Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board ......(KI), Granite Island, Althorpe Island and...

Community Census of the Little Penguin Colony at Kingscote - 2007

1

Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

Date

REPORT TITLECOMMUNITY CENSUS OF THE LITTLE PENGUINCOLONY AT KINGSCOTE, KANGAROO ISLAND

2006-2007Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

COMMUNITY CENSUS OF THE LITTLE PENGUIN COLONY

AT KINGSCOTE, KANGAROO ISLAND

Oceans of Blue Coast, Estuarine and Marine Monitoring Program

A Report prepared for the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

by Martine Kinloch and Daniel Brock

March 2007

Community Census of the Little Penguin Colony at Kingscote – 2007 2

Oceans of Blue – Coast, Estuarine and Marine Monitoring Program

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this report are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. The Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

Project Officer Contact Details

Martine Kinloch

Coast and Marine Program Manager Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board PO Box 665 Kingscote SA 5223 Phone: (08) 8553 4980 Fax: (08) 8553 0122 Email: [email protected]

Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board Contact Details

Jeanette Gellard

General Manager PO Box 665 Kingscote SA 5223 Phone: (08) 8553 0111 Fax: (08) 8553 0122 Email: [email protected]

© Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

This document may be reproduced in whole or part for the purpose of study or training, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and to its not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires the prior written permission of the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board.

For bibliographic purposes this paper should be cited as:

Kinloch, M. A. and Brock, D. J. (2007) Community Census of the Little Penguin Colony at Kingscote, Kangaroo Island. KI NRM Board Coast and Marine Program Report No. CMP07/001 Front cover images: Danny Brock examining a penguin burrow for evidence of nesting (Phyll Bartram) Little Penguin looking out from its burrow in the rock wall of the Kingscote tidal pool (Phyll Bartram)


Foreword

This project is a component of the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board’s ‘Here to Stay’ Investment Strategy. The following Program Outcomes, Actions, Resource Condition Targets and Management Action Targets from the Strategy are relevant to the project.

Program Oceans of Blue: Managing marine, coastal and estuarine biodiversity on Kangaroo Island

Program outcome A scientifically rigorous and integrated system of measuring and reporting on the state of marine, coastal and estuarine environments of Kangaroo Island that relates trends in the condition of biodiversity assets to changes in human uses of land and seascapes, provides advice on targeting management action to mitigate anthropogenic impacts where required and empowers the public to respond to threats to natural resource condition and values.

Relevant Resource Condition Targets 8.5.D An enhancement in the condition of natural biodiversity in marine, coastal and estuarine systems through protection and management of key biodiversity assets and areas.

Relevant Management Action Target 8.5.1 Establish benchmarks and monitoring program for marine and estuarine water quality, terrestrial and

marine coastal biodiversity and condition of fisheries stocks. 8.5.2 Establish representative monitoring program for terrestrial and marine coastal biodiversity focusing

on areas subject to water contamination and other threatening processes.


Acknowledgements

The 2006 Kingscote penguin census would not have taken place without the dedication,

enthusiasm and drive of Jenny Clapson of the Kangaroo Island Marine Centre.

Jenny, Martine and Danny would like to extend heartfelt appreciation to the dedicated band of

volunteers who assisted in the penguin census: Phyll & Tony Bartram, Jean-Pierre Bloemendal,

Pat Blucher, Gail Capon, Cornelia Colenso, Jim Cooper, Malcolm Ellson, Sandy Farquhar, Grant

Flanagan, Anna and Khalil Hadland, Nieltje Grootenboer, Jenni and Kimberley Harris, Sue & Tony

Hoff, Susan Lengyel, Danyel Mackie, Brad MacLean, George Madani, Paul Marlow, Coral

Marsden, Pip Masters, Manfred Meidert, Trish Mooney, Sharlene Noble, Kathy O'Brien, Bev &

Dean Overton, Phil Pisanu, Gisela Robinson, Steve Thomas, Teale Vanner, David Welford, Colin

Wilson and Marion Winkler. Thanks also to Bonnie and Jack Schofield, Bec Mussared (KINRMB)

and Judith Wingate (KICE) who helped to conduct the follow-up survey. Everyone would like to

thank John Ayliffe for the choc-chip cookies.


