Park Superintendent Presqu’ile Provincial Park R.R. 4 · DCCO used 33% fewer trees in total in 2014 than 2013, and substantially fewer of the trees used were alive (Table 2). In

Cover Photo: Bluff Thicket North, High Bluff Island, is composed of living and dead trees and shrubs that provide habitat for a variety of nesting and migrating birds.

Prepared by: Don Tyerman, Biodiversity Specialist, Presqu’ile Provincial Park Corina Brdar, Southeast Zone Ecologist, Ontario Parks

This document is available by contacting: Park Superintendent Presqu’ile Provincial Park R.R. 4 Brighton, Ontario K0K 1H0 (613) 475-4324

© 2015, Queen’s Printer for Ontario

MNRF 62896ISBN 978-1-4606-5521-4 (PDF, 2014 ed.)

Overview Resource management on High Bluff and Gull Islands at Presqu’ile Provincial Park is prescribed by the 2011 Presqu’ile Islands Resource Management Implementation Plan (Islands RMIP). The overall purpose of resource management is to maintain representative diversity of species and their habitats using an ecosystem-based adaptive management approach. As described in the Islands RMIP, the treed portions of High Bluff Island (HBI) have been affected in the past decade by double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus – herein referred to as cormorant or DCCO) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Gull Island (GI) formerly supported trees and shrubs but is now essentially bare, except for one remaining willow tree on Sebastopol Point, due to past impacts of cormorants. The Islands RMIP describes resource management actions to address cormorant and deer impacts on specific park values and to maintain habitat for other species. The islands have hosted colonies of three other tree-nesting colonial waterbird species: great blue heron (GBHE, Ardea herodias), great egret (GREG, Ardea alba) and black-crowned night-heron (BCNH, Nycticorax nycticorax). These three species are collectively referred to as “herons”. Cormorants and the three heron species nest in the remaining scattered areas of woody vegetation on the islands and have been closely monitored since 2003. Several specific woody habitat areas on the Presqu’ile Islands are identified as management areas in the Islands RMIP. These sites typically contain live woody vegetation and other resource values (e.g. heron nesting sites). Figure 1 is an overview of High Bluff Island identifying the management areas where monitoring and management occurred, as well as heron nesting and vegetation monitoring locations. This report describes the annual monitoring and management that was done on the Presqu’ile islands in 2014 in accordance with the Islands RMIP. Similar reports have been prepared in previous years. Waterbird nesting status and management activities are summarized in Appendix A. Vegetation was monitored in 2014 and the results of vegetation monitoring will be reported on in a 5-year review. Each section of the 2014 report answers a number of monitoring questions.

1. Double-crested cormorant

o How many DCCO nests are there in trees and on the ground? How does this change from year to year?

o What areas are DCCO nesting in? o How much roosting by DCCO is occurring (is it necessary to disturb roosting DCCO)? o What cormorant management activities were conducted in 2014? o How is cormorant management affecting the amount and location of cormorant nesting and

roosting? 2. Herons – great blue heron, great egret, and black-crowned night-heron

o How successful are the nesting herons? How does this change from year to year? o What areas are herons nesting in? o How much roosting by herons is occurring (is there a risk that cormorant roost disturbance could

affect roosting herons)? 3. Summary of regional trends in tree-nesting colonial waterbirds for 2014

o What are the trends for these species across Lake Ontario and elsewhere? o How does Presqu’ile contribute to the regional populations of these species?

4. Other wildlife – terrestrial colonial waterbird predators, white-tailed deer, monarch butterflies, and other birds.

o How are the woody vegetation and other habitat on HBI being used by other wildlife species?

Presqu’ile Islands – 2014 Resource Management and Monitoring 1

Figure 1. Management areas (from Islands RMIP), heron nesting locations from 2013 and 2014, and vegetationareas that are not encompassed by management areas are referred to as Unmanaged Area East and West.

monitoring plots. The treed


1. Double-crested Cormorant Monitoring and Management DCCO nest counts are conducted annually to determine how many nests are in the trees and on the ground, what areas are being used, and how these change from year to year. Cormorant management was undertaken by two technicians assigned to this project full-time, with direction and assistance from a senior biologist. Detailed methods for conducting DCCO monitoring and management are described in the Presqu’ile Islands 2011 Resource Management and Monitoring Report.

1.1. DCCO Nest Counts

Methods • Counts of DCCO nests and the number of trees containing DCCO nests on the Presqu’ile Islands were

conducted twice in 2014. o The first count, June 26, is consistent with the timing of the Canada Wildlife Service surveys and

previous surveys; the late-June period is considered the average peak of nesting in Lake Ontario. o The second count on July 29 quantified some of the changes in the nesting colony over the

course of the breeding season (including effects of nest management and late nest initiations.) • After a several year lapse in ground nesting, DCCO established ground nests for the third consecutive

year in 2014. These nests were counted on GI but the ground colony on HBI was discovered to be abandoned on the count date.

• Ground nests were marked with a dot of spray paint to avoid double-counting.

Results • Results from both 2014 nest count periods are provided in Table 1. • The number of tree nests decreased by 39% between the first count period and the second, and the

number of trees used between counts decreased by 11%.

Table 1. Number of DCCO tree nests and number of live and dead trees used for nesting on High Bluff Island during both count periods in 2014.

June 26 July 29 # of nests 1176 714 # of trees 161 144

Average # nests/tree

7.3 5.0

• 95% of DCCO tree nests were found outside the management areas defined in the Islands RMIP (Table 2) during the standard late June count. The majority of the nests found within management areas were located in the Red Ash Swamp Forest, which was only partially managed in 2014 due to the fact that the trees used for nesting in this management area were already dead. 9 nests were found in the Ridge Forest North Management area and they were removed immediately following the official count.

• DCCO used 33% fewer trees in total in 2014 than 2013, and substantially fewer of the trees used were alive (Table 2). In 2014 92% of the trees used for nesting were dead. This compares with 85% dead in 2013; 52% dead in 2012 and 30% dead in 2011.


Table 2. 2014 management area use by DCCO, based on the June 26 nest count. The total nest count for 2014 includes ground nests and nests in artificial nesting platforms.

