PACIFIC

SEABIRDS

A Publication of the Pacific Seabird Group

Volume 34 Number 1

Spring 2007

PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP

Dedicated to the Study and Conservation of Pacific Seabirds
and Their Environment

The Pacific Seabird Group (PSG) was formed in 1972 due to the need for better communication among Pacific seabird researchers.
PSG provides a forum for the research activities of its members, promotes the conservation of seabirds, and informs members and the
public of issues relating to Pacific Ocean seabirds and their environment. PSG holds annual meetings at which scientific papers and
symposia are presented. The group’s journals are Pacific Seabirds (formerly the PSG Bulletin), and Marine Ornithology (published
jointly with the African Seabird Group, Australasian Seabird Group, Dutch Seabird Group, and The Seabird Group [United King-
dom]; www.marineornithology.org). Other publications include symposium volumes and technical reports. Conservation concerns
include seabird/fisheries interactions, monitoring of seabird populations, seabird restoration following oil spills, establishment of
seabird sanctuaries, and endangered species. Policy statements are issued on conservation issues of critical importance. PSG mem-
bers include scientists, conservation professionals, and members of the public from both sides of the Pacific Ocean. It is hoped that
seabird enthusiasts in other parts of the world also will join and participate in PSG. PSG is a member of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (lUCN), the Ornithological Council, and. the American Bird Conservancy. Annual dues for membership are
$25 (individual and family); $15 (student, undergraduate and graduate); and $750 (Life Membership, payable in five $150 install-
ments). Dues are payable to the Treasurer; see Membership/Order Form next to inside back cover for details and application.

World Wide Web Site

http ://www. pacific seabirdgroup . org

Donations

The Pacific Seabird Group is a nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of the State of California. Contributions to the
Pacific Seabird Group are tax deductible [IRS Section 501(c)(3)] to the fullest extent allowed by law.

Pacific Seabirds

Pacific Seabirds (ISSN 1089-6317) is published twice a year in the spring and fall. It informs PSG members about regional seabird
research and conservation news. Pacific Seabirds seeks submissions of short peer-reviewed articles, reports, and other items that
relate to the conservation of seabirds in the Pacific Ocean. Abstracts of papers presented at the annual meeting are included in the
Spring issue; the Fall issue contains a summary of ongoing research. All materials should be submitted to the Editor, except that
conservation-related material should be submitted to the Associate Editor for Conservation. Information for contributors to Pacific
Seabirds is published in each Pall issue. Back issues of the Bulletin or Pacific Seabirds may be ordered from the treasurer; please
remit $2.50 each for volumesl-8 (1974-1981) and $5.00 each for volume 9 and later (see Membership/Order Porm next to inside
back cover for details).

Editor

Vivian M. Mendenhall, 4600 Rabbit Creek Rd., Anchorage, AK 99516, USA. Telephone (907) 345-7124; Pax (907) 345 0686; e-
mail: fasgadair@attalascom.net.

Associate Editor for Conservation

Craig S. Harrison, 4953 Sonoma Mountain Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, USA. Telephone: (202) 778-2240, Pax: (202) 778 2201,
e-mail: charrison@hunton.com Assistant Editors for Conservation: S. Kim Nelson and Mark Rauzon.

Associate Editor for Regional Reports for this issue

Don Lyons

Pacific Seabirds Submission Deadlines

All items intended for publication in Pacific Seabirds must be received by The Editor or Associate Editor for Conservation prior to
April 1 (Spring issue) and October 1 (Pall issue). Manuscripts may be submitted at any time.

Change of Address

Send changes of address to the Treasurer, Ron LeValley, 920 Samoa Blvd., Suite 210, Arcaa, CA 95521, USA. Telephone (707)
326-0300; e-mail: membership@pacificseabirdgroup.org or ron@madriverbio.com

PACIFIC SEABIRDS

A Publication of the Pacific Seabird Group

Dedicated to the Study and Conservation of Pacific Seabirds and Their Environment
Volume 34 2007 Number 1

Article

Beach Watch: Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys. By Shannon Lyday, Jan Roletto, Joe Mortenson, and

Jamie Hall 2

Forum

A more focused analysis of economic growth and environmental degredation. By Steve Hampton 7

Lifetime Achievement Award

Michael P. Harris. By Scott A. Hatch 9

Obituary

James O. Keith. By Daniel W. Anderson 13

Conservation Reports

Conservation Report for Spring 2007 17

Correction 23

Conservation Report for Fall 2006 24

PSG News 27

PSG Meeting News 29

Committee Reports

Loon and Grebe Technical Committee 32

Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee 32

PSG Website 33

PSG 2020 Strategic Planning Committee 34

General Information

Information on the Pacific Seabird Group Inside Front Cover

Publications of the Pacific Seabird Group 36

PSG Committee Coordinators 38

PSG Life Members and Recipients of Awards 39

Membership Application and Order Form 40

PSG Executive Council for 2007

Inside Back Cover

ARTICLE

BEACH WATCH: SANCTUARY ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT SURVEYS

Shannon Lyday, Jan Roletto, Joe Mortenson, and Jamie Hall
SUMMARY

Beach Watch is a program of beach surveys for dead and live vertebrates established by the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanc-
tuary in 1993. This pioneering federal marine program is now being integrated with the sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Surveys (SEAS),
which provide valuable ecosystem data on the marine environment to assist sanctuary management in resource protection. Shoreline surveys
create a baseline data set that can be used to detect species mortality events and the effects of environmental factors such as oil spills. Dead
and live bird and marine mammal counts can establish spatial and temporal trends and the interrelationships between beached and live species
abundance. The use of volunteers in long-term monitoring is hnancially benehcial and, more importantly, allows the public to take an active
role in environmental protection, thereby increasing awareness and the capacity for stewardship.

INTRODUCTION

Beach Watch is a long-term monitor-
ing program of the Gulf of the Farallones
National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS),
implemented by the Farallones Marine
Sanctuary Association. The program
was initiated in 1993 as a response to
the threat of oil spills in the sanctuary.
The goals of the Beach Watch program
are to provide a baseline data set on the
presence of live and beach-cast marine
organisms; assist sanctuary management
in the early detection of natural and
human-caused environmental events;
develop a network of volunteer expert
surveyors who can respond during an
oil spill; and educate the public about
the coastal environment and how they
can make a difference in protecting their
beaches.

Beach Watch is now part of the
Sanctuary Ecosystem Assessment Sur-
veys (SEAS), a suite of monitoring
programs in the GENMS. Other efforts
in SEAS include monitoring of the
shoreline, intertidal, and pelagic habi-
tats, and collecting environmental data
on physical oceanography as correlated
with marine vertebrate and invertebrate
abundance. Together, these assessments
are designed to provide an overview of
ecosystem health and status to sanctu-
ary management to assist in resource
protection. The goal of SEAS is to link
all of the monitoring data collected by
the sanctuary and provide biological
observational data and habitat charac-

terization for the Gulf of the Earallones
and Bodega regions.

METHODS

Currently, Beach Watch volunteers
survey 42 beach segments every two
to four weeks on the central California
coast. The Beach Watch area includes
the Gulf of the Earallones and Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuaries, be-
tween Bodega Head in Sonoma County
and Ano Nuevo State Reserve on the San
Mateo/Santa Cruz County line (Eigure
1). Erom September 1993 through Sep-
tember 2004, 6419 surveys were com-
pleted, monitoring 14,405 km of coast-
line. In 2004, ninety-two volunteers
conducted 771 surveys of 1,657 km of
shoreline. To compare data among dif-
ferent parts of the coastline, numbers of
dead and live vertebrates are quantified
as encounter rates (i.e. number of birds
per kilometer surveyed).

The Beach Watch volunteers attend
80 hours of classroom and fieldwork
training. Surveys are conducted by teams
of one to four surveyors. Along each
beach segment, live birds and marine
mammals are censused, dead vertebrates
are documented, human and dog activity
is recorded, and data are collected on
oil and tarball presence, wrack, inver-
tebrates, and stream and lagoon status
(Roletto et al. 2005). Surveyors search
the beach in a zigzag pattern, combing
through wrack for beached specimens.
Data collected on each beached specimen

are: species identification, condition (rate
of decomposition), sex, age, evidence
of scavenging, probable cause of death
(when possible), occurrence, extent and
location of oil, and (if the specimen is
tagged), tag number, color and location.
Each dead specimen is photographed for
later verification by an ornithologist or a
marine mammal expert to confirm spe-
cies identification, age, and sex.

Surveyors use 7-10 power binocu-
lars to identify and count live birds and
marine mammals which pass within 90
m landward and seaward of the beach,
as well as marine mammals that can
be identified beyond 90 m. Animals
that cannot be identified to species are
recorded to the nearest positively identifi-
able taxonomic grouping.

BENEFITS

Coastal surveys of live and dead
birds and marine mammals are benefi-
cial to sanctuary management. Consis-
tently gathered beached vertebrate data
from the shoreline of the sanctuary pro-
vide baseline species mortality rates for
a large geographical area. Standardized
beach surveys can detect oil and tarball
events. Unusual mortality events can be
detected, pinpointed, and their magni-
tude evaluated. Live bird and mammal
counts reveal changes in beach usage
over time. Live and dead vertebrate
data can be compared to reveal trends
and patterns.

Beach Watch surveys have been used

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 2

ARTICLE - Beach Watch surveys

Figure 1 . Map of locations of beach segments monitored by Beach Watch.

to discover oil and tarball events, assess
their damage, and contribute data for the
selection and scaling of restoration proj-
ects. Regular baseline data of beached
birds can provide historic mortality rates
and known species composition which
can be compared to the species beached
during oil spills. Oil spills and tarball
events can be clearly demarcated because
of the low background level of beached
oiled birds in the sanctuary (Roletto et
al. 2003). Surveyors are trained in oil
and tarball documentation, which allows
them to respond quickly during an oil
spill event.

Standardized beached bird sur-
veys reveal patterns of bird mortality
in coastal areas (Page et al. 1982). For
example, in the winter of 2003-2004,

an unusual number of Northern Fulmars
{Fulmarus glacialis) were found beached
from Oregon down to Southern Califor-
nia (Harvey et al. 2004). This pattern of
deposition rates reflected a winter irrup-
tion of fulmars through the central and
northern California region (Harvey et al.
2004, NOAA 2003). Annually, Beach
Watch data show a slight to moderate
increase in mortality from November
through March as Northern Fulmars
migrate to the Gulf of the Farallones to
feed. In November 2003, the dead fulmar
encounter rate peaked at 5.04 fulmars
encountered per km (Figure 2), a fourfold
increase over any previous year. The sud-
den die-off in Northern Fulmars, as seen
in higher numbers of beached fulmars,
occurred at the same time as high counts

of live fulmars at sea (Harvey et al. 2004,
R. Stallcup pers. comm. 2004), perhaps
indicating lack of food in the Gulf of
Alaska and a displacement of the popula-
tion to offshore California waters.

A similar link between rates of
beached bird deposition and encounter
rates of live birds was observed at Francis
Beach, designated Beach 4-05, a survey
segment in Half Moon Bay State Park in
San Mateo County (Figure 1). Beginning
in January 2003, surveyors documented
higher than normal numbers of dead
gulls. This elevated mortality rate lasted
through April 2003 and occurred again
in the winter and spring months of 2004.
The mean monthly encounter rate of dead
gulls during the mortality event peaked
during the month of March at 0.34 gulls
encountered per km, compared to previ-
ous years (1996-2002), in which the
monthly mean encounter rate in March
was 0.01 gulls per km (Figure 3).

During the 2003-2004 mortality
events on Francis Beach, the majority
of the beached gulls found in the peak
die-off months of January-April were
Glaucous-winged Gulls {Lams glauce-
scens) (Figure 4). The average March
encounter rate of dead Glaucous-winged
Gulls for the two years was 0.21 birds
per km (65.5% of all dead gulls encoun-
tered), compared with Western Gulls
{Lams occidentalis) at 0.08 birds per km
(24.5% of all dead gulls encountered)
(Figure 4). The species composition of
dead gulls changed seasonally (Figure
4). Glaucous- winged Gulls migrate out
of the Gulf of the Farallones during the
upwelling season (NOAA 2003), and in
September and October there is an annual
die-off of recently fledged Western Gulls
in central California (Page et al. 1982).

The peak in counts of all dead gull
species on Francis Beach mirrors live
counts seasonally and annually. This
beach has historically been a roosting site
for large numbers of gulls in the winter,
with a maximum mean encounter rate
of 26.3 live gulls per km during Janu-
ary in 1996-2004. The presence of the
convergence of two fresh water streams
and a nearby landfill may attract gulls
to this beach. Similar to the numbers

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 3

ARTICLE - Beach Watch surveys

* 6.00

I 5-0"

I

% 3.00

Ui

k U

,-r r' ^

Cp^ cp cp cP cP <p <p cp cP

Mo[ith and ^'ear■

Figure 2. Mean encounter rate of dead Northern Fulmars for all
beaches for the sequential months of Beach Watch, Sep 1993-Sep
2004.

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

I Glaucous-winged Gull
Western Gull
I All Other Gulls

Sili

I

I

Q .

Month

Figure 4. Mean monthly encounter rate for dead gulls on Francis
Beach (Beach 4-05, Half Moon Bay), Jan 2003-Sep 2004. Data
were not collected in Dec 2003.

0.70

E

0.60

f

0.50

0.40

rt

0.30

5

c

0.20

zs

o

V

0.10

c

0.00

I 1 996 lu 2002
2003 to 2004

1

L

1

.1

Month

Figure 3. Mean monthly encounter rate of dead gulls on Francis
Beach (Beach 4-05, Half Moon Bay), Jun 1996-Sep 2004. Data
were not collected Apr-i-Nov 2000, Nov 2001-Aug 2002, and

11996 to 2001
2002 to 2004

Dec 2003.

120.00

E

Vi

100.00

3

80.00

ft

60,00

OL

40.00

e

s

20.00

c:

0.00

IlL

9

Month

Figure 5. Mean monthly encounter rate of live gulls on Francis
Beach (Beach 4-05, Half Moon Bay), Jun 1996-Sep 2004. Data
were not collected Apr-Nov 2000, Nov 2001-Aug 2002, and Dec
2003.

of dead gulls encountered, the numbers
of live gulls increased during January-
March 2003-2004 (Figure 5). Numbers
of live gulls encountered were highest in
January, with a mean monthly encounter
rate of 67.4 gulls per km (Figure 5).
The pattern of gull deaths mirrors the
seasonality of live sightings, which can
be seen in Beach Watch data. Again, as
with the Northern Fulmars, the number
of beached birds is correlated with the
abundance of live birds.

After the die-off was detected, fresh
and unscavenged specimens were col-
lected by surveyors on Francis Beach
in 2004 and 2005 so that California
Department of Fish and Game wildlife
veterinarians could determine the cause
of death. The sample is presented in
Table 1. Necropsy revealed that eight out
of nine gulls died because of emaciation
and secondary respiratory disease caused
by the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus. An
analysis of the Beach Watch data for the

different age classes showed that the
majority of beached gulls were first year
(hatch year) birds. In 2004, 54.2% of the
dead Western Gulls were first year birds
and 31.3% were adults. A larger percent-
age of the beached Glaucous-winged
Gulls were first-year birds, 79.6%, while
9.1% were adults. In 2003, the age and
species breakdowns were similar. It is
suspected that immature, inexperienced
gulls found it more difficult to find
enough food to sustain health and thus

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 4

ARTICLE - Beach Watch surveys

were attracted to the nearby landfill.
A debilitated state can cause a higher
susceptibility to the respiratory fungal
disease aspergillosis, the spores of which
occur in decaying vegetation (D. Jessup,
pers. comm. 2005). Alternatively, the age
ratio detected on beach surveys simply
reflects that found in offshore waters.

While volunteers are surveying a
beach, it is valuable for them to count live
birds and marine mammals. Although not
a population assessment, this live count
is useful as a species index. Live bird and
mammal data can provide known loca-
tions of threatened and endangered spe-
cies to better direct resource protection
efforts during oil spills. Documentation
of visitor and dog activity can provide
insight into human and bird interac-
tions, such as analyzing the effect of
high visitor use on the number of live
shorebirds.

The majority of beached bird pro-
grams collect only dead vertebrate data.
The Beach Watch program and the Sea-
bird Ecological Assessment Network
(SEANET) on the east coast, which was
established in 2002, also include live
bird counts (Harris et al. 2005). Given
the relationship between beached and
live counts, and the increasing numbers
of coastal residents and recreationalists
(Heim 1998), future research should
examine the relationship between these
three classes of variables.

Using paid staff to regularly survey

the coastline is financially prohibitive.
Volunteers are able to provide govern-
mental and non-profit organizations the
data needed to effectively manage natural
resources. Beach Watch volunteers con-
tribute over $150,000 worth of volunteer
hours annually. Volunteer monitoring
programs are a cost-effective method to
collect data sets (Goffredo et al. 2004).

The majority of Beach Watch sur-
veys are conducted by highly trained
volunteers from the general public. Vol-
unteers do more than collect and provide
data. Volunteers get to know their stretch
of coastline, which allows them to detect
unusual sightings or events. Although the
main goal of Beach Watch is to collect
data, a secondary goal is to connect with
the public by providing an opportunity to
become sanctuary stewards. Sanctuary
citizen-scientists help protect beaches
and their transitory and resident verte-
brate populations through direct outreach
to the public and through the provision of
local expertise to managers. Beach Watch
thereby develops sanctuary stewards by
allowing the public to take an active role
in environmental protection.

INTO THE FUTURE

Beach Watch will continue long-
term monitoring with increased fre-
quency as part of the overall Sanctuary
Ecosystem Assessment Surveys (SEAS).
SEAS will incorporate data sets from a
suite of surveys in the coastal, pelagic.

and intertidal habitats throughout the
sanctuary. SEAS monitoring programs
assess abundance and distribution pat-
terns and link habitat quality parameters.
The sanctuary is developing an offshore
monitoring program to assess occurrence
patterns of vertebrates using standardized
at-sea methodology. This will enable
Beach Watch to determine how beach
deposition rates of each species, as well
as age classes within species, compare
to those found offshore. We can, in turn,
infer whether a perceived mortality
event simply reflects higher abundance
offshore, or has an environmental or
epidemiological component.

Beach Watch data will be dissemi-
nated in a variety of ways to increase the
accessibility of the database. All SEAS
data sets will be available to regional
marine research and integrated ocean
observing systems, such as the Central
and Northern California Integrated
Ocean Observing System (CeNCOOS)
from Point Conception, California to
Oregon. CeNCOOS is a marine research
consortium consisting of public and
private institutions in the central and
northern regions of the California coast.
The Beach Watch database now allows
for easy access to the live and dead verte-
brate data through a suite of standardized
queries. This database is available to the
public on a computer workstation at the
GENMS headquarters, and will be avail-
able online by the end of 2008.

Table 1. Results for dead gulls collected on Erancis Beach (Beach 4-05, Half Moon Bay), necropsied by California Depart-
ment of Eish and Game.

