December 1, 2008
Via Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2008-0095
Division of Policy and Directives Management
Re: Comments on the 90-Day Finding on a Petition to Remove the California, Oregon, and Washington Population of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 Fed. Reg. 57,314 (October 2, 2008)).
Greetings:
Please accept the following comments submitted on behalf of The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Oregon Wild, Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection Information Center, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Audubon Society of Portland, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, and Gifford Pinchot Task Force on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ("FWS" or "Service") 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review for the California, Oregon, and Washington Population of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (73 Fed. Reg. 57,314 (October 2, 2008)).
In preparing these comments, we have reviewed extensive
information related to the ecology and status of the Marbled Murrelet ('the
Murrelet'). Based on this review, the Murrelet continues to warrant recognition
as a distinct population segment in
Table of Contents
I. The California,
A. The best available
scientific information does not support the Service's conclusion that the
contiguous
B. The tri-state population
of the Marbled Murrelet is discrete under FWS policy......................................5
1.
Distinct differences exist in regulatory mechanisms across the international
border......................5
2.
Distinct differences in management of habitat exist across the international
border.....................8
3.
Distinct differences exist in control of exploitation across the international
border......................9
4.
There are distinct differences in Conservation Status across the international
border.................10
C. The tri-state population
of the Marbled Murrelet is significant to the taxon to which it belongs.................12
D. The Marbled Murrelet
should be uplisted to Endangered in the lower 48 states....................................13
1. The tri-state population of
the Marbled Murrelet has continued to decline since listing............................13
2. Delisting criteria have not
been met........................................15
3. Threats to the species are
ongoing.........................................16
4. The tri-state DPS is in
danger of extinction in light of ESA listing factors...............................................17
A.
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range............17
C.
Disease or predation...........................................................................................................21
D.
Other natural or human caused factors.................................................................................22
1. Oil-Spill Mortality........................................................23
2. Incidental Take in Fisheries..........................................24
3. Reduced and Altered Prey Availability.........................25
4.
Disturbance from Motor Craft ....................................27
E.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.............................27
II. The range wide status of
the Marbled Murrelet indicates that the species merits protection under the
Endangered Species Act throughout its range.....................31
A. The Marbled Murrelet is
declining sharply in
B.
The Alaska and British Columbia Marbled Murrelet Population should be listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act.......................33
1. The
A.
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range............33
C.
Disease or predation................................37
D.
Other natural or human caused factors...........................................................39
1. Oil-Spill Mortality...........................................................................39
2. Incidental Take in Fisheries.............................................................41
3. Effects of Sports Fishery on Marbled Murrelets..............................42
4. Reduced and Altered Prey Availability due to
Overfishing...............42
5. Reduced and Altered Prey Availability due to Marine
Change........43
6. Vessel Disturbance......................45
E.
Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms..................46
1.
2.
Literature
Cited........................51
I. The California, Oregon, and
Washington population of the Marbled Murrelet qualifies as a Distinct
Population Segment under Fish and Wildlife Service's Policy for the Recognition
of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (61 Fed. Reg. 4,722 (Feb. 7, 1996)).
The Policy for the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments states that FWS will consider three elements when determining whether a population segment qualifies as endangered or threatened under the Act: 1. The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; 2. The significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and 3. The population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
1. It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
2. It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
The
A. The
best available scientific information does not support the Service's conclusion
that the contiguous
The determination in the 5-year review that the
First, the 5-year review was fundamentally flawed. The discreteness analysis
in the 5-year review is incorrect because FWS must evaluate differences in
regulatory mechanisms as if the Marbled Murrelet were delisted in the
"The Service now believes that the discreteness
analysis in the 5-year review was flawed, because it compared current levels of
legal protection across the international border, rather than levels of
protection that would exist if the marbled murrelet were not listed in the
Second, the discreteness analysis in the 5-year review is a misinterpretation of DPS policy. In determining the Murrelet is not discrete, FWS incorrectly interpreted the DPS policy to mean that "differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms" all had to be "significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act," rather than simply significant differences in any one of these criteria. In particular, FWS concluded that differences in management of habitat are not significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D), stating: "The differences in management of habitat are not significant in light of section 4(a) (1) (D) of the Act." There are in fact, significant differences in habitat management across the international border, and these are discussed in detail in a following section.
Third, the discreteness analysis in the 5-year review is inconsistent with previous DPS findings. In past interpretations of DPS policy, FWS has determined that populations are discrete across an international boundary for any one of a variety of reasons, including differences in population numbers, regulation, knowledge of the species, and legislation and policy. The Peninsular Bighorn Sheep finding, for example, states:
"The Service may determine a population to be discrete at an international border where there are significant differences in (1) the control of exploitation; (2) management of habitat; (3) conservation status, or (4) regulatory mechanisms (61 FR 4722). In the case of the Peninsular bighorn sheep, there are significant differences between the United States and Mexico in regard to the species' conservation status" (Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, March 18, 1998, 13134, emphasis added).
The
Bighorn Sheep and other findings all discuss differences in control, management
of habitat, and status without forcing these differences to be significant in
light of 4(a)(1)(D). In the Murrelet
5-year review, FWS inconsistently interpreted the DPS policy to mean that any
differences in control, management, or status must be sufficient to actually
endanger the species in both countries. This conclusion directly contradicts past findings in which it was
specifically known that the species was not threatened or endangered across the
border, in particular both the Bighorn Sheep and Pygmy Owl findings, in which
it was specifically found that the species were not endangered across the
border, as well as the Canada Lynx, Atlantic Salmon, Smalltooth Sawfish and
Bull Trout findings, where across the border the species are either not
imperiled (lynx) or their status is largely unknown.
Fourth, FWS Region 1 recognized the Marbled Murrelet as a DPS in the 5-year review, but this decision was reversed due to political interference. In response to an inquiry regarding the involvement of former Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Julie MacDonald, in agency actions or decisions, FWS Region 1 identified actions where "the DAS oversight resulted in an inappropriate change in science that may compromise actions taken in the future, or where the Service's recommendation/decision was changed based on a policy interpretation made by the DAS" (Rabot 2007, p. 1). The reversal in the 5-year review of Region 1's determination that the Marbled Murrelet was in fact a Distinct Population Segment was identified as an instance where a determination based on the best available science was replaced due to political interference, and resulted in an "incorrect" (Rabot 2007, p. 2) analysis:
"The Service conducted a 5-year review on this species (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in 2004. We used structured decision-making for the 5-year review, working with experts on the marbled murrelet, and making a recommendation that fully considered the risks and uncertainties. The Service recommended that the listing status remain the same, and supported the listing as a distinct population segment (DPS). The Assistant Secretary and the DAS (Deputy Assistant Secretary) subsequently reversed Region 1's DPS determination, stating that the marbled murrelet in the lower 48 was not a DPS, because it did not satisfy the DPS policy's discreteness criteria, and thus was not a listable entity. Since this was based upon an interpretation of the DPS policy made by the Department, the Regional Director signed the 5-year review in support of the Department's position. The Office of the Solicitor review of the proposed delisting rule suggested that the conclusion reached by the Department on the 5-year review was based on an incorrect "discreteness" analysis under the DPS policy, as it compared current levels of legal protection in the United States (Endangered Species Act) and Canada (Species at Risk Act), rather than comparing the levels that would exist if the species were not listed in the United States" (Rabot 2007, p. 2).
Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by Earthjustice reveal that on August 30, 2004, FWS documents stated the tri-state Murrelet population qualified as a DPS, and that on August 31, 2004, Ms. MacDonald circulated a revised document changing the DPS status (Earthjustice 2008).
Thus, FWS's conclusion that the Murrelet is not discrete runs counter to the
DPS policy, past DPS designations, is not supported by the best available
scientific information based on clear differences in management, regulatory mechanisms,
and status of the Murrelet in
B. The
The contiguous
1.
Distinct differences exist in regulatory mechanisms across the international border.
There are distinct differences in existing
regulatory mechanisms for the Marbled Murrelet in the
In terms of existing regulatory mechanisms, there are
significant differences between
Further,
under the Canadian Species At Risk Act, the residence of listed species
is only protected on federal lands. Piatt et al. (2007) state:
"In contrast
to the protection murrelets have had in the Washington, Oregon, and California
area under the ESA, evidence of stand occupancy by murrelets does not prevent
forest companies from logging old forests in British Columbia, either on private
land or on public leased lands" (p. 130).