Management area # nests

in live trees

# live trees used

# nests in dead trees

# dead trees used

TOTAL DCCO NESTS

TOTAL TREES USED

Basswood Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bluff Thicket North 9 1 0 0 9 1 Bluff Thicket South 0 0 0 0 0 0 Red Ash Swamp Forest

0 0 196 29 196 29

Ridge Forest North 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ridge Forest South 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shingle Beach Thicket (north and south)1

0 0 0 0 0 0

Shrub Thicket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upland Forest Grove A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upland Forest Grove B 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upland Forest Grove C 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upland Forest Grove D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upland Forest Grove E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Upland Forest Grove F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unmanaged Area - East

143 10 740 113 883 123

Unmanaged Area - West

0 0 88 8 88 8

Artificial Tree Colony2 - - - - 25 - High Bluff Ground - - - - 0 - Gull Island Ground - - - - 2720 - 2014 Total 152 11 1024 150 3921 161 2013 Total 412 36 1621 206 4890 242

1DCCO nests in Shingle Beach Thicket North and South were counted as a single area 2one artificial tree nesting platform with 20 nests which are not included in the tree nest total

• There was a 20% decrease in total DCCO nests (ground and tree nests combined) between the late June count in 2014 and 2013 (Table 3). This decrease occurred mostly within the tree-nesting component of the population in the non-management areas. There were 42% fewer tree nests in 2014 compared to 2013 and the ground nesting component declined by 4%. Ground-nesting also shifted entirely to Gull Island in 2014.

• 2014 marks the third consecutive year that DCCO established ground colonies on both GI and HBI (Table 3). However red foxes (Vulves vulpes) and at least one Raccoon (Procyon lotor) also became established on HBI in 2014 and it was discovered on the June count day that the DCCO ground colony had abandoned this island. The fox den was located within the formerly active colony.

• DCCO ground nesting on GI increased by 86% between 2013 and 2014.


Table 3. Cormorant tree and ground nest numbers during June nest counts from 2002 to 2013.

Year

HBI tree nests

HBI ground nests

Gull I. ground nests

Total nests

2002 6893 3491 1698 12082 2003 4631 2948 1117 8696 2004 3656 1683 1601 6940 2005 1976 1305 1328 4609 2006 2108 498 213 2819 2007 2233 1562 60 3855 2008 3478 664 0 4142 2009 3756 116 0 3872 2010 4523 0 0 4523 2011 3854 0 0 3854 2012 2331 68 55 24621 2013 2033 1378 1459 48902 2014 1176 0 2720 39213

1includes one artificial nesting platform with 8 nests 2includes one artificial nesting platform with 20 nests 3includes one artificial nesting platform with 25 nests

• The number of nests in live trees and the number of live trees used by DCCO was the lowest it has been since this information was first recorded (Table 4).

• Almost fourteen times as many dead trees were used for nesting than live trees in 2014. Table 4. Number of DCCO nests and trees used for nesting on HBI from 2006 to 2014, based on the June count. Live and dead trees were not recorded separately until 2008. Management occurred in 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Year # live

trees used

# nests in live trees

# nests/ live tree

# dead trees used

# nests in dead trees

# nests/ dead tree

Total trees used

# nests/ tree

2006 377 5.6 2007 432 5.2 2008 449 2743 6.1 121 735 6.1 570 6.1 2009 571 3408 6.0 84 348 4.1 655 5.7 2010 556 3486 6.3 168 1037 6.2 724 6.2 2011 448 2596 5.8 190 1258 6.6 638 6.0 2012 164 1163 7.1 179 1168 6.5 343 6.8 2013 36 412 11.4 206 1621 7.9 242 8.4 2014 11 152 13.8 150 1024 6.8 161 7.3

• DCCO nested or attempted to nest in all tree species present on High Bluff Island in 2013 except American elm and eastern red cedar. DCCO also attempted to nest in the remaining willow on Sebastopol Point (see section 1.2 Tree nest removal - Results)

Discussion The most notable characteristics of DCCO nest distribution in 2014 are:

• Increased DCCO nesting in non-management areas • Fewer tree-nesting DCCO • The loss of the HBI ground colony and concurrent expansion of the GI ground colony.


Increased DCCO nesting in non-management areas Since 2011 when DCCO management was reinitiated after a multi-year lapse, DCCO have been nesting in smaller and smaller numbers within the areas where management occurs. The proportion of the overall population nesting within the management areas has decreased from 40% in 2011 to 5% in 2014. Only two management areas (Red Ash Swamp - 196 nests and Bluff Thicket North – 9 nests in a single tree) contained nesting DCCO in the 2014 June count. The Bluff Thicket North nests had been newly constructed and were removed immediately after the count. A focus of management activities in the nest-initiation period (late April through early June) is the likely explanation for the ongoing decline in DCCO nest numbers within the management areas (see section 1.2 Tree nest removal - Methods). Put in the simplest of terms, management activities now prevent nest building from occurring in these areas and DCCO have chosen to nest in non-management areas instead. The old axiom “An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure” has proven true: an early season program of activities deterring DCCO from nesting in the management areas as soon as they arrive in the spring has proven to be a highly effective and low-key means to encourage them to nest in other areas. Fewer tree-nesting DCCO The tree-nesting component of Presqu’ile’s DCCO population is steadily declining. In 2011, the entire population was nesting in the trees. This has steadily declined to only 30% of the breeding population tree-nesting in 2014. This trend is due to: 1) efforts that have almost fully cleared the trees in the management areas of nesting DCCO, and 2) the ongoing loss of trees in the non-management areas. In 2011 638 trees were used for nesting while in 2014 only 161 trees were used. The overall DCCO population was essentially the same with 3854 nests in 2011 and 3921 nests in 2014. These numbers illustrate well the shift away from tree-nesting by the park’s DCCO. This is especially true in the non-management areas where the vast majority of living trees used for DCCO nesting have died and they are now rotting and falling down (Figure 2). This ongoing process is reducing the overall number of trees (live and dead) available for DCCO nesting.

Figure 2. Trees in unmanaged areas die and fall quickly, as seen in foreground. Basswood Grove is in the background. The trail through the nettle and thistle used by staff is visible on the right. This photo was taken early in June before the ground cover grew to its full height.


Tree loss within the non-management areas will continue into the future. Only 11 of the 161 trees used by nesting DCCO were alive in 2014. Winter storms and decay will take down dead trees until none will remain standing. This hopefully will encourage ground-nesting but it will also increase pressure on the living trees found within the management zones. Ongoing management efforts will be critical to protect the habitat provided by the remaining live trees since they also provide habitat used by nesting herons, roosting monarch butterflies and migrating songbirds. The loss of the HBI ground colony and concurrent expansion of the GI ground colony One likely consequence in the loss of DCCO tree-nesting sites is the simultaneous growth of the ground colony. The ground colony has gone from no nests in 2011, to just over 100 in 2012, and in the past two years around 3000 nests have been established on the ground. This nesting pattern is desirable as ground-nesting DCCO minimally affect woody vegetation and the other tree-nesting colonial species. Ground-nesting DCCO are vulnerable to terrestrial predators, which can cause entire colonies to be abandoned. This had occurred in the past at Presqu’ile and occurred again in 2014. The HBI DCCO ground colony had a good start with more than 1000 pairs initiating nests in the vicinity of the island’s lighthouse in April and May. Staff avoided this area until the nest count day in late June when they discovered that the colony had very recently been abandoned (Figure 3). This abandonment was almost certainly caused by terrestrial predators – likely the foxes and raccoon that were documented in 2014. In 2014 the DCCO ground colony on Gull Island reached the highest number of nests ever recorded – 1000 more nests that the previous peak in 2003. It is highly likely that a large portion of this extraordinarily large population was originally ground-nesting birds displaced from HBI.

