19 Number 2 Volume "?' / ^ X -v"’ , V ' ^ '"v* 1? < ‘-A ;^Fa '^ l / C /t-'' ' ^ ^ ' ' Dedicated To The Study And Conservation Of Pacific Seabirds w ^ X> -# A;: ydll join and participate in PSO. PSG is ame^te of the U, S. Section of ftkr r r Council for Bird Fteservation* Annual .dues for membership are $15 (indivit familvliiSlO^student. utidereraduflte and i^diiateV;»nd?&45Dl (life Mpmhershin Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin -j, . . . ; . v . i; The Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin (ISSN 0740-3371) is published twibfcayei in the- ' '*' ’■'' f Qnrina tinri fall anH t'rtnt«in« npwc r\f tntj=>r^ct rr% P^f^I m*arrjlv»re ini^lnrimcr r#»mr\ria1 ITie Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin is not an outlet for the results of scientific research; : however, articles and shorter items on seabird conservation, seabird research hcdviSesT - and other topics related to the objectives of PSG are welcome. All materials should be submitted to the Editor. Back issues of the Bulletin may be ordered from the Treasurer: please remit $2.50 each for issues of Vols. 1-8 (1974-1981) and $5.(X) each for issues of Permanent Address ^ ^ Mi Pacific Seabird Group, c/o Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline High\\ay, Stinson Beach, CA 94970 The Pacific Seabird Group is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State* of California. Contributions to the Pacifife Seabird Group qualify for taxdeductibnsiinder IRC Section 501(c)(3). : „ . ''a’ Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin Dedicated to the study and conservation of Pacific seabirds and their environment Volume 19 1992 Number 2 3 2 Letters 18 22 Minutes of the Midyear Executive Council Meeting 23 Marbled Murrelet Update 27 Nominations 29 Other Seabird News Seabird Monitoring in the Pacific An attempt to plan and promote seabird monitoring on an internatbnal basis The Billion Dollar IVust Fund Money to restore Alaska's natural resources Proposed Changes to Bylaws In Memoriam LETTERS DearPSG Members, The summer is now but a memory and the fall migrants are rapidly appearing. Ifs been a busy and productive summer. The Midyear Executive Council Meet- ing was very worthwhile. We gained a much better under- standing of the status and funding for the Victoria Sympo- sium, and we were very relieved thatPSG would not have to provide any more funding for the publication than the proceeds from the Victoria Synposium. Other issues we discussed can be found in the Minutes of the Midyear Executive Council Meeting in this issue of the Bulletin. Speaking of the Bulletin, have you noticed all the improvements? Bulletin editor MarthaSpringerandGeorge Divoky have spent considerable time and effort to bring about these much needed changes, and they promise more to come. Many thanks to both of them for a job well done. The recent listing of the Marbled Murrelet is the culmination of a great deal effort on the part of several PSG members. Our organization can be very proud of itself and its members for the role played in calling attention to the plight of the murrelet and for the formation of the Marbled Murrelet Committee, which has outlined research needs and goals, addressed murrelet conservation issues, and developed a protocol for surveying murrelets in inland coniferous forests. A special thanks goes to Chair Kim Nelson and all the members of the committee — this group really stood up to be counted. Please note that your vote on the proposed revision of the Bylaws is needed. The revisions effect your represen- tation on the Council and are based on Ken Warheif s questionnaire cflastyearandour discussions at the Charles- ton annual meeting. Please look for the proposed revisions to the Bylaws and the ballot in this issue of the Bulletin, then read about the changes and cast your vote. In June I had the pleasure of nominating PSG member Jim King to the Public Advisory Group for the Exxon Valdez Oil Trustee Council. This council decides how the one billion dollars in restoration trust funds will be spent. PSG has gone on record for potential restoration alternatives, all for the betterment of the seabird resource. News received Just before going to press is that Jim King was appointed to the Group. The slot he filled was the only one available for a conservationist. PSG, especially Con- servation Chair Craig Harrison, was intrumental in secur- ing this appointment. Thanks Craig! / would like to encourage everyone to attend the 20th Annual Meeting in Seattle, February 9-13, 1993. The local committee of George Divoky, Ellen Chu, and Lora Leschner are working hard to provide a meeting thatwill be special in many ways. See you there. Palmer Sekora, Chair Congratulations on the PSG Bulletin. It was interesting, even provocative (last page). I confess it is the first time I ever re-read a PSG zieover to cover. Keep it up. David Cameron Dtffy It is well documented that during the eaiiy 1960s thous^ds of seabirds did indeed die each year on the great array of antennas at Eastern Island, Midway AtoU, Protests at the time were numerous and widespread, but it was obsolescence of the communication system that eventually brought the masts down in 1967; that is hardly news. It is news that thousands of seabirds have recently died each year on antennas at Midway (Regional Reports, PSG Bull 19:25). Certainly the ugly tangle of rusting girders and cables on Eastern Island trapped young birds, but I never imagined mortality in the order of thousands. It must have been the best kept secret for years. W. L. N. Tickell, University of Bristol Dear PSG Members, 1 received many positive comments on the spring issue of the zl, and 1 want to thank all of you for taking the time to write or call. 1 also want to let all cfyou contributors know that I am saving the disks you send and they will be available at the Annual Meeting. Please keep in touch with your ideas and suggestions. 2 Seabird Monitoring in the Pacific At the annual meeting held in Charleston, Oregon in Janu- ary 1992, the Executive Council established a Standing Committee on Seabird Monitoring. The committee s goal is to establish better communication among people engaged in seabird monitoring throughout the Pacific region. In the United States, this requires participation by those working in aU five Pacific states (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, r^ii fnmia , and Hawaii). The committee also has represen- tation and seeks active input from other North Pacific rim countries including Mexico, Canada, Republic of Russia, China, and Japan. The list of current committee members appears below. The committee defines seabird monitoring as the accumulation of time series data on any aspect of seabird distribution, abundance, demography, or behavior. Basic studies include annual or less frequent measures of numbers and/or breeding productivity; less commonly drey generate indices of marine habitat use, phenology (timing of events in the annual cycle), food habits, survive (as in mark- resighting studies), or mortality (as in replicated beached bird surveys). As the results of fisheries biology (stock assessment and catch data) and physical oceai»graphy (e.g., satellite remote sensing of ocean dynamics) become evermore sophisticated and available, these disciplines will provide a crucial complement to seabird monitoring in the Pacific. The committee considers the fuitherence of inter- disciplinary studies a part of its long-term mission. For now, we are most concerned with improving contacts and coo^ration within the community of Pacific seabird ob- servers. . The value of monitoring Pacific seabirds is two- fold. On one hand, wildlife managers are concerned about the welfareofparticular species and populations that may be affected by human use of oiastal lands and marine re- sources. But equaUy important— and quite aside from any value placed on this particular group of animals— is the role that seabirds can serve as indicators of environmental change. There is ample evidence that seabirds respond manifesfly to climatic variations (e.g., El Nino-Southem Oscillation and lesser oceanic and atmospheric events), which enhances the relevance of seabird monitoring in an era when global climate change is a growing concern. In addition, fishery managers are realizing that seabirds can serve as cost- effective samplers of fish stocks. Seabird monitoring is most effective when it incor- porates planned comparisons. For example, paired obser- vations on surface feeders and divers are often revealing, as are studies targeting different trophic levels (piscwores vs. planktivoies) or species with contrasting foraging areas (inshore vs. oceanic feeders). Most importantly, our ability to interpret and apply the results of seabird monitoring is greaUy enhanced by having broad geographic coverage for the species we choo^ to observe, even at the expense of detail from site-specific studies. Ideally, a few widespread species should be monitored throughout their ranges in the Pacific, which requires an internationally coordinated ef- fort. Thus, it is clearly desirable to plan and promote seabird monitoring on an international basis, and to strive for consensus on an overall strategy, species, parameters, and places to include in a Pacific-wide program. With the cooperationofseabird specialists throughoutthe region, the committee will COORDINATE seabird monitoring by evaluating the adequacy and comparability of methods in use and making recommendations as to species, sites, and population parameters to include in an overall Pacific moni- toring program. It will DISSEMINATE results. The committee will solicit and compile annual updates ftom ongoing population studies and incorporate them in a com- mon database designed for trend analysis. It will then distribute data compilations to system shareholders on m annual basis and by special request. The committee mil PROMOTE seabird monitoring among the appropriate authorities and agencies in participating countries, states, and provinces. For example, timely and accessible results from seabird monitoring (as above) can be used to reinforce the idea that every small contribution is a significant part of the larger picture. Finally, the committee will FOSTER geographically broad approaches to seabird monitoring and encourage planned comparisons to enhance the role of seabiids as indicators of large-scale change in the Pacific marine environment. The objective of compiling and disseminating re- sults of seabini monitoring requires some explanation. We envision a system that allows each contributor to benefit fi-om having ready access to the large body of information generated annually on seabird responses to environmental variation in thePacific.Typically,muchofthisinfonnation is never published in the open literature, orpublication lags far behind the gathering of data. A system that consolidates and distributes information on a timely basis — ^ideally, within a few months after completion of each summer field season— would allow investigators to formulate and test hypotheses or make decisions about study emphasis in 3 Seabird Monitoring something more nearly approaching “real time.*' We recog- nize and understand, however, the reluctance of many investigators to turn over their hard won data to any kind of central repository in advance of publication. Thus, use of the proposed system would be governed by rules that protect contributors from unauthorized or preemptive publication of their data. Creation of such a database, containing quantita- tive results of seabird monitoring, is not the immediate goal of this committee ’s work. Rather, we see a need to conduct a thorough inventory of past and present effort to monitor Pacific seabirds — which species have been monitored, where, what parameters have been measured, and who has done the work? Updated on an annual basis, this informa- tion will permit a continuing evaluation of where we have been in seabird monitoring, where we would like to go, and what we need to do to get there. Think of this activity as an effort to “monitor the monitoring program” for Pacific seabirds. It should be possible to put seabird monitoring on a better footing financially by demonstrating to funding agencies how their particular contributions fit into an inte- grated program. During 1992 the Seabird Monitoring Committee is conducting a mail survey of investigators to develop, we hope, a complete catalog of past and present monitoring efforts for Pacific seabirds. Anyone with relevant informa- tion who has not received a questionnaire is urged to contact the committee member in their region. We plan to collate all the information received and provide a report of this survey to participants and the general membership in 1993. The committee will convene at the annual meeting in Seattle, 9-13 February 1993. We encourage all interested members to attend and to express their views and ideas on this committee's goals and means to achieve them. PSG STANDING COMMITTEE ON SEABIRD MONTITORING Current Delegates - 1992-1993 MEXICO Vacant HAWAH Beth Hint, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala MoanaBIvd., Room 530 P.O. Box 50167, Honolulu, HI 96850 USA. Phone: 808-541-1201 FAX: 808-541-1216 CALIFORNIA William J. Sydeman, Point Reyes Bird Observatory 4990 Shoreline Highway, Sdnson Beach, CA 94970 USA. Phone: 415-868-1221 FAX: 415-868-1946 OREGON Roy Lowe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2030 S. Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365 USA. Phone: 503-867-4550 FAX: 503-867-4551 WASHINGTON David R. Nysewander, Washington Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Managemoit Division 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA 98501-1091 USA. Phone: 206-664-9348 FAX: 206-586-0248 BRITISH COLUMBIA Gary W. Kaiser, Canadian Wildlife Service P.O. Box 340, Delta, British Columbia, V4K 3 Y3, Canada. Phone: 604-946-8546 FAX: 604-946-7022 ALASKA G. Vernon Byrd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2355 Kachemak Bay Drive, Homer, AK Phone: 907-235-6546 RUSSIAN FAR EAST Alexander Ya. Kondratyev, Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biological Problems of the North K. Marx Str. 24, 685000, Magadan, Russia. Phone: 2-29-65 FAX: 2-47-30 JAPAN Vacant CHINA Vacant COMMITTEE CHAIR Scott A. Hatch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic, 101 1 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503 USA. Phone: 907-786-3529 FAX: 907-786-3636 4 THE BILLION DOLLAR TRU$T FUND Craig S. Harrison,Vice-Chair for Conservation The grounding of the Exxon Valdez in Prince Wil- liam Sound, Alaska, in March 1989 spawned one of the greatest frenzies of environmental litigation in the history of the United States. Eleven million gallons of crude oil spread over a large area and contaminated islands, beaches and bays in Prince William Sound, the Kenai Peninsula, the Cook Inlet, the Kodiak Archipelago, and the Alaska Penin- sula. The oil or its effects killed some 400,000 seabirds and severely damaged other natural resources. PSG members who wish to apply Deep Throat’s dictum and “follow the money” may be interested in the following summary of the establishment of the $ 1 billion trust fund to restore Alaska’s natural resources. In October 1991, a federal judge approved an agreement that settled the claims of the federal government and the State of Alaska against Exxon and its subsidiaries for various criminal violations and for recovery of civil damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon entered a guilty plea to federal criminal charges and admit- ted violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean Water Act, and Rivers and Harbors Act. The sentence included a $150 million fine, $125 million of which was forgiven due to Exxon’s cooperation during the cleanup and environ- mental precautions taken since the spiU. Exxon paid the remaining $25 million into the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and the Victims of Crime Act account. Exxon also agreed to pay $50 million to the federal government and $50 million to Alaska as restitution for the criminal violations. The state and federal governments will separately manage the $50 million payment that each has received. The court ordered that these funds be used exclusively for restoration projects within Alaska relating to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The court defined restoration to include “restoration, replacement, and enhancement of affected resources, acquisition of equivalent resources and services; and long-term environmental monitoring and re- search programs directed to the prevention, containment, cleanup and amelioration of oil spills.” Exxon, the U.S., and Alaska also entered into a $900 million civil settlement agreement for damages for injuries to natural resources and the restoration and replace- ment of natural resources. The Agreement and Consent Decree details the settlement of the civil claims among the U.S., Alaska, and Exxon. Exxon agreed to pay the U.S. and Alaska $900 million over ten years, according to the follow- ing schedule: December 1991 ($90 million), December 1992 ($150 million), September 1993 ($100 million), and $70 million each September for the eight years beginning September 1994. Exxon will deposit these funds with the federal court in an interest bearing account. The court will disburse funds when the Trastees request that they do so. Presumably the court retains authority to reject requests for payments that are beyond the tenns of the Agreement. The U.S. and Alaska are co-trustees and shall use the funds for the purposes of “restoring, replacing, enhanc- ing, rehabilitating or acquiring the equivalent of natural resources injured as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill or the reduced or lost services provided by such resources.” The Trustees also may use the money to reimburse expenses the governments have incurred due to the oil spill. The major points of the Agreement are: * all decisions shall be made by the unanimous agree- ment of the six Tmstees; * the Trastees shall establish procedures for mean- ingful public participation, including a public ad- visory group; * the Trastees “shall jointly use all natural resource damage recoveries for purposes of restoring, re- placing, enhancing, rehabilitating, or acquiring the equivalent of natural resources injured as a result of the Oil Spill and the reduced or lost services provided by such resources”; and * aO natural resource damage recoveries will be ex- pended on restoration of natural resources in Alaska unless the Trustees unanimously agree that spend- ing funds elsewhere is necessary for effective restoration. The Trastees are responsible for making all deci- sions regarding funding, injury assessment, and restoration. The Alaska trastees are the Commissioner of the Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation, the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Attorney General. The federal trastees are the Secretaiy of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of NOAA, but authority is usually delegated to another agency employee. The Trastees appointed an interim Administra- tive Director and a Restoration Team to take on the day-to- day management and administrative functions for imple- mentation of the restoration program. The Trastees will 5 Settlement (Continued) approve the hiring of a pennanent fuU-time Administrative Director to chair and support the Restoration Team. Public participation in the restoration process is an integral part of the Agreement The Trustees ate in the process of establishing a public advisory group that will include the following interests: aquaculture, commercial fishing, commercial tourism, sport hunting and fishing conservation, environmental,forestproducts,local govern- ment, Nativelandowners, recreation users, subsistence, and scientific/academic. PSG Comments on Alaska Oil Spill Restoration Plans Craig S. Harrison, Vice-Chair for Conservation In June 1992, PSG sent the Trustees of the Exxon Valdez oil spill trust fund written comments on their Restoration Framework, their 1992 Draft Woik Plan and their Solicitation for Suggestions for the 1 993 Work Plan. These plans direct the expendi- ture of some of the $1 biUion that is to be used to restore Alaska’s natural resources. Besides gener- supporting the damage assessment and restora- tion projects that the Trustees funded for 1992, PSG urged the Trustees to provide substantial funds to eliminate foxes, rats and otherpredators from present and former seabird colonies. PSG also suggested that the Trustees evaluate PSG’s list of islands and other habitat that might be purchased to conserve seabirds. Members who wish to obtain copies of any of the following documents should contact the Oil Spill Public Infomiation Center at (907) 278-8008: * natural resource damage assessment and restoration plans (1989, 1990, 1991) * 1991 restoration study plans * restoration rejx)its and bibliographies * 1992 work plan * restoration framework * settlement documents. PSG has nominated James G. King, a resident of Juneau, to be a member of the advisory group. Jim is one of PSG’s founders and his expertise in public lands and natural resource management in Alaska encompasses some 43 years. Since retiring in 1983 fiom his position as Supervi- sor, Maska Waterfowl Investigations, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jim has continued his biological research, includ- ing publication and presentation of technical papers at biological meetings. We are delighted to leam that the Trustees selected Jim in late October to be a member of the public advisorygroup in the conservation category. Con- gratulations Jim! 6 Proposed Changes to PSG Bylaws Dear PSG Member, Ibe following are proposed changes to the Pacific Seabird Group Bylaws. These proposed changes have been eve oped by the 1991 and 1992 PSG2000 and Bylaws Committees, and are, in part, a direct result of the PSG2000- membership discussions at the Monterey and Charleston annual meetings. Because most of the members attending these two annual meetings participated in these discussions, the following proposed changes to the Bylaws reflect the ideas of a good many members of this society. The proposed changes have already been approved by the PSG Executive Council, but require a majority vote of the generalmembership before they can be accepted. Please read the following carefiiUy.and vote to accept orreject these proposed changes. Although you are voting for the entire package, as a whole, if you have a problem with a particular change, you can express this objection in the space provided on the accompanying, self-addressed ballot. Please participate, and please return the enclosed ballot within 30 days of receiving this Bulletin, Return ballots to: KenneA Warheit, Treasurer 8205-E Martin Way ME Suite 238 Olympia, WA 98516-5769 The proposed changes to Bylaws are presented in the following format: Text in Times-Roman typeface is unchanged text from previous Bylaws Text in Timcj Roman typeface tlia t hag been “icdlincd-i s deleted text from previous Bylaws Text in Courier typeface is new text added to this draft of Bylaws Therefore, you will be voting on text that is in Times Roman typeface that ha5 been ** r cdlincd” and text that is in courier typeface DRAFT BYLAWS OF THE PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP (As Amended through XX XXX 1992 ) Article I. Name, Objectives, and Composition Section 1. Name. The name of Ihis organization shall be the Pacific Seabird Group. SMtfen 2. Objectives. TOe objectives of the Group are exclusively scientific, educational, conservatrtmal, and nonprofit. In furtherance of th^ objMtives, the Group’s pnncipal activities wiU be (1) to increase the amount and quality of scientific research on Pacific seabi^,(2)m^urate the Gtoup’smembers and the generalpublicof the importanceofPacific seabirds and their environment, (3)todissOTmatepubhcanonsandothermformation to accomplish thisend,and(4)toadvocatefortheconservationofPacific seabirds Section 3. Composition. The Pacific Seabird Groupshall be comjK)sedofthosepersons,regardless of sex,race, religion, ornationality interested in Pacific seabirds and/or their environment. Article n. Membership Section 1 . Membership Status. Membership in the Group shall be open to all persons interested in Pacific seabirds and/or their environment^ MeM^ership categories shall be: (1) Individual Member, (2) Student Member, (3) Famxly Member,. f4) Sponsored Member, and (5) Life Member. 