Moreover, because most Murrelet
habitat in
In addition, the ESA requires the designation of critical habitat for listed species. Under the ESA, critical habitat includes geographic areas that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and federal agencies are required to avoid "destruction" or "adverse modification" of designated critical habitat in federally funded or permitted activities (FWS 2008b). Critical habitat may also include areas that are not occupied by the species at the time of listing but are essential to its conservation. On the contrary, SARA only provides for the identification of critical habitat on non-federal lands as part of the development of a recovery strategy, but the protection of this habitat is entirely discretionary. SARA allows outside groups to petition the Canadian Environment Minister to enact provisions to protect habitat, but the minister is not required to do so, and to date has never enacted additional protections. Although SARA states as a recovery goal that Murrelet habitat loss will be limited to 30%, without critical habitat protection, there is no provision that actually limits the loss of nesting habitat. Furthermore, the details of how SARA will be applied to the Marbled Murrelet have yet to be finalized. Under SARA, the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Strategy is still under review, and Recovery Action Plans are still being developed (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 139).
It is clear that SARA provides substantially less regulatory protection for
Murrelet habitat than the ESA. Differences in regulatory mechanisms would be
even greater if the Murrelet were to be delisted in the
In addition to the differences in regulatory mechanisms
concerning Murrelet habitat protection under the ESA and SARA, other
regulations concerning forested habitat differ across the international
boundary.
In
In previous findings, FWS has recognized populations as discrete based on differences in regulatory mechanisms. For example, the Smalltooth Sawfish finding states:
"The smalltooth sawfish status review team was
unable to identify any mechanisms regulating the exploitation of this species
anywhere outside of the
Likewise, the Atlantic Salmon finding states:
"There are
substantial differences in the control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms of Atlantic salmon between the
Because of the differences in regulatory mechanisms across the international border, the 3-State Population of the Marbled Murrelet is discrete under DPS policy.
2. Distinct
differences in management of habitat exist across the international border.
The
In the five-year review, FWS argued that there are not
significant differences in management between
In addition to differences in habitat protection under
endangered species laws, Murrelet habitat management differs under other
policies as well. In the
It is also worth noting that marine habitat protections differ between the
In previous findings, the Service has concluded that differences in habitat management across the international border satisfy the discreteness element of the DPS policy including the Canada Lynx (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 58, March 24, 2000, 16052) and Pacific Fisher (Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 68, April 8, 2004, 18769).
It is clear that differences in management exist for
Murrelet habitat between the
3. Distinct
differences exist in control of exploitation across the international border.
Although both the ESA and SARA protect the Marbled Murrelet from direct
take, differences in control of exploitation exist across the international
border in marine habitat in terms of mortality due to fishing bycatch. Bycatch
mortality due to entanglement in fishing nets remains a major threat to the
Murrelet in
"There has not been the same intensive
research effort made to reduce seabird bycatch in gillnet fisheries in
In the past FWS has concluded that populations are discrete based on differences in control of exploitation including findings on the Canada Lynx (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 58, March 24, 2000, 16052) and Pacific Fisher (Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 68, April 8, 2004, 18769).
4. There
are distinct differences in Conservation Status across the international border.
The Conservation Status of the Marbled Murrelet differs significantly between
the
In the past, FWS has considered substantial differences in the number of
animals across the international border to be sufficient cause for considering
the DPS discrete, including the findings for Steller's Eider, Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep, and Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl. For example, the Steller's
Eider finding states:
"[T]he
FWS
acknowledges that "There are differences in population numbers between
FWS's
assertion that there is no accepted protocol is flatly contradicted by past
findings and by the fact that there are three times more birds in
"In the case of the Peninsular
bighorn sheep, there are significant differences between the
According to the
Bighorn finding, the
Although similar
population estimates are not available, FWS relied on greater numbers of
animals in findings for both the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl and Canada
Lynx. In reviewing the determination
that the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl was discrete based on the border, the
ninth circuit specifically upheld differences in population numbers as a basis
for discreteness, including reference to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
determination, stating:
"The FWS argues that the term "conservation status" means "the
number of individuals left in the population." As a consequence, "differences
in conservation status" mean "differences in the number of owls" on either side
of the border. A court must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own
regulations unless it is plainly erroneous. Stinson v.
Hence, differences in population size alone across the
international border qualify the Marbled Murrelet as discrete based on prior
interpretations of DPS policy.
C. The
The 3-state population of the Marbled Murrelet is significant to the taxon because loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and because the population differs markedly in its genetic characteristics.
Loss of the
In the 1992 ruling in Marbled Murrelet v. Lujan, No. C91-522R, slip op. at 4 (W.D. Wash. September 17, 1992) (ER at 905), the district court determined that the tri-state Marbled Murrelet population qualified for listing under the ESA because the Marbled Murrelet habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California constituted a significant portion of the species' range:
[T]he court concludes that, based on the uncontradicted findings that the marbled murrelet qualifies for listing as a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range within the meaning of the ESA, there is no need to consider the alternative basis of whether the tri-state population is a distinct population segment which might qualify for protection under the ESA (Marbled Murrelet, slip op. at 12 (ER at 913).
The district court also found that all credible science
supported finding that the tri-state population was a DPS and that the Service
failed "to establish the existence of any scientific dispute on this [DPS]
point."
The
Because the California, Oregon, and Washington distinct population segment of the Marbled Murrelet represents 18% of the linear range of the species, the entirety of the species' range in the lower 48 states, 2.2 million acres of habitat, and was recognized by FWS as a significant portion of range, its loss would clearly result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Further, because the 3-state DPS harbors marked genetic differences, it is clearly significant under DPS policy.
D. The
Marbled Murrelet should be uplisted to Endangered in the lower 48 states.
1. The
Marbled Murrelet populations in the contiguous
The 5-year review reported that the Murrelet is still
declining throughout its listed range: "Demographic modeling with the most recent
biological information indicates that the murrelet population is still declining
in all 6 Conservation Zones," and that "There is no indication of a population
increase in the listed range" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-27). Modeling studies of
the 3-state DPS suggest population declines of 3 to 7% per year. The 5-year
review concludes, "From the available information, long-term survival of the Marbled
Murrelet in
The 3-state population continues to experience low fecundity levels and low breeding success (USFWS 2004, p. 7; Huff et al. 2006, p. 18). Since the time of listing, both suitable breeding habitat and number of occupied sites have declined throughout the 3-state range, and the decline is expected to continue. McShane et al. (2004) report:
"[N]o significant improvements in breeding habitats are expected, such that poor breeding success will likely continue to be major factor affecting populations . . . Breeding populations of murrelets are predicted to continue to decline as areas of old-growth decrease. However, it is likely that murrelet populations will continue to decline even if the amount of nesting habitat remains stable and adult survival unchanged, due to already low levels of breeding success or further reductions in breeding success" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-28).
McShane et al. (2004) used modeling to evaluate extinction
probabilities for Murrelet populations, and calculated an extinction probability
of 100% in
"[T]his calculation may be optimistic because it assumes that the range of population parameters used does not change over 100 years, nesting habitats are not greatly different from today, and mortality from oil spills and gill-nets are similar to recent years. While projected trends and extinction probabilities of zone sub-populations may be alarming to some readers, these predictions are not much different than what could be surmised from existing information and previous modeling efforts (e.g., Beissinger and Nur 1997, Service 1997) . . . [W]e believe that it is doubtful that future projections will differ substantially from those presented here, unless major changes to existing information or substantial new information is uncovered" (p. 3-52).
It is clear from both monitoring and modeling data that the contiguous U.S. Marbled Murrelet population continues to decline and warrants uplisting under the ESA from threatened to endangered. Ongoing threats to the Murrelet are discussed below in light of the five listing factors of the Act.
Figure 1. Population size
forecast for the listed range of the marbled murrelet in
2. Delisting criteria for the California,
Oregon, and
The 5-year review concludes that updated information on the species does not indicate that any of the recovery criteria have been met. The review summary states:
"Does the updated information on the species indicate that
any or all of the
recovery criteria for
downlisting, delisting or uplisting have been met? No, there is no compelling evidence from the updated information
that the trends in estimated population size, densities and productivity have
been stable or
increasing in four of the six
conservation zones over a 10-year period. It is unclear whether the current
management commitments are adequate to protect the murrelet in the six
conservation zones for the next 50 years. Attainment of this goal cannot be
assured prior to its completion" (USFWS 2004, p. 17-18).
The 5-year review clearly states that delisting the 3-state Murrelet population is not warranted:
"[D]oes the 5-year review indicate that a change in classification is warranted?
No. The threat situation has not changed such that the murrelet DPS is no longer
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range" (USFWS 2004, p.
21).
3. Threats to the species are ongoing and
since the time of listing, no threats have been eliminated, some threats have
increased, and a new threat has been identified.
None of the threats facing the Marbled Murrelet have been eliminated since the time of listing, and several threats have increased (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-28).