Figure 3. Part of the recently abandoned ground colony on High Bluff Island. Nests were still intact on June 26, but all eggs and chicks were gone.

1.2. Tree Nest Removal

Methods • In 2014 nest removal efforts were concentrated early or late in the day, when nest establishment is most

active, followed by regular visits to the areas where nests had been removed to discourage re-nesting(Appendix A).


• As soon as the first few DCCO began building nests in a given management area they were immediately removed so that the area was no longer attractive to other nesting DCCO. This method was found to be effective through previous experience.

• Nest removal stopped in early July when management areas had been cleared or the remaining nests were past 75% incubation.

Results • Between early April and early July, 312 tree nests were removed from 9 of the 14 management areas

(Table 5). DCCO can attempt to re-nest when they lose their nest, so in some cases, the nest removal number represents multiple nesting attempts by the same pair of birds. If required, sites were revisited to remove new nests.

• Five of the 14 management areas (Upland Forest Groves A, B, D, E and F) had no DCCO nests built in them in 2014; the remaining 9 management areas all had DCCO nests built in them at some point during the breeding season.

• Nest removal in most of the Red Ash Swamp management area was not conducted because the trees holding these nests were already dead and located very close to the Unmanaged Area East.

Table 5. Number of DCCO tree nests present during the 2014 and 2013 late July (post-management) nest count in areas that were managed in 2014, as well as the total number of DCCO nests removed from

each managed area in 2014 Management Area DCCO tree nests

late July 2013 DCCO tree nests

late July 2014 DCCO tree nests

removed May – early July 2014

Basswood Grove 0 0 31

Bluff Thicket South 0 0 1

Bluff Thicket North 0 0 2

Ridge Forest North 0 7 152

Shingle Beach Thicket North and South1

0 0 20

Upland Forest Grove C 0 0 12

Red Ash Swamp 87 99 66

Sebastopol Point (GI) 0 0 28

1 Shingle Beach North and South were counted as a single management area in 2013 and 2014.

Discussion Re-nesting by DCCO was largely eliminated by clearing specific areas, then “holding” them by repeated visits to those areas for several days following initial nest removal. These visits are particularly effective if they occur in the morning and evening hours. Once cleared of their nests, simpler tools such as scare-crows or the routing of walking paths through these areas maintained their DCCO nest-free status. This “no-nest establishment technique” has resulted in dramatically fewer DCCO nests requiring removal than in previous years. In 2014 consistent application of this approach resulted in only 312 DCCO nests being removed from trees compared to 1038 nests in 2013 and 1824 nests in 2012. While there is an obvious benefit to the “no-nest establishment technique” approach from a labour point of view, there is more important benefit in terms of vegetation protection. Using this approach, potential nesting trees suffer little or no damage from branch and leaf removal by nest-building birds. The trees are


also not subjected to the harmful effects of cormorant guano since these trees are not perched upon by cormorant adults and their chicks throughout the breeding season. Two thirds of the nests that were removed in 2014 came from areas immediately adjacent to the core area of DCCO tree nesting, the Unmanaged Area – East. These particular management areas (Ridge Forest North and Red Ash Swamp) will remain attractive to DCCO prospecting for potential nest sites due to their close proximity to successful DCCO nests in the Unmanaged Area – East. In future years they will continue to require nest removal to keep them healthy.

1.3. Roost Monitoring and Disturbance After the breeding season, DCCO become transient and hundreds or thousands of individuals from across a large region congregate in locations with feeding and roosting opportunities. DCCO roost overnight in trees or on the ground. Guano deposition from these large communal roosts can have a pronounced negative effect on woody vegetation.

Methods • Monitoring of roosting DCCO was initiated in mid-August (Table 6). Evening surveys began one hour

before sunset and ended 30 minutes after sunset. • Limited roost disturbance activities – human presence, yelling, arm-waving and the firing of blank shells –

were employed at the onset of darkness following two of the evenings (September 5 and 8) when roost monitoring was conducted.

• While one staff person was conducting roost disturbance activities, another person observed the reaction of the DCCO and their destination after they had left the initial roost area.

Results • Results from roost monitoring are provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Numbers of DCCO arriving at High Bluff Island to roost for the night.

Date Total # of DCCO Majority of DCCO Arriving From August 19 4748 West August 22 663 West August 25 783 East August 29 2041 West

September 5 2537 West September 8 1658 West

• The roosting DCCO that were disturbed on Sept. 5 and 7 were observed leaving High Bluff Island to roost

on the ground on Gull Island where DCCO had already been roosting.

Discussion In 2014 the number of DCCO roosting at Presqu’ile started relatively high and then was variable. As seen in 2013 ground-roosting was favoured, especially at the western end of Gull Island adjacent to where the ground-nest colony was. Since these ground-roosting DCCO cause no damage to woody vegetation only two disturbance events were required, when woody vegetation was being used. After these disturbances DCCO discontinued using the woody vegetation on HBI to roost and roost disturbance was stopped. It appears that in 2014 the islands at Presqu’ile were not acting as a regional roosting location for DCCO given the relatively low numbers of DCCO that arrived at the island during roost monitoring. The higher numbers seen in early August are likely due to the DCCO breeding at Presqu’ile in 2014.


1.4. Ground-Nesting Habitat Enhancement The objective of enhancing the ground-nesting habitat is to provide suitable nesting sites outside of the management areas identified in the Islands RMIP. In 2014, DCCO were noted in the ground-colony area in late April and these birds were establishing nesting territories and building nests. This activity combined with the apparent early-season absence of terrestrial predators on the island lead to a decision not to erect the predator-exclusion fence that had been put in place in previous years. Ultimately staff discovered that a fox family had indeed become established on HBI – within the ground colony itself (Figure 4). It appears likely that many of the displaced HBI birds rebuilt on Gull Island where record numbers of DCCO bred on the ground in 2014 (Table 2).

1.5. Nesting and Roosting Deterrence Experience has demonstrated that in many circumstances nest removal is not required if DCCO nests are prevented from becoming established in the first place. Nesting deterrence early in the nesting period discourages DCCO from using managed areas before they become firmly established, reducing nest removal effort overall. Similarly, DCCO appear to avoid roosting in areas where they detect human presence, so roosting deterrence may decrease the need for active roost disturbance.