7 Bylaws (Continued) Section 2. Dues. Annual dues shall be paid by all members, except Sponsored Members and Life Members, according to the provisions set forth in Article II, Section 3. The amount of annual dues shall be approved set by a majority vote of the Ex^utive Council, as needed to meet the financial requirements of the Group, and approved by a majority vote of the general membership an d payahle in advjtnee hy each year. Annual dues for each calendar year shall be payable by 31 December of the previous year, and shall be in arrears if not paid by 31 March of the current calendar year, provided that the Treasurer has sent the member one notice of indebtedness. Annual dues for Student Members shall be set at two-thirds to three-fourths the amount of Individual Members. The annual dues for Sponsored Members shall be paid by that member's sponsor. Section 3. Life Membership. Life members shall be exempted from all further dues provided the member has paid in full the total Life Membership dues. Dues for Life Members shall be set at 30 times the annual dues, payable in one to five consecutive annual installments. Article in. Organization Executive Council Section 1 . Corrposition. The Group shall be governed by a board of director call^ the Ex^utive Council composed of six Officers, eight Regional Representatives, and the Editor of the Group's regular serial publication. Section 2. Clause D. Duties. The Executive Council will pursue such policies and principles as shall be in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws, The Executive Council, by a majority vote, shall have the power to fill, for unexpired terms, vacancies occumng in its membership; recommend changes in the Bylaws; develop objectives, policies, and programs; perform such other duties as are prescribed herein; and may assign to the Chair any responsibilities authorized to it by the Bylaws. Section 3. AR¥ 1CH3 TV. OEHCERS Clause A Section 1. Officers. The Officers of the Group shall be the Chair, the Chair-Elect, the Past-Chair {the Chair from the previous year), the Vice-Chair for Conservation, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. Any member in g^ standing may be elected to an office. The Executive Council, with the exception of the Office, will serve as a nominating committee for the election of new Officers. The Officers will be elected by a majority v^of the membership in an election held at least 30 days before the annual meeting. Office r s will serve for the succeeding year: Terms for all newly elected Officers will begin on the adjournment of that annual meeting. Clause B Section 2. Chair. The Chair shall be responsible for executing the objectives, policies, and programs developed by the Executive Council and membership for all those administrative and marginal decisions, duties, and activities normally associated with careyrng on the affairs of such an organization. The Chmrshall preside over meetings of theExecutive Council at the annual meeting and cany out other duties as assigned by, or assumed under, tte broad policies of the Executive Council. In the absence of the Chair, or upon an inability to serve, duties shall be assumed by the Chair-Elect The Chair shall serve for one year. Specific duties include: Overseeing ail activities of the Group; playing a centr^ role in initiating, editing, and distributing PSG policy statements; acting as official spokesperson for the Group; designating people to carry out certain tasks not cove-ed by the duties listed for othe- offices; chairing the meeting of the Executive Council and/or the full membership; informing the Executive Council of PSG activities; keeping abreast of conservation issues and inform council members when appropriate; and writing an article Chair*sPage^or each issue of the Group's regular serial publication. Clause C Section 3. Chair-Elect The Chair-Elect shall be assigned duties by the Chair. The Chair-Elect shall succeed to the office ofChair upon the completion ofthe Chair's term of office. The Chair-Elect shall serve in the capacity of Chair-Elect for one year. Specific duties include: Acting as Program chair for the annual me^ng by requesting, receiving, selecting, and editing abstracts and sending them to the Coordinator of Local Committee for inclusion in the program; and investigating locations for future annual meetings. TheChair-ElectshouId come 8 Bylaws to council meetings with information on the location for the next meeting and a choice of two or three sites for the meeting to be held in two three years . Clause D. Past-Chair. The Past-Chair is the Chair from the year immediately preceding the current year . The Past-Chair shall be assigned duties by the Chair and serves for one year. Clause E Section 4 . Vice-Chair for Conservation. The Vice-Chair for Conservation is responsible for initiation and coordination ofconservationrelated activities of the Group. The Vice-Chair for Conservation is elected fdr a term of two years, and is not limited to serving only a single term. Specific duties include : Identifying and keeping informed on issues pertaining to the conservation of seabirds; preparing information on high priority conservation issues and distributing that information to the membership and others interested in seabird conservation; acting for PSG as directed by the Chair on priority conservation issues at public forums and through written comments; chairing the Conservation Committee; reporting the activities of the Conservation Committee to the Executive Council at the annual meeting and in at least one of the issues of the Group’s publication. Clause F Section 5. Secretary. The Secretary shall be assigned duties by the Chair. The Secretary will be responsible for taking minutes at Group and Executive Council meetings. The Secretary is elected for a term of two years, and is not limited to serving only a single term. Specific duties include: Maintaining a list of publications and organizations to receive notice of PSG meetings and other activities; serving as liaison to coordinator of Local Committee; preparing a notice of request for the nominations of Regional Representatives and sending the request to the members th r ough PSG Bulletin ; arranging for the printing and mailing of meeting announcements, etc . Clause G SeetioB-6. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be responsible for all funds of the Group. Assets in the general fund accounts shall be made subject to the single signature of the Treasurer. Chairman, and or other members approved by the Executive Council. The Treasurer is elected for a term of two years, and is not limited to serving only a single term. Specific duties include: Receiving individual or institutional membershipapplications or subscriptions; receiving requests for back issues of the Group’s regular serial publication , cte.; keeping a list of current members and making that list available to the Secretary and the Editor of the Group'' s regular serial publication on address labels; designing and mailing membership renewal not ices; maintaining an accounting of PSG funds; receiving receipts for persons authorized to spend PSG money and reimbursing them by check; completing income tax statements and performing other duties relating to PSG’s status as a tax exempt group; preparing a Treasurer’s repeat for the annual meeting and the Group’s regular serial publication; receiving income from dues and sale of the Group’s regular serial publication. Section 4 Clause A . Regional Representatives. Clause A. Composition. The numbe r of mcmb CF s on theExccutivc Couned will be 10. The Executive Council is composed of all G r oup Offic ers ; Pacific Seabi r d Group bulletin Edito r , past Chairs of the th r ee previous yea r s, and o One Regional Representative shall be elected from each of the following eight fid^regions: (1) Alaska and Russia; (2) Washington and Oregon; (3) Northern California, consisting of the following 39 counties: Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba; (4) Southern California consisting of the following 19 counties: Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura; (5) United States, excluding Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii; (6) Canada; <7) Pacific Rim, including Hawaii, Latin America, Pacific Islands, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, North and South Korea, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and China; (8) Old World, including Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia not included in other regions. 9 Bylaws (Continued) The Regional Representatives are elected for a term of two years, and is not limited to serving only a single term. Ala ska /Russia, Northern California, Old World, and Pacific Rim regions shall elect Representatives every odd-numbered year, and washington/Oregon, Southern California, United States, and Canada shall elect Representatives every even-numbered year. Afe iaka, British Golumbia and Washington Stiitc; Oregon and Noi^cm Cahfo mia (mcnib^^^ with Zip Codu starting mih %A ; 955, and 959-9 6 1), Central California (mcmb m with Zi p eodC3 3tmling vnth 939 >95 3 956 > 950 : includca Sac r amento, Gan F r ancigeo, Mont e rey), Southern Califcraia (membera mth Zip Codc3 starting witli 920-938). Pacific (Hawaii, So uth Pacific, Asia), Latin Ame r ica, No r theast Cana da; StitC3, Curopo), St^utiieaat (U.S. states and Canadian piovinecs boidering the Great I^eg), gmd Inland (all Cla^e B. Duties. Specific duties of the Regional Representatives include: Contacting seabirdresearchersintheirregionsatleastonceayearandrepoitingattcurrentresearchmtheir region in a report to be published in the Group^s regular serial publication (“Regional Report”); keeping abreast ^ regions and reporting at least one of these issues in their Regional Reports; sending to the Chair news articles newspaper dippiiigs on important conservation issues; establishing and maintaining contact withlocal conservation groups^ thatPSGisawareoftheiractivitiesandtheyareawareofPSG’s activities; keeping copies of all corresf>ondence with seabird researchers and conservation groups. Section 5. Editor of the Group's regular serial publication. The editor of the Pacific Seabird Group's regular serial publication {see Article IX) shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Executive Council. Specific duties include: Contacting individuals and organizations conc^ning potential aiticles for the Grrmp s regular serial publication; receiving and editing Regional Reports, articles, bulletin board items, cte. or notes; producing the final copy of the Group’s regular serial publication; arranging fes- the printing and mailing of the Group’s Article ¥■ IV. Elections and Appointments Filling t o Executive Council-Seats Section 1 . Nominations. Before 1 May each year , the Secretary will announce in a Group publication or by card or letter the regional calendar year. Nominations for these seats will be received by the Coordinator of the Election Committee until 1 June of the same year (see Article Vii for the formation of the Election Commxttee) . « Section 2. When at least one member has been nominated for a single regional seat on the Executive Council the CoonlmatorrftheElecUonc^mitteewrnmailaballotbearingthe nominations toaU members withiesidence in theaiearepresented by *e^L Jtaor approve shall be obtained from said nominees. Thirty days will be allowed for the election baUots to be returned to the Coordmator of the Elecuons Committee; who wiil tabulate ballots and inform the Editor of the Group's re^lar serial publication and other Council members as to the results of the election . Seate ^reseriting each region will be fiUed by the nominees receiving the largest vote for each seat In the eventof a ue the selecuon shall be made by a majority vote of the current Executive Council. Vacancies occurring on the Executive Council due to a lack of nommauons shall be filled by a majority vote of the Council. Council members elected in this mannwneed not Uve in the area they represent. Article WV. Meetings Section 1. Executive Council. Clause A. Frequency and Notice. The Executive Council shall meet annually at a time and place to be selected by the C™l“lSyTSror;ZS~ 10 Bylaws these meetings Whenever possible, the time and place of the Executive CouncD meeting will be announced in a Group publication. ri B Proxies. In the event a member of the Executive Council cannot attend a meeting, the member is authorized to ^ anv Qualified member of the Group as an alternative, laovided that the Chair is notified in writing. The ^jpointment of^y alternate to act for a member of the Executive Council shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Clause C Quorum. Eight ten members of the Executive Council shall cwistitute a meeting quorum for the transaction of business. Section2, Group Meetings. ria se A Frequency and Notice, Meetings of the Group will be held once a year at such times and places as designated h A E ^utive Council. Due notice of Group meetings shall be given to all members at least 30 days in advance through aLoVpnWication or by mail to members^ last known maihng address. Clause B Local Coirtmittee . A person or persons will be appointed by the Executive Council for the purpose of arranging a Group meeting at the designated time and place. The s ecific duties of the Coordinator of the Local Committee shall include; Arranging ^tin ^facilities' producing a meeting announcement, preregistration form, and call for paprs; mailing this announcement; fo^ng and coordinating a Local Committee; carrying out activities outlined in PSG meeting instructions; keeping records of aU mcmey spent and received; and preparing a budget statement after the meeting. Clause C B- Resolutions. Resolutions proposed for consideration at any meeting of the Group, excqtt for expressions of appreciation, must have prior approval of a majority of the Executive Council. Article VI. Fiscal Management Section 1 General The fiscal affairs of the Group shall be under the supervision of the Executive Council and shall be handled by the Treasurer. Section 2. Administration of Assets. Income from dues ra: contributitms shall be placed in a federaUy insured financial institution baiikui juniiigs and loan assoeiatiei t. Article VII. Committees Working committees may be established by Executive Council. The composition, size, purpose, and powers of any such committees shall be provided in writing by the Executive Council. The Chair of the Executive Council shall appoint the Coordinator of each working committee, and shall be ex-officio a member of each committee. The specific duties of the Coordinator shall include: Overseeing all activities of the committee; scheduling and coordinating meetings of the committee; and reporting to the Council the activities and acconplishments of the committee. The Coordinators of the working committees may be removed by majority vote of the Executive Council. 