Damage Assessment and Restoration Planning

For Marine Birds

Jennifer M. Arnold

Jennifer A. Boyce

Russell J. Bellmer 
Damage Assessment and Restoration Planning

For Marine Birds

Jennifer M. Arnold

NOAA Restoration Center-F/HC3

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Jennifer A. Boyce

NOAA Restoration Center 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4470

Long Beach, CA 90802

Russell J. Bellmer

NOAA Restoration Center-F/HC3

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to thank the many people who helped to make this document a reality. 

Specifically, we thank Katherine A. Pease, NOAA’s Senior Counselor for Natural Resources and 

James Burgess, Director of the NOAA Restoration Center, for their unfailing support of this 

document and constructive editorial comments. Many people provided helpful comments on a 

draft version of the document. Kolleen Bannon, NOAA Office of General Council, edited the 

section on legal statutes, Dr. Pete Escherich of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Environmental Quality, provided much of the language regarding DOI’s trusteeship for marine 

birds and many other helpful revisions and additions. Pierre du Vair, Paul Kelly, Steve Hampton 

and Kathe Verrue-Slater, California Fish and Game Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response, 

provided extremely helpful editorial comments on the draft version. In addition, we thank Harry 

R. Carter, U.S. Geological Service and Humboldt State University, Deborah French, Applied 

Sciences Associates, Bruce Wright, Auke Bay Laboratories and Gordon Thayer, Southeast 

Fisheries Science Lab for their thorough and helpful reviews of the draft version. Thanks also to 

John Collins for ushering the document through the final stages of publication. Finally, we 

would like to thank all of the participants of the Multi-agency Marine Bird Workshop held in 

December of 1999 in San Francisco, California (Sarah Allen, Mark Barash, Cindy Chaffee, 

David Chapman, Andrew DeVogelaere, Rick Dawson, Pete Escherich, Beth Flint, Brad 

Grenham, Jim Haas, Steve Hampton, Roger Helm, Douglas Helton, David Irons, Paul Kelly, 

Kathy Kuletz, Roy Lowe, Larry Mangan, Greg Mason, Charles McKinley, Katherine A. Pease, 

Cyndi Perry, John Piatt, Rob Ricker, Jan Roletto, Dave Roseneau, Mike Szumski, Molly 

Sperduto, Robert A. Taylor, Edward Ueber, Pierre du Vair, Laura Valoppi, Veronica Varela, 

Kathy Verrue-Slater, Dan Welsh, Bruce Wright). Many of the points raised in this document 

were refined through discussions held at that workshop and we thank the attendees for their 

participation. 
iv

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Trusteeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

D. Scope of this document for NRDA of Marine Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. Status of Marine Bird Injury Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. Status of Marine Bird Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

III. CHECKLIST OF CRITICAL FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. Restoration in Contaminated Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

B. Rehabilitation of Marine Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

C. Selecting a Contractor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

D. Living Marine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

E. Using Existing Data and Current Expertise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

V. LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

VI. STATUTORY BACKGROUND 

A. Authority Establishing Federal Natural Resource Trusteeship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

B. Authority Establishing Agency Trusteeship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

C. Impact Analysis and Public Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

D. Other Potentially Applicable Laws and Executive Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

VII. APPENDICES

A. Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

B. Contact List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

C. Scientific Societies for Marine Bird Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

D. Federally Threatened and Endangered Bird Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

E. Inventory of NRDA Cases Involving Seabirds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

The NOAA Restoration Center (RC) is devoted solely to restoring the coastal and marine 

habitats that support the nation’s fisheries and trust resources. One important way that the 

Restoration Center achieves results is through working as an integral part of NOAA’s Damage 

Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP). NOAA established the DARP to conduct natural 

resource damage assessments for oil spills and releases of hazardous materials and to restore 

NOAA trust resources harmed by these pollution releases. Under the DARP, scientists,

managers, and attorneys ensure that injured marine resources are restored after oil spills, ship 

groundings, chemical releases or other toxic events. They do this by first assessing the injury to 

resources, then implementing restoration actions quickly and effectively. This process is done in 

concert with other federal, state, local, and tribal trustees who are responsible for the same 

injured resources. This document has been prepared to assist in determining damages to marine 

bird resources and planning actions to restore them. 

Marine birds(for purposes of this document, the term “marine bird” will refer to seabirds, sea 

ducks and shorebirds) are an important component of the marine ecosystem and are commonly 

injured in oil spills or hazardous material releases. Such injuries can occur as direct mortalities 

or indirectly through habitat degradation, lost reproductive success, and/or contaminated food 

supplies and toxicological effects associated with the exposure to the contaminant. Marine birds 

rely on a healthy marine environment to provide the prey base necessary for reproduction, 

migration and general maintenance. In addition, some seabirds rely on, and contribute to, the 

terrestrial ecosystem. For example, the federally threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus marmoratus) relies on old growth forests, up to at least forty miles inland from the 

coast for nesting habitat. Marine bird populations, like other elements of the marine ecosystem 

are a critical “part of the whole.” Therefore, in many ways, seabirds integrate the marine and 

terrestrial ecosystems. They affect and are affected by all changes in these complicated and 

delicate ecosystems. 

Maintaining healthy populations of marine birds provides multiple human and ecological 

benefits. Due to their location at the top of the food chain, many marine birds can provide 

valuable information regarding the status of other aspects of the marine environment (Furness 

and Monaghan 1987, Cairns 1987, 1992). Seabird guano production in and around colony sites 

provides nutrient input that increases primary production, and increases production in benthic 

communities including seagrasses (Wootton 1991, Kenworthy and Swartzchild pers. comm.,

Wainright et al., 1998, Palomo et. al., 1999). In addition, guano is habitat for other species, and 

a natural source of fuel (Ross and Randall 1990, Heezik and Seddon 1997). Seabirds and their 

eggs also serve as an important food source for predators and scavengers such as Bald Eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus), Great Horned Owls (Bubo

virginianus), foxes, coyotes and raccoons. 
2

However, many marine bird populations are declining. Threats such as habitat disturbance, 

nesting habitat degradation and loss, changes in food supply, fishery bycatch and others have had 

a substantial impact on seabird populations worldwide. Currently there are fourteen marine bird 

species listed as federally endangered and six species listed as threatened (see Appendix B for a 

complete list). Marine birds are long–lived, have low reproductive rates and have delayed onset 

of breeding, meaning that they typically do not start breeding until at least their third or fourth 

year (Duffy and Nettleship 1992). These characteristics make marine birds vulnerable and slow 

to recover from human disturbance and other threats. Many marine birds are also restricted in 

their breeding range. For example, the entire U.S. population of both the federally endangered 

California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) and the Xantus’s Murrelet 

(Synthliboramphus hypoleucus), a species of special concern, breed on only two islands in 

California. In addition, over 40% of the federally endangered Roseate Tern (Sterna dougalli) 

breed on one island in Massachusetts. These restricted breeding ranges put such populations at 

extreme risk to multiple threats such as disturbance, predation and oil spills. 

Marine birds are a major public and recreational attraction to many coastal areas and provide 

viewing services to “bird-watchers” and the tourism industry (French and French 1989). For 

example, tourists visiting the State of Maine spend nearly $3 billion in the state annually, mostly 

related to coastal recreation. The public’s level of participation in bird-related recreation is a 

strong indication of the value of birds to society. Nature-based recreation is the fastest growing 

segment of the tourism industry, increasing approximately 30% annually since 1987. Seventyseven percent of U.S citizens, or 150 million, spent $29.2 billion in 1996 to observe, photograph 

and feed wildlife, a 39% increase in dollars from 1991. Were wildlife watching a corporation, it 

would have ranked 23rd on the Fortune 500 list that year (The North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative in the United States 2000). The bird watching industry continues to grow 

every year. Birding is growing faster than many other outdoor recreational activities such as 

biking, pleasure walking, skiing and golfing. Bird watching as an activity increased 200% from 

21 million participants in 1982-83 to an estimated 63 million in 1997. Collectively, birders 

spend approximately $20 billion per year on backyard bird feeding, travel and related 

paraphernalia. In 1991, 24.7 million birders traveled away from their homes to participate in 

birding activities, spending $5.2 billion on goods and services (The North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative in the United States 2000). At a national level, economic activity directly 

associated with the non-consumptive enjoyment of birds generated 191,000 jobs and more than 

$895 million in sales and income tax revenues in 1991. In addition, three million migratory bird 

hunters generated $1.3 billion in retail sales, having a total economic multiplier effect of $3.9 

billion when combined with the 46,000 additional jobs and $176 million in sales and income tax 

revenues produced. Clearly, birds provide an important contribution to our nation’s economy 

(The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States 2000).

The public also values marine birds as important natural resource to protect in its own right and 

to pass on to future generations. A recent economic analysis conducted by the California 

Department of Fish and Game suggests that California households are willing to pay an average 

of $76 in a one-time payment to protect the Central California coast from an oil spill whose 

impacts would include primarily seabirds (Carson et al., 1996). Fishermen have traditionally 

used feeding seabirds to locate aggregations of fish in the open ocean (Furness and Monaghan
3

1987). In many areas, such as Alaska, native people have traditionally relied on the meat and 

eggs of ducks, geese, cranes, eiders and other aquatic birds for subsistence.

Unfortunately, continual injuries due to oil and chemical pollution in addition to threats such as 

habitat disturbance, nesting habitat degradation and loss, changes in the food supply, fishery 

bycatch and changes in water temperature threaten the persistence of marine birds (Fry et. al., 

1986, Eppley et al., 1990, Burger 1994, Nur et al., 1997, Andres 1997, 1999). Although a 

damage assessment deals with the effects of oil and chemical pollution, those injuries can be 

exacerbated by other threats. Effective restoration may need to focus on these other threats in 

order to restore the injured populations to baseline. 

 

B. Trusteeship 

As trustees for the Nation’s natural resources, NOAA and other natural resources trustees are 

responsible for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating or acquiring the equivalent of injured natural 

resources. To determine the type and magnitude of restoration necessary to compensate the 

public, natural resource trustees must assess the injuries to trust resources. Approaches for 

making such assessments for marine birds are discussed in Section II. NOAA’s trustee 

responsibilities for injuries related to oil spills or hazardous releases derives from the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA), the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan (NCP)(40 CFR Part 300), and various executive orders. Some of these authorities are 

discussed in Section III. 

In addition to CERCLA and OPA, NOAA also is a natural resource trustee under the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). It is through the NMSA that NOAA’s role in marine bird 

damage assessment and restoration is most clearly established. Marine bird species spend a large 

portion of their life cycle in national marine sanctuaries feeding, roosting and rearing their 

young. The fact that marine birds may be considered sanctuary resources does not mean that 

NOAA is the sole trustee for those species. As in most cases, NOAA shares a trust interest with 

others. In the case of marine birds, co-trustees would include Department of the Interior (DOI), 

state agencies and possibly tribal interests. This shared trusteeship mandates coordination and 

cooperation.

Typically, in cases involving NOAA, the co-trustees form a case specific trustee council to 

ensure that their activities are coordinated. Even without the formation of a trustee council, it is 

NOAA’s policy and practice to work cooperatively with all entities having a trustee interest.

In general, damage assessment and restoration within NOAA are accomplished through the 

NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP). However, in the area of marine 

bird assessment and restoration, NOAA has had limited experience. Thus, it relies on the 

expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and state agencies. To improve its ability to fulfill its co-trustee responsibility for marine birds 

and to become a more effective team member, NOAA is taking steps to increase the level of 

marine bird expertise within the DARP.
4

C. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide NOAA employees with the background and contacts 

to obtain information on marine birds in a useful and efficient manner. It also synthesizes 

information regarding present activities by NOAA and other agencies in the area of marine bird 

damage assessments and restoration plans. In addition, this document provides direction to 

NOAA personnel on specific issues frequently raised in relation to marine bird restoration and on 

seeking assistance with casework. The direction presented in this document is not intended to 

supercede existing federal regulations on natural resource damage assessment. Rather, the 

information is presented to assist NOAA personnel who are involved in the development and 

review of natural resource damage assessment and restoration involving marine birds. 

NOAA does not expect to duplicate the expertise of other agencies but aims to give its own 

employees adequate background to work effectively with DOI and other trustee agencies on 

marine bird issues. As the importance of incorporating an ecosystem-wide approach becomes 

more widely recognized, NOAA understands that moving toward more efficient and accurate 

damage assessments and effective restoration techniques will require, among other things, 

greater cooperation between agencies and more consistency between regions. With its increased 

expertise, NOAA plans to improve communication with other agencies, including consultation 

with USFWS. This will enhance NOAA’s capability to technically evaluate damage assessment 

reports and restoration plans. In addition, NOAA will be better able to participate more 

effectively in trustee decisions related to seabirds. 

This document is subject to comprehensive annual review and revision that will be initiated and 

coordinated by the NOAA/NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation. Request for specific changes 

or revisions requiring immediate attention should be brought to the attention of Jennifer Boyce, 

NOAA Restoration Center, Office of Habitat Conservation in Long Beach, CA 

(Jennifer.Boyce@NOAA.GOV) or Russell Bellmer, NOAA Restoration Center Office of Habitat 

Conservation in Silver Spring, MD (Russell.Bellmer@NOAA.GOV).

D. Scope of this document for NRDA of Marine Birds

In order to provide NOAA employees with the necessary background to work effectively with 

co-trustees, the scope of the document will include events occurring in all coastal regions of the 

United States, including Alaska and Hawaii as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa. 

For purposes of this document, the term “marine bird” refers to seabirds, sea ducks, and 

shorebirds. These general categories encompass birds in nine Orders based on the American 

Ornithological Union Taxonomic system. The following Orders are represented: Gaviiformes 

(loons), Podicipediformes (grebes), Procellariiformes (albatross, fulmars, petrels, and 

shearwaters), Pelecaniformes (tropicbirds, boobies, gannets, pelicans, cormorants, anhingas, 

frigatebirds), Ciconiiformes (bitterns, egrets, herons) Phoenicopteriformes (flamingos), 

Anseriformes (sea ducks), Gruiformes (rails, crakes, coots and moorhens), and Charadriiformes 

(plovers, oystercatchers, sandpipers, gulls, terns, murres, murrelets, auklets, puffins). This 

document addresses all injuries of concern to natural resource trustees.
5

This document addresses both injury and damage assessment and restoration phases of the 

DARP process. As a federal co-trustee for marine resources, NOAA has the responsibility of 

working with other trustees to ensure that the natural resource damage assessment and 

restoration process for marine birds meets the program goals of restoring the resources that were 

injured by the release of oil or hazardous substances and obtaining compensation for the interim 

losses. In addition to ecological losses, this includes public use losses such as coastal recreation 

and bird watching; or in the case of ducks, geese, swans, and some other aquatic birds, hunting. 
6

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. Status of Marine Bird Injury Assessment

Background: OPA and CERCLA broadly define natural resources to include such things as 

land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such 

resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by 

the United States (including the resources of the Exclusive Economic Zone), any state or local 

government or Indian tribe or any foreign government. When addressing injuries to such natural 

resources, trustees consider both the resource itself as well as the services provided by that 

resource. NOAA’s OPA defines services as “functions performed by a natural resource for the 

benefit of another natural resource and/or the public” (15 CFR 990.30). A NOAA document 

defines “human services” as “the human uses of natural resources, or functions of resources, that 

provide value to the public, and include fishing, hunting, nature photography, and education, or 

existence, bequest and option passive use services” (NOAA 1997b). The document defines 

“ecological services as “the physical, chemical, or biological functions that one natural resource 

provides for another, such as provisioning of food, protection from predation, and nesting habitat 

(NOAA 1997b).”

The goal of the injury assessment phase is to determine whether a pollution release caused any 

injuries and, if so, to quantify those injuries and losses to the services that they provide. Food 

webs, life histories, and demography of marine birds are extremely complex which makes 

quantifying injury and measuring restoration success very difficult. Restoration for some species 

of marine birds has additional challenges due to their remote habitat requirements. Injury 

assessment for marine birds is still not an exact science, although much has been learned from 

restoration following the Exxon Valdez oil spill and other subsequent oil spills nationwide (Ford 

et al., 1987, 1996, Page et al., 1990). 

Oil spill-related injuries to marine birds, which can be quantified as lost natural resources and 

lost human or ecological services, generally fall into six categories (e.g., Bourne 1970, Butler et. 

al., 1988, Burger 1994, Irons 1996, Sharp et. al., 1996, Anders 1999):

?? Mortality due to direct oiling of adults and young, including direct ingestion of oil and oiling 

of plumage

?? Reduced reproductive success due to transfer of oil from adults to young and eggs

?? Mortality or reduced reproductive success due to indirect poisoning from feeding on 

contaminated fish and/or feeding contaminated fish to young (poisoning can result in lethal 

or sub-lethal injury to embryos and young, injury to female reproductive systems, etc.)

?? Mortality or reduced reproductive success due to decreased food supply

?? Mortality or reduced reproductive success due to lost habitat; and

?? Lost future generations due to the lag time between loss and restoration of breeding 

individuals.

Injury to birds from hazardous material releases generally takes the form of a poisoned food 

source, decrease in food supply, or habitat degradation. Toxic materials may remain in the 

environment for long periods of time and are often transferred up the food chain through the 
7

process of bioaccumulation. In some cases, there is the potential for interaction between toxic 

chemicals. These interactions can affect toxic responses in several ways. Sometimes, the effects 

of two chemicals are simply additive, however in some cases, synergisms or antagonisms occur. 

A synergism refers to the situation where the combined effect of two chemicals is greater than 

the additive effect of the individual chemicals. An antagonism occurs when one chemical 

decreases the toxic effect of the other. Seabirds are high trophic level feeders and therefore are 

highly susceptible to injury from hazardous material releases. Toxicants can cause a variety of 

injuries ranging from death to reduced reproductive output (Fry 1981, Risenbrough 1986, and 

Nisbet 1994). Some toxic materials do not persist in the environment but can still cause 

immediate damage to seabirds.

