Chapter XVII: Part 5: , pages 225-247 in Soviet fisheries investigations in the (2)

Range
|Breeding range size
| |Migration length
| | |Winter range size
| | | |Marine orientation
| | | |
| | | | Population
| | | | |Population size
| | | | | |Productivity
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Habits
| | | | | | |Roosting
| | | | | | | |Foraging
| | | | | | | | |Escape
| | | | | | | | | |Flocking on water
| | | | | | | | | | |Nesting density
| | | | | | | | | | | |Specialization
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Mortality
| | | | | | | | | | | | |Hunted by man
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |Animal depredations
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Non-oil pollution
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |History of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | oiling
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Annual
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | exposure
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Spring
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Summer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Fall
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Winter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |OVI
Family, common (AOU) name and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Total
scientific name | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Points
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaviidae
Common loon _(Gavia immer)_ 1 3 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 47
Yellow-billed loon
_(G. adamsii)_ 3 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 0 3 5 1 5 5 65
Arctic loon _(G. arctica)_ 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 58
Red-throated loon
_(G. stellata)_ 1 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 49
Podicipedidae
Red-necked grebe (_Podiceps_
_grisegena_) 1 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 1 1 3 0 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 44
Horned grebe _(P. auritus)_ 1 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 0 3 3 3 1 0 1 1 48
Western grebe (_Aechmophorus_
_occidentalis_) 3 3 3 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 0 1 3 5 1 0 1 3 56
Diomedeidae
Short-tailed albatross
_(Diomedea albatrus)_ 99 1 100
Black-footed albatross
_(D. nigripes)_ 5 1 1 5 3 5 5 3 3 1 5 5 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 50
Laysan albatross
_(D. immutabilis)_ 5 1 1 5 3 5 5 3 3 1 5 5 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 3 52
Procellaridae
Fulmar _(Fulmarus glacialis)_ 3 3 1 5 1 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 0 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 57
Pink-footed shearwater
_(Puffinus creatopus)_ 3 1 1 5 1 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 47
Pale-footed shearwater
_(P. carneipes)_ 1 1
New Zealand shearwater
_(P. bulleri)_ 1 1
Sooty shearwater
_(P. griseus)_ 1 1 1 5 1 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 0 51
Slender-billed shearwater
_(P. tenuirostris)_ 1 1 3 5 1 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 0 53
Scaled petrel (_Pterodroma_
_inexpectata_) 1 1
Cooks petrel _(P. cookii)_ 1 1
Hydrobatidae
Fork-tailed storm-petrel
_(Oceanodroma furcata)_ 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 0 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 67
Leach's storm-petrel
_(O. leucorhoa)_ 1 3 1 5 1 5 5 3 3 3 5 3 0 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 63
Pelecanidae
Brown pelican
_(Pelecanus occidentalis)_ 1 1
Phalacrocoracidae
Double-crested cormorant
_(Phalacrocorax auritus)_ 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 3 1 3 3 0 1 3 5 3 3 5 52
Brandt's cormorant
_(P. penicillatus)_ 3 3 3 5 3 3 1 5 3 1 3 3 0 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 57
Pelagic cormorant
_(P. pelagicus)_ 3 3 3 5 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 0 1 3 5 5 1 5 5 63
Red-faced cormorant
_(P. urile)_ 5 3 3 5 3 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 0 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 63
Ardeidae
Great blue heron
_(Ardea herodias)_ 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29
Anatidae
Whooper swan _(Olor cygnus)_ 1 1
Whistling swan
_(O. columbianus)_ 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 1 5 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 0 3 0 50
Trumpeter swan
_(O. buccinator)_ 5 5 3 3 5 3 5 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 3 3 0 3 3 63
Canada goose
_(Branta canadensis)_ 1 3 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34
Black Brant _(B. nigricans)_ 3 3 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 1 3 5 3 1 5 3 70
Emperor goose
_(Philacte canagica)_ 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 70
White-fronted goose
_(Anser albifrons)_ 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 36
Snow goose
_(Chen hyperborea)_ 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 32
Mallard
_(Anas platyrhynchos)_ 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 36
Gadwall _(A. strepera)_ 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 38
Pintail _(A. acuta)_ 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 36
Common teal _(A. crecca)_ 1 1
Green-winged teal
_(A. carolinensis)_ 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 34
Blue-winged teal
_(A. discors)_ 1 1
Cinnamon teal
_(A. cyanoptera)_ 1 1
European wigeon
_(Mareca penelope)_ 1 1
American wigeon
_(M. americana)_ 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 36
Shoveler