11 Bylaws (Continued) Article Vin. Resolutions and Public Statements The Executive Council shall, as need arises, fonnulate and publish statements expressing the position or attitude of the Group on matters coming under the provisions of Article I of these Bylaws. When an issue is known to be h ighly controversial, with the membership holding widely divergent opinions, the views of the membership shall be solicited by the Executive Council. The Group shall issue, under the direction of the Executive Council, a regular serial publication. The Group may also produce additional publications as determined by the Executive Council . Upon dissolution of the Pacific Seabird Group, the Executive Council shad distribute the assets and the accrued income of tl^ Group, as determined by the Executive Council, to one or more organizations which that are organized and operated exclusively for educational and/or scientific purposes and which that have established tiicirtax-exempt status under section 50 1 (c)(3) of the U. S . Internal Revenue Code. Section 1. Origin. Amendments to these Bylaws must be ordered to be submitted to the voting membership for action either by (1) a majority of the members present at any annual meeting of the Group, or (2) a majority of the Executive Council. Section 2. Adoption. The^ Bylaws may be altered or amended by a majority vote of the members present at any regular or spiral meeting of the Group, if advance notice of the proposed changes is contained in the notice of the meeting; provided, however, that any member unable to attend the meeting may request the Secretary in writing before such meeting to register a vote for the member either for or against the amendment in question, and such vote shall be counted with the votes of the members present. These Bylaws may also be altered or amended by a majority of the members who return ballots in response to a proposed amendment, notice of which must have been mailed to all voting members at least 30 days before the close of the ballot The results of all such ballots shall be filed with the permanent records of the Group. Article IX, Publications Article X. Dissolution Article XI. Amendments to Bylaws 12 IN MEMORIAM BRYAN STEVEN OBST (1956-1991) Our community and our profession suffered a tragic loss on 9 August 1991 when Bryan Obst died after a struggle with pneumo- nia related to AIDS. Biyan earned his B.S. in zoology from the University of Florida and his M.A (1983) and PhD. (1986) in biology from UCLA. He studied in the labs of Dr. Thomas Howell and Dr. George Bartholomew, and in the tradition of those groups worked on questions concem- ingphysiological ecology and ornithology. His dissertation on the smallest endotherm in the Antarctic was entitled *‘The Energetics of Wilson’s Storm-petrels {Oceanites oceanicus) Breeding at Palmer Station, Antarctica.” After finishing his doctorate he chose to work as a postdoctoral scholar in the laboratory of Dr. Jared Diamond (UCLA), where he explored intestinal nutrient transport in birds with the goal of applying those physiological techniques to ecological questions. In 1987 he was ap- pointed to the faculty of the Biology Depart- ment at UCLA as an assistantprofessor. Though Bryan was generally interested in the physiol- ogy of digestion (publishing papers on chick- ens, grouse, and geese), the focus of his re- search remained pelagic birds, their relation- ship to the marine environment, and their inter- actions with other marine organisms. In the last five years of his life he was actively involved in the study of Red-necked and Wilson’s Phalaropes and their feeding ecology and physiology at Mono Lake. His research spanned many extremes, from the Bering Sea to the Antarctic, from grey whales and GiantPetrels to Least Auklets and Least Storm-petrels, He demon- strated empirically that the distinctive spinning behav- ior of phalaropes does in fact bring food within their reach, and this was vividly portrayed in a film produced by the UCXA media group. In addition to an active research and teaching schedule, Bryan coordinated monitoring and recovery efforts for the endangered California Least Tern in Southern California. Bryan was an extremely popular professor, and even as his health declined his enthusiasm for teaching continued to draw new students. He had a gift for seeing the wonder in every aspect of the living world from a viewpoint uniquely his own. He could be relied upon to notice things completely ignored by the more ordi- nary observer. He was able to take as much joy fiom watching common urban birds as he did from ram experiences such as viewing newly hatched Craveri’s Murmlet chicks swimming with their pamnts at dawn in the Sea of Cortez. His colleagues, his many friends, and his family wiU continue to miss his mischievous wit and piercing insight and regret the loss of what he could have seen and taught us. Elizabeth Flint and Margaret Rube ga 15 IN MEMORIAM WILLIAM H. DRURY William H. Drury, best known to seabird biolo- gists for his work on gulls and terns on the East Coast and his research on munes and black- legged kittiwakes in the northern Bering Sea, passed away at the age of 71 in March 1992. Bill was a member of PSG since the Group’s initiation and was an Executive Councfl mem- ber during PSG’s formative years. Bill had a long and distinguished ca- reer in scientific research, teaching, and con- servation policy. Althou^ he also worked in geology, botany, and human ecology it was seabirds that served as the focus formost of his work. Bill graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1942 from Harvard, where he conduct^ research on terns as part of his un- dergraduate program. From 1942 to 1945 he served in the Navy, and following the war he returned to Harvard, where he received a Ph.D. in biology and geology in 1952. From 1956 to 1976 he served as director of education and research of the Massachusetts Audubon Soci- ety, and he also lectured on evolutionary biol- ogy and ecology at Harvard. In 1976 he joined the faculty of the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, where he continued to teach and do research until the time of his death. Bill was an important bridge from the museum-oriented taxonomists of the 1 940s to the ecolo- gists of the 1960s. His undergraduate research was in ornithology, but he concentrated on botany and geology for his doctorate, largely because ornithology at that time was dominated by taxonomic studies that held little interest for him. After receiving his doaorate he at- tended the International Ornithological Congress in 1954 and was inspired by European field ornithologists and behaviorists who were using birds to ask important questions in ecology and ethology. Bill then partici- pated in an expedition to B ylot Island in northern Canada where he was able to conduct studies on tundra shore- birds and gulls. Bill was an early critic of the indiscriminate use of pesticides and served on several environmental pan- els of the President’s Science Advisory Council during the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations. Concern about New England’s expanding gull population in- creased after a plane crash caused by a birdstrike at Boston’s Logan Aii|^rt in the late 1950s. As a result. Bill studied populations and movements of Herring Gulls for the Federal Aviation Administration during the 1960s. Bill’s work in the northeast also involved restoring tern populations to islands where they had been displaced by gulls; this work reinforced his view that humans should at times take a managed approach to protecting species and habitats. The killing of gulls caused conflicts within the conservation community; Bill’s involvement in this controversy and discussions of similar conflicts ate addressed in an article in the November 1992 Atlantic Monthly . The title of the article, “Weeding the Garden,” comes from Bill’s ob- servation that “the philosophical question of kiUing one species to favor another was answered by the early agriculturalists who pulled up plants that inhibited the growth of their crops - they weeded their garden.” While at the College of Atlantic, BiU continued his work with tern populations on coastal islands. Bill’s work in New England also included assisting with the reintroduction of the Peregrine Falcon to the coast of Maine. From 1975 to 1980 Bill conducted studies of seabirds in the northern Bering and southern Chukchi seas as partof the Outer Continental Shelf EnvirDnmen- When your views on the world and your intellect are being challenged and you begin to feel uncomfortable because of a contradiction you’ve detected is threatening your current model of the world or some aspect of it, pay attention: you are about to learn something. This discomfort and intellectual conflict is when learning takes place. BiU Drury tal Assessment Program. The smdy he began at the Black-legged Kitliwake colony atBiuffinNortonSound has been continued by Ed Muiphy of the University of Alaska and has result^ in one of the largest databases on Alaskan seabirds. Bill was a compulsive questioner and icono- clast He saw much of ecology as being dominated by closed-system models and self-organizing principles (density dependence, competition, succession) that were contraiy to what he observed in nature. Over twenty years ago he co-authoured with Ian Nisbet a paper that challenged the concept of succession in plant communi- ties. Bill realized that once a hypothesis is proposed, its proponents would tend to ignore or treat as exceptions those observations that falsified the hypothesis. Bill noticed that scientists continued to imagine that self- organizing principles and holistic benefits exist in natu- ral ‘‘communities*’ and believed it was due to the insecu- rity of the human psyche. On the fundamental human need for predictability Bill wrote: “People have univer- sally withdrawn from acknowledging evident confusion and, instead, have asserted that the earth must be an imperfect manifestation of a larger plan. This has led them to depend on shamans, ecologists, oreconomists to interpret the “plan,” which ordinaiy people cannot rec- ognize.” Bill had the problem of having as his chief dogma the belief that one should avoid dogma. This prevented him from rushing into print with any new or major insights since whatever he believed he had dis- covered needed to be analyzed for inconsistencies, and he was well aware that the examination would almost certainly modify the original discovery. This approach to science does not lead to a long list of publications but probably does bring one closer to the truth and Bill saw his life as a biologist as an attempt to get to the truth rather than an effort to gain stature in the community of scientists. For this reason his ability to attract funds and recognition was far less than one would expect for someone of his ability. Bill’s desire for getting to the truth was not limited to biology. At a Bering Sea synthesis meeting in the late 1970s Bill sat and chafed while physical ocean- ographers explained the currents in Norton Sound based on satellite imageiy and data obtained from current meters. When it was time for Biltto give a half-hour talk on bird distribution he began with a ten-minute discus- sion of how the physical oceanographers had over- looked an area of convergence between Nome and Sledge Island that was known to Bill and everyone else in Nome who had done small boat work in the area. He continued with slides of driftwood and walrus carcass deposition on sandspits that appeared to contradict the findings of the oceanographers. With proper New England decorum he suggested that the oceanographers would do well to take a small boat ride around Norton Sound during their studies rather than simply analyze their images and data tapes. Only then did he proceed with his scheduled discussion of seabirds. Bill’s major impact on science was almost certainly the effect he has had on students, field assis- tants, and fellow scientists. Over the past fifteen years I have heard numerous stories from people who have told how BiU influenced their career or research by providing advice or encouragement. Some of these influences were major (he served on George Hunt’s graduate committee while at Harvard) while many siniply involved a long and thoughtful reply from BiU to a letter of inquiry. For a man of his inteUect BiU was extremely