Date of Necropsy

Species

Age

Sex

Cause of death

10 Eeb 2004

Western Gull

Hatch year

Eemale

Aspergillosis/Emaciation

10 Eeb 2004

Western Gull

Hatch year

Eemale

Aspergillosis/Emaciation

10 Eeb 2004

Western Gull

Hatch year

Eemale

Aspergillosis/Emaciation

10 Eeb 2004

Western Gull

Hatch year

Male

Aspergillosis/Pneumonia

10 Eeb 2004

Western Gull

Hatch year

Eemale

Aspergillosis

14 Jan 2005

Glaucous-winged Gull

Immature

Eemale

Emaciation/Aspergillosis

1 Eeb 2005

Western Gull

Adult

Eemale

Emaciation/Aspergillosis

1 Eeb 2005

Glaucous-winged Gull

Adult

Eemale

Gastointestinal problem

1 Eeb 2005

Western Gull

Adult

Male

Aspergillosis/Emaciation

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 5

ARTICLE - Beach Watch surveys

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank all of the dedicated Beach
Watch volunteers, past and present, who
have tirelessly walked their beaches to
provide this data. Thank you to Rich
Stallcup for identifying and aging every
dead bird slide for the past 12 years.
Thank you to the office volunteers who
have helped catalog slides and check
data, especially Emma Moore and Mar-
guerite Finney. Thank you to Jim Ferlin
for making the data readily available
through his Access interfaces. We are ap-
preciative of the editors and their helpful
comments, especially Jennifer Saltzman
and Peter Pyle.

REFERENCES

Goffredo, S., C. Piccinetti, and F. Zaccanti.
2004. Volunteers in Marine Conservation
Monitoring: a study of the distribution
of seahorses carried out in collaboration
with recreational scuba divers. Conserv.
Biol. 18 (6): 1492-1503.

Harris, R., F. Tseng, M. Pokras, and S.
Newman. 2005. The Seabird Ecologi-
cal Assessment Network (SEANET):
citizen scientist and veterinary student
involvement in beached-bird surveys.

Abstract, Pacific Seabird Group, 32nd
Annual Meeting, Portland, OR. http://
www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

Harvey, J., H. Nevins, S. Hatch, J. Adams,
J. Hill, J. Amers, J. Parkin, K. Newton,
J. Roletto, J. Mortenson, J. Hall, and T.
Hass. 2004. An Unusual Mortality of
Northern Eulmars (Fulmar us glacialis).
Abstract, Pacific Seabird Group, 31st
Annual Meeing, La Paz, Baja California
Sur, Mexico. http://www.pacificsea-
birdgroup.org

Heim, M. 1998. County population projec-
tions with race/ethnic detail. California
Department of Einance, Sacramento,
CA.

NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmo-
spheric Administration), National Centers
for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCO).
2003. A biogeographic assessment off
North/Central California: To support
the Joint Management Plan Review for
Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Earallones, and
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuar-
ies: Phase 1 - marine fishes, birds, and
mammals. Unpubl. Rep., Biogeography
Team, NCCO and National Marine Sanc-
tuary Program, Silver Spring, MD.

Page, G.W., L.E. Stenzel, and D.G. Ainley
1982. Beached bird carcasses as a means

of evaluating natural and human caused
seabird mortality. Unpublished report.
Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson
Beach, CA. Eor the U.S. Department
of Energy, report number CX No. DE-
AC03-79EV10254.

Roletto, J., S. Lyday, and D. Devlin.. 2005.
Beach Watch Manual. Gulf of the Earal-
lones National Marine Sanctuary, Eort
Mason, Bldg 201, San Erancisco, CA.

Roletto, J., J. Mortenson, I. Harrald, J. Hall,
and L. Grella. 2003. Beached bird surveys
and chronic oil pollution in Central Cali-
fornia. Mar. Ornithol. 31:21-28.

Shannon Lyday, Farallones Marine
Sanctuary Association, P.O. Box
29386, San Francisco, CA 94129,
USA; slyday@farallones.org

Jan Roletto, Gulf of the Faral-
lones National Marine Sanctu-
ary, Fort Mason, Building 201,
San Francisco, CA 94123, USA

Joe Mortenson and Jamie Hall, Far-
allones Marine Sanctuary As-
sociation, P.O. Box 29386, San
Francisco, CA 94129, USA

[This is a peer-reviewed paper]

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 6

FORUM

The Forum section gives PSG members a place to express their opinions on topics of concern to
the group. Viewpoints published here belong to the individual writers and do not represent PSG
policy. Another viewpoint on the issue discussed below appeared in Pacific Seabirds for Fall 2006.

A MORE FOCUSED ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGREDATION

Steve Hampton

The

Several organizations of profession-
al biologists, from The Wildlife Society
to the Pacific Seabird Group (PSG), have
recently found themselves confronted by
calls to address global economic issues
associated with environmental degrada-
tion. Specifically, it has been suggested
that these organizations adopt a policy
statement that “economic growth” is
fundamentally at odds with environmen-
tal protection. The statements go on to
suggest that governments should adopt
macroeconomic policies that promote a
“steady state economy” without growth.
This paper addresses this debate. Part I
challenges this premise as overly vague
and general by providing a more detailed
examination of the components of eco-
nomic growth. Part II focuses the discus-
sion on specific economic problems that
result in environmental harm in wealthy
nations, and identifies specific policies
that address these problems. Part III
does the same for poor nations. Part IV
concludes and suggests that PSG adopt
an environmental code of ethics consis-
tent with these concerns.

I. ECONOMIC GROWTH

Economic growth may be measured
in many ways, but is typically an increase
in “gross domestic product” (GDP). It
has two multiplicative components as
seen in the equation below:

Economic Growth =

Per Capita Consumption x Population.

views expressed here are solely those of the ai

Consumption refers to both goods
and services. Economic growth, as a
public policy, is not a well-defined pro-
gram; it is simply a goal. Like capitalism,
it may occur without any government
policy or promotion (or in spite of it)
whenever two individuals make a trade
and each believes they are better off.
Economic growth enables people to rise
out of poverty and to consume more
goods and services. Such growth is a
goal of every nation, ideally achieved
with population steady and per capita
consumption rising. Achieving this goal
is not always easy and regularly eludes
policy-makers (e.g. in times of recession;
throughout many of the world’s poor na-
tions). Moreover, environmental degra-
dation occurs just as often, perhaps more
often, in poor nations without economic
growth as well as in wealthy nations dur-
ing times of recession.

Eocusing on the equation for eco-
nomic growth, it is easy to imagine how
either booming populations or consump-
tion can lead to environmental harm. In
today’s divided world of rich and poor
societies, the different components of
the growth equation are displayed in
stark relief. Populations are relatively
steady in wealthy nations, but per capita
consumption is high and increasing. The
situation is reversed in poor nations,
where per capita consumption is much
lower and often not increasing, while
populations are rising quickly. Envi-
ronmental harm occurs in both contexts,
but for very different reasons, and thus

with different solutions and policy pre-
scriptions. Simply calling for an end to
economic growth will not address the
specific problems. Arguably, a cessation
of growth could lead to greater poverty
and environmental harm.

II. MARKET EAILURES IN THE
WEALTHY NATIONS

In wealthy nations, population is
relatively stable but consumption is
increasing. This has resulted in exploita-
tion and pollution of natural resources.
These are market failures. Two of the
most common market failures that oc-
cur in growing economies are: 1) pil-
lage of the commons; and 2) negative
externalities.

Pillage of the commons occurs when
an individual or company seeks to over-
exploit an open-access resource for per-
sonal gain, often as quickly as possible
before competitors arrive to share in the
plunder. A classic example of this is the
historical egging industry on the Earallon
Islands in the 1800s, which devastated
the colonies of Common Murres {Uria
aalge) there.

Negative externalities are side ef-
fects of an economic activity that result in
harm to others. Environmental examples
would include oil spills and accidental rat
introductions as a result of modern oil
extraction and shipping, seabird bycatch
as a result of long-line fishing, global
warming as a result of fossil fuel use,
the destruction of grebe nests as a result
of recreational watercraft, or the loss of

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 7

FORUM

a seabird colony as a result of human
development, whether it be a hotel or
a hshing camp. In these examples, the
producers and consumers are interested
in other goods and services and may care
little about the birds, even though others
in society may care a great deal. Unless
they are constrained or made to pay for
these injuries, they have no incentive to
alter their behavior.

The standard solution to these mar-
ket failures is government intervention,
either by direct regulation or by taxes
or subsidies that alter the incentives of
producers and/or consumers. Examples
include hunting regulations, pollution
control measures, and restrictions on
public access to seabird nesting islands.
Truly functioning markets that protect
the interests of society require such
intervention to constrain or to alter the
incentives of private individuals, who
may seek to over-exploit or pollute for
personal gain. Economic growth can
and does occur when these market fail-
ures are corrected. Moreover, in such
contexts, economic activities that might
rely on the otherwise injured or depleted
resources become sustainable, while the
larger interests of society are protected.
The Earallones are now protected and
eggs come from chicken farms. In New
Zealand, Maoris regulate themselves
regarding the sustainable harvest of
Sooty Shearwater chicks. All new oil
tankers are now double-hulled. Com-
mercial anglers in Alaska are required
to alter their hshing methods. These
measures may involve extra expense or
cost short-term economic gains, but they
rehect the overall desires of society and
incorporate society’s wishes to protect
these resources from unsustainable
exploitation or degradation. While the
price of oil or hsh may rise as a result
of such new regulations, the higher cost
more closely rehects the true social cost
of producing the product.

III. UNSUSTAINABLE RE-
SOURCE USE IN THE POOR
NATIONS

In poor nations, consumption is
often relatively hat (or even declining)
but population is increasing. The mar-
ket failures described above may exist.
Indeed, pillage of the commons and
negative externalities are often worse
than in wealthy nations, as impover-
ished governments are hard-pressed to
restrict exploitation, either because they
cannot enforce laws or are unwilling to
increase costs for an industry. The pri-
mary problem in poor nations, however,
is that impoverished individuals may be
making rational decisions to exploit their
own privately-held resources.

One out of every six people on the
earth lives in extreme poverty. Eaced
with a daily struggle to meet basic food
needs, they are essentially cashing in the
earth now in order to stay alive. The re-
sult is degradation on an equally or more
massive scale than what a Eirst World
company could do. The most common
example is the massive deforestation and
habitat destruction that arises from the
need for wood for cooking fuel and land
to plant crops. The denuded landscape
of Haiti, whose border with the more
forested Dominican Republic is easily
seen from space, provides the most dra-
matic example of the close relationship
between poverty and environmental
destruction. In this context, seabird
colonies are viewed as opportunities for
a protein windfall, not resources to be
sustainably managed. Seabird colonies
around the world are threatened by ex-
ploitation by the desperate poor; many
are already extirpated. In a discouraging
positive feedback loop, such poverty
leads to larger family size, which further
fuels the cycle.

The obvious solution here is, ironi-
cally, economic growth and the elimina-
tion of extreme poverty. Measures such
as Third World debt relief, which would

free up hundreds of billions of dollars
annually for education and other ser-
vices, or fairer trade, may simultaneously
contribute to seabird colony protection in
impoverished nations.

IV. OUR NEXT STEP

Whether it be against unrestrained
consumption in the United States, or
exploitation in Africa, PSG and other
associations of professional biologists
are well positioned to address these
problems. We come largely from the
wealthy nations. That is where greater
government regulation is needed, and
that is where debt relief and improved
terms of trade with poor nations must
come from. Rather than focusing on
economic growth in general, I suggest
our efforts be targeted at specihc mar-
ket failures, urging our governments to
force private individuals and companies
to respect the larger interests of society.
To address the exploitation associated
with poverty, I suggest we also join the
calls for Third World debt relief, an end
to extreme poverty, and support for the
United Nation’s Millennium Develop-
ment Goals.

Einally, PSG could set an example
by simultaneously restricting our own
consumption. We can pledge to avoid
hsh species associated with bycatch and
perhaps even build in a budget for car-
bon offsets into every research proposal,
making travel to distant seabird islands
carbon-neutral. In this way, we would be
applying the true social cost of our fuel
use as we seek to study and protect sea-
birds. We can start making a difference
while waiting for government to act.

Steve Hampton, Ph.D.

Resource Economist
Office of Spill Prevention and Re-
sponse

California Dept of Pish and Game
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
SHampton@ospr.dfg.ca.gov

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 8

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

The Pacific Seabird Group occasionally honors outstanding contributors to seabird science and conservation
with Lifetime Achievement or Special Achievement Awards. At the 34th Annual Meeting on 10 February 2007,
PSG honored two outstanding people: Michael R Harris for Lifetime Achievement and Edward F. Melvin for
Special Achievement. Our tribute to Mike Harris follows; that to Ed Melvin will be printed in a following issue.

MICHAEL P. HARRIS

Scott A. Hatch

In the sciences, the measure of
one’s career is based in large part on the
legacy of published research products
one leaves in the wake of a life spent
in pursuit of original knowledge. But
there is another dimension, less tangible
or quantifiable — namely, the influence
exerted on the lives and works of others
in the same discipline — which has the
potential to multiply one’s impact many-
fold. Perhaps the best way I can describe
this latter effect in the case of M.P. Harris
is by way of a personal anecdote.

When I was just getting started
in seabird research in the mid 1970s,
working as a new and inexperienced
graduate student on the Semidi Islands
in Alaska, I spent a fair amount of time
in camp during slow or rainy periods
reading papers on seabirds — ^just about

Mike Harris reaching down a seabird burrow around 1964. . .

. . .and in 2004

anything and everything I could get my
hands on. I was a tabula rasa when it
came to seabird science, and certainly I
had not yet contributed anything to the
field myself. So I was actively in search
of role models.

At that time, my reading included
multiple papers and/or books by a num-
ber of authors who came to constitute
in my mind a sort of pantheon of sages
and luminaries in the world of seabird
biology. Even now, a few names come
readily to mind: L.E. Richdale, D.L.
Serventy, M.P. Harris, J.C. Coulson, N.P.
Ashmole, C.M. Perrins, R.M. Lockley,
V.C. Wynne-Edwards, W.R.P. Bourne,
J.B. Nelson, among others.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 9

LIFETIME ACHIEVENMENT AWARD - M.R Harris

gulls, shearwaters, oystercatchers,
storm petrels, albatross, tropicbirds,
flightless cormorants, etc.

puffins

murres, kittiwakes, puffins,
shags, razorbills

Primary author

Sole author

Year

Year

Figure 1 . A lifetime of sustained output — the publishing history of
M.R Harris. (Acronyms are dehned in the text.)

Figure 2. M.R Harris demonstrates consistent leadership in the
publication of research hndings.

There were a couple of things that
impressed me about this cadre of seabird
gurus. First, they all seemed to be sub-
jects of the British Crown. Second, they
seemed not to have any given names,
only initials. That oddity, of course, only
tended to enhance the aura these people
assumed in the minds of those of us who
read all the papers and books and, natu-
rally, wondered what their authors might
be like in person. For me, one name on
the list stood out in relief — M.P. Harris.

I kept a little 3-by-5 card file at
the time to index all the papers I had
accumulated — sorted alphabetically, and
usually carrying little notes on content
once I had read them. Regrettably, this
was not a discipline I maintained for
many years, and today the mere existence
of a 3 by 5 card file seems quaint.
Nevertheless I still have the thing in my
office, and when I consulted it recently I
found that I had already in those years —
the mid 1970s — ^no fewer than 18 papers
by M.P. Harris — more I think than any
other single author. Of course I learned
subsequently that the 18 papers at issue
were in fact just a fraction of what M.P.
Harris had produced already by that point
in his career. Like Butch Cassidy and the
Sundance Kid, I found myself repeatedly

muttering to myself the question, “Who
is this guy?”

As time went on and I was privileged
to travel to meetings, at which some
of the people on my A-list of personal
heroes happened to be present, I was
able gradually to decode some of the
mysterious initials, putting not only
faces, but also first names together with
the surnames. This always felt like a sort
of mini career achievement of my own
when I was able to do it. I felt more and
more like I was part of the “in-crowd”
perhaps, because I knew that J.B. Nelson
was Bryan Nelson, J.C. Coulson was
actually John Coulson, W.R.P. Bourne
was Bill Bourne, C.M. Perrins was
Christopher Perrins (probably “Chris”
to most who knew him — still Christo-
pher to me — but this, nevertheless, was
progress). And so it went, although I
must admit there are still some on that
early list of heroes whose initials I have
not yet decoded.

I do not recall exactly when I was
able to decode the “M” in M.P. Harris to
Michael — and then, better still, to just
“Mike” (as in “Hey, Mike, good to see
you again, how’s it going?”) — but surely
that was a wondrous thing. I know the
first time I met Mike in person was in

1985, when he and Sarah Wanless visited
Alaska on a sightseeing excursion, and
my boss at the time. Cal Lensink, was
kind enough to introduce us. My recol-
lection is that we all went for a day trip
by car on the Kenai Peninsula south of
Anchorage, and it was a great thrill for
me to make the personal acquaintance.
All these years later, myself having
somehow survived in the seabird busi-
ness, it is personally gratifying to record,
on behalf of the Pacific Seabird Group,
a few notes pertinent to the Group’s
Lifetime Achievement Award, so richly
deserved by a colleague whose initials,
of all things — but more importantly,
whose life’s work — made such a lasting
impression on me during my early, most
formative years as a professional.

Mike Harris spent his own forma-
tive years in Wales, completing both
his undergraduate and graduate work
at the University College of Wales in
Swansea. His external examiner for the
PhD degree, conferred in 1962, was
none other than David Lack — so we see
at once that Mike has a solid academic
pedigree. Lack apparently was impressed
enough with the scientific aptitude of the
young M.P. Harris that he brought him
to the Edward Grey Institute at Oxford

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 10

LIFETIME ACHIEVENMENT AWARD - M.R Harris

University (EGI), where Mike stayed, or
at least remained affiliated, for the next
ten years. He worked under two post-
doctoral research fellowships while at
the Edward Grey Institute. The first was
an assignment to study the seabirds on
the Pembrokeshire islands of Skomer
and Skolkholm, and in particular to re-
vitalize the work on Manx Shearwaters
{Pujfinus pujfinus) that had been started
there by R.M. Lockley in the 1930s. The
second post-doctoral position took him
to the Galapagos Islands, where he was
charged with investigating the ecology of
storm petrels, of which three species bred
in the islands, including the uniquely
diurnal Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel,
Oceanodroma tethys. In addition to doing
a characteristically thorough job on the
storm-petrel project, Mike also studied
and published extensively on a number
of other seabirds in the Galapagos, in-
cluding Waved Albatross (Phoebastria
irrorata), tropicbirds (Phaethon spp.),
flightless cormorants (Phalacrocorax
karri si), and others, and in 1975 he pub-
lished the first complete field guide to all
the birds of the Galapagos Islands.

There was a lot of shuttling between
the Galapagos and Britain during those
years, 1963 to 1972, but finally in 1972
Mike moved back to Britain to stay.

Ibis
Bird Study
British Birds
Atlantic Seabirds
J. Avian Biol.

Waterbirds
Scottish Birds
J. Anim. Ecol.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
J.Zool(Lond)
Condor
Biol. Conserv.
J. Appl. Ecol.
Ring. & Migr.
Auk
Ardea
Nature in Wales
Parasitology
J. Field Ornithol.
ICES J. Mar. Sci.
Comp. Biochem. Physiol.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Victoria
Bull. Brit. Ant. Surv.

Sula

Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.
J. Exp. Biol.
Others (21 titles)

residing in Edinburgh for a brief time,
then landing a position with what was
then the Nature Conservancy (NC; later
to be called the Institute of Terrestr.ial
Ecology [ITE], and later still the Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology [CEH]). In
particular, he moved into that agency’s
Banchory field station, a few kilometers
from Aberdeen.

