Oil Vulnerability Index for Marine Oriented Birds
by
James G. King
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P. O. Box 1287
Juneau, Alaska 99802
and
Gerald A. Sanger
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, Alaska
Abstract
The 176 species of birds using marine habitats of the Northeast Pacific are graded on the basis of 20 factors that affect their survival. A score of 0, 1, 3, or 5, respectively, representing no, low, medium, or high significance is assigned for each factor. The total score is the Oil Vulnerability Index (OVI). The OVI's range from 1 to 100, an index of 100 indicating the greatest vulnerability. Using this system, one can rank the avifauna of different areas according to their vulnerability to environmental hazards as an aid in making management decisions.
Today's decision makers require an ever-increasing array of information and planning documents. The Federal Government's requirement for environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 is but one example of this trend. These documents generally consider the effects of proposed actions on waterfowl and a few other species of birds, but the bulk of the avifauna is usually only listed, or sometimes ignored completely. A simple system for evaluating and presenting avian data is badly needed so that those interested in birds, whether technically trained or not, can easily grasp the implications of proposed actions. It is incumbent on biologists to devise new ways of presenting their knowledge so that it can be easily and effectively used by decision makers, who are often less informed. In short, biologists must do for the environmental impact statement assessors what Roger Tory Peterson did for the bird watchers by giving them a simple and comprehensible system.
The need for a system to evaluate relative vulnerabilities of bird populations is particularly great for birds that are being increasingly affected by marine oil pollution. The system needs to allow comparisons of potential impacts to birds resulting from various oil development projects in different locations and served by various modes of transport. The Oil Vulnerability Index (OVI) is our attempt to fulfill this informational need on the avifauna of the Northeast Pacific. Insofar as we know, this approach to assessing a wildlife management problem has been attempted only for ranking endangered species in a numeric ranking system that identified where restoration efforts could best be directed (Sparrowe and Wight 1975).
We are indebted to Gene Ruhr and Keith Schreiner for ideas generated in their work with endangered species. Frank Pitelka, James Bartonek, Kent Wohl, and Mary Lou King reviewed portions of the manuscript and offered helpful suggestions. Jack Hodges helped prepare the OVI tables.
Methods
A list of 176 species of birds using marine habitats in or near the States of Washington and Alaska and the Province of British Columbia (Table 1, left column) was compiled from checklists by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU 1957) and Gibson (1970). Nomenclature is from AOU (1957). The scientific names of three species of shorebirds recently identified in the Aleutian Islands that were not listed by the AOU (1957) came from Peterson et al. (1967).
Each bird was scored on 20 factors that affect its survival (Table 1). Point scores for most birds were either 0, 1, 3, or 5, indicating no, low, medium, or high importance, respectively, in their biology or habits as related to Northeast Pacific oil development. Rare or accidental species were given only one point for occurrence, and endangered species 99 points for population size plus 1 point for occurrence. Thus the potential range of the OVI's is from 1 to 100.
The factors in Table are largely self-explanatory. The items under "range" apply to the entire world population of the species. "Productivity" is derived from a combination of clutch size and age at first nesting. Specialization is used in the biological sense to compare a versatile species like mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) with a less versatile species such as the trumpeter swan (Olor buccinator). Mortality under "history of oiling" is based on our knowledge that some species (e.g., alcids) have been more involved than others such as gulls. Exposure relates to the level of exposure within the Pacific area in any season.
Information on many of the factors for many species is scanty at best, and subjective appraisals were made by us when information was lacking. Opinions as to appropriate scores will vary among experts. References used, in part, in preparing Table 1 were: AOU 1957; Fay and Cade 1959; Gabrielson and Lincoln 1959; Isleib and Kessel 1973; Kortright 1942; Murie 1959; Palmer 1962; Robbins et al. 1966; Sanger 1972; and Stout et al. 1967.
Results
The OVI for each of 176 bird species is listed in Table 1. The average OVI for 22 avian families comprising 128 species that are neither rare stragglers nor endangered ranged from 19 to 88, with a mean of 51 (Table 3).
Tables 4 and 5 show a possible use for the OVI by comparing impacts in two large, widely separated areas. A species list from Southeast Alaska (U.S. Forest Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1970) is compared with a list from the Aleutian Islands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1974). Only commonly occurring species are included. These tables graphically display rather strong differences in the vulnerability of the avifauna of each area. A person explaining comparative impacts of projects might use the tables in the following way:
• Column 1, with scores from 1 to 20 points, indicates birds with a low level of project involvement, where damage or future costs would not be expected. As this will normally be the longest list, as in Tables 4 and 5, one would expect an immediate rise of interest on the part of the planning agency, which is probably eager to learn where problems will be fewest.