In oil spills and hazardous material releases, the specific injury to marine bird populations 

depends upon a multitude of life history factors, as well as current population status. The type 

and probability of injury are highly variable and depend upon the specific behavioral and life 

history characteristics of the species. For example, certain species of auks undergo a flightless 

period during molt, which may make them more vulnerable to direct oiling than terns and gulls 

that undergo a more continuous molt and maintain flight abilities. Feeding habits and habitat 

also may affect the nature and risk of oiling for different species. Alcids, for example, have been 

cited to be highly vulnerable to oiling, due in part to their pursuit-diving feeding technique, and 

habit of forming groups and “roosting” on the water (King and Sanger 1979, Seip et al., 1991, 

Wiese and Ryan 1999).

Approaches: Over the past decade, much effort has been made to increase the cost- effectiveness 

and precision of estimates of impacts to marine bird populations in natural resource damage 

assessments. For example, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the National Contingency Plan 

was updated, modeling techniques were refined and a myriad of studies was initiated to improve 

assessments and the accuracy of measurement methods (Ehler 1990, Ford et. al., 1996, USFWS 

1997, Wright and Duffy 1999). In addition, efforts to monitor marine bird populations have 

increased and contributed to improved knowledge of baseline population size, and status and 

breeding success. 

At present, there are two major procedural approaches to quantifying injury to marine birds. One 

type of assessment involves collecting field data regarding recovered carcasses and developing 

an appropriate multiplier. This multiplier is generally based on Oil Vulnerability Indices, search 

effort and the nature of the spill. Oil Vulnerability Indexes are management tools which are 

developed using behavioral and demographic characteristics of birds as well as oiling histories, 

to determine a simple categorical ranking system for the susceptibility of a particular species to 

mortality resulting from oiling (King and Sanger 1979, Seip et al., 1991, Williams et al., 1994). 

Another assessment technique employs simplified models that require minimal fieldwork. It is 

typically only used for small spills where scientific documentation is either not cost effective or 

when case-specific data was not collected (NOAA 1997a).

More specifically, marine bird injuries are generally addressed by use of the Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment Model for Coastal and Marine Environments (NRDAM/CME) (French and 

French 1989, and French et al., 1996a,b) and other related models, or by the use of models based 

on body counts and estimated carcass recovery rates. NRDAM/CME models estimate the 
8

number of birds oiled at sea using the trajectory of the oil slick and estimates of bird abundance 

and distribution at sea. Methods using body counts and estimates of sampling efficiency range 

from those using Oil Vulnerability Indices, to those using carcass trajectory modeling (i.e., the 

incorporation of sinking rates, scavenging rates, carcass recovery rates, etc., into models) (King 

and Sanger 1979, Seip 1991, Williams, et. al., 1994, Rosenberger and Burlington 1990, Ford et. 

al., 1996). Estimates of total mortality from such models can be verified through comparison 

with counts of oiled birds on shorelines. In California, a “swept-through” modeling technique is 

being used to establish injury. This technique consists of a combination of model-based 

procedures and aerial, water and/or land-based surveys conducted in the field. 

In some cases, additional population modeling is done to evaluate intergenerational losses. 

Various population modeling techniques are being used throughout the country. However, due 

to limited funds and manpower, this more sophisticated approach is by no means universal. 

While in many cases this information may be invaluable, it should be noted that trustee agencies 

are not required to establish a population level injury or to conduct additional population 

modeling to evaluate intergenerational losses to establish injury. The types and levels of 

modeling depend on the species injured, numbers affected and the amount of baseline 

information available for the injured species. 

Due to the limited baseline data available for some marine bird populations, it is often difficult to 

accurately evaluate injury to marine birds and scale restoration projects. In general, the approach 

to restoration depends on a number of factors including: the nature of the injury, the diversity of 

species injured, the baseline information available on the species/populations injured, or the 

existence of a monitoring program to measure the success of restoration efforts.

B. Status of Marine Bird Restoration

Under NOAA OPA regulations, restoration is defined as any action (or alternative), or 

combination of alternatives to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of injured 

natural resources and services (NOAA 1997b). Restoration actions are described in two 

categories:

Primary Restoration, which is any “action, including natural recovery, that returns 

injured natural resources and services to baseline”; and 

Compensatory Restoration, which is “the compensation for interim losses of natural 

resources that occur from the date of the incident to recovery.” (OPA regulations at 

§990.30)

Restoration of seabird resources requires a very broad definition. Direct restoration of a specific 

colony may be selected as the most appropriate way to approach seabird injuries at one site, 

while other, more indirect techniques, such as broad improvement of feeding or breeding habitat 

for a variety of species, may be more effective in other situations (Warheit et al., 1997).

Therefore, each situation must be approached on a case-by -case basis. Depending on the kind of 

disturbance faced by seabird populations and the biology of the birds, restoration alternatives 

may need to take into consideration restoration of individual colonies, the restoration of 
9

geographic range or rehabilitation of metapopulations. In situations where a population has been 

extirpated, habitat protection or enhancement may not be adequate to restore seabird 

communities. This may be attributed to seabirds’ strong tendency for philopatry (tendency to 

return to the same breeding site each year) and colonial nesting strategies (breeding in dense 

concentrations). As most seabirds share either one or both of these characteristics, often they do 

not readily colonize new habitat or return to former nesting sites following extirpation. The reestablishment of highly colonial species may require the development of innovative translocation 

or social facilitation methods. This technique has been used to restore colonies of terns, puffins, 

albatrosses, shearwaters and murres (Kress 1983, Parker et al., 1997, 1998, 1999, Podolsky 1990, 

and Bell 1994). Social attraction techniques such as decoys and sound broadcasting equipment 

transmitting recorded colony sounds create the appearance of an active colony; thereby 

increasing the likelihood of restoring a colony in these situations.

Restoration of injured marine bird populations is a fairly new field and, except in a few cases 

(Kress 1978, 1983, 1988, Parker 1997, 1998, 1999, Harlow 1995, Podolsky 1990, Bell 1994, 

Veitch et al., 1990, Talyor et al., 2000) published data on the success of the techniques are 

limited. In general, approaches for marine bird restoration can be summarized under eight

general types of actions:

1. Direct restoration (involves the direct manipulation of factors impeding the population’s 

recovery):

?? Restoration of breeding habitat (e.g., removal of introduced predators, or vegetation or 

breeding space competitors such as gulls)

?? Social facilitation (use of decoys and sound mimicry to attract birds back to abandoned 

colonies)

?? Restoration or improvements to feeding grounds 

?? Captive breeding projects to increase population sizes

2. Indirect restoration (these restoration options are one step removed from direct 

manipulation of the population or its breeding habitat. These options involve more broad-based 

techniques that may not result in the immediate recovery of the injured population but over time 

will result in their recovery to pre-spill levels):

?? Protection and monitoring of marine bird colonies

?? Habitat acquisition for conservation

?? Public awareness training for conservation of bird populations and nesting habitat

?? Projects addressing other factors affecting mortality such as fishing by-catch mortality; light 

and noise during mating and nesting; disturbances caused by recreational activities; etc.

It is critical to consider a species home range when developing restoration alternatives. As 

marine birds can travel extensive distances between their breeding habitat and wintering areas, 

restoration alternatives occurring within the immediate spill area may not be the most effective 

approach to returning the injured resource to baseline. For example, suppose a population of 

seabirds wintering in the area of an oil spill were heavily injured. The limiting factor in the 

population’s stability is predation from introduced predators at their breeding colonies 300 miles 
10

from the spill area. The most effective restoration alternative may be to remove the introduced 

predators in order to increase the species productivity.

 3. Restoration planning can be broken down into five steps: 

a. development of restoration alternatives (15 CFR Part 990.53(a)-(c));

b. scaling of restoration alternatives (15 CFR Part 990.53(d)); 

c. selection of restoration alternatives to implement (15 CFR Part 990.54);

d. development of restoration plan (15 CFR Part 990.55);

e. implementation of selected alternative (15 CFR Part 990.60-66); 

These steps can be conducted in coordination with the potentially responsible party (PRP). 

Under OPA, the development of a restoration planning document is required and public 

comment on restoration alternatives must be solicited. The NEPA process is also followed to 

ensure public participation in the process. 

According to the OPA Rule (15 CFR Part 990.54(a)(1)-(6)), the identification of restoration 

alternatives should be based on several criteria including: 

?? Extent to which the alternative is expected to meet the trustees’ goals and objectives in 

returning the injured natural resources and services to baseline and/or compensating for 

interim losses 

?? The alternatives likelihood of success 

?? Extent to which the alternative will prevent future injury as a result of the incident, and 

avoid collateral injury as a result of implementing the alternative 

?? Extent to which the alternative benefits more than one natural resource and/or service, 

and the effect of the alternative on public health and safety; and

?? Cost to implement the alternative (this includes: implementation, operation and 

maintenance, oversight, and monitoring)
11

III. CHECKLIST OF CRITICAL FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN MARINE BIRD 

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION

The following checklist is intended to highlight major points to consider when conducting 

damage assessment and restoration activities for marine birds. It is not to be considered a 

complete guide to conducting a damage assessment. For more information on any one of these 

points, please consult the references in Appendix A in this document.

A. Species and Population Background

___Life history characteristics

___Demographics (age at first breeding, recruitment, longevity)

___Age structure of the population (if known)

___Feeding requirements (primary prey base)

___Potential effects from contaminants to various life stages (lethal and sub-

 lethal, e.g. reproductive, immune system, other physiological effects)

___Origin of injured population (does it breed elsewhere or is it local?) 

___Status of species locally, regionally, nationally and worldwide

___Research and/or restoration conducted on the species to date

___Identify individuals with local or general knowledge of injured bird species

___Historical cases

___Have other cases dealt with similar species or habitats 

___If so, what was the outcome?

B. Damage Assessment

___Characteristics of the released oil or hazardous substance

___Nature and types of the injury: Does the injury assessment take long-term and 

 indirect effects into consideration along with acute mortality? 

___Estimated number of birds killed or injured (e.g. number of oiled carcasses, cleaned 

 and released birds)

___Information on oiled birds not collected (e.g. scavenged, lost at sea, missed in search 

 effort, flew outside response area)

____Number of birds cleaned and released, life expectancy and reproductive losses

____Age structure of the injured birds (if known)

___Lost generations must be taken into consideration: The loss of individual birds 

 usually means loss of future generations in the lag time between injury and

 completion of restoration.

___ Estimated injury to prey-base: it may be necessary to conduct restoration of the 

 prey-base (if possible) to adequately restore the injured species.

___ Injury to feeding or breeding habitats (short and long term): It may be necessary to 

 restore damaged habitat to achieve restoration

___ History of effects on this particular marine bird population to the extent known (e.g. 

 chronic pollution and small and large scale effects)

___ Long-term population impact
12

C. Restoration Planning Strategies

___ Alternative approaches to direct restoration: Has a reasonable range of alternative 

 approaches been explored (i.e., addressing other sources of injuries such as losses

 from by-catch mortality, human disturbances, and/or predation)?

___ The value of integrated projects: if the project is integrated with restorations for 

 other species, is there a clear and definable benefit to the injured birds?

___ Impacts of restoration actions on other living marine resources: how will the project

 integrate with other ongoing management actions occurring in the area?

___ Design of monitoring plans: 

 Are there any studies, management, or restoration projects currently in progress?

 Are monitoring plans designed in such a way that the information can be used to

 improve future management decisions regarding restoration?

 Are monitoring plans designed in such a way that one can determine the success of

 the restoration project?

___ Value of research:

 If research work is planned, can it be demonstrated to be essential to accomplishing 

 restoration for this event? 

 Is research designed in such a way that the data collected is compatible with existing 

data but not duplicative?
13

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this section is to provide recommendations to NOAA personnel on issues 

frequently raised in relation to marine bird restoration and to provide guidelines for selecting 

consultants to assist with casework. The order of the recommendations does not indicate level of 

importance. Recommendations presented in this document are intended only as direction to 

provide information for NOAA personnel who are involved in the development and review of 

damage assessment and restoration plans involving marine birds. These recommendations are 

not intended to, nor do they, supercede existing federal regulations. 

A. Restoration in Contaminated Areas

NOAA recognizes that restoring birds to contaminated areas may result in detrimental effects to 

the birds and counteract restoration actions. Therefore, we recommend the following actions be 

performed before choosing to restore marine birds to contaminated areas where impacts could 

potentially affect restoration of the species:

?? alternative sites should be investigated and a clear explanation is given as to why these 

sites are unsuitable;

?? potential injuries to the birds due to the contamination should be evaluated and 

incorporated into the restoration plan and recovery time (these injuries are considered 

when the value of the restoration plan is weighted against other restoration alternatives); 

and

?? careful monitoring of restored populations should be built into the restoration plan and 

rigorously collected data used to further the goals of restoration science.

B. Rehabilitation of Marine Birds 

Many studies have shown that the survival rates of rehabilitated birds (birds that have been 

exposed to oil or other types of injury and subsequently cleaned and released) are considerably 

lower than non-oiled birds (Anderson et al., 1996, Sharp 1996). In addition, rehabilitated birds 

may exhibit lower reproductive success than control birds (see Section VII of this document for a 

listing of citations). In light of this and historical cases, NOAA prefers that rehabilitation be 

funded through response costs rather than restoration funds. Restoration funds should be 

directed at those activities that have the greatest probability of restoring the injured resource.

C. Selecting a Contractor

When selecting a contractor to assist in natural resource damagement assessment and restoration 

activities for marine birds, NOAA’s recommends looking for individuals with experience in the 

following areas: 

?? marine bird behavior, biology and ecology

?? marine bird life history

?? marine bird population status and monitoring methodologies

?? demography as it applies to marine birds
14

?? ecological modeling as it applies to marine birds

?? habitat restoration as it applies to marine birds

?? a broad range of bird species

?? general ecology

?? statistical applications

?? NOAA and other federal and state trust resources

?? ecosystem and food web interactions

?? Knowledge of CERCLA and OPA regulations

?? working on interdisciplinary teams

Experience with NRDA activities that are not related to marine birds does not necessarily 

constitute qualification in the specific area of marine bird NRDA. All of the individuals listed in 

Appendix B have a wide range of experience spanning at least some of the critical areas. 

Therefore, the list constitutes a good starting point for selection.

D. Living Marine Resources

NOAA emphasizes the need for an ecosystem perspective when developing the restoration 

phase. NOAA stresses that restoration projects should be designed to benefit a multitude of 

living marine resources if possible. NOAA encourages restoration planners to consider the 

impacts of restoration actions to both marine birds and other marine resources and to avoid 

situations where restoration actions are working at cross-purposes with on-going management 

actions. 

 

E. Using Existing Data and Current Expertise

During response, damage assessments and restoration planning NOAA personnel should take 

advantage of the information and expertise already available in the area of marine birds. The 

following list contains recommendations on available information and expertise for consideration 

during natural resource damage assessments and response activities:

?? Utilize existing seabird population databases such as the Pacific Seabird Group 

Seabird database and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan as a source of 

baseline information. The North American Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(NACWCP) is a cohesive, multi-national partnership for conserving and managing 

colonial-nesting waterbirds (seabirds, wading birds, terns and gulls) and their habitats 

throughout North America. The plan divides the continent into distinct ecological 

regions, identifies and prioritizes regional conservation goals and essential habitats, 

delineates critical research needs and provides pubic outreach materials and training 

programs. The prioritized regional goals listed in the plan may be helpful in 

identifying the most valuable restoration alternatives and as a source of baseline 

information. The anticipated release date is 2001. More information and a copy of 

the plan are available at http://www.nacwcp.org/. 

?? Collect as much information on injuries to marine birds during emergency 

response as possible (e.g. observations of numbers of oiled shorebirds).
15

?? Utilize trustee agency staff with marine bird experience to answer questions regarding 

time-critical data collection, injury assessment activities, restoration planning and 

cooperative assessments with responsible parties (see Appendix B).

?? Build upon or take advantage of existing marine bird injury assessments and

restoration planning (see Appendix D).

?? Consider recent advances in the field of preventative measures to minimize impacts. 

For example, recently the use of bird deterrents has been suggested as a method to 

deter birds from oil slicks and prevent oiling. While such techniques are still being 

tested, they offer potential as a cost effective and ecologically safe way of reducing 

injury to marine birds (see Appendix A, I-Preventative Measures for a listing of 

references on this topic).
16

V. LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and D.M. Fry. 1996. Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans 

after rehabilitation and release. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32: 711-718.

Anderson, D.W., S.H. Newman, P.R. Kelly, S.K. Herzog, and K.P. Lewis. 2000. An 

experimental soft-release of oil-spill rehabilitated American coots (Fulicula americana): 

I. Lingering effects on survival, condition and behavior. Environmental Pollution.

Andres, B.A. 1997. The Exxon Valdez oil spill disrupted the breeding of black oystercatchers. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1322-1328.

Andres, B.A. 1999. Effects of persistent shoreline oil on breeding success and chick growth in 

Black Oystercatchers. Auk 116: 640-650.

Bourne, W.R.P. 1970. Oil pollution and bird conservation. Biological Conservation 2: 300-

303.

Burger, J. 1994. Before and After an Oil Spill: The Authur Kill. Rutgers University Press, New 

Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Butler, R.G., A. Harfenist, F.A. Leighton, D.B. Peakall. 1988. Impact of sub-lethal oil and 

emulsion exposure on the reproductive success of the Leach’s Storm Petrels: Short and 

Long-term effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 125-143.

Bell, B.D. 1994. Translocation of fluttering shearwaters: developing a method to re-establish 

seabird populations. Pages 143-148. In M. Serena [ed.]. Reintroduction Biology of 

Australian and New Zealand fauna. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.