_(Spatula clypeata)_ 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 34
Redhead
_(Aythya americana)_ 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 52
Ring-necked duck
_(A. collaris)_ 1 1
Canvasback
_(A. valisineria)_ 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 52
Greater scaup
_(A. marila)_ 1 3 1 5 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 52
Lesser scaup
_(A. affinis)_ 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 50
Common goldeneye
_(Bucephala clangula)_ 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 48
Barrow's goldeneye
_(B. islandica)_ 3 3 1 3 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 56
Bufflehead
_(B. albeola)_ 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 52
Oldsquaw
_(Clangula hyemalis)_ 1 3 1 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 66
Harlequin duck
_(Histrionicus
histrionicus)_ 3 5 1 5 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 60
Steller's eider
_(Polysticta stelleri)_ 3 3 5 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 72
Common eider
_(Somateria mollissima)_ 3 5 3 5 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 68
King eider
_(S. spectabilis)_ 3 5 3 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 70
Spectacled eider
_(Lampronetta fisheri)_ 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 5 5 3 5 5 78
White-winged scoter
_(Melanitta deglandi)_ 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 72
Surf scoter
_(M. perspicillata)_ 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 72
Common scoter
_(Oidemia nigra)_ 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 72
Ruddy duck
_(Oxyura jamaicensis)_ 1 3 1 3 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 3 3 3 1 0 1 3 55
Hooded merganser
_(Laphodytes cucullatus)_ 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 5 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 37
Common merganser
_(Mergus merganser)_ 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 5 5 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 56
Red-breasted merganser
_(M. serrator)_ 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 5 5 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 56
Accipitridae
Bald eagle
_(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)_ 1 5 3 3 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 0 5 3 5 5 5 5 58
Steller's sea eagle
_(H. pelagicus)_ 1 1
Marsh hawk _(Circus cyaneus)_ 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 19
Pandionidae
Osprey _(Pandion haliaetus)_ 1 3 1 1 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 5 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 37
Falconidae
Peregrine falcon
_(Falco peregrinus)_ 1 3 1 1 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 3 3 0 5 1 3 3 3 1 41
Gruidae
Sandhill crane
_(Grus canadensis)_ 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 24
Rallidae
American coot
_(Fulica americana)_ 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 33
Haematopodidae
Black oystercatcher
_(Haematopus bachmani)_ 5 5 5 5 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 0 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 65
Charadriidae
Ringed plover
_(Charadrius hiaticula)_ 1 1
Semipalmated plover
_(C. semipalmatus)_ 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 1 3 1 3 0 28
Mongolian plover
_(C. mongolus)_ 1 1
Killdeer _(C. vociferus)_ 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 26
Dotterel
_(Eudromias morinellus)_ 1 1
American golden plover
_(Pluvialis dominica)_ 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 35
Black-bellied plover
_(Squatarola squatarola)_ 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 1 3 0 43
Surfbird _(Aphriza virgata)_ 5 1 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 5 1 3 5 0 5 3 54
Ruddy turnstone
_(Arenaria interpres)_ 1 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 5 1 3 3 3 3 0 44
Black turnstone
_(A. melanocephala)_ 5 3 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 5 1 3 5 3 5 3 57
Scolopacidae
Common snipe
_(Capella gallinago)_ 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 29
Eurasian curlew
_(Numenius arquata)_ 1 1
Whimbrel _(N. phaeopus)_ 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 0 37
Bristle-thighed curlew
_(N. tahitiensis)_ 5 1 1 5 5 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 0 45
Eskimo curlew _(N. borealis)_ 99 1 100
Upland plover
_(Bartramia longicauda)_ 1 1 1 0 5 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 26
Spotted sandpiper
_(Actitis macularia)_ 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 24
Common sandpiper
_(Tringa hypoleucos)_ 1 1
Solitary sandpiper
_(T. solitaria)_ 1 1
Wood sandpiper
_(T. glareola)_ 1 1
Wandering tattler
_(Heteroscelus incanum)_ 5 1 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 0 5 0 48
Polynesian tattler
_(H. brevipes)_ 1 1
Willet
_(Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus)_ 1 1
Greater yellowlegs
_(Totanus melanoleucus)_ 1 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 30
Lesser yellowlegs
_(T. flavipes)_ 1 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 30
Spotted redshank
_(T. totanus)_ 1 1
Greenshank
_(Tringa nebularia)_ 1 1
Knot _(Calidris canutus)_ 1 1 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 39
Great knot
_(C. tenuirostris)_ 1 1
Rock sandpiper
_(Erolia ptilocnemis)_ 5 3 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 59
Sharp-tailed sandpiper
_(E. acuminata)_ 3 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 46
Pectoral sandpiper
_(E. melanotos)_ 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 3 3 3 0 32
White-rumped sandpiper
_(E. fuscicollis)_ 1 1