At the outset, Mike’s marching
orders in his new job were to investigate
the pattern and causes of a steep
decline in numbers of Atlantic Puffins
(Fratercula arctica) on the west coast
of Scotland. He chose to do this through
a comparative study of the species at
St. Kilda, representing the west coast,
and the population on the Isle of May
on Scotland’s southeast coast, where
puffins were increasing in number.
Mike conducted his characteristically
ground-breaking work on puffins with
great thoroughness and skill, publishing
many papers in a series that continues
up to the present time, and resulting in
the definitive monographic treatment
of Atlantic Puffins, a book published in
1984, titled simply and appropriately,
“The Puffin.”

The decision to go to the Isle of May
in the early 1970s proved in retrospect
to be a momentous one, because it gave

Katie O’Reilly gives Lifetime Achievement
Award to Mike Harris.

Mike a foothold on that wonderful little
island in the Eirth of Eorth, close to his
home, easy of access, and rich in seabird
life. The work on the Isle of May has
continued uninterrupted to the present
day. Over the years, Mike progressively
added more species to the core program
of monitoring and research on the Isle
of May, including Kittiwakes (Rissa
tridactyla). Common Murres {Uria
aalge). Shags {Phalacrocorax aristotelis),
and Razorbills {Alca torda).

A defining characteristic of
Mike’s career has been his exceptional
productivity of high-quality published
products from his research. He lives by a
credo which, in his own words, states that
the publication of one’s research findings
is an obligation, not an option. It is not
feasible to review here in even a cursory
manner all of Mike’s published findings,
but a few metadata may convey a sense
of how Mike has conducted his career
according to his convictions.

‘Other”: Anim. Behav.
Biometrics
Func. Ecol.

J. Exp. Biol.

Mar. Biol.

Beh. Ecol. Sociobiol.
etc., etc.

Breeding Biology -
Diets & Feeding
Pop. Dyn./Demogr.
Status, Trends, Conserv.
Species Accounts
Methods
Ringing & Migr.
Behavior
Parasites/Disease
Contam./Physiol.
Timing of Breeding
Mar. Ecol./Fish
Inverts./Passerines
At-Sea

10 20 30

Papers/journal

10 20 30 40

Number of papers

Figure 3. Many of the world’s leading biological journals have Figure 4. The research interests of M.R Harris run the gamut of
published the work of M.R Harris since 1959. potential topics in the population ecology of seabirds.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 11

LIFETIME ACHIEVENMENT AWARD - M.P. Harris

Year

Figure 5. The formidible output of M.P. Harris — a seabird scien-
tist who “hates to write.”

For starters, I plotted the number of
papers published by M.P. Harris in each
year from 1959 to the present time, and
smoothed the plot a little by computing
the 5 -year running average (Figure 1).
We see that Mike’s productivity has
basically increased steadily over his
career, starting at a “mere” 3 papers or
so per year and climbing to anywhere
from 5 to 10 contributions a year, with
notable spikes, such as the 18 papers that
appeared with Mike’s name on them in
1997. But, alas, notice how dramatically
Mike’s influence has declined since his
retirement in 1999, with only 5 to 10 pa-
pers published annually since then — but
including, admittedly, 5 papers already
published or in press in the first half of
2007.

All kidding aside, the total of Mike’s
publications — counting journal articles,
book chapters and so on — now exceeds
260. And there have been a couple of
books thrown in for good measure. Most
impressive, to say the least.

Lest one imagine that all this pro-
ductivity has somehow resulted from rid-
ing on the coattails of others, note that, on
the contrary, Mike has been the senior or
sole author of a very large percentage of
all the works that bear his name (Figure
2). The plots are both running averages,
and we see that while the number of
sole authorships has declined over the
latter half of Mike’s career — consistent
with the tendency toward collabora-
tion and teamwork in field research in

our profession —
the rate at which
senior-authored pa-
pers have appeared
has remained high,
at 3 to 5 papers per
year, sustained over
a period of about 45
years.

Mike publish-
es mainly in high-
quality, high-impact
journals (Figure 3).
Over the years, he
has favored with
his work the pages
of The Ibis more
consistently than
any other journal,
but there is scarcely a notable journal
that might conceivably publish the results
of seabird research that has not accepted
and published one or more of Mike’s
papers — many of them 5, 10, or more of
his contributions.

As to the breadth of Mike’s inter-
ests in seabirds and his contributions
to our understanding of them, he has
been solidly grounded in what I would
characterize as the “Big 3” of colony-
based seabird research — breeding biol-
ogy (with more than 40 papers), diets
and feeding ecology (with close to 40
papers), and population dynamics and
demography, also with nearly 40 papers
(Figure.4) .

A final bit of quantitative work on
Mike’s publication record shows the
number of printed pages (again, as a
5 -year running average) that have ap-
peared under M.P. Harris’s byline an-
nually since 1959 (Figure 5). Again, we
find a distinctly increasing trend over the
course of the career, with the running
average generally falling in the range of
20 to 80 or 90 printed pages a year.

The total of all that comes to some-
thing over 2300 printed pages in journal
articles, book chapters, and so on, plus
two books, which brings the overall to-
tal to nearly 2700 printed pages. In the
publishing business, about one printed
page is planned for every four pages of
manuscript. So the 2700 printed pages
represents something on the order of
11,000 manuscript pages.

In a recent biographical sketch that
John Croxall and Sarah Wanless prepared
on the occasion of Mike’s receiving the
Godman-Salvin medal of the British
Ornithologists’ Union {Ibis 148:591-592,
2006), the authors expound his extraor-
dinary productivity, of course. But they
also reveal the surprising fact That Mike
(quoting here) “hates to write.” Thus, I
might summarize all this by noting that,
for someone who hates to write, 11,000
pages of manuscript is an astonishing
display of self-discipline.

These days, Mike freely expresses
his personal debt to Sarah Wanless, who
is not only the wise choice he made as
a life partner, but who has also been
an invaluable partner in research —
particularly on the Isle of May, where
Sarah’s work, in conjunction with Mike
and others, is continuing the long tradi-
tion of a steady stream of high-quality
publications on seabird biology. Upon
his retirement in 1999, Mike officially
passed the baton for leadership of this
group and their continuing efforts on the
Isle of May to Sarah. I think Mike would
agree readily that the scope of his lifetime
achievement includes not only his large
personal contribution of research find-
ings, but also his vision and realization
of a unique research station that no doubt
will foment seminal research on oceanic
birds and their environment for many,
many years — truly the kind of gift that
keeps on giving.

It is interesting to juxtapose two pic-
tures, taken about 40 years apart, showing
the young Mike Harris, and the young-at-
heart Mike Harris, with his arm down a
seabird hole on a Scottish isle. One has
to wonder how many seabirds saw those
same terrible fingers approaching them at
one time or another in the interim. And
the peril has not passed — in winter 2007
Mike could be found preparing, eagerly
and impatiently, for yet another season
amidst the heather, the ocean, and the
birds on the Isle of May.

It is with great admiration and pride
that the members of the Pacific Seabird
Group confer the society’s Lifetime
Achievement Award on Michael P. Har-
ris, a founding member of PSG, and
a continuing inspiration to seabird re-
searchers, young and old, worldwide.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 12

OBITUARY

James O. Keith, longtime PSG
member, died on 30 May 2006 at his
home in Centennial, Colorado after a
long bout with pulmonary fibrosis.

Jim was born on 20 March 1932
in Pasadena, California. He married
Berniece Schultz in Tulare, California in
1949, and stayed married until his death.
Berniece and Jim had five children: Ed-
ward, Paul, Joan, Ellen, and Ann. Sadly,
Paul and Joan predeceased him.

Jim graduated from Cathedral High
School in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1949.
He received a BA in Zoology from
the University of California, Berkeley
in 1953; an MS from the University
of Arizona in Tucson, working on the
ecology of Abert’s squirrels, Sciurus
aberti; and a PhD in 1978 from the Ohio
State University in Columbus, where he
studied contaminant/food interactions in
California Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus
occidentalis californicus) and Ringed
Turtle Doves (Streptopelia risoria). Jim
was employed by the U.S. Eorest Service
from 1956 to 1961 and by the U.S. Pish
and Wildlife Service (USPWS) from
1961 to 1989, when he retired. He was
an expert natural historian, ecologist,
ecotoxicologist, and wildlife manage-
ment specialist. Jim produced over 50
publications during his career, some
of them becoming “classics.” But this
doesn’t say anything about Jim Keith as
a person and a friend.

A long time ago in Tulare, Jim Keith
told me more than once about how his
younger charms had wooed away one of
this little town’s best-looking and most
talented young ladies. But in fact, as
Berniece tells the story, it was she who
first called him “Bad Jimmy.” This was
because, as a sixth-grader and new arrival
in town, Jimmy Keith pestered her and
tricked her into giving him bike rides
while he held onto her waist, probably
with this “Jim Keith grin” on his face.

JAMES O. KEITH

Daniel W. Anderson

Was it this life-long mischievous nature
of Jim’s that nearly always endeared
him to people he met for the first time —
except perhaps for Berniece right at the
beginning? Not always, because those
whom Bad Jimmy did not like — such as
blustery, know-it-all bureaucrats, “sell-
out” scientists, or lying politicians from
his adult life — got the message from his
wonderful sense of humor, but also his
dead-serious attitude about things that
really mattered in life, that one had bet-
ter always strive to be on his good side.
And with Berniece, “Bad Jimmy” soon
wore off anyway, and a marriage that
endured Bad Jimmy’s antics lasted over
fifty years.

In fact, I only now call him “Bad
Jim” because we teased him about it all
the time (as he teased back). He was
proud of the “handle,” and everybody
knew it was used only as an oxymo-
ron among his friends and colleagues.
Shucks, he called me “Tidy Two Shoes”
because I had to have the boat clean
and orderly all the time; I couldn’t help
myself. But how many times did Bad
Jimmy come along behind me as I dili-
gently scrubbed the decks of the boat?
He would drop some food or kick some
dirt onto my clean surfaces and look up at
me with this same grin of his, as if to say:
Lighten up and enjoy the journey, not just
the destination. Anybody and everybody
who came with us into the Sea of Cortez
(or any of our other study sites) got a
nickname (and still gets one). Various
places on the islands also received our
personal touches: Jim’s Beach, Ander-
son’s Uplands, Dez’s Uplands, Zig-Zag
Canyon, Kirke’s Beach, Rod’s Rocks,
Covelett, Cobblestone Beach, Lost Basin,
Cholla Basin, Big Cactus Basin, Lost
Basin, Downtown, Suburbia, and many
others. And Fishing Rocks — ^this was
Jim’s favorite place, until we foolishly
told some local fishermen about the many

Jim on Brown Pelican survey, Isla San Fran-
cisco, Gulf of California. (Others on cruise
were Dan Anderson, Ken Briggs, and Ron
Cole.) 26 April 1982

large cabrilla that were there, and next
day, they promptly came over and fished
it out. Radio-tagged pelicans also each
got an individual name; Sunday’s Gal
was Jim’s favorite. He started it all.

Importantly, it was Jim and Berniece
who helped make me want a family. Eor
example, when I first went to Mexico
with Jim in 1971, on one occasion we
somehow ended up in Bahia de Kino,
Sonora, with most of his family. (All
were there but Ed, including giggly little
Annie, serious/contemplative Ellen, and
easy-going Paul — they were all differ-
ent.) We were camped in the trailer park
near the Kino Motel, a favorite hangout
of the gringo campers. Jim and Berniece
welcomed me in like a family member.
Drinking beer, soon I found myself fac-
ing a group of four or five mean-looking
rednecks from Oklahoma, and drunker
and rowdier than us. We had all been
attracted to the noise when we saw
these big mean guys harassing a skinny,
hippy-looking kid of about 14, whose

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 13

OBITUARY - Jim Keith

Dinner on stern of PeUcano Uno, anchored off Punta Chivato, Baja California Sur, in a wind
storm. 14 March 1973.

parents were a couple tents down the line
but were apparently afraid to come out
to defend their son. Well, these redneck
cowards were acting tough and ganging
up on this kid. The kid was scared as hell
and didn’t have a chance against them. I
looked at Paul, Jim’s youngest son; Paul
looked at me as I decided to walk over
and defend that kid. Jim said, “Be care-
ful, I am not coming over to pick you up
when they knock you on your ass.” But
stupidly, I walked over there anyway and
told them to quit. They stood up and all
faced me directly, scowling; it looked
like I was in for a beating perhaps or at
least a little kick in the ass like Jim had
warned. I know I was thinking “Oh-oh,
I am in for it; I’m alone.” But I looked
right behind me and there stood big old
Paul, all of 16 years old, but ready to help
me take them on, no fear whatsoever. The
rednecks backed down, the kid was left
alone to scurry away back to his parents,
and soon I was back with Jim drinking
the beer he handed me as I returned.

I knew then, however, that anybody
who had a brave son like Paul had to be
a good parent. Yes, Berniece always had
a lot to do with it, too. Those lucky kids
had great folks! The rednecks stayed
quiet and sheepish for the rest of the

night, too. It was getting to know Jim’s
family, I think, that made me realize this
was the only way to live a life. Many of
my scientific colleagues were so intense
in their scientific pursuits that it domi-
nated every moment of their lives. That
could have been me, too, but for Jim and
Berniece. Since then, we’ve shared ex-
periences with each other’s families; and
that was Jim’s most important role to me
as a lifelong mentor: making me realize
that family always comes first.

Then Berniece also reminded me
recently that it had worked both ways.
Just a couple of years ago, Jim was antici-
pating attending an important scientific
meeting; but to do it, he would have to
postpone his 50* wedding anniversary.
Turning Jim’s own philosophy around
this time, I told him: “Get your butt home
for that anniversary.” He went home for
the anniversary.

Then there was Jim’s professional
scientific mentoring, no less important
to me. After working with Jim in the
field for many years, I came to regard
him as one of (if not THE) very best of
our scientists and field biologists in eco-
toxicology. Jim was a genuine original
thinker. As a new, green scientist in the
USFWS, and as I got to know the agency.

I came to consider Jim as one of the
“heirs-apparent” for future USFWS di-
rectorship or other high-level leadership.
There was good reason for this; Jim was a
rising star in the USFWS when I first met
him. In that regard, I had also frequently
admired Jim’s fearlessness and frank
honesty in speaking out at meetings with
his superiors (always truthfully, as there
was never any “BS” in anything he did
professionally; Jim Keith was the “real
item”). Of course, some of his superiors
didn’t like it, but I hoped that eventually
a lot of this truth and bravado would rub
off on me. To heck with the superiors!

I remember one instance when Jim
had turned down an opportunity to move
up in the bureaucracy. (I think it was to
go to Washington, D.C. to head up some
big program). Using his type of outspo-
kenness myself, I scolded Jim when he
turned down this opportunity (as I saw
it). But Jim scolded me right back:

“Fisten Dan, dammit, I could go
on to become a bureaucrat, and when
I eventually retire, they will give me a
nice watch with a nice engraving on the
back; I will put it into my pocket, tell
everybody thank you, and then walk out.
Everybody will soon forget who I was.
But if I continue on as a scientist, I will
publish my work. If it is good, it will be
there for all time.”

How many stories could I tell? Well,
many. But most important, we’ve come
safely through a lot of really bad weather
in the Sea of Cortez together, too. Fots of
that weather was of the kind that people
do not come home from (and a lot of
kayakers, fishermen, and even some
scientists didn’t come home from it). But
we always made it. I especially remem-
ber one instance early on, when Jim got
antsy while we waited for a windstorm to
subside in Bahfa de los Angeles. This was
late 1972, and a combination south plus
east wind was blowing hard. (When the
south winds get really bad, the locals call
them the Chubascos; and Jim’s advice for
any bad wind was always duck into some
safe cove and wait it out.) This time,
wind was whipping up “white horses”
(large, wild whitecaps) on top of six- to
eight-foot rollers. But also this time, Jim

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number I • Spring 2007 • Page 14

OBITUARY - Jim Keith

had forgotten his own advice and gotten
impatient when we had to wait around so
long. This day he just couldn’t take it any
more, because he had recently arrived on
a long trip from Denver, and he wanted to
get to the islands. But Rod DeWeese and
I had been in the Gulf of California for
about four weeks already and had been
fighting those damned winds (from one
direction or another) most of the time —
we wanted no more of them. The Oestes
were really the worst winds, and even
Antero Diaz (the “king” of the Cortez)
feared them. Jim and I, and others, had
had our share of Oestes as well.

But back to that day. At that stage of
my own career, I was still in awe of Jim
and not wanting to challenge his author-
ity. So I relented, we packed the boat,
and we headed south for San Lorenzo,
right into the winds. Antero was leaving,
too, in his 90-foot San Augustine, and the
waves were rocking him around as well.
The three of us in Pelicano (all of 20 feet
long) were following Antero and trying
to get some relief in his wake — it wasn’t
working. Pelicano was rolling up, down,
and sideways in the waves, an occasional
wave almost breaking over the bow and
spraying us all until we were soaked. We
were wet, cold, and miserable, and we
got about as far as the channel between
Isla Cabeza de Caballo and Islas los
Hermanitos, taking a beating all the way.
We were about to enter the “open water
country” of the Canal de los Ballenas,
with thousands of “white horses” coming
up from the south.

About that time, and quite uncom-
fortable with the situation, I recalled
something Jim had told me before: The
captain of the boat always makes the final
decisions. I looked him straight in the eye
and said: “I don’t want to risk this any
more and I am the captain; we’re going
back.” Bad Jim (I was thinking “You got
me into this”) nodded his head “yes”
without an argument, and we turned
around. It was an easy journey back with
following waves, but nobody spoke until
we had the boat safely anchored out in
front of Casa Diaz. As usual (and to our
last days together), we sat around and
drank a few beers, safe back in Bahia de

los Angeles or someplace else, planning
and scheming our next moves. Jim leaned
over and quietly encouraged me: “Dam-
mit, I am glad you turned her around, I
didn’t like it out there at all.”

And the only time I recall where Jim
and I might have come to some disagree-
ment were the kinds of times, right up
to our last trip to the Sea of Cortez in
2002, where we debated who was going
to be the “boss” this time. But we always
worked it out, and once it was decided,
there was never any more argument. It
was: “Okay, Jim, you are in charge to-
day,” or “Okay, Dan, you are in charge
today.” No more problems: “Let’s get out
and get some science done.”

I would sum up Jim’s mentoring
with an old term that has been tossed
around a lot amongst biologists (I don’t
know the originator, but what the heck,
it might have been Jim himself — he sure
practiced it): Be firm, but gentle. It’s ap-
plicable to the handling of animals, peo-
ple, and equipment (maybe spouses, too).
Bad Jim always had fun doing research,
always; just like me. That was something
about each of us that we shared. He loved
ten-foot waves with “white horses” and
he loved dead-calm waters, wandering
the desert identifying plants and animals,
talking about his work and the work of
others, as well as the ramifications of it
all in the bigger view, always in a person-
able way. I saw Bad Jimmy angry, but I
never saw him unfair.