Cairns, D.K. 1987. Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies. Biological Oceanography 5: 

261-271.

Cairns, D.K. 1992. Bridging the gap between ornithology and fisheries science: Use of seabird 

data in stock assessment models. Condor 94: 811-824.

Carson, Richard T., M.B. Conaway, W.M Hanemann, J.A Krosnick, K.M. Margin, D.R. 

McCubbin, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser. 1996. The Value of Preventing Oil Spill Injuries 

to Natural Resources along California's Central Coast (Volumes I & II). Report prepared 

for the California Department of Fish and Game - Office of Spill Prevention and 

Response, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the California 

Office of the Attorney General. March 31, 1996. Vol. I 197 pp., Vol. II 408 pp.

Duffy, D.C. and D.N. Nettleship. 1992. Seabirds: management problems and research 

opportunities. Pages 525-546. In D.R McCullough and R.H. Barrett [eds.]. Wildlife 

2001: populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 

Ehler, C.N. 1990. NOAA Viewpoints on management and legislative implications of recent oil 

spills. MTS Journal 24(4): 23-26.

Eppley, Z. A., and M.A. Rubega. 1990. Indirect effects of an oil spill: reproductive failure in a 

population of South Polar skuas following the Abahia Paraiso oil spill in Antarctica. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 67: 1-6.

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinmann 

and J.L. Casey. 1996. Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 18: 684-711.

French, D.P. and F.W. French, III. 1989. The biological effects component of the natural 

resource damage assessment model system. Oil and Chemical Pollution 5: 125-163.
17

French, D., M. Reed, K. Jayko, S. Feng, H. Rines, S. Pavignano, T. Isaji, S. Puckett, A. Keller, 

F.W. French III, D. Gifford, J. McCue, G. Brown, E. MacDonald, J. Quirk, S. Natzke, R. 

Bishop, M. Welsh, M. Phillips and B.S. Ingram. 1996a. The CERCLA type A natural 

resource damage assessment model for coastal and marine environments 

NRDAM/CME), Technical Documentation, Vol. I-Model Description. Final Report, 

Submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept. of Interior, 

Washington, DC, April, 1996, Contract No. 14-0001-91-C-11.

French, D., S. Pavignano, H. Rines, A. Keller, F.W. French III and D. Gifford, 1996b. The 

CERCLA type A natural resource damage assessment model for coastal and marine 

environments (NRDAM/CME), Technical Documentation, Vol. IV- Biological Database. 

Final Report, Submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C., April, 1996. Contract No. 14-01-0001-91-C-11.

Fry D.M. and C.K. Toone. 1981. DDT-Induced feminization of gull embryos. Science 213(21): 

922-924.

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Addiego, C.R. Grau and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of 

wedge-tailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 453-463.

Furness, R.W. and P. Monaghan. 1987. Interactions with fisheries. In Seabird Ecology. 

Blackie, USA. p. 53-99.

Gilardi, V.K. and J.A. Mazet. 1999. Oiled wildlife response in California-a summary of current 

knowledge of populations at risk and response techniques. Oiled Wildlife Care Network 

and Wildlife Health Center School of Veterinary Medicine University of California, 

Davis.

Golightly R.T., S.H. Newman, H.R. Carter, E.N. Craig, B. Van Wagenen, and J. Mazet. 1999. 

Survival and behavior of Western gulls following exposure to oil and rehabilitation. 

Paper presented at the Wildlife Society Western Section, 1999 Annual Conference.

Heezik, V. and P. Seddon. 1997. Penguins under the sun. Natural History 106(10): 30-35.

Huguenin, M.T., D.H. Haury, J.C. Weiss, D. Helton, C. Manen, E. Rieharz, and J. Michel. 1996. 

Injury Assessment: Guidance document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment under 

the Oil Pollution Act. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, 

Maryland.

Kress, S.W. 1978. Establishing Atlantic puffins at a former breeding site. Pages 373-377 In

S.A. Temple [ed.]. Endangered Birds: Management Techniques for Preserving 

Threatened Species. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

Kress, S.W. 1983. The use of decoys, sound recordings, and gull control for re-establishing a 

tern colony in Maine. Journal of Field Ornithology 59 (2): 161-170.

Kress, S.W. and D.N. Nettleship. 1988. Re-establishment of Atlantic puffins, Fratercula artica, 

at a former breeding site in the Gulf of Maine. Colonial Waterbirds 6: 185-196.

Irons, D.B. 1996. Size and productivity of black-legged kitiwake colonies in Prince William 

Sound before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 18: 738-747.

King, J.G. and G.A. Sanger. 1979. Oil vulnerability index for marine oriented birds. In

Bartonek, C.J. & Nettleship, D.N. [eds.], Conservation of Marine Birds of Northern 

North America: 227-239, Wildlife Research Report No. 11. Washington, DC: US 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
18

NOAA. 1997a. NOAA/DAC Emergency guidance manual version 3.1. NOAA Damage 

Assessment Center, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. 1997b. Scaling compensatory restoration actions: guidance document for natural 

resource damage assessment under the oil pollution act of 1990. Damage Assessment

and Restoration Program.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 1994. Effects of pollution on marine birds. Birdlife Conservation Series

1: 8-25.

Nur, N., W.J. Sydeman, P. Pyle, L.E. Stenzel, D.G. Ainley, and T.G. Schuster. 1997. Temporal, 

spatial, and species-specific patterns of chronic oiling as revealed by the beached bird 

survey, Farallon oiled bird survey and bird rescue programs in Central California. in

Effects of chronic oil pollution on seabirds in Central California. Final Report to 

California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Point 

Reyes Bird Observatory Contribution No. 732.

Parker, M.W., E.B. McLaren, S.E. Schubel, J.A. Boyce, P.J. Capitolo, M.A. Orthwerth, S.W. 

Kress, H.R. Carter and A. Hutzel. 1997. Restoration of common murre colonies in 

central California: Annual report 1996. Unpublished report, USFWS, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California.

Parker, M.W., E.B. McLaren, J.A. Boyce, V. Collins, D.A. Nothhelfer, R.J. Young, S.W. Kress, 

H.R. Carter and A.M. Hutzel. 1998. Restoration of common murre colonies in central 

California: Annual report 1997. Unpublished report, USFWS, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California.

Parker, M.W., J.A. Boyce, E.N. Craig, H. Gellerman, D.A. Nothhelfer, R.J. Young, S.W. Kress, 

H.R. Carter and G. Moore. 1999. Restoration of common murre colonies in central 

California: Annual report 1998. Unpublished report, USFWS, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California.

Palomo, G., O. Iribarne and M. Martinez. 1999. The effect of migratory seabirds guano on the 

soft bottom community of a SW Atlantic Coastal Lagoon. Bulletin on Marine Science

65: 119-128.

Podolsky, R.H. 1990. Effectiveness of social stimuli in attracting Laysan albatross to new 

potential sites. Auk 107: 119-124.

Pinit, P.T. and R.J. Bellmer. 2000. Habitat restoration monitoring toward success: a selective 

annotated bibliography. NOAA Technical Memorandum Series NMFS-F/SPO-42. May 

2000.

Rice, S.D. 1999. Lessons learned on the long-term toxicity of oil to fish: intersection of chance, 

oil, biology, toxicology and science. Legacy of an Oil Spill, 10 Years after Exxon Valdez, 

Abstracts. p. 93.

Risebrough, R.W. 1986. Pesticides and bird populations. Current Ornithology 3: 397-427.

Rosenberger, D.R and L.B. Burlington. 1990. The Natural Resource Damage assessment 

Regulations. MTS Journal 24 (4): 12-15.

Ross, G.J.B. and Randall, R.M. 1990. Phosphatic sand removal from Dassen Island: effect on 

penguin breeding and guano harvest. South African Journal of Science 86: 172-174.

Seip, K.L., Sandersen, E., Mehlum, F. and Ryssdal, J. 1991. Damages to seabirds from oil 

spills: Comparing simulation results and vulnerability indexes. Ecological Modeling 53: 

39-59.

Sharp, B.E., Cody, M., Turner, R. 1996. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the Black 

Oystercatcher. American Fisheries Society 18: 748-758.
19

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Post-release survival of oiled cleaned seabirds in North America. Ibis 138: 

222-228.

The North American bird conservation initiative in the United States, a vision of American bird 

conservation, U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee, September 

2000.

Underhill, L.G., P.A. Bartlett, L. Baumann, R.J. Crawford, B.M. Dyer, A. Gildenhuys, D.C. Nel, 

T.B. Oatley, M. Thornton, L. Upfold, A. J. Williams, P.A. Whittington, and A.C. 

Wolfaardt. 1999. Mortality and survival of African penguins Spheniscus demersus 

involved in the Apollo Sea oil spill: an evaluation of rehabilitation efforts. Ibis 141: 29-

37.

USFWS. 1997. National Oil Spill Contingency Plan.

Wainright, S.C., Haney, J.C., Kerr, C., Golovkin, A.N., and Flint, M.V. 1998. Utilization of 

nitrogen derived from seabird guano by terrestrial and marine plants at St. Paul, Pribilof 

Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska. Marine Biology 131: 63-71.

Warheit, K.I., C.S. Harrison, and G.J. Divoky [eds.]. 1997. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Seabird 

Restoration Workshop. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report, Project 

95038. Technical Publication Number 1. Pacific Seabird Group, Seattle. 171 + x pp.

Wiese, F.K. and P.C. Ryan. 1999. Trends of chronic oil pollution SE Newfoundland assessed 

through beached-bird surveys 1984-1997. Bird Trends (7): 36-40.

Williams, J.M., Tasker, M.L., Carter, I.C. and Webb, A. 1994. A method of assessing seabird 

vulnerability to surface pollutants. Ibis 137: S147-S152.

Williams, T.M. and Yates, L. 1999. Long-term effects of oil contamination in Alaskan sea 

otters. Legacy of an Oil Spill, 10 Years after Exxon Valdez, Abstracts. p. 133.

Wootton, J.T. 1991. Direct and indirect effects of nutrients on intertidal community structure: 

variable consequences of seabird guano. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology 151: 139-153
20

VI. STATUTORY BACKGROUND

Congress and the President have enacted a series of environmental laws to address the 

degradation of the Nation's natural resources. The following are summaries of the statutes which 

are either directly or indirectly addressed in this document and which provide the legislative 

authority for NRDA activities. Not all of these authorities relate directly to marine birds, but 

they have been included because of their potential applicability to the general NRDA. The legal 

authorities are presented in three categories: (A) authorities that establish Federal natural 

resource trusteeship; (B) authorities that establish agency trusteeship; and (C) agency compliance 

with NEPA and Environmental Justice.

A. Authorities Establishing Federal Natural Resource Trusteeship 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.; 15 C.F.R. Part 990

OPA establishes a liability regime for oil spills which injure or are likely to injure natural

resources and/or the services that those resources provide to the ecosystem or humans.

Federal and State agencies and Indian tribes act as trustees on behalf of the public to

assess the injuries, scale restoration to compensation for those injuries and implement

restoration. Section 1006(e)(1) of OPA [33 U.S.C. 2706 (e)(1)] requires the President,

acting through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA)

to promulgate regulations for the assessment of natural resource damages resulting from 

discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil. The Act defines "natural resources"

to include land, fish, wildlife, water sources and other such resources belonging to,

managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United

States, any State or local government or Indian tribe, or any foreign government.

Assessments are intended to provide the basis for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and 

acquiring the equivalent of injured natural resources and services. The process

emphasizes both public involvement and participation by the Responsible Party(ies).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA 

or Superfund) 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. 

CERCLA provides the basic legal framework for cleanup and restoration of the nation’s 

hazardous substances sites. Under CERCLA, responsible parties are liable for damages, 

including reasonable assessment costs, for injuries to, or the loss of, natural resources. The term 

"natural resources" is broadly defined by CERCLA to mean "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, 

ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held 

in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States, . . . any State or local 

government, any foreign government, or any Indian tribe . . . ." The statute provides that parties 

responsible for contamination of sites and the current owners or operators of contaminated sites 

are liable for the cost of clean up and restoration. Compensation is used to restore, replace, or 

acquire the equivalent of natural resources and services through restoration. CERCLA 

establishes a hazard ranking system for assessing the nation’s contaminated sites with the most 

contaminated sites being placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). 
21

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act mandates that parties who destroy, cause the loss of, or 

injure sanctuary resources are responsible for their restoration. The statute requires the Secretary 

of Commerce to designate national marine sanctuaries in accordance with specific guidelines and 

to develop and review management plans for these sites. It provides for the continuation of 

existing leases, licenses and other established rights in sanctuary areas, and for the development 

of research and education programs. The statute also prohibits destruction, injury or loss of 

sanctuary resources, and establishes liability for response costs and natural resource damages for 

injury to these resources. The Act defines "response costs" as “the costs of actions taken or 

authorized by the Secretary to minimize destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, 

or to minimize the imminent risks of such destruction, loss, or injury.” The Act further defines 

"sanctuary resource" as “any living or nonliving resource...that contributes to the conservation, 

recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic value of the sanctuary.” 

Under this Act, NOAA’s responsibility for natural resources includes the responsibility for 

marine birds.

Clean Water Act (CWA)(Federal Water Pollution Control Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

The CWA is the principal law governing water quality of the nation’s waterways. Section 404 of 

the law authorizes a permit program for the disposal of dredged material into navigable waters. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) administers the program. In general, restoration 

projects which move material in or out of waters or wetlands require section 404 permits. 

Section 401 of the CWA provides that restoration projects that involve discharge or fill to 

wetlands or navigable waters must obtain certification of compliance with state water quality 

standards. Generally, restoration projects with minor wetlands impacts do not require 401 

certification, while projects with potentially large or cumulative impacts must undergo a 

certification review. Often the preferred NRDA restoration projects selected by trustee councils 

will require such permits. 

Park System Resource Protection Act (PSRPA) 16 U.S.C. 19jj

Public Law 101-337, the Park System Resource Protections Act (16 U.S.C. 19jj), requires the 

Secretary of the Interior to assess and monitor injuries to National Park Service (NPS) resources. 

A “park system resource” is defined by the PSRPA as “any living or nonliving resource that is 

located within or is a living part of a marine regimen or a Great Lakes aquatic regimen...within 

the boundaries of a unit of the NPS....” The Act specifically allows the Secretary of the Interior 

to recover response costs and damages from the Responsible Party causing the destruction, loss 

of, or injury to park system resources. “Response costs” are defined by the Act to include the 

costs of actions taken by the Secretary of Interior to prevent, abate or minimize the destruction, 

loss or injury or imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury. The Act further provides that 

“response costs” include monitoring ongoing effects of incidents causing such destruction, loss, 

or injury.
22

B. Authorities Establishing Agency Trusteeship

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements four international treaties involving protection of 

migratory birds, including all marine birds, and is one of the earliest statutes (amended several 

times) to provide for avian protection by the Federal Government. Among its other provisions, it 

broadly prohibits actions to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, kill, possess, offer 

for sale, sell, offer to purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for 

transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means 

whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any 

manner, any migratory bird...or any part, nest, or egg of such bird.” Exceptions to these 

prohibitions are only allowed under regulations or permits issued by USFWS. Hunting of game 

birds, including waterfowl and certain shore birds, is annually regulated through a process in 

which the USFWS sets “framework regulations” based on the best current population data 

available, and States pass regulations that conform to those Federal regulations. All other 

prohibited actions, including those by Federal employees, are only allowed under specific 

permits issued by the USFWS. Criminal violations of this Act are enforced by USFWS, and it is 

also the primary statute under which USFWS and Interior have responsibility to manage all 

migratory birds wherever they occur, including marine birds. This statute also is the basis for 

USFWS oversight and permitting of collection and preservation or rehabilitation of birds oiled 

during spill response, which usually provides the primary data for determining extent of injury to 

marine birds and the need for restoration. More information on this law can be found at 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/inrnltr/treatlaw.html.

Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

The ESA directs all federal agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and their 

habitats and encourages such agencies to utilize their authorities to further these purposes. 

Under the Act, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the USFWS publish lists of 

endangered and threatened species. Section 7 of the Act requires that federal agencies consult 

with these two agencies to minimize the effects of federal actions on endangered and threatened 

species. Section 10 of the Act allows parties to ‘take’ listed species, provided that the take is 

‘incidental’ to otherwise lawful activity and is accompanied by a ‘conservation plan’ approved 

by the Department of Interior. If a NRDA restoration project will have an affect on a threatened 

or endangered species, the trustees must obtain a permit under Section 10 from the USFWS. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, et seq.

Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for the conservation and 

management of pinnipeds (other than walruses) and cetaceans. The Secretary of the Interior is 

responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs. The 

Secretary of Commerce delegated MMPA authority to NMFS. Title II of the Act established an 

independent Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors to oversee 

and recommend actions necessary to meet the intents and provisions of the Act. The Act 

provides that the Secretary shall allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking, by U.S. citizens 

engaged in activities other than commercial fishing of small numbers of depleted as well as 
23

non-depleted marine mammals if, after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Secretary 

finds that the total of such taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock, 

and prescribes regulations setting forth permissible methods of taking, and requirements for 

monitoring and reporting such taking." However, the 1994 Amendments provide that this 

regulation requirement may be waived provided that the proposed activity results in only 

harassment, and no serious injury or mortality is anticipated. NMFS regulations concerning 

MMPA permits and procedures are published at 50 C.F.R. Parts 216 and 228-229, with 

additional joint NMFS-USFWS regulations appearing at 50 C.F.R. Part 403.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended and 

reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297) establishes a program to 

promote the protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of projects conducted under 

federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that affect of have the potential to affect such 

habitat. After EFH has been described and identifies in fishery management plans by the 

regional fishery management councils, federal agencies are obligated to consult with the 

Secretary of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or 

proposed to be authorized, funded or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any 

EFH. 

