[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1704]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 27, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC33

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to 
designate critical habitat for the threatened marbled murrelet 
(Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and 
California under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act). The 
marbled murrelet is a small seabird of the Alcidae family that forages 
in the near-shore marine environment and nests in large trees in 
coniferous forest along the coast.
    Proposed critical habitat units are located on Federal lands. This 
proposed critical habitat designation would result in additional 
protection requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to 
activities that are funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal 
agencies. Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific information 
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
including particular areas in the designation.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by April 
27, 1994. Public hearing requests must be received by March 14, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to the Assistant Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Ecological Services, 911 Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland, 
Oregon 97232. The complete file for this rule is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dale Hall, Assistant Regional 
Director for Ecological Services, at the above address (503/231-6159).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Action

    On January 15, 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
received a petition to list the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 
marmoratus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California as a 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). On October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40479), the Service published a 
finding that the petition had presented substantial information 
indicating that the requested action may be warranted. Because of the 
increased research effort and new information available, the status 
review period was reopened, with the concurrence of the petitioners, 
from March 5, 1990, through May 31, 1990 (55 FR 4913).
    On June 20, 1991 (56 FR 28362), the Service published a proposal to 
list the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California as a 
threatened species. The comment period was reopened for 30 days on 
January 30, 1992 (57 FR 3804), to gather the most updated information 
on the species. Following a court order by the U.S. District Court for 
the Western District of Washington denying a 6-month extension, the 
Service published the final rule listing the marbled murrelet in 
Washington, Oregon, and California as a threatened species on October 
1, 1992 (57 FR 45328).
    On November 2, 1993, the U.S. District Court for the Western 
District of Washington granted a motion by the plaintiffs in Marbled 
Murrelet v. Babbitt to compel a proposed designation of critical 
habitat. In the ruling, the court ordered the Secretary to propose 
designating critical habitat for the marbled murrelet no later than 
January 21, 1994, and to make a final designation of critical habitat 
as soon as reasonably possible under applicable law.