• Column 2 (21 to 40 points) indicates birds for which there is a low level of concern. Perhaps all that is needed is a review to determine if special characteristics of the project might be detrimental to these species.
• Column 3 (41 to 60 points) might be called "trial and error" species. If some birds are adversely affected, it will not be catastrophic. As the project develops it will be merely necessary to monitor these to make sure their status is not adversely affected. If it is, there will be time to develop conservation measures.
• Columns 4 and 5 (61 to 80 points and 81 to 100 points, respectively) include the species where concern is high. It is for these species that research money will be needed, where project modifications may be required, where a contingency plan in case of disaster is needed, where a conservation technology will be needed, and where periodic project shutdown could be called for.
| Point assignment | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| Range | |||
| Breeding | Large | Medium | Small |
| Migration | Long | Medium | Short |
| Winter | Large | Medium | Small |
| Marine orientation | Coastal zone | Intertidal | Open water |
| Population | |||
| Size | Large | Medium | Small |
| Productivity | Large | Medium | Small |
| Habits | |||
| Roosting | Shore | Drift | Water |
| Foraging | Walking | Flying | Swimming |
| Escape | Leave area | Fly | Dive |
| Flocking | Small | Medium | Large |
| Nesting density | Low | Medium | High |
| Specialization | Low | Medium | High |
| Mortality | |||
| Hunted by man | Low | Medium | High |
| Animal depredations | Low | Medium | High |
| Non-oil pollution | Low | Medium | High |
| History of oiling | Low | Medium | High |
| Exposure | |||
| Spring | Low | Medium | High |
| Summer | Low | Medium | High |
| Fall | Low | Medium | High |
| Winter | Low | Medium | High |
With these points in mind it is immediately obvious that Southeast Alaska (Table 4), which has only 9 high-score birds, offers far less potential for bird problems than does the Aleutian area (Table 5), which has 24 high-score species. The planning agency could make some immediate decisions on site priorities and research funding based on such information.
Discussion
We are convinced that the OVI principle expressed here will become a useful management tool with all sorts of possible applications. We recognize some difficulties with the present version, but believe it is timely to present the system so that a broader range of thought, improvements, and application can be applied to it.
Of prime importance is the system's simplicity. The use of four levels of value for each factor, instead of five or more, is an attempt to simplify. Ian McHarg (1969) has shown that extremely complex land-use values can be graphically compared and displayed by using three levels in a way that is useful to decision makers. The difficulty of using more levels of value was indicated by Sparrowe and Wight (1975) who used up to 10 levels, enormously complicating the problem of dealing with low-quality information, which is often all that is available. The use of scores of 0, 1, 3, 5 instead of 0, 1, 2, 3 for 20 factors enabled us to use the convenient 100 points instead of 60 points as the maximum potential total score for any species.
The 20 factors that were evaluated are admittedly arbitrary; with refinement and more detailed data they could be adjusted to show better separation between affected species. The decision to use 20 factors instead of more or less again relates to simplicity. This appears to be the minimum number that will assure species separation and that can be neatly displayed.
| Family | Number of species | Total OVI | OVI per species | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | Range | |||
| Loons—Gaviidae | 4 | 219 | 55 | 47-65 |
| Grebes—Podicipedidae | 3 | 148 | 49 | 44-56 |
| Albatrosses—Diomedeidae | 2 | 102 | 51 | 50-52 |
| Shearwaters—Procellaridae | 4 | 208 | 52 | 47-57 |
| Storm-petrels—Hydrobatidae | 2 | 130 | 65 | 63-67 |
| Cormorants—Phalacrocoracid | 4 | 235 | 59 | 52-63 |
| Herons—Ardeidae | 1 | 29 | 29 | 29 |
| Waterfowl—Anatidae | 33 | 1,765 | 53 | 32-78 |
| Eagles and Hawks—Accipitridae | 2 | 77 | 39 | 19-58 |
| Ospreys—Pandionidae | 1 | 37 | 37 | 37 |
| Falcons—Falconidae | 1 | 41 | 41 | 41 |
| Cranes—Gruidae | 1 | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| Rails and Coots—Rallidae | 1 | 33 | 33 | 33 |
| Oystercatchers—Haematopodidae | 1 | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| Plovers—Charadriidae | 7 | 287 | 41 | 26-57 |
| Sandpipers—Scolopacidae | 22 | 857 | 39 | 24-59 |
| Phalaropes—Phalaropodidae | 2 | 120 | 60 | 58-62 |
| Jaegers and Skuas—Stercorariidae | 3 | 123 | 41 | 39-43 |
| Gulls and Terns—Laridae | 16 | 730 | 46 | 32-66 |
| Auks—Alcidae | 15 | 1,164 | 78 | 70-88 |
| Kingfishers—Alcedinidae | 1 | 28 | 28 | 28 |
| Crows—Corvidae | 2 | 68 | 34 | 21-47 |
| Total and Mean | 128 | 6,490 | 51 | 19-88 |
The system will be much more useful when it is expanded to the subspecific level. Many Holarctic species are represented in the Northeast Pacific by a single race that would have a much higher OVI than the species as a whole. For example, the OVI for the Peale's peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus pealei) confined to marine habitats within the Pacific region would be high; and the endangered Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) would score 100 points instead of the 34 we show for Canada geese (B. c.). If Tables 4 and 5 showed subspecies, the differences in value would be more marked.