Trustees must ensure that preferred restoration projects will have no adverse effects on EFH and 

will promote the protection of fish resources and EFH. Prior to implementation of any 

restoration projects that may potentially create a potential adverse impact to EFH, the trustees 

must consult with NMFS.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.

The FWCA requires that federal agencies consult with the USFWS, NMFS, and state wildlife 

agencies for activities that affect, control or modify waters of any stream or bodies of water, in 

order to minimize the adverse impacts of such actions of fish and wildlife resources and habitat. 

This consultation is generally incorporated into the process of complying with Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, NEPA or other federal permit, license or review requirements. 

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (AFCA) 16 U.S.C. 757a, et seq.

The AFCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, along with the Secretary of Interior, or both, 

to enter into cooperative agreements to protect anadromous and Great Lakes fishery resources. 

To conserve, develop, and enhance anadromous fisheries the Secretary may enter into 

agreements with States and other non-Federal interests. An agreement must specify: (1) the 

actions to be taken; (2) the benefits expected; (3) the estimated costs; (4) the cost distribution 

between the involved parties; (5) the term of the agreement; (6) the terms and conditions for 

disposal of property acquired by the Secretary; and (7) any other pertinent terms and conditions. 

The Act authorizes federal grants to the states or other non-Federal entities to improve spawning 

areas, install fishways, construct fish protection devices and hatcheries, conduct research to 

improve management, and otherwise increase anadromous fish resources. Following the 
24

collection of these data, the Secretary makes recommendations pertaining to the elimination or 

reduction of polluting substances detrimental to fish and wildlife in interstate or navigable 

waterways. 

The trustees may be able to take advantage of the provisions and funding of AFCA in order to 

leverage anadromous fish restoration plans and projects. Joint NMFS-USFWS regulations 

applicable to this program are published in 50 C.F.R. Part 401. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq., 15 C.F.R. Part 923

CZMA establishes a policy to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and 

enhance the nation’s coastal resources. The federal government provides grants to states with 

federally approved coastal management programs. Most coastal states have a federally approved 

coastal management program. Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal action inside 

or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal 

zone shall be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of 

approved state management programs. It states that no federal license or permit may be granted 

without giving the State the opportunity to concur that the project is consistent with the state’s 

coastal policies. The regulations outline the consistency procedures.

To comply with the CZMA, trustees must seek the concurrence of states that their preferred 

projects are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of state 

coastal programs. 

Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 401, et seq.

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates development and use of the Nation’s navigable waterways. 

Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable waters and 

vests the Army Corps of Engineers with authority to regulate discharges of fill and other 

materials into such waters. Restoration actions that require Section 404 Clean Water Act permits 

are likely also to require permits under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. However, a 

single permit usually serves for both. Therefore, the trustees can ensure compliance with the 

Rivers and Harbors Act through the same mechanisms.

C. Impact Analysis and Public Review

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d; 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-

1508

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) sets forth a specific process of impact analysis 

and public review. NEPA is the basic national charter for the protection of the environment. Its 

purpose is to "encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and the environment; 

to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 

stimulate the health and welfare of man; and to enrich the understand of the ecological systems 

and natural resources important to the Nation." The law requires the government to consider the 

consequences of major federal actions on human and natural aspects of the environment in order 
25

to minimize, where possible, adverse impacts. Equally important, NEPA established a process of 

environmental review and public notification for federal planning and decisionmaking. 

Generally, when it is uncertain whether an action will have a significant effect, federal agencies 

will begin the NEPA planning process by preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA 

may undergo a public review and comment period. Federal agencies may then review the 

comments and make a determination. Depending on whether an impact is considered significant, 

an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significance (FONSI) will be issued. 

The trustees have integrated OPA and CERCLA restoration planning with the NEPA process to 

comply, in part, with those requirements. This integrated process allows the trustees to meet the 

public involvement requirements of OPA and NEPA concurrently. Restoration Plans and EAs or 

EISs are intended to accomplish partial NEPA compliance by summarizing the current 

environmental setting; describing the purpose and need for restoration action; identifying 

alternative actions; assessing the preferred actions' environmental consequences; and 

summarizing opportunities for public participation in the decision process. Project-specific 

NEPA documents will need to be prepared for those proposed restoration projects not already 

analyzed in an environment assessment or environmental impact statement. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 - Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires 

each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority and 

low-income populations. EPA and the CEQ have emphasized the importance of incorporating 

environmental justice review in the analyses conducted by federal agencies under NEPA and of 

developing mitigation measures that avoid disproportionate environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations. The trustees must determine that no low-income or ethnic minority 

communities are affected by any restoration actions.

D. Other Potentially Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

This section lists additional federal laws that potentially affect NRDA and restoration activities. 

The statutes or their implementing regulations may require permits from federal or state 

permitting authorities.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470, et seq. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668,668 note, 668a-668d

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 16 USC 3901.

Executive Order 11514- Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality

Executive Order 11990- Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 11991- Relating to the Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality

Executive Order 12580- Superfund Implementation

Estuarine Protection Act, 16 USC 1221 et seq.
26

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 USC 1321 et seq.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (“Nongame Act”), 16 USC 2901-2911

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, 16 USC 3371-3378

Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 16 USC 715-715r

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation (“Duck”) Stamp Act. 16 USC 718-718j.

National Historic Preservation Act, 12 USC 470 et seq.

National Park Act of August 19, 1916 (Organic Act), 16 U.S.C. 1, et seq.

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, 16 USC 668dd-668ee.
27

VII. APPENDICES

A. Selected References

This section includes selected literature references related to damage assessment and restoration 

of marine birds. This is a sampling of the available literature and is not intended to be 

considered a complete listing. To obtain case-specific reports contact Jennifer Boyce or Russell 

Bellmer of the NOAA Restoration Center, or refer to this website: http://www.darp.noaa.gov/ 

1. General Marine Birds

Ainley, D.G and R.J Boekelheide [eds.]. 1990. Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: Ecology, 

dynamics and structure of an upwelling-system community. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, California. 

Ainley, D.G., W.J. Sydeman, S.A. Hatch, and U.W. Wilson. 1994. Seabird population trends 

along the west coast of North America: Causes and extent of regional concordance, 

pages 119-113. In J.R. Hehl and N. K. Johnson [eds.], A Century of Avifaunal Changes 

in Western North America. Studies in Avian Biology 15: 119-133.

Ainley, D.G., W.J. Sydeman, and J. Norton. 1995. Upper trophic-level predators indicate interannual negative and positive anomalies in the California Current food web. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series 118: 69-79.

Ainley, D.G., R.L. Veit, S.G. Allen, L.B. Spear, and P. Pyle. 1995. Variations in marine bird 

communities of the California Current, 1986-1994. California Cooperative Fisheries 

Investigations Reports 36: 72-77.

Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, and K.F. Dettman. 1983. Seabirds of central and 

northern California, 1980-1983: status, abundance, and distribution. Final report, Center 

for Marine Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, California. Available from U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, publication PB85-

183846.

Briggs, K.T, W.B. Tyler, D.B Lewis, and D.R Carlson. 1987. Bird Communities at sea off 

California 1975-1983. Studies in Avian Biology Number 11.

Cairns, D.K. 1987. Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies. Biological Oceanography 5: 

261-271.

Cairns, D.K. 1992. Bridging the gap between ornithology and fisheries science: use of seabird 

data in stock assessment models. Condor 94: 811-824.

Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting 

colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22: 68-79.

Carter, H.R., G.J. McChesney, D.L. Jaques, C.S. Strong, M.W. Parker, J.E. Takekawa, D.L. 

Jory, and D.L. Whitworth. 1992. Breeding populations of seabirds in California, 1989-

1991. Vols. 1 and 2. Unpublished draft final report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Dixon, California.

Duffy, D.C. 1994. Afterwards: an agenda for managing seabirds and islands. Birdlife 

Conservation Series no. 1: 311-318.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the 

Natural History of North American Birds. New York: Simon and Schuster, Fireside.

Furness, R.W. and P. Monaghan. 1987. Seabird Ecology. USA: Blackie.
28

Hunt, G.L., Jr., R.L. Pitman, M. Naughton, K. Winnett, A. Newman, P.R. Kelly, and K.T. 

Briggs. 1981. Reproductive ecology and foraging habits of breeding seabirds. In 

Summary of marine mammal and seabird surveys of the Southern California Bight area 

1975-1978. Volume III-Investigators’ Reports. Part III Seabirds- Book II. xvii+399 

pages. Final Report, Center for Coastal Marine Studies, University of California at Santa 

Cruz. Available from U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia, publication no. PB-81-248-05. 

Hunt, G.L., P. Harrison. 1983. Seabirds: An Identification Guide. Boston: Houton Mifflin 

Company.

Parnell, J.F., D.G. Ainley, H. Blokpoel, B. Cain, T.W. Custer, J.L. Dusi, S. Kress, J.A. Kushlan,

W.E. Southern, L.E. Stenzel, B.C. Thompson. 1988. Colonial waterbird management in

North America. Colonial Waterbirds 11: 129-169.

Sowls, A.L., A.R. Degange, J.W. Nelson and G.S. Lester. 1980. Catalog of California seabird

colonies. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Service 

Program FWS/OBS 37/80.

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl, 1989. Catalog of Washington Seabird Colonies, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(6).

Wahl, T.R., S.M. Speich, D.A. Manuwal, K.V. Hirsch and C. Miller. 1981. Marine Bird 

Populations of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia and adjacent waters in 1978 

and 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency DOC/EPA Interagency 

Energy/Environment R&D Program Rep. EPA/600/f-81-156.

2. Effects of pollution on marine birds

Bourne, W.R.P. 1970. Oil Pollution and bird conservation. Biological Conservation 2: 300-

303.

Burger, J. 1997. Effects of oiling on feeding behavior of Sanderlings and Semipalmated Plovers 

in New Jersey. Condor 99, 290-298.

Hartung, R., and G.S. Hunt. 1966. Toxicity of some oils to waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife

Management 30: 564-570.

Holmes, W.N. 1984. Petroleum pollutants in the marine environment and their possible effects 

on seabirds. Reviews in Environmental Toxicology 1, 251-317.

Jessup, D.A., and F.A. Leighton. 1996. Oil pollution and petroleum toxicity to wildlife. In A. 

Fairbrother, L.N. Locke and G.L. Hoff [eds.], Noninfectious Diseases of Wildlife. Ames, 

Iowa: Iowa State University Press. pp. 141-156.

Khan, R.A., and K. Nag. 1993. Estimation of hemosiderosis in seabirds and fish exposed to 

petroleum. Bulletin Of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 50: 125-131.

Leighton, F.A., D.B. Peakall, and R.G. Butler. 1983. Heinz body hemolytic anemia from 

ingestion of crude oil: a primary toxic effect in marine birds. Science 220: 871-873.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 1994. Effects of pollution on marine birds. BirdLife Conservation Series

1: 8-25.

Peakall, D.B., D.A.. Jeffrey, and D. Boersma. 1987. Mixed-function oxidase activity in seabirds 

and its relationship to oil pollution. Comparative Bio-chemistry and Physiology 

Comparative Pharmacology 88:151-154.

Peakall, D.B., P.G. Wells, and D. Mackay. 1987. A hazard assessment of chemically dispersed 

oil spills and seabirds. Marine Environmental Research 22, 91-106.
29

Risebrough, R.W. 1986. Pesticides and bird populations. Current Ornithology 3: 397-427.

Stephenson, R. 1997. Effects of oil and other surface-active organic pollutants on aquatic birds. 

Environmental Conservation 24: 121-129.

3. General Damage Assessment and Restoration

American Petroleum Institute. 1987. Proceedings , 1987 Oil Spill Conference: Prevention, 

Behavior, Control and Clean up. 10th Biennial Conference. American Petroleum 

Institute publication no. 4452

Bowles, M.L. and C.J. Whelan. 1994. Restoration of Endangered Species: Conceptual Issues, 

Planning, and Implementation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Burger, J. 1994. Before and After an Oil Spill: The Authur Kill. New Brunswick, New Jersey, 

USA: Rutgers University Press.

Cairns, J. Jr. 1995. Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publisher.

Huguenin, M.T., D.H. Haury, J.C. Weiss, D. Helton, C. Manen, E. Rieharz, and J. Michel. 1996. 

Injury Assessment: Guidance document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment under 

the Oil Pollution Act. National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, 

Maryland.

Mazet, J.A.K., Gardner, I.A., Jessup, D.A., and Rittenburg, J.H. 1997. Field assay for the 

detection of petroleum products on wildlife. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination 

and Toxicology 59: 513-519.

NOAA. 1997a. NOAA/DAC Emergency guidance manual version 3.1. NOAA Damage 

Assessment Center, Silver Spring, MD.

NOAA. 1997b. Scaling compensatory restoration actions: guidance document for natural 

resource damage assessment under the oil pollution act of 1990. Damage Assessment 

and Restoration Program.

OSPR, Office of Spill Prevention and Response. 1993. Guidance document for use in the 

preparation of marine facility and vessel oil spill contingency plans. California 

Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response. December 1, 

1993.

Rice, S.D., R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright. 1996. Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez 

Oil Spill Symposium. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18: Bethesda, Maryland.

Rosenberger, D.R and L.B. Burlington. 1990. The natural resource damage assessment 

regulations. MTS Journal 24 (4): 12-15.

Thayer, Gordon W. 1992. Restoring the Nations Marine Environment. Maryland Seagrant 

College, College Park, MD.

USFWS. 1997. National Oil Spill Contingency Plan.

4. Marine Bird Damage Assessment and Modeling 

Burger, A.E. 1993. Estimating the mortality of seabirds following oil spills: effects of spill 

volume. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26: 140-143

Camphuysen, K., and J.A. Van Franeker. 1992. The value of beached bird surveys in 

monitoring marine oil pollution: proposal for a European beached bird survey (EBBS) to 

monitor the effectiveness of policy measures to reduce oil pollution at sea. Technisch 

Rapport Vogelbesherming 10.
30

Clumpner, C. 1995. Search and rescue of oiled birds in shallow offshore areas of the Gulf of 

Mexico. In L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith [eds.], Wildlife and Oil Spills: Response, 

Research, and Contingency Planning. Newark, Delaware: Tri-State Bird Rescue & 

Research, Inc. pp. 125-126.

Dobbin, J.A., H.E. Robertson, R.G. Ford, K.T. Briggs, and E.H. Clark II. 1986. Resource 

damage assessment of the T/V Puerto Rican oil spill incident. Unpublished report, James 

Dobbin Associates, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia.

Ford, R.G., G.W. Page and H.R. Carter. 1987. Estimating mortality of seabirds from oil spills. 

pp. 848-751 In Proc. 1987 Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute, 

Washington, D.C.

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D. Heinmann 

and J.L. Casey. 1996. Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 18: 684-711.

French, D.P. and F.W. French III. 1989. The biological effects component of the natural 

resource damage assessment model system. Oil and Chemical Pollution 5: 125-163.

French, D., M. Reed, K. Jayko, S. Feng, H. Rines, S. Pavignano, T. Isaji, S. Puckett, A. Keller, 

F.W. French III, D. Gifford, J. McCue, G. Brown, E. MacDonald, J. Quirk, S. Natzke, R. 

Bishop, M. Welsh, M. Phillips and B.S. Ingram. 1996a. The CERCLA type A natural 

resource damage assessment model for coastal and marine environments 

(NRDAM/CME), Technical Documentation, Vol.I-Model Description. Final Report, 

Submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept. of Interior, 

Washington, DC, April, 1996, Contract No. 14-0001-91-C-11.

French, D., S. Pavignano, H. Rines, A. Keller, F.W. French III and D. Gifford, 1996b. The 

CERCLA type A natural resource damage assessment model for coastal and marine 

environments (NRDAM/CME), Technical Documentation, Vol.IV- Biological Database. 

Final Report, Submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C., April, 1996. Contract No. 14-01-0001-91-C-11.

Gilardi, V.K. and J.A. Mazet. 1999. Oiled wildlife response in California-a summary of current 

knowledge of populations at risk and response techniques. Oiled Wildlife Care Network 

and Wildlife Health Center School of Veterinary Medicine University of California, 

Davis.

Good, T.P., C.W. Thompson, and J. Parrish. 1998. A mark-recapture technique for beached bird 

surveys. Pacific Seabirds 25: 29.

Hartung, R. 1995. Assessment of the potential for long-term toxicological effects of the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill on birds and mammals. Exxon Valdez oil spill: fate and effects in Alaskan 

waters. In Third Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment-Exxon 

Valdez Oil Spill, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April 26-28, 1993.

Hlady, D.A., and A.E. Burger. 1993. Drift-block experiments to analyze the mortality of oiled 

seabirds off Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26: 495-501.

Holcomb, J. 1995. Management of bird search and rescue and response efforts during the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill. In L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith [eds.], Wildlife and Oil Spills: 

Response, Research, and Contingency Planning, Newark, Delaware: Tri-State Bird 

Rescue & Research, Inc. pp. 119-124.
31

King, J.G. and G.A. Sanger. 1979. Oil vulnerability index for marine oriented birds. In

Bartonek, C.J. & Nettleship, D.N. [eds.], Conservation of Marine Birds of Northern 

North America: 227-239, Wildlife Research Report No. 11. Washington, DC: US 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Leighton, F.A., R.G. Butler, and D.B. Peakall. 1985. Oil on Arctic marine birds: an assessment 

of risk. In F.R. Engelhardt [ed.], Petroleum Effects in the Arctic Environment. London 

& New York: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, pp. 183-215.

Lusimbo, W. S., and F.A. Leighton. 1996. Effects of Prudhoe Bay crude oil on hatching success 

and associated changes in pipping muscles in embryos of domestic chickens (Gallus 

gallus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32: 209-215.