Contents

Foreword........................................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 18

References...................................................................................................................................... 19


Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Major Little Penguin colonies in South Australia............................................................... 9

Figure 2: Search area and section boundaries for Kingscote penguin census.............................. 11

Table 1: Distribution of total, active and inactive burrows across the survey area........................ 12

Figure 3: Distribution of penguin burrows along the Kingscote foreshore...................................... 12

Figure 4: Proportion of active to inactive burrows in each section................................................. 13

Figure 5: Density of active burrows per section of coastline.......................................................... 14

Table 2: Occupancy rates of active burrows................................................................................. 15

Table 3: Comparison of recounts of Sections 3 and 6. ................................................................. 15


Introduction

Populations of the Little or Fairy Penguin (Eudyptula minor) are found around most of the southern

coast of Australia, particularly on offshore islands (Marchant and Higgins 1990). They inhabit

rocky shores and coastal vegetation, and breed in colonies that range in size from a few pairs of

birds up to thousands of pairs (Waas 1990a). They commonly build their nests in burrows

excavated between the rocks or dug directly into the earth, usually under coastal shrubs. They

show high site fidelity, returning to the same colony, and often the same burrow, to nest each year

(Weerheim et al. 2003). In several locations, Little Penguin colonies are found in close proximity to

urban areas or are the focus of important commercial tourism operations (e.g. Phillip Island

(Victoria), Granite Island and Kangaroo Island). At both Phillip and Granite Islands, breeding

populations of Little Penguins have declined in recent years (Dann 1992, Morcom 2006). Factors

implicated in the decline are: loss of breeding habitat due to urban and rural development, human

disturbance from recreation and tourism and predation by native (e.g. seals) and introduced (e.g.

foxes) species.

In South Australia, populations of Little Penguins inhabit several islands including Kangaroo Island

(KI), Granite Island, Althorpe Island and Troubridge Island (Figure 1). On Kangaroo Island, they

are distributed all around the coastline (Paton et al. 2002) but have established significant nesting

colonies near the urban centres of Kingscote and Penneshaw (Figure 1). For both of these towns,

penguins are an important tourist attraction. At Kingscote, nightly tours of the penguin colony have

been conducted all year round since 1990, firstly by the Department for Environment and Heritage

(DEH) and currently by the privately owned KI Marine Centre. Between 1999 and 2003 an

average of 10,000 people visited the Kingscote colony annually on guided tours (DEH unpubl.). As

is the case with other penguin colonies, there is anecdotal evidence and growing concern about

human impacts on penguins on KI resulting from encroaching coastal development and growth in

recreational and tourism activity. Around Kingscote, there have been several reported incidents of

penguins being deliberately killed either by humans or dogs (e.g. ‘The Islander’, September 2007)

and concerns have been expressed by local residents about proposed coastal housing

developments adjacent to parts of the penguin colony.

Currently, there is no program to monitor the status of the Little Penguin breeding colonies at either

Kingscote or Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island. Between 1993 and 2004, DEH collected nightly

guided tour count data and collated these monthly for adults and chicks in four sections of the

Kingscote colony (DEH unpubl.). This dataset, while providing useful information on the breeding

and life-cycle of Little Penguins, is not suitable for monitoring annual fluctuations in penguin

numbers.


A collaborative project between the KI Marine Centre and the KI NRM Board’s Coast and Marine

Program was therefore established in 2006 with the aim of developing and conducting annual

scientific surveys of the Kingscote Little Penguin colony. The objectives of the initial census,

reported here, were to:

1. Provide a first, baseline estimate of the size and distribution of the penguin colony around

Kingscote in 2006; and

2. Establish a consistent, on-going, community-based sampling program to monitor annual

trends in the size of the breeding population of the Kingscote colony of Little Penguins.

Figure 1: Major Little Penguin colonies in South Australia.


