac

k-le

gged

kitt

iwak

e, R

LKI=

red-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

G

WG

U=g

lauc

ous-

win

ged

gull,

CO

MU

=com

mon

mur

re, T

BM

U=t

hick

-bill

ed m

urre

, AN

MU

=anc

ient

mur

rele

t, PA

AU

=par

akee

t auk

let,

LEA

U=l

east

auk

let,

WH

AU

=whi

sker

ed a

ukle

t, C

RA

U=c

rest

ed a

ukle

t, H

OPU

=hor

ned

puffi

n, T

UPU

=tuf

ted

puffi

n.

Reg

ion

Site

FTS

Pb

LHS

PR

FCO

BLK

IR

LKI

GW

GU

CO

MU

TBM

UA

NM

UPA

AU

LEA

UW

HA

UC

RA

UH

OP

UTU

PU

SE

Ber

ing

St.

Pau

l I.

AE

EE

St.

Geo

rge

I.E

EE

EL

Aik

tak

I.E

EL

EA

ES

W B

erin

gB

uldi

r I.

LA

LA

AL

AE

AA

Gul

f of

Ala

ska

Cho

wie

t I.

AE

AA

EA

AE

. Am

atul

i I.

AL

63

Tabl

e 34

. Sea

bird

rela

tive

prod

uctiv

ity le

vels

a com

pare

d to

ave

rage

s for

pas

t yea

rs. O

nly

site

s for

whi

ch th

ere

wer

e da

ta fr

om 2

013

are

incl

uded

.

a Cod

es:

i a

nd re

d ce

ll co

lor i

ndic

ate

prod

uctiv

ity w

as >

20%

bel

ow th

e av

erag

e fo

r thi

s site

. 1

and

yel

low

cel

l col

or in

dica

te p

rodu

ctiv

ity w

as w

ithin

20%

of a

vera

ge.

h a

nd g

reen

cel

l col

or in

dica

te p

rodu

ctiv

ity w

as >

20%

abo

ve th

e av

erag

e fo

r thi

s site

.b F

TSP=

fork

-taile

d st

orm

-pet

rel,

LHSP

=Lea

ch’s

stor

m-p

etre

l, R

FCO

=red

-fac

ed c

orm

oran

t, PE

CO

=pel

agic

cor

mor

ant,

BLK

I=bl

ack-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

R

LKI=

red-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

GW

GU

=gla

ucou

s-w

inge

d gu

ll, C

OM

U=c

omm

on m

urre

, TB

MU

=thi

ck-b

illed

mur

re, A

NM

U=a

ncie

nt m

urre

let,

PAA

U=p

arak

eet

aukl

et, L

EAU

=lea

st a

ukle

t, W

HA

U=w

hisk

ered

auk

let,

CR

AU

=cre

sted

auk

let,

HO

PU=h

orne

d pu

ffin,

TU

PU=t

ufte

d pu

ffin.

Reg

ion

Site

FTS

Pb

LHS

PR

FCO

PE

CO

BLK

IR

LKI

GW

GU

CO

MU

TBM

UA

NM

UPA

AU

LEA

UW

HA

UC

RA

UH

OP

UTU

PU

N B

erin

g/C

hukc

hiC

. Lis

burn

ei

SE

Ber

ing

St.

Pau

l I.

hi

ih

1

St.

Geo

rge

I.1

i1

h1

1

C. P

eirc

eh

h

Rou

nd I.

11

h

Aik

tak

I.1

1h

hi

ii

11

h

SW

Ber

ing

Bul

dir I

.i

1i

1i

i1

i1

i1

1i

1h

Gul

f of

Ala

ska

Cho

wie

t I.

ih

i1

1i

1i

1

E. A

mat

uli I

.h

Pr.

Will

. Snd

.h

64

Tabl

e 35

. Sea

bird

pop

ulat

ion

trend

sa for

all

avai

labl

e ye

ars (

“A”

colu

mns

), an

d th

e pa

st d

ecad

e (2

004-

2013

, “D

” co

lum

ns).

a Cod

es:

i a

nd re

d ce

ll co

lor i

ndic

ate

a ne

gativ

e po

pula

tion

trend

of ≥

3% p

er a

nnum

for t

his s

ite.

1 a

nd y

ello

w c

ell c

olor

indi

cate

no

popu

latio

n tre

nd.

h a

nd g

reen

cel

l col

or in

dica

te a

pos

itive

pop

ulat

ion

trend

of ≥

3% p

er a

nnum

for t

his s

ite.

“N

A”

indi

cate

s tha

t the

re w

ere

insu

ffici

ent d

ata

to d

eter

min

e a

trend

(see

Met

hods

).b N

OFU

=nor

ther

n fu

lmar

, FTS

P=fo

rk-ta

iled

stor

m-p

etre

l, ST

PE=u

nspe

cifie

d st

orm

-pet

rel,

RFC

O=r

ed-f

aced

cor

mor

ant,

PEC

O=p

elag

ic c

orm

oran

t, U

NC

O=

unsp

ecifi

ed c

orm

oran

t, B

LKI=

blac

k-le

gged

kitt

iwak

e, R

LKI=

red-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

GW

GU

=gla

ucou

s-w

inge

d gu

ll, C

OM

U=c

omm

on m

urre

, TB

MU

=thi

ck-b

illed

mur

re, U

NM

U=u

nspe

cifie

d m

urre

, PIG

U=p

igeo

n gu

illem

ot, L

EAU

=lea

st a

ukle

t, R

HA

U=r

hino

cero

s auk

let,

TUPU

=tuf

ted

puffi

n.

