Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix DAPPENDIX D: STATUS OF DESIGNBATED CRITICAL HABITAT: MARBLED MURRELET (This page intentionally left blank) Appendix D: Status of Designated Critical Habitat: Marbled Murrelet This Opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat within 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ACT; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and the August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 03-35279) to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as "the specific area within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species." The Act defines conservation as the use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary and thus result in the eventual recovery and delisting of a listed species. Critical habitat is provided protection under section 7 of the Act by ensuring that activities funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies do not adversely modify such habitat to the point that it no longer remains functional or retains its current ability for primary constituent elements (defined below) to be functionally established to serve the intended conservation role of the species. Legal Status The final rule designating critical habitat for the marbled murrelet (murrelet) (61 FR 26256 [May 24, 1996]) became effective on June 24, 1996. Critical habitat was designation for the murrelet to addresses the objective of stabilizing population size. The principle factors affecting the murrelet and the main cause of its population decline has been the loss of older forests and associated nest sites and habitat fragmentation (57 FR 45328:45330 [October 1, 1992]). The selection criteria considered in choosing areas for inclusion in murrelet critical habitat included 1) suitable nesting habitat, 2) survey data, 3) proximity to marine foraging habitat, 4) large, contiguous blocks of nesting habitat, 5) opportunities to maintain current distribution, and 6) adequacy of existing protection and management. In the 1996 final rule, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designated critical habitat for the murrelet within 32 Critical Habitat Units (CHUs) encompassing approximately 3.9 million acres across Washington (1.6 million), Oregon (1.5 million), and California (0.7 million). The final rule intended the scope of the section 7(a)(2) analysis to evaluate impacts of actions on critical habitat at the conservation zone(s) or even a major part of a conservation zone (61 FR 26256 [May 24, 1996]). In the revised final rule (76 FR 61599:61604 [October 5, 2011]), the Service removed approximately 189,671 acres in northern California and southern Oregon from the 1996 final rule based on new information indicating that these areas did not meet the definition of critical habitat. No changes were made for critical habitat designations in Washington State. Priniga Constituciit Elements If not used previously in your BO, add this first sentence: Primary constituent elements (PCEs) are the physical and biological features of critical habitat essential to a species' conservation and thus its recovery. In the 2011 revised final rule designating critical habitat for the murrelet (76 FR 61599:61604 [October 5, 2011]), the Service identified PCEs essential to provide and support suitable nesting habitat for successful reproduction. These are 1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms (PCE 1), and 2) forest lands of at least one half site -potential tree heights regardless of contiguity, within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of inulividual trees with potential nesting platforms and that are used or potentially used by the 111LI:Telet for nesting or breeding (PCE 2)1. Areas with only PCE 1, or both PCE 1 and 2, are considered, by definition, to be critical habitat. These PCEs were deemed essential for providing suitable nesting habitat for successful reproduction of the murrelet, and thus its conservation. PCEs require special management considerations. Conservation Role of Critical Habitat Generally, the conservation role of murrelet critical habitat is to support nesting, roosting, and other normal behaviors (61 FR 26255:26256 [May 24, 1996]). To recover the species, it is also necessary to produce and maintain viable murrelet populations that are well distributed throughout the respective Conservation Zones (USFWS 1997, p. 116). In some areas, large blocks of Federal land can provide the necessary contribution for recovery of the species. However, in other areas, Federal ownership is limited and Federal lands alone cannot meet the recovery needs of murrelets to reverse the current population decline and maintain a well - distributed population. Critical habitat helps focus conservation activities by identifying area that contain essential habitat features (PCEs) thus alerting Federal agencies and the public to the importance of an area in the species' conservation. Critical habitat also identifies area that may require special management or protection (61 FR 26255:26263 [May 24, 1996]). Activities that May Affect PCEs The final rule (61 FR 26255:26271 [May 24, 1996]) states that "A variety of ongoing or proposed activities that disturb or remove primary constituent elements may adversely affect, though not necessarily `adversely modify' murrelet critical habitat as that term is used in section 7 consultations. Examples of such activities include 1) forest management activities which 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 [Bryophyta] and salal [Gaultheria shalloni)." Ultimately, actions may alter PCEs if they remove or degrade forest habitat, or prevent or delay future attainment of suitable habitat. 