Methods

There are three main methods for estimating penguin population abundance: direct counts of

“active” nests, estimates of nest densities per unit area and counts of moulting adults and juveniles

(Bingham 1998; Paredes et al. 2003; Morcom 2006). Estimates of nest densities are often used in

cases of large penguin colonies or inaccessible terrain and counts of moulting adults and juveniles

rely on good biological knowledge of the population and the capability to respond quickly to annual

moulting events. Counts of active nests can be carried out during the day, cause less disturbance

to birds and have been used to assess penguin numbers on Granite Island, near Victor Harbor, the

nearest little penguin colony to Kangaroo Island (Morcom 2006). Given these facts, plus the

intended use of community volunteers, limited biological knowledge of the population and the small

size and accessible terrain occupied by the colony, daytime counts of active nests was the method

chosen for trial as a means of on-going monitoring of the Little Penguin colony at Kingscote.

An ‘active nest’ is defined as a nest that contains either direct evidence of penguin occupation or

breeding activity (i.e. adults, chicks or eggs present) or indirect evidence such as fresh guano,

feathers or a strong smell. The use of active nest counts is a more robust indicator of adult

penguin numbers than counts of occupied nests and, if carried out consistently and according to

standard protocols, this method provides relative estimates of population size that are directly

comparable from year to year. Counts of active nests will probably always underestimate the

absolute population of adult Little Penguins because the protracted breeding season of the species

means that penguins that finished breeding prior to the census, or have not yet begun nesting, may

not be detected and recorded. This can be mitigated to some extent by careful timing of the

census to coincide with the peak of the breeding season, thereby maximising the number of

burrows being used for nesting purposes and the detection of recently used burrows or those in

preparation for future use. In the absence of detailed breeding information on the Kingscote

penguin colony, the survey was conducted in October on the assumption that this should coincide

roughly with the middle of the breeding season (Weerheim 2003).

Local knowledge and preliminary reconnaissance surveys were used to determine the approximate

boundaries of the penguin colony and delineate the proposed survey area. Criteria such as

geography, terrain, observed or anticipated burrow density and vegetation cover were applied to

divide the survey area into 11 sections of shoreline (Figure 2) and determine required search effort

(personnel numbers) for each section (Appendix I). An irregular area of about 0.15 km2 was

searched along approximately 5 km of shoreline between Brownlow and the Bay of Shoals boat

ramp, from the high tide mark to a distance of 2 - 75 metres inland (Figure 2).


The census was conducted on Sunday 22nd October 2006, with the aid of 40 community

volunteers. Volunteers were briefed beforehand about the conduct of the census, particularly how

to distinguish active from inactive penguin burrows, and provided with instruction on how to

complete the datasheet. Search personnel were allocated into 11 teams (one per section) of

between two and seven people (Appendix I) and each team was provided with a GPS for

determining burrow locations and datasheets on which to record whether the burrow was active,

inactive or occupied (Appendix II). Where it was possible to determine, the number of adult

penguins and chicks inside occupied burrows was also recorded. In order to verify the precision

and repeatability of the method, two sections (Sections 3 and 6) were recounted one week later

with different personnel to compare results. All data collected during the census were entered into

a geodatabase for analysis and mapping.

Figure 2: Search area and section boundaries for Kingscote penguin census


Results

Four hundred and forty seven penguin burrows were located within the survey area, 46% percent

(205) of which were active and 54% (242) of which were inactive (Table 1, Figure 3). Search time

ranged from one to three hours per section (Appendix I) and overall search effort was

approximately 80 person-hours, or around 15 person-hours per km of shoreline.

Table 1: Distribution of total, active and inactive burrows across the survey area.

Section Total burrows

No. active burrows

No. inactive burrows

1 30 17 13 2 46 10 36 3 24 8 16 4 11 5 6 5 57 27 30 6 54 28 26 7 116 51 65 8 67 46 21 9 20 6 14

10 6 2 4 11 16 5 11

Total 447 205 242

Figure 3: Distribution of penguin burrows along the Kingscote foreshore.


The proportion of total burrows that were active varied, ranging from 22% in Section 2 to 68% in

Section 8 (Figure 4). There was, however, no systematic pattern in the proportion of active versus

non-active burrows across the survey area that might indicate asynchronous breeding in the

colony.