Reg

ion

Site

NO

FUb

FTS

PS

TPE

RFC

OP

EC

OU

NC

OB

LKI

RLK

IG

WG

UC

OM

UTB

MU

UN

MU

PIG

ULE

AU

RH

AU

TUP

UA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

D

N. B

erin

g/C

hukc

hiC

. Lis

burn

eh1

11

Hal

l I.

1i

ii

ii

11

1h

SE

Ber

ing

St. P

aul I

.1

11

h1

1i

ii

11

1

St. G

eorg

e I.

1i

1i

11

11

11

11

1h

C. P

eirc

e1

h1

h1

1

Rou

nd I.

11

11

Aik

tak

I.1

11

h1

1i

i1

1

SW

Ber

ing

Bul

dir I

.1

h1

hh

h1

N/A

Ula

k I.

ii

11

Kon

iuji

I1

hh

h

Gul

f of

Ala

ska

Cho

wie

t I.

1i

1h

11

11

Pua

le B

ay1

N/A

iN

/A

E. A

mat

uli I

.1

1i

1

P. W

illiam

Snd

.1

1i

1

Mid

dlet

on I.

ih

Sou

thea

stSt

. Laz

aria

I.1

1h1

h1

11

1i

hh1

i

65

Acknowledgments

The data summarized in this report were gathered by many people, most of whom are cited in the references section. We appreciate their efforts. We thank Arthur Kettle (Alaska Maritime NWR), Michael Swaim (Togiak NWR) and Ed Weiss (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game) for the unpublished data they kindly provided. We would like to extend our thanks to the staff of the Alaska Maritime NWR for their assistance during both the data collection and writing phases of this project. All photographs used in this report are Fish and Wildlife Service pictures except those of the fork-tailed storm-petrel, parakeet auklet, least auklet, tufted puffin and horned puffin which were taken by Ian Jones, and the ancient murrelet taken by Fiona Hunter, and used with permission. Cover art by Susan Steinacher.

References

Byrd, G. V. 2007. Seabird monitoring on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Pp. 33-39 in Community-based coastal observing in Alaska: Aleutian life forum 2006, R. Brewer, Ed. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 07-03. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

_____, and D. E. Dragoo. 1997. Breeding success and population trends of selected seabirds in Alaska in 1996. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 97/11. Homer, Alaska.

_____, and D. B. Irons. 1998. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1997. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 98/02. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 1999. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1998. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 99/02. Homer, Alaska.

Dragoo, D. E., G. V. Byrd, and D. B. Irons. 2000. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1999. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2000/02. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2001. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 01/07. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2003. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 03/05. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2004. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2002. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 04/15. Homer, Alaska.

66

_____. 2006. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2003. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 06/13. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2007. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2004. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 07/17. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2008. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2005. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 08/03. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2009. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2006. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 09/05. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2010. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2007. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2010/08. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2011. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2008. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2011/07. Homer, Alaska.

Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and David B. Irons. 2012. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2009. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2012/01. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2013. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2012. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/05. Homer, Alaska.

Dragoo, D. E., G. Thomson, and H. M. Renner. 2013. Biological monitoring at Cape Lisburne, Alaska in 2013. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/07 Homer, Alaska.

Henschen, M. L., B. C. Soucie, and N. A. Rojek. 2013. Biological monitoring at Chowiet Island, Alaska in 2013. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/11. Homer, Alaska.

Howie, M. G., I. T. Nimz and B. A. Drummond. 2014. Biological monitoring at Aiktak Island, Alaska in 2013. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2014/01. Homer, Alaska.

Irons, D. Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, Unpubl. Data 2013. Anchorage, Alaska.

Kettle, A. Alaska Maritime NWR, USFWS. Unpublished Data, 2013. Homer, Alaska.

Klostermann, M. R., M. L. St. Pierre, and M. D. Romano. 2013. Biological monitoring at St. George Island, Alaska in 2013. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/08. Homer, Alaska.

67

Kohley, C. R. and R. W. Herman. 2014. Biological monitoring at Buldir Island, Alaska in 2013. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2014/02. Homer, Alaska.

Swaim, M. Togiak NWR, USFWS. Unpublished Data, 2013. Dillingham, Alaska.

Thomson, G., and M. D. Romano. 2013. Biological monitoring at St. Paul Island, Alaska in 2013. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/10. Homer, Alaska.

USFWS. 2013. Standardized protocols for annual seabird monitoring camps at Aiktak, Buldir, Chowiet, St. George, St. Lazaria and St. Paul islands in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in 2013. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/09. Homer, Alaska.

Weiss, E., Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished Data 2013. Anchorage, Alaska.