Tables 4 and 5 are for broad geographical areas. A comparison between smaller areas would probably show more dramatic differences.
Because the dearth of easily available, applicable information poses a problem in evaluating the various factors, our scoring was conservative. Experts on the various avian families can doubtless refine the scoring. If this system proves useful, investigators will begin to acquire the information needed for more precise evaluations. Ultimate perfection may never be achieved; however, as with the field guides, the fact of minor professional disagreement should not destroy the system's utility.
We believe re-scoring of all birds on the basis of various projects should be avoided because a standard against which individual projects can be measured is needed. If everyone did their own scoring, there would be no standard, and projects evaluated by different investigators would not be comparable. If a species list for the project area and standard point scores are used, the level of involvement for many species and perhaps for most species will be properly identified. As with any system, there will be exceptions and the assessor will need to deal with these as appropriate. The result will still be to focus attention on those species and impacting factors where it is most needed.
| OVI 1-20 | OVI 21-40 | OVI 41-60 | OVI 61-80 | OVI 81-100 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marsh hawk | 19 | Great blue heron | 29 | Common loon | 47 | Pelagic cormorant | 63 | Pigeon guillemot | 82 |
| 52 species, rare or occasional (one point each) | 52 | Canada goose | 34 | Arctic loon | 58 | Oldsquaw | 66 | Marbled murrelet | 84 |
| White-fronted goose | 36 | Red-throated loon | 49 | White-winged scoter | 72 | ||||
| Snow goose | 32 | Red-necked grebe | 44 | Surf scoter | 72 | ||||
| Mallard | 36 | Horned grebe | 48 | Black oystercatcher | 65 | ||||
| Pintail | 36 | Whistling swan | 50 | Northern phalarope | 62 | ||||
| Green-winged teal | 34 | Trumpeter swan | 63 | Common murre | 70 | ||||
| American wigeon | 36 | Greater scaup | 52 | ||||||
| Semipalmated plover | 28 | Lesser scaup | 52 | ||||||
| Killdeer | 26 | Common goldeneye | 48 | ||||||
| Common snipe | 29 | Barrow's goldeneye | 56 | ||||||
| Spotted sandpiper | 24 | Bufflehead | 52 | ||||||
| Greater yellowlegs | 30 | Harlequin duck | 60 | ||||||
| Lesser yellowlegs | 30 | Common merganser | 56 | ||||||
| Pectoral sandpiper | 32 | Red-breasted merganser | 56 | ||||||
| Least sandpiper | 34 | Bald eagle | 58 | ||||||
| Herring gull | 38 | Peregrine falcon | 41 | ||||||
| Bonaparte's gull | 40 | Black turnstone | 57 | ||||||
| Arctic tern | 32 | Rock sandpiper | 59 | ||||||
| Belted kingfisher | 28 | Dunlin | 41 | ||||||
| Common raven | 21 | Short-billed dowitcher | 41 | ||||||
| Western sandpiper | 47 | ||||||||
| Glaucous-winged gull | 56 | ||||||||
| Thayer's gull | 42 | ||||||||
| Mew gull | 44 | ||||||||
| Northwestern crow | 47 | ||||||||
| Totals | 71 | 665 | 1,324 | 470 | 166 | ||||
| OVI 1-20 | OVI 21-40 | OVI 41-60 | OVI 61-80 | OVI 81-100 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 species, rare or occasional (one point each) | 80 | Canada goose | 34 | Fulmar | 57 | Fork-tailed storm-petrel | 67 | Pigeon guillemot | 82 |
| Least sandpiper | 34 | Slender-billed shearwater | 53 | Leach's storm-petrel | 63 | Whiskered auklet | 88 | ||
| Arctic tern | 32 | Greater scaup | 52 | Pelagic cormorant | 63 | ||||
| Common raven | 21 | Common goldeneye | 48 | Red-faced cormorant | 63 | ||||
| Bufflehead | 52 | Black Brant | 70 | ||||||
| Harlequin duck | 60 | Emperor goose | 70 | ||||||
| Bald eagle | 58 | Oldsquaw | 66 | ||||||
| Peregrine falcon | 41 | Steller's eider | 72 | ||||||
| Ruddy turnstone | 44 | Common eider | 68 | ||||||
| Rock sandpiper | 59 | King eider | 70 | ||||||
| Western sandpiper | 47 | White-winged scoter | 72 | ||||||
| Red phalarope | 58 | Common scoter | 72 | ||||||
| Parasitic jaeger | 43 | Black oystercatcher | 65 | ||||||
| Glaucous-winged gull | 56 | Red-legged kittiwake | 66 | ||||||
| Black-legged kittiwake | 49 | Common murre | 70 | ||||||
| Thick-billed murre | 70 | ||||||||
| Ancient murrelet | 74 | ||||||||
| Parakeet auklet | 80 | ||||||||
| Crested auklet | 76 | ||||||||
| Least auklet | 80 | ||||||||
| Horned puffin | 72 | ||||||||
| Tufted puffin | 72 | ||||||||
| Totals | 80 | 121 | 777 | 1,541 | 170 | ||||