Methods • Within the management areas, deterrents (scarecrows) and staff trails were used to discourage

DCCO nest establishment and roosting. • In 2013 temporary trails were established through the nettle and thistle ground cover that allowed fast,

frequent and regular human presence within management areas, while avoiding disturbance to nesting herons (Figure 2). These same trails were used in 2014.

• Logs and debris were cleared to allow for efficient walking. In areas of heavy herbaceous vegetation, paths were kept clear by mowing.

• Trails were maintained in the following management areas: Upland Forest Grove A, C, D; Basswood Grove; Bluff Thicket South; Ridge Forest North.

Results • In 2014 DCCO reacted with a high degree of wariness to the coverall style of scarecrows. • In early May after nest removal operations and human presence in Upland Forest Grove C and Shingle

Beach Thicket scarecrows effectively deterred further nest-site prospecting by DCCO. • A single scarecrow was used in Upland Forest Grove D prior to nesting attempts and no DCCO nested

there.

Figure 4. A fox den was discovered on June 26 in the middle of the ground colony on the S shore of HBI.


• Staff trails effectively augment DCCO nesting-deterrence efforts, as there was no DCCO nesting near the trails.

Discussion The effectiveness of scarecrows in deterring DCCO from nesting is variable. In low-pressure environments they can provide effective protection, while in highly desirable sites DCCO can become desensitized to them. Therefore, scarecrows should only be used to enhance other management techniques or as a precautionary measure in situations where no DCCO are attempting to nest. On their own, in desirable sites, scarecrows will not deter persistent DCCO from nesting The establishment of staff trails within management areas has proven to be an effective way to discourage DCCO nesting. In low-pressure sites, staff walking along the trail are enough of a deterrent to prevent DCCO nesting. In desirable sites, staff walking along the trails should be considered as an augmentation to nest removal. Walking alone will not cause DCCO to abandon a well-established nesting area.

1.6. Alternative Tree-nesting Habitat Enhancement Within a few seasons, trees used by nesting DCCO die and their branches break off. As a result, natural tree nest sites become increasingly limited and this puts increased pressure on the remaining standing trees, including those in the management areas. The objective of alternative tree-nesting habitat enhancement is to provide additional nesting opportunities for DCCO outside of the management areas, where there is no conflict with other values like heron nesting habitat.

Methods • A large, modular, self-supporting structure was built in 2012 from 2” x 6” x 7’ boards salvaged from old

picnic-table tops in a two tier format, with the lower level sitting approximately 6 feet off the ground and upper level 12 feet above the ground (Figure 5 ). The overall structure was built in an “S” configuration and expanded in 2014 with each of the two layers covering around 700 square feet.

Results • The artificial platform was utilized immediately after its construction, and in 2014 a total of 25 pairs

successfully raised chicks on this structure.

Figure 5. Modular-style artificial nesting platform.


Discussion Past experience at Presqu’ile and elsewhere suggests that artificial nesting platforms will be readily accepted by DCCO. The large modular platforms remain in place year round and will be available to DCCO at the beginning of the 2015 breeding season. In order to deploy large numbers of long-lasting (5 years or more) artificial tree nest platforms, the entire nesting structure must be artificial. At other locations, nest platforms have been attached to telephone poles, but this approach is impractical for HBI. The alternate approach first deployed in 2012 involved a simple modular design using a scaffolding-like framework with the platforms affixed throughout the scaffolding. Built with recycled materials, the DCCO scaffolding was cheaply and quickly constructed and is self-supporting. Exposure to the weather conditions in the winters of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 proved that the design is durable enough to last for a number of breeding seasons. Limited damage did occur, but the nesting platform was repaired and expanded upon in 2014. This structure has been used by DCCO every year since it was erected in 2012 and should prove useful in encouraging DCCO to nest in areas where their nesting activity will not cause damage to woody vegetation. The previously-tried approach of attaching structures to trees will not be used.


2. Heron Monitoring

Overview General methods, results, and discussions are provided for each species individually and for heron roost monitoring in the following sections. Detailed methods for heron monitoring are described in the Presqu’ile Islands 2011 Resource Management and Monitoring Report. General heron nest monitoring information is below. Distribution of heron nests in the various management areas and unmanaged areas is summarized in Table 7 and shown in Figure 1.

Table 7. Use of managed/unmanaged areas by tree-nesting colonial waterbirds in 2014.

Management area Herons Use 2014 DCCO Use 2014

Comments

Basswood Grove N Y managed – 0 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Bluff Thicket North 13 GREG nests* 47 BCNH nests

Y managed – 0 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Bluff Thicket South N Y managed – 0 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Red Ash Swamp Forest N Y partially managed – 99 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Ridge Forest North 2 BCNH nests Y managed – 7 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Ridge Forest South N N not managed – no DCCO nests established in 2014

Shingle Beach Thicket N Y managed – 0 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Shrub Thicket N N not managed – 0 DCCO nests established in 2014

Upland Forest Grove A N N not managed – no DCCO nests established in 2014

Upland Forest Grove B 21 GREG nests* 2 BCNH nest*

N not managed – no DCCO nests established in 2014

Upland Forest Grove C N Y managed – 0 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Upland Forest Grove D N N not managed – no DCCO nests established in 2014

Upland Forest Grove E N N not managed – no DCCO nests established in 2014

Upland Forest Grove F 2 BCNH nests N not managed – no DCCO nests established in 2014

Unmanaged Area - East N Y not managed – 486 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Unmanaged Area - West 6 GREG nests* Y not managed – 78 DCCO nests remaining in July count

Sebastopol Point (Gull I.) 8 BCNH nests Y managed – all DCCO nests removed by July count

*Peak nest count on June 5 in these zones. All nests were later abandoned due to predation pressure by a raccoon, except for a single GREG nest in Bluff Thicket North.


• Four measures of breeding activity and success are monitored and reported: o Maximum number of active nests – the largest number of individually identified nests known to be

active during the breeding season (not all will produce young); o Number of successful nests – the number of nests that produced at least one chick that survived

to fledging (i.e. leaving the nest); o Number of fledged young – the number of hatched birds that survived to fledging; and, o Number of fledged young per nest – a measure of nest productivity (only successful nests were

used to calculate the number of fledged birds per nest).

2.1. Great Blue Heron Nest Monitoring

Methods • GBHE monitoring occurred as part of regular monitoring between April 8 and July 18.

Results • The results of GBHE nest monitoring are provided in Table 8.