I remember the first PSG meeting
that was held in La Paz, Baja Califor-
nia, Mexico, the 1986 Annual Meeting.
Our then 6 -year- old daughter, Katie,
nervously engaged in a little rock and
roll with Jim at one of the local bars one
night, while we were dining and partying
after the meetings. On one of the spins,
Jim’s finger accidentally caught Katie’s
brand new Mexican necklace, ripped it
off her neck, and scattered beads all over
the floor. Other people dancing around
the two were tripping on the beads and
Katie was devastated and cried loudly
for a few minutes. Next thing you know,
Jim disappears and we go on with our
eating and drinking, still listening to that
crazy Mexican rock and roll music that

was playing. Soon he returns with a new,
nicer necklace. He presents it to Katie
with a smile. Now how could you think
he was Bad Jimmy? Katie talks about this
incident to this day at twenty-six.

Yes, “Bad Jim” lived up to his en-
dearing nature. Five or six years ago, my
teenage daughters Helen and Katie spent
some time with Jim and me, Eduardo
Palacios, and others in Bahia de los An-
geles at Tony Resendiz’s Campo Arche-
lon. It was one of our favorite places, and
Tony was (and still is) one of our best
mutual friends. Jorge Mendoza might
have been there, too, but I don’t remem-
ber any more (I hate getting old!). Jim
was in camp relaxing with the girls one
afternoon, walking around in his sandals.
The girls looked at his feet and said, “Jim,
those feet look awful, let’s fix ’em up.”
For the next hour or so, there the three
sat, Jim leaning back, drinking the beers
I carried to him, with his feet up on the
table, and Katie and Helen each giving
one of Jim’s feet a pedicure. The rest of
the week, Jim walked around camp with
pretty red-polished nails.

El Nino was also a big part of our
research. But during such an event, the
marine ecosystem in the Gulf of Califor-
nia just “shuts down,” so there isn’t much
work to do regarding Brown Pelican
nesting and productivity — few birds, few
nests, few young — a 3-day survey turns
into a half-day survey or less. Thus we
did a lot of sitting around at camp dur-
ing the 1998 El Nino, so much, in fact,
that Tony Resendiz temporarily changed
the name of our research project from
“Pelican Research Project” to “Beerlican

Jim setting a time-lapse camera to record
brown pelican behavior, Isla Animas, 20 May
1980. By Dan Anderson.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 15

OBITUARY - Jim Keith

Project.”

I could tell many more “Bad Jimmy”
stories, but I’ll stop here. In fact, I only
retain that nickname because Jim liked it
so much himself. Last spring, when Jim
was getting sicker (more than I could
imagine), he advised me once again. He
told me that he had decided to only drink
the very best of his favorite liquors: “No
more of that cheap stuff for me.” At the
second PSG meeting in La Paz, in 2004,
we had shared a $100-dollar bottle of
Scotch whiskey that was a gift to me from
Mike Harris; and it had been fun. This

time, I intended to return from Mexico
with an expensive and exotic bottle of
Cuban rum (“Havana Club, siete anos
anejo''), smuggle it into the U.S., and
make a visit to Denver in August to sip
this fine rum with Jim, perhaps for one
last time.

But even that was not to be. In fact,
one day in late May at Bahia de los Ange-
les, I returned from the islands with a first-
time-in-my-life disaster — a compound
dislocation of my middle left finger. That
was the same finger I had raised to the
sky from a small offshore rock, no more

than 20 minutes before I broke it, in defi-
ance of the still-blowing strong Oeste. A
60-mph gust of wind at Smith Island had
ripped my boat off its two anchors in pitch
darkness and blown it onto these rocks.
Ultimately the boat was saved; but when
a very unseasonable Oeste had blown l ik e
this all the night before, and so strongly,
it just felt as if something was terribly
wrong, somewhere. And it was. Jim died
on 30 May 2006. 1 will raise my glass of
Cuban rum to you. Bad Jim, because you
certainly made my life much richer.

Jim Keith with colleagues on Isla Animas (San Lorenzo Norte), Gulf of California, Mexico: celebrating Jorge Mendoza’s birthday
after a day-long pelican and peregrine census. From left to right: Jorge, Dan Anderson, Ed Keith (Jim’s son), Jim, and Renato
Mendoza. 21 May 1980. By Dan Anderson.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 16

CONSERVATION REPORT

Compiled by Craig Harrison

A SEABIRD HERO: MAUI
MAN SAVES A SEABIRD
COLONY

For most of his 74 years, Isao
Nakagawa considered Hawea Point,
Maui, as simply a good place to catch
bait fish. About seven years ago, he
discovered 22 dead Wedge-tailed
Shearwaters {Puffinus pacificus) that
had been killed by feral cats or dogs.
He was inspired to launch a one-man
campaign to remove predators from the
area to protect shearwaters that come
ashore in late March and April to nest
in burrows. In 2005, 127 fledglings
were banded, and his efforts have
inspired volunteers to adopt Wedge-
tailed Shearwater colonies elsewhere
on Maui. While most of Hawaii’s
Wedge-tailed Shearwaters nest in the
Northwestern Islands, several colonies
can still be found in the main islands,
where they are vulnerable to attack
by dogs, cats, mongooses (Herpestes
javanicus) and rats (Rattus sp.). The
275 burrows at Hawea Point represent
the largest of seven known colonies
on Maui. Shearwaters were scarce on
the island before Nakagawa began
his work, due largely to predation by
cats, both feral and domestic. In addi-
tion, fishermen, campers, and hikers
brought their vehicles into the area and
let their dogs run loose. Eventually the
owners of the land where the colony is
located deeded an easement to the Maui
Open Space Trust, and the area is now
managed by the Maui Coastal Land
Trust. Nakagawa arranged for barri-
ers to keep vehicles out and for signs
advising people to keep their dogs on
leashes during the nesting season. He
still checks the traps daily, turning over
captured felines to the Maui Humane
Society, and spreads rat poison.

U.S. FISHERIES ACT NOW
EMPHASIZES SEABIRD
CONSERVATION

The US Congress reauthorized the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conserva-
tion and Management Act, the US’s
key legislation for conservation and
management of its fisheries, in De-
cember 2006. Thanks to the American
Bird Conservancy’s intensive lobbying
for the past several years, the statute
for the first time directly references
seabird interactions with fisheries.
Congressional staff have stated that
no other organization worked on the
addition of seabird language to the
act. The amended statute includes
provisions for incentive programs that
may be established by regional fishery
management councils in their Fish-
ery Management Plans (FMPs). The
goal of incentives would be to reduce
fishery-seabird interactions, bycatch
rates, total bycatch, and post-release
mortality in fisheries. The revisions
also emphasize coordination to provide
information to fishery participants,
including outreach to industry on new
technologies and methods; projects that
would mitigate for seabird mortality;
and actions at appropriate international
fishery organizations to reduce seabird
interactions in those fisheries. Finally,
the statute now requires annual reports
to Congress that must describe funding,
gear technology developments, and
improvements in bycatch reduction, as
well as proposals to address remaining
bycatch or seabird interaction prob-
lems. One option for NOAA Fisheries
to consider when implementing this
program is further development of the
regional bycatch teams through which
its National Bycatch Strategy is being
implemented.

IMPROVED PROSPECTS
FOR HAWAIIAN PETREL?

It was recently discovered that a
previously little -known population of
a federally endangered Hawaiian Petrel
(Pterodroma sandwichensis) is actually
abundant on the forested slopes of the
island of Lanai, Hawaii. A team of re-
searchers, headed by Jay Penniman of the
State of Hawaii Department of Natural
Resources and the University of Hawaii
Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, reports
that the population is larger than anyone
had previously expected. Some estimate
that the Lanai population may contain
as many as 5000 birds, which would far
exceed the 1200 petrels estimated to nest
at the other major site in Haleakala Crater
on Maui. The Lanai population could be
more accurately assessed in the future
using radar techniques.

The history of the Lanai population
is a puzzle. Around 1900, the eminent
ornithologist George Munro could
not find any petrels there, but tapes of
vocalizations made in 1968 suggest a
population level that may have been
similar to the present one. The popula-
tion has benefited from the eradication
of feral goats in 1982, which preserved
and restored their habitat on Lanai. After
the goats were removed, the uluhe fern
(false staghorn; Dicranopteris linearis)
association in which the petrels nest
began recovering.

Lanai has little urbanization and no
light pollution. There also are no intro-
duced mongooses {Herpestes javanicus)
or pigs on Lanai, but feral Axis (Cervus
axis) deer have begun to range on the
steep cloud-forest slopes of Lanaihale
where the nesting Hawaiian Petrels were
found. For the past 40 years, much of the
colony seems to have persisted without
human assistance, and it has not been
hurt by cats. However, the extremely

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 17

Conservation Report

invasive plant strawberry guava {Psidium
cattleianum) is making inroads, and parts
of the colony have been lost, although
slopes of healthy uluhe remain. Straw-
berry guava could eventually destroy the
nesting habitat if appropriate actions such
as biocontrol are not taken. The owner of
the property, Castle & Cooke, has begun
to fence the watershed to keep ungulates
out, and the team led by Penniman is
trapping cats and eliminating introduced
barn owls {Tyto alba).

Satellite tracking by a multi-agency
and university group has yielded another
major discovery: Hawaiian Petrels feed
thousands of miles from Hawaii. The
birds are flying to the Aleutian Islands
during the chick-rearing period — 9000 to
13,000 km on a round-trip feeding run.

NEWCARISSA OIL
SPILL FUNDS PROTECT
MARBLED MURRELET

The New Carissa sank near Coos
Bay, Oregon, in 1999. It spilled about
100,000 gallons of fuel, killing 262
threatened Marbled Murrelets {Brachy-
ramphus marmoratus) and over 2000
other seabirds. In 2004 the owner of the
ship paid $10.5 million for cleanup and
restoration, about $4 million of which
was earmarked to create Marbled Mur-
relet habitat {Pacific Seabirds 32:16,
2005). In July 2007, the natural resources
trustees announced the acquisition of a
conservation easement over 1569 ha of
forested land for the Marbled Murrelets
and other forest species. The $15 mil-
lion purchase price was supplemented
by about $10 million of federal oil-spill
trust funds.

The land was transferred from pri-
vate timber companies to the Confederat-
ed Tribe of Siletz Indians to be managed
as a habitat for murrelets. While the tribe
will be allowed to continue commercial
logging on about one-third of the proper-
ty, the intent is to secure nesting grounds
for the threatened birds in perpetuity. The

tribe must devise a management plan in
coordination with state and federal agen-
cies. Initially, 514 ha will be devoted to
murrelet habitat, as restoration for those
killed by the oil spill. The management
goal is that two-thirds of the property
will contain suitable nesting habitat and
be protected. A core area of about 970 ha
will be managed specifically as habitat,
while the rest of the land will serve as
buffer property that may be logged as
long as disturbances of the birds are
minimized.

PSG objected to several aspects of
the draft conservation easement, includ-
ing the plan for no long-term protection
of occupied habitat (murrelet habitat
would be logged when “new” habitat
became available, although there was
no provision for a guarantee of murrelet
use). In response, the trustees stated that
the draft conservation easement was
strengthened to require comprehensive
short- and long-term monitoring de-
signed to quantify Marbled Murrelet use.
In addition, the trustees responded that
any tree cutting in the highest protection
areas must occur outside the breeding
season, and the land cannot be sold to
a third party without approval by the
trustees. Within the buffer protection
areas, any tree cutting occurring must
minimize or avoid disturbance to mur-
relets. The conservation easement now
also contains an extensive list of activi-
ties that are prohibited on the property
to minimize disturbance to murrelets.
PSG will monitor management of this
property to ensure the management plan
truly provides for long-term protection
of murrelets and their habitat.

USEWS PROPOSES TO
SHRINK CRITICAL
HABITAT EOR MARBLED
MURRELETS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) proposed in September 2006
to remove 95% of the area that has been

considered since 1996 to be critical habi-
tat for Marbled Murrelets, a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). No marine areas are cur-
rently designated or being proposed for
designation, because USEWS is unable
to define specific areas that are essential
for conservation of the species. Of the
3.6 million acres (1.45 million ha) in
California, Oregon and Washington that
are currently critical habitat, 3.37 mil-
lion acres (1.36 million ha) would be
excluded because those areas are already
protected under the existing Northwest
Eorest Plan, state and tribal management
plans, or habitat conservation plans. An
additional 1.6 million acres (650,000
ha) were considered but not included in
the proposal because USEWS believes
the areas are being managed to meet
the needs of Marbled Murrelets. These
include federal wilderness areas, tribal
conservation easements, and state and
national parks. Of the 222,000 acres
(89,000 ha) still listed as critical habitat
under the proposal, 54,000 acres (22,000
ha) would be newly designated. If the
proposed exclusions are finalized, the
final critical habitat designation will
include about 112,000 acres (45,300 ha)
in California; 83,000 acres (33,600 ha) in
Oregon; and 27,000 acres (10,900 ha) in
Washington. Most of the critical habitat
would be land owned by cities, coun-
ties or states (80%), with the remainder
owned by the private sector (19%) or the
federal government (1%). The proposed
critical habitat is comprised of lands
not covered by a management plan that
provides protection to Marbled Murrelets
and their habitat.

USEWS believes that the vari-
ous management plans in the Pacific
Northwest already provide protection
for murrelet habitat, and that these plans
make the designation of critical habitat
redundant. (However, the federal Bureau
of Land Management is now proposing
to remove all habitat protections in west-
ern Oregon under the Northwest Eorest
Plan). USFWS says the current proposal
recognizes the value of conservation
efforts, and that it encourages landown-
ers and organizations to continue these
endeavors for long-term environmental
benefits.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 18

Conservation Report

The USFWS proposal designates
only those areas of suitable habitat known
to be occupied by Marbled Murrelets
and to contain features essential to the
species’ survival. Under the ESA, areas
designated as “critical habitat” contain
resources essential for the conservation
of a species that is listed as threatened or
endangered, and the areas may require
special management considerations. A
designation does not set up a preserve
or refuge and has no specific regulatory
impact on landowner actions on non-
federal land, unless the actions involve
federal funds, authorization, or permits.
However, landowners must avoid actions
on their property that could harm or kill
protected species or destroy their habitat,
unless they first obtain a permit, regard-
less of whether critical habitat has been
designated. USFWS believes that the
designation of critical habitat provides
little additional protection to most listed
species, while preventing the Service
from using its scarce funds and person-
nel for activities that would have greater
conservation benefits. The agency says
that in almost all cases, recovery of listed
species has come through voluntary
cooperative partnerships, not regulatory
measures such as critical habitat.

In November 2006, PSG filed com-
ments with USFWS objecting to the
agency’s proposal. PSG addressed the
current status of murrelet populations
and their suitable habitat, in addition
to the importance of critical habitat.
PSG also urged USFWS to reconsider
the inclusion of critical marine forag-
ing habitats that are necessary for the
species survival. PSG noted that the
murrelet population of Washington,
Oregon, and California is estimated to
be 22,000 birds. Population modeling
indicates that this population will be
extinct in Oregon and California within
100 years, unless there are changes in the
amount and quality of nesting habitat and
in demographic trends. Fow fecundity
levels imply that this population cannot
currently maintain itself. A high rate of
nest failure is caused primarily by nest
predation, which in turn is affected by
forest fragmentation and proximity to
human development. Thus, in order to
diminish the threat of nest predation and

increase murrelet reproduction, the forest
landscape and its surroundings must be
protected to provide large, contiguous
blocks of suitable nesting habitat.

PSG emphasized that the Marbled
Murrelet was listed in 1992 primarily
because of significant losses of nesting
habitat through logging and develop-
ment in coastal forests of Washington,
Oregon, and California. An objective
of the Marbled Murrelet recovery plan
is to stabilize the population at or near
current levels by maintaining and/or in-
creasing productivity and removing and/
or minimizing threats to survivorship.
PSG noted that the amount of murrelet
nesting habitat has continued to decline
since 1992 and about 10% of suitable
nesting habitat was lost between 1992
and 2003. PSG concluded that reducing
the amount of critical habitat is inadvis-
able at this time, considering the current
status of the population and threats posed
to the population.

SURVEY FINDS CAUSE FOR
CONCERN IN MARBLED
MURRELET’S DECLINE

A population status review by the
U.S. Geological Survey has revealed a
70% decline in Marbled Murrelets in
Alaska and British Columbia during the
last 25 years. USFWS decided in 2006
to request the review of the murrelet’s
status under the ESA, in response to a
lawsuit from the timber industry. The
proposal to remove the bird from the list
of threatened species hinged on grouping
the smaller Pacific Northwest population
with the supposedly more robust popu-
lations in Canada and Alaska {Pacific
Seabirds 32:57-58, 2005).

The status review took a compre-
hensive look at population surveys in
Alaska and British Columbia. It found
that murrelet populations in Alaska have
dropped from an estimated one million
birds less than two decades ago to about
270,000 birds today. The review esti-
mated there are about 54,000 to 92,000
birds in British Columbia, and that they
have experienced similar declines.

The report said that the declines
were estimated for various sites over
essentially the entire northern range of
the species, and it raised concerns about
the species’ status. It found that part, but
not all, of the declines were accounted for
by human causes such as logging, habitat
fragmentation, oil spills, and by catch in
gillnets. It is likely that a combination of
these factors, together with changes in
the prey base, has led to the continued
decline of murrelets in Alaska and Brit-
ish Columbia.

The report also tied part of the
Alaska population to birds in Califor-
nia, which has been a key argument for
American Forest Resources Council and
other groups arguing for its delisting. The
study placed the birds in three groups ge-
netically: central California; the western
and central Aleutian Islands of Alaska;
and the rest of the Aleutians combined
with south and southeast Alaska, British
Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and
northern California.

The American Forest Resources
Council responded that the report con-
tains a lot of good news, including that
timber harvesting is not the main source
of population fluctuations. It asked how
a population that still has hundreds of
thousands of the birds along the Pacific
Coast be listed as threatened.

The full report, “Status Reivew of
the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) in Alaska and British Co-
lumbia,” can be seen at http://pubs.usgs.
gov/of/2006/1387/

ARE IVORY GULLS
ENDANGERED?

Ivory Gulls (Pagophila eburnea)
may be endangered due to global warm-
ing. Apparently the wholesale retreat of
ocean pack ice from shore is a threat to
a species that depends entirely on edges
of sea ice to find food. Moreover, the dis-
appearance of natural barriers that keep
Ivory Gulls safe at their inland breed-
ing sites seems to be a problem. Their
isolated inland nesting havens — usually
outcroppings of barren rock surrounded

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 19

Conservation Report

by ice and snow — can no longer keep
such predators as arctic foxes (Alopex
lagopus) away. Ivory Gulls breed on
remote islands and in coastal zones of
Canada, Greenland, Norway and Rus-
sia. In the early 1970s, aerial surveys
of wintering habitats in Canada and
Greenland indicated as many as 35,000
birds. Recent surveys suggest that the
population has dropped dramatically.
Eastern Canadian populations may have
dropped by 75 percent from 1993, and
by 85 percent since the 1980s, when the
Canadian population was thought to be
about 2400 birds. The latest Canadian
Wildlife Service survey found only 200
Ivory Gulls. In 2006, the World Conser-
vation Union designated the Ivory Gull
as near-threatened, and Canada listed the
bird as a species of special concern under
its Species at Risk Act.

U.S. MAY LIST 10 PENGUIN
SPECIES AS ENDANGERED

In July 2007, the USFWS deter-
mined that listing “may be warranted”
for ten penguin species in South America,
southern Africa and Antarctica. The
agency initiated a formal status review,
the hrst step in the process of listing.
The Center for Biological Diversity had
petitioned to list 12 penguin species,
arguing that their polar habitat is shrink-
ing due to global climate change. In its
petition, the center said industrial hshing
and climate change have led to declines
in penguin species across the Southern
Hemisphere. Krill (Euphausiidae), one
of the penguins’ main sources of food,
has declined severely.

