Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices 20739

Dated: April 20, 1995.

Jenifer Arnold,

Acting Ecosystem Manager.

[FR Doc. 95–10346 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–M

[NM–950–05–1420–00]

Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described

below are scheduled to be officially

filed in the New Mexico State Office,

Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe,

New Mexico, on May 15, 1994.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New

Mexico:

T. 16 N., R. 9 E., Accepted November 15,

1994, for Group 826 NM.

Supplementals:

T. 30 N., R. 14 W., Accepted March 10, 1995

T. 18 N., R. 5 W., Accepted March 10, 1995

If a protest against a survey, as shown

on any of the above plats is received

prior to the date of official filing, the

filing will be stayed pending

consideration of the protest. A plat will

not be officially filed until the day after

all protests have been dismissed and

become final or appeals from the

dismissal affirmed.

A person or party who wishes to

protest against a survey must file with

the State Director, Bureau of Land

Management, a notice that they wish to

protest prior to the proposed official

filing date given above.

A statement of reasons for a protest

may be filed with the notice of protest

to the State Director, or the statement of

reasons must be filed with the State

Director within (30) days after the

protest is filed.

The above-listed plats represent

dependent resurveys, survey and

subdivision.

These plats will be in the open files

of the New Mexico State Office, Bureau

of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115,

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502–0115.

Copies may be obtained from this office

upon payment of $2.50 per sheet.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

John P. Bennett,

Team Leader, Branch of Cadastral Survey/

Geo Science.

[FR Doc. 95–10343 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–FB–M

[AZ–930–1430–01, AR–035844]

Application Cancellation, Mohave and

Yuma Counties, Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: By decision dated July 20,

1994, the Department of the Army,

Corps of Engineers’ application number

AR–035844 to withdraw an additional

3,488.62 acres of public land for the

Alamo Lake Flood Control Project was

denied. The decision was based on the

finding that there was not sufficient

need or justification to withdraw

additional lands for project purposes

and that any future needs could be

otherwise authorized.

Additionally, under Title I of Pub. L.

101–628, (Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act), approximately 1,120.00 acres of

the Arrastra Mountain and Rawhide

Mountains Wilderness Areas

overlapped the applied for land.

Designation of the Arrastra Mountain

and Rawhide Mountains Wilderness

Areas satisfied the withdrawal need on

the subject land and therefore negated

the need for an additional withdrawal.

The segregative effect resulting with

the filing of withdrawal application AR–

035844 terminated by statute on October

20, 1991. Based upon the State

Director’s recommendation and decision

and upon publication in the Federal

Register, application AR–035844 is

cancelled and closed on the Bureau of

Land Management records.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Mezes, BLM Arizona State Office, P.O.

Box 16563, Phoenix, Arizona 85011,

(602) 650–0518.

Dated: April 17, 1995.

Herman L. Kast,

Deputy State Director, Resource Planning, Use

& Protection Division.

[FR Doc. 95–10344 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P

Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Availability, Final Apex

Houston Oil Spill Restoration Plan

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) herein releases the

final Apex Houston Oil Spill

Restoration Plan (Final Plan). The Final

Plan describes the techniques, schedule,

and budget for a project to restore

natural resources injured as a result of

an oil spill that killed approximately

9,000 seabirds along the coast of central

California in 1986. The Final Plan also

includes responses to comments about

the Draft Plan (Federal Register/Vol. 59/

No. 213/55282) that were received

during a 45-day public comment period

that ended on December 19, 1994.

Money to carry out this project was

obtained via a Consent Decree that

ended litigation on the case in August

1994. The Service will begin

implementation of the Final Plan in

1995 and will conclude the project in

approximately 2004. A Natural

Resources Trustee Council containing

representatives of the Service, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, and the California

Department of Fish and Game will

oversee the project.

DATES: Written comments on the Final

Plan must be submitted on or before

June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments or

materials regarding the Final Plan

should be sent to the following address.

Comments or requests for copies of the

Final Plan can also be sent via FAX to

(916) 979–2128. Daniel Welsh, Chief,

Branch of Natural Resource Damage

Assessment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E–

1803, Sacramento, CA 95825, (916) 979–

2110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for further information or

additional copies of the Final Plan may

be made to: Daniel Welsh, Chief, Branch

of Natural Resource Damage

Assessment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E–

1803, Sacramento, CA 95825, (916) 979–

2110.

Restoration of Nearshore Breeding

Seabird Colonies on the Central

California Coast: Final Plan

I. Executive Summary

Between January 28 and February 4,

1986, the transportation barge APEX

HOUSTON discharged an undetermined

amount of San Joaquin Valley crude oil

while in transit from San Francisco Bay

to the Long Beach Harbor. The oil spill

caused damage to State of California and

Federal resources from San Francisco to

the Big Sur coast. Approximately 9,000

seabirds were killed, including 6,000

common murres (Uria aalge), in

addition to other aquatic life in and

around the coastal waters of central

California. Both the State and Federal

governments responded to the spill and

began assessing damages as a result of

the spill.