Maccarone, A.D., and J.N. Brzorad. 1995. Effects of an oil spill on the prey populations and 

foraging behavior of breeding wading birds. Wetlands 15: 397-407.

Murphy, S. M., R.H. Day, J.A. Wiens, and K.R. Parker. 1997. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil 

spill on birds: comparisons of pre- and post-spill surveys in Prince William Sound, 

Alaska. Condor 99: 299-313.

Page, G.W., and H.R. Carter 1986. Impacts of the San Joaquin Valley crude oil spill on marine 

birds in central California. Special scientific report of the Point Reyes Observatory, 

Number 353. 53 pp,

Page, G.W., H.R., Carter and R.G., Ford 1990. Numbers of seabirds killed or debilitated in the 

1986 Apex Houston oil spill in central California. Studies in Avian Biology 14: 164-174.

Philibert, H., G. Wobeser, and R.G. Clark. 1993. Counting dead birds: examination of methods. 

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 29: 284-289.

Piatt, J.F., and C.J. Lensink. 1989. Exxon Valdez bird toll. Nature 342: 865-866.

Piatt, J.F., C.J. Lensink, W. Butler, M. Kendziorek and D. R. Nysewander. 1990. Immediate 

impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. Auk 107, 387-397.

Piatt, J.F., and R.G. Ford. 1996. How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? 

Pages 712-719. In S.D. Rice, R.B. Spies, D.A. Wolfe, and B.A. Wright [eds]. 

Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez oil spill symposium. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium. 18. 

Seip, K.L., E. Sandersen, F. Mehlum, and J. Ryssdal. 1991. Damages to seabirds from oil spills: 

comparing simulation results and vulnerability indexes. Ecological Modeling 53: 39-59.

Swartzman, G., and H.R., Carter 1991. Response of the California population of the Common 

Murres (Uria aalge) to mortality from the 1986 Apex Houston oil spill. Unpublished 

report, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

Wiens, J. A., T.O. Crist, R.H. Day, S.M. Murphy, and G.D. Hayward. 1996. Effects of the 

Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine bird communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 

Ecological Applications 6: 828-841.

Williams, J.M., M.L. Tasker, I.C. Carter, and A. Webb. 1994. A method of assessing seabird 

vulnerability to surface pollutants. Ibis 137: S147-S152.

5. Marine Bird Restoration

Byrd, G.V., E.P. Bailey, and W. Stahl. 1997. Restoration of island populations of black 

oystercatchers and pigeon guillemots by removing introduced foxes. Colonial 

Waterbirds 20: 253-260.
32

Drever, M.C. and A.S. Harestad. 1998. Diets of Norway Rats on Langara Island, Queen 

Charlotte Islands, British Columbia: Implications for conservation of breeding seabirds. 

The Canadian Field-Naturalist 112: 676-683.

Pinit, P.T. and R.J. Bellmer. 2000. Habitat restoration-monitoring toward success: A selective 

annotated bibliography (1990 to present). NOAA Technical Memorandum Series 

NMFS-F/SPO-42, May 2000.

Kotliar, N.B. and J. Burger. 1984. The use of decoys to attract Least Terns to abandoned colony 

sites in New Jersey. Colonial Waterbirds 7: 134-138.

Kress, S.W. 1978. Establishing atlantic puffins at a former breeding site. Pp. 373-377. In S.A. 

Temple [ed.], Endangered Birds: Management Techniques for Preserving Threatened 

Species. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.

Kress, S.W. 1983. The use of decoys, sound recordings, and gull control for re-establishing a 

tern colony in Maine. J. Field Ornithology 59 (2): 161-170.

Kress, S.W. and D.N. Nettleship. 1988. Re-establishment of Atlantic puffins, Fratercula artica, 

at a former breeding site in the Gulf of Maine. Colonial Waterbirds 6: 185-196.

Parker, M.W., E.B. McLaren, S.E. Schubel, J.A. Boyce, P.J. Capitolo, M.A. Orthwerth, S.W. 

Kress, H.R. Carter and A. Hutzel. 1997. Restoration of common murre colonies in 

central California: Annual report 1996. Unpublished report, USFWS, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California.

Parker, M.W., E.B. McLaren, J.A. Boyce, V. Collins, D.A. Nothhelfer, R.J. Young, S.W. Kress, 

H.R. Carter and A.M. Hutzel. 1998. Restoration of common murre colonies in central 

California: Annual report 1997. Unpublished report, USFWS, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California.

Parker, M.W., J.A. Boyce, E.N. Craig, H. Gellerman, D.A. Nothhelfer, R.J. Young, S.W. Kress, 

H.R. Carter and G. Moore. 1999. Restoration of common murre colonies in central 

California: Annual report 1998. Unpublished report, USFWS, San Francisco Bay 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California.

Parker, M., J. Boyce, R. Young, N. Rojek, C. Hamilton, V. Slowik, H. Gellerman, 

S. Kress, H. Carter, G. Moore and L.J Cohen. 2000. Restoration of Common Murre 

Colonies in Central Coastal California: Annual Report 1999. Unpublished Report, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

Newark, California (prepared for the Apex Houston Trustee Council). 

Quinn, J.S., R.D. Morris, H. Blokpoel, D.V. Wesloh, P.J. Ewins. 1996. Design and

management of bird nesting habitat: tactics for conserving colonial waterbird biodiversity

on artificial islands in Hamilton Harbor, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Sciences

(Suppl. 1): 45-57.

Seto, N.W. and S. Conant. 1996. The effects of rat predation on the reproductive success of the 

Bonin Petrel on Midway Atoll. Colonial Waterbirds 19: 171-185.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Restoration of near-shore breeding seabird colonies on 

the central California coast: final plan. Federal Register 60(81): 20739-20749.

Warheit, K.I., C.S. Harrison, and G.J. Divoky [eds.]. 1997. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Seabird

Restoration Workshop. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report, Project 

95038. Technical Publication Number 1. Pacific Seabird Group, Seattle. 171 + x pp.

Wright, B. and D.C. Duffy. 1999. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project, Annual report. 

APEX Project: Alaska Predator Ecosystem Experiment in Prince William Sound and the 

Gulf of Alaska. Restoration Project 98163 A-Q. Annual Report.
33

6. Rehabilitation

Anderson, D.W., F. Gress, and D.M. Fry. 1996. Survival and dispersal of oiled brown pelicans 

after rehabilitation and release. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32: 711-718.

Anderson, D.W., S.H. Newman, P.R. Kelly, S.K. Herzog, and K.P. Lewis. 2000. An 

experimental soft-release of oil-spill rehabilitated American coots (Fulicula americana): 

I. Lingering effects on survival, condition and behavior. Environmental Pollution.

Bryndza, H.E., J.P. Foster, Jr., J.H. McCartney, J.C. Lober, and B. Lundberg. 1995. 

Methodology for determining surfactant efficacy in removal of petrochemicals from 

feathers. In L. Frink, K. Ball-Weir and C. Smith [eds.], Wildlife and Oil Spills: Response, 

Research, and Contingency Planning. Newark, Delaware: Tri-State Bird Rescue 

&Research, Inc. pp. 69-86.

Camphuysen, K., P. Duiven, M.P. Harris, and M.F. Leopold. 1997. Recoveries of guillemots 

ringed in the Netherlands: The survival of rehabilitated oiled seabirds. Sula 11: 157-174.

Cox, R.R., and A.D. Afton. 1998. Effects of capture and handling on survival of female 

Northern pintails. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 276-287.

Fry, D. M., and L.A. Addiego. 1987. Hemolytic anemia complicates the cleaning of oiled 

seabirds. Wildlife Journal 10: 3-14.

Gilardi, V.K. and J.A. Mazet. 1999. Oiled Wildlife Response in California-A Summary of 

Current Knowledge of Populations at Risk and Response Techniques. Oiled Wildlife 

Care Network and Wildlife Health Center School of Veterinary Medicine University of 

California, Davis.

Goldsworthy, S., M. Giese, R. Gales, N. Brothers, and J. Hamill. 1998. The long-term effects of 

oiling and rehabilitation on the breeding success of little penguins, Eutyptula minor, 

rehabilitated during the Airon Baron oil spill, Tasmania. In 5th International Conference 

Of The Effects of Oil On Wildlife. Monterey, CA. pp. 109.

Golightly R.T., S.H. Newman, H.R. Carter, E.N. Craig, B. Van Wagenen, and J. Mazet. 1999. 

Survival and behavior of western gulls following exposure to oil and rehabilitation. 

Paper presented at the Wildlife Society Western Section, 1999 Annual Conference.

Harris, M.P. and S. Wanless. 1997. Successful rehabilitation of adult common guillemots Uria

aalge. Ibis 137: 192-197. 

Jenssen, B.M., and M. Ekker. 1988. A method for evaluating the cleaning of oiled seabirds. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 213-215.

Jenssen, B.M. 1994. Review article: Effects of oil pollution, chemically treated oil, and 

cleaning on the thermal balance of birds. Environmental Pollution 86: 207-215.

Kerley, G. I. H., C.G. Crellin, and T. Erasmus. 1987. Gravimetric determination of waterrepellency in rehabilitated oiled seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18: 609-611.

Khan, R.A. and P. Ryan. 1991. Long term effects of crude oil on common murres (Uria aalge) 

following rehabilitation. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 46(2): 

216-222.

LeMaho, Y., H. Karmann, D. Briot, Y. Handrich, J.P. Robin, E. Mioskowski, Y. Cherel, and J. 

Farini. 1992. Stress in birds due to routine handling and a technique to avoid it. 

American Journal of Physiology 263 (2): R775-R781.

Naviaux, J.L., and A. Pittman. 1973. Cleaning of oil covered birds. Biological Conservation 

5:117-121.
34

Newman, S.H., D.W. Anderson, J.G. Trupkiewicz, M.H. Ziccardi, P.R. Kelly, J.M. LaPoint, K. 

Lewis, S. Herzog, and E. Brusati. 1997. Evaluation of the extent and duration of 

alterations in hematological and serum biochemical parameters resulting from oil 

exposure and rehabilitation. Pacific Seabirds 24: 19.

Newman, S.H., M.H. Ziccardi, J.K. Mazet, C.L. Leiske, D.A. Fauquier, I.A. Gardner, and M.M. 

Christopher. 1998. Hematologic changes and anemia associated with captivity and 

petroleum exposure in seabirds. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and 

Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Final report.

Newman, S. H., J.Y. Takekawa, D.L. Whitworth, H.R. Carter, and J.C. Zinkl. 1998. The stress 

response of Xantus's Murrelets to different handling protocols similar to oil spill intake 

procedures. Proceedings of the National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association Annual 

Meeting, Seattle, WA.

 Newman, S.H., D.H. Anderson, M.H. Ziccardi, J.G. Trupkiewicz, F.S. Tseng, M.M. 

Christopher, and J.G. Zinkl. In press. Experimental release of oil spill rehabilitated 

American coots (Fulica americana): Effects on health and blood parameters. 

Environmental Pollution.

Randall, R.M., B.M. Randall, and J. Bevan. 1980. Oil pollution and penguins: is cleaning 

justified? Marine Pollution Bulletin 11: 234-237.

Sharp, B.E. 1996. Post-release survival of oiled cleaned seabirds in North America. Ibis 138: 

222-228.

Underhill, L.G., P.A. Bartlett, L. Baumann, R.J. Crawford, B.M. Dyer, A. Gildenhuys, D.C. Nel, 

T.B. Oatley, M. Thornton, L. Upfold, A.J. Williams, P.A. Whittington, and A.C. 

Wolfaardt. 1999. Mortality and survival of African penguins Spheniscus demersus 

involved in the Apollo Sea oil spill: an evaluation of rehabilitation efforts. Ibis 141: 29-

37.

Wernham, C.V., W.J. Peach, and S.J. Browne. 1997. Survival rates of rehabilitated guillemots. 

British Trust for Ornithology Report No. 186

Williams, A. 1985. Rehabilitating oiled sea birds: a field manual. Washington, D.C.: American 

Petroleum Institute. API No. 4407.

Wood, M.A. and N. Heaphy. 1991. Rehabilitation of oiled seabirds and bald eagles following 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill. pp. 235-239. In Proc. 1991 International Oil Spill 

Conference American Petroleum Institution. Washington D.C. 

7. Chronic Oil Pollution

Andres, B.A. 1999. Effects of persistent shoreline oil on breeding success and chick growth in 

black oystercatchers. Auk 116:640-650.

Carter, H.R. 1997. Oiled seabird rescue at the J.V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, San Mateo 

County, California, 1968-1995. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 20:3-6, 13-14.

Nur, N., W.J. Sydeman, P. Pyle, L.E. Stenzel, D.G. Ainley, and T.G. Schuster. 1997. Temporal, 

spatial, and species-specific patterns of chronic oiling as revealed by the beached bird 

survey, Farallon oiled bird survey and bird rescue programs in Central California. In

Effects of Chronic Oil Pollution on Seabirds in Central California. Unpublished report, 

Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, California.

Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response. Effects of Chronic Oil Pollution on Seabirds in 

Central California. Prepared July 31, 1997 by Point Reyes Bird Observatory.
35

Wiese, F.K. and P.C. Ryan. 1999. Trends of chronic oil pollution SE Newfoundland assessed 

through beached-bird surveys 1984-1997. Bird Trends (7): 36-40.

8. Species Specific Studies

Andres, B.A. 1997. The Exxon Valdez oil spill disrupted the breeding of black oystercatchers. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 1322-1328.

Atkinson, I.A.E. 1985. The spread of commensal species of Rattus to oceanic islands and their 

effects on island avifaunas. pp. 54-75. In P.J. Moors [ed] Conservation of island birds. 

Intl. Council for Bird Preservation Tech. Publ. No. 3. 

Atkinson, I.A.E. 1989. Introduced animals and extictions. pp. 54-75. In D. Western and M.C. 

Pearl [eds.] Conservation for the Twenty-first Century. Oxford University Press New 

York.

Butler, R.G., A. Harfenist, F.A. Leighton, D.B. Peakall. 1988. Impact of sub-lethal oil and 

emulsion exposure on the reproductive success of the Leach’s storm petrels: short and 

long-term effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 125-143.

Carter, H.R. and S.G. Sealy. 1986. Year-round use of coastal lakes by marbled

murrelets. The Condor 88: 473-477.

Carter, H.R. and M.C. Morrison (Eds) 1992. Status and conservation of the marbled 

murrelet in North America. Proceedings of an international symposium of the Pacific 

Seabird Group, Pacific Grove, CA. December 1987 In Proceedings of the Western 

Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Volume 5, Number 1.

Carter, H.R., G.J. McChesney, D.L. Jaques, C.S. Strong, M.W. Parker, J.E. Takekawa, D.L. Jory 

and D.L. Whitworth. 1992. Breeding populations of seabirds in California, 1989-1991. 

Unpublished draft report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center, Dixon, Colorado.

Carter, H.R., G.J. McChesney, J.E. Takekawa, L.K. Ochikubo, D.L. Whitworth, T.W. Keeney, 

W.R. McIver, and C.S. Strong. 1996. Population monitoring of seabirds in California: 

1993-1995 aerial photographic surveys of breeding colonies of common murres, Brandt’s 

cormorants and double-crested cormorants. Unpublished report, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Division, California Science Center, Dixon, California.

Carter, H.R., D.L. Whitworth, J.Y. Takekawa, T.W. Keeney and P.R. Kelly. 2000. At-sea 

threats to Xantus’s murrelets (Synthilboramphus hypoleucus) in the Southern California 

Bight. Pages 435-477 In D.R. Browne, K.L. Mitchell and H.W. Chaney (eds.), 

Proceedings of the Fifth Channel Islands symposium. 29 March to 1 April 1999, Santa 

Barbara, California. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, 

Camarillo, CA. [Available on CDROM.]

Carter, H.R., U.W. Wilson, , R.W. Lowe, M.S. Rodway, D.A. Manuwal , J.E. Takekawa, and 

J.L. Yee. In press. Population trends of the common murre (Uria aalge californica). In 

D.A. Manuwal, H.R. Carter, and T. Zimmerman [eds.], Biology and conservation of the 

Common Murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: 

Natural history and population trends, U.S. Geological Survey.

Day, R.H. and D.A. Nigro. 1999. Status and ecology of Kittlitz’s murrelet in Prince William 

Sound, 1996-1998. Legacy of an Oil Spill, 10 Years after Exxon Valdez, Abstracts. p. 7.

Dierschke, V. 1994. The influence of oil-polluted plumage on survival and body mass of purple 

sandpipers Calidris maritima at Helgoland. Vogelwelt 115: 253-255.
36

Eppley, Z.A., and M.A. Rubega. 1990. Indirect effects of an oil spill: reproductive failure in a 

population of south polar skuas following the Abahia Paraiso oil spill in Antarctica. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 67: 1-6.

Erwin, R.M., J. Galli, and J. Burger. 1981. Colony site dynamics and habitat use in Atlantic coast 

seabirds. The Auk 98: 550-561.

Ford, R. G., J.A. Wiens, D. Heinemann, and G.L. Hunt. 1982. Modeling the sensitivity of 

colonially breeding marine birds to oil spills: guillemot and kittiwake populations on the 

Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology 19: 1-31.

Fowler, G. S., J.C. Wingfield, and P. D. Boersma. 1995. Hormonal and reproductive effects of 

low levels of petroleum fouling in magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus). Auk 

112: 382-389.

Fry, D. M., and L.J. Lowenstine. 1985. Pathology of Common Murres and Cassin’s Auklets 

exposed to oil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 14: 725-737.

Fry, D.M., J. Swenson, L.A. Addiego, C.R. Grau and A. Kang. 1986. Reduced reproduction of 

wedge-tailed shearwaters exposed to weathered Santa Barbara crude oil. Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 15: 453-463.