USEWS stated that the petition
included substantial scientihc or com-
mercial information indicating listing
may be warranted for 10 penguins:
Emperor (Aptenodytes forsteri). South-
ern Rockhopper {Eudyptes chrysocome
chrysocome). Northern Rockhopper
{E. c. moseleyi), Eiordland Crested
{E. pachyrhynchus). Erect-crested {E.
sclateri). Macaroni (E. chrysolophus),
African (Spheniscus demersus), Hum-

boldt (S', humboldti), White-flippered
(Eudyptula albosignata albosignata),
and Yellow-eyed (Megadyptes antipo-
des) Penguins. The agency said that the
petition did not contain substantial in-
formation to indicate that listing may be
warranted for the Snares Crested Penguin
(Eudyptes robustus) or the Royal Pen-
guin {E. schlegeli).

USFWS will take public comment
on the penguins and should decide within
a year whether or not to formally propose
a threatened or endangered listing. The
agency is asking for information on the
penguins, the effects of climate change
on the species, and information on other
threats, such as commercial hshing.

PROGRESS IN LONGLINE
EISHERIES DETERRENCE
IN THE PACIEIC

In December 2006 the Western and
Central Pacihc Fisheries Commission, a
regional hsheries management organiza-
tion that controls hshing in international
waters, adopted new measures to prevent
the incidental take of seabirds by longline
hshing vessels in the Pacihc. This is the
hrst tuna commission to make use of at
least two deterrent measures to prevent
seabird bycatch. The new rules will apply
to all vessels hshing in “albatross wa-
ters” — those above 23° north or below
30° south latitude. The introduction of the
new rules will be staggered. Small ves-
sels in the South Pacihc, where Taiwan
operates about 1000 small vessels, do not
have to comply with the new rules until
December 2009.

CRIMINAL CHARGES
EILED IN DEATH OE 400
TERNS

In June 2006, a colony of Caspian
and Elegant Terns {Sterna caspia and
Thalasseus elegans) on two barges

anchored in Long Beach harbor, Cali-
fornia, was destroyed when one of the
barges was towed to another location.
The colony, which numbered up to 1 ,000
pairs, was unusual in this area. One of the
barges was towed to Santa Barbara for a
Fourth of July hreworks show, but was
forced by the U.S. Coast Guard to return
to port because its permits were not in
order. After the barge was towed away,
over 400 dead tern chicks were found
washed ashore along with 23 live birds.
Upon the barge’s return the International
Bird Rescue Research Center says that
it was “absolutely clean” of bird drop-
pings while the barge that remained was
cleared of birds.

The California Department of Fish
and Game and USFWS investigated to
determine if there were any violations
of law. In January 2007 the agencies
forwarded the results of a seven-month
investigation to the Long Beach City at-
torney’s office for criminal prosecution.
In late May 2007, three tugboat operators
were accused of intentionally destroying
the young terns and were charged with
seven misdemeanor counts, including
animal cruelty. If the men are convicted,
they will face up to a year in jail for each
count. The attorney for the defendants
stated that his clients “had no ill will”
and inadvertently scared the birds off a
barge they had intended to tow to Santa
Barbara. He stated that the men did not
use high-pressure hoses to spray the nest-
ing birds from the barge. The trial has not
yet taken place.

During summer 2007, about 250
Caspian Terns nested and raised chicks
on the deck of the Arctic Challenger,
a 300-foot icebreaker barge anchored
off the shores of Long Beach. This is a
different barge than where the incident
occurred in 2006, and the owner prom-
ised not to disturb the boat until the birds
migrate later this summer. This was the
third time in three years that Caspian
Terns have established a nesting presence
in San Pedro Bay, apparently drawn to
the bay by schools of anchovies. Barges
offer relative isolation from predators
and human populations and the harbor
is near long-established nesting sites at
Bolsa Chica State Beach.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 20

Conservation Report

CHEVRON ABANDONS
CORONADO LNG PROJECT

In March 2007, the Chevron Corpo-
ration abandoned plans to build a $650
million liquefied natural gas (LNG)
receiving terminal near the Coronado
Islands in northern Baja California, Mex-
ico. PSG and other conservation groups
had objected to the facility because of
probable impacts on Xantus’s Murrelet
{Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) and
five other seabirds listed as threatened
or endangered in Mexico and/or the US
(Pacific Seabirds 31:6-7, 2004). The
company withdrew the three key Mexi-
can permits that were required to develop
the project.

Despite ongoing opposition to the
terminal since it was proposed in 2003,
Chevron said the decision was based on
its business needs. Chevron decided to
ship the natural gas from its Greater Gor-
gon gas fields off northwest Australia to
Japan instead of to the Coronado Islands.
Initially, Chevron designed its facility for
the offshore islands because residents
and environmentalists objected to plans
by other companies to build LNG ter-
minals on the coast. The southernmost
of the islands was to have served as a
breakwater for a 980-foot-long concrete
island with two regasification plants,
storage tanks, a heliport, and a dock.
About four LNG tankers would have
berthed at the plant each week.

Opponents of the facility petitioned
the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation, an agency created by the
North American Free Trade Agreement
to study environmental issues (Pacific
Seabirds 32:15-16, 2005). In February,
the Secretariat of the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation recom-
mended an investigation into whether the
Mexican government followed its own
environmental laws in issuing permits
to Chevron for the Coronado project.
Specifically, they called for examination
of whether the government correctly
analyzed alternatives to the project, the
impacts of the terminal on endangered
species, or the cumulative effects on
the Coronados ecosystem. It is unclear
whether this recommendation lead to
Chevron’s announcement that it was

abandoning the project. There is specula-
tion that the plan was no longer feasible
for business reasons, because Sempra
Energy LNG and Shell International Gas
Ltd. were cooperating to build a compet-
ing LNG terminal at Costa Azul, 22 km
north of Ensenada, Mexico.

BLACK-EOOTED
ALBATROSS IN CANADA

Canada’s Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife has assessed the
Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria ni-
gripes) as a species of “Special Concern
in Canada.” This committee is the inde-
pendent scientific body that determines
species status in Canada. After the initial
assessment, any species that has been
identified as “at risk” is reviewed by
government for formal listing under the
Species at Risk Act. A decision whether
to list the Black-footed Albatross will
likely be made by 2008. Although Ca-
nadian waters represent only a small
proportion of the species’ range, listing
would be a formal recognition of the fact
that Canada is one of the countries with
responsibility for it.

USEWS TO CONSIDER
PROTECTION STATUS OE
YELLOW-BILLED LOON

In June 2007, the USEWS an-
nounced that it is considering giving
Yellow-Billed Loons (Gavia adamsii)
protected status under the Endangered
Species Act. The agency made the de-
cision to seek public comment on the
status of the bird following a petition
submitted to it three years ago by several
environmental groups. The groups argue
that the species’ breeding habitat in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
is under threat from increased oil and
natural gas drilling. Following a 90-day
public comment period, USEWS may
issue a proposed rule to protect the loons.

USEWS estimates there are 16,500 Yel-
low-Billed Loons in the world, including
3700 to 4900 that breed in Alaska. More
than 75% of Alaskan breeders nest in
the petroleum reserve. Smaller numbers
breed on the Seward Peninsula and St.
Lawrence Island. [See also “Committee
Reports,” page 32]

CASPIAN TERN UPDATE

In November 2006 the USEWS pub-
lished its Record of Decision on manage-
ment of Caspian Terns (Sterna caspia) in
the Columbia River estuary. PSG filed
comments with federal agencies con-
cerning the issues to be addressed in the
environmental impact statement (EIS)
(Pacific Seabirds 30:11-12, 2003) and
on the draft environmental impact state-
ment (Pacific Seabirds 31:51-52, 2004).
Under the terms of the settlement in a law
suit brought by conservation groups, the
Final EIS and Record of Decision were to
be completed by February 2005. While
the federal government did not meet the
schedule, the terns were not harmed by
the delay. Caspian Terns on East Sand
Island continue to do well, with 9201
breeding pairs in 2006, near the peak
count of 2003. The sharp growth in the
colony that was projected in the EIS has
not occurred.

The major change in the final EIS
is that new habitat for tern nesting at
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge
has been eliminated from the document,
due to objections by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. To compensate for
loss of this proposed new colony site,
tern numbers and habitat area have been
adjusted upward for East Sand Island.
USEWS originally wanted to reduce the
numbers of Caspian Terns at East Sand
Island to 2500 to 3125 pairs. The Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) prepares habi-
tat for the terns on East Sand Island each
spring, currently treating 2.4 ha. Tern
numbers on the island will be reduced
by preparation of a smaller habitat area.
USEWS originally proposed to reduce the
prepared habitat to 0.4-1 ha. However,

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 21

Conservation Report

the agency has now boosted the number
of terns to 3125-4375, and 0.6-0.8 ha of
habitat will be prepared. During recent
years the terns have been using about
1.8 ha of the 2.4 ha prepared for them.
No lethal control will be authorized to
achieve the desired numbers.

Caspian Tern nesting sites that will
be established or expanded include two
in San Francisco Bay, about 960 km
from East Sand Island: the Don Ed-
wards National Wildlife Refuge (0.2 to
0.4 ha; about 3000 terns), and Hayward
Regional Shoreline (0.2 ha; about 3000
terns). If these sites attract terns within
three years, a third San Erancisco Bay
site (0.4 ha on Brooks Island) would not
be enhanced. Other sites where the agen-
cies hope to attract nesting terns include
three in central Oregon: Eern Ridge (0.4
ha). Summer Lake (0.6 ha) and Crump
Lake (0.4 ha). No sites are chosen in
Washington State. There is supposed to
be a 2: 1 ratio for replacement habitat — 2
ha are to be established for each hectare
lost on East Sand Island. If more habitat
is established later, the habitat and num-
ber of terns at the East Sand Island could
decrease further.

While the redistribution of the terns
is expected to be completed between
2010 and 2015, it is uncertain when
the project will be begin. The COE is
responsible for the estimated $2.4 mil-
lion in first-year construction and habitat
enhancement costs. Congress did not
appropriate funds for alternative nesting
habitat in 2007, so the COE prepared 2.4
ha of habitat on East Sand Island again,
as it has done for many years. Until Con-
gress appropriates funds, 2.4 ha of habitat
will be prepared each year, because new
habitat must be established before the
habitat on East Sand Island decreases.
In addition, USEWS is responsible for
population monitoring, which is esti-
mated to cost from $ 100,000 to $269,000
a year. USEWS already has a network in
place reporting on tern numbers on East
Sand and Crescent Islands.

The COE still owns East Sand
Island, despite PSG’s advocating for
at least seven years that it be placed
in a National Wildlife Refuge {Pacific

Seabirds 27:65, 2000; Pacific Seabirds
30:12, 2003).

The full EIS can be seen at www.
fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/CATE.
htm

SUCCESSFUL RAT
PROJECT IN THE BONIN
ISLANDS

Tatsuo Yabe, a rodent ecologist
with Rat Control Consulting in Japan,
has eradicated roof rats (Rattus rattus)
on a 49-ha island, Nishijima, in the
Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands. His group
distributed diphacinone rodenticides
on the island in March 2007, and then
checked the results in April and early
September by setting live traps and ob-
serving rat sign. They could not find any
signs of living rats. They will check again
in October and hope then to be able to
declare their success publicly.

The group set about 800 bait boxes,
which were made from plastic T-joints of
pipes to prevent hermit crabs (Paguroi-
dea) from entering. The bait boxes were
set all over the island at 25 m intervals.
Once the rats are eradicated, ecosystem
recovery will be monitored by ornitholo-
gists, entomologists and plant ecologists.
Yabe found that the food for the rats was
in short supply in Eebruary and March,
which made that season the best time to
conduct the eradication campaign.

CALIFORNIA’S MARINE
LIFE PROTECTION ACT
LAUNCHED

In September 2007, California’s
Marine Life Protection Act went into
effect in the law’s Central Coast Region,
from Santa Barbara County to San Ma-
teo County. The central region will be
composed of 29 marine protected areas,
representing approximately 530 km^

(about 18% of state waters in that area).
The designation significantly increases
the protection that marine life in each
area receives, including long-term safe
havens for various species of fish and
other marine life. The program was de-
signed to improve conservation of marine
resources for their long-term sustainable
use, while also enhancing outdoor recre-
ation and ocean research opportunities
along the coast.

The network of marine protected
areas includes: (1)15 State Marine Con-
servation Areas, which limit recreational
and commercial fishing; (2) 13 State Ma-
rine Reserves, where no take is allowed;
and (3) one State Marine Recreational
Managed Area, where recreational fish-
ing is limited or restricted. Ninety per-
cent of the central coast remains open to
fishing. A main goal of the Marine Life
Protection Act is to utilize the protected
areas as research sites where scientists
can gain a greater understanding of Cali-
fornia’s marine and coastal environment,
including interactions by animals and
plants where human disturbance is low or
absent. The second phase of the initiative,
covering the North Central Coast region
from San Mateo County to Mendocino
County, is underway.

Eor more information see www.dfg.
ca.gov/mlpa.

MARINE RESERVES IN
OREGON

PSG wrote to Oregon’s Ocean
Policy Advisory Council in April 2007
to support the establishment of a system
of marine reserves in Oregon’s coastal
waters, and urged that the council rec-
ognize the importance of certain areas
of the ocean for marine birds. PSG noted
that marine birds are top predators and
require healthy stocks of forage fish
and invertebrates for their continued
success, but that these resources are
patchily distributed and are strongly
influenced by oceanographic features.
In particular, PSG pointed to three at-sea
areas in Oregon that are outstanding in

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 22

Conservation Report

their importance for foraging sea birds:
Astoria Canyon, Heceta/Stonewall Banks,
and Cape Blanco/Port Orford Reef. PSG
emphasized the limited information on use
of at-sea areas by marine birds, noting the
inability of scientists to adequately explain
the current die-off of puffins and auklets
off Oregon’s coast. PSG also noted that
Oregon’s three federal wildlife refuges
(Oregon Islands, Cape Meares, and Three
Arch Rocks) protect the nesting sites of
birds but have no jurisdiction over the sur-
rounding ocean habitat. Marine reserves
near those refuges seem to be opportunities
that the council should explore. Finally,
PSG suggested that the federal govern-
ment should follow Oregon’s lead in state
waters and establish similar reserve areas
in federal waters off the Oregon coast.

Scott McMullen, Chairman of the
Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council,

thanked PSG for our views on the im-
portance of seabirds in planning marine
reserves. He pledged to give thoughtful
consideration to areas around major
seabird areas as potential candidate sites
for the state’s limited system of reserves.
He noted that the governor’s office had
already indicated a desire that the council
work closely with USFWS in planning
marine reserves in Oregon.

VISITS TO MIDWAY ATOLL
MAY RESUME

Midway Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge may reopen to visitors on a
limited basis. Access was largely cut
off in 2002 when USFWS ’s sole tourist
operator pulled out, saying it was difficult

to make a profit on trips to the remote
atoll {Pacific Seabirds 29:10-11, 2002).
USFWS is working on a draft plan and
may start a regularly scheduled visitor
program that would probably accom-
modate about 30 visitors at a time. The
public can currently only get to the island
by boarding a cruise from Asia, hitching
a ride with resident government workers,
or volunteering for three months of en-
vironmental duty. Midway, located 2000
km northwest of Honolulu, is at the tip of
the new Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
Marine National Monument {Pacific
Seabirds 33:19, 2006). The atoll provides
nesting habitat for hundreds of thousands
of seabirds, including Laysan {Phoe-
bastria immutabilis) and Black-footed
Albatrosses, Bonin Petrels {Pterodroma
hypoleuca), and Red-tailed Tropicbirds
{Phaethon rubric auda).

CORRECTION

Due to an editorial error, the wrong Conservation Report was published in the Fall 2006 Pacific
Seabirds (volume 33, number 2). Most of that Conservation Report had appeared already in a previ-
ous issue. The correct Conservation Report for Fall 2006 is printed in this issue, starting on the next
page. The editor apologizes to the readers for this mistake. I especially apologize to Craig Harrison,
the Associate Editor for Conservation, who works very hard to assemble each Conservation Report.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 23

CONSERVATION REPORT FOR FALL 2006

Compiled by Craig Harrison

The following Conservation Report was omitted by mistake from the previous issue of Pacific Seabirds
(Volume 33, Number 2). Some items that are updated in the Spring 2007 Report (above) are not included below.

PSG SUPPORTS DELISTING
THE CALIEORNIA BROWN
PELICAN

In December 2005, the Endangered
Species Recovery Council filed peti-
tions to remove the California Brown
Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis cali-
fornicus) from the state and federal lists
of endangered species (Pacific Seabirds
33:20, 2006). Following the Executive
Council’s conference-call meeting in
summer 2006, PSG sent letters to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) in support of these
petitions. PSG noted its strong interest
in the conservation of the California
Brown Pelican, including its support of
proposals by federal and state trustees
to spend money from several pollution
settlement funds to beneht California
Brown Pelicans, including the Ameri-
can Trader and Jacob Luckenbach oil
spill trust funds and from the Montrose
DDT settlements. PSG also noted that
it had petitioned USFWS and the State
of California to list the Xantus’s Mur-
relet {Synthliboramphus hypoleucus),
which resulted in California listing that
species as threatened. PSG emphasized
that it has approached this issue from an
even-handed scientihc perspective and
has concluded from all available infor-
mation that the California Brown Pelican
has fully recovered. Thus, it no longer
warrants being listed as “endangered”
because it is not currently in danger
of extinction. Nor should it be merely
down-listed to “threatened” because it is
not likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future.

A CDFG memorandum in early
October 2006 found that “the petitioned
action may be warranted, and that
the petition should be accepted and

considered.” The California Fish and
Game Commission is expected to accept
the hnding of “warranted” before the
end of this year, which would begin the
formal notice-and-comment process to
remove the subspecies from the state list.
USFWS is expected to make its decision
on whether to propose delisting by late
2006 or early 2007.

PSG ASKS USEWS
TO REMOVE LEAD
PAINT EROM MIDWAY
ALBATROSS COLONY

Acting in concert with the American
Bird Conservancy and other conservation
organizations, PSG requested that the
U.S. Department of the Interior make the
remediation of lead paint from 95 build-
ings on Midway Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge a high priority, and to provide
funds to prevent the continued poisoning
of thousands of Lay san Albatross chicks.
The cost of completing this work is esti-
mated to be about $6 million.

Midway Atoll supports the world’s
largest breeding population of Lay san Al-
batross (Phoebastria immutabilis). Aging
US Navy structures and other buildings
on Sand Island have been shedding chips
of lead-based paint for decades. Many
historic buildings were constructed dur-
ing World War II and have been painted
repeatedly with this paint. Deteriora-
tion of the buildings in the warm salt
air has peeled off the paint, depositing
lead-laced paint chips near the buildings
and throughout Sand Island. Laysan
Albatross chicks ingest these chips and
suffer lead poisoning, which may be
killing thousands of chicks per year. An
obvious symptom of poisoning in the

albatross chicks is a crippling condition
known as “droopwing,” and damage to
various internal organs is likely. Lead
levels in the blood of chicks with droop-
wing are ten times the concentration that
would be considered lead poisoning in
humans. With the recent designation
of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a
National Monument, PSG believes that
the time is ripe to resolve this conserva-
tion problem. Efforts in 2003 to fence
areas to protect Laysan albatross chicks
were generally a failure, as were efforts
in 2004 and 2005 to place tarps around
some of the buildings.