Baird sandpiper
_(E. bairdii)_ 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 3 3 3 0 34
Least sandpiper
_(E. minutilla)_ 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 3 3 3 0 34
Long-toed stint
_(E. subminuta)_ 1 1
Temminck's stint
_(Calidrus temminckii)_ 1 1
Rufous-necked sandpiper
_(E. ruficollis)_ 3 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 36
Curlew sandpiper
_(E. ferruginea)_ 1 1
Dunlin _(E. alpina)_ 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 41
Short-billed dowitcher
_(Limnodromus griseus)_ 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 0 45
Long-billed dowitcher
_(L. scolopaceus)_ 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 0 47
Stilt sandpiper
_(Micropalama himantopus)_ 1 1
Semipalmated sandpiper
_(Ereunetes pusillus)_ 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 3 5 3 0 34
Western sandpiper
_(E. mauri)_ 5 3 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 3 3 3 5 3 1 47
Buff-breasted sandpiper
_(Tryngites subruficollis)_ 1 1
Marbled godwit
_(Limosa fedoa)_ 1 1
Bar-tailed godwit
_(L. lapponica)_ 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 3 0 49
Hudsonian godwit
_(L. haemastica)_ 1 1
Black-tailed godwit
_(L. limosa)_ 1 1
Ruff _(Philomachus pugnax)_ 1 1
Sanderling _(Crocethia alba)_ 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 45
Spoon-billed sandpiper
_(Eurynorhynchus pygmeum)_ 1 1
Phalaropodidae
Red phalarope
_(Phalaropus fulicarius)_ 3 1 1 5 1 3 5 5 1 5 1 5 0 3 1 5 5 3 5 0 58
Wilson's phalarope
_(Steganopus tricolor)_ 1 1
Northern phalarope
_(Lobipes lobatus)_ 3 1 3 5 1 3 5 5 1 5 1 5 0 3 3 5 5 3 5 0 62
Stercorariidae
Pomarine jaeger
_(Stercorarius pomarinus)_ 1 1 1 5 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 41
Parasitic jaeger
_(S. parasiticus)_ 1 1 1 5 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 0 43
Long-tailed jaeger
_(S. longicaudus)_ 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 39
Skua _(Catharacta skua)_ 1 1
Laridae
Glaucous gull
_(Larus hyperboreus)_ 1 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 45
Glaucous-winged gull
_(L. glaucescens)_ 5 1 3 5 1 3 3 3 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 56
Slaty-backed gull
_(L. schistisagus)_ 1 1
Western gull
_(L. occidentalis)_ 3 1 3 5 1 3 3 3 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 48
Herring gull
_(L. argentatus)_ 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 38
Thayer's gull _(L. thayeri)_ 3 3 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 42
California gull
_(L. californicus)_ 3 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38
Ring-billed gull
_(L. delawarensis)_ 1 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36
Mew gull _(L. canus)_ 1 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 44
Black-headed gull
_(L. ridibundus)_ 1 1
Franklin's gull
_(L. pipixcan)_ 1 1
Bonaparte's gull _(L.
philadelphia)_ 1 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 40
Heerman's gull _(L. 1 1
heermanni)_
Ivory gull _(Pagophila 1 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 43
eburnea)_
Black-legged kittiwake 1 3 3 5 1 3 3 3 1 3 5 3 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 49
_(Rissa tridactyla)_
Red-legged kittiwake _(R. 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 3 0 1 0 1 5 5 5 5 66
brevirostris)_
Ross' gull _(Rhodostethia 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 3 56
rosea)_
Sabine's gull _(Xema sabini)_ 3 3 3 5 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 0 44
Common tern _(Sterna 1 1
hirundo)_
Arctic tern _(S. paradisaea)_ 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 32
Aleutian tern _(S. aleutica)_ 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 53
Caspian tern _(Hydroprogne 1 1
caspia)_
Black tern _(Chlidonias 1 1
niger)_
Alcidae
Common murre _(Uria aalge)_ 1 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 70
Thick-billed murre _(U. 1 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 70
lomvia)_
Dovekie _(Plautus alle)_ 1 1
Black guillemot _(Cepphus 1 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 70
grylle)_
Pigeon guillemot _(C. 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 3 82
columba)_
Marbled murrelet 5 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 84
_(Brachyramphus marmoratus)_
Kittlitz's murrelet _(B. 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 88
brevirostris)_
Xantus' murrelet 1 1
_(Endomychura hypoleuca)_
Ancient murrelet 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 74
_(Synthliboramphus antiquus)_
Cassin's auklet 5 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 84
_(Ptychoramphus aleutica)_
Parakeet auklet 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 80
_(Cyclorrhynchus psittacula)_
Crested auklet _(Aethia 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 1 5 5 3 5 3 76
cristatella)_
Least auklet _(A. pusilla)_ 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 80
Whiskered auklet _(A. 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 88
pygmaea)_
Rhinoceros auklet 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 74
_(Cerorhinca monocerata)_
Horned puffin _(Fratercula 3 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 72
corniculata)_
Tufted puffin _(Lunda 3 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 3 1 5 3 3 3 3 72
cirrhata)_
Alcedinidae
Belted kingfisher 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
_(Megaceryle alcyon)_
Corvidae
Common raven _(Corvus corax)_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21
Northwestern crow _(C. 3 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 47
caurinus)_