Figure 4: Proportion of active to inactive burrows in each section

57%

22%

33%

45%

47%52%

44%

68%

30%

33%31%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Section

No.

bur

row

s

Active burrow s

Inactive burrow s

Burrows were not distributed evenly throughout the colony. The number of burrows counted per

section ranged from six in Section 10 just south of Reeves Point, to 116 in Section 7 around the

Kingscote wharf (Table 1). The highest concentration of both active and inactive burrows occurred

in the central portion of the survey area with nearly three-quarters of all burrows located in

Sections 5 – 8 (Figure 3, Table 1). When standardized by section area, it can be seen that

significantly higher densities of active burrows were found in Sections 6, 7 and 8, from the Tidal

Pool to Hospital Beach (Figure 5).


Figure 5: Density of active burrows per section of coastline.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Section

No.

act

ive

burr

ows/

km2 (

x 10

3 )

Active burrow density declined dramatically to either side of the main colony, in Sections 1 – 5 and

9 – 11 (Figure 5). Only two active burrows were discovered in the final kilometre of Section 11

(Figure 3) and, despite intensive searching during the preliminary reconnaissance search, no

burrows were located for a kilometre beyond the southern boundary of Section 1. This indicates

that the Kingscote colony is relatively discrete and contained within the boundaries of the survey

area and that the colony was fully searched.

Fifty percent (103) of the active penguin burrows were occupied, with 82 adults and 34 chicks

being counted (Table 2). The proportion of burrows occupied by penguins varied from 20% (in

Section 2) to 67% (in Section 9) but displayed no discernible pattern across the colony (Table 2).

Section 7 around the wharf was notable for the high proportion of burrows occupied by chicks.


Table 2: Occupancy rates of active burrows.

Section No.

active burrows

No. occupied burrows

% Occupation

No. adults

No. chicks

1 17 10 59 9 4

2 10 2 20 2 -

3 8 3 38 2 1

4 5 2 40 1 1

5 27 13 48 13 1

6 28 12 43 10 3

7 51 26 51 15 16

8 46 29 63 24 8

9 6 4 67 4 -

10 2 1 50 1 -

11 5 1 20 1 -

Total 205 103 50 82 34

Very similar numbers of burrows were recounted in Section 3 a week later compared with the

original survey (23 vs 24, Table 3). However, eight burrows were classified as active in the recount

versus three in the original survey (Table 3). This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that

the original survey group misunderstood the criteria for classifying a burrow as ‘active’ and only

recorded the three occupied burrows as active, despite signs of activity at some of the unoccupied

ones. In Section 6, there was a 15% drop in total burrow numbers between the original survey and

the recount (Table 3). However, the second team recorded a greater number of active burrows: 31

compared with 281, a difference of 11%. Applying this level of error across all counts, the number

of active burrows in the colony was estimated to be between 183 and 228.

Table 3: Comparison of recounts of Sections 3 and 6.

Section 3 Section 6

Original Recount Original Recount No. total burrows 24 23 54 46

No. active burrows 3 8 28 31

No. occupied burrows 3 4 11 14

1 It is interesting, but not necessarily significant, that the discrepancy in active burrow counts mirrors the

difference in the number of occupied burrows (i.e. 3).


Discussion

This study represents the first comprehensive assessment of the population size and distribution of

the colony of Little Penguins at Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, as well as the first successful use of

community volunteers to conduct a penguin census on KI. It has been estimated that the colony is

comprised of just over 200 (205 ∓ 23) active breeding nests, spread over an area of 0.15 km2 of

foreshore between Brownlow and Reeves Point. This establishes a valuable baseline dataset

against which future trends in penguin breeding numbers, and the area or distribution of the

colony, can be monitored.

The colony is concentrated around the main town foreshore of Kingscote, with the highest number

and density of active burrows clearly located in the centre of the colony around the wharf and

Hospital Beach. The two main reasons for this are: 1) that this area is managed by the commercial

penguin tour operator (KI Marine Centre), which has significantly increased penguin breeding

habitat by installing up to 100 artificial burrows and (2) the presence of a man-made retaining wall

around the wharf that provides ideal penguin nesting sites. High densities of active burrows also

occur in Section 6 where there is a retaining wall of large boulders around the man-made tidal

swimming pool. The low density of burrows in Section 4 is attributable to the lack of potential

burrow habitat as this section is comprised largely of sandy beach and grass verge.