We have used our OVI system to show the vulnerability of birds to oil, but it seems likely that the vulnerability index could be applied on a much broader scale to help make decisions in other areas of human activity and resource development. The vulnerability index system could be applied to terrestrial as well as aquatic species by adding or subtracting impacting factors, as appropriate. Indexes relating the impact of man upon each North American species could have broad uses in the field of conservation. Population explosions, as well as declines, might be predictable. Human activity could be better adjusted to favor or depress wildlife populations, as appropriate.
We believe that this vulnerability index system has promise for aiding in the decision-making processes upon which future bird conservation will depend.
References
American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American birds. 5th ed. Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Fay, F. H., and T. J. Cade. 1959. An ecological analysis of the avifauna of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 63(2):73-150.
Gabrielson, J. N., and F. C. Lincoln. 1959. The birds of Alaska. The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 922 pp.
Gibson, D. D. 1970. Check-list of the birds of Alaska. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks. 2 pp.
Isleib, M. E., and B. Kessel. 1973. Birds of the North Gulf Coast-Prince William Sound region, Alaska. Univ. of Alaska Biol. Pap. 14. 149 pp.
Kortright, F. H. 1942. The ducks, geese and swans of North America. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with nature. Natural History Press, Garden City, N. Y. 197 pp.
Murie, O. J. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., N. Am. Fauna 61:1-364.
Palmer, R. S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds. Vol. 1. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. 567 pp.
Peterson, R. T., G. Montfort, and P. H. D. Hallom. 1967. A field guide to the birds of Britain and Europe. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York.
Robbins, D. S., B. Bruun, and H. S. Zimm. 1966. Birds of North America, a guide to field identification. Golden Press, New York.
Sanger, G. A. 1972. Preliminary standing stock and biomass estimates of seabirds in the subarctic Pacific region. Pages 589-611 in A. Y. Takenouti et al., eds. Biological oceanography of the North Pacific Ocean. Idemitsy Shoten, Tokyo.
Sparrowe, R. D., and H. M. Wight. 1975. Setting priorities for the endangered species program. Proc. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resourc. Conf. 40:142-156.
Stout, G. D., P. Matthiessen, V. R. Clem, and R. S. Palmer. 1967. The shorebirds of North America. Viking Press, New York. 270 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1974. Birds of the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Forest Service and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1970. Birds of Southeast Alaska, a check-list. The agencies, Juneau, Alaska. 12 pp.
[PROGRAMS AND AUTHORITIES RELATED TO MARINE BIRD CONSERVATION]
[Programs and Authorities Related to Marine Bird Conservation in Washington State]
by
Ralph W. Larson
Washington Department of Game
600 North Capitol Way
Olympia, Washington 98504
Abstract
Seabirds are one of the most visible biological components of ecosystems, and yet little is known about them. They could readily be used as an index of marine environmental quality if adequate studies were conducted to determine populations, habitat needs, and causes of fluctuations in abundance. The lack of adequate funding at the State level has precluded necessary studies to make these determinations and to provide habitat protection and preservation.
The State of Washington has developed a funding source for protection, preservation, and enhancement of nongame wildlife, which includes seabirds. The sale of personalized license plates for vehicles is now providing some funds for nongame wildlife management—funds which should increase as the popularity of the licensing program increases. Outdoor Recreation Bonds are providing funding for habitat preservation. Authorities provided the Washington Game Department are adequate to manage and protect seabird species. Other State laws offer additional protection to their habitat—specifically the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the State Environmental Act.
