Bee Fauna of Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge Jefferson County, Washington

Prepared by:

Joseph Engler, Wildlife Biologist (retired), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon

Erin Stockenberg, Region 1 Inventory & Monitoring Data Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon

Jason Romine, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Burbank, Washington

Sue Thomas, Wildlife Biologist, Washington Maritime NWR Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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

1 16 February 2018 Introduction The Pacific Region (Region 1) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) initiated a bee inventory program to document the bee fauna at National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho from 2010-2016. Sixteen NWRs and one Bureau of Land Management site was sampled during this time frame. Refuges inventoried include: Deer Flat NWR, Minidoka NWR, Kootenai NWR in Idaho; Little Pend Oreille NWR, Turnbull NWR, Hanford National Monument, McNary NWR, Conboy Lake NWR, Pierce NWR, Steigerwald Lake NWR, Ridgefield NWR, Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbia White-tailed Deer, Lewis and Clark NWR, Willapa NWR, Protection Island NWR in Washington; and Malheur NWR in Oregon. Appendix 1 and 2 show the location of each NWR and the corresponding Bailey’s Ecoregion Province and Section inventoried from 2010-2016. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management’s Oregon Trail Interpretive Center was included as part of this inventory effort.

Protection Island NWR (herein referred to as the Refuge) was sampled during the 2014 and 2015 seasons. This refuge-specific report is one of a series that provides the results of this bee inventory effort in the Pacific Northwest.

Study Site The Refuge is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, 2 miles north of the Olympic Coast in Jefferson County, Washington (Map 1). The Refuge is a component of the Washington Maritime NWR Complex. Protection Island lies within the Pacific Lowland Mixed Forest Province (Bailey 1995); the island is further delineated as Perennial Graminoid Grassland and Mixed Evergreen- Deciduous Closed Tree Canopy within the Landfire subclass schema (Landfire 2008). Map 2 shows the habitat classification for the refuge. The Refuge is primarily Grassland Savanna (60%) and comprised of non-native grasses and forbs, such as Kentucky bluegrass, orchard grass, Canada thistle, and field bindweed.

The island supports 80 acres of forest vegetation which occurs within 100 meters of one bee transect. While both transects are adjacent to dirt roads, the island is closed to the public so little disturbance occurs on the island. The Refuge soils consist of Townsend Fine Sandy Loam. Average temperatures range from a low of 370 F to 720 F and rainfall averages 16-20” annually. Elevation of the island ranges from sea level to 200 ft MSL.

This Refuge serves primarily as a seabird nesting site and hosts one of the world’s largest breeding populations of rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata). A large black-tail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) herd occupies the island and grazes the island’s grasses, forbs and trees. Bee sampling was initiated to attain pre-restoration bee composition and relative abundance. Once restoration is complete, post-restoration sampling is anticipated.

2 16 February 2018 Map 1: Location of Bee Bowl Transects and Blue-vane Traps at Protection Island NWR

Map 2: Habitat Classification Map, Protection Island NWR

3 16 February 2018 Methods The Refuge was sampled using two bee bowl (or pan trap) transects during 2014 and 2015. In addition, two blue-vane traps were deployed during 2014 to collect additional specimens along the bottom of the cliff faces within the small narrow coastal strand and adjacent to a patch of dense shrub/trees (Map 1, Table 1).

The sampling protocol uses a thirty-bowl (3.25 ounce Solo cup) transect which is deployed early in the season and run periodically through the autumn. This protocol was recommended by Sam Droege (US Geological Survey) and is further described in the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees (Droege et al. 2016). The primary bee activity season in the Pacific Northwest occurs from early April through October; however, some bee activity may occur almost year-round, especially west of the Cascade Mountains. Based on expert opinion, some bee species may complete their adult free- flying phase in three weeks or less, and thus traps were deployed approximately every two weeks during this time frame to maximize the number of species encountered. Exact start and end dates were dependent on available staffing.

At the Refuge, the thirty-bowl scheme was divided into two fifteen-bowl transects to attain better coverage of available habitats. Each transect consisted of fifteen bee bowls which were painted in three colors – fluorescent blue, fluorescent yellow, and white. Bowls were placed in roughly a straight line with five meters between bowls, each bowl alternating in color. Bowls are filled about ¾ full with soapy water to capture bees. Each transect was deployed during daylight hours on a single target day or remained out overnight for approximately 24 hours, contents were then collected and the bowls removed from the site. Transects were run approximately every two weeks at the same locations but some variability existed between sites and trapping episodes. The two blue-vane traps were hung from tree or shrub branches approximately 4 feet off the ground and removed after each trapping event.

For transects, trap-hours were calculated for each sample on a daily basis when deployed. A sample consisted of all functional bowls (15 or fewer) in a transect. Trap-hours were defined as the total number of hours the transect was operating (capable of catching bees). If some bowls were not functional (missing, spilled, or otherwise incapable of catching bees, trap-hours were reduced accordingly. Trap-hours were also reduced for night time hours based on sunrise and sunset schedules through the season. It was assumed that few if any bees were active during the night, however, this assumption remains speculative as some bee species are known to be crepuscular and a few nocturnal.

