Ralph and others 



Chapter i 



Overview of Ecology and Conservation 



We suggest that for areas where nesting and foraging locations 

 have not been identified, inland sites of best remaining nesting 

 habitat could be selected, using information from studies of 

 habitat requirements. These areas would have the highest 

 likelihood of supporting adequate numbers of nesting platforms 

 and other structural elements correlated with nesting. This 

 effort should be supported by inland surveys conducted to 

 protocol standards to verify occupancy, but it is not practical 

 to expect all potentially suitable habitat to be surveyed. 



Determine Current Management Status 



High-priority sites could then be evaluated to determine 

 their likely level of long-term protection (usually likelihood 

 of being reserved from timber cutting). That is, they could 

 be evaluated as to whether they are under protection as 

 late-successional reserves, or whether they are publicly or 

 privately administered lands. 



Develop Management Strategy for Each Management Unit 



We suggest that a management strategy then be 

 developed for each unit, based on the potential to support 

 nesting and the role within a broader landscape (e.g., is this 

 an area of special concern due to gaps in distribution, or 

 lack of adjacent similar habitat?). The most effective and 

 least risky technique to slow the current population decline 

 is to conserve all current occupied sites or high quality 

 habitat in areas where it is a listed species. If appropriate, 

 especially on private lands and over the longer term, 

 guidelines should be developed for removing murrelet habitat. 

 For this effort it will be necessary to determine the proportion 

 of some specified land area around a site that can be cut 

 without jeopardizing suitability of that site. For example, 

 Raphael and others (this volume) found that, in Washington, 

 >35 percent of the 200 hectares surrounding occupied sites 

 was late-successional forest. Similar analyses should be 

 conducted in other regions to test whether more general 

 guidelines can be developed. 



It is often an issue as to what effect the cutting of a tree 

 or a partial harvest has on the birds. If nesting habitat is a 

 limiting factor in an area, then the options for a bird to move 

 to uncut habitat might be limited when a nesting stand or 

 potential nest trees are removed. Although an individual 

 might be able to move to an occupied stand, the increased 

 risk of predation with increased density of nests could offset 

 the advantages of this move. If evidence shows that nesting 

 density is not at saturation, which would have prevented 

 more pairs breeding, then this viewpoint could be changed. 

 By the same logic, removal of non-nest trees could increase 

 the risk of other factors, such as a resulting increase in 

 predator populations (because of an increase in other prey 

 populations), increased access of predators into the stand, 

 and a decrease in hiding cover for murrelet nests. Such 

 management activities could be interpreted as the biological 

 equivalent of the removal of individuals from the reproductive 

 population. For example, a tree hazard removal program in a 

 state park could have the effect of removal of old-growth 



trees. If continued over the next 50 years, there certainly 

 could be a significant reduction of murrelet habitat. As an 

 example, tree hazard removal is occurring in most of the 

 old-growth forests that have recreational facilities in Calif omia 

 (Strachan, pers. comm.). We recommend that managers 

 consider removal of developments, such as campgrounds, 

 that are currently in old-growth. 



Evaluate Potential for Disturbance 



In the case of disturbance due to human activity in 

 forest stands, the timing of disturbance can be adjusted to 

 avoid disruption of murrelet activity, such as courtship, mating, 

 or nesting. Risks to perpetuation of these sites from effects 

 of fire, insects, disease, windthrow and other catastrophic 

 events, should be evaluated. Actions to reduce such risk may 

 be appropriate. We assume there will always be loss of 

 habitat through natural processes, and management actions 

 should allow for such losses. We need additional information 

 about the likelihood that human activity near nests has any 

 detrimental effects. 



Management for Buffer and Future Suitable 

 Nesting Habitat 



The objective of managing for buffer and future suitable 

 habitat is to provide additional structural cover to reduce 

 fragmentation of nesting habitat, and to provide for 

 replacement of habitat that might be lost from catastrophic 

 events. This would provide a hedge against stochastic events 

 and uncertainties in knowledge. This secondary habitat may 

 also support additional nesting. 



Identify Habitat for Buffer Secondary Stands 



Identification of secondary habitat should be based on 

 proximity to known nesting habitat and its potential to develop 

 as nesting habitat within an appropriate time, perhaps 25 to 

 50 years. These secondary stands may serve as buffers around 

 nesting stands to reduce risk of windthrow or other loss. 



Accelerate Habitat Development by Silviculture 



The potential (as yet untested and uncertain) exists to 

 apply silvicultural techniques such as thinning and canopy 

 modification that could accelerate the attainment of suitable 

 habitat conditions in younger stands. These techniques need 

 to be tested and fully evaluated in an adaptive management 

 framework before being counted on to provide expected 

 habitat conditions. If successful, such techniques might be 

 used to produce trees with suitable nesting platforms and 

 canopy characteristics. 



Managing At-Sea Habitats and Risks 



The management of marine habitats to reduce risks of 

 mortality from human sources may be of equal importance to 

 the management of terrestrial environments to maintain nesting 

 habitats. It is essential for managers to identify at-sea areas 

 where murrelets concentrate during both the breeding and 

 non-breeding seasons. These areas should be designated as 



USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. 1995. 



19 