It has been often stated that seabirds are one of the most visible biological components of ecosystems, and yet little is known about them. Most studies to date have been on fish, and because of their recreational and commercial value, the concern for maintaining the marine environment has been primarily a result of the concern for maintaining the fishery resource. The visible knowledge of the fishery resource, however, becomes an "after-the-fact" knowledge since the status of the stocks relates to the value and amount of the fishery—a fishery resulting from survival under the surface in the marine environment that can be very secretive about its quality until it is too late to do something about it. Seabirds, however, are visible above the surface, in numbers that can reflect changes in the marine environment that occur below the surface, since many depend on the subsurface quality that reflects populations of fish.
Studies in Oregon have indicated that consumption of pelagic fish by murres (Uria spp.), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), storm-petrels (Oceanodroma spp.), and shearwaters (Puffinus spp.) account for about 22% of the annual production of various species of these fish. A decline in this food source will reflect a decline in the seabird population. Why then should it be necessary to use only fish populations as an index of marine environmental quality, when seabirds can more readily be observed and can reflect the same changes that occur?
As a public wildlife agency, the Washington Department of Game is often attempting to justify the value of seabirds, and sometimes that is not easy. When fishermen complain that the seabirds are eating all of the food of our mighty salmon, and hunters indicate little compassion because the birds have no value to sport hunting, one has to think a little to explain their value. However, rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca monocerata) do drive herring into ball-shaped schools, which attracts salmon in search of food—which in turn provides a signal to fishermen that salmon may soon be in the area. Explaining value to the hunter is a bit more difficult, but anyone who has taken the time to go out on our marine waters and observe the many species of seabirds and watch them flying and feeding cannot help but be fascinated by them. The flight of thousands of murres skimming over the water surface and somehow managing not to dash headlong into a wave is a fascinating sight.
We who are in fish and wildlife work have had to readjust our thinking and values during recent years. Our primary programs and concerns for many years were with the fish, birds, and animals that were of value to fishermen and hunters. Species of wildlife that we now classify as nongame received incidental benefit from programs related to game fish, game birds, and game animals, but we did not do badly in maintaining and enhancing these incidental wildlife species, mostly by indirection. However, in the last few years our Department, at least, has taken on a new responsibility and a new look as related to nongame wildlife.
Our first positive step in this direction was to develop a funding source for nongame wildlife programs. Our funding attempt charted its way through stormy waters, but finally ended up being voted on by the citizens of the State. Our citizens passed Referendum 33, which provided funds to the Department for nongame wildlife programs from the sale of personalized license plates. Although the funds have not been adequate, they are a step in the right direction and have permitted the Department to engage in a modest program of research and management. We have placed one person in charge of our program to do the planning and programming so necessary for developing an effective, growing program. During the 1st year of operation, we contracted studies on the rhinoceros auklet, the tufted puffin (Lunda cirrhata), and the black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). These studies have provided a basic knowledge of some of the problems facing these seabird species. As funds increase, additional studies will be made to provide more information on these birds and others.
During the 1975 legislative session we were successful in amending the personalized license program to include automobiles other than passenger cars—a step which should further enhance our funding. We anticipate that funding will increase from the sale of these license plates each year. They serve as their own advertisement, and as more plates are sold, the exposure to the public increases. We anticipate that within the next few years the funding should reach $150,000 per year—a modest sum to be sure, but nevertheless adequate to establish a viable program.
We have been involved in studies funded through other agencies that involve seabirds. The principal reasons for the studies are not seabirds, but they become an integral part of any analysis that must be made of our saltwater environs. One such study involves a comprehensive status survey of the marine shoreline fauna of Washington. The Department of Ecology has provided the funding as a part of their analysis of resources that may be adversely affected by oil spills and economic development of our shorelines. This study will be the first one designed to comprehensively identify wildlife species associated with our shorelines and will determine the species, their status, location, and habitat. This study will provide a basis for readily identifying visually the results of oil spills and of the economic development of critical habitat areas, and provide sound basic data for use in combating destructive projects in the marine environment.
We are finding that you cannot separate functions of other governmental agencies that deal with marine waters from seabird analysis. Pollution responsibilities, shoreline management, coastal zone management, clam dredging, channel dredging, erosion control, housing development, industrial expansion, shipping port development—to name a few—all must have some effect on our seabird species. Therefore, we must concentrate on obtaining an adequate data base to insure the perpetuation of these valuable marine species.
As I indicated earlier, the Department of Game has not had a special program to manage seabirds in the past, but this should not indicate that we have not assisted in maintaining the seabird resource. Our basic land acquisition program designed for waterfowl enhancement has benefited seabirds. We now own some 15,500 acres of lands, tideland, and marshes bordering the marine waters (including our Skagit and Nisqually holdings) which provide habitat and protection for many seabirds. We also recently acquired 48 acres on Protection Island, designed to protect the nesting area of the rhinoceros auklet. This purchase was an excellent example of how combined efforts of several groups accomplished a nearly impossible goal.