Samples were collected by pouring each cup into a fine mesh brine shrimp aquarium net and rinsing with water to remove the soap residue; all soap solutions were retained and reused. All fifteen bowls in a transect were combined to create a single, composite sample for the bi-weekly period. Samples were placed in whirl-pak bags and 70% alcohol (either isopropyl or ethyl) was added to completely cover specimens. Samples were then sent to the USFWS’s Branch of

4 16 February 2018 Refuge Biology (BRB), Vancouver, WA for processing and preliminary identification to genus and species. BRB’s processing included washing, drying, pinning, positioning, and labeling each specimen. Specimens that were not identified by BRB to species or required verification were sent to species experts for final determinations. Identifications were conducted by Joseph Engler (USFWS BRB), Dr. Robbin Thorp (University of California-Davis), and the USDA ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory (BBSL) in Logan, Utah.

Table 1: Transect Locations for Protection Island NWR Transect Name Latitude Longitude # Samples Collected & Trap-Hours (dd) (dd) 2014 Trap-Hours 2015 Trap-Hours NE Grassland 48.12845 -122.92823 12 126 13 131 Central Grassland 48.12529 -122.93248 12 126 13 130 Upper Shrub 48.12702 -122.93714 12 128 Lower Shrub 48.12839 -122.92118 12 133

Results Sampling occurred from 22 April 2014 to 1 October 2014 and 23 April 2015 to 13 October 2015. Both transects and blue-vanes were deployed on the same days in 2014. Transects were open a total of 252 hours in 2014 and 261 hours in 2015; blue-vane traps were operated for 261 hours in 2014. Trapping events ranged from 3-18 hours. The average trapping event was 10.46 hours across the 2 seasons. Table 1 summarizes the trapping effort.

A total of 17 unique genera and 34 different species were captured during the two years of sampling. The two grassland transects caught a similar composition of genera and species as would be expected as the island’s grasslands are relatively homogenous with respect to vegetation. The Upper Shrub blue-vane trap caught comparable genera though fewer species than the bee bowls, possibly as a result of the height off of the ground that this trap was set. In contrast, the Lower Shrub blue-vane caught about ½ the genera and species as the Upper Shrub blue-vane. The Lower Shrub blue-vane was set in the narrow belt of shoreline habitat that extends from the cliff base to the water’s edge; this site sits at 100’-150’ lower elevation than the upper blue-vane and the bee bowls. There were no unique species captured in this trap compared to the other sites. Table 2 summarizes capture data for each transect and blue-vane.

Table 2. Summary of Bee Identifications for Protection Island NWR, 2014-2015

Transect # of Genera # of Species # Bees with ID # Bees Identified Identified Pending1 Collected NE Grassland 12 28 26 1688 Central Grassland 15 28 25 2182 Upper Shrub 11 10 7 67 Lower Shrub 6 6 2 25 All Transects 17 34 60 3962 1 does not include Lasioglossum sensu lato which includes 4 difficult to identify subgenera (Dialictus, Evylaeus, Hemihalictus, Sphecodogastra); few specimens are expected to be identified beyond the genus/subgenus level.

5 16 February 2018 Table 3. Number of Bee Species Captured by Genus at Protection Island NWR, 2014-2015

Family Name Genus Name # of Species Captured per Genus NE Central Upper Lower Total Grassland Grassland BV BV Unique Andrenidae Andrena 4 3 1 5 Apidae Anthophora 1 1 1 1 1 Apidae Bombus 7 6 4 3 8 Apidae Ceratina 2 1 2 Apidae Epeolus (1)3 (1) Apidae Eucera 1 1 1 1 Apidae Habropoda (1) (1) Apidae Melissodes 1 (1) 1 Apidae Nomada 1 1 1 Colletidae Colletes 2 2 (1) 2 Colletidae Hylaeus 1 1 1 Halictidae Agapostemon 2 1 1 1 2 Halictidae Halictus 3 3 1 3 Halictidae Lasioglossum 2 2 2 (Lasioglossum) Halictidae Lasioglossum (1) (1) (1) (1) (Dialictus) 1,2 Halictidae Lasioglossum 1 1 1 (Evylaeus) 1,2 Halictidae Lasioglossum (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) sensu lato 1,2 Halictidae Sphecodes 1 (1) (1) Megachilidae Megachile 1 1 Megachilidae Osmia 2 3 (1) 3 1 Identification of this genus/subgenus to a species level is difficult; species # may not be reflective of the actual # of species captured.

2 Taxonomic classifications of these subgenera are uncertain. Only identified species are included for subgenera Dialictus and Evylaeus, which may significantly underestimate the number of species present. Lasioglossum sensu lato includes subgenera Dialictus, Evylaeus, Sphecodogastra, and Hemihalictus.

3 a (1) indicates that this genus was collected but no specimens have currently been identified to species.