Hudson, P.J. 1985. Population parameters for the Atlantic Alcidae. Academic Press, London. 

Nettleship and T.R. Birkhead [eds.], The Atlantic Alcidae. London: Academic Press.

Hughes, M. R., C. Kassera, and B.R. Thomas. 1990. Effect of externally applied bunker fuel on 

body mass and temperature, plasma concentration and water flux of glaucous-winged 

gulls, Larus glaucescens. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 716-721.

Hunt, G.L., Jr., and J.L Butler. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Western Gulls and Xantus’ 

Murrelets with respect to food resources in the Southern California Bight. California 

Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 21: 62-67.

Irons, D.B. 1996. Size and Productivity of black-legged kittiwake colonies in Prince William 

Sound before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 18: 738-747.

Kerley, G. I. H., T. Erasmus, and R.P. Mason. 1985. Effect of molt on crude oil load in a 

jackass penguin Spheniscus demersus. Marine Pollution Bulletin 16: 474-476.

Kuletz, K.J. 1999. A retrospective on marbled murrelet injury, research, and restoration after 

the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Legacy of an Oil Spill, 10 Years after Exxon Valdez, 

Abstracts. p. 93.

Lee, Y. Z., F.A. Leighton, D.B. Peakall, R.J. Nostrom, P.J. O=Brien, J.F. Payne, and A.D. 

Rahimtula. 1985. Effects of ingestion of Hibernia and Prudhoe Bay crude oils on 

hepatic and renal mixed function oxidase in nestling herring gulls (Larus argentatus). 

Environmental Research 36: 248-255.

Leighton, F. A. 1985. Morphological lesions in red blood cells from herring gulls and Atlantic 

puffins ingesting Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Veterinary Pathology 22: 393-402.

Leighton, F. A., Lee, Y. Z., Rahimtula, A. D., O’Brien, P.J. O., and Peakall, D. B. 1985. 

Biochemical and functional disturbances in red blood cells of herring gulls ingesting 

Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 81: 25-31.

Leighton, F. A. 1986. Clinical, gross and histologic findings in herring gulls and Atlantic 

puffins that ingested Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Veterinary Pathology 23: 254-263.
37

Lowe, R. W. and D. S. Pitkin. 1996 Replicate aerial photographic censuses of Oregon Common 

Murre colonies 1995. Unpublished report to the Tenyo Maru Trustee Council, U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Oregon Coastal Refuges, Newport, Oregon.

McChesney, G.J. and B.R. Tershy. 1998. History and status of introduced mammals and impacts 

to breeding seabirds on the California Channel and northwestern Baja California islands. 

Colonial Waterbirds 21:335-347. 

McChesney, G.J., H.R. Carter, M.W. Parker, J.E. Takekawa and J.L. Lee. 1998. Population 

trends and sub-colony use of Common Murres and Brandt’s Cormorants at Point Reyes 

Headlands, California, 1979-1997. Unpublished Report, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Dixon, California; Department of Wildlife, Humboldt 

State University, Arcata, California; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco 

Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Newark, California. 

McChesney, G.J, J.W. Mason, W.R. McIver, M.D. McCray, M.O. Pierson and H.R. Carter 1999. 

Aerial at-sea and photographic surveys of seabirds and marine mammals in the southern 

CA bight. 1999. Progress Report 73 pp. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological 

Research Center, Dixon and Vallejo CA and Humboldt State University, Department of 

Wildlife, Arcata, CA.

McChesney, G.J., F. Gress, H.R. Carter and D.L. Whitworth 2000. Nesting habitat assessment 

for Xantus’ Murrelets and other crevice-nesting seabirds as Anacapa Island, CA in 1997. 

Unpublished report, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, 

Dixon, CA and Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 34pp.

Nelson, S.K. and S.G. Sealy (Eds) 1995. Biology of Marbled Murrelets-Inland and at Sea. 

Proceedings of an international symposium of the Pacific Seabird Group, Seattle, WA 

February 1983. Northwestern Naturalist, Volume 76, No.1.

Nisbet, I.C.T. 1973. Terns in Massachusetts: Present numbers and historical changes. BirdBanding 44(1): 27-53.

Nur, N., W.J. Sydeman, D. Girman, T.B. Smith, D. Gilmer. 1999. Population status, prospects, 

and risks faced by two seabirds of the California Current: The ashy storm-petrel, 

Oceanodroma homochroa, and Xantus’ Murrelet, Synthliboramphus hupoleucus. U.S. 

Geological Survey-Biological Resource Division.

Peakall, D. B., R.J. Norstrom, D.A. Jeffrey, and F.A. Leighton. 1989. Induction of hepatic 

mixed function oxidases in the herring gull (Larus argentatus) by Prudhoe Bay crude oil 

and its fractions. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology C: Comparative 

Pharmacology and Toxicology 94d: 461-463.

Pitkin, D. S. and R. W. Lowe. 2000. Replicate aerial photographic censuses of Oregon 

Common Murre colonies, 1996-1997. Unpublished report to the Tenyo Maru Trustee 

Council, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Newport, Oregon.

Prichard, A. K., L.K. Duffy, and R.T. Bowyer. 1997. Evaluation of pigeon guillemot nestlings 

as sentinels of near-shore oil pollution: results of a controlled dose-response experiment. 

Pacific Seabirds 24: 21.

Raph, C.J., J.G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the 

marbled murrelet in North America: an overview. Pages 3-22 in C.J. Ralph, J.G.L. Hunt, 

M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (editors). Ecology and conservation of the marbled 

murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, California.
38

Rattner, B. A., J.L. Capizzi, K.A. King, L.J. Lecaptain, and M.J. Melancon. 1995. Exposure and 

effects of oil field brine discharges on western sandpipers (Calidris mauri) in Nueces 

Bay, Texas. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 54: 683-689.

Sydeman, W.J., H.R. Carter, J.E. Takekawa, and N. Nur. 1997. Common Murre Uria aalge 

population trends at the South Farallon Islands, California, 1985-1995. Unpublished 

report, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, California; U.S. Geological Survey, 

Dixon, California, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newark, California.

Sharp, B.E., M. Cody, and R. Turner. 1996. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the black 

oystercatcher. American Fisheries Society 18: 748-758.

Takekawa, J.E., H.R. Carter, and T.E. Harvey. 1990. Decline of the Common Murre in Central 

California, 1980-1986. Studies in Avian Biology 14: 149-163.

Trivelpiece, W. Z., R.G. Butler, D.S. Miller, and D.B. Peakall. 1984. Reduced survival of 

chicks of oil-dosed adult Leach's storm petrels. Condor 86: 81-82.

Yamato, O., I. Goto, and Y. Maede. 1996. Hemolytic anemia in wild seaducks caused by 

marine oil pollution. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 32: 381-384.

9. Preventive Measures 

Whisson, D.A and J.Y. Takekawa. 2000. Testing the effectiveness of an aquatic hazing device 

on waterbirds in the San Francisco Bay Estuary of California. Waterbirds 23 (1) 56-63. 

Biggs, W.G., S.F. Sverre and M.P. Boisvert 1978. The field testing of exploding devices 

for use in deterring and dispersing waterbirds from oil spill sites. Pace Report No. 

78. Entech Environmental Consultants Ltd.

Bomford, M and P.H. O’Brien. 1990. Sonic deterrents in animal damage control: A 

review of device tests and effectiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletine 18: 411-422.

Koski, W.R., S.D Kevan and W.J. Richardson 1993. Bird dispersal and deterrent 

techniques for oil spills in the Beaufort Sea. Environmental Studies Research 

Funds Report No. 126 LGL Limited, Environmental Research Associates.

Thomas, A.M (Technical Editor) 1994. MSRC Workshop report: Research on waterbird 

deterrents for marine oil spills. November 1-2, Denver Co. MSRC Technical 

Report Series 94-006 Marine Spill Response Corporation.

10. Studies of the Long-Term Effects of Oil on Other Taxa

Rice, S.D. 1999. Lessons learned on the long-term toxicity of oil to fish: intersection of chance, 

oil, biology, toxicology and science. Legacy of an Oil Spill, 10 Years after Exxon Valdez, 

Abstracts. p. 93.

Rice, S.D., R.E. Thomas, R. Heintz, A. Moles, M. Carls, M. Murphy, J.W. Short, and A 

Wertheimer. 1999. Synthesis of long-term impact to pink salmon following the Exxon 

Valdez oil spill: persistence, toxicity, sensitivity, and controversy. Final Report: Project 

99329, Exxon Valdez Trustee Council.
39

B. Contact List For Information Related To Damage Assessment And Restoration Of 

Marine Birds

The following contact list includes employees of trustee agencies, contractors, academics and 

others who can be considered experts in the area of marine birds and/or damage assessment and 

restoration. NOAA employees should work with their local damage assessment and restoration 

program staff to identify appropriate local and or regional contacts from other trustee agencies. 

Additional information is provided for those individuals with specific bird related experience. 

This list is a sampling of such experts and is not to be considered a complete listing of such 

individuals. If information is needed on an expert for a specific bird species, the most direct way 

to obtain this information would be to send mail to the seabird list-server (seabird@uct.ac.za). 

This list-server is a forum for marine bird experts throughout the world to obtain information and 

contacts and to discuss related issues. Members of this list are always willing to offer assistance 

on finding information or relevant contacts.

1. Trustee Agency Personnel

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

Russell J. Bellmer SSMC3-15317 301-713-0174 ext. 186

Fisheries, Office of Habitat Conservation 1315 East-West Highway Russell.Bellmer@noaa.gov

 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3285

*Jennifer Boyce 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470 562-980-4086

(social facilitation, restoration, and restoration 

planning, seabirds)

Long Beach, CA 90802 Jennifer.Boyce@noaa.gov

Restoration Center

David Chapman 1305 East-West Highway 301-713-3038 x200

NOS, ORR Silver Spring, MD 20910 David.Chapman@noaa.gov

Andrew DeVogelaere 299 Foam Street 831-647-4213

Monterey Bay N.M.S Monterey , CA 93940 Andrew.Devogelaere@noaa.gov

Douglas Helton 7600 Sand Point Way NE 206-526-4563

NOS, ORR Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Doug.Helton@noaa.gov

*Jan Roletto Fort Mason 201 415-561-6622

(restoration and restoration planning, seabirds) San Francisco, CA 94123 Jan.Roletto@noaa.gov

Farallon N. M. S.

Edward Ueber Fort Mason 201 415-561-6622

Farallon N. M. S. San Francisco, CA 94123 Ed.Ueber@noaa.gov

Katherine A. Pease 501 West Ocean Blvd. Suite 4470 562-980-4077

Office of General Counsel Long Beach, CA 90802 Kathe_Pease@noaa.gov

Robert A. Taylor 7600 Sand Point Way NE 206-526-4565

Office of General Counsel Seattle, WA 98115-0070 Robert.Taylor@noaa.gov
40

National Park Service

*Sarah Allen NPS 415-663-8522

(restoration and restoration planning, foraging Point Reyes, CA 94956 Sarah_Allen@nps.gov

ecology, seabirds)

Point Reyes National Seashore

Rick Dawson National Park Service 404-331-2629

Environmental Response Planning, and 

Assessment Unit

Atlanta, GA 30303 Rick_Dawson@nps.gov

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Catherine Berg U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 907-786-3598

Environmental Contaminants 1011 East Tudor Road Catherine_Berg@fws.gov

Anchorage, AK 99503-6199

*Joelle Buffa S.F Bay N.W.R. 510-792-0222 x 32

(Farallon island, murres, storm-petrels) P.O. Box 524 Joelle_Buffa@fws.gov

Farallon National Wildlife Refuge Newark, CA 94560

Cindy Chaffee 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 360-753-4324

Western Washington Office Lacey, WA 98503 Cindy_Chaffee@fws.gov

Pete Escherich 322 Arlington Square 703-358-2148

(restoration planning) 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Pete_Escherich@fws.gov

Arlington, VA 22203

*Elizabeth Flint P.O. Box 50167 808-541-1201

(restoration, tropical seabirds) Honolulu, HI 96850

Remote Pacific Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Carol Gorbics 2730 Loker Avenue, West 760-431-9440

(contaminants, natural resource damage 

assessment and restoration planning)

Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carol_Gorbics@fws.gov

*James Haas 2800 Cottage Way, Rm W-2605 916-414-6600

(restoration and restoration planning, seabirds and 

bald eagles )

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 James_Haas@fws.gov

*Roger Helm 911 NE 11th Avenue 503-231-6223

(restoration and restoration planning, seabirds) Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 Roger_Helm@fws.gov

*David Irons 1011 E. Tudor Rd 907-786-3909

(restoration, seabirds) Anchorage, AK 99503 David_Irons@fws.gov

*Kathy Kuletz 1011 E. Tudor Rd. 907-786-3909

(seabirds) Anchorage, AK 99503 Kathy_Kuletz@fws.gov
41

*Roy Lowe 2127 SE OSU Drive 542-867-4550

(human disturbance, population, monitoring, murres) Newport, Oregon 97365-5258 Roy_Lowe@fws.gov

Oregon Coast NWR Complex

Larry Mangan 1300 Airport Lane 541-751-4231

BLM Coos Bay Dist North Bend, OR 97459 541-290-2255 cell

Larry.Mangan@blm.gov

Greg Mason 4270 Northwich Street 912-265-9336

Environmental Contaminants Brunswick, GA 31520 Greg_Masson@fws.gov

*Michael Parker San Francisco Bay NWR 510-792-0717

(social facilitation, restoration, population monitoring, 

seabirds)

P.O. Box 524

Newark, CA 94560

Mike_Parker@fws.gov

Common Murre Restoration Project

*Cyndi Perry 4401 N. Fairfax Dr. 703-358-2432

Migratory Birds Arlington, VA 22203 Cindy_Perry@fws.gov

Dave Roseneau MailStop 634 907-235-6546

Alaska Maritime NWR Homer, Alaska 99603-8021 Dave_Roseneau@fws.gov

*Arthur Sowls 2355 Kachemak Bay Drive. Ste. 101 808-541-3441

(introduced predators, population monitoring, seabirds) Homer, AK 99603 Art_Sowls@fws.gov

Alaska Maritime N.W.R

Molly Sperduto 22 Bridge Street-Unit 1 Molly_Sperduto@fws.gov

Concord Office

Concord, NH 03301

Mike Szumski 2600 SE 98th Suite 100 503-231-6179

Oregon State Office Portland, OR 97266 Mike_Szumski@fws.gov

Laura Valoppi 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605 916-414-6600

Environmental Contaminants Division Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Laura_Valoppi@fws.gov

Veronica Varela 22 Bridge Street, Unit 1 603-225-1411

New England Field Office Concord, NH 03301 Veronica_Varela@fws.gov

*Daniel Welsh 2800 Cottage Way, Room 916-414-6458

(restoration and restoration planning, seabirds and 

waterfowl)

W-2606

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Daniel_Welsh@fws.gov

Department of Interior

Office of the Solicitor

Mark Barash 1 Gateway Center, Suite 612 617-527-3400

Newton, MA 02158 Mark_Barash@ios.doi.gov

Charles McKinley 1111 Jackson Street, Suite 735 510-817-1461

Assistant Field Supervisor Oakland, CA 94607 Charles_McKinely@fws.gov

Brad Grenham 5W NE Multnomah # 607 503-231-6826

Portland, OR 97232 Brad_Grenham@ios.doi.gov
42

State Agencies

State of Washington

*Kenneth Warheit 600 Capitol Way N. 360-902-2595

(restoration and restoration planning, population 

monitoring, murres)

Olympia, WA 98501-1091 warheit@dfw.wa.gov

Habitat Management

Washington Dept. of Fish and Game

United States Geological Survey

*John Piatt 1011 East Tudor Road John_Piatt@usgs.gov

 (foraging ecology, seabirds) Anchorage, AK 99503

Alaska Science Center 

California Department of Fish and 

Game/Office of Oil Spill Prevention and 

Response (CDFG-OSPR)

*Steve Hampton

(HEA /REA, seabirds)

CDFG/OSPR

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

916-323-4724

shampton@ospr.dfg.ca.gov

*David Jessup P.O. Box 944209 831-469-1726

(rehabilitation, post-release survival) Sacramento, CA djessup@ospr.dfg.ca.gov

Marine Wildlife Veterinary Care Santa Cruz, CA 94244-2090

*Paul Kelly P.O. Box 944209 916-323-4335

(restoration and restoration planning, seabirds) Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 pkelly@ospr.dfg.ca.gov

Kathy Verrue-Slater P.O Box 944209 916-324-9813

Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 kvslater@ospr.dfg.ca.gov

*Indicates specific seabird expertise
43

2. Non-Trustee Agency Personnel: The purpose of this list is to provide trustee employees 

access to marine bird experts and should not be considered an endorsement of a particular 

contractor or organization. Nor does this list encompass the universe of such expertise. In the 

event that agency personnel wish to use one or more of the listed individuals or companies, 

federal or state procurement or contracting requirements must be followed. Current interests are 

noted parenthetically, however all of these people have considerable experience with damage 

assessment or marine birds and can most likely offer assistance in a very broad range of areas. 