The decline in burrow density towards the distal ends of the survey area indicates that the colony is

fairly discrete. Beyond these limits to the north and south in the Bay of Shoals and Western Cove,

suitable penguin habitat becomes very limited as the coast is comprised of sheltered, low-lying

samphire and mud habitat with few boulders or earthy substrate for burrow construction or nesting

sites. The lack of systematic change across the survey area in the ratio of active : inactive burrows

and occupied : unoccupied burrows indicates that the breeding pattern is similar throughout the

colony and is also good evidence that the area surveyed represents a single Little Penguin

population.

The status of the 242 inactive burrows identified in the colony is uncertain. Whether they are used

for nesting at other times during the breeding season and are only temporarily empty, or are used

on a rotating basis over a multi-annual cycle, or have been abandoned entirely, is unclear.

Continued monitoring of the penguin colony, with repeated mapping of the distribution of active and

inactive burrows, should help clarify this question.


Despite these uncertainties, it is considered that direct counts of nests, conducted during the day,

are the most appropriate method of monitoring the status of the Kingscote penguin population.

The low level of burrow occupancy during the census highlights the value of counting burrows

rather than birds. Because of the protracted breeding season of the species, only a portion of the

population is nesting in the colony at a given time and would be counted during a snapshot census.

Furthermore, the timing of the breeding season varies from year to year therefore poor synchrony

between census date and peak breeding can lead to highly variable estimates of penguin numbers

based on counts of birds. Penguins are also frequently absent at sea on foraging trips of up to

several days at a time and, finally, there is the strong but unquantified likelihood of some penguin

occupancy going undetected, as it is not always possible to see clearly inside a burrow or rock

crevice. Hence, counts of adult penguins and chicks carried out during the day or at night would

almost certainly provide a serious underestimate of penguin numbers.

Counting active nests is less susceptible to all of these sources of error and has the added

advantage of providing information on the distribution and breeding activity level of the colony.

Nevertheless, a critical element in the survey method is the classification of burrows as ‘active’ or

‘inactive’, with some volunteers assuming that burrows were only being actively used for nesting if

they were occupied by penguins. One lesson learnt from the initial census was that it is essential

to ensure that community volunteers understand the difference between ‘active’ and ‘occupied’

burrows in future surveys.

Notwithstanding this, repeat surveys of two sections of foreshore yielded consistent results,

suggesting that population estimates are little affected by detection biases as a source of sampling

error. This demonstrates that the use of trained community volunteers to count active burrows

provides a repeatable method for estimating penguin numbers. This is important as the survey

method relies on the use of community volunteers, therefore it can be anticipated that changes of

personnel will occur from year to year.

Evidence of possible impacts on the Kingscote penguins was apparent during the census. A

number of dead adults and chicks were found, some with evidence of dog or human attack. It was

also noted that many burrows in Section 2 were collapsed, possibly as a result of unusually dry soil

resulting from current drought conditions (Bev Overton pers. comm.). Given the heavy

concentration of the colony in the populated areas of the Kingscote foreshore, other potentially

detrimental effects include the development of housing (and accompanying street lighting) along

the Brownlow Road, the regular nightly guided penguin tours along Hospital Beach, and the


construction of new loading ramps and other infrastructure around the wharf area. The division of

the penguin colony into different sections assists in identifying localized changes in penguin

numbers and potentially establishing the cause of such effects.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The 2006 Kingscote penguin census has delivered a preliminary estimate of the size, distribution

and level of breeding activity in the Little Penguin colony at Kingscote, Kangaroo Island and

produced a dataset of the locations of penguin burrows. This establishes a valuable baseline

measure, or benchmark, against which future trends in penguin numbers, and the area or

distribution of the colony, can be monitored.

The study has also confirmed that the survey method employed for the census is both valid and

viable as a regular, long-term, community-based program. Given the growing evidence of

potentially negative human impacts on the colony, absence of any current information on their

status, and the importance of Little Penguins to the Island’s economy, it is recommended that a

census of Little Penguins using this survey method be conducted annually, in order to monitor, and

more clearly establish, the health of the Kingscote colony.

Future surveys can be improved by refinements in the timing of the census. Reilly and Cullen

(1981) reported a wide annual range in the mean egg-laying time for penguins at Phillip Island and

Weirheim et al. (2003) in his study of Little Penguins on Montague Island found that sampling in

different months gave different estimates of the total penguin population. Further investigation into

the breeding cycle of Little Penguins in the Kingscote colony should be carried out to assist in

selecting the optimum time to conduct future penguin surveys.


