Ralph and others 



Chapter 1 



Overview of Ecology and Conservation 



promote conservation of the species. We feel that the reserves 

 alone would be insufficient to reverse the decline and maintain 

 a well-distributed population. 



4. Adoption of the U.S. Recovery Plan's (U.S. Fish and 

 Wildlife Service, in press) strategy that Late-Successional 

 Reserves, as defined (U.S. Dep. Agric./U.S. Dep. Interior 

 1994), within the Conservation Zones of the murrelet in 

 Washington, Oregon, and California, could be designated 

 and serve as Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas. 



5. Conduct inland surveys in all suitable habitat within 

 55 miles of the coast. Most effort in surveys and research 

 should be within the region of critical habitat defined by the 

 U.S. Recovery Team (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

 press), within 40 miles of salt water in Washington, 35 miles 

 in Oregon and California north of Trinidad Head, and 25 

 miles for the remainder of California, to help define the 

 known habitat components of the species. 



6. Accelerate efforts to better understand murrelet 

 ecology and habitat relationships. Whereas the Alaskan 

 and British Columbia populations are considered by many 

 to be secure because of their large numbers, we have here 

 reviewed evidence of a decline in populations in these 

 regions and find that the evidence is sufficient to cause 

 concern. Research efforts inland and at sea need to be 

 started immediately, and a conservative habitat management 

 approach be adopted in the interim. Otherwise, we believe 

 that in Alaska and British Columbia, within the next 20 

 years, the species could well decline markedly, requiring 

 similar habitat protection actions to those needed for the 

 southern three states, where significant loss of old-growth 

 forests has minimized management flexibility. 



In British Columbia, the Canadian Marbled Murrelet 

 Recovery Team has assembled guidelines for preservation 

 of nesting habitat. Specifically, they have recommended 

 preserving at least 10 percent of each watershed where logging 

 is continuing, more if there is less habitat nearby, in minimum 

 blocks of 200 ha. While this may be adequate, based on the 

 experience in Washington, Oregon, and California, we do 

 not believe that the literature is sufficient to support this 

 level of harvesting. 



7. It is useful to distinguish between the probable cause 

 of the decline, and additional major threats to persistence 

 and recovery. We have little doubt that the loss of suitable 

 old-growth habitat has caused a marked decrease in the 



number of murrelets in most of their range. Where loss has 

 been recent (within the last 15 years), we would expect to 

 find there are a number of displaced adults who are no 

 longer able to find breeding sites. In those areas, we should 

 expect murrelet numbers to continue to fall until these 

 displaced adults die off, as they will not be replacing 

 themselves. Recovery of murrelet populations depends on 

 the survival of breeding adults and their ability to produce 

 young. The greatest threat to the recovery, therefore, is 

 continued loss of habitat, adult mortality, and causes of 

 breeding failure, in that order. We stress that it is critical to 

 maintain and enhance habitat, reduce adult mortality rates 

 due to at-sea risks and predation, and the reduce loss of nest 

 site contents to predators. Better knowledge of how habitat 

 structure influences predation risk would be a useful first 

 step in setting priorities for development or protection of 

 existing nesting habitat. What habitat features affect predator 

 numbers and success remains uncertain. 



We remain optimistic about the long-term survivablity 

 of the species. The ability of the various agencies, 

 organizations, members of the fishing and forestry industries, 

 and others, to pull together in the survey and research efforts 

 that are described in the chapters to follow, is strong evidence 

 that many people of diverse opinions are interested in the 

 maintenance of the Marbled Murrelet throughout its range. 



Acknowledgments 



Many people contributed insights into this chapter, 

 including all of the authors of the other chapters in this 

 volume. Gary S. Miller, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service's Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team, was especially 

 helpful and supportive, and provided the information on the 

 listing process of the species. We thank Kelly Busse who 

 created the range map. We also thank David Ainley, Alan E. 

 Burger, Jack Capp, George Divoky, Ron Escano, Jeffrey 

 Grenier, Thomas Hamer, Chris Iverson, Kathy Kuletz, Linda 

 Long, Garland Mason, Sherri Miller, Nancy Naslund, S. 

 Kim Nelson, Jim Space, Steve Speich, and Craig Strong for 

 helpful comments on the manuscript. We appreciate their 

 insight and clear thinking. The conclusions of this paper 

 represent, however, our collective conclusions, and differing 

 viewpoints can be found among many biologists and in the 

 pages of this volume. 



22 



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