accessible to others. In addition, the fact that he was not an empire builder and had no scientific turf to defend meant that he was able to provide straightfor- ward advice and insights. His influence wasnotlimited to seabird biologists, however. When Bob Trivers was at Harvard, BiU s discussions with him played a major role in his development as a scientist and the formation of his views on sociobiology. Early PSG meetings were dominated by people who had recently completed or were still in graduate school, with few people over forty years of age in attendance. In contrast BiU had finished his under- graduate degree before the start of the baby boom and his age and experience were important in raising the level of both scientific and organizational discussions. With the end of the Outer Continental Shelf Environ- mental Assessment Program and his work in Norton Sound, BiU’s attendance at PSG meetings became less frequent as his emphasis returned to New England seabirds. At the time of his death he was working on a book about natural history and ecology. It is being (Continued p. 21) 17 Regional Reports Washington/British Columbia Julia Parrish of the University of Washington has a grant from the USFWS to continue a study of Common Murres on Tatoosh Island. The colony has been rapidly expanding since the early 1980s and conservatively had 3-4 thousand birds in 1991. There were concerns that the July 1991 oil spill from the Tenyo Mara might have significantly im- pacted the Tatoosh murre population. While 3157 dead oiled murres were recovered in the wake of that spill preliminary analysis suggests that the Tatoosh colony has not changed dramatically. Of 27 spatially separate subcolonies only one was vacant although several sustained losses from 1991 to 1992. A more serious threat to the murre population is the interaction with raptors, both Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons. These predators, although sporadic in occurrence, cause significant disturbance of the largest subcolonies leading to colony evacuation during the early part of the nesting season. The unattended eggs and young chicks are easy prey for Glaucous- winged Gulls and Northwestern Crows. The number and timing of raptor presence on the island determines, to some extent, the reproductive success of murres nesting on Tatoosh cliff tops. A group of conservation societies including the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington Environmental Coun- cil, National Audubon Society, and Wademess Society is suing the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service to stop the use of offshore rocks as practice bombing targets by air force planes from both a nearby air station and aircraft carriers. The bombing of the offshore rocks has been of concern for some time since the rocks are utilized by marine mammals and seabirds. Populations of murres and cormorants on an island adjacent to one of the rocks designated as a bombing target have declined greatly in recent years. Central California Paul Jones, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, coor- dinated a largely volunteer effort investigating seabird and marine mammal distribution and abundance in the Gulf of the FaraUones. The report is available from him. Dan Evans is the new Point Reyes Bird Observa- tory Director. Evans was formerly the Director of the Darwin Field Station at the Galapagos Islands. Sarah Allen is working with David Ainley, Larry Spear, and Bill Sydeman, as they continue to investigate pelagic distribu- tion of seabirds in relation to prey in central California, using GIS and remote sensing techniques. Their study is being conducted in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Mark Rauzon has introduced feline enteritis on Christmas Island with the assistance of the New Zealand and Kiribati governments. This is an attempt to employ biological control for roughly 20,000 feral cals on the island. He will assist with monitoring for its effectiveness. Rauzon reports that the artificial nesting platform at the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station in Oahu supported five nesting attempts and produced at least three chicks. Steve and Stephanie Singer of the Santa Cruz City Museum of Natural History, working in cooperaton with David Sudcyian and a team of volunteer biologists, have found another Marbled Murrelet nest in Big Basin Red- woods State Park. This year’s nest was found in a different branchof the same old-growth redwood tree wheiemunelets nested successfully in 1991. This is the first recorded occurrence of munelets nesting in the same tree used in the previous year. The young murrelet fledged successfully on the night of June?, 1992. The Santa Cruz Mountains Murrelet Group, with assistance from the Sempervirens Fund, has begun a two year project to locate new areas of potentially suitable breeding habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Old growth forest stands will be surveyed at dawn for evidence of murrelet usage. Results of the study wiU be presented after of the 1993 breeding season. For the second year, lack of funds has prevented the completion of aerial surveys of Common Murre breeding populations at FaraUon NT^ and other colonies in central andnorthemCalifomia. The Refuge will seek other sources of funding for future surveys. This has been the first seabird breeding season ( 1 992) with boat restrictions in place at the Farallon Islands. Restrictions include seasonal closures (March 15 to August Regional Reports 15) to lx>at traffic within 300 feet of most of the islands, ^ speed Imits for aU boats (5 mph within 1000 feet of islands, and noise restrictions for commercial dive boats engines pd compressors. Regulations were designed to provide improved protection to seabirds and marine mammals, particularly to Common Murres and Stelier sea lions. The effectiveness of these regulations will be reevaluated annu- aUy. So far, there appears to be a marked reduction in disturbance, with the majority of boats respecting restric- tions, as reported by PRBO biologists. Refuge biologists are woricing with PRBO to begin evaluating the effectiveness of predator exclosures around Snowy Plover nests at Salinas River NWR and many other sites along Monterey Bay. The Refuge will use this evalu- ation to determine whether further predator management is warranted. Frank Gress continues to monitor reproductive success of Brown Pelicans in the Southern California Bight Productivity in 1992 was worse than any year since 1978 and is the fourth year in a row of poor breeding sucKss. His long-term monitoring project on Brown Pelicans at Anacapa Island includes food studies and breed- ing biology investigations. He is also monitoring Brandt’s Cormorants and Pelagic Cormorants and is studying the effecte of the El Nino on seabirds of Anacapa Island. Gress is ^dng up the results of pollutant studies on Brown Pelicans and Double-crested Cormorants that were con- ducted from 1 977- 1 989, and he is assisting D. Michael Fry with egg collections from those species at Anacapa. Gress is also working with Dan Anderson on writing up results from the telemetry study on the effects of oiUng of Brown Pelicans. Data from this study shows that none of the rehabilitated birds returned to the colony to breed following their release. Jean Takekawa Pacific Andrew Yuen, Pacific Islands Land Protection Ctmrdina- tor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawaii), reports that the U.S. Fish and .Wildlife Service conducted biological surveys of Palmyra AtoU on September 1987, September 1990, andFebniary-March 1992. These surveys confimt the biological richness and importance of Palmyra Atoll, particulaily for seabirds and shorebitds. Based on these surveys and other studies, Palmyra AtoU supports the largest colony of the Red-footed Booby in the central Pacific. Palmyra AtoU also supports large colonies of the Brown Booby, Black Noddy, and Sooty Tern. Thebeaches and tidal fiats provide habitat for migratory shorebitds. In p^cular, the atoll supports relatively large numbers of the migratory Bristle-thighed Curlew. Palmyra AtoU is an outstanding biological resource. Palmyra Atoll is privately owned. Yuen says that landowners have demonstrated an appreciation and sensi- tivity for the wildlife of Palmyra Atoll and have instituted local conservation measures such as prohibiting the har- vesting of coconut crabs and limiting human access to the islets east and south of Cooper Island. Our biological surveys were made possible by the hospitality of the land- ownera and their agent. The Service has infomiaUy dis- cussed with the landowner’s agent the potential manage- ment of all or part of Palmyra Atoll for the puiposes of wildlife conservation. However, these discussions have been preliminary and the Service has notmade a decision on the potential management of Palmyra AtoU as a National WildUfe Refuge. We hope to build a dialogue with the landowners and agent regarding the role of the Service in the future planning of Palmyra AtoU. Scott Johnston recently transferred from CaUfor- nia to the USFWS office in Hawaii. His new address is USFWS, Pacific Islands Office, P.O. Box 501 67, Honolulu, HI 96850. Scott is finishing his thesis work from UCLA on human disturbance of California Least Terns. He wiU be working on a variety of endangered bird recovery issues in Hawaii and the South Pacific. The USFWS Pacific Islands Office is conducting a status survey of the Band-rumped Storm-petrel. The survey was initiated foUowing a petition to list the species as endangered. The USFWS determined that the informa- tion regarding distribution, breeding biology, and threats to the population were too scant to warrant listing until further data could be coUected. Staff from the Pacific Islands Office and Hawaii Research Group have conducted night in Regional Reports and offshore surveys and colony searches on Kauai, Hawaii , and Maui. A summary report on the survey will be used for justification to list the species as endangered. Any infonna- tion regarding distribution or status of this species is grate- fully requested by the USFWS. Please send infonmation or questions to Scott Johnston, USFWS, Pacific Islands Of- fice, P.O. Box 50167, Honolulu, HI 96850. Phone No. (808) 541-2749. The U.S. Coast Guard removed a 625' LORAN tower from Kure Atoll during July. USFWS biologists woriced with the Coast Guard and the State of Hawaii to minimize the impacts of tower demolition on the island's wildlife. This tower has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of seabirds at Kure since it was installed in 1961. The Coast Guard departed the island in August and will return for a final cleanup in 1993. Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge was visited in June and September in order to conduct an ongoing Polynesian rat eradication project Biologists found one male rat during the June trip and no rats or rat sign during the September visit. We are cautiously optimistic that the rats have been eradicated. The next trip is scheduled for Febru- ary. USFWS biologists visited Howland, Baker, and Jarvis islands in the Central Pacific Ocean during June and July. Significant observations from this trip included: Audubon’s Shearwaters on Jarvis Island, no cats on Jarvis or Howland Island, and noticeably decreased numbers of nesting seabirds on all islands. The USFWS field station at Tern Island, French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii recorded major changes in breeding phenology of some seabird species this season. Addition- ally, Sooty Tern nesting was almost a total failure. The colony of about 70,000 pairs abandoned eggs and early stage chicks. The adults eventually returned to the colony but renesting attempts were not significant Biologists on Laysan Island also noted more than usual mortality among Black Noddies. An unusual die off of Red-footed Booby chicks occurred on Midway Atoll. Ken McDermond Great Lakes Budgetary limits and a large outbreak of Newcastles EHs- ease Virus (NDV) in waterbirds east of the Rockies has altered much research on the Great Lakes in 1992 and cast many plans for further research “onto the rocks” for the moment NDV first broke out in White Pelicans, cormo- rants, and a few Ring-billed Gulls in Minnesota and North Dakota colonies in young-of-the-year during mid- June, By late June it was identified in the upper three Great Lakes cormorant colonies and later was found in Nebraska, Mon- tana, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and all the way to New York. By mid-July it was clear that virtually aU Great Lakes colonies were involved. The pathotype of the virus was later identified as primarily neurotropic velogenic (attacking the Q^S primarily and very pathogenic) by USDA scientists. The outbreak eventually involve one domestic turkey flock of 27,000 birds in North Dakota, a flock that was destroyed and burned to quarantine the disease. There was great anxiety that cormorants