References

Bingham, M. (1998). The distribution, abundance and population trends of Gentoo, Rockhopper

and King Penguins in the Falkland Islands. Oryx 32(3): 223-232.

Dann, P. (1992). Distribution, population trends and factors influencing the population size of Little

Penguins Eudyptula minor on Phillip Island, Victoria. Emu 91: 265-272.

Marchant, S., and Higgins, P. J. (1990). “Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic

Birds.” Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Morcom, R. (2006). Granite Island Little Penguins Eudyptula minor: breeding population trends,

breeding success for the 2005-2006 season, and nest attributes. Unpublished Flinders University

Research Report.

Paton, D. C., Gates, J. A. and Pedler, L. P. (2002). Birds. In M. Davies, C. R. Twidale and M. J.

Tyler, (Eds) Natural History of Kangaroo Island. Royal Society of South Australia, pp. 88-110.

Paredes, R., Zavalaga, C. B., Battistini, P. M., and McGill, P. (2003). Status of the Humboldt

Penguin in Peru, 1999-2000. Waterbirds 26(2): 129 –138.

Reilly, P. N., and Cullen, J.M. (1981). The Little Penguin Eudyptula minor in Victoria. II: Breeding.

Emu 81: 1-19.

Waas, J. R. (1990a). Intraspecific variation in social repetoires: evidence from cave- and burrow-

dwelling Little Blue Penguins. Behaviour 115: 63-90.

Weerheim, M. S., Klomp, N. I., Brunsting, A. M. H. and Komdeur, J. (2003). Population size,

breeding habitat and nest site distribution of little penguins Eudyptula minor on Montague Island,

New South Wales. Wildlife Research 30: 151-157.


Community Census of the Little Penguin Colony at Kingscote - 2007 20 20

APPENDIX I: Details regarding eleven sections searched during Kingscote penguin census

Section Area Start and End boundaries Inland boundary No. people Search time

(hrs)

1 Brownlow Access track to beach from Brownlow Rd just west of William's house (GPS posn 736976E, 6049729N) to access rack from coastal path to beach in front of new house at bottom of Lovers Lane (just after stormwater drain).

Fenceline at bottom of private land and gardens. 4 3

2 Nepean Pines New house at bottom of Lovers Lane to steps at eastern end of Nepean Pines Conservation Area.

Bottom of people's gardens initially, then up to roadside grass verge 6 2

3 Steps at eastern end of Nepean Pines Conservation Area to southwestern end of Yacht Club beach (where sand starts).

Grass verge above foreshore 3 1.5

4 Yacht Club beach

Southwestern end of Yacht Club beach to northeastern end of Yacht Club beach just beyond boatshed at start of coastal path. Grassed foreshore

4 1.5

5 Coastal path to Kingscote

Just beyond Yacht Club boatshed to start of tidal swimming pool. Chapman Terrace 5 2.5

6 Tidal Pool Start (SW end) of Tidal Pool to northern end of Ozone Beach (adjacent to wharf).

Grass verge along and above foreshore

3 2

7 Wharf Man-made wharf area between Ozone Hotel and start of boardwalk down to Hospital Beach colony Concrete wharf apron 2 2.5

8 Hospital Beach

Hospital Beach colony between boardwalk steps and end of path along rock foreshore. Grass verge above foreshore 3 1.5

9 Northern end of path running along HB colony to house called 'Pelican Landing'. Road (Esplanade) 2 2

10 House called 'Pelican Landing' to old Reeves Point jetty. Part-way up cliff face 5 1

11 Reeves Point Old jetty to Bay of Shoals boat ramp. Governor Wallen Drive 3 2

Total = 40 Average = 2.0

Community Census of the Little Penguin Colony at Kingscote - 2007 21

APPENDIX II: Penguin Census Data Sheet

Penguin data sheet Section: Personnel: Burrow

No. GPS

Easting GPS

Northing Active Inactive Occupied Y/N

No. adults

No. chicks

Remarks

Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board ......(KI), Granite Island, Althorpe Island and...

Documents

Transcript of Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board ......(KI), Granite Island, Althorpe Island and...