237 



S. Kim Nelson Testimony on H.R. 2856 4 



1990) . _ Habitat: variables that axe" thought to be most inroortant 

 for this species, include old-growth trees, number of nesting 

 platforms, cover above the nest limb, cover for protection 

 against predation, and. moss and mistletoe abundance (Nelson et 

 al . in prep - ) • 



Murxelets axe more abundant closer to the coast that farther 

 inland (Nelson 1990) .. Tfce energetic demands on the birds to fly- 

 to habitat far from the coast are unknown, but a feasible 

 hypothesis, based on the energetic requirements of other birds, 

 is that murrelets that nest f am:her from the coast could be less 

 successful than those in areas close to t->ie coast. The 

 distribution of birds along the coast has also been correlated 

 with the distribution of habitat inland (Sowls et al. 1980, 

 Carter and Erickson 1992, Nelson et al. 1992) . 



These birds have not been found in managed forests because 

 these stands lack the structure and characteristics of forests 

 that were created naturally. Stands that have been heavily 

 managed (cleax-cuts, shelterwoods , young and mature plantations) 

 show no murrelet use. 



Forty- five tree nests have been located and described (pre- 

 1992) . These tree nests were located in Alaska (N =• 18) (Quinlan 

 and Hughes 1990, Naslxind et al., in press), British Columbia (N = 

 5) (Manley and Kelson, in press; Jordan and Hughes, in press) , 

 Washington (N - 5) (Hamer and Cummins 1990, 1991) , Oregon (N - 

 10) (Nelson 1991, 1992; Nelson et al., in prep.), and California 

 (N - 7) (Singer and Verardo 1975, Singer et al. 1991, 1992, S. 

 Kerns, pers. comm. ) . All the nests south of Alask?^ were found in 

 old-growth trees >3S in (>8a cm) in diameter at breast height "■"'^ 

 2.50 ft (15 m) in height. Nests were on moss or duff covered 

 limbs near the middle to the top 1/3 of the live crown. Canopy 

 cover above the nest ct^ was high, perhaps for protection against 

 predators and weather. 



Although only 45 tree nests have been located, more than 400 

 occupied areas have been identified and mapped. Since nests are 

 difficult to discover, occupied sites have been defined by 

 murrelet biologists as nesting ar-eas based on observations of 

 murrelets flying through the canopy and landing In trees. All of 

 these sites are in older-aged forests (old-gx-owth forests or 

 mature forests with an old-growth con^onent) . 



T>Tr-f»;i^-f :s to the Spec -'i°!? ■'^i rvival 



There axe four primary threats to this species, including 

 habitat loss, predation, oil spills and gill-net fishing 

 (Marshall 1988) . Eere I address only the threats at inland 

 sires . 



Habitat loss throughout the murrelet 's range has been 

 identified as the most significant threat to the species long- 

 term viability. Xiogging of -older-aged forests not only creates 

 loss of habitat for nesting, but also initiates cumulative 