would transmit the disease to Ring-billed Gulls that in turn could vector the disease widely into poultry. Fortunately, this scenario did not develop, and only the single domestic turkey flock was lost. NDVhad alarge impactonseveralresearch projects that were using cormorants to measure the uptake of toxic chemicals into waterbirds from forage fish across the five Great Lakes. The only prudent course for researchers to follow was to suspend all field collections until the degree of infectivity could be established by USDA laboratory testing. Although as of this date (1 1/02/92) the degree of threat is still not fully known, some results show that blood samples and food samples collected from infeaed and exposed birds are not virus-contaminated and thus can be safely handled and analyzed. Unformnately, the potential degree of NDV as a confounding factor is not known for wild species. Much uncertainty remains about what re- search activities may be safely pursued in 1993 in the Great Lakes region. A considerable anxiety remains over the possibility of a widespread outbreak in 1993 in Ring-billed Gulls, which have a large potential to disseminate this potent pathogen into poultry operations. Other research reported in October included the results of work that related contaminant burdens to poor development of competent immune systems in chicks of Caspian Terns and Herring Gulls. Great Lakes shoreline eagles continue to reproduce poorly in comparison to inland eagles. Planar contaminant-caused wasting syndrome was 20 Regional Reports identified and measured in Caspian Terns and Herring Gulls from one contamination “hot spot” Previous results ' of contaminant-driven bioeffects research reported in 1 989 and 1991 at two cause-effects Unkages symposia on toxic contamiiiants and wil(Mife populations are now available as proceedings in Volume 33(4) of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health and as abstracts of the 1991 symposium from the Michigan Audubon Society, P. O. Box 80527, Lansing, MI 48909. Few concrete research plans for 1993 are in place in the Great Lakes region given the uncertainties presented by elections, the unsuccessful Ca- nadian constitutional referendum, the poor state of the economies, and the presence of Newcasties disease. One new project of considerable interest to the PSG membership is the just-begun pilot project to assess the presence and impacts of chlorinated hydrocarbon contami- nants on the two north Pacific albatrosses. A grant from the USEPA to the World Wildlife Fund, matched with external funds and in-kirKi efforts of the contractor to WWF will allow this pilot project to move forward using albatrosses at Midway Atoll. Including the pilot year, this effort is expea^ to take three field seasons and another year of writing and data analysis to be completed. Research will focus on measuring the presence of planar contaminants in the birds, their eggs, and offspring using the newly devel- oped H4IIE EROD bioassay to measure the effect of the contaminants present on enzyme systems and certain bio- logical markers, especially vitamin A and thyroid hormones in these birds. Productivity and the development of immune function in chicks will be measured in years two and three of the field program. Albatrosses were chosen as subjects to assess the impacts on top avian predators in what should be that marine ecosystem in the northern hemisphere with the greatest degree of dilution of these exceptionally toxic contaminants, and because of all species at the top of the food web, albatrosses range over and utilize more of the oceanic surface than other avian species. Because the contractor for this work with the WWF happens to be located in the Great Lakes region (the SERE Group Ltd. of Stockbridge, MI), periodic reports on the progress of this effort will issue from this reporter. James P. Ludwig Drury (Continued from p. 17) completed by associates from the College of the Atlantic. Bill never lost sight of what was really im- portant in life. He once said that he preferred being an ornithologist over a geologist since it was easier to take your family into the field. His proposal to conduct his Alaska field work stated that he would not accept funding if his family could not accompany him. Bill is survived by his wife Mary, four sons, and four grandchildren. George Divoky, with assistance from John Biderman, George Hunt, and Cathy Ramsdell 21 Minutes of the Midyear Executive Council Meeting Submitted by Ellen W. Chu A midyear meeting of the PSG Executive Council was held on 18 July 1992 in Kirkland, Washington. Chair Palmer Sekora called the meeting to order at 1020. A quorum was present and consisted of Palmer, eight proxies held by Palmer, Chair-Elect Geoige Di voky , Treasurer Ken Waiheit, and Past-Chair Mike Fry. Also present were former trea- surer Ellen Chu and North Pacific Symposium convenor Kees Vermeer. After Palmer briefly reviewed the agenda, Kees Vermeer summarized the present status of the proceedings of the symposium, “Status, Ecology, and Conservation of Marine Birds of the North Pacific,” (henceforth referred to as the North Pacific Symposium) held in Victoria, BC in 1990. He estimated that the total cost of publishing the proceedings would be $22,0(X) (Canadian) for about 1200 copies (about 1000 manuscript pages). The proceedings will contain 25 papers, which are now being edited by the Canadian Wildlife Service in Ottawa. Estimated publica- tion date is March 1993. The Council was concerned about the cost of pub- lishing the proceedings of the North Pacific Symposium. The members were worried that PSG might have to cover up to $18,000 of the publication costs. Discussion centered around trying to understand how such a commitment could have evolved. In an attempt to resolve the confusion. Palmer proposed for the record that “it is our understanding that the Canadian Wildlife Service (letter from S. P. Wetmore, A/Regional Director of CWS, dated 28 May 1992) will pay any remainder of the publication costs for the North Pacific Symposium not covered by author’s page charges as in- voiced by PSG. These include any costs above and beyond the $5000 Canadian committed by the British Columbian Ministry of Environment, Lands and Paries, and may amount to about $6000 Canadian. PSG shall be responsible only for the proceeds from its annual meeting in Victoria ($1815) and for invoicing and collecting page charges from partici- pating authors.” Palmer further stressed that PSG must set up guidelines for content and publishing procedure for future PSG-sponsored symposia. The local committee for the 1993 twentieth anni- versary meeting, consisting of George Divoky, EUen Chu, and Lora Leschner, met in April 1992. Georgediscussedthe many plans and ideas for the meeting, which is scheduled to take place in Seattle in February. A contract has been signed with the the Westin Hotel to provide meeting facili- ties. Funding from the BullittFoundation has fallen through, but BioScience, journal of the American Institute of Bio- logical Sciences, has agreed to consider publishing either formal articles or a feature article that might come out of a special symposium on Pacific Northwest seabirds at the Seattle meeting. Geoige talked about the idea of a public session cosponsored by the Seattle Audubon Society and mentioned that we could do a public boat trip led by PSG members. He plans to invite contributions to the special session with a feature article for BioScience in mind. Palmer Sekora updated those present on the U. S. Rsh and Wildlife database program. Forthe past three years or so, participants in this program have met the day before the annual PSG meetings. Participants in the database program will meet again in 1993 with plans to discuss how scientists access the available databases. The changes in the Bulletin under the r^w editor, Martha Springer, were commented on; reaction was posi- tive. Referring to his letter to David Gibbons, Exxon Valdez Oil Trustee Council, Palmer Sekora alerted the Executive Council to PSG’s nomination of James G. King to the Public Advisory Group to the Oil Trustee Council. Palmer and Ken Warheit spoke about the invitation from Richard C. Banks, President of the Wilson Ornitho- logical Society, to PSG to join the newly formed Ornitho- logical Council, to comprise “representatives of profes- sional scientific societies that would be able to provide a voice for scientific ornithology.” Everyone agreed that this question is important enough to be put to the entire Execu- tive Council, and discussion was deferred until the next meeting. Ken Waiheit asked everyone present to read and comment on the PSG bylaws, now being revised, and to get their comments to him by 1 August The bylaws would then be sent to the entire council for approval. Council members discussed a letter from Hany Carter to Palmer Sekora about the Marble Murrelet Sympo- sium Proceedings in which he suggested that PSG buy 300- .400 copies of the proceedings (published by the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology and sold at$201istor$13 net) in order to resell them at $17 plus shipping. Concern was expressed about effort versus return and who in PSG would handle the sales. The meeting was adjourned at 1430 h. 22 Marbled Murrelet Update S, Kim Nelson, Chair SPECIES STATUS UPDATE On 20 June 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (USFWS) delayed the listing of the Marbled Murrelet six months, despite a recommendation for threatened status by the USFWS Regional Office. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the USFWS can delay a listing if there is a substantial disagreement among scientists regarding the “sufficiency and accuracy of the data.*’ The USFWS (iri this case the Bush Administration) claimed there was a dis- agreement regarding the definition of apopulation segment, citing comments from the Oregon Department of Hsh and Wildlife (ODFW), Greenpeace, and the Siuslaw Timber Operators. ODFW and Greenpeace supported the listing, but stated that the bird should be listed as endangered in Oregon and California, and listed in Alaska as well as the tri- state area, respectively. These comments did not indicate a disagreement regarding data on the population segment in Oregon, Washington, and California (tri-state area). The comments by the Siuslaw Timber Operators questioned listing the population segment, but presented no data to prove or disprove the contention that the tri-state population was distinct from populations further north. The Sierra Qub Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) filed a motion on an existing lawsuit following USFWS ’s six month extension demanding that a decision be made to fulfill deadline obligations under ESA. SCLDF won their motion on 15 September, when Judge Barbara Rothstein ordered the USFWS to make a final ruling by 1 8 September. She stated that the USFWS had been unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious in their decision to delay the listing. When Rothstein would not back down from her decision, the USFWS went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to ask for an extension until 22 September so they had time to appeal the decision. This request was granted by the Ninth Circuit on 18 September. On 24 September, three Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges threw the case out of court and upheld Judge Rothstein’s opinion that the USFWS (Bush Administration) had been unlawful, arbitrary and capricious in the six month extension. Rothstein then ordered the USFWS to publish their final decision in the Federal Registerby noon on28 September. THE MARBLED MURRELET WAS OFFICIALLY LISTED AS A THREATENED SPECIES ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1992 (Federal Register 50 CFR, Vol 57:45328-45337, 1 October 1992)! The Bush Administration added language to the listing package stating that a 90-day study would be con- ducted to look into the question regarding Marbled Murrelet population segments, It is unclear how the USFWS intends to address this question in 90 days when no new information is available on population distribution and genetics. REGIONAL REPORTS Alaska In Prince William Sound, the Marbled Murrelet Restoration Study finished its second field season. Four active murrelet nests, one nest cup (old or unsuccessful nest), and two sites with eggshell fiagments were found on Naked Island in 1992. Three of the active nests were in mountain hemlocks and the fourth in a Sitka spruce. None of the nests were successful; predation is suspected at three sites and the fourth was abandoned (egg was retrieved). None of the four 199 1 nest sites were reused, although birds were active in the vicinity of two of the 1991 nests, and one ofthe 1992nests wasneara 1991 nest. A 1991 landingtree was use as a nest in 1992. Data on behavior, vocalizations and general activity levels at occupied sites are being analyzed. The Naked Island team included Nancy Naslund (field