Murrelet nesting habitat continues to be lost, and the effects of past habitat loss continue to negatively affect the Murrelet. Although the rate of habitat loss has slowed since 1992, the amount of old growth forest suitable as breeding habitat and the number of occupied sites have declined throughout the breeding range (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-29). Further, little habitat is expected to regenerate over the next several decades (Ibid. p 6-30). The 5-year review concludes:
"Overall, threats to marbled murrelet populations in the 3-state area from past and ongoing habitat loss likely remain unchanged since listing due to continued low reproductive success, increased predation, and the low likelihood that additional habitat will develop and be used in the future" (Ibid. p. 6-29 – 6-30).
Oil spills continue to present a serious threat to the Marbled Murrelet. In spite of reductions in oil pollution, oil spills continue to occur and continue to kill relatively large numbers of seabirds, including Murrelets. The 5-year review reports that the rate of oil spill mortality for Murrelets has remained relatively constant (Ibid. 6-31). The risk of catastrophic oil spills is ongoing.
The threat of nest predation on Marbled Murrelets has
increased since the time of listing because populations of nest predators have
increased. A larger number of species are also now known to be nest predators
(Ibid. p. 6-29). Predation on adult Murrelets by raptors may also have
increased in some areas, which could have serious demographic consequences
because of the influence of adult survivorship on population growth (Ibid. p.
6-29). Threat of extinction in the Santa Cruz Mountains Zone has increased due
to very poor breeding success, small population size, increasing
predators/predation, and reduced murrelet use of
The potential for increased risk of disease due to the
emergence of West Nile Virus and the re-emergence of
"The recent emergence of diseases in free-ranging birds in coastal marine systems is an indicator of declining ecological integrity. Diseases in seabirds are expected to increase significantly in the near future as ecological stressors in the marine environment, primarily coastal pollution, increase. Combined with other environmental stressors such as ocean climate changes and habitat loss, diseases may be especially significant with respect to species with declining populations" (Ibid. p. 6-34).
Other threats that have not been alleviated since listing include the risk of unpredictable stochastic events such as wildfires, insect outbreaks, forest diseases, floods, and windstorms; variations in marine prey availability due to climate events; threat from marine contaminants, threat from research efforts; and threat from noise disturbance (Ibid. p. 6-32).
A few threats have been reduced since listing including mortality from gill-net fishing and perhaps reduced loss of occupied sites due to survey error. The 5-Year Review reports that the loss of occupied sites due to survey error has been reduced since listing, but this is debatable at far inland and low-use sites, where the protocol may not be adequate. There has been a decrease in the rate of annual habitat loss, but it is important to note that although the rate of habitat loss has been reduced, habitat loss is ongoing and certainly not improving (Ibid. 6-32). In the listed range since 1992, over 22,000 acres (9,064) hectares of Murrelet habitat has been lost due to timber harvest and natural events, and the Service has consulted on the removal of over 203,000 additional acres suitable Murrelet habitat (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-64). In Oregon, for example, FWS has allowed logging of known occupied Murrelet sites on Oregon Department of Forestry lands, and more known Murrelet habitat will be lost due to the revised Elliott Forest HCP and the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revision.
4. The contiguous
A. The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range:
The Marbled Murrelet's dependence on old-growth forest is well established. In the forested portion of their breeding range, Murrelet habitat use is strongly correlated with the presence and abundance of mature and old-growth forests, large core areas of old-growth, low amounts of edge and fragmentation, proximity to the marine environment, and increasing forest age and height (McShane et al. 2004, pp. 4-39; Binford et al. 1975, pp. 315-316; Hamer and Nelson 1995, pp. 72-75; Ralph et al. 1995, p. 4, Lank et al. 2003, USFWS 2008, p. 57317). At the stand and tree scale, key components of nesting habitat include large platforms or tree limbs with substrate (moss) and cover, high densities of large trees, layered canopy, and naturally occurring canopy gaps. At the landscape scale, Murrelets are positively associated with large patch size, unfragmented watersheds, and minimal edge (Huff et al. 2006, p. 147). Moreover, at-sea Murrelet abundance is positively associated with inland sites with larger old-growth patches and low levels of fragmentation and isolation regardless of the characteristics of the marine habitat (Burger 2002, Meyer and Miller 2002, Meyer et al. 2002, Miller et al. 2002, Raphael et al. 1995, Raphael et al. 2002b in USFWS 2004, p. 18). At sea, Murrelet abundance is highest where old-growth forests are contiguous with mature second-growth forest (Huff et al. 2006, p. 20).
The
past harvest of old-growth forests in the listed range has been the primary
contributor to the decline of the Marbled Murrelet (Huff et al. 2006, p. 9, McShane
et al. 2004, p. ES-2). For example, in the
"In most areas within the listed range, murrelets are left
with small, isolated stands of older trees for nesting. At present and for the
foreseeable future, these remnant populations are struggling to be
self-sustaining and may soon become non-viable in Zones 5 and 6 (
Unfortunately, there has not been improvement in the amount and distribution of suitable nesting habitat. The 5-year review states, "There is no compelling information indicating this situation has improved through the production of significant new suitable nesting habitat since listing" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 18-19).
Despite ESA protection, loss of known, occupied Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat is ongoing. The 5-year review concludes:
"Overall, the data demonstrate that there has been a continued loss of suitable murrelet habitat due to timber harvest and wildfire since the species was listed in 1992. Further, the time since listing is too short to expect any measurable amount of habitat development. . . The analysis indicates a continued downward trend in available inland nesting habitat, and most importantly, it shows a loss of known murrelet breeding sites" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-107 – 4-108).
From 1992 to 2003, over 226,000 acres (91,492 ha) of suitable Murrelet habitat were lost or consulted on for future loss, and an additional 28,119 acres were degraded (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-107). This loss represents about 10% of estimated suitable habitat, but the proportion of habitat lost is likely greater than 10%, because the amount of estimated suitable nesting habitat is based on using spotted owl habitat as a proxy for Murrelet habitat, but not all spotted owl habitat is suitable for Murrelets (McShane et al. 2004).
Additionally, more than 10,500 potential nest trees were consulted on for removal (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-107).
Of
already lost habitat, timber harvest accounted for 24% of the total loss with
the majority (75%) of timber harvest occurring in
Habitat
in the 3-state range continues to be lost under Habitat Conservation Plans
which involve the potential future removal of thousands of acres of suitable Murrelet
habitat and which encompass the largest percent of habitat that could be lost
or modified over time. On non-federal lands in
Murrelet
habitat is also likely to continue to be lost due to stochastic events such as
wildfires, wind storms, forest diseases, and insect outbreaks (McShane et al.
2004, p. 6-30). Because of increased forest fragmentation due to timber
harvest, the threat of habitat loss due to wind-throw has increased ((McShane
et al. 2004, p. 4-79). Global climate change and long-term fire suppression on
public lands could lead to more frequent and intense stand-replacing fires,
which increases the threat of future Murrelet habitat loss (McShane et al.
2004, p. 4-79). For example, the 2003 Biscuit fire in southern
Murrelets are negatively affected by both the amount of lost habitat and the way it is distributed across the landscape because they are highly sensitive to forest fragmentation. Murrelets appear to abandon highly fragmented areas over time (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-6). The 5-year review states:
"[C]hanges in their (Marbled Murrelet) distribution and abundance have occurred in association with habitat loss and forest fragmentation (Service 1997). If murrelets are forced to utilize marginal habitat, nesting success could decline over time, leading to low nesting density and small populations (Raphael et al. 2002b). The fecundity rates of remaining pairs could also decline. Smaller patch size may also affect murrelet nest success and the number of nests, which may ultimately have long-term consequences on population size" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-109).
Habitat fragmentation can cause population
declines greater than those expected from habitat loss alone, due to edge
effects which occur when predation rates are higher at habitat edges relative
to interiors (Malt and Lank 2007, p. 160). Fragmentation also increases
solar radiation and wind in the forest canopy which could affect the
distribution of epiphytes, remove moss from nesting platforms, or cause
overheating of eggs, chicks, or incubating adults (McShane et al. 2004, p.
6-6).
The effects of past habitat loss and fragmentation and ongoing habitat loss and degradation clearly threaten the survival of the Marbled Murrelet. There is scientific consensus that habitat loss is contributing to Murrelet decline. The 5-year review concludes, "The additional habitat loss may result in reduced reproductive success, which is a major factor in the decline of the species" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-69). Piatt et al. (2007) state:
"To conclude this section on demographic models, we offer the following perspective on the relevance of models that pay only indirect homage to habitat availability to conservation issues. If a population is declining, not because of relatively subtle changes in birth and death rates of the kind considered here, but rather because some portion of its living space is being modified by humans or nature so as to become wholly unsuitable for reproduction or survival, then the population will decline in direct proportion to the amount of habitat that becomes unusable. In that situation, no mathematical models are really necessary to understand the process" (p. 64).