Table 8. Nesting activity and success of GBHE on High Bluff Island

Year Maximum nest count

# successful

nests

# fledged young

Mean # fledged per

nest 2003 38 25 37 1.5 2004 63 38 75 2.0 2005 42 32 75 2.3 2006 36 22 51 2.3 2007 30 18 42 2.3 2008 26 23 46 2.0 2009 22 20 41 2.1 2010 29 28 66 2.4 2011 26 16 31 1.9 2012 18 8 19 2.4 2013 10 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0

• There was no nesting attempts by GBHE on the Presqu’ile Islands in 2014. • Occasional birds were seen throughout the breeding season but none exhibited any nesting behavior.

Discussion The foundering 2013 nesting-population of GBHE (just 10 unsuccessful nests) on High Bluff Island appears to have vanished in 2014. Individual birds were seen periodically but they were either flying over or feeding in the shallows around the island. No evidence that GBHE attempted to establish nests (e.g. birds carrying sticks or perching in tall treetops) was observed in 2014. The general trend for the GBHE population on High Bluff Island has been downward since 2004. The most significant factor in this decline is the loss of nesting trees. GBHE have always favoured the tops of the largest trees for nest sites; DCCO have as well. Typically, the “preferred” trees can support both large numbers of DCCO and sometimes a few GBHE nests for a number of years, until the trees eventually die and become limbless or completely fall down. For GBHE, the end result of this process is greatly reduced


nesting opportunities. DCCO can be more flexible in their nest site selection and have moved into smaller trees, artificial nesting platforms, and the ground. DCCO have also been observed to directly displace nesting GBHE. DCCO have thus been able to maintain substantial nest numbers despite the loss of the majority of the “most desirable” nesting trees. The combined pressures of nesting-tree loss and competition with DCCO for those same trees appears to have ultimately led to the abandonment of HBI by GBHE for nesting.

2.2. Great Egret Nest Monitoring

Methods • Nests were monitored regularly throughout the breeding season 1-3 times per week between April 8

and July 18. During these monitoring events, adult behaviour was observed to determine nesting status, and the number of chicks seen in each nest was recorded.

Results • The results of GREG nest monitoring are provided in Table 9. • 2014 started as a normal year for GREG on HBI with nests initiated in April and early May (Figure 6) • A maximum of 40 nests were built in the same locations as in 2013 with an additional site in a cedar

grove located along the shoreline in Bluff Thicket North • From late May until mid-June a series of nest abandonments was documented; these abandonments

occurred in groupings (9 nests on May 30, 9 nests on June 8 and 22 nests on June 16) • This loss of multiple nests over single nights was unlike the loss of a single nests at a time noted in past

years. The multiple nest pattern of loss is consistent with what would be expected with predation events • A raccoon was photographed by one of the trail cameras deployed on the island and nest damage and

egg-shell tooth-marks was consistent with raccoon damage (Figure 7). • Ultimately only a single GREG nest was successful producing 2 fledged chicks.

Table 9. Nesting activity and success of GREG on High Bluff Island

Year Maximum nest count

# successful

nests

# fledged young

Mean # fledged per

nest 2003 5 4 10 2.5 2004 10 10 26 2.6 2005 17 16 42 2.6 2006 16 14 35 2.5 2007 23 21 63 3.0 2008 27 23 62 2.7 2009 31 27 72 2.7 2010 41 28 72 2.6 2011 32 24 59 2.4 2012 41 36 105 2.9 2013 40 34 82 2.4 2014 40 1 2 2.0


Figure 7. An egg found on the ground beneath disturbed GREG nests on HBI. Note the circular hole above the large crack This hole is consistent with the canine teeth of a raccoon.

Discussion The predation activity observed in Presqu’ile’s GREG colony in 2014 is unprecedented. Despite a productive start to the breeding season with 40 nests underway only a single nest succeeded in producing two chicks. The nest losses occurred in a series of nights over a two week period of time. Each time the abandonments occurred the nests in that area were observed to either have been pulled downwards or pulled completely onto the ground. Eggshells were also found beneath the formerly active nests. Some of these shells had round puncture holes consistent with teeth marks. In addition all of the eggs found were broken and all of the hatched chicks were gone, presumably consumed. Adult GREG, once they had lost their nests, largely abandoned the island (with the exception of the occupants of the single undisturbed nest). GREG were observed feeding in the park’s wetlands throughout the summer and fall but were only rarely seen on HBI following mid-June. It is not known what the legacy of the 2014 breeding season’s challenges will be for Presqu’ile’s GREG population in the future. Throughout its history the park’s GREG colony has demonstrated steady growth and reliable production of young. This resilience may persist into 2015 and the colony may be re-established. At the very least DCCO management has ensured that the densely vegetated thickets of chokecherry and cedar used as nesting habitat by GREG (and BCNH) will still be available for these species in future years. Ongoing management of these areas will continue to be a priority.

2.3. Black-crowned Night-Heron Nest Monitoring

Methods • Nests were monitored throughout during the breeding season during regular work on the island,

including GREG monitoring (April 8 until raccoon disturbance). During these monitoring events, adult behaviour was observed from a distance to determine general nesting location and status. A full nest count was conducted late in the season, July 31, because the BCNH were affected by the raccoon and staff wanted to avoid causing additional disturbance. The number of eggs/chicks seen in each nest was recorded on this date.

Figure 6. A GREG photographed on the ground by a trail camera in mid-April 2104. This bird is likely searching for sticks to build its nest with.


Results • Of the 59 active BCNH nests counted on HBI in 2014:

o 8 were on Sebastopol Point GI o 2 were in Ridge Forest North o 2 were in Upland Forest Grove F o 47 were in Bluff Thicket North.

• The highest density of BCNH nests were in a chokecherry stand in Bluff Thicket North. • BCNH nested in chokecherry, white cedar, and elderberry on HBI. • BCNH nested in the single willow found on Sebastopol Point GI • The information provided in Table 10 is based on compilations of data collected opportunistically over

the breeding season, rather than on regular and continuous monitoring of individual nests.