supervisor), Irene Manley, George Esslinger and AnneBeUeman. MattNixon joined them fora week to assist in the tree climbing and documentation of nests. H^y also conducted bi-monthly at-sea and dawn watch monitoring surveys to track seasonal patterns, and a monthly random at- sea census to estimate the local population. The second portion of the project looked at dawn activity relative to upland habitat and at-sea densities. In western Prince William Sound, 66 sites were randomly chosen and dawn watches conducted from a vessel or onshore, with an additional 19 areas censused at inland stations. Adjacent shoreline sections were censused by boat following each dawn watch. These data will be an^yzed using on-site habitat measurements and forest timber type maps digitized into the GIS system. The mobile team, aboard the MV Auklet included Dennis Marks (Field Super- visor), Scott Anderson, Dawn Huntwork. Habitat data was collected in a cooperative venture with the U.S. Forest Service. Kathy Kuletz was P.I. for the project and has submitted a proposal to continue this work in 1993. A related restoration study conducted dawn watches on Afognak Island (which had very high activity levels), where two nest cups were found in Sitka spruce. While 23 Marbled Murrelet (Continued) training observers on Kodiak Island, Mary Cody (USFWS) also located two active nests in Sitka spruce trees. Don Youkey (USFS) found a nest in a mountain hemlock in eastern Prince William Sound. Private consultants with the USFS found a nest in a hemlock on Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska, plus five sites with eggshell fragments or fledglings on the forest floor. Prince of Wales island has been and continues to be heavily logged. Biologists with the Kenai Fjords National Park conducted dawn watches along shoreline sections to lay the ground work for a possible 1 993 habitat study. The area tends to be either forested or alpine/ glacial moraine, and preliminary results indicate that the forested areas had more dawn activity. John Piatt assisted Suzann Speckman with her study on the effects of weather, tides and season on murrelet at-sea activity in Auke Bay, near Juneau. Suzann monitored murrelets from land and boat daily throughout the breeding season. Ecological services (USFWS) tested aerial surveys in northern southeast Alaska. Steve Klosiewski and Karen Laing (USFWS) conducted boat surveys in the Juneau/ Lynn Canal area and tested the variance among three transect lengths to determine the most efficient method. Hopefully results of all these studies will be applied towaids a comprehensive survey of southeast Alaska that we con- tinue to lobby for. Kathy Kuletz^ US. Fish and Wildlife Service British Columbia Morning counts of Marbled Murrelets were con- ducted in Mussel and Kynoch Inlets fit>m our fishing vessel in April and May, 1992. We recorded 487 murrelets in Mussel Inlet in May, and 133 murrelets in Kynoch Inlet in mid- April. Last year, 1265 marbled murrelets were counted in Kynoch Inlet in May. These counts indicated that very few bids were entering the inlets from the valley bottom or inflowing rivers. Most birds appeared to be coming down to the inlet finom steep, forested slopes along the inlet. Seven birds were captured and radio-tagged. Five of the birds had brood patches, indicating that they were breeding birds. The two birds that did not have brood patches were not detected following release. Tracking the five birds with brood patches during May and early June indicated that they were nesting; these birds spent 24 hours in the forest, followed by 24 hours on the water feeding. They left and returned to the forest about 1 hour before sunrise. Three presumed nesting sites were found by locat- ing radio-tagged birds in the forest. Although actual nests were not located, we believe we were within 1(X) m of the nests, based on the strength and direction of the radio signal. The first nest site was close to Mussel Inlet in an area of relatively flat cedar swamp. The second nest site was in a stand of hemlock and balsam within the subalpine. The stand was above an area of rugged cliffs and surroimded by cliffs, meadows and avalanche chutes. The third nest site was close to the inlet on a very steep slope in a stand of mixed cedar, hemlock, and balsam. Trees at the nest sites had large mossy platforms on many of the branches, similar to those reported for other Marbled Murrelet nests. Land based surveys did not provide data which might have assisted in locating nests in this ragged, unroaded terrain. We believe that radio-telemetry is the most effective and unbiased method of locating nests in this type of habitat. Lynn Prestash, Rick Burns, and Dale Seip Ministry of Forests and Canadian Wildlife Service Two nests were discovered on Vancouver Island in 1992. One was located in a Sitka spruce in Walbran VaUey and the other in a western hemlock in Carmanah Valley. There are now a total of three known nests in the Walbran VaOey and one in Carmanah Valley. Murrelet activity patterns were again monitored in these valleys. Both areas contain high numbers of munelets and continue to be important nesting sites for the murrelet Alan Burger, University of Victoria Murrelet activity patterns were monitored for a second season in old-growth forests of the Caren Range, north of Vancouver, B.C. Birds were seen carrying fish inland and landing in trees; however, attempts to locate their nests were unsuccessful. Paul Jones, Caren Range, Sunshine Coast Washington During the 1992 field season, research focused on three main objectives. The first involved trying to define what constitutes suitable Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat To answer this question we are examining the habitat relationships of Marbled Murrelets to old-growth forests. Specifically, we are trying to identify what structural char- acteristics of old growth are unique to stands which show an abundance of murrelets compared to stands with an absence or low abundance of ihurrelets. We are now in the proems of looking at 1 15 vegetation plots throughout murrelet habitat in four major forest associations. These include the Western Hemlock Zone, Douglas-fir Zone, Sitka Spruce Zone, and Silver Fir Zone. The second objective was to better identify the distribution of murrelets throughout western Washingtoa Surveys were conducted in areas where murrelets were 24 Marbled Murrelet suspected to be present, but where a lack of survey effort in the past had created large gaps in the murrelet distribution pattern. These areas included southern Washington, south- western Washington, and parts of the Olympic Peninsula. The farthest inland summer breeding detections in North America were recorded by field crews in the North Cas- cades this year. Birds were detected 52.25 miles inland on three different survey mornings. The last objective was to conduct a pilot study to deteraiine the suitability of modified marine radar tech- niques developed for bird migration studies to track the movements and behaviors of murrelets at inland forest stands and coastal sites. The USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, Areata Redwood Company, and Pacific Lumber Corporation supported the research. Three weeks were spent tracking murrelets in northern California and the data is now being analyzed. Tom Hamer and Eric Cummins Washington Department of Wildlife Oregon During the 1992 field season, we began a pilot study to look at the effects of landscape patterns on the distribution md abundance of Marbled Murrelets. The purpose of the pilot study was exploratory in nature and was directed at collecting base-line information for designing a 3-4 year study. Two landscape parameters included in the study were stand size and stand isolation (habitat fragmen- tation). This year we focused on one cell of the sampling design, small isolated stands (<35 acres), to test the protocol and refine our study design. We determined that one station per 30 acres was ineffective in verifying murrelet occu- pancy in some study stands, especially those with low murrelet numbers. We also found that murrelets occupy small, isolated stands; however these birds appear to have high site fidelity and may continue to occupy stands after the habitat has been modified. The question to be addressed in a landscape study then becomes one of reproductive suc- cess, rather than stand occupancy or murrelet abundance. We are currenUy exploring the effect of habitat characteristics on activity levels. However, there are prob- lems in conducting these analyses since murrelet detections are highly variable within and between seasons. For ex- ample, detections of murrelets in forest stands in Oregon this season were significantly lower than in previous years in known activity centers. We believe that the El Nino or ENSO event had significant effect on food supplies eariy in the breeding season (March and April) and thus affected nesting attempts by murrelets. We will address these problems in the design of our 3-4 year landscape study. This project and others were funded by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Lf.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although minimal time and effort was allocated to nest searches, we located three new murrelet nests (one with the help of biologists from the Siskiyou National Forest). Two nests were located by finding eggshell fragments on the forest floor, the third was found in one of ourpilot study sites. All these nests were in old-growth Douglas-fir trees >199 cm in diameter (dbh). Only one of these nests was successful; predation is the suspected cause for failure of the other two nests. Data from these nests, along with data from other nests in Oregon and Washington, are currently being analyzed and will be presented in a manuscript on nest site characteristics of Marbled Murrelets in the Pacific North- west. We continued our research on murrelet vocaliza- tions in cooperation with Steve Singer and Brian O’Donnell. We obtained new recordings of murrelet calls and pur- chased a computer sonagram package for creating and analyzing murrelet vocalizations. A manuscript is in prepa- ration. Through monitoring of timber sales on Federal and State lands by numerous parties, 100 new occupied sites were located in Oregon. The state total is now 250. Anew inland record was established: murrelets were detected 38 miles inland on Roseburg BLM lands. Craig Strong conducted boat, land, and aerial sur- veys for murrelets along the Oregon Coast in a contract with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Craig found that murrelets were common along the central coast and rare along the north coast In addition, he fotmd the distribution and densities of murrelets were highly variable on a daily and seasonal basis. These results are consistent with previ- ous summaries of murrelet patterns along the coast 5. Kim Nelson Oregon Cooperative Wildlife ResearchUnit California Steve and Stephanie Singer of the Santa Cruz City Museum of Natural History, working in cooperaton with David Suddjian and a team of volunteer biologists, have found another Marbled Murrelet nest in Big Basin Red- woods State Park. This year’s nest was found in a different branch of the sameold-growth redwood tree where munelets nested successfully in 1991. This is the first recorded occurrence of murrelets nesting in the same tree used in the previous year. The young murrelet fledged successfully on the night of June 7, 1992. The Santa Cruz Moimtains Murrelet Group, with assistance from the Sempervirens Fund, has begun a two 25 Marbled Murrelet(Continued) year project to locate new areas of potentially suitable bleeding habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Old growth forest stands will be surveyed at dawn for evidence of munelet usage. Results of the study will be presented after completion of the 1993 breeding season. The Redwood Sciences Laboratory completed the first year of murrelet forest surveys, as part of a cooperative lesearch project with the north coast timber industry, to examine the, relationship of munelet activity levels to stand size and charaaeristics at inland sites during the breeding season. Murrelet surveys were conducted by USFS person- nel at 75 stands across four size categories from 10-1000 acres. Point counts for potential avian predators also were conducted and 992 counts completed. Vegetation data was collected in association with each murrelet and point count station. Munelet surveys conducted by all cooperators will be included for analysis; the large number of surveys and sites should make a significant contribution to increasing our knowledge of murrelet use of inland forests. Forest surveys were continued this season in a few high activity sites to coUea additional inforaiation on yearly variation of behavior and activity. Offshore surveys for munelets and other seabirds continued during 1992. We hope to examine the data for indications of effects from the