Threats
to Marbled Murrelet habitat have increased since the time of listing due to
changes in the management of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in
Over the course of time, Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat will regenerate, but this process is slow. The 5-year review states, "In general, the earliest possible recovery time for nesting habitat is estimated to be 100-200 years (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-62). Further, Murrelet use of new habitat may lag for considerable periods. The colonization process is poorly understood and Murrelets display high philopatry which will likely lead to low immigration rates (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-78).
It is clear that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range places the Marbled Murrelet in
danger of extinction, and that the
C. Disease or
predation:
Murrelet eggs, hatchlings, and adults are all subject to
predation. The 5-year review states, "[I]t appears that the threat of predation on murrelets is greater than
previously anticipated" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-29). Recent studies have
shown that the majority of Murrelet nests have failed and that the majority of
known nest failures are due to predation (Ibid.). Range-wide studies have
revealed nest failure rates due to predation of 68% to 100% in real
nests, and 81% to 86% in artificial nests (Hebert and Golightly 2003, Peery et
al. in prep., Luginbuhl et al. 2001, Marzluff and Restani 1999 in USFWS 2004,
p.19). Similarly, in the 3-state range, most nests (42% - 85%) have failed, and
roughly three-quarters of failed nests resulted from predation (based on nests in which it was possible to determine if
predation was a factor) (USFWS 2004, p. 10-11).
Common ravens (Corvus corax) and Steller's jays (Cyanocitta
stelleri) have been implicated as the primary predators of active murrelet
nests, and corvids and squirrels (e.g., northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus)
have been identified as the key predators at artificial nests (Nelson and Hamer
1995, Raphael et al. 2002a in Huff et al. 2006, p. 18). In western
Not only have corvid populations increased, but the number of species known to predate nests has also increased. Known or suspected predators of Murrelet eggs or chicks include sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter striatus), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), barred owls (Strix varia), Cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooperi), northwestern crows (Corvus caurinus), American crows (C. brachyrhynchos), and gray jays (Perisoreus Canadensis) (Nelson and Hamer 1995, Nelson 1997, Manley 1999 in McShane et al. 2004, p. 2-16 – 2-17). Artificial nest experiments indicate that predation by squirrels and mice on murrelet eggs and chicks cannot be discounted as a possibility (Luginbuhl et al. 2001, Raphael et al. 2002a, Bradley and Marzluff 2003). The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasi), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), and an unidentified mustellid were all recorded attacking plastic eggs and pigeon nestlings (Columba livia) (Marzluff et al. 1999, Flaherty et al. 2000, Luginbuhl et al. 2001, Bradley and Marzluff 2003, in McShane et al. 2004, p. 2-17).
Habitat fragmentation increases Murrelet vulnerability to nest predation. Nelson and Hamer (1995) found lower nesting success at sites located closer to forest edges and clearcuts. Burger et al. (2004) found that predation risk at Marbled Murrelet nests was higher near clearcuts and roads than in interior forests, and higher in fragmented landscapes than in relatively intact old-growth forests. Zharikov et al. (2006) found that nest success was lower near regenerating clearcuts, perhaps because of the regeneration of berry-producing shrubs which provide food for Murrelet nest predators. Malt and Lank (2007) found that Murrelet nest disturbances by avian predators were significantly more frequent at hard edges relative to interiors, but less frequent at soft edges, and they did not find any edge effects at natural-edged sites (p. 160). The highest risk of nest predation has been documented in areas close to humans, likely because of food sources for predators such as corvids.
In addition to increased levels of nest
predation, the threat of high adult predation by raptors may have increased in
some areas due to increased or recovering populations of falcons, eagles, and
possibly some hawks. Predation on adult Murrelets likely has more negative
consequences for population viability than take of chicks or eggs due to the
importance of adult survivorship in demographic models (McShane et al. 2004, p.
6-29).
Not only has the
threat posed by predation increased since listing, but so to has the threat
posed by the potential spread of avian diseases including West Nile Virus,
"Murrelets will likely be affected by one or more diseases or biotoxins in the near future because of the cumulative effects of stressors in both their marine and forest environments. The potential for murrelets to contract West Nile Virus seems high given their nesting habits, the abundance of mosquitoes in forests, the presence of the disease in other forest-nesting bird species, and the proximity of many murrelet nesting areas to open fields, clearcuts, or areas of human activity where corvids are abundant. . . Recent emergence of bacterial, fungal, parasitic, and viral diseases and biotoxins in seabirds poses an increasing threat to Marbled Murrelets" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 3-68 - 3-72).
The 5-year review also asserts that the emergence of disease in seabirds could be an indicator of deteriorating ecological conditions:
"The recent
emergence of diseases in free-ranging birds in coastal marine systems is an
indicator of declining ecological integrity. Diseases in seabirds are expected
to increase significantly in the near future as ecological stressors in the
marine environment, primarily coastal pollution, increase. Combined with other
environmental stressors such as ocean climate changes and habitat loss,
diseases may be especially significant with respect to species with declining
populations" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-34).
Due to the increased threats posed by
predation and disease since the time of listing, the
D. Other natural
or human caused factors:
Other natural or human caused factors which
endanger the Marbled Murrelet include oil spills, incidental take in fisheries,
reduced and altered prey availability due to a variety of factors including
climate change and oceanographic variability, and disturbance from motor craft
(McShane et al. 2004, p. 5-12).
1. Oil-Spill Mortality
Marbled Murrelet mortality from oil
pollution is a significant conservation issue in
Marbled Murrelets are particularly
vulnerable to oil spills because they prefer near-shore habitats and remain at
sea most of their lives in near-shore areas near shipping lanes and other
sources of oil (Burger 2002 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). Oil spills in
Murrelets can be killed both my major oil
spills and by chronic low-level oil pollution. Major oil spills are known to
have killed hundreds of Murrelets in Washington (Nestucca and Tenyo
Maru) and
The 1990 U.S. Oil Pollution Act has generally reduced the number of oil spills, but overall oil tanker and shipping traffic has increased in west coast ports, and seabird mortality due to oil pollution still occurs (McShane et al. 2004, p. 5-38). The 5-year review states, "[I]ncreases in shipping traffic and continued oil pollution will likely outweigh the short-term benefits of increased regulation in the future. Aging sunken vessels also may contribute to additional oil spillage" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 5-23).
Potential off-shore oil development projects also pose a huge threat to Murrelet populations.
As Murrelet abundance continues to decline, the effects of oiling mortality of even small numbers of murrelets will increase (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-31). The chief long-term impact to Murrelet populations from oiling is decreased population size, but decreased breeding success and loss of certain nesting areas also may result if relatively large numbers are killed (Carter et al. 2003 in McShane et al. 2004). Oil impacts are additive to other factors which negatively affect Murrelet populations (Service 1997 in McShane et al. 2004, p. 5-15).
2. Incidental Take in Fisheries
The incidental capture of birds in gillnets is
a well-documented effect of fisheries on Marbled Murrelets (Piatt et al. 2007,
p. 78). In the past, gill-net mortality has had significant impacts on some Murrelet
populations (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 78). In
Marbled Murrelet mortality from coastal
gill-net fishing has been considered a significant conservation issue in Puget
Sound and the
"In Zones 1 and 2
(Puget Sound and
Reduced population size is the chief
long-term impact to Murrelet populations from gill-net mortality. Reduced
breeding success and loss of use of certain nesting locations could also occur.
If only small numbers of birds nest in particular locations, then the loss of a
few individuals could lead to loss of use of those nesting areas. McShane et
al. (2004) state, "Regardless of the level of impacts, they are additive to
other factors negatively affecting murrelet populations" (McShane et al. 2004,
p. 5-24).
In addition to gill-net bycatch, Marbled Murrelets
also can be killed by entanglement with fishing lines or hooking with fishing
lures (Carter et al. 1995) (McShane et al. 2004, p. 5-23).
3.
Reduced and Altered Prey Availability
Reduced and altered prey availability is an
ongoing threat to the 3-state Marbled Murrelet population. Many fish
populations in
Prey
availability has direct effects on Marbled Murrelet distribution and productivity
(Peery et al. 2004b, Becker and
Beissinger 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 71). Both the abundance and
quality of available food is a critical determinant of reproductive success for
piscivorous seabirds. Forage fishes
differ substantially in fat content, energy density, and quality (Anthony et
al. 2000). There can be also be differences in energy density within the same
fish species, depending on season, environmental conditions, sex, and/or
physical condition (Robards et al 1999a, Anthony et al. 2000 in Piatt et al. 2007, p.
72). The nutritional quality of prey affects rates of delivery to
chicks, chick growth, and chick survival (Golet et al. 2000, Suryan et al. 2002,
Wanless et al. 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). For seabird chick growth, prey
quality may be even more important than prey quantity (Kitaysky et al. 1999; Wanless
et al. 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). Prey quality and quantity also affects
parental condition and predation rates. If prey quality or quantity is low,
parents must spend more time capturing and delivering prey, which is both
energetically expensive and increases exposure to raptors and nest predators
(Peery et al. 2004b, Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72).
