256 



K. G. HAY 



The Av-Alarm device was tested on water- 

 fowl at the Grizzly Island Game Refuge some 

 48 km north of San Francisco Bay and in the 

 bay itself over a 2-year period (1972-73). Using 

 a single, fixed-location system covering a 

 three-quarter square mile (1.21 km 2 ) area 

 Crummett (1973) repelled 82% of the ducks 

 and 92% of the shorebirds on the Refuge. The 

 intrepid coot, however, was found to be rela- 

 tively indifferent to the sounds. Immediately 

 upon activation, there was a sudden drop in 

 the bird count, which was followed by a con- 

 tinual decline in numbers. 



In tests of the device from a cruising boat in 

 ocean and bay waters, the degree of effective- 

 ness varied by species. Ducks were repelled 

 100%; pelicans (Pelecanus spp.) 92%; great 

 egrets (Casmerodius albus) 85%; gulls 42%; 

 cormorants 75%; shearwaters (Adamastor 

 spp.) 29%; and murres, 51%. 



Grebes and murres dived away from the 

 stimulus, then surfaced and dived again if the 

 threat was still present. To prevent driving 

 the diving species deeper into the center of a 

 slick, investigators recommended that 

 buoyed repelling equipment be placed within 

 the spill area. When the alarm system was 

 used in conjunction with the occasional firing 

 of a rocket or shellcracker, an even greater 

 percentage of birds was repelled. 



The International Bird Rescue Research 

 Center, a nonprofit corporation in Berkeley, 

 California, was an outgrowth of the Richmond 

 Bird Care Center that played an active role in 

 the 1971 San Francisco Bay spill. Since that 

 time, a small group of individuals has con- 

 tinued research on bird-cleaning techniques, 

 testing cleaning agents, perfecting husbandry 

 methods, and alleviating stress. Their 41% 

 survival rate speaks for itself. A paper de- 

 scribing their work is being presented at this 

 conference (Smith 1975). 



Under a grant from the API, the center is 

 currently evaluating various cleaning agents, 

 and testing the pressurized jet versus serial 

 baths and the re-establishment of feather 

 waterproofing. The center is also perfecting 

 an audio-visual slide presentation that will 

 illustrate how to select the proper cleaning 

 agent, together with the latest bird-cleaning 

 and care procedures. 



About 5 years ago, England's Advisory 



Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea estab- 

 lished a research unit in the Department of 

 Zoology at the University of Newcastle-Upon- 

 Tyne. It was funded by a grant from the 

 Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to 

 Animals, the Royal Society for the Preserva- 

 tion of Birds, the World Wildlife Fund Sea- 

 bird Appeal, and the British Institute of 

 Petroleum. 



Their efforts have also led to high survival 

 rates. Focusing primarily on the efficiency of 

 various detergents, they have found that the 

 loss of waterproofing is largely due to soap 

 and oil residues and the disturbance of the 

 feather structure in the cleaning process. Con- 

 sequently, they have devoted their efforts to 

 selecting detergents that can be completely 

 removed with a minimum disturbance of 

 plumage (Seabird Research Unit 1971). 



In May 1974, the API in cooperation with 

 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service convened a 

 seminar on Oil Spill Wildlife Response Plan- 

 ning. The 2-day workshop was held at the 

 Patuxent Wildlife Research Center at Laurel, 

 Maryland. Some 70 State and Federal govern- 

 ment personnel in charge of oil spill response 

 plans involving wildlife participated. The pro- 

 gram addressed itself to fish and wildlife con- 

 siderations and the role of regional response 

 teams under the National Oil and Hazardous 

 Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. The 

 actions of State wildlife departments, U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental 

 Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and 

 the oil industry in handling spills involving 

 wildlife were examined. The latest oil spill 

 cleanup technology was reviewed, and the 

 workshop ended with demonstrations of the 

 cleaning of oiled waterfowl. Similar seminars 

 were planned for the Gulf of Mexico and the 

 West Coast. 



It was obvious from this seminar that the 

 most comprehensive wildlife oil spill contin- 

 gency plan had been developed by the State of 

 California. Copies of this plan (Oil and 

 Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan, Cali- 

 fornia Department of Fish and Game, July 

 1974) were later distributed to all coastal 

 States as a prototype or model plan by API. 



The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been 

 conducting experiments on various bird-clean- 

 ing agents and techniques at its Migratory 