USEWS PROPOSES
TO AMEND LIST OE
MIGRATORY BIRDS

USFWS has proposed to amend the
list of migratory birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the
hrst such amendments in more than 20
years. It proposes adding 152 species and
removing 12 from the list of protected
migratory birds, which will bring the
total number of species protected by the
MBTA to 972. The Migratory Bird Treaty
Act is one of the nation’s earliest conser-
vation laws, enacted in 1918 to imple-
ment a series of treaties for the protec-
tion of shared migratory bird resources
signed by the United States with Canada,
Mexico, and eventually also with Japan
and Russia. The MBTA prohibits take of
protected species, their nests, and eggs,
except as authorized and permitted by
USFWS. Some of the treaties list groups
of birds that are to be protected, rather
than individual species.

One hundred forty -nine species are
proposed for addition: 2 that are covered

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 24

CONSERVATION REPORT for EALL 2006

by Japanese and Russian treaties, but that
were mistakenly omitted from the 1985
list; 26 species that were documented ac-
cidentally or occasionally in the United
States prior to April 1985, but that were
not included in that list; 60 species
whose occurrence in the United States
was conhrmed only since April 1985;
27 species that occur naturally in the
US-associated Pacihc Islands, although
not in the 50 states; and 37 that were for-
merly considered subspecies of protected
species and were recently elevated to full
species status.

The 12 species proposed for removal
from the list include 1 1 that are no lon-
ger recognized as occurring within the
boundaries of the United States, and one
that is now treated as a subspecies of a
still-protected species.

Among the added species are four
albatrosses, eight petrels, three storm-
petrels, and the Long-billed Murrelet
{Brachyramphus perdix). The complete
list can be found at http://migratorybirds.
fws.gov

RULE EXEMPTING DOD
FROM MIGRATORY
BIRD TREATY NEARS
FINALIZATION

A long-awaited Interior Department
rule is expected effectively to exempt the
Department of Defense (DOD) from the
MBTA. The military is said to be happy
with the hnal rule, which is undergoing
hnal review before going into effect.
The defense authorization bill for Fiscal
Year 2003 provided DOD with a blanket
exemption from MBTA restrictions for
military readiness activities, until the In-
terior Department developed regulations
that would allow DOD to incidentally
“take” migratory birds under MBTA dur-
ing its training exercises. The new rule is
Interior’s response to the requirement.

The MBTA prohibits any harm or
killing of designated migratory birds
(termed “take” in the law). Environ-
mental groups disagree with the rule that
was proposed in 2004, saying it limits

oversight; this problem may not have
changed substantially in the hnal rule. A
2000 ruling by the US Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
in Humane Society v. GUckman found
that federal facilities are subject to the
MBTA. The Navy’s conduct of training
activities in the Northern Mariana Islands
violated the MBTA, according to the
outcome of a 2002 lawsuit, although the
judge ultimately decided not to issue an
injunction.

KAUAI DIMS LIGHTS
TO SAVE CRASHING
SHEARWATERS AND
PETRELS

In a novel use of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), USEWS is insisting
that businesses and the county of Kauai
turn down their lights at night. The
agency is concerned about three seabirds
that breed on Kauai: the endangered Ha-
waiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichen-
sis), the threatened Newell’s Shearwater
{Puffmus newelli), and the Band-rumped
Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma castro; this
species may soon be listed pursuant to a
May 1989 petition by Craig Harrison).
Artihcial lights can confuse nocturnal-
nesting seabirds and cause them to crash
into telephone lines and other objects,
especially on moonless nights. Easily
confused juveniles make up the bulk of
downed birds on Kauai. Injured and dead
birds have been found along the island’s
roadsides for decades. People who hnd
downed birds can deposit them in over-
night boxes at hre stations all over the
island. Specialists pick up the birds in the
morning and take them to a veterinarian,
where about 95% recover.

USEWS has asked that all nones-
sential lights at malls, resorts, parking
lots and restaurants be turned off between
September 15 and December 15, when
juvenile birds leave their nests for the
open sea. The Kauai Island Utility Co-
operative has darkened all of its 3000
streetlights, turning some off completely
and shielding others. The utility has also

installed large balls on its power lines to
help flying birds avoid the cables. The
electric utility runs the program as part
of its downed-bird mitigation plan with
USEWS. The County of Kauai, which
oversees the airport and many parks,
has also been put on notice. Businesses
likewise are being asked to cooperate.
USEWS has told Norwegian Cruise
Line that passenger boats must turn off
or shield nonessential lights. In addition,
the Kauai Seabird Habitat Conservation
Plan’s coordinator contacts businesses
near where dead or injured birds have
been found and urges the establishments
to voluntarily dim their lights.

While a bird-rescue operation has
been in place on Kauai for 25 years,
some seabird populations have declined,
although it is difficult to undertake an
accurate census of nocturnal burrow-
nesting species. It appears that lights and
obstructions are contributing greatly to
the declines. Under the ESA, it is illegal
to “take” a listed species. “Take” under
this law means to kill, hunt, harm, or
harass the animal or to harm its envi-
ronment; “take” need not be intentional.
USEWS contends that lights and obstruc-
tions on Kauai are causing take.

SEABIRD WRECK ON
UNALASKA ISLAND

In September 2006, thousands of
seabirds died over a two-day period
near Unalaska, in the Aleutian Islands
of Alaska. Several hundred Sooty Shear-
waters {Pujfinus griseus) died after flying
into a crabbing boat in Unalaska Bay, a
phenomenon that lasted half an hour.
The crew threw the dead and dying birds
overboard. Biologists found more than
1600 bird carcasses on shores near homes
in Unalaska and along beaches outside
the community. Most birds did not appear
to be thin and were not oiled, although
some had twisted necks as if they had
smashed into something. Among contrib-
uting factors in these “wrecks” may be
the process of molting, when the birds’
ability to fly can be compromised, or
starvation.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 25

CONSERVATION REPORT for EALL 2006

MANAGING RAT
INVASIONS IN ALASKA

PSG commented in August 2006
on the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game’s draft, “Wildlife and Humans
at Risk: A Plan for Returning Alaska to
its Rat-Free State.” The plan contains a
needs assessment and a strategic action
plan aimed at preventing rats (Rattus
spp.) from being introduced into areas
that would harm wildlife in Alaska. Rats
are especially likely to colonize an island
when an infested vessel anchors nearby
or is wrecked there. The plan also focuses
on eradicating rats where they occur,
and on restoring rat-damaged habitats,
especially in seabird-rich areas such as
the Aleutian Islands.

PSG strongly supported the prepara-
tion of the rat plan. PSG urged that the
hnal report make major strides toward a
concrete action plan. The needs assess-
ment (existing conditions, rat biology,
the Alaskan infrastructure) is important
for persuading some that rats are a real
problem. However, a strategic action
plan is the part that will ultimately pay
off. PSG urged more focus on the im-
mediate actions that would be needed to
stop rats during a crisis.

PSG asked for more details on how
an inter-agency team would respond
to a “rat spill” from a wrecked vessel,
including which agency would actually
lead, which others would follow, and
a description of the responsibilities of
each. It is proposed that an Alaska In-
vasive Rodent Advisory Committee be
established; this might develop many
of the action plan’s details and address
federal and state jurisdictional issues.
PSG noted the key role of the U.S. Coast
Guard. As hrst responders, the Coast
Guard is critical for preventing rodent
colonization from shipwrecks, and is also
the port inspector with the authority to
quarantine cargo to avoid rodent infesta-
tions. Clarifying responsibilities would
be a major contribution to preventing
rat invasions and hopefully would result
is an approach that would allow inter-
agency teams to respond if a catastrophe
were to occur this winter.

PSG emphasized that the report

should address rodent control verses
eradication issues. Eradication may be
impossible or very costly in many situ-
ations (it depends on remoteness, size
of island, non-target species, landscape
challenges, etc.), so the ongoing costs
of control and the risk of bait resistance
should be examined in more detail.

PSG COMMENTS ON
NATIONAL SCIENCE
REPORT ON OCEAN
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY

PSG commented on a draft plan by
a National Science committee entitled
“Charting the Course for Ocean Science
in the United States: Research Priorities
for the Next Decade” in October 2006.
The draft plan is a needs assessment and a
strategic action plan that contains national
ocean research priorities for the coming
decade. PSG applauded the effort by the
Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science
and Technology to provide US institu-
tions and agencies a template that will
guide ocean research for the next decade,
and urged that the hnal report provide a
concrete plan of action plan.

PSG highlighted a failure of the plan
to acknowledge the increasingly impor-
tant role of seabirds and other apex preda-
tors as indicators of ecosystem function
and health. Seabirds are secondary and
tertiary consumers, the same trophic level
as commercially exploited hsh. Moreover,
seabird prey includes the juveniles of
many commercial species. In some cases,
seabirds may compete with hsh for the
same prey. For all these reasons, seabirds
can be excellent samplers of hsheries
stocks. PSG noted that because seabirds
are conspicuous, accessible, and sensitive
to physical and biological huctuations in
the marine environment, they can provide
an early warning of toxins and contami-
nant accumulation, and can signal natural
or human-caused changes in the ocean
environment. Upper-trophic-level preda-
tors are more sensitive indicators of en-

vironmental shifts than are most physical
measures. In the Pacihc Ocean, changes
in seabird productivity and survival rates
were among the hrst reported indications
of large-scale impacts associated with El
Nino and La Nina.

PSG also observed that the docu-
ment’s overriding emphasis is on human
use of ocean resources or ocean-related
impacts on humans. Even if a human-
centered approach is necessary, it will
not be possible to understand the marine
ecosystem and the issues without attention
to the middle and upper trophic levels.
Eurthermore, there is little attention to the
government’s role as a trustee for natural
resources or its responsibility to regulate
contaminants, fishery harvests, or the
maintenance of healthy populations of
seabirds and marine mammals.

The draft report leaps from physical
oceanography to humans, with minimal
attention to productivity, coral reef sys-
tems, pathogens, invasive species, etc.
The intermediate and upper ecosystem
components (hshes, birds, mammals) only
appear to be implied. This approach could
lead to flawed programs. Eor example,
the research plan ignores the potential
for “top-down” impacts on ecosystems
and ocean regimes, and appears to as-
sume “bottom-up” control, which has
not always been supported. One example
is the potential “top-down” force on the
recruitment and abundance of commer-
cially important fish species by larger fish,
seabirds, and marine mammals. Higher
trophic levels are mentioned within the
context of large-scale ecosystem mod-
els, but fully understanding interactions
among trophic levels will require addi-
tional approaches.

PSG supported the acquisition and
management of up-to-date data, and
enhanced communication, availability of
databases, GIS applications, and model-
ing. PSG added that the plan should
recognize the existence of many valuable
data sets that, for lack of support, are not
currently fully integrated into accessible
databases. These data sources could prove
valuable in evaluating long-term changes,
as well as the validation of new models.

Einally, PSG strongly supported the

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 26

CONSERVATION REPORT for EALL 2006

suggestion to share research platforms
among different aspects of ocean science
research, as well as emphasizing long-
term observation systems. To be success-
ful, a program must approach both of these
goals by fully incorporating the middle
and upper trophic levels in its conception
and operation. Because seabirds are long-
lived and are among the most conspicuous
and easily studied of marine organisms,
they can play an important role as moni-
tors, sensors, and indicators of marine
ecosystem health and dynamics.

JOIN PSG ONLINE

PSG’s web site (http://www.pacif-
icseabirdgroup.org) has a Membership
page where you can join PSG or renew
your membership. Online payments are
processed through “PayPal,” a system for
secure credit-card transactions.

The Membership page recently
experienced a few problems, but it has
now been updated and the PayPal but-
tons are working again. Once you are on
the Membership page, select the type of
membership you want, then the buttons
that route you to PayPal. If you already
have a PayPal account, you can skip
some steps and transfer money directly
to PSG.

We have also added buttons that
allow you to donate directly to the PSG

THIRD NORTHWESTERN
HAWAIIAN ISLAND
SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS

The proceedings from the Third
Northwestern Hawaiian Island Scien-
tific Symposium are available online.
In addition, historical issues of the Atoll
Research Bulletin are also available, sev-
eral of which focus on the Northwestern

PSG NEWS

General fund, PSG Conservation Fund,
or PSG Student Travel Fund. Try these
out!

If you encounter any problems
with the Membership/Donation page
or PayPal, please contact the Treasurer,
Ron Le Valley, at membership@pacific-
seabirdgroup.org or ron@madriverbio.
com

NON-US MEMBERS ARE
RENEWING ONLINE

For the convenience of many mem-
bers who reside outside the United
States, PSG maintained bank accounts

Hawaiian Islands. The Smithsonian Insti-
tution, Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit,
and Hawaii-Pacific Islands Cooperative
Studies Unit made these resources widely
available. See http://www.botany.hawaii.
edu/faculty/duffy/atoll.htm

for several years in two other countries,
Canada and the United Kingdom. Most
non-US members have now switched to
joining or renewing online (see preced-
ing article). This is especially convenient
because your credit-card company will
automatically convert the payment to US
dollars. Activity in PSG’s non-US bank
accounts has been very low recently, and
therefore they have been closed.

If you live outside the US, but it is
not convenient for you to join or renew
via the web site, you may download a
membership form from the site. Or you
may contact the Treasurer, Ron Le Valley,
at membership@ pacific seabirdgroup . org
or ron@madriverbio.com. Other contact
information for Ron is on the inside cov-
ers of this issue.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 27

PSG NEWS

MOVING? UPDATE YOUR
ADDRESS WITH PSG!

Have you moved recently? Filed
your change of address with the U.S.
Postal Service, but forgotten to let PSG
know? If that’s true, and if you’re read-
ing this, it’s probably the last Pacific
Seabirds you’ll get for awhile.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will
forward Pacific Seabirds to you if they
have your change of address. They also
let us know your new address, and we
update our records. But there are some
problems with this:

• The Postal Service will forward the

journal for only 12 months. At that
point you will stop getting it; your
copy is returned to PSG.

• After 1 8 months PSG will not be noti-

fied of your new address, because
the USPS computer deletes it. Your
Pacific Seabirds is returned with
“Not Known” stamped on it. Then
we have to enter a blank in our mail-
ing list after your name, and you
won’t get any mail from PSG until
you send us a new address.

• All forwarded or returned mail costs

us money. PSG has to pay extra for
each such item (because we pay a
low “bulk” rate for the initial mail-
ing). For a recent issue, 26 journals
were forwarded or returned, for
which we paid $69.50 above the
original mailing cost.

PSG cannot re-forward your mail
when is returned to us, and we cannot
we track you down if we don’t have your
mailing address. We are happy to update
your address if we know it. However,
our nonexistent staff does not have the
time (or money) to pursue your problem
further.

Mail sent outside the U.S. is subject
to different rules, but some of those Pa-
cific Seabirds also are returned each year
(and also cost us money).

Please let PSG know when you
move! The Keeper of the Mailing List is
the PSG treasurer, Ron Le Valley. Contact
him at membership@pacificseabird-
group.org or ron@madriverbio.com.
Additional contact information for Ron
is on the inside covers of this issue.

PACIFIC SEABIRDS WILL
GO MOSTLY ELECTRONIC

Starting in 2009, Pacific Seabirds
will be mailed only to those members
who specifically request it. All members
who do not request a hard copy of Pacific
Seabirds via mail will be able to down-
load every issue from the PSG website,
www.pacificseabirds.org The paper and
electronic versions of the journal will still
look the same.

Volume 34 (2007) and Volume 35
(2008) will continue to arrive in the mail
as usual, in addition to being posted on
the website. You are welcome to con-
tinue receiving Pacific Seabirds in the
mail as long as you wish. However, any
member who wants to continue receiving
copies by mail after 2008 must contact
the Treasurer, Ron Le Valley. His e-mail
is ron@madriverbio.com; phone (707)
326-0300; address Mad River Biologists,
920 Samoa Blvd., Suite 210, Areata, CA
95521, USA.

The PSG Executive Council decided
in favor of distributing Pacific Seabirds
electronically because many journals
already are electronic (including our
other journal. Marine Ornithology), and
because the change will save printing
and mailing costs. Some people prefer
to receive their journals online. However,
we will continue to send Pacific Seabirds
through the mail to anyone who requests
it, because some members cannot get it
over the Internet conveniently or may
just prefer a paper copy.

Libraries will automatically con-
tinue to receive Pacific Seabirds through
the mail, since this can be important for
reliable archiving.

(This notice will be repeated in the
next 3 issues of Pacific Seabirds.)

NOMINATE SOMEONE FOR
A PSG AWARD

PSG gives two awards for contribu-
tions to seabird research, conservation, or
education. Any member may nominate a
person for PSG’s Lifetime Achievement
Award (LAA) or Special Achievement
Award (SAA). The LAA is given in
honor of highly significant, long-term
contributions in the field of seabird
work, in the Pacific or worldwide; the
SAA is given for outstanding service to
PSG or for exemplary accomplishment
for seabirds.

To nominate someone, submit a one-
page summary of the person’s accom-
plishments and contributions to the Past
Chair, who is coordinator of the Awards
Committee, by 30 June of any year.

If your candidate is approved by the
Executive Council, you will participate
in the awards ceremony at PSG’s Annual
Meeting. You will give a short talk (15-
30 minutes) about the individual’s career
and accomplishments. The tribute will
be based information from the person,
and possibly from his or her colleagues;
it often includes photographs of past
activities.

Pacific Seabirds publishes a written
report on each award in the next issue.
You should submit a short article (1-5
pages), based on your presentation at
the awards ceremony, in time for that
issue’s deadline.

PSG welcomes nominations from
any member. In some years we may give
no awards, if suitable candidates are not
approved.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1* Spring 2007 • Page 28

PSG MEETING NEWS

2007 PSG MEETING AT
ASILOMAR

PSG members in sun, Asilomar’s Hearst Hall

PSG’s 34th Annual Meeting was
held on 7-11 February 2007 at Asilomar,
Pacific Grove, California. PSG held most
of its early meetings at Asilomar, includ-
ing 4 of the first 5 (starting in 1975). In
2007, we returned to this venue for the
first time in 20 years. To some longtime
PSG members, our meeting at this cen-
tury-old conference center in its forest by
the sea was a bit like coming home.

Verena Gill, PSG’s Chair-elect, or-
ganized a stimulating scientific program.
The schedule included 119 oral presenta-
tions and 48 poster presentations, includ-
ing 29 talks and 19 posters from students.
Presenters traveled to the meeting from
across the globe: North America, Japan,
Poland, Peru, New Zealand, China,
Germany, Scotland, England, Eritrea,
Erance, and Norway.

There were two plenary lectures.
Henri Weimerskirch presented “Enrag-
ing strategies of seabirds in relation
to environmental conditions.” Weim-
erskirch is a research director at the
Centre d’etudes biologiques de Chize,
Erance. He specializes in albatross life-
history strategies in the Southern Ocean
and on the foraging ecology of tropical
seabirds, especially boobies and frigate-
birds. Michael P. Harris spoke on “The
Isle of May long-term murre study: from
mundane monitoring to scintillating sci-
ence.” Harris is an Emeritus Eellow at
the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at
Banchory, Scotland. He focused on the

PSG 2007 banquet audience: Bob Pitman, Ken Morgan, Pat Baird (face hidden), Lisa Ballance,
Hanna Herron, Doug Forsell, Aravis Herron, Lora Leschman, Joe Herron, and Bill Hebner.

results of a 25 -year study of individually
marked Common Murres.