Protection Island had been subdivided for summer home development and many lots had been sold. The developer, however, got caught in the requirements of our Shoreline Management Act with his last subdivision. The uproar caused due to the use of this subdivision by auklets created an atmosphere that made subdivision a real conservation issue. The outspoken critics of the project from the Audubon Society, Fish and Wildlife Service, independent conservationists, and our Department enlisted the aid of Nature Conservancy to negotiate for purchase of this subdivision, and after lengthy negotiations the option was obtained, and the Department purchased the land from the Nature Conservancy with funds provided by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. The area now is destined to be a seabird sanctuary, with limited public viewing and incidental recreation use. This project is an excellent example of the power of cooperative efforts by conservationists to protect a resource.
The State of Washington now has a reasonably good legislative base to insure constructive programs for management of our seabird resource. Our legislative authority lies in State statutes under Title 77. These authorities first provide that the wild birds, wild animals, and game fish of the State are the property of the State and that they shall be preserved, protected, and perpetuated. Any regulations for taking shall be designed so as to not "impair the supply thereof."
The commission also has the authority to classify wild birds. Seabirds, other than hunted species, fall into the category of nongame birds. We also have the authority to regulate the propagation and protection of wild birds, develop rules and regulations for taking them (or to prohibit taking them), and to create game reserves and closed areas where necessary to protect various species. Our authorities also include the obligation to enforce the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the protection of all wild birds.
The Department may also acquire land for habitat and for sanctuaries for nongame birds and may exchange lands for these purposes. We may also enter into agreements with the Federal Government, persons, and municipal subdivisions of the State for all matters relating to propagation, protection, and conservation of all wild birds, and may lease State lands for this purpose.
We believe our authorities are now totally adequate to satisfactorily manage the State's marine bird resources.
In addition to our personalized license plate legislation, which earmarks funds for nongame wildlife, other State laws and programs assist in protection of this resource. One program that has assisted materially in providing funds for habitat acquisition is a bond issue passed by citizens of the State designed to acquire and develop recreational land in the State for public use. Our Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation provides the necessary mechanism for funding of projects, using these bond monies to match Federal funds. Although recreation is a key factor in obtaining funding, it is still possible to acquire key habitat for wildlife and develop a people-use program around the primary purpose for acquisition.
The purchase of a portion of Protection Island was accomplished by use of these funds, as I indicated earlier, and we are now working again with Nature Conservancy to acquire key bald eagle habitat on the Skagit River in northwestern Washington. The bond issues total some $50 million, of which this Department receives about 15%. The State now is in its third bond issue, and we hope the citizens will continue to support this program.
One of the newer laws is the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. This act provides for development of comprehensive shoreline management programs designed to control the development of these areas to insure protection of the public interest, while still recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with this public interest. These plans must be developed with citizen involvement. Shoreline classification generally falls into four categories—natural, conservancy, rural, and urban. The natural classification can accomplish the most substantial benefit for marine birds. Provisions are also made for protection of "shorelines of statewide significance." Plans for these areas must give preference to uses favoring the public and long-range goals. These shorelines cover the areas between low and high tide levels on inland waters and high water and the western boundary of the State on our Pacific Ocean coast.
Our State Environmental Policy Act, which requires that environmental impact statements be prepared for various programs and developments, gives our Department an opportunity to insure that our valuable wildlife resources are given consideration during the planning phase of the proposed project.
The Department feels that our authorities at this time are adequate to protect marine bird populations and their habitat. The one lacking factor, as usual, is the funding for both adequate management programs and habitat protection. Our marine habitat is rapidly being developed for recreational homesites and public use which can eliminate key habitat use. A greater public awareness of the needs of marine birds can be a help in preventing destruction of their habitat; however, money talks the loudest. The acquisition of these key habitats is the most positive means of insuring their retention. We have no solution at this time to the funding problem and only hope that someone smarter than we are can provide an acceptable solution before all of our efforts become too little and too late.
[Programs and Authorities of the Province of British Columbia Related to Marine Bird Conservation]
by
W. T. Munro
British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch
300-1019 Wharf Street
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 2Z1
and
R. Wayne Campbell
British Columbia Provincial Museum
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Abstract
British Columbia Provincial agencies are given authority for protecting marine birds and their habitats by the Provincial Wildlife Act, the Parks Act, and the Ecological Reserves Act. The Provincial Museum Act accommodates research on marine birds. The Fish and Wildlife branch has protected over 30,000 ha of intertidal estuarine habitat in the form of reserves and has conducted limited inventories of birds on the Queen Charlotte Islands and northern mainland coast. The Provincial Museum has conducted inventories and life-history studies of marine birds and maintains a repository for information on seabirds, including a catalog of colonies. Pollution from oil and chemicals, improper logging practices, and disturbance by boating recreationists are the most apparent threats to the well-being of birds. Additional inventories and the determination of seasonal distribution are among the information needed to better protect the marine birds of British Columbia.