Modelers

Hal Caswell Biology Dept. MS-34 508-289-2751

(population models) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution hcaswell@whoi.edu

Woods Hole MA 02543

Glen Ford R.G. Ford Consulting Company 503-287-5173

(damage assessment models) 2735 N.E. Weidler Street 503-282-0799

Portland OR 97232 eci@teleport.com

Deborah French Applied Science Associates, Inc. 401-789-6224

(damage assessment models) 70 Dean Knauss Drive dfrench@appsci.com

Narragansett, RI 02882

Gordon Swartzman Applied Physics Laboratories 206-543-1300 (or 0061)

(variety of modeling techniques) University of Washington gordie@alava.apl.washington.edu

1013 NE 40th Street

Seattle, WA 98105-6698

Bird/ NRDA and/or Restoration 

Experts

David G. Ainley H.T. Harvey and Associates dainley@harveyecology.com

(food web studies, variety of species) P.O Box 1180

Alviso, CA 95002

Daniel Anderson University of California, Davis dwanderson@ucdavis.edu

(general marine bird ecology, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and 

restoration and restoration planning, Conservation Biology

human disturbance, brown pelicans 1081 Academic Surge Bldg.

and western grebes) Davis, CA 95616

Jennifer Arnold Department of Biology 617-287-6635 or 6610

(general marine bird, ecology, NRDA, University of Massachusetts/Boston Jennifer.Arnold@umb.edu

population monitoring, terns, gulls) 100 Morrissey Blvd.

Dorchester, MA 02135

John Atwood Antioch NE Graduate School 603-357-3122 x370

(general marine bird ecology, population 40 Avon Street Jatwood@antiochne.edu

monitoring, terns) Keene, NH 03431-3516
44

Brad Blodget Massachusetts Division of 508-792-7270 x152

(general marine bird ecology, Fisheries and Wildlife Brad.Blodget@state.ma.us

population monitoring, restoration) Field Headquarters

1 Rabbit Hill Road

Westborough, MA 01581-3337

Joanna Burger Cell Biology and Neuroscience 732-445-4318

(general marine bird ecology, 604 Allison Road Burger@biology.rutgers.edu

terns, gulls, skimmers, shorebirds) Piscataway, NJ 08854

Harry R. Carter U.S. Geological Survey/Humboldt 707-678-0682 x625

(restoration and restoration planning, State University Harry_Carter@usgs.gov

population monitoring, human Western Ecological Research Center

disturbance, murres, auklets, 6924 Tremont Road

petrels, murrelets) Dixon, CA 95620

Robert Day ABR, Inc. 907-455-6777

(general marine bird ecology, murrelets) P.O. Box 80410 907-455-6781

Fairbanks, AK 99708-0410 bday@abrinc.com

Hector Galbraith Galbraith Environmental Sciences 720 304 8764

(general marine bird ecology, NRDA) 633 Furman Way hgalbraith2@home.com

Boulder, CO80305

Frank Gress California Institute of Environmental 

Studies

fgress@pacbell.net

(general marine bird ecology 3804 Whaler Avenue

contaminants, restoration and Davis, CA 95616

restoration planning, pelicans)

Stephen W. Kress National Audubon Society 607-257-7308

(general marine bird ecology, social Seabird Restoration Program skress@audubon.org

facilitation, restoration and restoration 159 Sapsucker Woods Road

planning, population monitoring, puffins, Ithaca, NY 14850

terns, gulls)

Scott H. Newman Wildlife Health Center 530-754-9424

(rehabilitation and post-release survival) Oiled Wildlife Care Network sonewman@ucdavis.edu

School of Veterinary Medicine

University of California

Davis, California 95616

Ian C.T. Nisbet ICT Nisbet and Company 508-564-4958

(general marine bird ecology, restoration 150 Alder Lane Icnisbet@cape.com

and estoration planning, contaminants, Falmouth, MA 2556

human disturbance, population 

monitoring, terns)

Julia Parrish Department of Zoology jparish@u.washington.edu

(general marine bird ecology, human Box 351800

disturbance, restoration and restoration University of Washington

planning, murres) Seattle, WA 98195
45

Kathe Parsons

(general marine bird ecology, 

Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences 

508 -224- 6521

parsonsK@manomet.org

contaminants, great blue herons) PO Box 1770

Manomet, Massachusetts 02345

William J. Sydeman Point Reyes Bird Observatory 415-868-1221 ext. 19

(general marine bird ecology, 4990 Shoreline Highway wjsydeman@prbo.org

contaminants, population Stinson Beach, CA 94970

monitoring, Farallon Islands, murres)

Bernie Tershy Island Conservation and Ecology Group 831-469-8651

(island restoration, predator removal) P.O Box 141 tershy@islandconservation.org

Island Conservation and Ecology Group Davenport, CA 95017
46

 C. Scientific Societies For Marine Bird Research

The following is a list of scientific societies with a focus on marine bird research. For the North 

American societies the web page is listed. For up-to-date information on current events related 

to marine birds and for information on organizations outside of North America visit 

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/index.html

1. North American Societies:

American Ornithologists' Union 

http://www.aou.org/

Association of Field Ornithologists

http://www.afonet.org/index.html

CIPAMEX, Sección Mexicana del Consejo Internacional para la Preservación de las ves 

Not available

Cooper Ornithological Society

http://www.cooper.org/

Pacific Seabird Group

http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/

Raptor Research Foundation 

http://biology.boisestate.edu/raptor/

Society of Canadian Ornithologists | Société des Ornithologistes du Canada 

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/SocCanOrn/index.html

Society for Caribbean Ornithology 

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/SCO/index.html

The Waterbird Society 

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/CWS/index.html

Wilson Ornithological Society

http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/birds/wos.html

2. Societies outside of North America:

Royal Australasian Ornithologists' Union 

African Bird Club 

British Ornithological Trust

Oriental Bird Club 

Wild Bird Society of the Republic of China (Taiwan) 

Wild Bird Society of Japan 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (Red Hemisferica de Reservas de Aves 

Playeras)

Neotropical Bird Club, based in the United Kingdom 

Wild Bird Society of Japan
47

D. Federally Threatened And Endangered Bird Species 

This list will change over time. Information included here was current as of April 2001. 

For the most current information, refer to this website: http://endangered.fws.gov.wildlife.html.

Species Name

E - Akepa, Hawaii ( Loxops coccineus coccineus)

E - Akepa, Maui ( Loxops coccineus ochraceus)

E - Akialoa, Kauai ( Hemignathus procerus)

E - Akiapola`au ( Hemignathus munroi)

E - Albatross, short-tailed ( Phoebastria albatrus)

E - Blackbird, yellow-shouldered ( Agelaius xanthomus)

E - Bobwhite, masked ( Colinus virginianus ridgwayi)

E - Broadbill, Guam ( Myiagra freycineti)

E - Cahow ( Pterodroma cahow)

T - Caracara, Audubon's crested ( Polyborus plancus audubonii)

E,XN - Condor, California ( Gymnogyps californianus)

E - Coot, Hawaiian ( Fulica americana alai)

E - Crane, Mississippi sandhill ( Grus canadensis pulla)

E,XN - Crane, whooping ( Grus americana)

E - Creeper, Hawaii ( Oreomystis mana)

E - Creeper, Molokai ( Paroreomyza flammea)

E - Creeper, Oahu ( Paroreomyza maculata)

E - Crow, Hawaiian ( Corvus hawaiiensis)

E - Crow, Mariana ( Corvus kubaryi)

E - Crow, white-necked ( Corvus leucognaphalus)

E - Curlew, Eskimo ( Numenius borealis)

E - Duck, Hawaiian ( Anas wyvilliana)

E - Duck, Laysan ( Anas laysanensis)

T - Eagle, bald ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

T - Eider, spectacled ( Somateria fischeri)

T - Eider, Steller's ( Polysticta stelleri)

E - Elepaio, Oahu ( Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidus)

E - Falcon, northern aplomado ( Falco femoralis septentrionalis)

E - Finch, Laysan ( Telespyza cantans)

E - Finch, Nihoa ( Telespyza ultima)

E - Flycatcher, southwestern willow ( Empidonax traillii extimus)

T - Gnatcatcher, coastal California ( Polioptila californica californica)

T - Goose, Aleutian Canada ( Branta canadensis leucopareia)

E - Goose, Hawaiian ( Branta sandvicensis)

E - Hawk, Hawaiian ( Buteo solitarius)

E - Hawk, Puerto Rican broad-winged ( Buteo platypterus brunnescens)

E - Hawk, Puerto Rican sharp-shinned ( Accipiter striatus venator)

E - Honeycreeper, crested ( Palmeria dolei)

T - Jay, Florida scrub ( Aphelocoma coerulescens)

E - Kingfisher, Guam Micronesian ( Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina)
48

E - Kite, Everglade snail ( Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus)

E - Mallard, Mariana (Anas oustaleti)

E - Megapode, Micronesian ( Megapodius laperouse)

E - Millerbird, Nihoa ( Acrocephalus familiaris kingi)

T - Monarch, Tinian ( Monarcha takatsukasae)

E - Moorhen, Hawaiian common ( Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis)

E - Moorhen, Mariana common ( Gallinula chloropus guami)

T - Murrelet, marbled ( Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus)

E - Nightjar, Puerto Rican ( Caprimulgus noctitherus)

E - Nukupu`u ( Hemignathus lucidus)

E - `O`o, Kauai ( Moho braccatus)

E - `O`u ( Psittirostra psittacea)

T - Owl, Mexican spotted ( Strix occidentalis lucida)

T - Owl, northern spotted ( Strix occidentalis caurina)

E - Palila ( Loxioides bailleui)

E - Parrot, Puerto Rican ( Amazona vittata)

E - Parrotbill, Maui ( Pseudonestor xanthophrys)

E - Pelican, brown ( Pelecanus occidentalis)

E - Petrel, Hawaiian dark-rumped ( Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis)

E - Pigeon, Puerto Rican plain ( Columba inornata wetmorei)

E,T - Plover, piping ( Charadrius melodus)

T - Plover, western snowy ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)

E - Po`ouli ( Melamprosops phaeosoma)

E - Prairie-chicken, Attwater's greater ( Tympanuchus cupido attwateri)

E - Pygmy-owl, cactus ferruginous ( Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)

E - Rail, California clapper ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus)

E,XN - Rail, Guam ( Rallus owstoni)

E - Rail, light-footed clapper ( Rallus longirostris levipes)

E - Rail, Yuma clapper ( Rallus longirostris yumanensis)

T - Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's ( Puffinus auricularis newelli)

E - Shrike, San Clemente loggerhead ( Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi)

E - Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside ( Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis)

E - Sparrow, Florida grasshopper ( Ammodramus savannarum floridanus)

T - Sparrow, San Clemente sage ( Amphispiza belli clementeae)

E - Stilt, Hawaiian ( Himantopus mexicanus knudseni)

E - Stork, wood ( Mycteria americana)

E - Swiftlet, Mariana gray ( Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi)

E - Tern, California least ( Sterna antillarum browni)

E - Tern, least ( Sterna antillarum)

E,T - Tern, roseate ( Sterna dougallii dougallii)

E - Thrush, large Kauai ( Myadestes myadestinus)

E - Thrush, Molokai ( Myadestes lanaiensis rutha)

E - Thrush, small Kauai ( Myadestes palmeri)

T - Towhee, Inyo California ( Pipilo crissalis eremophilus)

E - Vireo, black-capped ( Vireo atricapillus)

E - Vireo, least Bell's ( Vireo bellii pusillus)
49

E - Warbler, Bachman's ( Vermivora bachmanii)

E - Warbler, golden-cheeked ( Dendroica chrysoparia)

E - Warbler, Kirtland's ( Dendroica kirtlandii)

E - Warbler, nightingale reed ( Acrocephalus luscinia)

E - White-eye, bridled ( Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus)

E - Woodpecker, ivory-billed ( Campephilus principalis)

E - Woodpecker, red-cockaded ( Picoides borealis)

E - Endangered 

T - Threatened

XN – Extinct
50

E. Inventory Of NRDA Cases Involving Seabirds
Name of Case Location/ Date Nature of Damage/ Volume of 

Spill

Species

Gulls Terns Plovers Loons Grebes

WEST COAST

American Trader Huntington Beach, CA/ February 7, 1990 

41,244 gallons of No. 6 Fuel Oil

oil spill/ tanker glaucous-winged 

gull, California gull, 

western gull, 

Thayer’s gull, ringbilled gull, 

Bonaparte’s gull, 

mew gull, herring 

gull, Herman's gull, 

black-legged 

kittiwake

caspian tern, 

Forester’s tern, 

royal tern

semipalmated 

plover, killdeer, 

black-bellied 

plover, snowy 

plover

common loon, 

pacific loon, redthroated loon

western grebe, 

eared grebe, 

horned grebe, 

pied-billed 

grebe

Apex Houston Point Lobos, CA/ January 28 to February 1, 

1986

oil spill/ tanker 25,000 gallons 

of crude oil

glaucous-winged 

gull, western gull, 

California gull, ringbilled gull, mew gull 

common loon, 

Pacific loon, and redthroated loon

Cape Mohican San Francisco (Gulf of the Farallones), CA/ 

October 28, 1996

oil spill/ cargo ship in dry dock 

96,000 gal. spilled on dry dock 

and 40,000 gal. spilled in San 

Francisco Bay

mew gull, western 

gull, ring-billed gull, 

Heermann’s gull, 

Bonaparte’s gull, 

glacous-winged gull, 

California gull, hybrid 

gull

Forester’s tern, 

elegant tern, 

caspian tern

snowy plover, 

black-bellied 

plover

common loon, redthroated loon, Pacific 

loon

western grebe, 

western/ 

Clark’s grebe, 

Clark’s grebe, 

eared grebe

Chevron Pipeline Oil 

Spill 

Waiau Stream and Pearl Harbor/ Hawaii 

May 14, 1996

pipeline oil spill white tern, 

black noody,

golden plover, 

black-bellied 

plover, 

Command Spill Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary, Monterey 

Bay Sanctuary, San Mateo coast, CA 

September 27-28, 1999

oil spill/ tanker

Exxon Valdez Prince William Sound, AK/ March 24, 1989 oil spill/ tanker over 

10,100,000 gallons of crude oil

black-legged 

kittiwake

common loon sp.?

Kure/ Humbolt Bay Humbolt Bay, CA/ November 5, 1997 oil spill/ fishing vessel 

Kuroshima Dutch Harbor, AK/ November 1997 oil spill/ seafood freighter/ 

39,000 gallons

glaucous-winged 

gull, sp.?

common loon, sp.? red-necked 

grebe, horned 

grebe

Montrose Los Angeles, CA/ 1947-1982 hazardous material release/ 

outfall pipe

western gull, yellowfooted gull, glaucouswinged gull

Nestucca Gray's Harbor, WA/ December 22, 1988 oil spill/ barge? 231,000 gallons 

of #6 fuel oil

glaucous-winged 

gull, herring gull, 

mew gull, ring-billed 

gull, gull (sp.?), blacklegged kittiwake, 

kittiwake (sp.?)

common loon, 

Pacific loon, redthroated loon, sp.?

red grebe, 

western grebe, 

sp.?

New Carissa Coos Bay, Oregon/ February 4, 1999 oil spill/ cargo ship still in development 

stages

snowy plover

Pearl Harbor Honolulu Bay, HI/ May 14, 1996 oil spill/ pipeline black noddy, 

white tern

Pacific golden 

plover, blackbellied plover

Platform Irene Santa Barbara, CA/ September 28-30, 1997 oil spill/ pipeline 12,600 to 

21,000 gallons of crude oil 

sp.? least tern snowy plover sp.?

Point Reyes Mystery Spill Point Reyes, CA/ November 16, 1997 oil spill/ orphan spill sp.? snowy plover sp.? western grebe

50 
Name of Case

WEST COAST

American Trader

Apex Houston

Cape Mohican

Chevron Pipeline Oil 

Spill 

Command Spill

Exxon Valdez

Kure/ Humbolt Bay

Kuroshima

Montrose

Nestucca

New Carissa

Pearl Harbor 

Platform Irene

Point Reyes Mystery Spill

Scoters Alcids Cormorants Pelicans Procellarids Other Shorebirds

black scoter, surf 

scoter

rhinoceros auklet, common murre, 

Cassin's auklet, Xantus's murrelet

double-crested 

cormorant, Brandt’s 

cormorant, pelagic 

cormorant

brown pelican northern fulmar, blackvented shearwater, 

sooty shearwater, 

short-tailed 

shearwater, black 

storm-petrel

dunlin, surfbird, ruddy turnstone, 

black turnstone, dowitcher (2 

species), spotted sandpiper, 

wandering tattler, least 

sandpiper, western sandpiper, 

sanderling, marbled godwit, 

black-necked stilt, whimbrel, 

willet, greater yellowlegs, lesser 

yellowlegs, American avocet, red 

phalarope

white-winged 

scooter, surf 

scooter

common murre, ancient murrelet, 

marbled murrelet, rhinoceros 

auklet, auklets sp.?

Brandt's cormorant, sp.? northern fulmar sanderling, red phalarope

Brandt’s cormorant, 

double-crested 

cormorant

brown pelican sanderling, willet, marbled 

godwit, long-billed curlew, 

western sandpiper

Hawaiian stilt, wandering tattler, 

rudy turnstone, 

estimated 3-4,000 common murre 

mortality

brown pelican

common murre, thick-billed murre, 

marbled murrelet, Kittlitz's murrlet, 

pigeon guillemontt, auklet sp.?

pelagic cormorant, redfaced cormorant, double 

crested cormorant, sp?

fulmar (sp.?), 

shearwater (sp?), 

storm petrel (sp.?), 

horned puffin

marbled murrelet common murre

black scoter alcid (sp.?), common murre, crested 

auklet, least auklet, auklet (sp.?), 

murrelet (sp.?)

sp.? storm-petrel, fulmar 

(sp.?)

pigeon guillemont, Cassin's auklet, 

Xantus’s murrelet

pelagic cormorant, 

double-crested 

cormorant, Brandt’s 

cormorant

brown pelican ashy storm-petrel

black scoter, whitewinged scoter, surf 

scoter, sp.?

common murres, Cassin's auklet, 

parakeet auklet, rhinoceros auklet, 

auklet (sp.?), ancient murrelet, 

marbled murrelet, murrelet (sp.?), 

guillemont, horned puffin, tufted 

puffin, puffin (sp.?)