Instead of a third plenary lecture,
Dan Anderson and Craig Harrison pre-
sented a debate panel. Dan spoke on
“Point-counterpoint? — Some myths and
points surrounding a relisting proposal
for the California Brown Pelican,” and
Craig countered with “Recognizing the
recovery of the ‘endangered’ California
Brown Pelican.” (The debaters agreed
on many issues and were 100% profes-
sional. Some in the audience may have
been hoping for fireworks, but what
they saw was scientific disagreement at
its best.)

Special paper sessions included
Seabird Tracking and Remote -sensing
Applications (organized by Rob Suryan,
Scott Schaffer, and David Hyrenbach),
and Surveying Seabirds at Sea: Applica-
tions, Transect Methodology and Statisti-
cal Treatment (organized by John Piatt
and Martine Renner). Other sessions
focused on foraging ecology, diving
strategies, habitat selection, and the role

Bob Day gives Best Student Paper Award to
Samantha Richmond (top) and Best Student
Poster Award to Chris Thaxter (bottom).

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 29

PSG Meeting News

Student travel awardees from the US and Canada Student travel awardees from countries outside the US and Canada.

of genetics in species identification, as
well as the usual topics of population
dynamics, breeding biology, physiol-
ogy, diet, and conservation. As usual, a
few things defied categorization, so one
Saturday afternoon session was entitled
“A seabird smorgasbord.”

Evening events included mixers in
Merrill Hall and at the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, a lecture by Carl Safina, and
a Mexican-themed banquet. The weather
was calm and bright for the Sunday field
trips: seal viewing at Ano Nuevo State
Park, pelagic trips on Monterey Bay, and
kayaking in Elkhorn Slough. The local
committee, chaired by Jim Harvey and
Hannah Nevins, did an outstanding job
with complex arrangements.

Awards

PSG’s Lifetime Achievement Award
was given to Mike Harris, and the Special
Achievement Award was bestowed on Ed
Melvin. Ed is at Washington Sea Grant
at the University of Washington. Eor the
past 1 1 years he has done research and
outreach to solve conservation-related
problems, including seabird bycatch,
in the US and international fishing in-
dustries.

Students who won awards for their
presentations were Samantha Richman
(University of Wyoming) for best paper,
and Chris Thaxter (University of Leeds,
United Kingdom) for best poster.

Travel grants were awarded for the
first time under PSG’s new tripartite
system. Students in the US or Canada
who received awards were Louise Blight
(University of British Columbia), Jill
Bluso (Humboldt State University), Brie
Drummond (Dalhousie University), Kyle
Elliott and Britt Harter (University of
Manitoba), Nathalie Hamel and Steph-
an! Zador (University of Washington),
Christopher Latty (University of Alaska
Eairbanks), Jamie Morris-Pocock and
Scott Taylor (Queen’s University), Sa-
mantha Richman (University of Wyo-
ming), Rachel Sprague (University of
Montana), and Yasuko Suzuki (Oregon
State University).

Students from countries other than
the US or Canada who received travel
grants were Nils Guse and Nicole
Sonntag (University of Kiel, Germany),
Motohiro Ito (Hokkaido University,
Japan), Nina Seifert and Jorg Welcker
(Norsk Polarinstitut, Norway), and Chris

Scientist travel awardees: Nele Markones, Dariusz Jakubas, Andy Webb

Thaxter (University of Leeds, United
Kingdom).

Scientists from outside North
America who received travel awards
were Liliana Ayala (Peru), Lei Cao
(China), Dariusz Jakubas (Poland), Nele
Markones (Germany), and Andy Webb
(United Kingdom).

— Vivian Mendenhall and Verena

Gill

PSG’S 2008 MEETING
WILL BE AT SEMIAHMOO,
BLAINE, WASHINGTON

The 35th Annual Meeting of the
Pacific Seabird Group will be held on
27 Lebruary-2 March 2008 at the Semi-
ahmoo Resort in Blaine, Washington.
Semiahmoo is located at the tip of a mile-
long natural spit, which juts into Puget
Sound and is framed by Semiahmoo
(“half-moon”) Bay. Built on the site of
an historic salmon-packing cannery, the
Resort is within view of Peace Arch Park
at the U.S. /Canadian border. Windows of
the restaurant and some other rooms are
directly over the water.

Blaine is less than an hour by road
from Vancouver, BC, and two hours
from Seattle. Drive the world-famous
Chuckanut Drive and be rewarded with
one the of the most scenic stretches of
highway in the Pacific Northwest, or
visit the Mt. Baker ski area at the edge
of the wilderness in the heart of the
Northern Cascades. Our last meeting

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 30

PSG Meeting News

at Semiahmoo was in 1999, and we are
looking forward to viewing rafts of loons
during mealtimes.

The theme of the meeting is “Sea-
birds in Marine Ecosystems.” Plenary
speakers will include John Piatt and John
Croxall; there will also be a debate on

“Compensatory Mitigation.” A sympo-
sium will be held on “The Salish Sea Eco-
system: Status and Impacts of Changes
on Marine Birds.” Special sessions will
be on Eorage Populations (organized by
Mayumi Arimitsu), Marine Wind and
Tidal Power (Dan Esler), Economic Im-

pacts on Seabird Ocean Habitats (Ealk
Huettmann), and Marine Protected Areas
(Doug Bertram). A workshop is planned
on “R,” a language and environment for
statistical computing and graphics. More
information is on the PSG website, www.
pacificseabirds.org
— Tom Good

Yellow-billed Loon in Elkhorn Slough

Great Egret on Asilomar Beach. Meeting photos by Vivian Mendenhall.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 3 1

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PSG’s committees report each year to the Executive Council. These reports for 2006 were
submitted in February 2007. A full list of PSG committees appears at the back of this issue.

LOON AND GREBE
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Compiled by Joel Schmutz

Background

This committee formed a year ago.
Its primary impetus was to discuss issues
about particular species of conservation
concern, and to do so under the recog-
nized umbrella of a large and taxonomi-
cally germane professional organization
such as PSG. Joel Schmutz is currently
chair (jschmutz@usgs.gov).

Activities During Past Year

(1) A pair of workshops was held
to discuss status of Western Grebes
(Aechmorphorus occidentalis). De-
clines in numbers of Western Grebes in
some breeding areas, as well as in some
coastal wintering areas, have prompted
significant conservation concerns for
this species. Two workshops were held
in October 2006 to discuss the state
of knowledge of the species, concerns
about their conservation status, and
information needs. One was held in Ed-
monton, Alberta, and the other in Delta,
British Columbia. The two locations
maximized attendance by people with
pertinent information, and reflected a
breeding and a wintering area. Contact
Sean Boyd (Sean.Boyd@ec.gc.ca) for
more details.

(2) A Conservation Agreement was
finalized regarding management of Yel-
low-billed Loons (Gavia adamsii). An
approximate 1.5 -year process concluded
when the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s
office signed a Conservation Agreement
specifying information needs, manage-
ment objectives, and plans for this spe-
cies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) was petitioned in 2004 to list
Yellow -billed Loons as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Spe-

cies Act. There is much conservation
concern because the US population pri-
marily breeds in the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska, where development
activities are substantively increasing.
Several members of the Loon and Grebe
Technical Committee served on the
expert panel convened by USFWS and
the US Bureau of Land Management to
discuss management and conservation of
the species. Members of the committee
also made written contributions to the
Conservation Agreement. Contact Joel
Schmutz (jschmutz@usgs.gov).

(3) Membership and melding of in-
formation: The Loon and Grebe Techni-
cal Committee is really an amalgamation
of two entities, people who coalesced
around concern for the Western Grebe,
and the Alaska Loon and Grebe Work-
ing Group, which has focused on the
6 species of loons and grebes that are
common nesters in Alaska. The combi-
nation of these 2 groups constituted the
initial e-mail distribution list for the new
PSG committee. The Alaska subgroup
was already developing species-specific
conservation plans for the species that
breed there. These plans are being final-
ized in fall 2007 and will be distributed
to the entire committee membership. We
will include queries about how much
more broadly we should pursue a similar
strategy for other species in other areas.
Contact Joel Schmutz (jschmutz@usgs.
gov) for more information.

MARBLED MURRELET
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Danielle Prenziow Escene

The Marbled Murrelet Technical
Committee met on February 7, 2007 at

the Asilomar Conference Center as part
of PSG’s 2007 Annual Meeting. The fol-
lowing report closely follows the notes
from that meeting.

The Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) is develop-
ing a Marbled Murrelet Long-Term Con-
servation Strategy. WDNR completed
the report of strategy recommendations
in July 2007. They are currently looking
for outside reviewers. Completion of the
strategy is still more than a year away; the
environmental impact statement. Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) amendment.
Biological Opinion, and Record of De-
cision are still on the horizon. For more
information, contact Peter Harrison at
harrison.peter@ wadnr.gov.

Bill Ritchie of Washington Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife is investigating
the effects and implications of ecosystem
changes on Marbled Murrelet breeding
success and recruitment. For more in-
formation, or to join a discussion group,
contact Bill at ritchwpr@dfw.wa.gov.

Ritchie also reconvened the Inland
Survey Protocol working group. The
working group is discussing several is-
sues related to Marbled Murrelet survey
training, including the frequency of re-
certification for experienced surveyors,
as well as the flexibility of the timing of
survey training, depending on the level of
bird activity. Contact Bill at ritchwpr@
dfw.wa.gov if you would like to partici-
pate on the working group or would like
more information.

Washington Department of
Natural Resources has been conducting
high-elevation surveys in northwest
Washington. High elevation areas are
logistically very difficult and expensive
to survey. DNR is working with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and others to develop a protocol that
clusters the surveys on consecutive days

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 32

COMMITTEE REPORTS

in order to compensate. Contact Peter
at peter.mcbride@dnr.wa.gov for more
information.

Falk Huettmann of University of
Alaska-Fairbanks and Carolyn Burks
Meyer of the University of Wyoming
have been leading the Global Marbled
Murrelet Modeling Team. The team is
working to gather and organize inland
survey data, nest data, marine survey
data, terrestrial habitat data, and marine
habitat data. The team is hoping to fin-
ish compiling and merging the data by
the end of this year, in order to begin
building the models by next year. If you
would have data or data management
skills to contribute, or if you would like
more information, contact Falk at fffh@
uaf.edu.

John Piatt of the U.S. Geological
Survey led the work to publish the report
“Status Review of the Marbled Mur-
relet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in
Alaska and British Columbia,” available
at http://pubs.usgs.gOv/of/2006/1387/
Murrelet numbers declined at five of
eight trend sites since the early 1990s, at
annual rates of -5.4% to -12.75%. Piatt
et al. applied these rates of decline to the
historical population estimate of 1 mil-
lion birds to project the current murrelet
population in Alaska to be approximately
270,000 birds, or a 70 percent decline
over the past 25 years. They updated
the population estimate for British Co-
lumbia to between 54,000 and 92,000
birds, a decline from the 2002 estimate.
For more information, contact John at
jpiatt@usgs.gov.

The Canadian Marbled Murrelet
Recovery Team recently held two
workshops on habitat identification and
marine distribution and radar monitor-
ing. Also, the Nesting Habitat Recovery
Implementation Group submitted an ac-
tion plan in March 2006. Contact Doug
Bertram at bertramd@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
for more information.

USFWS is continuing the Northwest
Forest Plan, Population and Habitat
Monitoring. The 2006 population esti-
mate for Zones 1-4 is 15,680 to 21,560.
The seven-year mean is 20,600. Nesting
habitat analyses will be conducted again
in 2008. Contact Gary Falxa at Gary_

Falxa@fws.gov for more information.

USFWS published its “Proposal to
Revise Designation of Critical Habitat”
in September 2006. Most of the reduc-
tion in critical habitat, in comparison
with the 1996 designation, is attributed
to exclusions under the 4(b)(2) balancing
process, primarily lands of the Northwest
Forest Plan, as well as several large
HCPs. USFWS must now revise the
proposal based on thousands of public
comments, complete an economic analy-
sis, and publish the final designation in
September 2007. Contact Deanna Lynch
at deanna_lynch@fws.gov for more
information.

PSG WEBSITE REPORT

Lisa T. Ballance, PSG Webmaster

Website additions in 2006

The “Gallery” page of seabird
photos has been restored to the website.
This is a work in progress; I welcome
comments and new photos.

A password-protected membership
directory for 2006 was posted. I would
like to update this each year, at whatever
time the Exco or Treasurer deems most
appropriate.

PSG’s Handbook was posted. It will
be updated when I receive revisions.

Other material posted on the site
includes letters on conservation issues
from the Vice-Chair for Conservation,
PSG Chair, and Chair-Elect; job ad-
vertisements; official minutes of Exco
meetings; and PSG Publications {Pacific
Seabirds, PSG Symposia, PSG Techni-
cal Publications, and abstracts from past
Annual Meetings).

Website additions planned eor 2007
I plan to post a complete list of
all Lifetime Achievement and Special
Achievement Award recipients, together
with a short summary of each person’s
contribution.

Website activity during 2006

The program AWStats gave statistics
on our website’s activity.

The site was visited by about 21,000
different individuals (technically, by
different IP addresses for individual
computers). There were 30,650 visits
to the site (some individuals visited the
site more than once). About 75% of these
visits were for less than 30 seconds, but
almost 20% lasted between 30 seconds
and 15 minutes.

About 25% of visits to a page were
directed to the site by a search engine,
primarily Google, but also others such
as Yahoo, Netscape, and Dogpile [sic].
More than 5000 keywords were used
during these searches; common ones
included Pacific, seabirds, group, jobs,
murrelet, albatross, conference, Alaska,
California, and marine. Another 6.6% of
visits came via links to other websites
such as Birdnet and Marine Ornithol-
ogy.

Visitors averaged 2.66 pages per
visit. Statistics for the top 25 pages are
interesting — our publications page is
getting a fair bit of air time.

Computers from 23 different coun-
tries visited our website. The vast ma-
jority were of United States origin, fol-
lowed by Canada, the European Union,
Australia/New Zealand, and Japan. There
were also visits from countries in Latin
America, south and east Asia, eastern
Europe and Russia.

Website concerns

My main issue is a request for
updates from Exco and the PSG mem-
bership. When you see something on
the web site that is outdated, or when a
new publication, letter, etc. is produced,
please bring it to my attention and I will
address it as soon as possible.

Please continue to send requests and
questions regarding the website to me at
Lisa.Ballance@noaa.gov

Acknowledgments and new techni-
cian

2006 saw a number of changes in
technical support for the webmaster.
Anna Klimaszewski passed the baton to
Annette Henry, who maintained the site
during the Annual Meeting rush, with
great assistance from Janet Lowther.

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 33

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Effective as of the PSG 2007 Annual
Meeting, I have a new Data Manager
working for me who will be receiving
most of my queries regarding website
issues. He is Thomas J. Moore and I hope
he will be with us for awhile.

PSG 2020 STRATEGIC
PLANNING COMMITTEE

Lisa T. Ballance

Background

The PSG 2020 Strategic Planning
Committee was established by the Exco
at the 2006 Annual Meeting in Girdwood.
Its purpose is to engage in long-range
planning for PSG. The committee’s man-
date is to review PSG’s current operating
structure and activities, and to evaluate
how well they are matched to PSG’s
goals of studying and conserving Pacific
seabirds and their environment over the
next decade and a half.

Committee members are Lisa T.
Ballance (Chair), Jaime Jahnke, Ron
Le Valley, Ken Morgan, Kim Nelson,
Iain Stenhouse, and Shiway Wang. The
committee’s review will include:

• PSG’s membership and infrastruc-

ture

• Annual meetings

• Membership and structure of Exco

and other PSG committees

• PSG publications (including Marine

Ornithology) and website

• Conservation issues and PSG’s role

• Other issues as determined by the

committee

Committee Activities during 2006
As of January 2007, all discus-
sion between committee members has
occurred via e-mail. The first official
meeting of the committee will be in
Eebruary 2007, at PSG’s Annual Meet-
ing in Asilomar. The committee expects
this meeting to produce a draft list of
issues requiring input from PSG 2020.
They will get input on the draft list at
the Past Chairs Meeting (also at Asilo-

mar) and then will seek input from the
PSG membership via the PSG listserve.
[Editor's note: Posting on the listserve is
now expected for November 2007.] In
the future the committee will revise the
list and discuss their recommendations
to the Exco.

The committee views this as an
iterative process. Close communication
with the Exco, the Past Chairs, and the
membership of PSG at large will be an
annual part of committee. Mechanisms
are already in place for this communica-
tion via the Exco’s two yearly meetings
(at PSG’s Annual Meeting and the sum-
mer conference call), the Past Chairs
meetings, and the PSG listserve.

Draet list oe issues identieied by PSG

2020

The draft list (as of January 2007),
which may be modified at the Exco and
Past Chairs meetings, will be distributed
to all members via the listserve. On the
listserve, we will solicit input from the
members in the form of a questionnaire.
It will ask for yes/no answers and will
provide space for comments on how to
achieve the objectives.

I. PSG membership

• Whether PSG should strive to keep

retiring seabird biologists involved
in the society

• Whether PSG more actively encour-

age participation from persons
outside of the US and Canada. (Ra-
tionale: If PSG is truly dedicated
to the conservation and study of
“Pacific” seabirds, we should strive
to actively involve those from the
entire Pacific, including and specifi-
cally, those working in the Southern
Hemisphere)

• Whether PSG should more actively

encourage participation from stu-
dents in all aspects of the running of
the PSG, including the Exco

• Whether there are other groups or peo-

ple PSG should actively encourage
to join/participate in the society

• Other ideas about increasing member-

ship and participation

II. Annual Meetings

• Whether PSG should hold its meetings

internationally every few years, so
as to support seabird research and
conservation in developing nations.
(If so, how would we finance such
meetings, what would be the com-
position of the local committee,
how often?)

• Whether PSG should provide financial

support for student travel awards

• Whether there should be different

student travel award categories
depending upon proximity to meet-
ing site

• Whether PSG should provide financial

support (travel and/or lodging and/
or registration and/or per diem) for
Special Achievement Award and
Lifetime Achievement Award Re-
cipients. (If so, which categories,
and how would PSG finance this?)

• Whether PSG should strive to address

the issue of the carbon footprint of
its annual meetings. (Rationale: An-
nual meetings require long flights by
many participants and other impacts
on our carbon footprint. Our inter-
est in conservation of seabirds and
their habitats suggests we consider
this issue.)

III. PSG publications (Pacific
Seabirds, Marine Ornithol-
ogy [MO], website, others)

• Whether PSG should provide financial

support for MO. (The Exco cur-
rently provides support for MO up
to $6,000 per year from the Endow-
ment Eund.)

IV. PSG and conservation

• Whether PSG should be more pro-

active as an advocate of seabird
conservation worldwide. (Rationale:
Currently PSG is mostly reactive —
we respond to petitions, lawsuits,
etc. Being proactive could mean we
would correspond with governments
in countries in the Pacific basin
and elsewhere about emerging and
ongoing conservation issues, make
recommendations for actions or

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 34

COMMITTEE REPORTS

studies, and promote involvement
in multinational agreements.)