Large-scale shifts in marine climate contribute
to biological regime shifts which affect the abundance and type of forage fish available
for Marbled Murrelets and other seabirds (Anderson and Piatt 1999, Benson and
Trites 2002, Chavez et al. 2003 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 71). Most of the fish
species upon which Marbled Murrelets prey consume macro-zooplankton including
copepods and euphausiids. Murrelets are thus linked to changes in ocean and
climate conditions which influence zooplankton abundance, distribution, and
species composition (Zebdi and Collie 1995, Williams and Quinn II 2000, Mackas
et al. 1998, 2001, Boldt et al. 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). The El
Niño-Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and other factors that affect
ocean temperatures and current flows impact prey distribution and alter
Murrelet foraging locations and success rates (Ainley et al.1995 in Huff et al.
2006, p. 20).
The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (El Niño) occurs
when internal ocean waves generated in the tropics infuse warm water along the
western North American coast and create corresponding changes in the mixed
layer depth. It occurs every four to seven years and lasts for a few to several
months. El Niño negatively affects ocean productivity and the food web. Hallowed
et al. (2001) found that El Niño affects fish
production from
Several studies have shown that El Niño
influences the behavior of Marbled Murrelets.
Becker (2001) found changes in the at-sea
distribution of murrelets and a shift to higher trophic-level feeding during
spring in El Niño years. Burger (2000) found differences in the number of Murrelets
detected with radar entering drainages in
Decadal-scale variation in oceanographic
climate also may affect prey availability for Marbled Murrelets. The Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO) occurs every 15 to 20 years and changes the depth of
the mixed layer. In
Murrelets
in
Although El Niño and the PDO are natural and
cyclic, some climatic changes may be linked to anthropogenic causes (McShane et
al. 2004, p. 5-14). Further, fluctuations in oceanic climate may be increasing
in frequency (King 2005, Piatt et al. 2007, p. 71). The increased frequency of
such events, and their resultant effects on prey availability, are a further
stressor for already declining Marbled Murrelet populations.
4. Disturbance from Motor Craft
Marbled Murrelets
can be negatively affected by traffic in both marine and terrestrial habitat. In
the marine environment, several studies have shown that Brachyramphus murrelets
are displaced by vessel traffic, and possibly impacted energetically.
Hamer and Thompson (1997) found that nearly
70% of moved a short distance away when a vessel approached (in Piatt et al.
2007, p. 96-97). Kuletz et al. (2003) found that Kittlitz's Murrelets were
temporarily displaced by boat traffic and that when boats were present fewer
birds made foraging dives and more birds flew off the water. Hentze (2006) found
that single birds were more likely to flush, and because single birds are more
likely to be breeding individuals, suggested that boat disturbance disproportionately
affects breeding birds (in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 96-97). Speckman et al. (2004)
found that the approach of small boats caused Marbled Murrelets holding fish
(presumably meant for their chicks) to dive and then swallow the fish. This
behavioral response could be energetically costly for chick-rearing murrelets
and could have implications for reproductive success. Vessel disturbance can
increase energy demands on Marbled Murrelets and could lead to reductions in
fitness under adverse environmental conditions (Agness 2005 in Piatt et al.
2007, p. 142).
In the terrestrial environment, Nelson
(1997) reported at least five documented instances of Marbled Murrelet
mortality resulting from vehicular collisions. Where nests are located in the
vicinity of roads, nesting adults are particularly susceptible to vehicular
traffic risk because they typically approach nests from below (Nelson 1997 in
McShane et al. 2004, p. 2-19).
In sum, the California, Oregon, and
Washington Distinct Population Segment of Marbled Murrelet should be uplisted
to Endangered under the ESA because of other natural or human caused factors
including oil spills, incidental take in fisheries, reduced and altered prey
availability due to overfishing, climate change and oceanographic variability,
and disturbance from motor craft (McShane et al. 2004, p. 5-12). Each of these
factors compounds existing stressors on already-declining populations.
E. Inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms:
The
Federal lands account for the majority of suitable Marbled Murrelet habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California-- approximately 2 million of the 2.2 million estimated total acres of suitable habitat are located on Federal lands (93%) (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-10). Even with ESA protection, Murrelet habitat loss on federal lands is ongoing. Were the Murrelet to be delisted, this habitat loss would be even greater. Since the time of listing, 55,500 acres of high-quality Murrelet habitat have been lost on federal lands due to timber harvest and wildfire (Huff et al. 2006, p. 126).
In the
Loss of Murrelet habitat is ongoing under
the NWFP. Section 7 consultations throughout the 3-state area anticipated the
removal of 10,537 potential nest trees and degradation of another 50 trees. All
but 12 of these trees were removed or degraded in
The BLM's Western
Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) poses a new threat to Murrelet habitat in
Habitat
protection on federal lands is of great importance to Marbled Murrelet
conservation. Were the 3-state DPS to be delisted, there would be very little
protection for the species on private lands. Suzuki and Olson (2008) conclude:
"It is likely that any removal of
conservation measures on federal lands due to a policy change would not be
compensated by the current level of conservation efforts on nonfederal lands"
(p. 1035).
In the 3-state area, non-federal public lands (State and County) and private ownership account for approximately 8% of the total area of suitable Murrelet habitat; Tribal lands account for less than 1% of the total area of suitable habitat (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-10). Since the time of listing, Marbled Murrelet habitat has continued to be lost on nonfederal lands, and were the DPS to be delisted, there would be very few mechanisms to curb ongoing habitat loss. On nonfederal lands since listing, over 300,000 of Murrelet habitat have been lost or anticipated for removal (Huff et al. 2006, p. 137). Nearly 100 percent of lost habitat on nonfederal lands since listing was due to timber harvest (Huff et al. 2006, p.126). From 1994 to 2004, 583,500 acres of Northern Spotted Owl habitat, which is similar to Marbled Murrelet habitat, were lost on non-federal forest lands (Raphael 2006).
Delisting would have dire consequences for
Murrelets in the Northwest Forest Plan area, because it is estimated that over
half of high-quality Murrelet nesting habitat in the NWFP area occurs on
nonfederal lands (Huff et al. 2006, p. vii). Timber production priorities
dominate forest management of most nonfederal forest lands in the
In
In
"The Service is
aware of some occupied habitat on private lands in
Despite Federal and
State listing, FWS has allowed the Oregon Department of Forestry to harvest
known occupied and known nesting sites. As of 2005, three planned and
completed commercial timber operations occurred within Marbled Murrelet
Management Areas on Oregon Department of Forestry lands in northwest
In
In
Marbled Murrelet habitat continues to be
lost even with existing state and federal protections. Timber harvest allowed
under Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) has
continued to eliminate habitat in
Habitat Conservation Plans do not ensure the
protection of Marbled Murrelets on covered lands for several reasons. Nonfederal
landowners are not required to address the recovery of endangered species in an
HCP. HCPs are only intended to maintain populations and habitats above baseline
conditions, which are often determined by the initial population and habitat conditions
upon which the agreement was signed. HCPs thus do not require landowners to
improve habitat quality, increase populations, or create new habitats for
listed species on their land. Further, most HCPs lack monitoring programs and
many existing monitoring programs are insufficient to evaluate the HCP's
success. Moreover, HCPs do not require landowners to modify management in
response to new information because a ‘‘no surprise'' policy guarantees
landowners that they would not be required to incur financial burden beyond the
signed agreement (Suzuki and Olson 2008, p. 1027 - 1028).
In sum, the Marbled Murrelet continues to
lose habitat in
II. The range wide status of the
Marbled Murrelet indicates that the species merits protection under the
Endangered Species Act throughout its range.
As discussed above, the
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listed the Marbled Murrelet as Vulnerable in 2000 and changed the status to Endangered in 2004. The species was last assessed in 2008 and is still considered Endangered because "its population is estimated to have undergone a very rapid reduction over three generations (36 years), owing to a variety of threats" and the decline is "likely to continue" (IUCN 2008).
A. The
Marbled Murrelet is declining sharply in
The Marbled Murrelet has declined in
"Given that declines were estimated for sites over essentially the entire northern range of the species, there is cause for concern about the species' status . . . The declines are likely real, and related to combined and cumulative effects from climate-related changes in the marine ecosystem (most likely the 1977 regime shift) and human activities (logging, gillnet bycatch, oil pollution)" (p. 17-18)
In
"All available evidence points to declining populations in British Columbia . . . [T]hese are high rates of decline for any population and indicate a potentially serious problem for the populations that they represent" (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 53).
Piatt et al. (2007) estimate that in the recent past, Marbled Murrelets in
"The apparent change in population size and rates of decline reported here for murrelets are extraordinary and we therefore put them to the "straight-face test" by asking and answering four questions . . .