Table 10. Nesting activity of BCNH on High Bluff and Gull Islands (Sebastopol Point). Year Max. nest

count # Active nests –

Sebastopol Point # Active nests –

HBI

2003 80 26 54 2004 59 7 52 2005 71 14 57 2006 84 17 67 2007 77 0 77 2008 80 0 80 2009 46 19 27 2010 51 34 17 2011 61 36 25 2012 74 5 69 2013 93 0 93 2014 59 8 51

Discussion In 2014 BCNH received less pressure from DCCO on Sebastopol Point than previous years, where only 28 cormorant nests were removed this year, versus 224 nests in 2013. As a result of this reduced pressure from nesting DCCO 8 successful BCNH nests were located there this year, compared to zero the year before. On High Bluff Island BCNH had to contend with terrestrial predators and thus were forced to re-establish nests after many of their original attempts were destroyed. Based on the height of the nests lost (up to 7 meters) it is most likely that the raccoon that was on the island is primarily responsible but some of the lowest nests could also be within reach of foxes. Indeed fox scat was found beneath a BCNH nest but it is probable that the fox visited the site after the raccoon attack occurred. In many established nesting areas, mature, tree-like chokecherries no longer provide suitable BCNH nesting habitat because they are too thin and do not provide enough cover. However, the numerous chokecherry suckers now sprouting are providing suitable nesting opportunities (Figure 8). These suckers are especially prevalent in the Bluff Thicket North where the majority of the park’s BCNH nested in 2014 (and 2013). Experience has shown that BCNH will readily move from a once-favoured nesting location to another suitable site so long as those sites are available. BCNH at Presqu’ile have utilized a variety of vegetation including the willow on Sebastopol Point, chokecherry thickets, white and red cedar trees and occasionally basswoods, ironwood and American beech. All of the BCNH nesting sites feature a patch of dense vegetation that is low to the ground and large enough to hide several nests.


Much of the coniferous nesting opportunities for BCNH have been degraded already, and this degraded conifer habitat will take many years to recover. Conversely, chokecherry thickets sucker and grow rapidly. As a result, they will likely become increasingly important to BCNH at Presqu’ile. 80% of the park’s BCNH nests were found in chokecherries in 2014. Despite their ability to regenerate, chokecherry thickets are especially vulnerable to the effects of DCCO nesting because the larger individuals die quickly once DCCO nests are established in them. Therefore, chokecherry thickets will be a priority for future DCCO management efforts to prevent the loss of existing and potential BCNH habitat.

Figure 8. Chokecherry groves provide dense vegetation suitable for BCNH nesting.

2.4. Heron Roost Monitoring Roosting by heron species is monitored to determine if HBI is used as a regional roost for any of the 3 species and to ensure that potential disturbance of roosting cormorants does not affect roosting herons.

Methods • The number of GBHE, GREG, and BCNH coming in to roost on, or leaving to forage from, HBI was

recorded at the same time as the DCCO roost monitoring (section 1.3 Roost Monitoring and Disturbance - Methods)

Results • Only a small number of GBHE and BCNH were observed arriving or departing from High Bluff Island

during roost monitoring in 2014 (Table 11).

Table 11. Heron species observed arriving or departing HBI during 2012 DCCO roost monitoring

GBHE GREG BCNH Date Arriving Departing Arriving Departing Arriving Departing

August 19 1 0 0 0 0 1 August 22 1 4 0 0 1 0 August 25 3 0 0 0 1 1 August 29 2 0 0 0 7 2

September 5 2 0 0 0 5 2 September 8 0 0 0 0 0 0


Discussion Given the low number of herons observed moving between the mainland and HBI during roost monitoring, it is likely that they were local birds (individuals that had nested or were born on the island). The GBHE seen around HBI were using the island as a feeding location while the BCNH were both feeding and travelling to and from recently active nest sites. The BCNH noted using the island on the days DCCO roost disturbance was conducted were using a different area and did not react.


3. Regional Trends in Tree-nesting Colonial Waterbirds The following information comes from the meetings of the Great Lakes Area Working Group on Colonial Waterbirds, an informal binational group of scientists and wildlife managers who share information relevant to colonial waterbirds nesting on the lower Great Lakes and associated rivers in Canada and the United States. Monitoring in other jurisdictions, and the information available when this report is written, varies from year to year.

3.1. DCCO • Lake Ontario – Increasing steadily since 2006 (a small decline in 2012 and 2014), with fluctuations

within individual colonies due to a variety of reasons including sanctioned and unsanctioned management. Lake-wide numbers declined slightly from over 34,000 nests in 2013 to 31,683 nests in 2014. This decline was widespread with 12 colonies reporting declines in DCCO numbers verses 8 reporting increases.

• Lower Great Lakes area – Generally increasing from 40,939 nests since 2006, but no new monitoring data has been compiled since 2012.

• Canadian Wildlife Service Decadal census (Lower Great Lakes area) – increased by 60% between Census 3 (1997 – 1999) and Census 4 (2007 – 2009).

3.2. GREG • Lake Ontario – The nesting failure for GREG at Presqu’ile did not appear to cause these birds to

establish new nests at other known colonies. There were 6 GREG nests observed at the only other colony on Lake Ontario in 2014 at Tommy Thompson Park. On the nearby Niagara River 24 GREG nests were reported for 2014.

• Lower Great Lakes area – There are 5 similar-sized or smaller colonies on the Niagara River (2) and in Lake Erie (3). No information for 2014 for these sites was available at the time of writing.

• Canadian Wildlife Service Decadal Census (Lower Great Lakes area) – Almost tripled between Census 3 (1997 – 2001) and Census 4 (2007 – 2009), mainly due to increases at Presqu’ile and one of the Lake Erie colonies.

3.3. BCNH • Lake Ontario – Population appears to have stabilized somewhat in 2014 due mainly to increases at

largest Lake Ontario colony (Tommy Thompson Park, 397 nests in 2014). The Hamilton Harbour site remains stable over the long term (123 nests in 2014). On the U.S side BCNH are now found on a single island with 79 nests in 2014.

• Lower Great Lakes area – Colonies are variable but in the monitored colonies declines in the number of nests outnumber increases. The population at Weseloh Rocks in the Niagara River has fluctuated over the past 5 years and in 2014 was 362 nests, a decrease from previous years.

• Canadian Wildlife Service Decadal Census – Decreased by 20% between Census 3 (1997 – 2001) and Census 4 (2007 – 2009), mainly due to a crash at TTP in the late 2000’s


4. Other Wildlife Three trail cameras (Bushnell Trophy Cam 119436C) and opportunistic encounters by staff were used to detect the presence of mammals on HBI. The cameras took digital photos of an area when triggered by movement. The cameras were set up along known wildlife trails and checked opportunistically from April 14 to July 12, 2014.

4.1. Terrestrial predators • A single raccoon was captured on the trail camera (Figure 9) and carcasses with “inside-out” skins and

eggshells from recently abandoned nests were found at several locations on many occasions. • Several foxes, both adults and kits, were captured by the camera (Figure 10). A den that was likely to

be used by foxes was discovered in the ground colony on HBI the day of the nest count (Figure 4).

Figure 9. A raccoon observed on High Bluff Island in 2014.

Figure 10. A red fox observed on High Bluff Island in 2014.


4.2. White-tailed deer • As many as 3 deer (one doe and 2 yearlings) were simultaneously observed on HBI, and deer were

captured by the camera (Figure 11). These animals plus an additional buck indicate that at least four deer resided on the island during the spring and summer months (Appendix B).