El Nino conditions which existed in northern California this year. Few juveniles were observed this season, although numbers have been small during the past four years. We used aerial surveys to count munelets in nearshore waters for comparison with results from the boat surveys. CJ. Ralph and Sherri Miller, US. Forest Service TREE NESTS The total number of known Marbled Murrelet tree nests is now 38! These nests are located in the following States and Provinces: Alaska - 13+, British Columbia - 4, Washington - 5, Oregon - 10, California - 6. COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Committee Working Groups are in the process of completing assigned tasks. The Marbled Munelet Survey Protocol was completed in April and mailed to all parties interested in conducting surveys for murrelets in inland forests. Final versions of the nest site sampling protocol, nest search guidelines, and disturbance accounts are due by the 1993 Armual Meeting. An educational brochure and video are currently being designed. Following is a news release sent to the media in the Pacific Northwest and Washington, D.C. supporting the listing of the murrelet as a threatened species. The Pacific Seabird Group Supports Murrelet Listing ThePacific Seabird Group (PSG), an international scientific or^nization that is dedicated to the study and conservation of Pacific seabirds and their environment, supports the listing of the Marbled Murrelet as a threatened species. Seabird biologists within PSG believe the listing is justified based on the scientific data presented on the spe- cies* selection of older forest habitat and the apparent decline throughout their historic range from Alaska to central California. PSG notes that California listed the murrelet as endangered in 1991, and British Columbia designated this seabird as threatened in 1990. The Pacific Seabird Group has been interested in Marbled Murrelets for many years. Palmer Sekora, Chair of PSG, stated that Marbled Murrelets have been a concern of the seabird organization since 1982, when PSG passed its first resolution recommending that U.S. and Canadian for- est and wildlife agencies consider the murrelet in all man- agement plans and proposed development that could ad- versely impact the integrity of old-growth forests. Tl^ organization has since invit^ Marbled Murrelet biologists to give presentations at Annual Meetings and held a sympo- sium on the murrelet in 1987 which has recently been published. PSG created a group called the MarbledMurrelei Technical Committee in 1986 for the purpose of outlining research needs and goals, and addressing murrelet conser- vation issues. The seabird organization has al^ worked with murrelet biologists throughout the North Pacific to develop a protocol for surveying for murrelets in inland coniferous forests. The survey protocol, which was devel- oped from research by member scientists, was used in summer 1992 by biologists and others within state and federal agencies to monitor their timber sales for murrelets. In the future, PSG will continue to act in a sciai- tific capacity to outline research goals, disseminate infor- mation, and promote conservation of murrelet habitat In February 1993, PSG will host its second symposium on the Marbled Munelet at its 20th Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washingtoit For more information on PSG contactPalmer Sekora, Chair of PSG, U.S. Fish and WUdlife Service, Finley WildlifeRefuge, Corvallis, OR, (503)757-7236. For details on the 20th Annual Meeting, contact George Divoky, Chair-Elect PSG, Seattle, WA, (206)525-2131. For mrae information on theMarbledMunelet contacts. KimNelson, Chair of the PSG Marbled Munelet Technical Committee, Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, (503)737-1962. 26 Nominations for Officers and Regional Representatives Nominations are being sought for officers and regional representatives to serve for 1993-94 terms. If the proposed bylaws are approved by the membership some of the regional representative positions will only serve one year. Regional representatives are required to submit at least one report per year. If you are interested in becoming an officer of PSG please nominate yourself. If you would like to nominate a PSG member for one of the positions, please send the name and phone number of the nominee or call Doug Forsell at (410) 224-2732 during the day or (410) 626-8486 evenings. All nominations, must be received by 1 December. As a Pacific Seabird Group member in good standing, I wish to nominate the following: Chair-Elect — Vice-Chair For Conservation — — Secretary — Treasurer — — __ REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES: Alaska . — British Columbia and Washington State — Oregon and Northern California — Pacific — ^ — — Latin America — Submitted by: — 27 From Doug Forsell PSG Elections Committee Chesapeake Bay Field Office 180 Admiral Cochrane Dr., Suite 535 Annapolis, MD 21401 Affix Stamp Here 28 Other Seabird News The Status, Ecology and Conserva- tion of Marine Birds of the North Pacific Edited by K. Vermeer, K, T. Briggs, K, H. Morgan, and D. Siegel-Causey The above Symposium Proceedings, sponsored by the Pacific Seabird Group, Canadian Wildlife Service, and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Paries, will be published by the Canadian Wildlife Service as a Special Publication early in 1993. All current PSG members will receive one free copy of the Proceedings; the remaining copies will be distributed by the Canadian Wild- life Service for fiee upon request. The contents of the Proceedings are as follows: Part I Bird distribution at sea as determined by physical and biological processes. 1. Shuntov, V.P. Biological and physical determi- nants of marine bird distribution in the Bering Sea. 2. Hunt, G.L. Jr., N.M. Harrison and J.F. Piatt. Diets and the selection of foraging habitat by planktivorous auklets in the Bering Sea. 3. Gould, P.J. and J.F. Piatt. Seabirds of the Central North Pacific. 4. Wahl,T.R., K.H. Morgan and K. Vermeer. Seabird distribution off British Columbia and Washington. 5. Tyler, W.B., D.B. Lewis, K. T. Briggs and R.G. Ford. Seabird distribution and abundance in relation to oceanographicprocesses in the California Cuirent System. 6. Duffy, D.C. Stalking the southern oscillation: environmental uncertainty, climate change and North Pacific seabirds. Part n Status, ecology and conservation of nesting and visiting seabirds. 1. McDermond, D.K. AND K.H. Morgan. Status and conservation of North Pacific Albatrosses, 2. Hatch, S.A. Ecology and population status of Pacific Northern Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), 3. Everett, W.T. AND RX. Pitman. Status and con- servation of shearwaters of the North Pacific. 4. Bartle, J.A., D. Hu, J.C. Stahl, P. Pyle, T.R. Simons and D. Woodby. Status and ecology of gadfly petrels in the temperate North Pacific. 5. Boersma, P.d. and M.J. Groom. Conservation of storm-petrels in the North Pacific. 6. Siegel-Causey, D. and N.M. Litvinenko. Status, ecology and conservation of shags and cormorants of the temperate North Pacific. 7. Vermeer, K„ D.B. Irons, E. Velarde and Y. Watanuki. Status, conservation and management of nesting Laras gulls in the North Pacific. 8. Hatch, S.A., G.V. Byrd. DJB. Irons, and GX. Hunt Jr. Status and ecology of kitti wakes (Rissa tridactyla and R. brevirostris) in the North Pacific. 9. Clapp, R.B., P.A. Buckley and F.C. Buckley. Conservation of temperate North Pacific terns. 10. Ewins, P.J., H.R. Carter and Yu. V. Shibaev. The status, distribution and ecology of inshore fish- feeding alcids (Cepphus guillemots and Brachyramphus murrelets) in the North Pacific. 11. Byrd, G.V., E.C. Murphy, G.W. Kaiser, A. Yu. Kondratyev and Yu. V. Shibaev. Status and ecol- ogy of offshore fish-feeding alcids (murres and puffins) in the North Pacific. 12. Springer, A.M., A. Yu. Kondratyev, H. Ogi, Yu. V. Shibaev and G.B. van Vliet. Status, ecology and conservation of Synthliboramphus murrelets and auklets. Part in Environmental hazards to seabirds. 1. DeGange, A.R., R.H. Day, J.E. Takekawa and V.M. Mendenhall. Losses of seabirds in gillnets in the North Pacific. 2. Sievert, P.R. and L. Sileo. The effect of plastic ingestionon growth and survival of albatross chicks. 3. Bailey, EP. and G.W. Kaiser. Impacts of intro- duced predators on nesting seabirds in the North- east Pacific. 4. Litvinenko, NKl. Impact of human disturbances and introduced predators in the Northwest Pacific. 5 jj Marine birds and trace elements in the temperate North Pacific. 6. Eluott, J.E. and D.G. Noble. Chlorinated hydro- carbon contaminants in marine birds of the temper- ate North Pacific. 7. Burger, A.E. and DKi. Fry. Effects of oil pollu- tion on seabirds of the temperate North Pacific. Kees Vermeer 29 Other Seabird News I j I NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS I I CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN THE j j NORTH PACIFIC j I Because of a drastic population decline, the | I Steller sea lion has been listed as a threatened | I species undertheEndangered Species Act. To | I reduce human disturbance, the National Marine I I Fisheries Service (NMFS) has placed I I restrictions on land and water approach in the | ■ vicinity of Steller sea lion rookeries in the | j BerringSea, Aleutian Islands, and the Gulf of ! [ Alaska. These prohibitions apply to all . I individuals and activities unless specifically t I exempted by NMFS. For further information | I regarding Steller sea lion regulations, contact | I NMFS, Protected Resources Management | I Division,?. O. Box 2 1668, Juneau, AK 99802, | I (907)586-7235. I I -J f - > Marbled Murrelet Bibliography Available A Marbled Murrelet Bibliography compiled by Steve Speich is now availabie to PSG members. If you would like to have a copy, just send a 5 1/2 or 3 1/4 inch disk to Steve at his home address: 4720 N. Oeste Place Tuscon, AZ 85749 Steve will return your disk with the bibliography in an ASCI, WordPerfect, or AmiPro file. Also, if you have any additional citations, please send them to Steve so that he can include them in the bibliography. V__ Endowment Fund Receives Donation ^rage around 60 degrees, changing mvlronmental conditkios Driving from Ptmland to Mount with an eccentric ratlecUon of Hghts, Hood takes little more than an hour 'XA I Vv..' E s PACIFIC SEABIRD GROUP EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 1992 Chair OFFICERS ; ^ ^ ^ \ - /t' -V. : ; ^ Palmer Sekora, USWFS, 2640 E. WUshire, Eugene, OR 29802 (503) 75W236 - ; Chair Elect FAX (503)7574450 , ’ ' George Divoky, 10535 Interlake Ave^ N., Seattle, WA 98133 (206) 3^-2896" c Vicc-Chair for Conservation Treasurer FAX (206) 368-8941 ■ V’ . Craig S. Harrison, 4001 North 9th Street;.ArlingtOH, VA 22203 (202j 778-2240 FAX (202) 778-2201 " ’ \ ^ ^ Ken Warheit, 8205-E Martin Way Nfe, Suite 238, Olympia, WA (206) 491-2046 Secretary FAX (206)438-9689 ‘ Beth Flint, USFWS, 300 Ala Moaria Blvd.,'Rm, 5302, P.O. Box 501 67, Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 541-1201 FAX (808) 541-1216 Editor Past Chairs Martha Springer, 1708 Marmot HiU Road>airbanS:s, AK 99709 (907)479-8006 Malcolm Coulter; P.O. Box 48, Chocorua, NH 03817 Phone and FAX (b03) ■ 323-7730,44J'^ r-, ' '' ' ''vv Doug Siegel-Causey, Museum of hfaiural History, Univ. Kansas, Lawrence, KS'. 66045 ((913) 864-4540 FAX (913) 864-5335 f , - • Michael Fry, Dept of Avian Sciences, liniv. Calif., Davis CA 9.56 1 6 (916)752-1201 FAX (916) 752-8960 V ' \ REGIONAL REFRESI2>ITATn FS Alaska Joel Hubbard, Minerals Management Service, 949 E. 36th Ave. , Room 110, Anchorage, AK 99508 (907)2614670 FAX (907) 56148^0 British Columbia and Washington Oregon and N. California Central California George J. Divoky, 10535 Interlake Ave. N., Seattle, WA (206) 364-2896 FAX (206) 368-8941 Roy Lowe, USFWS, 2030 S. Marine Science Dr., Ncvt'porl, OR 97365 (.503) 867-0270 FAX ((503) 867-0105 ' / / Jean Takekawa, San Francisco Bay NWR, Box 524, Newark, CA 94560 (415)792-0222 FAX (4 1 5) 792-5828 S, California Latin America Kathy Keane. 3 19 University #C, Costa Mesa, CA 92672 (714)650-0654 Enrique Velarde, Inst de Biologia-Omilologia, UN AM, Apdo. Postal 70rl53, " 04510 Mexico, D.F. , Pacific Region Ken McDermond, P.O. Box 50167, Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 541-1201 FAX (808)541-1216 FTS 551-1201 • ->•: ,V , Inlajnd James Lovvom, Dept of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071 (307)766-6100 FAX (307)766-5625 , Great Lakes James Ludwig, 2395 Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 677-0050 FAX (313) 677-0055 Northeast Mark Tasker, Nature Conservancy Council, 17 Rubislaw Terrace, Aberdeen ABl IXE, United Kingdom (UK) 0224-642863 FAX (UK) 0224-643347 Southeast Roger Clapp, National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D. C 20560 (202)357-1972 FAX(202)357- 4770 FTS 357-1972 DELEGATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR BIRD PRESERVATION Malcolm Coulter, address above Craig S. Harrison, address above