Are Declines of This Magnitude Even Possible? Yes .
. . the observed rates of decline for Marbled Murrelets are not out of line
with the range observed in other seabirds in
Is It Possible That the Methods or Statistics Have Led Us to Erroneous Measures of Trend? Yes . . In the end, however, we are struck by the consistency of the data in showing a declining trend, and apparent rates of decline ranging from -5.4 to -31 percent per year in the cases showing statistically significant change. Although the absolute rates could be inaccurate, the weight of statistical evidence leads us to err on the side of caution and assume that a biologically meaningful decline in the core population of murrelets has occurred during the past 15–20 years.
Are There Precedents for Changes of This Magnitude
in Other Marine Wildlife Populations in the
Other sources also corroborate the decline of Marbled Murrelets in
The National Audubon Society WatchList, an independent conservation status assessment of U.S. bird species, places the Marbled Murrelet in the Red category, which represents species considered to be declining rapidly, having very small populations or limited ranges, and facing major conservation threats (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 7).The Exxon Valdez Oil Trustee Council (2006) found that the Marbled Murrelet population in Prince William Sound is in decline, but that the relation of the decline to the oil spill is unclear, because the species is also declining in areas not affected by the spill. They suggest that other factors, including climate and prey shifts, are likely drivers (Integral Consulting, Inc., 2006 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 7).
B. The
1. The
A. The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range:
The
dependence of Marbled Murrelets on old-growth forests for nesting habitat is
well-documented (Ralph et al. 1995, Burger 2002, McShane et al. 2004, Piatt et
al. 2007, p. 99). Marbled Murrelets in
Marbled
Murrelet nesting habitat in
Because
of their use of large, old-growth forest habitats for nesting, Marbled
Murrelets in
In addition to direct loss of nesting trees, Murrelets are
also threatened by habitat fragmentation. In the lower 48, Murrelet nesting
habitat is positively associated with low amounts of edge and fragmentation and
large core areas of old-growth (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-39). Murrelets appear
to abandon highly fragmented areas over time (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-6). The
5-year review states:
"[C]hanges in their (Marbled Murrelet) distribution and abundance have occurred in association with habitat loss and forest fragmentation (Service 1997). If murrelets are forced to utilize marginal habitat, nesting success could decline over time, leading to low nesting density and small populations (Raphael et al. 2002b). The fecundity rates of remaining pairs could also decline. Smaller patch size may also affect murrelet nest success and the number of nests, which may ultimately have long-term consequences on population size" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 4-109).
The negative consequences of fragmentation include effects on population viability and size, local or regional extinctions, displacement, fewer nesting attempts, failure to breed, reduced number of nests, lower nest success, increased predation, crowding in remaining patches and overall reduction of adult survival (Andrén 1995, Raphael et al. 2002b, McShane et al. 2004 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 123). Habitat fragmentation can cause population declines greater than those expected from habitat loss alone, due to edge effects which occur when predation rates are higher at habitat edges relative to interiors (Malt and Lank 2007, p. 160). Predation on Murrelets by Northern Goshawks could be greater in areas where both species are pushed into remaining old-growth patches (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 125).
The
majority of studies have found that Murrelets avoid clear-cut edges and have
lower nest success in more fragmented areas (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 105).
Zharikov et al. (2006) found that nest success was lower near regenerating
clearcuts, perhaps because of the regeneration of berry-producing shrubs which
provide food for Murrelet nest predators. Steller's Jay is a key depredator of Murrelet nests, and several
studies have shown that this Jay is most often found close to forest edges
bordering clearcuts, and is more abundant in fragmented forest than in
contiguous forest (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 123). Zharikov et al. (2006) also
reported that nests were closer to clearcut edges than expected, but as Piatt
et al. (2007) state, "[T]his cannot be interpreted that the murrelets had an
affinity to forest edges or clearcuts, because the distances that were reported
(mean distance to forest edge was 1.9 and 2.4 km at nest sites and randomly
chosen points, respectively), were far greater than the distances that forest
edge-effects are normally found (about 50–100 m)" (p. 105). Fragmentation also
increases solar radiation and wind in the forest canopy which could affect the
distribution of epiphytes, remove moss from nesting platforms, or cause
overheating of eggs, chicks, or incubating adults (McShane et al. 2004, p.
6-6).
Some level of timber harvest has occurred
throughout the entire old-growth forest nesting range of the Marbled Murrelet in
Piatt
et al. (2007) posit that the
Several independent studies show a significant
reduction of nesting habitat due to industrial logging for Marbled Murrelet in
Marbled Murrelet populations in
Throughout the forested regions of
In addition to logging, Murrelet habitat in
Marbled Murrelet populations in
C. Disease or predation:
Marbled Murrelets are vulnerable to predation in all life stages, and populations of species that prey on Murrelet eggs, hatchlings, or adults are increasing. The 5-year review for the listed portion of the species states, "[I]t appears that the threat of predation on murrelets is greater than previously anticipated" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-29). Recent studies in the lower 48 have shown that the majority of Murrelet nests have failed and that the majority of known nest failures are due to predation (Ibid.). Piatt et al. (2007) analyzed Christmas Bird Count data and found that in British Columbia or Alaska, populations of five of seven known Murrelet predators have increased substantially (by 2–8 fold) during the past 30 years, including Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Common Ravens (Corvus corax), and Steller's Jays (Cyanocitta stelleri) (p. 143). They state:
"Although we have little quantitative data with which to assess the numerical impact of predation on murrelets, it is prudent not to underestimate the importance of this powerful force in regulating animal populations (Sinclair and others, 1998, Parrish and others, 2001, Springer and others, 2003). Predation is one of only a few factors we have identified that has the potential to cause the rates of change that we observed in murrelet populations" (p. 143).
An increase in the abundance of native predators can cause declines in avian prey populations (Cote and Sutherland 1997, Parrish et al. 2001 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 126).
Marcstrom et al. (1989) found that an approximate doubling or tripling of the predator population, similar to the observed population increases of Murrelet predators in British Columbia, caused a rate of decline in prey as great as that observed for Marbled Murrelets in Alaska and British Columbia (Piatt et al. 2007, p.126).
In addition to mortality, predation can have multiple indirect effects on prey species including altered foraging behavior and altered timing of breeding (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 126). Predation pressure exacerbates the effects of habitat degradation, fragmentation, and destruction, and can directly slow or prevent population recovery (Ibid.).
Habitat fragmentation increases Murrelet vulnerability to nest predation. Nelson and Hamer (1995) found lower nesting success at sites located closer to forest edges and clearcuts. Burger et al. (2004) found that predation risk at Marbled Murrelet nests was higher near clearcuts and roads than in interior forests, and higher in fragmented landscapes than in relatively intact old-growth forests. Zharikov et al. (2006) found that nest success was lower near regenerating clearcuts, perhaps because of the regeneration of berry-producing shrubs which provide food for Murrelet nest predators, such as Steller's Jay. Steller's Jay is a key depredator of Murrelet nests, and several studies have shown that this Jay is most often found close to forest edges bordering clearcuts, and is more abundant in fragmented forest than in contiguous forest (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 123). Malt and Lank (2007) found that Murrelet nest disturbances by avian predators were significantly more frequent at hard edges relative to interiors, but less frequent at soft edges, and they did not find any edge effects at natural-edged sites (p. 160). The highest risk of nest predation has been documented in areas close to humans, likely because of food sources for predators such as corvids.
In addition to increased levels of nest predation, the threat of high adult predation by raptors may have increased in some areas due to increased or recovering populations of falcons, eagles, and possibly some hawks. Predation on adult Murrelets likely has more negative consequences for population viability than take of chicks or eggs due to the importance of adult survivorship in demographic models (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-29).
Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus),
Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis), Sharp-shinned Hawks (A.
striatus), and Common Ravens are all known or suspected to prey upon adult
Marbled Murrelets. Lewis et al. (2006) found that Marbled Murrelets are an
important prey item for Northern Goshawks in
Likely nest predators that occur commonly within the
There is a dearth of information on the incidence of disease
in Marbled Murrelet populations in
"Murrelets will likely be affected by one or more diseases or biotoxins in the near future because of the cumulative effects of stressors in both their marine and forest environments. The potential for murrelets to contract West Nile Virus seems high given their nesting habits, the abundance of mosquitoes in forests, the presence of the disease in other forest-nesting bird species, and the proximity of many murrelet nesting areas to open fields, clearcuts, or areas of human activity where corvids are abundant. . . Recent emergence of bacterial, fungal, parasitic, and viral diseases and biotoxins in seabirds poses an increasing threat to Marbled Murrelets" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 3-68 - 3-72).