Ecological Considerations

    The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a small seabird 
of the Alcidae family. The North American subspecies (Brachyramphus 
marmoratus marmoratus) ranges from the Aleutian Archipelago in Alaska 
eastward to Cook Inlet, Kodiak Island, Kenai Peninsula, and Prince 
William Sound, south along the coast through the Alexander Archipelago 
of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon to central 
California. Some wintering birds are found in southern California. A 
separate subspecies (Brachyramphus marmoratus perdix) occurs in Asia.
    Marbled murrelets spend the majority of their lives at sea, where 
they feed primarily on small fish and invertebrates in near-shore 
marine waters. Marbled murrelets nest inland, predominately in older, 
large-limbed trees in dense forest. Marbled murrelets have been found 
occasionally on rivers and inland lakes (Carter and Sealy 1986).
    The marbled murrelet is a social species that is semi-colonial 
around the breeding site. Two nests discovered in Washington during 
1990 were located within 46 meters (150 feet) of each other (Hamer and 
Cummins 1990), and detections of marbled murrelets exhibiting behaviors 
associated with nesting activity are often aggregated.
    Nesting occurs over an extended period from early April to late 
September (Carter and Sealy 1987). Marbled murrelets have been observed 
at some inland sites during all months of the year (Paton et al. 1987, 
Naslund 1993). During the breeding period, adult marbled murrelets lay 
a single egg in a tree containing structures suitable for nesting 
(e.g., limbs at least 13 centimeters (cm) (5 inches) in diameter, 
mistletoe infections, witches brooms, deformities). Both sexes incubate 
the egg in alternating 24-hour shifts for approximately 30 days, and 
the young fledge after an additional 28 days (Simons 1980, Hirsch et 
al. 1981, Singer et al. 1991). Inland flights by adults feeding young 
are made from ocean feeding areas to nest sites at all times of the 
day, but most often at dusk and dawn (Hamer and Cummins 1991). Chicks 
are fed at least once a day. The adults carry only one fish at a time 
to the young (Carter and Sealy 1987; Hamer and Cummins 1991; Singer et 
al. 1992; Nelson, Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, pers. 
comm. 1992). The young are altricial, but remain in the nest longer 
than young of most other alcids. Before leaving the nest, the young 
molt into a distinctive juvenile plumage. Fledglings fly directly from 
the nest to the sea rather than exploring the forest environment first 
(Hamer and Cummins 1991).
    For the purpose of proposing critical habitat, the Service has 
concentrated on two components of marbled murrelet habitat: (1) Nesting 
habitat; and (2) habitat needed to support foraging. Forest stands with 
conditions that will support nesting marbled murrelets are referred to 
as ``suitable nesting habitat.''
    Throughout the forested portion of the species' range, marbled 
murrelets nest near the marine environment in forest stands containing 
characteristics of older forests (Binford et al. 1975; Sealy and Carter 
1984; Carter and Sealy 1987; Carter and Erickson 1988; Marshall 1988; 
Paton and Ralph 1988; Nelson 1989; Burger, University of Victoria, in 
litt. 1990; Hamer and Cummins 1990, 1991; Quinlan and Hughes 1990; 
Kuletz 1991; Nelson in litt. 1991; Singer et al. 1991, 1992; Nelson 
1992; Nelson et al. 1992).
    Historically, nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet was widely 
dispersed, particularly in the wetter portions of its range in 
Washington, Oregon, and California. This habitat was generally found in 
very large, contiguous blocks.
    Currently, the threatened population of marbled murrelets nests in 
most of the major types of coniferous forests in the western portions 
of Washington, Oregon, and north-central California, wherever older 
forests remain in close proximity to the coast. Habitat in the drier 
parts of the listed species' range (portions of southern Oregon and 
northern California) is less continuous, occurring naturally in a 
mosaic pattern. Although marbled murrelet nesting habitat is somewhat 
variable over the range of the species, some general habitat attributes 
are common throughout its range, including nesting structure, canopy 
closure, stand size, tree species, landscape condition, and distance 
from the marine environment.
    Individual tree attributes that provide conditions suitable for 
nesting include branches at least 13 cm (5 inches) in diameter, 
deformities (e.g., broken tops), mistletoe infections, witches brooms, 
or other structures providing a platform for nesting (Carter and Sealy 
1987; Hamer and Cummins 1990, 1991; Singer et al. 1991, 1992; Ralph et 
al. 1993). These structures are typically found in old-growth and 
mature stands, but may be found in a variety of stand types including 
younger stands containing remnant large trees.
    Sixty-one tree nests have been located in North America, including 
35 in the range of the listed population (6 in Washington, 20 in 
Oregon, and 9 in California) (Binford et al. 1975; Varoujean et al. 
1989; Burger 1990; Quinlan and Hughes 1990; Hamer and Cummins 1990, 
1991; Kuletz 1991; Singer et al. 1991, 1992; Nelson unpubl. data). All 
nests in Washington, Oregon, and California were located in old-growth 
trees that were greater than 81 cm (32 inches) diameter at breast 
height (dbh). Most nests have been located on large or deformed 
branches with a moss covering; however, a few nests have been located 
on smaller branches, and some nests were situated on conifer needles or 
sticks rather than moss.
    Canopy closure over the nest site provides protection from 
predation and weather. Such canopy closure may be provided by trees 
adjacent to the nest tree and/or by the nest tree itself. Nests are 
typically located high above ground and usually have good overhead 
protection. Such locations allow easy access and provide shelter from 
potential predators and weather.
    Although a few nests have been located in relatively small stands, 
most nests have been found in larger stands with sufficient internal 
structure to minimize the risk of predation at the nest (i.e., minimize 
habitat for species known to prey on marbled murrelets) and provide 
suitable climatic conditions for nesting (Nelson in litt. 1992). 
Marbled murrelets are more commonly encountered in larger stands of 
older forests in California (greater than 202 hectares (500 acres)) 
than in smaller stands (less than 40 hectares (100 acres)). However, 
marbled murrelets have been detected in smaller isolated stands in 
Oregon, with one confirmed nest in a 3-hectare (8-acre) stand (Nelson 
unpubl. data).
    General landscape condition also may affect use of suitable nesting 
habitat. In Washington, marbled murrelet detections increased when old-
growth/mature forests comprised over 30 percent of the landscape. Hamer 
and Cummins (1990) found that detections of marbled murrelets decreased 
in Washington when the percent of clearcut/meadow on the landscape 
increased above 25 percent.
    Nests have been located in stands dominated by coastal redwood 
(Sequoia sempervirens), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), mountain 
hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western 
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red-cedar (Thuja plicata) 
(Binford et al. 1975; Quinlan and Hughes 1990; Hamer and Cummins 1991; 
Singer et al. 1991, 1992; Nelson et al. in prep). The nests themselves 
have been located in Douglas-fir, coastal redwood, western hemlock, 
western red-cedar, and Sitka spruce trees. These species of trees have 
growth forms that produce nesting opportunities and are susceptible to 
damage (disease, breakage, wind damage) that may produce nesting 
structure.
    Critical habitat units should occur at a distance from the marine 
environment consistent with the flight and energetic capabilities of 
marbled murrelets. The farthest inland known occupied site is 84 
kilometers (52 miles) in Washington. The farthest inland known 
detections in Oregon and California are 61 and 56 kilometers (38 and 35 
miles), respectively. Occupied sites are defined as forest stands where 
marbled murrelets have been observed exhibiting behaviors indicative of 
likely nesting activity.
    Northwestern forests typically require 200 to 250 years to attain 
the attributes necessary to support marbled murrelet nesting, though 
characteristics of nesting habitat are sometimes developed in younger 
redwood forests. Forests with old-age remnant trees remaining from 
earlier stands may also develop into nesting habitat more quickly than 
those without. These remnant attributes are products of fire, wind 
storms, or previous logging operations that did not remove all of the 
trees. Other factors that may affect the time required to develop 
suitable nesting characteristics include site productivity and aspects 
of the site microclimate.
    It is difficult to locate actual nests for a species such as the 
marbled murrelet, which may only show activity near the nest once per 
day and under low light conditions. Therefore, identification of 
occupied sites and suitable habitat are the best indicators of 
potential nest sites. Active nests, egg shell fragments, or young found 
on the forest floor, birds seen flying through the forest beneath the 
canopy or landing in trees, birds seen circling above the canopy, birds 
heard calling from a stationary perch, or large numbers of birds heard 
calling from within and around a stand are all strong indicators of 
occupied habitat. Their semi-colonial nature makes marbled murrelets 
easier to detect at high-use sites, though some areas (e.g., highly 
fragmented habitat with small stand size) support low numbers of 
reproducing pairs, making detection difficult.
    Breeding populations of marbled murrelets are not distributed 
continuously throughout the species' range. In California, there are 
three separate areas where marbled murrelets concentrate at sea, 
corresponding to the three largest remaining blocks of coastal old-
growth forest inland. These are separated by areas of little or no 
habitat where few marbled murrelets are found at sea.
    A large break in the breeding distribution is located at the 
southern portion of the range in California, where approximately 480 
kilometers (300 miles) separate the southern breeding population in San 
Mateo County from the next known occupied site to the north in Humboldt 
County. This reach contained marbled murrelets prior to extensive 
logging in the area (Paton and Ralph 1988). Another distribution gap is 
located between Tillamook County in Oregon and the Olympic Peninsula in 
Washington, where few birds and occupied sites are known. The degree of 
interaction that occurs across these gaps in distribution is unknown.
    Very little habitat remains at low elevations in the Puget Trough 
area of Washington. Lands surrounding the Puget Trough, particularly to 
the east and south, are highly urbanized or developed for agricultural 
use, forcing marbled murrelets to fly up to 25 miles inland to reach 
the first available suitable nesting habitat.
    Although marbled murrelets have been heard and/or seen at some 
inland sites during most months of the year (Paton et al. 1987, Naslund 
1993), detectability at inland sites increases during the spring and 
reaches a peak late in summer coincident with the peak in breeding 
activity (Paton and Ralph 1988, Nelson 1989). In early fall, the number 
of inland detections decreases markedly, presumably because birds have 
completed breeding and are undergoing a flightless molt at sea. It is 
unknown why marbled murrelets visit inland sites during the non-
breeding season. Researchers hypothesize that birds attending these 
areas in fall and winter may be experienced resident birds and that 
these visits may aid in maintaining nest sites, nesting territories, 
and pair bonds (Naslund 1993).
    Marbled murrelets are currently experiencing very low recruitment 
rates. Juvenile to adult ratios of marbled murrelets are between 0.012 
and 0.035 (i.e., there are between 1 and 4 juvenile fledglings of that 
year observed for every 100 adults observed) (Strong et al. 1993). 
These results are supported by survey data collected at points along 
the central coast of Oregon during 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992. 
The average percentage of juveniles in these counts were approximately 
1, 4, 2, 5, and 1 percent, respectively (Nelson and Hardin in prep.). 
Surveys conducted in California have indicated similar juvenile to 
adult ratios since 1989 (Ralph, U.S. Forest Service, Redwood Sciences 
Lab, pers. comm. 1992). If the juvenile to adult ratios observed in the 
marine environment are accurate, then only 1 to 5 percent of the 
observed population is successfully reproducing, that is, successfully 
fledging young.
    Average annual adult survival for stable populations of several 
other alcid species is approximately 90 percent (Hudson 1985). Alcids 
typically experience their highest rates of mortality prior to the 
attainment of breeding age. The average survival to breeding age for 
alcids is 29 percent (Hudson 1985). The combination of low fledging 
rates of marbled murrelets, as demonstrated by the juvenile to adult 
ratios, and low survival to breeding age are likely to produce 
recruitment rates far below those required to maintain present 
population levels.
    Based upon the longevity of other alcids (Hudson 1985), marbled 
murrelets are estimated to live an average of 10 years. With such long-
lived species, recruitment rates are a more accurate indicator of 
species condition than population counts. At-sea counts of adult 
marbled murrelets may reflect a large portion of non-breeders that will 
not contribute to the future population. If the current low recruitment 
rates are the result of recent losses of nesting opportunities, counts 
of adults may not reflect the sustainable population until the 
population adjusts to remaining nesting habitat.
    Another possible explanation for the low juvenile to adult ratios 
is that individuals are attempting to reproduce, but the young of these 
birds are experiencing high mortality rates prior to reaching the 
ocean. Predation at marbled murrelet nest sites may have significant 
impacts on the population. Predation by corvids (common crows (Corvus 
brachyrhynchos), ravens (Corvus corax), and Steller's jays (Cyanocitta 
stelleri)), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), and sharp-shinned 
hawks (Accipiter striatus) have been identified as causes of marbled 
murrelet nest failure. From 1974 through 1991, approximately 71 percent 
of all known marbled murrelet nests in the Pacific Northwest failed; 70 
percent of these failed due to predation by these species (Nelson in 
litt. 1992).
    Corvids are often considered ``edge species'' that have been found 
to increase in numbers with increased forest fragmentation (Andren et 
al. 1985, Wilcove 1985, Small and Hunter 1988). Similar findings have 
been reported in central Oregon regarding great horned owls (Johnson 
1993). In addition, corvid predation on small bird nests is known to 
increase with increased forest fragmentation and/or decreased distance 
of nests from a forest edge (Gates and Gysel 1978, Andren et al. 1985, 
Small and Hunter 1988, Yahner and Scott 1988). The marbled murrelet's 
main defense against predation is camouflage. The ability to 
successfully hide from arboreal predators is likely related to the 
number of nesting (or hiding) opportunities available. Timber harvest 
reduces the number of nesting opportunities through the removal of 
nesting habitat within the landscape, thus reducing the area predators 
must search.
    In addition to effects on marbled murrelet nesting habitat, the 
species is affected by impacts and threats to their marine foraging 
habitat and food supply, as well as direct mortality from human 
activities such as oil spills and gill netting. Attributes of foraging 
habitat include distance from shore, prey populations, and potential 
disturbances.
    Marbled murrelets are typically distributed in the marine 
environment in a manner that roughly corresponds to the location of 
concentrations of inland nesting habitat. Marbled murrelets generally 
forage in near-shore marine waters.
    Marine systems producing sufficient prey to support a stable or 
growing population of marbled murrelets are important foraging habitat 
for the species. Marbled murrelets have been reported feeding on a 
variety of small fish and invertebrates, including Pacific herring 
(Clupea harengus), Pacific sandlance (Ammodytes hexapterus), northern 
anchovy (Engraulis mordax), capelin (Mallotus villosus), smelt, 
euphids, (Eupahsia pacifica, Thysanoessa spinifera) and mysids (Sealy 
1975, Sanger and Jones 1981, Sanger 1987, Carter and Sealy 1990, Strong 
et al. 1993).
    Mortality in the marine environment, primarily associated with oil 
spills and net fisheries in Washington, adversely affects marbled 
murrelets. The impact of this loss is generally thought to be less than 
impacts to nesting habitat. Protection of foraging areas from 
disturbance such as oil spills, net fisheries, and pollution would 
benefit marbled murrelets.

Management Considerations

    Marbled murrelets are found in forest stands containing a variety 
of forest structures, which are, in part, the result of varied 
management practices. In many areas, management practices have resulted 
in fragmentation of the remaining older forests and creation of large 
areas of younger forests that have yet to develop habitat 
characteristics suitable for marbled murrelet nesting. Past forest 
management practices have also resulted in a forest age distribution 
unnaturally skewed toward younger-aged stands.
    In many portions of the range of the marbled murrelet, forest 
management has historically concentrated on clearcut logging. After 
forests are clearcut, the areas are traditionally replanted to a single 
or few tree species and maintained as even-aged stands for maximum 
wood-fiber production. Site-preparation and management activities may 
further decrease species diversity. These methods include prescribed 
burning and the use of herbicides or mechanical methods to control 
competing vegetation.
    Historical logging practices in some portions of the species' range 
consisted of more selective timber harvesting, leaving remnant patches 
of forests of varying ages with older forest characteristics. The 
uneven-age management practices used in these areas usually resulted in 
more diverse stands, but with few trees containing suitable marbled 
murrelet nesting structure. These areas may contain low concentrations 
of reproducing marbled murrelets, which are difficult to locate.
    Current and historic marbled murrelet habitat loss is generally 
attributed to timber harvest and land conversion practices, although 
natural disturbances such as forest fires have caused losses as well. 
Reduction of the remaining older forest has not been evenly distributed 
over western Washington, Oregon, and California. Harvest has been 
concentrated at the lower elevations and in the Coast Ranges (Thomas et 
al. 1990), generally equating with the range of the marbled murrelet.
    Habitat for marbled murrelets has been declining since the arrival 
of European settlers. Information specific to the range of the marbled 
murrelet is not available; however, historic forest condition has been 
estimated for western Oregon and Washington by several authors. Because 
marbled murrelet habitat represents a significant portion of area 
included in these estimates, trends in habitat are assumed to follow 
the same general pattern. Although the extent of mature and old-growth 
forest before the 1800s is difficult to quantify, western Oregon and 
Washington are estimated to have been covered by approximately 9.7 to 
11.3 million hectares (24 to 28 million acres) of forest at the time of 
modern settlement (early to mid-1800s), of which about 70 percent (5.6 
to 7.7 million hectares (14 to 19 million acres)) are estimated to have 
been old-growth (Society of American Foresters Task Force 1983, 
Morrison 1988, Norse 1988, Spies and Franklin 1988). Historical 
estimates for northwestern California are not as precise but suggest 
there were between 526,000 and 1.3 million hectares (1.3 and 3.2 
million acres) of old-growth Douglas-fir/mixed conifer forest and 
approximately 890,000 hectares (2.2 million acres) of old-growth 
coastal redwood forest (Society of American Foresters Task Force 1983, 
Laudenslayer 1985, California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection 1988, Fox 1988, Morrison 1988). Currently, there are 
approximately 1.4 million hectares (3.4 million acres) of old-growth 
forest remaining in western Oregon and Washington, an 82 percent 
reduction from estimated prelogging levels (Booth 1991).
    Some of the old-growth areas that have been affected by past 
natural perturbations such as forest fire and windthrow currently 
provide suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelets. Mature forests 
that have naturally regenerated from such perturbations often retain 
scattered old-growth trees and clumps, providing structure for nesting. 
This is particularly true in coastal Oregon where there were extensive 
fires historically. Marbled murrelet nests have been found in remnant 
old-growth trees in mature forests in Oregon; no occupied sites have 
been located in young stands, clearcuts, or young forests that lack at 
least some remnant old-growth trees (Nelson pers. comm. 1992).
    Forests generally require 200 to 250 years to develop old-growth 
characteristics that supply adequate structure for nesting marbled 
murrelets. This time period may be shorter in redwood forests and in 
areas where significant remnants of the previous stand remain. 
Intensively managed forests in Washington, Oregon, and California have 
been subjected to average cutting rotations of 70 to 120 years (USDI 
1984, USDA 1988). Cutting rotations of 40 to 50 years are common for 
some private lands. Timber harvest strategies on Federal lands and some 
private lands have emphasized dispersed clearcut patches and even-aged 
management. Thus, forest lands that are intensively managed for timber 
production are generally not allowed to develop the old-growth 
characteristics that are required for marbled murrelet nesting. 
Suitable nesting habitat that remains under these harvest patterns is 
highly fragmented.

Previous Management Efforts

    Since the listing of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, 
and California as threatened, several different approaches to 
management of the species or its habitat have been developed through 
various Federal efforts.
    In May 1991, the U.S. House of Representatives' Agriculture and 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committees commissioned the Scientific 
Panel on Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems (Scientific Panel) to 
provide an array of alternatives for the management of late-
successional forests on Federal lands within the range of the northern 
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Information on the known 
inland locations of marbled murrelets and marbled murrelet habitat was 
included in the base information used by the Scientific Panel and was 
specifically considered in developing the alternatives. These reserve 
systems are often referred to as Late-Successional/Old-Growth areas 
(LSOGs). The Scientific Panel conducted risk assessments for marbled 
murrelets under each alternative (Johnson et al. 1991).
    In 1993, the Forest Service released its Scientific Analysis Team 
Report (Thomas et al. 1993). In this report, the Forest Service 
proposed several interim measures designed to preserve options for 
management of marbled murrelets and their habitat until the Marbled 
Murrelet Recovery Plan could be completed and implemented. These 
measures include: (1) The protection of all marbled murrelet nesting 
habitat within 35 miles of the marine environment in California and 
Oregon south of State Highway 42, and within 50 miles of the marine 
environment in the remainder of Oregon and in Washington; and, (2) the 
protection of amounts of ``recruitment'' habitat (young stands likely 
to develop into suitable habitat) equivalent to 50 percent of the total 
amount of existing suitable habitat in the above mentioned zones. Also, 
seasonal restrictions on operations in and near suitable habitat were 
identified to avoid disturbing nesting marbled murrelets.
    In July 1993, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau 
of Land Management, National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, and Environmental Protection Agency released the Report of the 
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT Report) (USDA et al. 
1993a). From this report, the President identified Option 9 as the 
Proposed Northwest Forest Plan, described in the Draft Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-
Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of 
the Northern Spotted Owl (DSEIS) as Alternative 9 (Alternative 9) (USDA 
et al. 1993b). Within the range of the marbled murrelet, Alternative 9 
would designate a system of Late-Successional Reserves, which provides 
large areas expected to eventually develop into contiguous, 
unfragmented forest. This reserve system was constructed in part around 
the LSOGs designated by the Scientific Panel. In addition, specific 
measures were included to protect all forest sites occupied by marbled 
murrelets outside the reserve system. These measures include surveys 
prior to activities that affect habitat and protection of contiguous 
marbled murrelet nesting and recruitment habitat (stands capable of 
becoming suitable within 25 years) within 0.5 mile of areas occupied by 
murrelets.
    The Service recognizes the value of the Proposed Northwest Forest 
Plan (USDA et al. 1993a) and acknowledges that it can play an integral 
role in marbled murrelet conservation. The Plan complements this 
critical habitat proposal by stressing the need for protection of 
large, unfragmented areas of suitable nesting habitat that are well-
distributed throughout the species' range, with special emphasis on 
areas close to the marine environment.
Critical Habitat

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as: ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species 
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it is listed * * * upon a determination * * * that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species.'' The term 
``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the Act, means ``* *  * 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer 
necessary * * *.''

Role in Species Conservation

    The use of the term ``conservation'' in the definition of critical 
habitat indicates that its designation should identify lands that may 
be needed for a species' eventual recovery and delisting. However, when 
critical habitat is designated at the time a species is listed or 
before a recovery plan is completed, the Service frequently does not 
know all the habitat areas that may be essential for a species' 
recovery. In this regard, critical habitat serves to preserve options 
for a species' eventual recovery.
    The designation of critical habitat is one of several measures 
available to contribute to the conservation of a listed species. 
Critical habitat helps focus conservation activities by identifying 
areas that contain essential habitat features (primary constituent 
elements), regardless of whether or not they are currently occupied by 
the listed species, thus alerting the public to the importance of an 
area in the species' conservation. Critical habitat also identifies 
areas that may require special management or protection. The added 
emphasis on these areas for conservation of the species may shorten the 
time needed to achieve recovery.
    Critical habitat receives consideration under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, authorized, or funded by a Federal 
agency. Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not result 
in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Aside from 
this added consideration under section 7, the Act does not provide any 
additional protection to lands designated as critical habitat. 
Designating critical habitat does not create a management plan for the 
areas, establish numerical population goals or prescribe specific 
management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), or have a 
direct effect on areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific 
management recommendations for critical habitat are addressed in 
recovery plans, management plans, and in section 7 consultations.

Primary Constituent Elements

    A designation of critical habitat begins by identifying areas on 
which are found the physical and biological features essential to 
conservation of a species. In determining which areas to designate as 
critical habitat, the Service considers those physical and biological 
features that are essential to a species' conservation and that may 
require special management considerations or protection. Such physical 
and biological features, as stated in 50 CFR 424.12, include, but are 
not limited to, the following:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The Service is required to base critical habitat designations upon 
the best scientific data available (50 CFR 424.12). In proposing to 
designate critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in Washington, 
Oregon, and California, the Service has reviewed its overall approach 
to the conservation of the species. For a thorough discussion of the 
ecology and life history of the marbled murrelet, see the Service's 
Biological Report (Marshall 1988), the final rule listing the 
Washington, Oregon, and California population (57 FR 45328) of this 
subspecies, and the Ecological Considerations section of this rule.
    Within habitat areas essential for marbled murrelet nesting, the 
Service has focused on the following primary constituent elements: (1) 
Individual trees with potential nesting platforms; (2) forest stands 
surrounding potential nest trees, including contiguous forest with 
similar average height and canopy closure; (3) forest stands with high 
crown cover and sufficient height to contribute to a forest landscape 
with decreased fragmentation; and (4) forest stands within the 
potential flight distance of marbled murrelets from the marine 
environment where the birds feed. These primary constituent elements 
are essential to provide nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet.
    Individual nest trees include large trees, generally over 81 cm (32 
inches) dbh, with the presence of potential nest platforms or 
deformities such as large limbs (greater than 13 cm (5 inches)), broken 
tops, mistletoe infections, witches brooms, or other formations 
providing a broad platform. Because marbled murrelets do not build 
nests, moss or detritus to cushion or hold the egg may be important. 
Platforms should have overhead cover for protection from predators and 
weather, which may be provided by overhanging branches, limbs above the 
nest area, or branches from neighboring trees. Based on current 
information, Douglas-fir, coastal redwood, western hemlock, western 
red-cedar, or Sitka spruce are the trees most likely to provide 
suitable nesting structure.
    Nesting habitat includes the forest stand in which the nest trees 
are contained. Nest stands are defined as contiguous mature and old-
growth forest with no separations of greater than 100 meters (330 feet) 
wide. Nest trees may be scattered throughout the stand or clumped 
within portions of the contiguous stand. Nest stands in mature forest 
may contain fewer than one old-growth tree per acre. Regardless of the 
distribution of nest trees, nesting habitat includes the entire 
contiguous forest stand with similar height and canopy closure. The 
forest stand surrounding the nest tree provides protection from 
predators and climatic factors.
    On a landscape basis, the presence of late-successional, mature, 
and old-growth forests with substantial canopy closure and canopy 
height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height also 
contribute to the conservation of the marbled murrelet, even if they do 
not contain potential nest trees. The site-potential tree height is the 
average maximum height possible for a tree given the local growing 
conditions. The presence of these forest stands increases the area 
predators must search, decreasing predator efficiency. Forests of the 
general height of the nest stands and in close proximity to the stand 
reduce edge-associated predation, effects of changes in microclimate 
associated with abrupt edges, and potential for windthrow during 
storms.
    To be considered as nesting habitat, forest stands must occur at a 
distance from the marine environment consistent with the flight and 
energetic capabilities of the marbled murrelet. Based on confirmed 
detections of marbled murrelets, this distance varies from 84 
kilometers (52 miles) in Washington to less than 16 kilometers (10 
miles) in parts of California. Flight distances may reflect the 
energetic capabilities of marbled murrelets and the presence of 
suitable nesting habitat.
    The Service is not proposing to designate marine areas as critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet at this time, but will continue to 
collect information on threats, the need for marine critical habitat, 
and the potential benefits of designating marine critical habitat.

Criteria for Identifying Critical Habitat

    Several qualitative criteria were considered in the selection of 
specific areas as critical habitat. These criteria are generally 
similar to criteria used in the development of several recent Federal 
management proposals, such as the report prepared by the Scientific 
Panel (Johnson et al. 1991) and Alternative 9 (USDA et al. 1993a). The 
following is a description of the criteria considered:
    Known Occupied Sites: Proposed critical habitat units include the 
majority of the known sites occupied by marbled murrelets on Federal 
lands. However, known occupied sites may represent only a small portion 
of the population due to the limited coverage of past survey efforts.
    Suitable Nesting Habitat: Proposed critical habitat units include 
areas with current suitable nesting habitat and other primary 
constituent elements. Approximately 48 percent of the suitable nesting 
habitat on Federal lands within the range of the species in Washington, 
Oregon, and California is included in proposed critical habitat. 
Forests that are not currently suitable, but which are of similar 
average height and canopy closure, are also important in improving 
habitat conditions through reduced fragmentation and creation of large 
contiguous forest stands that reduce the potential for predation. The 
total amount of land containing the other primary constituent elements 
is currently unknown.
    Distance from Marine Environment: Marbled murrelets forage daily in 
the marine environment during the nesting season. To allow for foraging 
opportunities, nesting habitat must be within the flight capabilities 
and energetic limits of the species. Proposed critical habitat units 
were selected based on the distance inland of detections in each 
general area. As stated above, detections range from over 50 miles from 
the marine environment in Washington to less than 10 miles in some 
portions of California.
    Rangewide Distribution: To reduce the impact of catastrophic losses 
of habitat or birds and maintain the current distribution of the 
species, proposed critical habitat units were selected throughout the 
range of the listed population, where Federal lands were available. 
With well-distributed critical habitat, the probability of substantial 
population declines resulting from catastrophic wildfires or storm 
events is reduced. Maintaining nesting habitat, and therefore local 
concentrations, throughout the range of the species will reduce 
potential losses from oil spills or other marine events. Given the 
intense site fidelity of most alcid species, maintaining rangewide 
distribution may also provide potential source populations for the 
recolonization of future habitat.
    Large, Contiguous Blocks of Habitat: In response to the problems of 
fragmentation of suitable habitat, potential increases in predation, 
and reduced reproductive success, the Service concentrated on selecting 
proposed critical habitat units in terms of large, contiguous blocks of 
late-successional, mature, and old-growth forest. To provide large 
blocks of habitat, the Service concentrated on the Late-Successional 
Reserve system identified in Alternative 9. Marbled murrelet locations 
and habitat were considered in the development of these reserves. Where 
large blocks of Federal reserve areas were not available, but where 
critical habitat was determined to be important for distribution, 
smaller Federal reserves were included.
    Adequacy of Existing Protection and Management: The Service 
considered the existing legal status of lands in the decision to 
propose specific areas as critical habitat. Areas with permanent legal 
protection, such as congressionally-designated wilderness areas, 
national parks, and national wildlife refuges, are not proposed.

Results of Applying Criteria

    Application of the selection criteria resulted in the proposed 
designation of many of the Late-Successional Reserves, as described in 
Alternative 9, on Federal lands within the range of the marbled 
murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California.
    At this time, only Federal lands are proposed for designation. 
However, the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team recognized the 
limited ability of Federal agencies to recover this species on Federal 
lands. ``Although the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment was 
designed to address only Federal lands within the range of the northern 
spotted owl, the marbled murrelet is an example of a species whose life 
history requirements cannot be accommodated only on Federal lands. The 
marbled murrelet is a seabird that nests inland and therefore is 
influenced by both the marine and terrestrial environments. Its nesting 
range in the three-state area includes land that is south of the range 
of the northern spotted owl. In addition, several areas that are 
considered key to the recovery of the marbled murrelet involve private 
and State lands'' (FEMAT Report at IV-151 and IV-152, USDA et al. 
1993a). For example, the southernmost portion of the range of the 
marbled murrelet in California, southwest Washington, and northwest 
Oregon contain little or no Federal lands or habitat capable of 
supporting marbled murrelets. The Service currently lacks sufficient 
information to fully identify any specific non-Federal lands essential 
to the conservation of the species in these and other areas. The 
Service will continue to gather information on non-Federal land 
contributions to conservation and through this notice is requesting 
comments on this subject.

Lands Not Proposed

    Not all suitable nesting habitat is included within the proposed 
critical habitat units. Emphasis has been placed on those areas 
considered most essential to the species in terms of habitat, 
distribution, and ownership. That does not mean that lands outside 
critical habitat are not important to the marbled murrelet. Some 
Federal lands outside of critical habitat are expected to receive 
additional protection from the conservation measures proposed in 
Alternative 9. Some habitat on non-Federal lands receives protection 
through prohibitions against take of marbled murrelets.

Congressionally-protected Areas

    Because they are generally managed as natural ecosystems, 
congressionally-designated wilderness areas and national parks are 
expected to protect marbled murrelet habitat from alteration. These 
areas are not proposed for designation as critical habitat because the 
management goals are generally adequate to conserve the species. 
However, not all congressional designations are managed in this manner. 
For example, national recreation areas may not be managed to maintain 
older forest habitats. In addition, some national parks and wilderness 
areas are experiencing internal and external threats (e.g., highway 
realignments) to marbled murrelet habitat. The Service is continuing to 
gather information on management goals and potential threats to these 
types of areas.
    Congressionally-protected areas (e.g., wilderness areas and 
national parks) are rare within the range of the marbled murrelet in 
Washington, Oregon, and California. Few wilderness areas lie within the 
flight distance of marbled murrelets from the marine environment, 
though some of these areas provide crucial contributions to the 
conservation of the species. A substantial portion of these areas are 
incapable of producing marbled murrelet nesting habitat because of 
forest composition, lack of forest cover, elevation, and other 
constraints. Therefore, by themselves, congressionally-protected areas 
are incapable of supporting stable and interactive populations of 
marbled murrelets.
    Wilderness areas and national parks contain approximately 302,000 
hectares (747,000 acres) of marbled murrelet nesting habitat, 
representing 29 percent of the suitable nesting habitat on Federal 
lands within the range of the marbled murrelet. They contain 46 (8 
percent) of the known occupied sites on Federal lands.

Effects of Proposed Designation

    This proposal for designation of critical habitat for the marbled 
murrelet identifies 62 proposed critical habitat units encompassing 
approximately 1,217,000 hectares (3,005,000 acres) of Federal land 
based on information available in the Interagency Geographical 
Information System (GIS) and FEMAT Report (USDA et al. 1993a). The 
Service has identified 28 proposed critical habitat units totaling 
471,000 hectares (1,162,000 acres) of Federal land in Washington, 20 
proposed critical habitat units totaling 560,000 hectares (1,382,000 
acres) of Federal land in Oregon, and 14 proposed critical habitat 
units totaling 186,000 hectares (460,000 acres) of Federal land in 
California. State, private, tribal, and other non-Federal lands are not 
proposed as critical habitat at this time even if they are physically 
located within the boundaries of a proposed critical habitat unit, and 
acreage of non-Federal lands is not included in the above figures.
    Some small areas of naturally-occurring or human-created non-
suitable habitat (i.e., areas that have never been nor will likely ever 
be marbled murrelet nesting habitat, such as alpine areas, water 
bodies, serpentine meadows, airports, roads, buildings, and parking 
lots) are located within the physical boundaries of proposed critical 
habitat units. Where possible, these areas were not included within the 
proposed critical habitat boundaries, and acreage totals were adjusted 
to reflect the exclusion of this non-suitable habitat. However, many of 
these areas are small and could not be physically identified on the GIS 
maps. Also, current mapping information does not allow precise 
identification of the location of primary constituent elements. The 
Service is continuing to gather information to refine the boundaries of 
critical habitat units to eliminate areas that do not contain one or 
more of the primary constituent elements or will remain non-suitable.
    Efforts by Federal agencies to survey for marbled murrelets have 
been concentrated in areas of proposed timber sales or limited research 
locations. Only a small fraction of the suitable nesting habitat has 
been surveyed to date, and surveys have not been uniformly spread 
across the range of the species. Therefore, known occupied sites 
provide only a partial indication of the actual areas used by the 
species. The proposed critical habitat includes 449 (78 percent) of the 
574 known occupied sites on Federal lands. Congressionally-protected 
areas include 48 additional occupied sites. Congressionally-protected 
areas were not included in critical habitat because management is 
expected to be consistent with the conservation of the marbled 
murrelet.
    The Service does not have specific information on the amount of 
suitable nesting habitat or habitat containing one or more of the 
primary constituent elements on non-Federal lands within the species' 
range, though it is aware through the Forest Ecosystem Management 
Assessment Team databases of approximately 189 known occupied sites on 
non-Federal lands. The Service continues to seek information and 
comments on the location of suitable nesting habitat and occupied sites 
on non-Federal lands.
    Designation of critical habitat would not offer specific direction 
for managing marbled murrelet nesting habitat nor provide a management 
or conservation plan for the species. Recovery plans typically provide 
guidance for conservation, which may include population goals and the 
identification of areas that may need protection or special management. 
Recovery plans usually include management recommendations for 
designated critical habitat. In February 1993, the Service appointed a 
recovery team to develop a recovery plan for the marbled murrelet. The 
team plans to have a draft recovery plan available in the spring of 
1994. The Service will continue to work closely with the recovery team 
and will reexamine proposed critical habitat in light of recovery team 
recommendations.

Section 7--Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy 
or adversely modify designated critical habitat. This Federal 
responsibility accompanies, and is in addition to, the requirement in 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act that Federal agencies ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
listed species. A Federal agency must consult with the Service if its 
proposed action may affect a listed species or critical habitat. 
Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the 
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat is defined 
at 50 CFR 402.02 as ``* * * a direct or indirect alteration that 
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, 
but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those 
physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the 
habitat to be critical.'' The jeopardy concept is defined at 50 CFR 
402.02 as any action that would be expected to reduce appreciably the 
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a species.
    Survival and recovery, mentioned in both the definition of adverse 
modification and jeopardy, are directly related. Survival may be viewed 
as a linear continuum between recovery and extinction of the species. 
The closer one is to recovery, the greater the certainty in the 
species' continued survival. The terms survival and recovery are thus 
related by the degree of certainty that the species will persist over a 
given period of time. Factors that influence a species' persistence 
include population numbers, distribution throughout its range, 
stochasticity, expected duration, and reproductive success.
    The Act's definition of critical habitat indicates that the purpose 
of critical habitat is to contribute to a species' conservation. 
Section 7 prohibitions against the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat apply to actions that would impair survival and 
recovery of the listed species, thus providing a regulatory means of 
ensuring that Federal actions within critical habitat are considered in 
relation to the goals and recommendations of a recovery plan. As a 
result of the link between critical habitat and recovery in the Act's 
definition of critical habitat, the prohibition against destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat should provide for the 
protection of the critical habitat's ability to contribute to the 
recovery of the species. Thus, the adverse modification standard may be 
reached closer to the recovery end of the survival continuum, whereas, 
the jeopardy standard has been applied nearer to the extinction end of 
the continuum.
    After a proposal of critical habitat, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 
and implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of the proposed critical 
habitat. Conference reports provide advisory conservation 
recommendations to assist a Federal agency in identifying and resolving 
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action.
    If an agency requests, and the Service concurs, a formal conference 
report may be issued. A formal conference report on proposed critical 
habitat contains an opinion that is prepared in accordance with 50 CFR 
402.14 as if the critical habitat were designated, not proposed. Such a 
formal conference report may be adopted as the biological opinion 
pursuant to 50 CFR 402.10(d) when the critical habitat is designated, 
if no significant new information has been brought forward and no 
changes in the action occur that would alter the content of the 
opinion.

Examples of Proposed Actions

    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for any proposed or final 
regulation that designates critical habitat, a brief description and 
evaluation of those activities (public or private) that may adversely 
modify such habitat or may be affected by such designation. As stated 
earlier, regulations found at 50 CFR 402.02 define destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat as a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such 
alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely 
modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the 
basis for determining the habitat to be critical.
    A wide variety of existing and proposed activities may alter or 
affect proposed marbled murrelet critical habitat. Examples of such 
activities include, but are not limited to timber harvest, forest 
management, salvage activities, limbing or modification of limb 
structure (e.g., for hazard management), mining and mineral 
exploration, construction of hydroelectric facilities, road 
construction and refurbishing, and development. Activities that do not 
alter forest condition, such as some recreational use and personal-use 
commodity production (e.g., noncommercial mushroom picking, Christmas 
tree cutting, rock collection) are unlikely to be affected by the 
proposed designation.
    Activities conducted according to the standards and guidelines for 
Late-Successional Reserves, as described in Alternative 9 of the DSEIS 
for the Proposed Northwest Forest Plan would, in most cases, be 
unlikely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed marbled murrelet critical habitat. Activities in these areas 
would be limited to manipulation of young forest stands that are not 
currently marbled murrelet nesting habitat. Also, these manipulations 
would be conducted in a manner that would not slow the development of 
these areas into future nesting habitat and should speed the 
development of some characteristics of older forest.

Economic and Other Impacts

    The Act requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the 
basis of the best scientific data available and to consider the 
economic and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area 
as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any area from critical 
habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, 
unless he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat 
will result in the extinction of the species concerned. The Act thus 
requires the Service to evaluate the economic and other effects likely 
to result from a designation of critical habitat. Effects attributable 
to the listing of the species, normal changes in affected industries, 
or changes in Federal land management that are not caused by the 
designation are not regarded as effects of the designation of critical 
habitat. However, due to the complex interplay of economic and other 
forces, separating impacts associated solely with the designation of 
critical habitat from other impacts is often difficult.
    The proposed critical habitat units for the marbled murrelet 
coincide with the location of many of the Late-Successional Reserves as 
described in Option 9 of the FEMAT Report (USDA et al. 1993a) and 
Alternative 9 (USDA et al. 1993b). Alternative 9 is identified as the 
preferred alternative in the DSEIS for the Proposed Northwest Forest 
Plan. Based on the description of standards for management of and 
limitations on impacts to marbled murrelet habitat within the Late-
Successional Reserves, management of the Reserves under Alternative 9 
would be consistent with designating them as critical habitat for the 
marbled murrelet. Therefore, the economic effects of the designation of 
Late-Successional Reserves as critical habitat are not likely to exceed 
those described in the economic analysis of the FEMAT Report (Johnson 
et al. 1993, USDA et al. 1993a).
    The Service has preliminarily reviewed the possible economic 
impacts of designating critical habitat for the marbled murrelet on 
ongoing timber activities. Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
Land Management are currently under court injunctions prohibiting the 
offering of any new sales until the agencies comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act and various forest management legislation. The 
Proposed Northwest Forest Plan will be presented to the court by April 
1994 in an attempt to resolve the court's concerns. Pending that court 
decision, the only timber available to the timber industry from Federal 
lands are sold and awarded sales, particularly sales offered under the 
protection of Section 318. Therefore, the Service proposes to exclude 
sold and awarded sales from any final critical habitat designation due 
to economic impacts, both regionally and nationally, due to the limited 
amount of volume available for Federal harvest. Comments are requested 
from the public on this aspect of the proposed rule.
    The time constraints governing this proposed critical habitat 
designation did not allow for a more detailed evaluation on the 
particular areas proposed. Following receipt of comments and 
information during the public comment period, the Service will conduct 
additional economic analyses if needed. The Service will further 
evaluate the economic and other relevant impacts of including or 
excluding particular areas from a designation of marbled murrelet 
critical habitat.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final action resulting from this 
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned government 
agencies, Indian Nations, the scientific community, industry, or any 
other interested party concerning this proposed rule is hereby 
solicited. Comments are particularly sought concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any Federal lands (either proposed critical 
habitat or additional areas) should or should not be determined to be 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
adaptive management areas under Alternative 9 of the Proposed Northwest 
Forest Plan;
    (2) The location and reasons why any non-Federal lands should or 
should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 
4 of the Act, including potential threats and the value of any areas to 
the conservation of the species;
    (3) The reasons why any marine areas should or should not be 
determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, 
including information on potential threats, current activities, the 
effect of current regulatory mechanisms, and benefits to the species;
    (4) Current and planned activities in proposed critical habitat 
areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (5) Any threats to the conservation of the marbled murrelet or the 
maintenance of marbled murrelet nesting habitat on congressionally-
protected lands within the range of the marbled murrelet;
    (6) Current and planned activities within congressionally-protected 
areas that might affect, positively or negatively, the conservation of 
the marbled murrelet, including any management plans or statutory 
mandates;
    (7) Other physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and in need of special management or 
protection;
    (8) Specific information on the amount, location, and distribution 
of suitable marbled murrelet nesting habitat and the numbers and 
distribution of sites occupied by marbled murrelets on all ownerships 
and land designations;
    (9) Information concerning health of the ecosystems on which the 
marbled murrelet depends;
    (10) Information on the economic benefits and costs that would 
result from the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
marbled murrelet, including the segments of the economy that would be 
affected by the proposed designation;
    (11) Data and information relevant to determining whether the 
benefits of excluding a particular area from critical habitat outweigh 
the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat;
    (12) Methods of analysis useful in evaluating economic and other 
relevant impacts; and
    (13) Additional information that should be included in the analysis 
of economic and other impacts of the proposed designation.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in conjunction with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
The Department of the Interior has determined that the proposed rule 
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule concerning 
public projects and private activities within proposed critical habitat 
units, it is not clear at this time whether significant economic 
impacts will result from critical habitat designation. Also, no direct 
costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or recordkeeping 
requirements are imposed on small entities by this designation. 
Further, the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as defined by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

Takings Implications Assessment

    The Service has analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in a Takings 
Implications Assessment prepared pursuant to requirements of Executive 
Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.'' The Takings Implications 
Assessment concludes that critical habitat designation, as proposed, 
would not pose significant takings implications.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Field Supervisor, Portland Field Office, 2600 SE 98th 
Avenue, suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266, (503) 231-6179.

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are Robin Bown, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Portland Field Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 
100, Portland, Oregon 97266; Kimberly Flotlin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Olympia Field Office, 3704 Griffin Lane SE, suite 102, 
Olympia, Washington 98501; and Mike Horton, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Sacramento Field Office, 2800 Cottage Way, room E-1803, 
Sacramento, California 95825.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 17.11(h)  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the ``Critical habitat'' 
entry for ``Murrelet, marbled'' under BIRDS to read ``17.95(b)''.
    3. Section 17.95(b) is amended by adding critical habitat for the 
marbled murrelet in the same alphabetical order as the species occurs 
in Sec. 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
MARBLED MURRELET (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus)
    For the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, proposed 
critical habitat units under Federal jurisdiction are depicted on the 
general configuration maps below. More detailed maps are maintained on 
file at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 911 
Northeast 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, 97323 (503/231-6131). Copies 
of the detailed maps are available upon request at the requester's 
expense.
    Dated: January 14, 1994
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP27JA94.000


TP27JA94.001


TP27JA94.002


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Richard N. Smith,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-1704 Filed 01-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P