• Extensive deer browsing was again noted on chokecherries in April. In mid-summer, deer browsing was observed on the lower branches of larger oaks, elderberries and planted oaks.

• In late October it was noted that the ground underneath the island’s oak trees had been disturbed and many eaten acorns were found indicating that deer had been feeding on the acorn crop.

Figure 11. One of several deer observed on High Bluff Island in 2014.

• Deer and vole browsing of seeds and seedlings likely affects regeneration of woody vegetation. • It was noted that red oak seedlings planted in 2013 had been almost 100% browsed to the ground by

meadow voles but a large percentage survived and regrew new stems in 2014.

4.3. Monarch butterfly • The monarch monitoring methodology developed in 2011 was continued in 2012, 2013 and 2014. • The results from these counts are presented in Tables 15 and 16. Table 15. Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) observed while simultaneously walking set 1.5 km survey routes on the Owen Point Trail and on High Bluff Island, 2014.

Date Owen Point Trail

High Bluff Island

Notes from HBI

August 19 3 27 Mostly fresh, not worn butterflies. August 22 0 11 Mostly fresh, not worn butterflies. August 25 2 17 Mostly fresh, not worn butterflies. August 29 Count not

conducted 51 Mostly fresh, not worn butterflies.

September 5 9 64 Mostly fresh, not worn butterflies. September 8 3 49 Mostly fresh, not worn butterflies.

Total 17 219


Table 16. Totals of Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) counted while simultaneously walking survey routes on the Owen Point Trail and High Bluff Island, 2011 to 2014. Year High Bluff Island Owen Point HBI:Owen Point Ratio 2011 567 274 2:1 2012 472 28 17:1 2013 56 20 3:1 2014 209 17 12:1 • In 2014, as in previous years, HBI monarch counts were always higher than on the Owen Point Trail.

Owen Point Trail has traditionally been considered the best roosting habitat at Presqu’ile for monarchs. • Monarchs used HBI habitat in two ways: for feeding and egg-laying and, to a limited degree in 2014, as

a roosting site (Bluff Thickets North and Basswood Grove). Presumably the roosting butterflies wait for the opposing lake breezes to subside before migrating farther south.

• Monarch roosts in 2014 never exceeded more than 25 individuals, presumably due to the low numbers of monarchs seen throughout North America in 2014.

• While HBI provides excellent monarch feeding and egg-laying habitat due to the abundance of flowering plants and milkweed in the open field areas, it is likely that without its woody vegetation, HBI would be a less suitable congregation location for migrating monarchs, since trees and shrubs provide shelter from the wind and monarchs typically roost on woody vegetation.

• No large roosts of monarchs (i.e.with many hundreds of butterflies) were observed anywhere at Presqu’ile in 2014, though the largest observed groups seen in the park were noted on High Bluff Island.

• Monarch numbers were noted to be at extremely low levels both on the wintering grounds in Mexico and at a variety of migration concentration sites throughout North America in 2014.

4.4. Other wildlife noted on HBI in 2014 • HBI is a unique environment isolated from many terrestrial vertebrates. Of those that do make it to the

island, few are able to persist on such a small landmass and in such a harsh environment. HBI has an enormous meadow vole population (no other small mammal species has been observed) and a population of eastern garter snakes (Thanmnophis sirtalis). Garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) were commonly noted on HBI in 2014 with as many as 11 seen in a single day.

• Red-bellied Snakes (Storeria occipitomaculata) appear to have established a population on the island with as many as 5 individuals spotted on a single day by looking underneath “snake-boards” (scraps of plywood left lying on the ground)

• An American toad (Bufo americanus) also frequented the island in 2014 with a large, presumably female toad spotted in the summer months (Figure 12). It is unlikely that this species can successfully reproduce here due to the lack of suitable breeding pools.

• Sightings of bird species were made opportunistically throughout the monitoring season (Appendix C). Woody vegetation was heavily used by migrating passerines. The open field areas were also frequented by raptors during spring and autumn migration. During the breeding season, all of the habitats present on HBI were used by various bird species.

• Although the breeding colony of bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus - Threatened) did not re-establish in 2014, the following bobolink observations were made:

• Bobolinks were observed between the second week of May and the third week of June. • A maximum of 20 males and 3 females were noted at any one time were seen (though more of

the cryptic females may have been present). • With the exception of a couple of sightings of bobolink in June, the occurrence of song had faded

out at the end of May, and it is presumed that the breeding colony did not become established for unknown reasons.

• Large mixed-species flocks of swallows (mainly barn, bank and tree) are regularly seen on HBI each year, including this year. These aggregations likely consist of resident birds augmented by large numbers of swallows from elsewhere. These aggregations, sometimes numbering into the thousands, occur anytime from May until August, particularly during cold and windy weather. The birds are


generally seen flying in the lee of the large trees where they are presumably feeding on flying insects. On occasion, they are also seen roosting in the branches of the same large trees.

• A bank swallow (Riparia riparia) colony has been noted on High Bluff Island for many years. In June of 2014, a colony comprised of 30+ nest holes was observed at the island’s south-western tip (Proctor Point) with adults actively entering and exiting the nesting holes. An additional, smaller colony of around 12 nests was established on the island’s northern shoreline near the basecamp.

Figure 12. An American toad that was observed on High Bluff Island in 2014.