1 The Washington Fish and Wildlife Office has enumerated these as discrete PCEs for convenience; the Federal Register (1996 and 2011) does not identify these PCEs with discrete numbers. 2 According to the revised final rule, proposed actions requiring section 7 consultations must be evaluated individually, in light of the baseline conditions 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 (76 FR 61599:61609 [October 5, 2011]). Distribution of Critical Habitat The designated CHUB are distributed more or less evenly across the range of the species in Washington and Oregon, and less so in California. At the time of listing, designated critical habitat lands included 695 of the over 807 known -occupied sites on Federal lands, and 218 of the 354 known -occupied sites on non -Federal lands. Sites in Redwood National Park in California had not been entered into the database at the time or listing. Further, the Service did not include the marine environment in critical habitat, but instead relied on other existing regulations for protection of this area. Currently, 24 critical habitat units (CHUB) totaling 3,698,129 acres are designated on Federal, state, county, city, and private lands in Washington, Oregon, and California (76 FR 61599:61605,61608 [October 5, 2011 ]) (Table 1). These individual units are coded by the state in which they occur and are individually numbered by unit and sub -unit (e.g., WA -01-a, OR -01- a, CA -01-a). The majority of these CHUs (78 percent) occur on Federal lands. In the selection of CHUs, there was a reliance on lands designated as Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) on Forest Service land. Most LSRs within the range of the murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California were designated as critical habitat. LSRs, as described in the Northwest Forest Plan, are most likely to develop into large blocks of suitable murrelet nesting habitat given sufficient time. Table 1. Designated critical habitat by state, ownership, and land allocationt State Ownership Land Allocation Designated Critical Habitat hectares ha Designated Critical Habitat acres Washington Federal Lands Congressionally Withdrawn Lands 740 1,800 Late Successional Reserves 485,680 1,200,200 Federal Total 486,420 1,202,000 Non -Federal Lands State Lands 172,720 426,800 Private Lands 1,020 2,500 Non -Federal Total 173,740 4291300 Washington's Overall Total 660,160 1,631,300 Oregon Federal Lands Late Successional Reserves 541,530 1,338,200 Withdrawn in 2011 18,690 46,184 Federal Total 522,840 1292,016 Non -Federal Lands State Lands 70,880 175,100 County Lands 440 1,100 Private Lands 350 900 Oregon's Overall Total 594,510 14691116 3 State Ownership Land Allocation Designated Critical Habitat hectares ha Designated Critical Habitat acres California (Northern) Federal Lands Late Successional Reserves 193,150 477,300 Withdrawn in 2011 58,068 143,487 Federal Total 135,082 333,813 Non -Federal Lands State Lands 71,040 175,500 Private Lands 16,360 40,400 California (Central) Non -Federal Lands State Lands 14,080 34,800 County Lands 3,200 8,000 City Lands 400 1,000 Private Lands 1,720 4,200 California's Overall Total 241,882 597,713 Overall 2011 Total 1,496,552 3,698,129 These figures reflect the new values from the 2011 revised final rule. In 2011, the Service issued a revised final rule for critical habitat (76 FR 61599 [October 5, 2011]). In it, approximately 189,671 acres (76,758 ha) were removed from designated critical on Federal lands in Oregon and California. It was determined that these acreages were not essential to the conservation of the murrelet and did not meet the definition of critical habitat. The table above reflects this update. Although most of the areas designated as murrelet critical habitat occur on Federal lands, the Service designated selected non -Federal lands that met the selection criteria. These lands occurred in areas where Federal lands were insufficient to provide suitable nesting habitat for the recovery of the species. On non -Federal lands, 21 percent of critical habitat acres occur on state lands, 1.2 percent on private lands, 0.2 percent on county lands, and 0.003 percent on city lands. CHUB do not include non -Federal lands covered by a legally operative incidental take permit for murrelets issued under section 10(a) of the Act (61 FR 26255:26278[May 24, 1996]). Therefore, critical habitat designations were excluded on state lands upon completion of the Habitat Conservation Plans that addresses conservation of the murrelet. State lands in