Most marine-associated birds in Canada are covered by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and are therefore federally protected. In British Columbia additional protection is provided by the Provincial Wildlife Act. Several other provincial acts provide authorities related to seabirds. The Provincial Museum Act permits research related to natural history; the Parks Act and Ecological Reserves Act provide for the protection of habitat and prohibit harassment of wildlife within park and reserve boundaries; and the Firearms Act permits the closure of areas frequented by selected wildlife to the discharge of firearms. The fact that several authorities for the protection and conservation of marine birds are available does not mean that they have been used to full advantage.
British Columbia's irregular shores provide thousands of kilometers of coastline, much of which is used by marine birds for nesting and wintering as well as during migration. Through legislation of different types, some of the more ecologically important and unique sites have been protected. Twelve "ecological reserves," which are basically inviolate preserve areas, provide habitat for and protection to a number of major breeding colonies. Over 30,000 ha of intertidal estuarine habitat has been protected by the provincial Fish and Wildlife Branch in the form of reserves. Less than half of the total area is in Order-in-Council reserves (passed by the Provincial Cabinet), which afford strong protection; the rest is in departmental map reserves, which merely means other agencies must inform the branch before they disturb them; they are hardly secure. Provincial Parks Branch protects other areas used by marine birds by incorporating them within parks.
Research and conservation of seabirds in British Columbia have not been a high priority in the Fish and Wildlife Branch, basically because seabirds are not consumed by people. Our primary interest in seabirds has been in their role as a life support system for the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Most Fish and Wildlife Branch reserves have been established to protect estuarine habitat for fishes, waterfowl, and shorebirds rather than for true seabirds. That situation is not likely to change in the near future unless additional funds become available to the Branch. About the most we can expect to do is designate key areas as sanctuaries or wildlife management reserves. Under the folio and referral systems now operational among resource agencies in British Columbia, we have the opportunity to advise other disciplines against approving practices that would adversely affect wildlife. By those methods we are attempting to protect critical seabird habitat. It must be stressed, however, that we can only advise; we cannot force other agencies to follow procedures we suggest.
The only significant work relating to seabirds in which the Fish and Wildlife Branch is presently engaged involves inventory of specific sites on the Queen Charlotte Islands and the northwest mainland coast. Those areas are ones on which we expect to find seabird colonies and where applications for logging are pending. To enable us to advise the Forest Service on the wildlife values of those sites, we began field work in the summer of 1975.
The Federal Government, in comparison to what it has done on the east coast and in the north of Canada, has been negligent in its support of seabird conservation on the west coast. By far the most seabird research by a government agency in British Columbia has been accomplished by the staff at the Provincial Museum in Victoria. In the past, beginning in the 1940's, museum personnel (mainly C. J. Guiguet) explored and inventoried seabird colonies along the British Columbia coast. Most work then was exploratory, and little quantitative information was gathered. More recently, precise counts have been obtained of seabirds nesting in the Strait of Georgia, Juan de Fuca Strait, the central west coast of Vancouver Island, the northern mainland coast, and the east coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. That information, along with quantitative data gathered in the summer of 1975, will be used to update the "Catalogue of British Columbia Seabird Colonies" published in 1961 by the museum.
The museum has a number of programs under way.
• A cooperative survey with Washington State of colonies of the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) in the Pacific Northwest. To limit disturbance, that survey is to be conducted at 5-year intervals beginning in the summer of 1975.
• A survey of all islands, whether or not they are supporting seabirds, in the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait in 1980, to detect changes in populations after 1974.
• Monitoring changes in seabird populations along the west coast of Vancouver Island, gathering data for all islands there. Permanent quadrats will be established on ecological reserves in the area to help detect such changes. As a result of such quadrats having been set up in 1967 on Cleland Island and being re-examined in 1974, we can document a significant decrease in Leach's storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) and a corresponding increase in rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata).
• Mapping vegetation substrate as it relates to seabird populations on selected islands in the Province.
• Investigating differences in eggshell thickness between eggs within clutches of glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) near Victoria.
• A saturation banding program for cormorants (Phalacrocorax penicillatus, P. pelagicus, and P. auritus) on south-coast colonies.
• Continued banding of select colonies of glaucous-winged gulls which began in the 1960's. Life tables, survivorship curves, and dispersal patterns should result.
The museum also acts as a repository for information on seabirds in British Columbia and maintains files on the history of seabird islands as well as references to literature published on all seabirds in the Province. The references include unpublished theses and reports. This information is easily retrievable—not a small contribution in today's paper-producing society.