5. Conclusion

2014 was the fourth year of implementation of the Islands Resource Management Implementation Plan. DCCO management began early in the breeding season, allowing for timely and effective implementation of a suite of management techniques. This early start, in particular the “no-nest establishment technique” that prevents DCCO from being attracted to management areas, has resulted in less intensive management being needed to maintain these areas as DCCO-free zones. In 2014 almost all of the park’s cormorants nested outside of the management areas. Indeed, if one excludes the 196 DCCO nests intentionally left in one management zone (Red Ash Swamp) then 99.8% of the park’s DCCO nested outside of the management zones. One of the most notable changes in 2014 was the shift of all ground-nesting DCCO to Gull Island mid-way through the breeding season. This was a due to the terrestrial predators (a fox family and raccoon) that were living on HBI in 2014. In addition to this shift, the ground colony is now twice as large as the tree nesting component of the DCCO population. Terrestrial predators were a key factor in the dynamics of the Presqu’ile Islands bird colonies in 2014. These opportunistic predators are not especially selective and keyed in on the numerous ground-nesting cormorants and gulls in addition to the much less numerous tree-nesting GREG and BCNH on HBI. Cormorant roosting was not substantial in 2014 and likely consisted of local birds. The majority of roosting birds favoured ground-roosting on Gull Island, thereby not impacting woody vegetation. As expected, GBHE showed no signs of attempting to nest on HBI in 2014. After their nesting failure in 2013 the declining GBHE colony simply did not attempt to re-establish in 2014. The island-wide loss of nesting trees combined with intense competition for the remaining trees by DCCO has made the island no longer attractive to nesting GBHE. The highly visible GREG got off to a good start in the nesting season with 40 nests being established. However by mid-June all but one of these nests was observed abandoned with evidence of predation (eggshells and destroyed nests) found beneath the nesting trees. Ultimately only a single GREG nest successfully fledged chicks. This nest was located at the very top of densely-foliated cedar tree located away from the majority of the other nesting GREGs. It is likely that the raccoon simply missed this nest while focussing its feeding in the dense collections of nests found elsewhere. BCNH had a moderately successful year in 2014. They too were affected by terrestrial predators, almost certainly the raccoon. The large concentration of nests traditionally found in the cedar grove in Bluff Thicket North was abandoned after an intense predation event. However BCNH have traditionally nested in a variety of locations and most of the lower nest-density sites remained active. It is also likely that many of the pairs from the predated nests moved to new locations and re-nested. Late-season nests were found scattered throughout the island and on Sebastopol Point. It is important to note that the vast majority of GREG and BCNH nests (successful and otherwise) were located within the management zones. Protection of the healthy vegetation found within these zones is essential to maintain the presence of these species on the Presqu’ile Islands. Regional trends suggest that management at Presqu’ile in 2014 did not have a significant impact on the larger DCCO population of Lake Ontario, the lower Great Lakes region or the province. Nesting colonies on Lake Ontario remain limited for the heron species. The failure of Presqu’ile’s GREG colony this year highlights the threats faced by heron species and the importance of maintaining habitat for these species wherever it exists.


High Bluff Island’s unique geographical position as an isolated island on the north shore of Lake Ontario continues to make it biologically rich. In particular, migrating monarchs and birds make heavy use of this site. Tree-planting and the maintenance of existing plantations will enhance the regeneration of woody vegetation, but preventing further loss of existing mature trees is critical. These large trees provide a structural habitat element to the island and are the seed-source that will allow future regeneration of hardwood trees on HBI. The protection and restoration of woody vegetation should remain a priority. Remaining live chokecherry groves and basswoods will likely persist as long as cormorants are prevented from nesting and roosting in them. Tree species that mature more slowly, like maple, oak, and ash, will take much longer to restore and will not be present to the same extent that they were prior to cormorant nesting in the next several decades.


APPENDIX A – 2014 High Bluff Island Waterbird Nesting Status and Management

Management Area

DCCO nests first

noted

Management initiated/ Type(s)

conducted

# DCCO nests

removed

DCCO nests (June)

DCCO nests (July)

GREG nesting GBHE nesting

BCNH nesting

Notes

Basswood Grove

April 24 April 28 - Nest removal

31 0 0 N N N DCCO nesting much less persistent than in previous years.

Bluff Thicket North

May 27 May 27- Nest removal

Sept. 5/8 - Roost

disturbance

2 9 0 13 nests* One successful.

N 47 nests

Minimal nest removal required to keep DCCO from nesting in the small stature trees in this zone.

Bluff Thicket South

May 17 May 17 - Nest removal

Sept. 5/8 - Roost

disturbance

1 0 0 N N N Nest removal successfully cleared this Management Area of DCCO.

Red Ash Swamp

April 16 May 08 - Nest removal

66 196 99 N N

N Limited management only in the live trees on the periphery of this zone.

Ridge Forest North

April 24 May 5 - Nest removal

152 0 7 N N 2 nests Concentrated nest removal here to protect the remaining mature hardwood trees. This area’s proximity to Unmanaged Area East likely made it attractive to "overflow" DCCO but considerably fewer than in 2012 and 2013.

Ridge Forest South

none noted No mgmt. 0 0 0 N N N No DCCO nesting activity in 2014. No herons present in this management area.

Sebastopol Point (Gull Is.)

June 8 June 8 - Nest removal

28 0 0 N N 8 nests

Much reduced DCCO nesting activity in 2014. BCNH successfully nest here in 2014.


APPENDIX A – 2014 High Bluff Island Waterbird Nesting Status and Management

Management Area

DCCO nests first

noted

Management initiated/ Type(s)

conducted

# DCCO nests

removed

DCCO nests (June)

DCCO nests (July)

GREG nesting GBHE nesting

BCNH nesting

Notes

Shingle Beach Thicket (North and South)

May 11 May 11 - Nest removal

20 0 0 N N N Much reduced DCCO nesting activity in 2014.

Shrub Thicket None noted No mgmt.

0 0 0 N N N

No DCCO nesting activity in 2014.

Upland Forest Grove A

none noted No mgmt. 0 0 0 N N N No DCCO nesting activity in 2014.

Upland Forest Grove B

none noted No mgmt. 0 0 0 21 nests* N 2 nests*

A very dense aggregation of GREG nested at this location in 2014.

Upland Forest Grove C

May 5 May 5- Nest removal

12 0 0 N N N Nest removal successfully displaced DCCO from this Management Area.

Upland Forest Grove D

none noted April 30 – Scarecrow

0 0 0 N N N No DCCO nesting activity in 2014

Upland Forest Grove E

none noted No mgmt. 0 0 0 N N N No DCCO nesting activity in 2014.

Upland Forest Grove F

none noted No mgmt. 0 0 0 N

N 2 BCNH nests in two cedars in this zone.

*the majority of these nests were attacked by a terrestrial predator, likely raccoon. Nest monitoring initiated on April 8, 2014. Management initiated April 28.


APPENDIX B – 2014 High Bluff Island Mammal Sightings

Evidence of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) High Bluff Island, 2014. DATE #

DEER BUCK/DOE/FAWN NOTES and LOCATION

April 10 1 doe Bluff Thicket South April 11 1 doe Unmanaged Area West April 28 2 1 doe, 1 yearling Unmanaged Area West

May 7 3 1 doe, 2 yearlings Ridge Forest North

May 8 1 buck Unmanaged Area West May 20 1 doe Basswood Grove May 24 1 doe Ridge Forest North May 25 1 doe Unmanaged Area West June 5 2 not specified Ridge Forest North June 5 1 doe Upland Forest Grove D July 2 1 doe Upland Forest Grove D August 19

1 doe Unmanaged Area West

Sept. 19 1 doe Basswood Grove

Oct. 24 ? Not known Evidence of feeding on acorns under all oak trees.

In addition to the above sightings, approximately 50 photos were taken by the trail camera of white-tailed deer on High Bluff Island in 2014.


APPENDIX C – 2014 High Bluff Island Bird Sightings














Documents

Park Superintendent Presqu’ile Provincial Park R.R. 4 · DCCO used 33% fewer trees in total in 2014 than 2013, and substantially fewer of the trees used were alive (Table 2). In