Washington, Oregon and California currently operate under approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). Critical Habitat in Washington State Washington contains 11 CHUB that total approximately 1,631,300 acres (Appendix A) (excluding 426,800 acres of State land managed under the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) HCP). The acreage of land protected by critical habitat and the WDNR (1997) HCP represents 42 percent of critical habitat within the listed range. Each CHU is made up of between two and seven subunits that range from 191 acres to over 100,000 acres in size. Also, CHUs range between 12 and 54 percent potential nesting habitat. In Washington, section 7 consultations are based on the amounts of critical habitat addressed in the final rule. 2 In Washington State, there is a clear reliance on Federal lands to fulfill the functions for which critical habitat was designated. Eight CHUs contain exclusively Federal lands while one contains both Federal and private lands. These nine CHUs contain 78 percent of the total acreage of CHUB in Washington State. Critical habitat functions are also met by Federal lands not designated as critical habitat in National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and portions of Forest Service lands designated as Adaptive Management Areas and Matrix lands that were found to be occupied by murrelets. Current Condition of Critical Habitat in Washin on The quality of forests occurring within the boundaries of the CHUs ranges from non -habitat (e.g., young plantations) to high-quality habitat (e.g., large blocks of old-growth forest). While significant amounts of high-quality murrelet habitat are present in some of the CHUB, much of the habitat in CHUs, particularly on non -Federal lands, is of lesser quality due to its occurrence in smaller, more fragmented blocks. Some of the highest quality murrelet habitat occurs in National Parks and designated Wilderness Areas where harvest historically has not occurred. Given the high quality of this habitat and reduced threat of habitat loss or modification due to management objectives, designation of critical habitat was deemed unnecessary in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. We estimate that an insignificant amount of critical habitat has been removed or downgraded as a result of section 7 consultations. In Washington, there has been almost no loss of critical habitat due to timber harvest or major fires. The majority of critical habitat loss has been through landslides and blow -down. The Service's Tracking and Integrated Logging System (TAILS) reports that within Conservation Zones 1 and 2 (zones within Washington which includes the Olympic Peninsula and the Cascade Mountains, only 16 acres of critical habitat stands and 19 acres of PCE 2s have been authorized to be removed out of a total of 1,685,832 acres 2. However, it is likely that additional habitat has been removed that has not been reported, but unlikely that the amount is substantial (Table 2). The Service is currently in the process of assessing the current condition of murrelet critical habitat in Oregon and California. 2 This real-time on-line database was accessed May 24, 2012. Table 2. Murrelet Critical Habitat Database with Real -Time Totals Notes: Conservation Zones: Six zones were established by the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USFWS 1997) to guide terrestrial and marine management planning and monitoring for the species. 2 Designated Acres: Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) acres divided by Conservation Zones, as presented in the 1997 Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USFWS 1997; Figure 8, p. 114). 3 Authorized Habitat Effects: Includes all known occupied sites, as well as other suitable habitat, though not necessarily occupied. Importantly, there is no single definition of suitable habitat. The Marbled Murrelet Effectiveness Monitoring Module is in the process of rectifying this. Some useable working definitions include the Primary Constituent Elements as defined in the Critical Habitat Final Rule, or the criteria used for Washington State pursuant to Raphael et al. (2002). 4 Stands: A patch of older forest in an area with potential platform trees. 5 Remnants: A residual or remnant stand is an area with scattered potential platform trees within a younger forest that generally lacks structures for marbled murrelet nesting. 