Future programs planned by the Provincial Museum, in addition to the continuance of some of those already mentioned, include a system of monitoring colonies every 5 to 10 years, depending on the sensitivity of the species involved, to detect changes in population numbers and distribution. It is also hoped that the first complete provincial census, with cooperation from Federal and provincial agencies, naturalist groups, and the like, can be budgeted and arranged for in the summer of 1980. That census could conceivably be expanded to include the entire Pacific coast of North America.
Some research on the breeding biology of seabirds has been conducted by universities, notably the University of British Columbia under the guidance of R. H. Drent and M. Udvardy. We expect that graduates returning to coastal universities will continue that work. The section of government dealing with ecological reserves has just recently received funding to permit field studies on reserves harboring marine birds. J. B. Foster, Coordinator of Ecological Reserves, emphasizes that research by other agencies is encouraged under permit on ecological reserves.
There are a number of threats to seabirds in British Columbia. Along with the chemical pollutants in their environment and food, logging, and the specter of huge oil tankers plying the west coast, we are greatly concerned by the potential threat of boating enthusiasts and recreationists. Well-meaning but uninformed vacationers and boaters stopping to visit or picnic at seabird islands can do serious damage to nesting seabirds. The possibility of loss of habitat to seabirds from people searching for island summer homes poses a threat, and indeed some seabird islands have already been lost to speculators. With increased leisure time and travel the potential of unintentionally introducing predators, such as rats (Rattus spp.) and snakes, to seabird islands is great. Intentional or accidental introduction of mammals, such as mink (Mustella vison), rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), fox (Vulpes fulva), and raccoon (Procyon lotor), to islands is another serious threat to the future existence of seabird populations. The recent unauthorized and apparently unsuccessful introduction of mink on the Queen Charlotte Islands could have resulted in the eventual devastation of seabird colonies there and on adjacent islands. The destruction of habitat by logging near colonies on large islands and complete logging on small offshore islands will no doubt adversely affect some seabird populations. Competition between increasing numbers of gulls (Larus spp.) and certain species of seabirds (e.g., storm-petrels and cormorants) may result in reduced numbers of the seabirds.
What types of programs are needed? About 80% of all known seabird colonies in British Columbia have been investigated to date, and a modest program to monitor changes has been established. We do, however, require exploratory work along the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands and northern mainland coast. We need to know more about the breeding biology and reproductive potential of each of the species nesting in the Province, as well as about their adaptability to different habitats. Will some burrow-nesting alcids use man-made tubes erected in otherwise marginal habitat? Can and should more man-made habitat be created for cormorants that have been displaced from ancestral breeding grounds?
Of immediate urgency is exploratory work involving seasonal distribution, abundance, and flight lanes of pelagic seabirds along the coast of British Columbia—especially the northern portion. We lack the base-line data which could help influence routes of oil tankers to lessen the potential danger of spills to marine birds. We know little about the winter distribution of marine birds, especially alcids.
As a general rule, offshore islands of less than 100 ha should be protected completely from logging, and the larger ones supporting major seabird colonies should have some protection from development. We must also consider the possibility of preserving some islands which may act as buffer areas and provide potential alternate habitat to seabirds.
Another concern is the effect of commercial and sport fishing in the Province on food supplies for seabirds, and what damage, if any, gillnetting may have on diving seabirds. Perhaps we should discourage fishing by nets in areas where large numbers of seabirds aggregate to feed.
We also need to know more about the effects of chemical pollutants on individual species and on their reproduction. Of paramount importance, and one which biologists tend to neglect, is communication among all disciplines interested in seabirds. For example, a comprehensive file of the history of seabird colonies in British Columbia is established at the Provincial Museum. It would be a waste of time and money to duplicate that file and have three or four scattered across the country. We would be better advised to tackle another phase of work yet to be accomplished. Communication assures that seabirds benefit and are not unduly harassed.
Annual meetings, both local and international, of persons interested in marine birds should be arranged so that problems relating to seabirds can be discussed. For example, populations of glaucous-winged gulls in British Columbia have increased exponentially in the past 10 years. If they are a threat to the existence of other seabirds (e.g., Leach's storm-petrel, double-crested cormorants), should they be controlled, and, if so, how? Such meetings would also help develop a pattern of universal census methods and techniques that could be put to use along the Pacific Coast to provide comparable data from different areas.
Finally, in today's world, natural resource agencies must operate on limited funding. How can one convince administrators to divert a significant portion of those funds to the investigation of species that are widely regarded as having little social importance?
A detailed bibliography of seabirds of British Columbia is available from either of us.
We thank D. F. Hatler, J. B. Foster, and A. L. Allen for comments on the manuscript.