• How PSG should use funds we have

received from individual philan-
thropists for “Conservation,” and
what oversight should be arranged
for their use

V. PSG’s goals and objectives for
2020 and beyond

• Whether PSG should strive to in-

crease the multidisciplinary nature
of the society. {Rationale: Seabirds

face problems both on land and in
the marine environment, such as
bycatch, oiling and other contami-
nants, competition with fisheries,
and climate change). Many PSG
members work with other agencies
and other disciplines, including fish-
eries and oceanography. If we hope
to conserve seabirds, PSG should
work to become more embedded
in these communities. We need to
raise awareness among agencies and
other disciplines that changes in the

marine environment have impacts
on seabirds just as much as fish and
zooplankton. We also need to raise
our own understanding of these
impacts. We should invite ocean-
ographers and fisheries scientists to
talk at our annual meetings and we
do the same at their meetings
• Other ideas for taking PSG to 2020
and beyond; other goals and objec-
tives we should we be striving for;
other changes we should make

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 35

PUBLICATIONS OF THE PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP

The Pacific Seabird Group publishes symposia and other works. PSG Symposia are occasionally held at
Annual Meetings; those, which have been published, are listed below. Technical Reports prepared by PSG
working groups also are listed. To order one of these PSG publications ^ please see instructions after each item.

Abstracts of papers and posters given at PSG meetings are published annually. Abstracts for meetings of
1974 through 1993 appeared in the PSG Bulletin (Volumes 2-20); for meetings of 1994 through 2003, in
Pacific Seabirds (Volumes 21-30); and for meetings of 1997 and later, at www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

PSG publishes the journals Pacific Seabirds (www.pacihcseabirdgroup.org) and Marine Ornithology (www.
marineornithology.org). Current and past issues of both journals are available online or by subscription. Back issues
may be obtained online; those of Pacihc Seabirds also are available from the PSG Treasurer (order form on last page).

SYMPOSIA

SHOREBIRDS IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS. Frank A. Pitelka (Editor). Proceedings of an International Symposium of
the Pacihc Seabird Group. Asilomar, CaUfomia, January 1977. Published June 1979 in Studies in Avian Biology, Number 2. Available free of
charge at http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/cooper/sab.php

TROPICAL SEABIRD BIOLOGY. Ralph W. Schreiber (Editor). Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Pacihc
Seabird Group, Honolulu, Hawaii, December 1982. Published Eebruary 1984 in Studies in Avian Biology, Number 8. Available
free of charge at http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/cooper/sab.php

MARINE BIRDS: THEIR FEEDING ECOLOGY AND COMMERCIAL FISHERIES RELATIONSHIPS. David N.
Nettleship, Gerald A. Sanger, and Paul E. Springer (Editors). Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Pacihc Seabird
Group, Seattle, Washington, January 1982. Published 1984 as Canadian Wildlife Service, Special Publication. Out of print;
available free of charge at www.pacihcseabirdgroup.org

THE USE OF NATURAL VS. MAN-MODIFIED WETLANDS BY SHOREBIRDS AND WATERBIRDS. R. Michael
Erwin, Malcolm C. Coulter, and Howard L. Cogswell (Editors). Proceedings of an International Symposium at the hrst joint
meeting of the Colonial Waterbird Society and the Pacihc Seabird Group, San Erancisco, California, December 1985. Colonial
Waterbirds 9(2), 1986. $12.00. Order from: Ornithological Societies of North America, PO Box 1897, Lawrence, Kansas 66044;
phone (800) 627-0629; no online orders.

ECOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR OF GULLS. Judith L. Hand, William E. Southern, and Kees Vermeer (Editors). Proceedings
of an International Symposium of the Colonial Waterbird Society and the Pacihc Seabird Group, San Erancisco, California,
December 1985. Published June 1987 in Studies in Avian Biology, Number 10. $18.50. Available free of charge at http://elibrary.
unm.edu/sora/Condor/cooper/sab.php

AUKS AT SEA. Spencer G. Sealy (Editor). Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Pacihc Seabird Group, Pacihc
Grove, California, December 1987. Published December 1990 in Studies in Avian Biology, Number 14. Available free of charge
at http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/cooper/sab.php

STATUS AND CONSERVATION OF THE MARBLED MURRELET IN NORTH AMERICA. Harry C. Carter, and Michael
L. Morrison (Editors). Proceedings of a Symposium of the Pacihc Seabird Group, Pacihc Grove, California, December 1987.
Published October 1992 in Proceedings of the Western Eoundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Volume 5, Number 1. $20.00. Order
from PSG Treasurer (order form on last page), or available free of charge at www.pacihcseabirdgroup.org

THE STATUS, ECOLOGY, AND CONSERVATION OF MARINE BIRDS OF THE NORTH PACIFIC. Kees Vermeer,
Kenneth T. Briggs, Ken H. Morgan, and Douglas Siegel-Causey (editors). Proceedings of a Symposium of the Pacihc Seabird

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 36

PSG PUBLICATIONS

Group, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia,
February 1990. Published 1993 as a Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication, Catalog Number CW66-124-1993E. Order
free of charge from: Publications Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, K1 A OH3, Canada.

BIOLOGY OF MARBLED MURRELETS — INLAND AND AT SEA. S. Kim Nelson and Spencer G. Scaly (Editors). Pro-
ceedings of a Symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group, Seattle, Washington, February 1993. Published 1995 in Northwestern
Naturalist, Volume 76, Number 1. $12.00. Order from PSG Treasurer (order form on last page), or available free of charge at
www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

BEHAVIOUR AND ECOLOGY OE THE SEA DUCKS. Ian Goudie, Margaret R. Petersen and Gregory J. Robertson (editors).
Proceedings of the Pacific Seabird Group Symposium, Victoria, British Columbia, 8-12 November 1995. A special publication
compiled by the Canadian Wildlife Service for the Pacific Seabird Group. Published 1999 as Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper
number 100, catalog number CW69-1/100E. Order free of charge from: Publications Division, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario,
KIA OH3, Canada, or available free of charge at www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

SEABIRD BYCATCH: TRENDS, ROADBLOCKS AND SOLUTIONS. Edward F. Melvin and Julia K. Parrish (editors).
Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group, Blaine, Washington, 26-27 February 1999. Published
2001 by University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, Alaska. Publication no. AK-SG-01-01. $40.00. Order from publisher.

BIOLOGY, STATUS, AND CONSERVATION OE JAPANESE SEABIRDS. Nariko Oka (editor). Proceedings of an Inter
national Symposium of the Japanese Seabird Group and Pacific Seabird Group, Fihue, Hawaii, February 2001. Journal of the
Yamashina Institute of Ornithology 33(2); Symposium (5 papers), pp 57-147, other papers pp. 148-213. In English with Japanese
abstracts. $75.00. Order from PSG Treasurer (order form on last page).

OIL AND CALIFORNIA’S SEABIRDS. Harry R. Carter (convener) and Anthony J. Gaston (editor). Proceedings of a Sym-
posium of the Pacific Seabird Group, Santa Barbara, California, February 2002. Published 2003 in Marine Ornithology 31(1).
Available free of charge at www.marineornithology.org

NEW! THE BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF THE AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN. Daniel W. Anderson, D. Tommy
King, and John Coulson (editors). Proceedings of a Symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group. Waterbirds, Volume 28. Special
Publication 1, 2005. Published by the Waterbird Society. $15.00. Order from PSG Treasurer (order form on last page).

Information on presenting symposia: Pacific Seabird Group Symposia or Paper Sessions may be arranged by any member
who is interested in a particular topic. Before planning a special session, refer to Meetings/Symposia Guidelines at www.pa-
cificseabirdgroup.org; also contact the Coordinator of the Publications Committee and the Scientific Chair for the meet-ing.

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL SEABIRD RESTORATION WORKSHOP. Kenneth I. Warheit, Craig S. Harrison, and
George J. Divoky (editors). Exxon Valdez Restoration Project Final Report, Restoration Project 95038. PSG Technical Publi-
cation Number 1. 1997. Available free of charge at www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

METHODS FOR SURVEYING MARBLED MURRELETS IN FORESTS: A REVISED PROTOCOL FOR LAND
MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH. Pacific Seabird Group, Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee. PSG Technical Pub-
lication Number 2. 2003. Available free of charge at www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 37

PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP
COMMITTEE COORDINATORS

Committees do much of PSG’s business, as well as the conservation work for which PSG is
respected. The committees welcome (and need) participants; contact the coordinators for information.

AWARDS COMMITTEE

The Awards Committee consists of the Past Chair, Chair, and Chair-elect. Committee members for 2006 are Katie O’Reilly (chair), Verena
Gill, and Doug Bertram; contact information is on inside back cover.

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Craig S. Harrison, 4953 Sonoma Mountain Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, USA. Telephone: (202) 778-2240, e-mail: charrison@hunton.
com

CONSERVATION SMALL GRANTS COMMITTEE

Robert Day, ABR, Inc .-Environmental Research and Services, P.O. Box 80410, Fairbanks, AK 99508-0420, USA; telephone (907)
455-6777; e-mail bday@ abrinc.com

ELECTION COMMITTEE

Pat Baird, Simon Fraser University, Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Department of Biological Sciences, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6.
Telephone (604) 928-5510; e-mail pabaird@sfu.ca

JAPAN SEABIRD CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Koji Ono, office: Hokkaido Seabird Center, Kita 6-1, Haboro, Tomamae 078-4116 Japan. Telephone: 011-81-1646-9-2080, fax:
011-81-1646-9-2090; home: 2-506, Sakaemachi 93-12 Haboro, Tomamae 078-4123 Japan. Telephone and fax: 011-81-1646-2-1324, e-
mail: kojiono@gol.com; and John Fries, Laboratory for Wildlife Biology, University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi Bunkyo-ku, 113 Tokyo, Japan.
Telephone/fax: 011-81-356-89-7254, e-mail: fries@uf.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp

LOON/GREBE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Joel Schmutz, U.S. Geological Survey, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503, USA. Telephone: (907) 786-3518; e-mail joel_
schmutz@ usgs .gov

MARBLED MURRELET TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

William P. Ritchie, P.O. Box 1102, Port Angeles, WA 98362-0209, USA. Telephone: (360) 902-2365; fax: (360) 417-3302; e-mail: ritchwpr@
dfw.wa.gov

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Patrick Jodice, 2002 Forestry Scientces Laborataory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Telephone:
(541) 750-7393, e-mail: jodicep@ucs.orst.edu

SEABIRD MONITORING COMMITTEE

Scott Hatch, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Biological Science Center, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage,
AK 99503 USA. Telephone: (907) 786-3529, fax: (907) 786-3636, e-mail: scott_hatch@usgs.gov

XANTUS’S MURRELET TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Melinda Nakagawa, 1039 Garden St., East Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA. Telephone: (650) 804-2503; e-mail: melinda@littleyellowhsh.com

PSG DELEGATES TO THE AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY
Craig S. Harrison, 4953 Sonoma Mountain Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, USA. Telephone: (202) 778-2240, e-mail: charrison@hunton.
com; and Malcolm C. Coulter, P.O. Box 48, Chocorua, NH 03817 USA. Telephone: (603) 323-9342, e-mail: coultermc@aol.com

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 38

PSG LIFE MEMBERS 2006

Sarah G. Allen
Daniel W. Anderson
Edgar P. Bailey
Pat Herron Baird
Lisa Ballance
Mrs. Don Bishop
Kenneth T. Briggs
Joanna Burger
Ellen W. Chu
Roger B. Clapp
Cheryl Conel
Malcolm C. Coulter
Kathy Cousins
Theodore L. Cross
Robert H. Day
Tony DeGange
Jan Dierks
George J. Divoky
Stewart Eefer
Lloyd C. Eitzpatrick
Elizabeth Elint
Douglas J. Eorsell
Michael Ery
Lisa Haggblom

Judith Latta Hand
Craig S. Harrison
Scott A. Hatch
Monica Herzig Ziircher
Nancy Hillstrand
Joel D. Hubbard
David B. Irons
Sarah Keller
James G. King
Kathy Kuletz
James Kushlan
Lora Leschner
David B. Lewis
Peter Major
Eugene Y. Makishima
Vivian Mendenhall
Gayle Merlen
Godfrey Merlen
Pat Mock
Ken Morgan
Edward C. Murphy
Maura Naughton
S. Kim Nelson
David R. Nysewander
Haruo Ogi

RECIPIENTS OE PSG’S LIEETIME
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Philip and Myrtle Ashmole
James C. Bartonek
W.R.P. Bourne
Richard G.B. Brown
G. Vernon Byrd

Charles Guiguet^
Michael P. Harris
Thomas R. Howell
George L. Hunt, Jr.
Karl W. Kenyon^

RECIPIENTS OE PSG’S SPECIAL
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Malcolm Coulter Hiroshi Hasegawa

George J. Divoky Edward Melvin

Craig S. Harrison

tDeceased

Katie O’Reilly
Julia K. Parrish
Robert Pitman
C. John Ralph
William P. Ritchie
Chad Roberts
Daniel D. Roby
Gerald A. Sanger
Palmer C. Sekora
Nanette Seto
Kouzi Shiomi
Douglas Siegel
Kitty Simonds
William E. Southern
Arthur L. Sowls
Jeffrey A. Spendelow
Takaki Terasawa
W. Breck Tyler
Enriqueta Velarde Gonzalez
Kees Vermeer
John S. Warriner
Yutaka Watanuki
Jennifer Wheeler
Jeff Williams

James G. King
Spencer G. Sealy
Robert E. Ricklefs
Miklos D.E. Udvardy^
John Warham

Arthur L. Sowls
Steven M. Speich^
Mark J. Rauzon

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1 • Spring 2007 • Page 39

Pacific Seabird Group

Membership Application/Publication Order Form
(Please copy)

Membership (includes subscription to Pacific Seabirds)

Individual and Family $30.00 $ $.

Student (undergraduate and graduate) $24.00 $ $.

Life Membership^ $900.00 (optional payment plan: five $180 installments) $.

Sponsored Membership $30.00

Name of Sponsored Member $.

Contributions^

To the Endowment Fund^ $.

Other (please specify) $.

PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP PUBLICATIONS

A full list ofPSG publications appears on the preceding pages. If the publication you want is not
listed on this page, please order according to information in the publications list.

Back issues of Pacific Seabirds (can also be downloaded from www.pacificseabirds.org)

Vols. 1-8 (1974-1981) x$2.50 $.

Vols. 9 (1982 to present) x $5.00

PSG Symposia

Status and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet in North America x $20.00 $.

Biology of Marbled Murrelets: Inland and at Sea x $12.00 $

Biology, Status, and Conservation of Japanese Seabirds x $75.00 ^

The Biology and Conservation of the American White Pelican x $15.00 $.

TOTAL ENCLOSED

Prices include postage (surface rate) and handling.

SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER (payable in US dollars to the Pacific Seabird Group) to: PSG Treasurer, Ron
Le Valley, 920 Samoa Blvd., Suite 210, Areata, CA 95521, USA.

MEMBERSHIPS (new and renewing) and DONATIONS may also be paid online at www.pacificseabirdgroup.org

* Proceeds from Life Memberships go to the Endowment Fund, which supports the publications of the Pacific Seabird Group. Contributions
may be given for a specified purpose; otherwise they also go to the Endowment Fund.

^ Contributions may be tax-deductible; see inside front cover for more information.

Member/Sponsor or Order

Name

Addres s

Deliver/Ship to (if different)

Name

Addres s

Telephone.

Fax

E-mail

Telephone.

Fax

E-mail

Pacific Seabirds • Volume 34, Number 1* Spring 2007 • Page 40

PSG EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 2007

Chair

Officers

Verena A. Gill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 E. Tu-
dor Rd., MS 341, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199, USA. Telephone: (907) 786-3584; fax: (907)
786-3816; cell phone: (907) 250-3721; e-mail: Verena_Gill@fws.gov

Chair-Elect

Doug Bertram, Canadian Wildlife Service, Institute of Ocean Sciences, 9860 West Saanich R.,
P.O. Pox 6000, Sidney, BC, Canada V8L4B2. Telephone: (250) 363-6735; fax: (250) 363 -6390;
e-mail: bertramd@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Past Chair

Katie O’Reilly, Department of Biology, University of Portland, 5000 N. Willamette Blvd.,
Portland, OR 97203. Telephone: (503) 943-7146; fax: (503) 943-7784; e-mail: oreilly@up.ed

Vice-Chair for Conservation

Craig S. Harrison, 4953 Sonoma Mountain Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, USA. Telephone:
(202) 778-2240; e-mail: charrison@erols.com

Treasurer

Ron Le Valley, Mad River Biologists, 920 Samoa Blvd., Suite 210, Areata, CA 95521, USA.
Telephone: (707) 326-0300; fax (707) 826-0540; e-mail: ron@madriverbio.com

Secretary

Mark Hipfner, Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, Environment Canada, RR#1, 5421 Robertson
Rd., Delta, BC, Canada V4K 3N2. Telephone: (604) 940-4720; Eax: (604) 946-7022; e-mail:
Mark.Hpfner@ec.gc.ca

Editor, Pacific Seabirds

Vivian Mendenhall, 4600 Rabbit Creek Rd., Anchorage, AK 99516, USA. Telephone: (907)
345-7124; fax (907) 345-0686; e-mail: fasgadair@attalascom.net

Alaska and Russia

Regional Representatives

Shiway Wang, P.O. Box 2495, Seward, AK 99664, USA. Telephone (cell): (907) 362-2494;
e-mail: Shiway@gmail.com

Canada

Ken Morgan, Institute of Ocean Sciences. P.O. Box 6000, 9860 W. Saanich Rd., Sidney, B.C.,
Canada V8L 4B2. Telephone: (250) 363-6537; fax: (250) 363-6390; e-mail: morgank@pac.
dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Washington and Oregon

Don Lyons, Oregon Cooperative Pish and Wildlife Research Unit, Dept, of Pisheries and Wildlife,
Oregon State University, 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. Telephone: (503) 791-2958;
e-mail: lyonsd@onid.orst.edu

Northern California

Esther Burkett, California Dept, of Pish and Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814.
Telephone: (916) 654-4273; fax: (916) 653-2588; e-mail: EBurkett@dfg.ca.gov

Southern California

Dan Robinette, PRBO Conservation Science, Vandenberg Pield Station, 205 N. H St., Suite 217,
Lompoc, CA 93436, USA. Telephone (805) 735-7300; fax (805) 735-8817; e-mail drobinette@
prbo.org

Non-Pacific United States

Melanie Steinkamp, U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service, 11510 American Holly Dr., Room 206C,
Laurel, MD 20708, USA. Telephone (301) 497-5678; fax: (301) 497-5706; e-mail: Melanie_
Steinkamp@fws.gov

Pacific Rim

Linda Elliott, Hawaii Wildlife Center, P.O. Box 5006, Hawi, HI 96719. Telephone and fax:
(808) 884-5576; e-mail: lindae808@yahoo.com

Old World

Mark Tasker, JNCC, Dunnet House, 7 Thistle Place, Aberdeen ABIO lUZ, Scotland, UK.
Telephone: Oil (from USA/Canada only), then 44-1224-642863; fax: 011 44-1224-6214-88;
e-mail: tasker_m@jncc.gov.uk or mltasker@aol.com

Student Representative

Jo Smith, School of Aquatic and Pisheries Sciences, University of Washington, P.O. Box 355020,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Telephone (206) 221-5294; e-mail: josmith@u.washington.edu