The 5-year review also asserts that the emergence of disease in seabirds could be an indicator of deteriorating ecological conditions:
"The recent emergence
of diseases in free-ranging birds in coastal marine systems is an indicator of
declining ecological integrity. Diseases in seabirds are expected to increase
significantly in the near future as ecological stressors in the marine
environment, primarily coastal pollution, increase. Combined with other
environmental stressors such as ocean climate changes and habitat loss,
diseases may be especially significant with respect to species with declining
populations" (McShane et al. 2004, p. 6-34).
It seems likely that increased incidence of
disease is a potential threat not only to the lower 48 Murrelet population, but
also to populations in
Predation pressure on the
D. Other natural
or human caused factors:
Other natural or human caused factors which
threaten the Marbled Murrelet in
1. Oil-Spill Mortality
Marbled
Murrelets are highly vulnerable to oil spills because they remain at sea most
of their lives, forage by diving, and prefer near-shore habitats which coincide
with high levels of vessel traffic (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 1). Oil pollution has
been and remains a significant problem for Murrelets throughout their range
(Carter and Kuletz 1995, McShane et al. 2004, Piatt et al. 2007). Murrelets are
jeopardized both by large-scale catastrophic events, such as the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill which killed 10,000 – 22,000 Marbled Murrelets, and by chronic
low-level exposure to oil pollution (McShane et al. 2004). It is possible that
tens to hundreds of Murrelets are killed per year in
In
the cold waters typical of
There were approximately 1800 vessel-related
spills and 2300 spills from other sources in coastal
In
addition to direct mortality, oil spills have other negative affects on seabird
populations. High numbers of vessels concentrate in spill areas for response,
clean-up, and monitoring efforts, which can displace Murrelets from preferred
foraging areas (Carter and Kuletz 1995, Kuletz 1996 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 74).
Disruption in Murrelet distribution was observed following both the Exxon
Valdez spill and the
In
In
"A major concern
in
Although it is difficult to quantify the extent of Marbled Murrelet mortality due to oil-spills in Alaska and British Columbia, it is well documented that chronic oil spills are occurring and that this is causing mortality of Marbled Murrelets, which in conjunction with other threats in the marine and terrestrial environments, is contributing to the precipitous population decline the species is experiencing in its Northern Range. Piatt et al. (2007) state:
"We have evidence
that oil pollution and gill-nets kill hundreds to thousands of Marbled
Murrelets each year in
Large catastrophic oil spills also pose a
significant threat to the Murrelet in
"The risks from a
large catastrophic oil spill, similar to the Nestucca spill (Burger 1993a)
or the EVOS (Piatt et al. 1990), are significant and if such a spill coincided
with seasonal aggregations of murrelets it could cause a serious local
population decline. Oil spills would kill a large proportion of adult birds,
resulting in significant demographic impacts (Boulanger et al. 1999)" (p. 78).
Because of the threat of oil-spill mortality
and other threats, the Marbled Murrelet deserves Endangered Species Act
protection in
2. Incidental Take in Fisheries
The incidental capture of birds in gillnets is
a well-documented effect of fisheries on Marbled Murrelets (Piatt et al. 2007,
p. 78). In the past, gill-net mortality has had significant impacts on some Murrelet
populations (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 78). Reduced population size is the chief
long-term impact to Murrelet populations from gill-net mortality. Reduced
breeding success and loss of use of certain nesting locations could also occur.
If only small numbers of birds nest in particular locations, then the loss of a
few individuals could lead to loss of use of those nesting areas. McShane et
al. (2004) state, "Regardless of the level of impacts, they are additive to
other factors negatively affecting murrelet populations" (McShane et al. 2004,
p. 5-24).
In Murrelet population simulation models,
bycatch mortality has strong impacts because of the importance of adult
survivorship in sustaining populations.
Because of this, and because high mortality can occur in specific areas,
Piatt et al. (2007) caution, "Murrelets are highly vulnerable to gillnet
fisheries" (p. 92).
In
Juvenile Murrelets are also particularly susceptible
to gillnet mortality when fishing occurs later in the breeding season (Piatt et
al. 2007, p. 88).
It is estimated that at least 500 Marbled
Murrelets are taken annually in fisheries bycatch in
Over 15 types of fisheries operate in
Marbled Murrelet mortality in gill-nets is
known to be occurring in fisheries in
3. Effects of Sports Fishery on Marbled
Murrelets
Sports-fishing can have negative effects on
Marbled Murrelets due to injury from hooks and lines and also from disturbance
caused by recreational boats in near-shore waters (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 93).
Murrelets have been hooked on sports-fishing lures in several areas in
4. Reduced and Altered Prey Availability due to Overfishing
Both
Marbled Murrelet distribution and productivity is directly influenced by the
quantity and quality of available prey (Peery
et al. 2004b, Becker and Beissinger 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 71). Prey
availability is a critical determinant of reproductive success for piscivorous
seabirds, and forage fishes differ
substantially in fat content, energy density, and quality (Anthony et al. 2000).
There can be also be differences in energy density within the same fish
species, depending on season, environmental conditions, sex, and/or physical
condition (Robards et al 1999a, Anthony et al. 2000 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72).
The nutritional quality of prey affects rates of delivery to chicks, chick
growth, and chick survival (Golet et al. 2000, Suryan et al. 2002, Wanless et
al. 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). For seabird chick growth, prey quality
may be even more important than prey quantity (Kitaysky et al. 1999; Wanless et
al. 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). Prey quality and quantity also affects
parental condition and predation rates. If prey quality or quantity is low,
parents must spend more time capturing and delivering prey, which is both
energetically expensive and increases exposure to raptors and nest predators
(Peery et al. 2004b, Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72).
The
"junk food hypothesis," originally suggested as a potential explanation for the
dramatic decline of Steller's sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in the
In
There is no restriction on the exploitation
of forage species in
"Given the increase in salmon-pen aquaculture
in
The extent to which Marbled Murrelet populations
are affected by reduced prey availability by fishing practices in
5. Reduced and
Altered Prey Availability due to Marine Change
Large-scale shifts in marine climate contribute
to biological regime shifts which affect the abundance and type of forage fish available
for Marbled Murrelets and other seabirds (Anderson and Piatt 1999, Benson and
Trites 2002, Chavez et al. 2003 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 71). Most Marbled
Murrelet prey species consume macro-zooplankton including copepods and
euphausiids. Murrelets are thus linked to changes in ocean and climate
conditions which influence zooplankton abundance, distribution, and species
composition (Zebdi and Collie 1995, Williams and Quinn II 2000, Mackas et al.
1998, 2001, Boldt et al. 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 72). The El
Niño-Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and other factors that affect
ocean temperatures and current flows impact prey distribution and alter
Murrelet foraging locations and success rates (Ainley et al.1995 in Huff et al.
2006, p. 20).
In the
Murrelet populations in
Piatt et al. (2007) state:
"[C]hanges in
marine climate and so-called "regime shifts" have clearly had pervasive impacts
on marine communities in the
Global climate change is likely exacerbating the effects of
regime shifts. Following the 1977 regime shift, the
"We hypothesize that the overall
climate change occurring in the Arctic, as indicated by warmer atmospheric and
oceanic temperatures and loss of 15% of sea ice and tundra area over the
previous two decades is making the
The combined effects of global climate
change and natural regime shifts are likely contributing to the decline of
Marbled Murrelets in their northern range. Piatt et al. (2007) conclude that combined
and cumulative effects from climate-related changes in the marine ecosystem and
human activities such as logging, gillnet bycatch, and oil pollution are
responsible for the observed population decline of Marbled Murrelets in Alaska
and British Columbia (p. 2).
Reduced prey availability due to marine
change has direct repercussions for Marbled Murrelet populations and obviates
the need for the protection of the species in the northern portion of its range
under the Endangered Species Act, especially in light of the terrestrial
threats which the species also faces in
6. Vessel Disturbance
Marbled
Murrelets forage in the near-shore environment, which makes them highly
susceptible to disturbance from vessel traffic (Piatt et al. 2007, p. 1). Various studies have indicated that
disturbance from motorized vessels can have negative affects on avian species
including decreased reproductive success, behavior changes with consequent
energetic impacts, distributional shifts and habitat displacement, and reduced
access to optimal foraging areas (reviewed in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 95-96).
Several studies have indicated that Brachyramphus
murrelets are displaced by vessel traffic, and possibly impacted
energetically. Hamer and Thompson (1997) found that nearly 70% of Murrelets
moved a short distance away when a vessel approached (in Piatt et al. 2007, p.