The State and Federal natural

resource trustees commenced litigation

in this matter against potentially
20740 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices

responsible parties in January 1989. The

complaints alleged claims for natural

resource damages, costs, and penalties

pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., Title III of the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16

U.S.C. 1431 et seq. (formerly the

National Marine Protection, Research

and Sanctuaries Act, ‘‘MPRSA’’), the

California Harbors & Navigation Code

293 and 294, and other State Law.

In August 1994 the parties settled this

matter in a Consent Decree entered by

the Federal District Court for the

Northern District of California for a total

of $6,400,000. As part of the natural

resources damage settlement,

$4,916,430 has been allocated for the

restoration of common murres in central

California. The common murre

restoration project is the subject of this

Final Plan. An additional $500,000 has

been allocated for the acquisition of

habitat for the marbled murrelet

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), a species

that is listed under the Federal and State

Endangered Species Acts and was

impacted by the spill. The murrelet

project is being carried out under State

lead and is included, but not described

in detail, in this Final Plan. The

remainder of the $6,400,000 collected in

the settlement was for penalties and

costs incurred as a result of the spill.

A Trustee Council, comprised of

representatives of each Trustee

(California Department of Fish and

Game, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service) was

established to review and select

restoration actions for natural resources

injured by the spill. This Council will

meet regularly during the duration of

the project to review progress and make

necessary changes. The Trustee Council

has approved this Final Plan for

restoration of common murres.

The goal of the common murre

restoration project is to recolonize

common murres at historic breeding

colonies in the areas where colonies

were extirpated or severely depleted by

the APEX HOUSTON oil spill. Social

attractants (decoys and recorded

vocalizations of common murres) will

be used to attract common murres to

nest at historic nearshore colonies in the

vicinity of San Francisco and Monterey.

Common murres will be monitored at

these sites and at reference sites in the

vicinity of Point Reyes and the Farallon

Islands in order to evaluate and refine

the recolonization project. Parameters to

be monitored include colony size,

reproductive success, behavior, and

phenology of common murres. In

addition, anthropogenic factors (e.g.,

boat disturbance, aircraft overflights,

oiling) and natural factors (e.g.,

predation, diet) that may affect the

success of recolonization efforts will be

monitored. This project may take a

minimum of 10 years to achieve success

because common murres have

inherently low reproductive rates and

do not breed until they are several years

old.

II. Introduction

Nearshore breeding colonies of

common murres (Uria aalge) throughout

central coastal California (Point Arena

to Big Sur) decreased by 60.1 percent

between 1980 and 1986 (Takekawa et al.

1990). This population decline was

attributed to high mortality from gill-net

fishing, oil spills (including the Apex

Houston spill), and a severe El NinoSouthern Oscillation event in 1982–

1983 (Takekawa et al. 1990, Swartzman

and Carter 1991, Carter et al. 1992). The

APEX HOUSTON oil spill, which

occurred principally between San

Francisco and the Monterey Peninsula,

killed nearly 9,000 seabirds in February

1986 (Siskin et al. 1993). This mortality

included approximately 1,293

rhinoceros auklets (Cerorhinca

monocerata), 180 small alcids, 12

marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus

marmoratus), and 1,206 other birds

(including loons, grebes, scoters,

cormorants, shorebirds, and gulls)

(Siskin et al. 1993). In addition,

approximately 6,000 common murres

were killed (Siskin et al. 1993). The

common murre colony at Devil’s Slide

Rock was found to be abandoned,

subcolonies at Castle Rocks

disappeared, and other central coastal

breeding sites (e.g., Hurricane Point

Rocks, Point Reyes) were greatly

reduced after the spill (Takekawa et al.

1990, Swartzman and Carter 1991,

Carter et al. 1992) (Figure 1).

In the early 1900’s, common murres

bred at Prince Island in southern

California (Carter et al. 1992). However,

the central California population

currently represents the southernmost

range for breeding common murres in

the Pacific. Future oil spills and other

catastrophic events (e.g., disease,

predation, climate change) could result

in the extirpation of this population as

well as a reduction in the species’

geographic range. The restoration of

former common murre colonies would

aid in securing the central coastal

California common murre population

and would spread the risk of future

disasters among colony sites over a

wider range of the California coast.

The goal of this project is to restore

common murres at historic breeding

colonies in areas where colonies were

extirpated or severely depleted by the

APEX HOUSTON oil spill. The project

will be conducted over approximately

10 years. A total of $4,916,430 was

obtained for this project via the court

settlement.

III. Purpose

The restoration funds were recovered

under the Federal Clean Water Act and

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the

California Harbors and Navigation Code

§§ 293 and 294, and other State Law. A

Trustee Council, comprised of

representatives of each Trustee, was

established to review and select

restoration actions. As part of the

settlement in the APEX HOUSTON

litigation, $4,916,430 has been allocated

for the restoration of common murre

colonies that suffered damage from the

APEX HOUSTON oil spill. This project

should aid in restoring the central

California common murre population at

historic breeding colonies in areas

where colonies were extirpated or

severely depleted by the APEX

HOUSTON oil spill. Restoring this

population to a larger part of its historic

range will aid in spreading the risk of

future catastrophic events (e.g. oil spills,

disease, storms) between more colony

sites and over a broader section of the

California coast.

IV. