[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61599-61621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R1-ES-2008-0079; 92210-1117-0000-FY08-B4]
RIN 1018-AW84


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical 
Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising 
designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 
marmoratus marmoratus) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). On May 24, 1996, we designated 3,887,800 ac (ac) 
(1,573,340 hectares (ha)) as critical habitat for the marbled murrelet 
in Washington, Oregon, and California. We are revising the designated 
critical habitat for the marbled murrelet by removing approximately 
189,671 ac (76,757 ha) in northern California and southern Oregon from 
the 1996 designation, based on new information indicating that these 
areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat. The areas being 
removed from the 1996 designation in northern California are within 
Inland Zone 2, where we have no historical or current survey records 
documenting marbled murrelet presence. Intensive surveys in southern 
Oregon indicate the inland distribution of the marbled murrelet is 
strongly associated with the hemlock/tanoak habitat zone, rather than 
distance from the coast. Accordingly, the areas being removed in 
southern Oregon are limited to those areas not associated with the 
hemlock/tanoak zone. The areas being removed are not considered 
essential for the conservation of the species. Approximately 3,698,100 
ac (1,497,000 ha) of critical habitat is now designated for the marbled 
murrelet. In this rule, we are also finalizing the taxonomic revision 
of the scientific name of the marbled murrelet from Brachyramphus 
marmoratus marmoratus to Brachyramphus marmoratus.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on November 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The final rule and map of critical habitat will be available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available 
at http://www.regulations.gov or for public inspection, by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, 
Lacey, WA 98503-1273, telephone 360-753-9440, facsimile 360-753-9008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, at the above address, (telephone 360-753-9440, 
facsimile 360-753-9008); Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, 
Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266, telephone 503-231-6179, facsimile 503-
231-6195; or Nancy Finley, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 
95521, telephone 707-822-7201, facsimile 707-822-8411. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A final rule designating critical habitat for the marbled murrelet 
was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26256), 
and is available under the ``Supporting Documents'' section for this 
docket in the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2008-0079. It is our intent to discuss only 
those topics directly relevant to the revised designation of critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet in this final rule.

Species Description, Life History, Distribution, Ecology, and Habitat

    The marbled murrelet is a small seabird of the Alcidae family. The 
marbled murrelet's breeding range extends from Bristol Bay, Alaska, 
south to the Aleutian Archipelago; northeast 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 northern Monterey Bay in central California. 
Birds winter throughout the breeding range and occur in small numbers 
off southern California. Marbled murrelets spend most of their lives in 
the marine environment where they forage in near-shore areas and 
consume a diversity of prey species, including small fish and 
invertebrates. In their terrestrial environment, the presence of 
platforms (large branches or deformities) used for nesting in trees is 
the most important characteristic of their nesting habitat. Marbled 
murrelet habitat use during the breeding season is positively 
associated with the presence and abundance of mature and old-growth 
forests, large core areas of old-growth, low amounts of edge habitat, 
reduced habitat fragmentation, proximity to the marine environment, and 
forests that are increasing in stand age and height.

Taxonomy

    Two subspecies of the marbled murrelet were previously recognized, 
the North American murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) and 
the Asiatic murrelet (B. marmoratus perdix). New published information 
suggests that the Asiatic murrelet is a distinct species (Friesen et

[[Page 61600]]

al. 1996, 2005), and the American Ornithologists' Union officially 
recognized the long-billed murrelet (B. perdix) and the marbled 
murrelet (B. marmoratus) as distinct species in the ``Forty-first 
Supplement to the Checklist of North American Birds'' (American 
Ornithologists' Union 1997). Therefore, in this rule we are revising 50 
CFR 17.11 to adopt the taxonomic clarification for the marbled murrelet 
to reflect the change from Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus to 
Brachyramphus marmoratus.

Previous Federal Actions

    For additional information on previous Federal actions concerning 
the marbled murrelet, refer to the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45328), the final rule 
designating critical habitat published in the Federal Register on May 
24, 1996 (61 FR 26256), and the proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44678). In the 1996 final critical 
habitat rule, we designated 3,887,800 ac (1,573,340 ha) of critical 
habitat in 32 units on Federal and non-Federal lands. On September 24, 
1997, we completed a Recovery Plan for the marbled murrelet in 
Washington, Oregon, and California (Service 1997). On January 13, 2003, 
we entered into a settlement agreement with the American Forest 
Resource Council and the Western Council of Industrial Workers, whereby 
we agreed to review the marbled murrelet critical habitat designation 
and make any revisions deemed appropriate after a revised consideration 
of economic and any other relevant impacts of designation. On April 21, 
2003, we published a notice initiating a 5-year review of the marbled 
murrelet (68 FR 19569), and published a second information request for 
the 5-year review on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 44093). The 5-year review 
evaluation report was finished in March 2004 (McShane et al. 2004), and 
the 5-year review was completed on August 31, 2004.
    On September 12, 2006, we published a proposed revision to critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet, which included adjustments to the 
original designation and proposed several exclusions under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act (71 FR 53838). On June 26, 2007, we published a 
notice of availability of a draft economic analysis (72 FR 35025) 
related to the September 12, 2006, proposed critical habitat revision 
(71 FR 53838). On March 6, 2008, we published a notice in the Federal 
Register (73 FR 12067) stating that the critical habitat for marbled 
murrelet should not be revised due to uncertainties regarding Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) revisions to its District Resource Management 
Plans in western Oregon, and this notice fulfilled our obligations 
under the settlement agreement.
    On July 31, 2008, we published a proposed rule to revise currently 
designated critical habitat for the marbled murrelet by removing 
approximately 254,070 acres (ac) (102,820 hectares (ha)) in northern 
California and Oregon from the 1996 designation (73 FR 44678). A 
revised 5-year review was completed on June 12, 2009. On January 21, 
2010, in response to a petition to delist the marbled murrelet, we 
published a notice in the Federal Register (75 FR 3424) determining 
that removing the murrelet from the Endangered Species List was not 
warranted. We also found that the Washington/Oregon/California 
population of the murrelet is a valid distinct population segment (DPS) 
in accordance with the discreteness and significance criteria in our 
1996 DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) and concluded that the 
species continues to meet the definition of a threatened species under 
the ESA.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed 
revised designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in a 
proposed rule published on July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44678). During the 
comment period, which closed on August 30, 2008, we received 42 
comments from organizations or individuals directly addressing the 
proposed critical habitat designation. Through template campaigns 
sponsored by The Wildlife Society and Conservation Northwest, we 
received an additional 2,825 comments.
    The comment period was reopened on February 11, 2009 (74 FR 6852), 
and closed on March 13, 2009, during which we received 14 comments, 
which included 4 peer reviewers, 1 Federal agency, and 9 organizations 
or individuals. Nearly all commenters opposed the revision or reduction 
of some aspects of the designation of critical habitat for the marbled 
murrelet.
    Several comments we received were outside the scope of the proposed 
rule, which was limited to (1) The proposed removal of approximately 
191,000 ac (77,295 ha) of critical habitat in northern California and 
southern Oregon based on the very low likelihood of marbled murrelet 
occurrence as is discussed in further detail below; (2) the proposed 
removal of approximately 63,000 ac (25,495 ha) of critical habitat in 
Douglas and Lane Counties, Oregon, that were designated farther than 35 
miles inland, based on criteria identified in the 1997 Recovery Plan 
for the Marbled Murrelet (Washington, Oregon, and California 
Populations); and (3) the proposed taxonomic revision of the scientific 
name of the marbled murrelet. Examples of comments outside of the scope 
of the proposed rule included:
    (a) Requests that we remove approximately 1,840 ac (744.6 ha) of 
existing critical habitat designated at Naval Radio Station Jim Creek 
in Washington pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act;
    (b) Requests that we designate additional critical habitat in 
certain areas (e.g., southwestern Washington, northwestern Oregon, 
Olympic Adaptive Management Area, Siskiyou and Six Rivers National 
Forests, Redwood National Park, and other areas);
    (c) Requests that we designate marine areas as critical habitat;
    (d) Claims of inconsistency with statutory requirements (e.g., 
occupancy at the time of listing, definition of occupied habitat, 
reliance on 1996 primary constituent elements (PCEs));
    (e) Disagreement with the suitable marbled murrelet habitat acreage 
estimates in Oregon, Washington, and California;
    (f) Recommendations to exclude critical habitat from all Federal 
lands including Wilderness areas and Congressionally withdrawn lands in 
general based on the conservation adequacy of existing management 
plans;
    (g) Requests for the exclusion of Federal lands in northern 
California based on approved management plans;
    (h) Requests that we eliminate overlapping protections for 
Wilderness Designations and Congressional Withdrawal areas in northern 
California; and
    (i) Requests that we update land status records related to critical 
habitat boundaries.
    These comments are beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and some 
would require separate rulemaking to be considered. Accordingly, we 
have not specifically responded to these comments in this final rule.
    Comments within the scope of the proposed rule have been addressed 
in the following summary and have been incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on 
July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34270), we solicited

[[Page 61601]]

opinions from nine knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise 
that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in 
which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We 
received responses from four of the peer reviewers who were solicited. 
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding murrelet critical 
habitat. We have addressed peer review comments in the following 
summary and have incorporated them into this final rule as appropriate.
    Several comments refer to inland zone 1 and inland zone 2, which 
are based on the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 
murrelet zone lines. For clarification, inland zone 1 extends 10-40 
miles (mi) (16-64 kilometers (km)) inland from the marine environment, 
depending on the particular geographic area involved. The majority of 
murrelet occupied sites and sightings occur in this zone. Inland zone 2 
includes areas further inland from the eastern boundary of inland zone 
1, and is characterized by relatively low numbers of murrelet 
sightings, which is partially a function of few inventories. Specific 
distances for inland zone 2 vary by geographic area (Thomas et al. 1993 
(FEMAT), pp. IV-23-24).

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Comment 1: Each of the four peer reviewers concurred with the 
proposed reclassification of the marbled murrelet to full species 
status. They stated the reclassification of the marbled murrelet to 
full species status is supported by the literature, and that the 
American Ornithologists' Union (the authoritative source for taxonomy 
and nomenclature of birds in North America) recognizes the marbled 
murrelet as a distinct species.
    Our Response: We agree and note there is no disagreement in the 
literature or by the experts on the reclassification of marbled 
murrelet to full species status. We are finalizing the taxonomic 
revision of the scientific name of the marbled murrelet from 
Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus to Brachyramphus marmoratus in this 
rule.
    Comment 2: One reviewer stated that the surveys used to determine 
occupancy in the areas proposed for revision were conducted under 
earlier survey protocols requiring fewer visits than the currently 
recognized protocol (Mack et al. 2003, pp. 12-16). Accordingly, the 
results contain a level of uncertainty that, although not egregious, 
should be recognized before a final decision is made. In areas of low 
detections it is difficult for audio/visual surveys to detect single 
birds, whereas the current protocol may have detected additional 
murrelets.
    Our Response: The 2003 Marbled Murrelet Inland Survey Protocol 
(Mack et al. 2003) recommends five survey visits in each of 2 years to 
determine occupancy with an 85.3 percent probability of detecting 
occupancy in a given year. The 2-year intensive survey protocol 
accounts for years where breeding effort is low, resulting in fewer or 
no detections in otherwise occupied stands (Mack et al. 2003, p. 13). 
The probability of detecting occupancy decreases from 85.3 percent to 
79.2 percent in any given year when conducting one less site visit per 
year, which increases the level of uncertainty associated with the 
survey results by approximately 6.1 percent (Mack et al. 2003, p.13). 
The studies we relied on in the areas proposed for revision in 
California, Hunter et al. (1998) and Schmidt et al. (2000), reported on 
surveys conducted across large landscapes in northern California's 
inland zone 2, using the Ralph et al. (1994) murrelet survey protocol. 
This protocol recommended only four survey visits in each of 2 years to 
determine occupancy. We acknowledge the studies we relied on used a 
survey protocol requiring fewer visits than is the current standard. 
However, given the large combined number of surveys (2,218) conducted 
in these studies, the additional/associated project-level surveys that 
have occurred since with no detections, the absence of historical 
records of murrelet presence in inland zone 2 in California based on 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and BLM records, and the apparent climatic 
differences between inland zone 2 areas and the closest known occupied 
murrelet sites within inland zone 1, we conclude from the best 
available scientific information that there is a very low likelihood of 
murrelet occupancy within inland zone 2 in California.
    In southern Oregon, Federal agencies undertook a comparable 
evaluation of the probability of marbled murrelet inland habitat use as 
forest types shift from the hemlock/tanoak vegetation zone to the 
mixed-conifer/evergreen vegetation zone (Alegria et al. 2002, pp. 1-
44). This evaluation was based on survey results from the Medford 
District BLM, and the Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests from 
1988 to 2001 that documented the inland distribution of marbled 
murrelets to be strongly associated with the hemlock/tanoak habitat 
zone, which ranges from 13 to 37 mi (20.9 to 59.5 km) inland from the 
Pacific Ocean. The distribution of survey sites with murrelet presence 
or occupancy occur farther inland where the hemlock/tanoak zone extends 
farther inland, which suggests that forest type influences murrelet 
occurrence, rather than absolute distance from the coast (Alegria et 
al. 2002, p. 15).
    For the purposes of the analysis, marbled murrelet survey areas 
were categorized as western hemlock-tanoak (the primary range of the 
marbled murrelet), a 6.5-mile transition zone east of the primary 
range, and the far inland zones. The statistical modeling evaluated the 
hypothesis that marbled murrelets would be present on no more than 3 
percent (95 percent confidence) of the habitat in the far inland zones. 
The final analyses concluded, with 95 percent confidence, that an even 
smaller proportion (1.2 percent) of the landscape may have murrelet 
presence that was not actually detected. The analysis of 9,795 survey 
visits suggests that murrelets are not present in more than 98 percent 
of the sampled units in the far inland zones (Alegria et al., 2002, pp. 
13-15). Only one distant auditory detection in 4,634 survey visits 
occurred within the area more than 6.5 mi (10.4 km) inland of the 
hemlock/tanoak vegetation type (Alegria et al., 2002, p. 16). 
Accordingly, our interpretation of the most recent data supports a 
determination that, in southern Oregon, murrelet use is strongly 
associated with tanoak/hemlock forest, rather than a 35 miles (56 
kilometers) distance from the Pacific Ocean. The 35-mile (56-km) 
distance identified in the 1997 Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan was 
based on the best available information before the Service at that 
time. Therefore, based on the best available scientific information, we 
conclude that there is a very low likelihood of murrelet occurrence in 
the area we are removing from critical habitat designation in southern 
Oregon, and, accordingly, impacts to the species in this area would be 
negligible.
    Comment 3: One reviewer asked if radar studies were conducted and 
if so, suggested that we document the results.
    Our Response: We are unaware of any ornithological radar surveys 
conducted in or near the areas proposed for revision in Oregon. In 
California, Schmidt et al. (2000), used ornithological radar 
instruments to survey for murrelets at three sites beyond their study 
area where murrelets had been previously detected far inland. These 
sites include Onion Mountain and Notice Creek within the eastern 
portion of inland zone 1, and Indian Creek within inland zone 2. 
However, murrelets were detected only at the Notice Creek site using 
this method.

[[Page 61602]]

Previous audio-visual detections at Indian Creek have not been 
validated using either audio-visual surveys or ornithological radar. 
Cooper and Blaha (2005, 2006) used ornithological radar to survey five 
sites along Pine Creek on the western boundary of the Hoopa Valley 
Indian Reservation in California (inland zone 1), to confirm murrelet 
presence that had been documented in previous audio-visual surveys. 
Marbled murrelets were detected at two of the sites, approximately 7 
miles west of the inland zone 2 boundary. Although the number of 
ornithological radar surveys in California in or near inland zone 2 is 
limited, the available data are consistent with the results of other 
surveys. Those surveys failed to detect murrelet presence within inland 
zone 2 or the easternmost portion of inland zone 1.
    Comment 4: Two of the four reviewers who commented on the proposed 
removal of critical habitat in Douglas and Lane Counties in Oregon 
considered the rationale behind the revisions to be unsupported by the 
literature or information presented in the proposed rule. One reviewer 
suggested that a more thorough analysis of existing surveys be 
conducted before revising the inland boundary of critical habitat in 
these areas. Another reviewer requested more documentation that a 
majority of occupied sites occur within inland zone 1, and recommended 
that the critical habitat designation in Douglas and Lane Counties in 
Oregon not be revised until all of the existing data are thoroughly 
analyzed and additional systematic surveys have been conducted.
    Our Response: Based on peer review and public comments, we have 
concluded that the proposed revision of critical habitat in Douglas and 
Lane Counties, Oregon, is not adequately supported by the literature 
and that currently available scientific information is inadequate to 
support a revision of critical habitat in this area. Accordingly, 
critical habitat in Lane and Douglas Counties, Oregon, remains 
designated as critical habitat, based on the best available scientific 
information.
    Comment 5: One peer reviewer questioned whether the areas proposed 
for removal are within or outside of the currently occupied area, and 
stated that the failure to detect murrelets does not mean that they do 
not use an area, given the difficulty of surveying this secretive 
species.
    Our Response: See response to peer reviewer Comment 2. Based on the 
detailed statistical analysis of the survey data, and the similarity of 
the areas not surveyed to the areas surveyed immediately to the north 
and south, there is low likelihood that murrelets occupy the areas 
proposed for removal from critical habitat designation in southern 
Oregon and northern California.
    Comment 6: One reviewer pointed out that the habitat proposed for 
removal from critical habitat designation may act as a buffer of sorts 
for currently occupied habitat, particularly where it abuts the eastern 
edge of obviously occupied habitat. Increases in timber harvest or 
recreation in these areas would potentially bring edge effects 
(especially increased numbers of nest predators) closer to occupied 
habitat, and may reduce the suitability of the currently occupied 
habitat. The reviewer stated that maintenance of a buffer is essential 
to the conservation of murrelets in currently occupied habitat.
    Our Response: In northern California, critical habitat remains 
designated over an area that ranges from 15 mi (24 km) to 20 mi (32 km) 
wide, between the west side of inland zone 1 within the redwood 
vegetation type (which contains more than 95 percent of the known 
occupied murrelet sites), and the revised eastern boundary of inland 
zone 1 within the Douglas-fir/tanoak vegetation type. In southern 
Oregon, critical habitat remains designated within a 6.5-mi-wide (10.5-
km-wide) area between large amounts of known occupied murrelet habitat 
within the hemlock/tanoak vegetation type west of inland zone 1, and 
the break in vegetation to the mixed-conifer/evergreen vegetation type 
to the east. On a large landscape scale, these areas are generally 
managed to protect the PCEs of murrelet critical habitat (see Primary 
Constituent Elements below), although they have not been intensively 
surveyed. As a result, there is a significant distance between the 
eastern-most known occupied murrelet sites and the areas being removed 
from critical habitat designation in northern California and southern 
Oregon. These areas, while not ``buffers,'' may help maintain the 
suitability of known nesting habitat by decreasing the potential for 
indirect impacts related to timber harvest activities or increased 
predation.
    Comment 7: One reviewer stated that it is essential to conserve a 
wide range of habitat to increase the chances that a species will be 
able to adapt to dynamic changes in the habitat. In his view, the areas 
proposed for removal from critical habitat represent small and large 
habitat remnants that may provide future refuges from warm 
temperatures, violent coastal storms, disease, invasive competitive 
species or predators, or extensive fire. He stated that both large and 
small fragments of mature, structurally complex forest located away 
from human activity may provide useful nesting habitat that is 
essential to conservation.
    Our Response: On May 24, 1996, we designated 3,887,800 ac 
(1,573.340 ha) of critical habitat on Federal and non-Federal lands in 
Washington, Oregon, and California (61 FR 26256). While this revision 
will remove approximately 189,671 acres (76,760 ha) from the 
designation in Oregon and California, it only affects areas that are 
not essential to the conservation of the species based on the best 
scientific information available (see response to peer review comment 
2). Accordingly, we do not believe the areas that are being removed 
would provide future nesting habitat, refuges from warm temperatures, 
violent coastal storms, disease, invasive competitive species or 
predators, or extensive fire, since these areas are not likely to be 
used by murrelets. The remaining critical habitat designation 
encompasses a wide range of habitat distributed throughout the range of 
the marbled murrelet from the Canadian border through California, and 
inland from the coast, which represents large and small fragments of 
mature, structurally complex forest that are located away from human 
disturbance.
    Comment 8: One reviewer noted that, if critical habitat designation 
is removed, it is likely the areas affected will be harvested for 
timber or receive greater recreational use, either of which will reduce 
the suitability as nesting habitat. Another reviewer commented that 
there is a strong correlation between murrelet population size and the 
amount of nesting habitat adjacent to the birds, and there is reason to 
believe that further loss of adjacent habitat could result in 
population decline.
    Our Response: The critical habitat areas being removed in southern 
Oregon and northern California are outside of known nesting habitat, 
not likely to be occupied by murrelets, and not essential to the 
conservation of the species (see response to Peer Review Comment 2).
    Comment 9: One reviewer commented that there appeared to be little 
reason to revise the critical habitat designation, which in the 
reviewer's view would limit the conservation options for murrelets. The 
reviewer noted that the proposal did not articulate any economic or 
security issues, and suggested that, in uncertain times, it is prudent 
to be conservative and ``hedge your bets when the consequences of loss 
are high, especially when the costs are low.''

[[Page 61603]]

    Our Response: We disagree that future conservation options will be 
limited by this revision. Marbled murrelets remain protected as a 
listed species wherever they occur, regardless of a critical habitat 
designation. Federal agencies have an independent responsibility under 
section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their authorities to carry out 
programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and 
a requirement under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to ensure that their 
actions do not jeopardize listed species. The take of listed species is 
prohibited by section 9 of the Act without a permit under sections 
10(a)(1)(A) or 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or an incidental take statement 
under section 7(b)(4)(C) of the Act.
    The Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan states that recovery actions in 
southern Oregon and northern California should be focused on preventing 
the loss of occupied nesting habitat, minimizing the loss of unoccupied 
but suitable habitat, and decreasing the time for development of new 
suitable habitat (Service 1997, p. 128). Recovery task 4.1.4 in the 
Recovery Plan states: (1) A definition of suitable marbled murrelet 
habitat should be developed for each Conservation Zone to better 
determine and map appropriate areas for murrelet recovery; (2) the 
components of suitable marbled murrelet habitat are generally known but 
a description of suitable marbled murrelet habitat for each zone is 
lacking; and (3) once definitions are developed, mapping marbled 
murrelet habitat can be accomplished with greater accuracy (Service 
1997, p. 149). Recovery task 4.1.6 states that intensive surveys should 
be conducted to identify nesting areas and delineate the inland 
boundary of nesting habitat (Service 1997, p. 150).
    Intensive surveys to determine murrelet presence in southern Oregon 
indicate that the inland distribution of marbled murrelets is strongly 
associated with the hemlock/tanoak habitat zone, and not the distance 
from the coast. This is probably due to the maritime climate that 
provides milder, wetter conditions that favor development of larger 
trees and more abundant moss cover. The hemlock/tanoak zone transitions 
relatively rapidly to the mixed-conifer/mixed-evergreen zone that has 
hotter, drier climate. This rapid transition to less favorable 
conditions for murrelets may explain why they aren't detected beyond 
the hemlock/tanoak vegetation zone (Alegria et al., 2002, pp. 15-16).
    There are no historical or current survey records documenting 
murrelet presence in inland zone 2 in California (Hunter et al., 1998; 
Schmidt et al., 2000). Studies conducted by Hunter et al. (1997, p. 
20), indicate that the northern Inner North Coast Ranges of California 
are not within the current range of the marbled murrelet, which could 
be influenced by several factors, including habitat structure, 
elevation, predator abundance, distance inland, and climatic 
conditions. Daily maximum summer temperatures were significantly higher 
within the zone 2 study area than at inland sites documented with 
murrelets closer to the coast (Hunter et al., 1998); summer temperature 
is often inversely correlated with humidity and cloud cover (Anthes et 
al., 1975); in California, the vast majority of murrelet records are 
from redwood-dominated stands (E. Burkett, pers. com); and the 
historical inland extent of redwood forests in California closely 
matches the inland extent of marine air influences and summer fog 
(Major 1977) (in Schmidt et al., 2000, pp. 21-22). This evidence, 
combined with the distance from the closest known occupied murrelet 
sites within inland zone 1 (9 mi (14 km) west and 15 mi (25 km) west; 
Schmidt et al. 2000, p. 11; Hunter et al., 1997, p. 7) indicates a very 
low likelihood of murrelet occupancy within inland zone 2 in 
California. Accordingly, the areas designated as critical habitat in 
1996 in southern Oregon that are not within the hemlock/tanoak habitat 
zone, and the areas within inland zone 2 in California, are not 
considered suitable habitat for marbled murrelet recovery.
    The biological criteria used to identify critical habitat in the 
final rule (61 FR 26265; May 24, 1996) include suitable nesting 
habitat, survey data, proximity to marine foraging habitat, large 
contiguous blocks of nesting habitat, and rangewide distribution. Based 
on the best available information, there is no biological rationale to 
support retaining marbled murrelet critical habitat in areas that are 
neither presently used (i.e., unoccupied), nor likely to be used in the 
future by the species (i.e., unsuitable). Consequently, we believe the 
removal of critical habitat from areas that are not essential to the 
conservation of the species in southern Oregon and northern California 
is appropriate. Removing critical habitat from these areas will allow 
Federal agencies to focus their conservation efforts on the areas that 
currently provide murrelet habitat and have a greater likelihood of 
providing habitat into the future. The designation of critical habitat 
in Douglas and Lane Counties in Oregon is not affected by this 
revision, and these lands will continue to provide a conservation 
benefit to the species.

Public Comments

    Comment 10: Commenters stated the murrelet recovery plan identifies 
the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) reserves as the backbone of the 
recovery effort, but Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) are 
administrative designations that can be removed. In addition, the 
Evaluation Report for the 5-Year Status Review for the Marbled Murrelet 
(McShane et al., 2004; p 4-76) indicates there are problems with 
placing too much reliance on the NWFP. Commenters also stated that if 
the NWFP remains in effect and is not altered substantially from its 
current form, the projected acreage of USFS and BLM lands in the 
Pacific Northwest that support stands older than 200 years (200 years 
defines the lower limit of old-growth forest) is expected to increase 
substantially by the year 2050. They also commented that the Recovery 
Plan for the Marbled Murrelet states ``it will take 50 to 100 years or 
more to develop new suitable nesting habitat within most reserve 
areas,'' however, the NWFP is being dismantled before it has had a 
chance to succeed. Other commenters stated that the LSRs need critical 
habitat designation to ensure they are managed for long-term recovery 
of the species.
    Our Response: Based on the best available scientific information 
related to survey data, there is a very low likelihood that murrelets 
occupy the areas being removed from critical habitat designation in 
southern Oregon and northern California (see responses under Peer 
Reviewer Comments above). The areas being removed are no longer 
considered suitable habitat. Accordingly, these areas are not essential 
to the conservation of the species, and murrelet recovery would not be 
affected by the management of these specific areas. This revision of 
critical habitat will help Federal agencies focus their conservation 
efforts on the areas that currently provide habitat for murrelets, and 
areas that have a greater likelihood of providing habitat into the 
future. Based on the best available scientific information, the areas 
that were designated as critical habitat in Lane and Douglas Counties, 
Oregon, in 1996 have been determined to contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
are not being revised.
    Comment 11: One commenter stated that the Service must present a 
balanced economic analysis, including benefits of old-growth habitat 
conservation and restoration, and that an economic analysis must be 
prepared if BLM lands

[[Page 61604]]

are designated in order to address consequences to communities and 
counties.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Service 
consider economic impacts when ``specifying any particular area as 
critical habitat.'' Characterizing the potential economic benefits of 
critical habitat designation can provide context to the potential 
economic cost estimates, where that information is available. However, 
since this final rule removes critical habitat that was previously 
``specified,'' and we are not removing these areas under Section 
4(b)(2) on economic grounds, we have determined that a new economic 
analysis is not required.
    Comment 12: Some commenters stated that the proposal to revise 
critical habitat should be withdrawn and replaced with a delisting 
proposal, and the Service should not designate critical habitat for a 
species that no longer warrants ESA protection.
    Our Response: We disagree. The marbled murrelet DPS in Washington, 
Oregon, and California continues to warrant protection under the Act, 
for the reasons described in the 12-month Finding on a Petition to 
Remove the Marbled Murrelet from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 
3424). That finding determined that the DPS continues to meet the 
definition of a threatened species based on the species' population 
size and trajectory, in light of the scope and magnitude of existing 
threats.
    Comment 13: Commenters stated there is no need to modify critical 
habitat in areas that are currently designated as LSRs, and there is 
little or no incremental cost to conserve marbled murrelet critical 
habitat in LSRs and riparian reserves, because these areas are already 
established for the purpose of conserving late successional wildlife.
    Our Response: Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 
as (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with section 4 of this 
Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) 
Essential to the conservation of the species, and (b) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. The survey data for southern Oregon and northern 
California, along with the quality and quantity of habitat in this 
area, indicate there is a very low likelihood that murrelets occupy the 
LSRs or the other areas being removed from the 1996 critical habitat 
designation, and are unlikely to occupy these areas in the future (see 
responses under Peer Reviewer Comments). Accordingly, based on the best 
available scientific information, we have determined that these areas 
are not essential to the conservation of the species; therefore, 
requiring Federal agencies to enter into section 7 consultation with 
the Service on effects to critical habitat in these areas would be 
inconsistent with the Act. However, critical habitat in Lane and 
Douglas Counties, Oregon, will remain as designated in 1996, since 
those areas are occupied and essential to the conservation of the 
species.

Federal Agency Comments

    Comment 14: The BLM suggested (a) Adding language to the final rule 
that clearly articulates that the PCEs must be present on the lands 
within the mapped critical habitat units for the area to meet the 
statutory definition of critical habitat; (b) that the final rule 
clarify that activities proposed to occur on lands that do not contain 
PCEs within the mapped critical habitat units will not be subject to a 
destruction or adverse modification determination because such lands, 
by definition, are not critical habitat; and that (c) the proposed rule 
provide better guidance in regard to the functionality of forest stands 
in support of a critical habitat designation, particularly as related 
to the issue of fragmentation. BLM also expressed a concern that 
outdated land status information was used to prepare the proposed rule 
in northern California. They indicated that this is problematic in two 
key areas: Lacks Creek west of and adjacent to the Hoopa Reservation; 
and Gilman Butte east of the King Range National Conservation Area and 
south of Humboldt Redwoods State Park. The BLM also requested that we 
remove critical habitat from all areas not in the western hemlock/
tanoak vegetation on the Grants Pass and Glendale Resource Areas of the 
Medford District. The agency commented that this area lacks murrelet 
recovery habitat, and historical observations and recent protocol 
surveys have not documented murrelet occupancy. The areas described 
include the southeasternmost 2 square miles of CHU OR-07-g, and the 
northeasternmost 24 square miles of CHU OR-07-f.
    Our Response: (a) Areas outside of the geographical area occupied 
by a species at the time it is listed under the Act (i.e., unoccupied 
habitat) can be designated as critical habitat if the areas are 
essential to the conservation of the species; unoccupied areas 
considered essential may not necessarily contain the PCEs of physical 
or biological features. However, for the marbled murrelet, each of the 
areas designated as critical habitat is within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it was listed under the Act, and 
contains those physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, which may require special management 
considerations or protection. Accordingly, each of the areas delineated 
and mapped in this final rule meet the definition of critical habitat.
    (b) The marbled murrelet PCEs include individual trees with 
potential nest platforms and forest lands of at least one half site-
potential tree height regardless of contiguity, within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) 
of individual trees with potential nesting platforms and that are used 
or potentially used by the marbled murrelet for nesting or breeding. 
Activities that occur within or adjacent to lands designated as 
critical habitat may still have an effect on PCEs, depending on the 
particular aspects of the Federal action involved. The preamble to the 
1996 final critical habitat rule (61 FR 26265; May 24, 1996), states 
that ``within the boundaries of designated critical habitat, only those 
areas that contain one or more primary constituent elements are, by 
definition, critical habitat. Areas without any primary constituent 
elements are excluded by definition.'' However, this language is not in 
the final critical habitat rule itself and is no longer accurate. The 
potential effects of Federal actions that may affect any area within 
the boundaries of designated critical habitat will need to be evaluated 
on a project-specific basis during the section 7(a)(2) consultation 
process.
    (c) The removal, modification, or fragmentation of forested areas 
can directly impact nesting structures, nesting substrate, and the 
vertical and horizontal cover provided by the surrounding forest. 
Fragmentation of forested areas can result in habitat isolation and 
increased edge, which can negatively impact the quality of the 
remaining nesting habitat primarily through increased predation, 
modification of the microclimate, and potential windthrow of nest 
trees. Examples of Federal actions that may affect marbled murrelet 
nesting habitat include timber harvest, salvage logging, hazard tree 
removal, road construction, recreational or other developments,

[[Page 61605]]

fuels reduction projects, and indirect harvest-related effects such as 
windthrow. The key factor related to an adverse modification 
determination is whether, with implementation of a proposed Federal 
action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its 
intended conservation role for the species, or retain those physical or 
biological features that relate to the ability of the area to 
periodically support the species. The role of critical habitat is to 
support the life-history needs of the species and provide for 
conservation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat are those that would alter the physical or biological features 
to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of 
critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.
    The areas referred to by BLM within CHU OR-07-g and CHU OR-07-f 
occur within the 6.5-mile area designed to support murrelets that might 
use the area between the western hemlock/tanoak and mixed-conifer/
evergreen vegetation zones. These areas were not considered for removal 
because of their proximity to occupied habitat (see response to Comment 
6 under Peer Reviewer Comments).

Comments From States

    We did not receive any comments from any State in response to the 
proposed rule.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments from the public and peer reviewers that we received in 
response to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on July 
31, 2008 (73 FR 44678).
    Based on the comments received, we have determined that the 
proposed removal of 63,000 ac (25,495 ha) of critical habitat 
designated in Douglas and Lane Counties in Oregon is not supported by 
the best available scientific information and would not be appropriate. 
Based on the best available scientific information, these areas contain 
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species, and will continue to be designated as critical habitat. 
Therefore, we have removed instructions to remove the following 
critical habitat units from this final rule: OR-03-c, OR-03-e, OR-04-f, 
OR-04-g, OR-04-i, OR-04-j, and OR-06-d.
    Systematic surveys such as those conducted by Hunter et al. (1998), 
Schmidt et al. (2000), and Alegria et al. (2002) were not conducted in 
a relatively small area (approximately 71,000 ac) in northern 
California located between the Klamath River and the Oregon border, and 
between the much larger areas surveyed by Hunter et al. (1998), Schmidt 
et al. (2000), and Alegria et al. (2002). However, based on the 
similarity of mixed-conifer habitat surveyed to the north and south, 
the lack of detections from the areas immediately north and south, and 
the lack of historical detections, we believe there is a very low 
likelihood that murrelets occur within inland zone 2 and the far 
eastern portions of inland zone 1 located between the Klamath River and 
the Oregon border in northern California. In light of what the current 
data indicate regarding the forest types that murrelets use for nesting 
(see response to Comment 9), we conclude that it is unlikely that 
murrelets will occupy these areas in the future. Accordingly, we have 
revised the critical habitat boundary in this area.
    The critical habitat revision in southern Oregon and northern 
California is appropriate, based on the best available scientific 
information, which indicates the likely distribution of nesting birds 
is not as far inland as was delineated in 1996. We have no historical 
or current survey records documenting murrelet presence in the areas 
being removed in northern California, and the best available 
information indicates the inland range of the murrelet from the Pacific 
Ocean is delimited by the hemlock/tanoak habitat zone, rather than 
specific distance from the coast. Accordingly, we are revising the 
designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet from the 1996 
critical habitat designation (61 FR 26254; May 24, 1996) to reflect the 
removal of approximately 189,700 ac (76,700 ha) of area from critical 
habitat designation in 8 units in southern Oregon and northern 
California. The critical habitat units affected by the revision are 
depicted in Table 1 and Table 2. The remaining critical habitat units 
that were designated in the May 24, 1996, final rule are not affected 
by this revision. Approximately 3,698,100 ac (1,497,000 ha) of critical 
habitat is now designated for the marbled murrelet.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction 
or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must 
contain the physical or biological features which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, 
to the

[[Page 61606]]

extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, 
those physical or biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected 
habitat), focusing on the principal biological or physical constituent 
elements (primary constituent elements, or PCEs) within an area that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as roost sites, 
nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type). 
PCEs are the elements of physical and biological features that, when 
laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide 
for a species' life-history processes, are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in 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. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate 
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional 
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied 
by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may, 
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be 
included in the critical habitat designation.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge. Substantive comments received in 
response to proposed critical habitat designations are also considered. 
A five-year review summarizing the biological, ecological, and 
population information on the marbled murrelet was completed on June 
12, 2009 (Service 2009). That report also evaluated current threats and 
how they may have changed since the species was listed. This 
information was considered in the completion of this revised 
designation, as was information from the 12-month Finding on a Petition 
to Remove the Marbled Murrelet from the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (75 FR 3424; January 21, 2010). We also reviewed 
the scientific data and other information used to finalize the 1996 
critical habitat designation, which included research published in 
peer-reviewed articles, agency reports, unpublished data, and various 
Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers (e.g., land cover type 
information, land ownership information, topographic information). We 
reviewed the conservation needs of the marbled murrelet described in 
the recovery plan (Service 1997), and considered new scientific 
information and data available from State, Federal, and tribal 
agencies, as well as academia and private organizations.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical 
habitat at a particular point in time may not include all of the 
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the 
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat 
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is 
unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the species. Areas that 
are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and 
outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject 
to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the 
Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 
7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or 
threatened species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 
actions occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally 
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their 
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings 
in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the 
basis of the best available information at the time of designation will 
not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, 
habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation 
planning efforts if new information available at the time of these 
planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as 
critical habitat, we consider those physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are 
not limited to:
    (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, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific elements of physical or biological features 
required for the marbled murrelet from its biological needs as 
described in the ``Background'' section of the final rule designating 
critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. The PCEs identified in the 
May 24, 1996, final critical habitat designation (61 FR 26254) have not 
been revised and remain applicable to this final revision of critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    The criteria used to identify critical habitat areas described in 
the May 24, 1996, Federal Register remain applicable to this final 
revision of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. These include 
suitable nesting habitat, information on presence/absence and 
occupancy, proximity to marine

[[Page 61607]]

foraging habitat, large contiguous blocks of nesting habitat, rangewide 
distribution, and adequacy of existing protection and management (61 FR 
26265).

Final Revised Critical Habitat Designation

    In our 1996 designation of marbled murrelet critical habitat, we 
considered several factors in determining whether particular units met 
the definition of critical habitat, including available survey data, 
the proximity to marine foraging habitat, and the presence of large 
contiguous blocks of suitable nesting habitat. The physical or 
biological features associated with marbled murrelet critical habitat 
focused on individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and 
forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees 
with potential nesting platforms that had a canopy height of at least 
one-half the site potential tree height (SPTH) (the average maximum 
height for trees given local growing conditions). We determined that 
these features were essential because they provided suitable nesting 
habitat for successful reproduction. On a landscape basis, we believed 
that forests with canopy height of at least one-half the SPTH were more 
likely to be occupied, and hence were more likely to contribute to the 
conservation of the marbled murrelet (61 FR 26264; May 24, 1996).
    For the 1996 critical habitat designation, we used survey results 
(including those showing the lack of detections) as indicators of the 
presence or absence of marbled murrelets in specific areas. However, 
survey efforts were minimal in many areas, coverage of areas surveyed 
was discontinuous, and information was of limited use in designating 
critical habitat in some portions of the range (61 FR 26274; May 24, 
1996). The original delineation of zone 2 was based on relatively few 
far-inland marbled murrelet records, and considered the lack of 
comprehensive inland surveys throughout its range. Because of this 
paucity of survey data, the actual inland range and distribution of 
this species were unknown (Hunter et al. 1998, p. 93). We stated in the 
1996 final rule that we would continue to monitor and collect new 
information, and may revise the critical habitat designation in the 
future if new information supports a change (61 FR 26272; May 24, 
1996).
    We have reassessed the 1996 critical habitat designation in 
southern Oregon and northern California, after considering the results 
of extensive surveys in these areas. Although the best available 
information in 1996 indicated a high probability of occupancy after 
applying the critical habitat methodology, new information collected 
from site-specific surveys has since confirmed that marbled murrelets 
do not use these areas. Recovery task 4.1.4 in the 1997 Marbled 
Murrelet Recovery Plan recommends that a definition of suitable marbled 
murrelet habitat be developed for each conservation zone to determine 
and map appropriate areas for marbled murrelet recovery with greater 
accuracy (Service 1997, p. 149), and task 4.1.6 recommends intensive 
surveys to identify nesting areas and delineate the inland boundary of 
murrelet nesting habitat (Service 1997, p. 150). Intensive surveys that 
have been conducted since 1997 have given us a more comprehensive 
understanding of the species biological needs, and the specific areas 
that are essential for the recovery of the species. Those are the areas 
that should be the focus of collective recovery efforts, rather than 
areas that may experience infrequent or occasional use at low levels.
    Accordingly, we have determined that the areas being removed are 
not essential to the conservation of the species and do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat. Zone 2 includes areas from 35 mi (56.3 
km) to 50 mi (80.5 km) from marine environments, depending on 
geographic location (Thomas 1993 (FEMAT), p. IV-24). In zone 2 in 
northern California and southern Oregon, 189,671 ac (76,757 ha) are 
being removed where extensive surveys have demonstrated marbled 
murrelets are very unlikely to be found (Hunter et al. 1997, pp. 16-25; 
Schmidt et al. 2000, pp. 16-22). Both of these studies acknowledge that 
it is possible that marbled murrelets may occasionally use some portion 
of the study areas; however, if the species does occur, the number of 
individuals is probably very low. Accordingly, the habitat in these 
areas does not contain elements of the physical or biological features 
in an appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement that are essential 
for the conservation of the species.
    We are, therefore, revising the 1996 final designation of critical 
habitat for the marbled murrelet to reflect the removal of three 
critical habitat units (CA-10-a, CA-11-c, and CA-11-d) and the revision 
of five critical habitat units (CA-01-d, CA-01-e, CA-11-b, OR-07-d, and 
OR-07-f) in northern California and southern Oregon. No other critical 
habitat units designated in the May 24, 1996, final rule are affected 
by this revision. Each of the designated areas are within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, 
contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    The critical habitat areas described below reflect the best 
available scientific information regarding areas that no longer meet 
the definition of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in Zone 2, 
because they are not essential to the conservation of the species.

  Table 1--Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet Designated in 1996
                      and Removed in 2011 by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Areas removed from designated
                                               critical habitat
                State                -----------------------------------
                                            Acres           Hectares
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California..........................           143,487            58,068
Oregon..............................            46,184            18,690
Washington..........................                 0                 0
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................           189,671            76,758
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 61608]]


 Table 2--Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet Designated in 1996 and Removed in 2011 by Unit and Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Hectares
            Critical habitat unit                        Ownership              Acres removed        removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA-01-d.....................................  USFS..........................            19,363             7,836
CA-01-e.....................................  USFS..........................            28,168            11,400
CA-10-a.....................................  USFS..........................            35,935            14,543
CA-11-b.....................................  USFS..........................             8,540             3,456
CA-11-c.....................................  BLM...........................             2,644             1,070
CA-11-d.....................................  USFS..........................            61,558            24,912
OR-07-d.....................................  USFS..........................            26,528            10,736
OR-07-f.....................................  BLM...........................             2,109               853
OR-07-f.....................................  USFS..........................             4,825             1,953
OR-07-f.....................................  State \1\.....................                 1               < 1
                                                                             -----------------------------------
    Totals..................................  ..............................           189,671            76,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Small linear strip through BLM lands.

    California: The units or portions thereof that are not essential to 
the conservation of the marbled murrelet (i.e., they no longer meet the 
definition of critical habitat) include CA-01-d (portion), CA-01-e 
(portion), CA-10-a (entire), CA-11-b (portion), CA-11-c (entire), and 
CA-11-d (entire).
    Oregon: The units or portions thereof that are not essential to the 
conservation of the marbled murrelet (i.e., they no longer meet the 
definition of critical habitat), where they extend into Oregon include 
CA-01-e (entire), CA-10-a (entire), OR-07-d (portion), and OR-07-f 
(portion).
    Washington: No revisions to the 1996 critical habitat designation.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary

[[Page 61609]]

involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or 
designated critical habitat.

Application of the Adverse Modification Standards

    The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9, 
2004, memorandum regarding application of the ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' standard is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analysis 
for Federal actions affecting marbled murrelet critical habitat. The 
key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species or retain those PCEs that relate to 
the ability of the area to support the species. Activities that may 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the 
physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces 
the conservation value of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet.
    Generally, the conservation role of marbled murrelet critical 
habitat units is to support nesting, roosting, and other normal 
behaviors (61 FR 26256). To recover the species, it is also necessary 
to produce and maintain viable marbled murrelet populations that are 
well distributed throughout the respective Conservation Zones (Service 
1997 p. 116). The range of the marbled murrelet has been subdivided by 
the Recovery Plan into six Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zones (Service 
1997, pp. 125-130), based on the need for potentially different 
recovery actions in various portions of the marbled murrelet's range, 
and the need to maintain well-distributed populations. These zones 
include Puget Sound (Zone 1), Western Washington Coast Range (Zone 2), 
Oregon Coast Range (Zone 3), Siskiyou Coast Range (Zone 4), Mendocino 
(Zone 5), and the Santa Cruz Mountains (Zone 6). Marbled murrelets 
within the conservation zones are likely to interact across zone 
boundaries at some level.
    Specific goals are described in the Recovery Plan, but generally 
include maintaining occupied sites and suitable nesting habitat for 
marbled murrelets. Because it will take 50 or more years to develop new 
nesting habitat, the short-term focus is on retaining and/or increasing 
terrestrial habitat (Service 1997 p. vi). For a wide-ranging species 
such as the marbled murrelet, where multiple critical habitat units are 
designated, each unit has a Conservation Zone role and range-wide role 
in contributing to the conservation of the species. The basis for an 
adverse modification opinion would be whether a proposed action 
appreciably reduces the ability of critical habitat to remain 
functional to serve its identified conservation role at the 
Conservation Zone and range-wide levels. In evaluating the effect of a 
proposed action, the Service will analyze the impacts to individual 
units in light of their overall contribution to the conservation of 
murrelets in the conservation zone described previously, and the 
overall range of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and 
California. Thus, an adverse modification determination would be based 
upon a broader inquiry than an assessment of adverse effects at the 
local unit level.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the marbled murrelet. These activities include, but 
are not limited to: (1) Forest management activities that greatly 
reduce stand canopy closure, appreciably alter the stand structure or 
reduce the availability of nesting sites; (2) land disturbance 
activities such as mining, sand and gravel extraction, construction of 
hydroelectric facilities and road building; and (3) harvest of certain 
types of commercial forest products (e.g. moss).
    These activities may have the following effects on marbled murrelet 
critical habitat:
    (1) Removal or degradation of individual trees with potential 
nesting platforms, or the nest platforms themselves, that results in a 
significant decrease in the value of the trees for future nesting use. 
Moss may be an important component of nesting platforms in some areas.
    (2) Removal or degradation of trees adjacent to trees with 
potential nesting platforms that provide habitat elements essential to 
the suitability of the potential nest tree or platform, such as trees 
providing cover from weather or predators.
    (3) Removal or degradation of forested areas with a canopy height 
of at least one-half the site-potential tree height and, regardless of 
contiguity, within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of individual trees containing 
potential nest platforms. This includes removal or degradation of trees 
currently unsuitable for nesting that contribute to the structure/
integrity of the potential nest area (i.e., trees that contribute to 
the canopy of the forested area). These trees provide the canopy, stand 
conditions, and protection from predators important for marbled 
murrelet nesting.
    For a proposed action to result in destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat, it must affect the designated 
critical habitat to an extent that the affected unit(s) no longer 
serves its intended conservation role for the species or no longer 
retains its current ability for the PCEs to support the species. 
Proposed actions requiring a section 7 consultation must be evaluated 
individually, in light of the baseline condition of the critical 
habitat unit and Conservation Zone, unique history of the area, and 
effect of the impact on the critical habitat unit relative to its 
regional and range-wide role in the conservation of the species.
    All of the units designated as critical habitat contain physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the marbled 
murrelet. All units are within the geographic range of the species, 
were occupied or were likely to have been occupied by the species at 
the time of listing, and are likely used by the marbled murrelet. 
Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas 
occupied by the marbled murrelet or if the species may be affected by 
the action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the 
continued existence of the marbled murrelet.
    Activities that have little to no effect to one critical habitat 
unit or Conservation Zone may result in serious effects in another, due 
to differences in existing conditions and the conservation function of 
critical habitat. Therefore, the Service cannot provide a detailed 
description of the threshold for future actions that would result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that would 
be applicable throughout the range of the designated critical habitat 
in this final rule.
    Actions that impact forest stands that are not within 0.5 mile (0.8 
km) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms would probably 
not adversely modify critical habitat, even if they occur within the 
boundaries of the area designated as critical habitat. Activities that 
do not affect the PCEs or the ability for the PCEs to support the 
species are unlikely to be affected by the designation. However, even 
though an action may not adversely affect or modify critical habitat, 
it may still affect marbled murrelets (e.g., through disturbance) and 
may, therefore, still be

[[Page 61610]]

subject to consultation under section 7 of the Act.
    Activities conducted according to the standards and guidelines for 
LSRs, as described in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest 
Plan, would be unlikely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of 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. These forest management 
activities 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.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities may 
constitute destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, 
contact a Field Supervisor listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the 
Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. 
Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not designate as 
critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or 
controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, 
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan 
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the 
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to 
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
    Although we did receive comments from the U.S. Navy related to 
their INRMP at Naval Radio Station Jim Creek in Washington, we are 
unaware of any lands owned or managed by the DOD within the specific 
areas that were being considered for removal from the 1996 critical 
habitat designation, as identified in the proposed rule (73 FR 44678; 
July 31, 2008). Therefore, this final rule will not have any effect on 
DOD lands subject to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial data after taking into consideration the 
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant 
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The 
Secretary may exclude an 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. In making that determination, the statute on 
its face, as well as the legislative history, is clear that the 
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how 
much weight to give to any factor. However, since this action involves 
removing critical habitat from the existing designation, rather than 
designating critical habitat in new areas, section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
is not applicable, given the narrow scope of the action described in 
the proposed rule.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866. OMB bases its determination upon the following four 
criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act amended the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This revision will result in an approximate 189,671-acre (76,757-
ha) reduction in the critical habitat acreage designated in the May 24, 
1996, final rule (61 FR 26256). No additional critical habitat is being 
designated by this revision, and the areas being removed from the 1996 
critical habitat designation occur exclusively on Federal lands (with 
the exception of an approximate one-acre linear strip of State land 
within CHU OR-07-f). Accordingly, we are certifying that the revised 
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal

[[Page 61611]]

mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that 
would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that would impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments lack authority to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) A condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor does 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (2) This revision results in an approximate 189,671-ac (76,757-ha) 
reduction in the critical habitat acreage that was designated in the 
May 24, 1996, final rule (61 FR 26256). With the exception of a small 
linear strip of State-owned land in Unit OR-07-f, all of the acres 
being removed from the 1996 designation are on Federal lands. 
Accordingly, we do not believe that this rule will significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because small governments will be 
affected only to the extent that any programs having Federal funds, 
permits, or other authorized activities must ensure that their actions 
will not adversely affect the critical habitat. This revision would 
remove a portion of the designated critical habitat, removing the need 
to consult on effects to critical habitat for those removed areas. 
Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of this revised designation 
of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet in a takings implications 
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner 
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it 
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of 
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal 
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment 
concludes that this revised designation of critical habitat for the 
marbled murrelet does not pose additional takings implications for 
lands within or affected by the original 1996 designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this final revised critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in California, Oregon, and 
Washington. During the public comment periods, we did not receive any 
comments from any State agency (see Summary of Comments and 
Recommendations section). We believe that the revised designation of 
critical habitat for the marbled murrelet will have little incremental 
impact on State and local governments and their activities, since the 
removal of approximately 189,671 ac (76,757 ha) of currently designated 
critical habitat would impose no additional restrictions beyond any 
that may already be in place.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We are revising the critical habitat designation in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical 
or biological features essential to the conservation of the species 
within the designated areas to assist the public in understanding the 
habitat needs of the marbled murrelet.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that

[[Page 61612]]

tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public 
lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information 
available to tribes.
    This revision will result in an approximate 189,671-ac (76,757-ha) 
reduction in the critical habitat acreage that was designated in the 
May 24, 1996, final rule (61 FR 26256). None of the areas being removed 
are on tribal lands, and we did not receive any comments from tribal 
entities in response to the proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses as defined by the National Environmental 
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating 
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration. We do not expect this final rule to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, since it 
would involve removing approximately 189,700 ac (76,700 ha) of critical 
habitat from the existing critical habitat designation. Therefore, this 
action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available online at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/or upon request from the 
Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are staff from the Pacific 
Region Ecological Services Offices.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
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; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 
noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h), by revising the entry for ``Murrelet, 
marbled'' under ``BIRDS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              Birds
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Murrelet, marbled................  Brachyramphus         U.S.A. (AK, CA, OR,  U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)  T                       479     17.95(b)           NA
                                    marmoratus.           WA), Canada (B.C.).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
 3. In Sec.  17.95(b), amend the entry for ``Marbled Murrelet'' as 
follows:
0
a. Revise the heading to read as set forth below;
0
b. Revise paragraph 3 to read as set forth below;
0
c. Remove the index map for Oregon (``General configuration of final 
critical habitat in Oregon'') and add in its place the map titled 
``Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 
in Oregon'', as set forth below;
0
d. Remove the index map for California (``General configuration of 
final critical habitat in California'') and add in its place the map 
titled ``Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus 
marmoratus) in California'', as set forth below;
0
e. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit OR-07-d and 
add in its place new text and a new map for Unit OR-07-d as set forth 
below;
0
f. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit OR-07-f and 
add in its place new text and a new map for Unit OR-07-f as set forth 
below;
0
g. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit CA-01-d and 
add in its place new text and a new map for Unit CA-01-d as set forth 
below;
0
h. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit CA-01-e and 
add in its place new text and a new map for Unit CA-01-e as set forth 
below;
0
i. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit CA-10-a;
0
j. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit CA-11-b and 
add in its place new text and a new map for Unit CA-11-b as set forth 
below;
0
k. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit CA-11-c; 
and
0
l. Remove the critical habitat description and map for Unit CA-11-d.

[[Page 61613]]

17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (b) Birds.
* * * * *
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
* * * * *
    3. A description of the critical habitat units follows. Where a 
critical habitat unit includes Federal lands within the boundaries of a 
Late Successional Reserve (LSR) established by the Northwest Forest 
Plan, the areas included within the LSR boundaries as they existed on 
May 24, 1996, remain designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat 
units do not include non-Federal lands covered by a legally operative 
incidental take permit for marbled murrelets issued under section 10(a) 
of the Act.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.008

* * * * *

[[Page 61614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.009

* * * * *
    Unit OR-07-d: Curry and Josephine Counties, Oregon. From United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service 1:100,000 map; Gold Beach and Grants 
Pass, Oregon; 1995.
    Critical habitat includes only Federal lands designated as Late 
Successional Reserves described within the following areas:
    T.38S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: S \1/2\ SE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE 
\1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 31.
    T.39S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 4; S \1/2\, \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 5; E \1/2\, E \1/2\ W \1/2\ 
Section 6; Section 7 except NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Section 8 except SW \1/
4\ SW \1/4\; Section 9; W \1/2\ W \1/2\, E \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 10; 
NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 15; Section 16 except NW \1/4\ SW 
\1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; N \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, S \1/2\ 
SE \1/4\ Section 17; Section 18 except N \1/2\ NE \1/4\; Sections 19-
20; Section 21 except SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\; W \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 22; 
NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/
4\ Section 29; Sections 30-32; SW \1/4\, S \1/2\ NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE 
\1/4\ Section 33.
    T.39S., R.12W. Willamette Meridian: S \1/2\ S \1/2\ Section 1; S 
\1/2\ S \1/2\, N \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 2; S \1/2\ Section 3; Section 
10 except SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\; Section 11 except S \1/2\ SW \1/4\; 
Section 12; Section 13 except SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; NE \1/4\ NE 
\1/4\ Section 14; W \1/2\, W \1/2\ E \1/2\, E \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 
19; S \1/2\, E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 20; Section 21; S \1/2\ S \1/2\, 
NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ NW \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\ Section 22; S 
\1/2\, S \1/2\ N \1/2\ Section 23; Sections 24-36.
    T.39S., R.13W. Willamette Meridian: Section 33.
    T.40S., R.10W. Willamette Meridian: SE \1/4\, S \1/2\ SW \1/4\, E 
\1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 2; S \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 3; SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 4; SE \1/4\, S \1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 8; Section 9 except N \1/
2\ NW \1/4\; Section

[[Page 61615]]

10; Section 11 except E \1/2\ NW \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\, S \1/2\ SE 
\1/4\; NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 14; Section 15 except SE \1/4\ SE \1/
4\; Section 16; Section 17 except N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; 
Section 19 except NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\; 
Section 20; Section 21 except SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\; N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW 
\1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 22; N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 
28; Section 29; Sections 30-31; Section 32 except SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\.
    T.40S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW 
\1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 4; Sections 5-8; W \1/2\ NW \1/4\, S 
\1/2\ SE \1/4\, SW \1/4\ Section 9; Section 16 except E \1/2\ E \1/2\; 
Sections 17-21; E \1/2\ SE \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\ Section 25; Section 
27 except E \1/2\, NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Sections 28-33; W \1/2\ Section 
34; SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 35; Section 36.
    T.40S., R.12W. Willamette Meridian: Sections 1-30; Section 31 
except W \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Sections 32-36.
    T.40S., R.13W. Willamette Meridian: Section 4 except SE \1/4\ SE 
\1/4\; W \1/2\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\, S \1/2\ SE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 9; W \1/2\, NE \1/4\ Section 10; SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 12; 
N \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 13.
    T.41S., R.10W. Willamette Meridian: Section 5 except E \1/2\ E \1/
2\; Sections 6-7; Section 8 except E \1/2\ E \1/2\; Section 17 except E 
\1/2\ E \1/2\; Section 18.
    T.41S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: Section 1; Section 2 except NW 
\1/4\ NE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Sections 3-15; Sections 17-18.
    T.41S., R.12W. Willamette Meridian: Sections 1-4; Section 5 except 
W \1/2\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\; Section 7 except NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SW \1/
4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\; W \1/2\, S \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 8; Section 9 
except S \1/2\ S \1/2\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; Section 10; Section 11 
except SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SW \1/4\; Sections 12-13; Section 14 
except NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\; Section 15; Section 17; 
Section 18 except W \1/2\ W \1/2\.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.010

* * * * *
    Unit OR-07-f: Curry and Josephine Counties, Oregon. From United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service 1:100,000 map; Port Orford, 
Canyonville, Gold Beach and Grants Pass, Oregon; 1995.
    Critical habitat includes only Federal lands designated as Late 
Successional Reserves described within the following areas:
    T.32S., R.09W. Willamette Meridian: Section 34.
    T.32S., R.10W. Willamette Meridian: Section 25; E \1/2\, NE \1/4\ 
NW \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 26; Section 35 except W \1/2\ NW 
\1/4\; Section 36 except SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\.
    T.33S., R.09W. Willamette Meridian: NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 2; 
Sections 3-4;

[[Page 61616]]

Section 5 except SE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, E \1/2\ SW \1/4\; Section 6 except 
SE \1/4\; Section 7 except E \1/2\ NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ NE \1/4\; Section 
8 except NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Section 9 except S \1/2\ SE \1/4\; NW \1/4\ 
NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 10; NW \1/4\, N 
\1/2\ NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 17; Section 
18; NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 19.
    T.33S., R.10W. Willamette Meridian: Section 1 except NE \1/4\, N 
\1/2\ SW \1/4\, S \1/2\ NW \1/4\; Section 2 except NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\; 
Section 3 except NW \1/4\, N \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\, N \1/2\ 
SW \1/4\; Section 9 except W \1/2\, N \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/
4\; Section 10; Section 11 except NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Section 12 except 
NW \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\; Sections 13-14; Section 15 except W \1/2\ 
SW \1/4\; Section 21 except W \1/2\; Sections 22-23; Section 24 except 
S \1/2\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\; Section 26 except SE \1/4\, E \1/
2\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\; Section 27; Section 28 except N \1/2\ 
NW \1/4\; Section 29 except NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 30; Section 31 except W \1/2\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\; Sections 32-
33; Section 34 except SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\.
    T.34S., R.10W. Willamette Meridian: NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\, NW 
\1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 4; Section 5; Section 6 except NW \1/4\ NE \1/
4\, N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Section 7; NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ 
NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 8; N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE 
\1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 18.
    T.34S., R.10 \1/2\ W. Willamette Meridian: S \1/2\ Section 7; 
Section 18 except NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Section 19; N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, W 
\1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 30; W \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ Section 31.
    T.34S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: E \1/2\ SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE 
\1/4\ Section 11; Section 12 except E \1/4\; Section 13 except NE \1/
4\; E \1/2\ E \1/2\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 14; SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 15; Section 21 except N \1/2\, E \1/2\ SE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW 
\1/4\; Section 22 except NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SE \1/4\, 
N \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; Section 23 except NE \1/4\ NW \1/
4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\; Sections 24-28; S \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ 
Section 31; Section 32 except N \1/2\ NW \1/4\; Sections 33-36.
    T.35S., R.10 \1/2\ W. Willamette Meridian: Section 6 except E \1/2\ 
E \1/2\; Section 7 except E \1/2\ E \1/2\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ 
SW \1/4\; Section 18 except E \1/2\, E \1/2\ SW \1/4\; NW \1/4\, W \1/
2\ SW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 19; W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 30.
    T.35S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: Sections 1-4; Section 5 except 
SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 6; E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 
7; Sections 8-15; Section 17; E \1/2\ NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ 
Section 18; Section 20 except SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SW \1/4\; 
Section 21 except SW \1/4\ NE \1/4\; Sections 22-28; NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, 
E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 29; Section 33 except W \1/2\ SW \1/4\; Section 
34-36.
    T.36S., R.11W. Willamette Meridian: NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\, N 
\1/2\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 2; Section 3; N \1/2\ N \1/
2\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, E \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 4; NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, N 
\1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 5; E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 9; Section 10 except 
S \1/2\ SE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\; NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 11; NW 
\1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 15; E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 16.

[[Page 61617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.011

* * * * *
    Unit CA-01-d: Siskiyou County, California. From United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1:100,000 map; Happy Camp California; 1995.
    Critical habitat includes only Federal lands designated as Late 
Successional Reserves described within the following areas:
    T.18N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE 
\1/4\ Section 33; E \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 35; SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE 
\1/4\, S \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 36.
    T.18N., R. 05E. Humboldt Meridian: S \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 31.
    T.17N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: NE \1/4\, E \1/2\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 24; E \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\, Section 25; N \1/2\, E \1/2\ SE 
\1/4\ Section 36.
    T.17N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: Section 1 except SW \1/4\, SW \1/
4\ NW \1/4\; Section 2 except NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, E 
\1/2\ SE \1/4\; Section 3 except N \1/2\ N \1/2\; Section 4; SE \1/4\ 
NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ Section 5; Section 8 except NW \1/4\; Sections 9-10; 
NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 11; NE \1/4\ Section 12; 
Sections 16-17; W \1/2\, W \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 20; SE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ 
SW \1/4\ Section 21; S \1/2\, S \1/2\ N \1/2\ Section 22; S \1/2\, S 
\1/2\ N \1/2\ Section 23; W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 24; W \1/2\ NW \1/
4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 25; Section 26; Section 27 except SW \1/
4\; NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SE \1/4\ Section 28; Section 29 except 
E \1/2\ NE \1/4\; SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 32; Section 33; N 
\1/2\ NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\, SE \1/4\ Section 34; N \1/2\, N \1/2\ SE \1/
4\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 35.
    T.17N., R.05E. Humboldt Meridian: W \1/2\ except NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ 
Section 4; Section 5; Section 6 except NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\; Sections 7-8; 
W \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 9.
    T.16N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: S \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SE \1/4\, NE 
\1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 1; E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 11; Section 12; 
Section 13 except W \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; NE \1/4\, E \1/
2\ NW \1/4\, E \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 24; SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ 
Section 25; Section 36 except SW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE 
\1/4\.
    T.16N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: S \1/2\ SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE \1/
4\ Section 1; Section 2 except NE \1/4\; Sections 3-4; Section 5 except 
N \1/2\ NW \1/4\; Section 8; W \1/2\ W \1/2\, NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 
9; Section 10 except W \1/2\ SW \1/4\; Section 11 except SE \1/4\, S 
\1/2\ SW \1/4\; S \1/2\ Section 12; E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 17; E \1/2\ 
E \1/2\ Section 20; Section 29 except SE \1/4\, E \1/2\ NE \1/4\; W \1/
2\ Section 32.
    T.15N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 1; E \1/
2\, SE \1/4\ Section 12.
    T.15N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: W \1/2\ Section 6; W \1/2\ NW \1/
4\ Section 7.

[[Page 61618]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.012

* * * * *
    Unit CA-01-e: Del Norte County, California. From United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1:100,000 map; Grants Pass, Oregon; Happy Camp, 
California; 1995.
    Critical habitat includes only Federal lands designated as Late 
Successional Reserves described within the following areas:
    T.18N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: W \1/4\ Section 1; SE \1/4\, E 
\1/2\ NE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 2; SE \1/
4\ SE \1/4\ Section 10; Section 11 except NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; W \1/2\ NW 
\1/4\; NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 12; W \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 14; E \1/
2\, E \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 15; W \1/2\, NW \1/4\ SE \1/4\, N \1/2\ NE 
\1/4\, SW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 22; W \1/2\ Section 27; SE \1/4\, S 
\1/2\ NE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, E \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 28; E \1/2\ 
SE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 32; Section 33; W \1/2\ Section 34.

[[Page 61619]]

    T.17N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ 
Section 3; Section 4 except S \1/2\ S \1/2\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; NE \1/
4\ NE \1/4\ Section 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.013

* * * * *
    Unit CA-11-b: Humboldt County, California. From United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1:100,000 map; Hayfork, California; 1995.
    Critical habitat includes only Federal lands designated as Late 
Successional Reserves described within the following areas:
    T.03N., R.02E. Humboldt Meridian: SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW 
\1/4\, N \1/2\ N \1/2\

[[Page 61620]]

Section 1; NE \1/4\, E \1/2\ NW \1/4\, N \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 2.
    T.03N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: N \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NW \1/
4\, NE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\, Section 6.
    T.03N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: W \1/2\ NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ 
Section 1; Section 2 except SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\; E \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/
4\ SW \1/4\, SE \1/4\ Section 3; W \1/2\ NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ Section 5; 
E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ Section 6.
    T.03N., R.05E. Humboldt Meridian: NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 6; SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\, N \1/2\ SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ 
Section 7; NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 18.
    T.04N., R.02E. Humboldt Meridian: S \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 25.
    T.04N., R.03E. Humboldt Meridian: S \1/2\ NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SE \1/
4\, SE \1/4\ SE \1/4\ Section 31.
    T.04N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: NE \1/4\ Section 1; E \1/2\ E \1/
2\ Section 12; S \1/2\ Section 25; SE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/
4\, SE \1/4\ Section 26; S \1/2\ NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\, N \1/2\ SE \1/4\ 
Section 27; N \1/2\, S \1/2\ S \1/2\, NE \1/4\ SW \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE 
\1/4\ Section 28; SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ Section 29; S \1/2\ NE \1/4\, SW 
\1/4\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 30; W \1/2\ NE \1/4\, NW \1/4\, N \1/2\ 
SE \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 31; SE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ 
Section 32; N \1/2\ N \1/2\, SE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, SE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, NE 
\1/4\ SE \1/4\ Section 33; Section 34 except N \1/2\ NE \1/4\, S \1/2\ 
SW \1/4\; Section 35 except N \1/2\ N \1/2\.
    T.04N., R.05E. Humboldt Meridian: NW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SW \1/4\, NE 
\1/4\ SW \1/4\, Section 3; Sections 4-7; S \1/2\ S \1/2\ Section 8; 
Section 9; W \1/2\ NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\, Section 10; NE \1/4\ NW 
\1/4\, NW \1/4\ NE \1/4\ Section 16; NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 17; N 
\1/2\, N \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 18; Section 19 except W \1/2\ W \1/2\; 
Section 20; NE \1/4\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ Section 21; NW \1/4\ NW \1/4\ 
Section 28; Section 29 except S \1/2\ NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ SE \1/4\, SE 
\1/4\ SE \1/4\; Section 30; Section 31 except SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; NW \1/
4\, W \1/2\ SW \1/4\ Section 32.
    T.05N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: Sections 1-3; E \1/2\ NE \1/4\ 
Section 4; NE \1/4\, N \1/2\ NW \1/4\, E \1/2\ E \1/2\ Section 10; 
Sections 11-13; Section 14 except SW \1/4\, SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\; Section 
23 except W \1/2\ SW \1/4\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\; Section 24; N \1/2\ NW 
\1/4\, S \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 25; E \1/2\ NW \1/4\ Section 26.
    T.05N., R.05E. Humboldt Meridian: Section 4 except E \1/2\; 
Sections 5-8; Section 9 except E \1/2\; Section 16 except E \1/2\ E \1/
2\; Sections 17-20; Section 21 except E \1/2\ NE \1/4\; W \1/2\ SW \1/
4\ Section 22; Section 27, except NE \1/4\ NE \1/4\, E \1/2\ SE \1/4\; 
Sections 28-33; Section 34 except E \1/4\.
    T.06N., R.04E. Humboldt Meridian: Sections 13-15; Sections 21-27; 
Section 28 except SW \1/4\ NW \1/4\, NW \1/4\ SW \1/4\; Section 33 
except W \1/2\ NW \1/4\, SW \1/4\; Sections 34-35.
    T.06N., R.05E. Humboldt Meridian: W \1/2\, W \1/2\ SE \1/4\ Section 
18; Section 19 except E \1/2\ NE \1/4\; SW \1/4\ SW \1/4\ Section 29; 
Sections 30- 31; Section 32 except NE \1/4\, NE \1/4\ SE \1/4\, NE \1/
4\ NW \1/4\.

[[Page 61621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05OC11.014

* * * * *

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
 Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-25583 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P