Brandt’s cormorant, sp.? northern fulmar, 

fulmar (sp.?), petrel 

(sp.?), storm-petrel 

(sp.?), shearwater 

(sp.?), sp.?

dunlin, sandpiper

bristle-thighed curlew, 

sanderling, wandering tattler, 

ruddy turnstone, Hawaiian stilt

sp.? brown pelican

surf scoters common murre brown pelican sanderlings

51 
Name of Case

WEST COAST

American Trader

Apex Houston

Cape Mohican

Chevron Pipeline Oil 

Spill 

Command Spill

Exxon Valdez

Kure/ Humbolt Bay

Kuroshima

Montrose

Nestucca

New Carissa

Pearl Harbor 

Platform Irene

Point Reyes Mystery Spill

Damage Assessment/ Estimate of Total Number of Birds 

Injured (ET)/ Total Settlement $

Ducks Herons and Egrets Others

American wigeon, wood duck, mallard, 

gadwall, pintail, green-winged teal, bluewinged teal, cinnamon teal, European 

wigeon, shoveler, ruddy duck, canvasback, 

lesser scaup, bufflehead, oldsquaw, redbreasted merganser

American coot, sora, Virginia rail, 

pomeraine jaeger, black skimmer, 

rock dove, passerines (finch (sp.?), 

red-winged blackbird), peregrine 

falcon, laysan albatross

Expert report: Impacts to Birds, American Trader Oil Spill 

by D. Michael Fry- very detailed, but confidential. Expert 

reviews of "Impacts to Birds"- confidential OVI was used 

to estimate the number of birds injured and then compare 

the estimate to the actual observations and recoveries. 

ET=3400 (Numbers represent mortality based on 

extrapolation) Total settlement=$3,984,247 

sp.? Detailed reports and expert critiques (including modeling of 

bird fate using multipliers estimated from spill trajectories 

and observation, population models). ET=10,000 

(represents estimated mortality from extrapolation) Total 

settlement=$6,400,000 

northern pintail, western sandpiper, 

bufflehead, American wigeon

black oystercatcher, passerines 

(sp.?)

ET=4000 (based on direct observation. No extrapolation 

was done) Total settlement=$3,650,000 (restoration)

Hawaiian duck, mallard, Hawaiian coot, 

northern pintail, northern shoveler

black-crowned nightheron, cattle egret brown booby, NRDA claimed injuries to intertidal habitat, water column 

habitat, subtidal habitat, freshwater marsh habitat and lost 

human use. No real estimates of number of birds injured. 

Claim based on the fact that birds were in the exposed 

environment and hence come into contact with oil. 

Settlement reached at $1,00,000 for biological injuries.

Never completed report on wildlife casualties because the 

RP agreed to settle, Expedited assessment based on D. 

French trajectory model and Glen Ford-swept through 

model contacts 

harlequin duck bald eagle, black oystercatcherA multitude of long term studies have been done on Exxon 

Valdez. The list of species given here is by no means 

complete. Multiple modeling techniques were used to 

attempt to estimate the number dead. ET=250,000-375,000 

NRDA in progress ET= information being collected 

red-breasted merganser, oldsquaw, 

harlequin, Stellar’s eider

emperor goose, Aleutian Canada 

goose 

Pre-assessment data used to estimate injury. Searching for 

birds was done in a remote area. Calculation of damage 

was rather simple (no unified report) a high multiplier of 10 

was used due to the remoteness of the area (e.g. 200 birds 

found then 2000 are estimated as killed). ET=130+ (This 

number represents the number of birds found oiled. The 

extrapolated estimate is 2000) 

black oystercatcher, bald eagle, 

peregrine falcon

Expert reports: bird Injury studies-mostly look at egg shell 

thinning and toxin levels in eggs. 

Changes in reproductive success are indicated where 

known. NRDA still in progress. 

bufflehead, canvasback, mallard, merganser, 

oldsquaw, goldeneye, scaup

Canada goose, coot, crow, 

pheasant, sp.?

Losses were estimated by modeling using spill trajectories, 

distribution and abundance, observation and recovery of 

dead and living oiled birds, scavenging and sinking rates. 

ET=13,473 (This number represents birds recovered oiled. 

It does not represent bird mortalities based on 

extrapolation.) 

still in draft stages 

Hawaiian duck, mallard black-crowned nightheron, cattle egretbrown booby, barred dove, 

passerines, Hawaiian coot

Draft Environmental Assessment and Restoration Plan (a 

couple of pages documenting at risk species, vague 

evidence of injury and general recovery times). Most 

information on bird injury seems to be anecdotal accounts. 

ET= not clear from Draft EA/RP 

burrowing owl Bird injury report (confidential) ET=200 (based on direct 

observations no extrapolations were done) 

NRDA in progress , 2,000 or more birds collected with 

correction factor of 10 or more, unknown RP, Glen Ford 

hind casting report in progress. 

52 
Name of Case

WEST COAST

American Trader

Apex Houston

Cape Mohican

Chevron Pipeline Oil 

Spill 

Command Spill

Exxon Valdez

Kure/ Humbolt Bay

Kuroshima

Montrose

Nestucca

New Carissa

Pearl Harbor 

Platform Irene

Point Reyes Mystery Spill

Restoration/ Available funds for Restoration

Draft restoration plan to be released to public by June 2000. Projects 

include creating roosting space for brown pelicans by building a 

permanent floating roosts and improving jetties, providing increased 

security for roosting sites through signage and public education, 

removing predators to marine birds (black rats) on Anacapa Island. 

Bird restoration=$3,284,567 

Acquisition of marbled murrlet nesting nabitat Recolonization of 

impacted common murre colonies Restoration=$5,416,000

Restoration planning stage. Proposed restoration alternatives are: 

enhancement and management of Red Rock Island for cormorants, 

western gulls, black crowned night herons, snowy egret, brown 

pelican; restoration of native vegetation at Marin Islands NWR; tern 

habitat enhancement Alaneda Point; enhancement of shorebird 

foraging areas through removal of exotics.

Enhancement and maintenance endowment of Pohuala Marsh, 

mangrove removal, and other projects at Pearl Harbor to improve 

foraging habitat for waterbrids.

Received 2.5 million for common murres, 0.5 million for marbled 

murrelets, ? amount for violations of endangered species act from 

oiled pelican observations. Restoration planning just beginning - 

potential to collaborate with Apex and Point Reyes Mystery Spill 

NA

Predator (fox) eradication

Education, Destruction Island habitat improvement (rabbit removal), 

monitoring common murre colonies and aerial surveys, reduction of 

mortality induced by net fisheries 

NA

Feeding habitat through mangrove removal

NA

NA

53 
Name of Case Location/ Date Nature of Damage/ Volume of 

Spill

Species

Gulls Terns Plovers Loons Grebes

Tenyo Maru Olympic Peninsula, WA/ July 22, 1991 oil spill/ fishing vessel 354,800 

gallons of intermediate fuel 

97,800 gallons of diesel fuel

mew gull, California 

gull, 

western/glaucous 

winged gull, sp.?

caspian tern, 

arctic tern

common loon, redthroated loonwestern grebe

Tesoro Hawaii Oil Spill Islands of Oahu and Kauai, Hawaii August 

24, 1998

accidental hose failure at 

Tesoro's single-point mooring/ 

117 barrels of bunker oil

sooty tern, 

white tern, graybacked tern, 

brown noody, 

black noody, 

blue-gray noody 

Tulalip Landfill Everett, WA/ 1964-1979/ proposed for NPL 

1991 and add 1995

hazardous waste site/ landfill Bonaparte's gull, ringbilled gull, mew gullArctic tern

Wayfarer Point Reyes, CA/ June 10, 1995 oil spill/ damage from 

helicopters incurred during 

clean-up activities

western gull 3 sp.? western grebe

EAST COAST

Anitra New Jersey, May 13, 1996 oil spill, barge laughing gull, herring 

gull, great blackbacked gull

common tern, 

least tern

semipalmated 

plover, piping 

plover

Exxon Bayway Linden, New Jersey/ January 1-2, 1990 oil spill/ pipeline, 567,000 

gallons of #2 fuel oil

herring gull, great 

black-backed gull

Julie N Portland, Maine/ September 27, 1996 oil spill gull (sp.) grebe (sp.)

Lake Barre Terrebone Bay, Louisiana/ May 16, 1997 oil spill/ pipeline 275,562 

gallons of crude oil

laughing gull, sp.? sp.? semipalmated 

plover

LCP Chemical Brunswick, Georgia/ 1955-1994 hazardous material release least tern

Nautilus Kill van Kull, in NY Harbor; nesting 

beaches on Long Island's south shore and 

the NJ shore.

oil spill, 267,000 gallons of #6 

fuel oil

piping plover

New Bedford Harbor New Bedford, MA/Late 1940's1977/Designated superfund site in 1983

hazardous material release 

PCB's, etc.

laughing gull, 

common blackheaded gull, 

Bonaparte's gull, ringbilled gull, herring 

gull, Iceland gull, 

lesser black-backed 

gull, glaucous gull, 

great black-backed 

gull

roseate tern, 

common tern, 

Forester's tern, 

least tern, black 

tern

black-bellied 

plover, 

semipalmated 

plover, killdeer

red-throated loon, 

common loon

horned grebe, 

red-necked 

grebe

North Cape Rhode Island/ January 19, 1996 oil tanker, 828,000 gallons of #2 

home heating oil

sp.? piping plover common loon, redthroated loonsp.?

Tampa Bay Tampa Bay, Florida/ August 10, 1993 oil spill/ 2 tankers: 32,000 

gallons Jet A fuel, 330,000 

gallon #6 fuel

laughing gull royal tern, 

common tern, 

least tern, tern 

(sp.?)

common loon

54 
Name of Case

Tenyo Maru 

Tesoro Hawaii Oil Spill

Tulalip Landfill

Wayfarer

EAST COAST

Anitra

Exxon Bayway

Julie N

Lake Barre

LCP Chemical

Nautilus

New Bedford Harbor

North Cape

Tampa Bay 

Scoters Alcids Cormorants Pelicans Procellarids Other Shorebirds

surf scoter, whitewinged scotercommon murre, marbled murrelet, 

rhinoceros auklet, pigeon 

guillemont, Cassin's auklet, horned 

puffin, tufted puffin

double-crested 

cormorants, Brandt’s 

cormorant, pelagic 

cormorant, sp.?

northern fulmar, sooty 

shearwater, shorttailed shearwater, 

shearwater (sp.?), 

fork-tailed stormpetrel, leach’s stormpetrel, storm-petrel 

(sp.?) 

black turnstone

surf scoter common murre, pigeon guillemont, 

rhinoceros auklet

2 sp.? brown pelican ashy storm-petrel, 

sooty shearwater

sanderling, semipalmated 

sandpiper, ruddy turnstone, shortbilled dowitcher, willet

double-crested 

cormorant

double-crested 

cormorant

shorebird (sp.)

semipalmated sandpiper, 

sandpiper (sp.?), willet

black scoter, surf 

scoter, whitewinged scoter

great cormorant, doublecrested cormorantAmerican oystercatcher, greater 

yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, 

willet, spotted sandpiper, ruddy 

turnstone, sanderling, 

semipalmated sandpiper, least 

sandpiper, purple sandpiper, 

dunlin

sp.? sp.?

double crested 

cormorant, cormorant 

(sp.?)

brown pelican red knot, willet, sanderling, 

sandpiper (sp.?), shortbilled 

dowitcher, marbled godwit, 

black-bellied plover, Wilson's 

plover, piping plover, plover 

(sp.?)

55 
Name of Case

Tenyo Maru 

Tesoro Hawaii Oil Spill

Tulalip Landfill

Wayfarer

EAST COAST

Anitra

Exxon Bayway

Julie N

Lake Barre

LCP Chemical

Nautilus

New Bedford Harbor

North Cape

Tampa Bay 

Damage Assessment/ Estimate of Total Number of Birds 

Injured (ET)/ Total Settlement $

Ducks Herons and Egrets Others

bufflehead black-footed albatross, crow, sp.? Models were not used for mortality extrapolation from 

carcass counts because scavenging probabilities were not 

available. Losses were calculated based on bird actual 

recoveries, abundance and distributions, and spill 

trajectories ET=4,300 (Number represents those birds 

actually found dead and oiled. It does not represent 

mortality estimated by extrapolation). 

Total settlement=$9,000,000

Newell's shearwater wedge-tailed 

shearwater, tropicbirds, boobies, 

petrels, frigatebird

Damage claim for intertidal and subtidal habitat, endangered 

Hawaiian monk seals, seabirds and lost public use. 

Estimate that 26,000 Newell's shearwaters could have been 

present within the oil spill area. 105 birds recovered or 

observed during incident, no total estimate provided.

wood duck, green-winged teal, redhead great-blue herons bald eagle, Canada geese, brandt 

geese, tundra swan, trumpeter 

swan, osprey, red-tailed hawk, 

kingfisher, great-horned owl, barn 

owl, snowy owl, falcon (sp.?), 

passerines

Unclear with present information. ET=unclear 

Settlement=$1,000,000

black oystercatcher Initial collection of field data/ NRDA in progress 

mallard, black duck, brant osprey, American oystercatcher, 

black skimmer 

Type A model, basic modeling to determine injury to piping 

plover and sanderling. A full population model was not 

done. Sanderlings and least terns appeared to be dropped as 

species of concern as time went on. ET=6,500 (represents 

birds found oiled not extrapolations) 

gadwall, mallard cattle egret, snowy egret, 

black-crowned night heron

rail (sp.), Canada goose, glossy ibis Long term monitoring studies were used to evaluate indirect 

and non-lethal effects. ET=679 (recovered dead/oiled) 

Total settlement=$15,000,000

black duck, mallard, common eider wading bird (sp.) rail (sp.) Basic population model of the black duck (used as umbrella 

species) ET=40 (number of birds found oiled, expected to 

be very low estimate) 

mottled duck snowy egret, great egret, 

great blue herons, 

Louisiana heron

king rail, clapper rail, marsh 

sparrow, sparrow (sp.?), redwinged blackbird

Type A model used by trustees. ET=333 (includes model 

extrapolation) 

wood stork, clapper rail Collection of samples and measurement of toxins, 

extrapolation from other reports of the effects of certain 

toxins on bird species. ET=unclear from information 

provided 

Total settlement=$4,000,000

red-breasted merganser, common 

merganser, hooded merganser, bufflehead, 

barrows goldeneye, common goldeneye, 

oldsquaw, common eider, lesser scaup, 

greater scaup, ring-necked duck, redhead, 

canvasback, American Wigeon, Eurasian 

wigeon, gadwall, northern shoveler, bluewinged teal, northern pintail, mallard, 

American black duck, green-winged teal, 

wood duck

great blue heron, great 

egret, snowy egret, greenbacked heron, blackcrowned night-heron

mute swan, great white fronted 

goose, snow goose, brant, Canada 

goose, turkey vulture, osprey, bald 

eagle, northern harrier, sharpshinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, 

American kestrel, peregrine falcon, 

clapper rail, Virginia rail, American 

coot, snowy owl, belted kingfisher 

Due to the time span of the injury, damage assessment was 

a means of determining general injuries, not an exhaustive 

study of the effects of contaminates. For the roseate tern, 

several ESA-related documents are used including the 

recovery plan. ET= unclear Total 

settlement=$99,600,000

black duck, mallard, eider (sp.?), 

bufflehead, goldeneye, merganser (sp.?), 

pintail, ruddy duck, scaup (sp?), 

heron (sp.?) gannet(sp.?), swan (sp.?), goose 

(sp.?), coot (sp.?)

Three expert reports and a summary document on "Injury 

Quantification and Restoration Scaling"- basic method is 

calculating damage in bird years using available life history 

information and scaling the result to restoration ET=2,292 

(estimated direct mortality) 

snowy egret, great egret, 

egret (sp.?), great blue 

heron, yellow crowned 

night heron, green backed 

heron, little blue heron

black skimmer, rock dove, song 

bird, parasitic jaeger, American 

oystercatcher

Damage assessment consisted of a ratio of 2:1. The results 

of this 2x multiplier were enhanced based on previous 

studies of the effected birds. ET=732 Total 

settlement=$8,000,000 

56 
Name of Case

Tenyo Maru 

Tesoro Hawaii Oil Spill

Tulalip Landfill

Wayfarer

EAST COAST

Anitra

Exxon Bayway

Julie N

Lake Barre

LCP Chemical

Nautilus

New Bedford Harbor

North Cape

Tampa Bay 

Restoration/ Available funds for Restoration

Restoration of common murre colonies; Oiled Wildlife 

Rehabiliatation Center; public education signs and brochures: 

Marbled Murrelet Habitat Protection and River Silt Reduction; 

emergency towing vessel 

Amount of funds for restoration is not available. Restoration projects 

include predator control and habitat enhancement for seabirds, 

remove fishing nets from shoreline to benefit monk seals, funding for 

beach cleanup activities to compensate for lost public use.

Estuarine habitat creation/ restoration, habitat enhancement, species 

specific restoration (nest boxes or perches). Restoration=$1,000,000 

potential

NA

Land acquisition, marsh restoration=$11,113,000

Marsh restoration, land acquisition

Marsh enhancement, restoration based settlement

NA

Island Beach interpretive center, NJ/NY piping plover project 

(monitoring, predator control, beach management) 

Restoration=$3,300,000

Common and roseate tern restoration, reclamation of nesting habitat, 

restoration of sites, chemical analysis of PCB levels. 

Restoration=$23,700,000

Plover habitat protection and monitoring, loon habitat protection, sea 

duck habitat protection, salt pond land acquisition. Restoration based 

settlement

Funding rehabilitation facilities, acquisition of equipment for small 

spill response including disposal items and monofilament. 

Restoration=$2,945,556 and RP implemented projects

57