96-97). Kuletz et al. (2003) found that Kittlitz's Murrelets were temporarily
displaced by boat traffic and that when boats were present fewer birds made
foraging dives and more birds flew off the water. Hentze (2006) found that single
birds were more likely to flush, and because single birds are more likely to be
breeding individuals, suggested that boat disturbance disproportionately
affects breeding birds (in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 96-97). Speckman et al. (2004)
found that the approach of small boats caused Marbled Murrelets holding fish
(presumably meant for their chicks) to dive and then swallow the fish. This
behavioral response could be energetically costly for chick-rearing murrelets
and could have implications for reproductive success. Vessel disturbance can
increase energy demands on Marbled Murrelets and could lead to reductions in
fitness under adverse environmental conditions (Agness 2005 in Piatt et al.
2007, p. 142).
Boat traffic is
inevitable in many areas frequented by Murrelets, and the degree to which the
species will habituate to this disturbance is unknown. Other species have shown
only limited ability to habituate to disturbances (Burger and Gochfeld 1990, Bleich
et al. 1994, in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 95). In recent years vessel traffic has
increased in many remote areas of
In sum, the Marbled Murrelet clearly merits
Endangered Species Act protection in
E. Inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms:
1.
The Marbled Murrelet is not adequately
protected by existing regulatory mechanisms on federal, state, tribal, or
private lands in
There have been no federal efforts or
directives aimed specifically at conservation of the Marbled Murrelet in
The Marbled Murrelet occurs in the
In an analysis of change in Murrelet habitat
suitability in
The
In January 2008 the Record of Decision was signed for the
new
The most recent Land Management Plan for the
Chugach was developed in 2002, and sets the allowable sale quantity of timber
at 6.3 MMBF for 2002-2007, and then 10.6 MMBF for the following decade. In the
State Lands
The Marbled Murrelet has no special status
with the State of
Timber harvest on state lands is a direct
threat to the Marbled Murrelet. There are no regulations prohibiting the
logging of Murrelet nesting habitat on state lands. Approximately 15% of
potential Murrelet habitat is owned by the state (areas within 60 km of shore
in southeast, south-central, and southwest
Private Lands
The Marbled Murrelet does not have any
protection on private lands in
Forests on private lands in
Native Lands
There are no regulations to protect Marbled
Murrelet nesting habitat on Native lands in
Marine Habitat in
There are no Federal or State directives to
conserve Marbled Murrelets or their foraging habitats at-sea in
It is clear that existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect Marbled Murrelets and their terrestrial
and marine habitat in
2.
Federal
The Marbled
Murrelet is considered a threatened species in
Under SARA, a
Recovery Strategy sets out the overall strategy for recovering a listed
species, and Recovery Action Plans provide the details and timing of recovery
implementation. The Recovery Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet is still under
governmental review and has yet to be implemented. Details of the Recovery
Strategy, associated Recovery Action plans, and their implementation schedules
are not yet available.
The Recovery Strategy
is based on the 2002 Conservation Assessment of Marbled Murrelets in British
Columbia. The goal of the recovery strategy is to limit the loss of
Murrelet population and nesting habitat to less than 30% of 2002 levels by
2032, with the expectation that human-induced population decline will cease
after 2032. This strategy is not adequate to protect the B.C. Marbled Murrelet,
however, because there are no provisions that actually limit the loss of
nesting habitat. Evidence of
stand occupancy by Murrelets does not prevent the harvest of old-growth forests
in
Provincial
The majority (about 80 percent) of Murrelet
nesting habitat in
"In
The
Forest Practices Board, an independent public watchdog group in British
Columbia that investigates how well industry and government meet the intent of
British Columbia's forest practices legislation, released a report in 2004
concluding that conservation of Marbled Murrelet habitat under the Forest and
Range Practices Act is limited and very slow (Ibid.).Since the Marbled Murrelet was listed as Threatened in 1990, about
400,000 ha of possible habitat has been logged, representing habitat that could
likely support about 24,000 murrelets (Dechesne-Mansiere 2004). In March 2005,
the Forest Board issued a strongly worded condemnation of the provincial
government, stating that "there is a systemic failure in government policy to
protect threatened species such as Marbled Murrelets on crown forest lands" (Forest
Practices Board 2005 in Piatt et al. 2007, p. 137).
Marine Habitat
Existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect
Marbled Murrelets in their marine environment in
In sum, even though the Murrelet is listed as Threatened
both federally and provincially in
Conclusion
In light of the drastic population declines the Marbled Murrelet has undergone in the northern portion of its range, and given the historical and ongoing loss of Murrelet habitat in British Columbia and Alaska, the ongoing threats to the species posed by gill-net mortality, reduced and altered prey availability, and marine climate change, the increased risks of predation and disease, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, the Marbled Murrelet clearly qualifies for protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act in Alaska and British Columbia.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
On behalf of all co-signers,
Tierra R. Curry, M.S. D. Noah Greenwald, M.S.
Conservation Biologist Biodiversity Program Director, Science Director
Center for Biological Diversity Center for Biological Diversity
Literature Cited
Albert, D., and J. Schoen, J. 2006. Conservation assessment and resource synthesis for the coastal forests and mountain ecoregion in southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest, in Schoen, J. and Dovichin, E., eds., Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: Conservation assessment and resource synthesis: Anchorage, Audubon Alaska and Nature Conservancy.
Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource
Management Plans of the
Dechesne-Mansiere, S.B.C., 2004. Marbled Murrelet habitat
management in
Earthjustice. 2008. FOIA documents. Available online: http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/murrelet-macdonald-foia-documents.pdf
Grantham, B.A., F. Chan, K.J. Nielsen, D.S. Fox, J.A. Barth, A. Huyer, J. Lubchenco, and B.A. Menge. 2004. Upwelling-driven nearshore hypoxia signals ecosystem and oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific. Nature 429(6993): 749-754.
Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson, J.
Baldwin, tech. coords. 2006.
IUCN. International
Kuletz, K.J., 2005, Foraging behavior and productivity of a
non-colonial seabird, the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus),
relative to prey and habitat: Dissertation,
Lewis, S.B., K. Titus, K., and M.R. Fuller. 2006. Northern
goshawk diet during the nesting season in southeast
Malt, J. and D. Lank. 2007. Temporal dynamics of edge effects on nest predation risk
for the marbled murrelet. Biological Conservation 140: 160-173.
McShane, C., T. Hamer, H. Carter, G. Swartzman, V. Friesen, D. Ainley, R. Tressler,
K. Nelson, A. Burger, L. Spear, T. Mohagen, R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle,
C. Strong, and J. Keany. 2004. Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of the
marbled murrelet in
EDAW, Inc.
Region 1.
Norcross, B.L., Brown, E.D., Foy, R.J., Frandsen, M., Gay, S.M., Kline, T.C. Jr., Mason, D.M., Patrick, E.V., Paul, A.J., and Stokesbury, K.D.E., 2001, Synthesis of life history and ecology of juvenile Pacific herring in Prince William Sound, Alaska: Fisheries Oceanography, v. 10, no. Suppl. 1, p. 42-57.
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1995.
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2005. Final Rip Tide Pre-Operations Report. Astoria District. June 21, 2005.
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2008.
Osterblom, H., O. Olsson, T. Blenckner, and R.W. Furness.
2008. Junk food in marine ecosystems. Oikos 117(7): 967-977.
Piatt, J.F., Kuletz, K.J., Burger, A.E., Hatch, S.A.,
Friesen, V.L., Birt, T.P. , Arimitsu, M.L., Drew, G.S., Harding, A.M.A., and
K.S. Bixler. 2007. Status review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) in
Piatt, J.F., and R.G. Ford. 1993. Distribution and abundance
of Marbled Murrelets in
PICES (Scientific Report No. 28). 2005. Report of the Study
Group on Fisheries and Ecosystem Responses to Recent Regime Shifts. Jacquelynne
R. King (Ed.). North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES),
www.pices.int/publications/scientific_reports/Report28/Rep_28_FERRRS.pdf#page=7.
Rabot, T. 2007. Review of Service Decisions under the Endangered Species Act Involving the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, in Region 1 (2001-2006). Memorandum to the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service. June 28, 2007. FWS/R1/AES.
Raphael, M.G. 2006. Conservation of listed species: the northern spotted owl
and marbled murrelet. Chapter 7 in R.W. Haynes, B.T. Bormann, D.C. Lee, and
J.R. Martin (technical editors), Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 Years
(1994–2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR.
Smith, C. 2005. Preliminary Biological Assessment of the Rip
Tide Timber
Smith, C. 2003. Memorandum to T. Scoggins. Preliminary
Biological Assessment of the Simmons Ridge Combination Timber
Smith, J.L., and Morgan, K.H. 2005.Assessment of seabird bycatch in longline
and net fisheries in
Suzuki, N. and Olson, D.H. 2008. Options for biodiversity conservation in
managed forest landscapes of multiple ownerships in
R10-MB-603f. 35 pp.
Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register: October 2, 2008. Volume 73, Number 192. Pages
57314-57317.
van Hees, W.S.,
2005. Timber resource statistics of south-central