Noteworthy captures include high numbers of Anthophora bomboides, a species that nests in banks (Brooks 1983), thus likely owing their abundance to the <100’ high cliffs along the southeastern portion of the island. This species comprised about 45% of all captures. A single Bombus occidentalis was captured and likely an individual that dispersed from the Olympic Peninsula where this species still persists. Eight species of bumble bees (Bombus) were captured during sampling.

6 16 February 2018 As may be expected in disturbed non-native grassland habitats, sweat bees (Agapostemon, Halictus, and Lasioglossum) dominated the remaining captures. Less expected was the high number of Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) cooleyi. Sweat bees (Agapostemon, Halictus, and Lasioglossum) comprised approximately 41% of the total number of bees captured. Table 3 and 4 summarize the genera and species captured.

Table 4. Bee Species List for Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge, 2014-2015

# Females # Males Genus SpecificEpithet Captured Captured

Agapostemon angelicus / texanusa 507 Agapostemon texanus 54 Agapostemon virescens 3 Andrena astragali 1 Andrena columbiana 70 48 Andrena laminibucca 1 Andrena nivalis 43 14 Andrena spp. 5 8 Andrena thaspii 1 Anthophora bomboides 1121 631 Anthophora spp. 1 Bombus bifarius 4 Bombus fervidus 56 14 Bombus flavifrons 87 4 Bombus mixtus 15 2 Bombus occidentalis 1 Bombus rufocinctus 33 8 Bombus sitkensis 6 Bombus spp. 4 Bombus vosnesenskii 2 Ceratina acantha 5 Ceratina nanula 3 1 Colletes fulgidus 3 Colletes kincaidii 7 5 Colletes spp. 8 Epeolus spp. 2 Eucera frater 65 31 Eucera spp. 2 Habropoda spp. 1 Halictus confusus 27 Halictus rubicundus 16 4

7 16 February 2018 Halictus tripartitus 17 1 Hylaeus modestus 1 Hylaeus spp. 1 Lasioglossum cooleyi 155 3 Lasioglossum pacificum 5 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) spp. 607 11 Lasioglossum (Evylaeus) spp. 168 14 Lasioglossum zonulum 4 Megachile perihirta 1 Megachile spp. 3 Melissodes pallidisignata 7 6 Melissodes spp. 6 3 Nomada mutans 1 Nomada spp. 4 Osmia bucephala 2 1 Osmia proxima 1 Osmia simillima 4 Osmia spp. 5 1 Sphecodes spp. 2 1 a Female Agapostemon angelicus and A. texanus cannot be reliably distinguished to species. Discussion The impetus for this project was to collect baseline data on bee fauna of the island, prior to restoration activities aimed at improving conditions for nesting seabirds . The island is extremely important for nesting rhinocerous auklets whose populations have dwindled due to the impacts of non-native vegetation and an over-abundance of black-tailed deer. Based on this study, the number of bee genera present appears to reflect other sites west of the Cascade Mountains, though the high preponderance of sweat bees and anthophora would suggest that overall diversity is low. Future plant restorations should be significantly enhanced by the pollination activities of this suite of bee species. Concurrently, bee species diversity should increase as the habitat conditions improve.

The presence of at least one Bombus occidentalis (and seven additional bumble bee species) suggests that the Refuge could potential support this declining species, especially once restoration is complete. The island’s isolation and lack of human disturbance and development may provide an opportunity to establish a low elevation population which currently is lacking in western Washington. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Lorenz Sollman, US Fish and Wildlife Service, for assisting in setting up the sampling sites and coordinating volunteers and interns for sample deployment and collection. We also thank interns/volunteers Jim Hayward, Shawn Flaherty, and Marleen and Grant Rollins for conducting the field work. We also thank the Pacific Region’s Inventory and Monitoring Program for providing funds for supplies and specimen identifications.

8 16 February 2018 We thank the staff of the USDA ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory, Logan, Utah for specimen processing and identifications, especially Harold Ikerd, Terry Griswold, and Brian Rozick. We also thank Dr. Robbin Thorp, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, University of California, Davis, California for specimen identification and verification, especially regarding bumble bees.

References Bailey R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Publication 1391. Washington DC, USA. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/ecoreg1_home.html.

Brooks R.W. 1983. Systematics and bionomics of Anthophora: The bomboids group and species groups of the New World (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Anthophoridae). University of California publications in entomology; v.98. University of California Press, LTD. London, England.

Droege S., J.D. Engler, E. Sellers and L.E. O’Brien. 2016. U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees. Inventory and Monitoring, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

LANDFIRE, 2008, Existing Vegetation Type Layer, LANDFIRE 1.1.0, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Accessed 28 October 2010 at http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/.

9 16 February 2018 Appendix 1. Bailey’s Provinces for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges inventoried for bees, 2010-2016

10 16 February 2018 Appendix 2. Bailey’s Ecoregion Sections for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuges inventoried for bees, 2010-2016

11 16 February 2018