6 PCE2: Trees with one half site -potential tree height within 0.5 mile of a potential nest tree. Summary Murrelet critical habitat was designated in 1996 due to the high rate of nesting habitat loss and fragmentation. The objective of the designation was to stabilize the murrelet population size. Washington contains 11 CHUs and totals 1,631,300 acres, the majority of which is on Federal land. The Service identified two primary constituent elements for the CHU, specifically 1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and 2) forested areas within 0.5 mile of individual trees with potential nesting platforms and a canopy height of at least one-half the site - potential tree height. Most of the areas designated as murrelet critical habitat occur on Federal land. The highest quality critical habitat occurs on National Parks and Wilderness areas where harvest historically has not occurred. Designating critical habitat in these areas was deemed unnecessary. n Designated Authorized Habitat Effects 3 3 Reported Habitat Effects Conservation Acres Zones' Total CHU Stands Remnants5 PCE26 Stands° Remnants5 PCE26 Acres Puget Sound 1,271,782 16 0 19 0 1 0 (1) Western Washington 414,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2 Notes: Conservation Zones: Six zones were established by the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USFWS 1997) to guide terrestrial and marine management planning and monitoring for the species. 2 Designated Acres: Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) acres divided by Conservation Zones, as presented in the 1997 Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USFWS 1997; Figure 8, p. 114). 3 Authorized Habitat Effects: Includes all known occupied sites, as well as other suitable habitat, though not necessarily occupied. Importantly, there is no single definition of suitable habitat. The Marbled Murrelet Effectiveness Monitoring Module is in the process of rectifying this. Some useable working definitions include the Primary Constituent Elements as defined in the Critical Habitat Final Rule, or the criteria used for Washington State pursuant to Raphael et al. (2002). 4 Stands: A patch of older forest in an area with potential platform trees. 5 Remnants: A residual or remnant stand is an area with scattered potential platform trees within a younger forest that generally lacks structures for marbled murrelet nesting. 6 PCE2: Trees with one half site -potential tree height within 0.5 mile of a potential nest tree. Summary Murrelet critical habitat was designated in 1996 due to the high rate of nesting habitat loss and fragmentation. The objective of the designation was to stabilize the murrelet population size. Washington contains 11 CHUs and totals 1,631,300 acres, the majority of which is on Federal land. The Service identified two primary constituent elements for the CHU, specifically 1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and 2) forested areas within 0.5 mile of individual trees with potential nesting platforms and a canopy height of at least one-half the site - potential tree height. Most of the areas designated as murrelet critical habitat occur on Federal land. The highest quality critical habitat occurs on National Parks and Wilderness areas where harvest historically has not occurred. Designating critical habitat in these areas was deemed unnecessary. n Appendix A. Murrelet Critical Habitat Units (CHUs) in Washington (excludes land managed under the WDNR HCP; about 425,140 acres) CHU Name Total designated acres in CHU Total acres of Potential murrelet nesting habitat Percent of CHU acres with potential murrelet habitat Land Use Allocation WA -01-a 60,454 14,885 25% LSR WA -0 1-b 8,200 3,412 42% LSR WA -02-a 15,941 7,224 45% LSR WA -02-b 1,982 719 36% LSR WA -02-c 46,342 17,476 38% LSR WA -02-d 412 190 46% LSR WA -03-a 97,834 38,496 39% LSR WA -03-b 64,993 17,481 27% LSR WA -05-b 401 178 44% PRIVATE WA -05-c 297 48 16% PRIVATE WA -05-d 327 129 39% PRIVATE WA -05-f 191 36 19% PRIVATE WA -OS -g 218 60 28% PRIVATE WA -06-a 71,536 21,252 30% LSR WA -06-b 44,195 15,990 36% LSR WA -07-a 78,133 31,857 41% LSR WA -07-b 1,075 478 44% PRIVATE WA -07-c 88,699 42,573 48% LSR WA -07-d 24,112 10,390 43% LSR WA -08-a 85,202 29,736 35% LSR WA -08-b 20,399 10,950 54% LSR WA -09-a 1,826 940 51% CWD (Navy) WA -09-b 108,074 49,318 46% LSR WA -09-c 6,918 3,046 44% LSR WA -09-d 13,051 5,850 45% LSR WA -09-e 48,827 20,769 43% LSR WA -10-a 76,586 29,884 39% LSR WA -10-b 41,953 18,859 45% LSR WA -10-c 25,706 10,227 40% LSR WA -1 1-a 72,196 18,896 26% LSR WA -11-b 11,139 2,290 21% LSR WA -11-c 37,572 4,349 12% LSR WA -11-d 51,360 11,621 23% LSR Totals 1,206,151 439,610 36% Note: Marbled murrelet habitat estimates are approximate values that represent conditions in 2006, as depicted by Raphael et al. (2011) map data, moderate (class 3) and highest (class 4) suitability. 7 LITERATURE CITED Raphael, M.G., D.E. Mack, and B.A. Cooper. 2002. Landscape -scale relationships between abundance of marbled murrelets and distribution of nesting habitat. The Condor 104:331-342. Raphael, M.G., G.A. Falxa, K.M. Dugger, B.M. Galleher, D. Lynch, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson, and R.D. Young. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan — the first 15 years (1994-2008): status and trend of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-848. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 pp. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Recovery Plan for the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) for Washington, Oregon, and California populations. Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 202 pp. + appendices. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1997. Final habitat conservation plan. WDNR, Olympia, Washington. September 1997. 546 pp.