Table 2. _Criteria and points used in calculating Oil
Vulnerability Index._

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.

Table 3. _Oil Vulnerability Index (OVI) for families of birds
of the Northeast Pacific marine habitats, excluding rare and
endangered species in the scoring._

OVI per species
Number of Total
Family species OVI 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.

Table 4. _Oil Vulnerability Index for 109 species of birds of
Southeast Alaska (Total Points--2,678)._

OVI 1-20 OVI 21-40 OVI 41-60
Marsh hawk 19 Great blue heron 29 Common loon 47
52 species, rare Canada goose 34 Arctic loon 58
or occasional
(one point each) 52 White-fronted goose 36 Red-throated loon 49
Snow goose 32 Red-necked grebe 44
Mallard 36 Horned grebe 48
Pintail 36 Whistling swan 50
Green-winged teal 34 Trumpeter swan 63
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

OVI 61-80 OVI 81-100

Pelagic cormorant 63 Pigeon guillemot 82
Oldsquaw 66 Marbled murrelet 84
White-winged scoter 72
Surf scoter 72
Black oystercatcher 65
Northern phalarope 62
Common murre 70

Totals 470

Table 5. _Oil Vulnerability Index for 123 species of birds of the
Aleutian Islands_ (Total Points--2,689).

OVI 1-20 OVI 21-40 OVI 41-60
80 species, rare Canada goose 34 Fulmar 57
or occasional Least sandpiper 34 Slender-billed shearwater 53
(one point each) 80 Arctic tern 32 Greater scaup 52
Common raven 21 Common goldeneye 48
Bufflehead 52
Harlequin duck 60
Bald eagle 58
Peregrine falcon 41
Ruddy turnstone 44
Rock sandpiper 59
Western sandpiper 47
Red phalarope 58
Parasitic jaeger 43
Glaucous-winged gull 56
Black-legged kittiwake 49

Totals 80 121 777

OVI 61-80 OVI 81-100

Fork-tailed storm-petrel 67 Pigeon guillemot 82
Leach's storm-petrel 63 Whiskered auklet 88
Pelagic cormorant 63
Red-faced cormorant 63
Black Brant 70
Emperor goose 70
Oldsquaw 66
Steller's eider 72
Common eider 68
King eider 70
White-winged scoter 72
Common scoter 72
Black oystercatcher 65
Red-legged kittiwake 66
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 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.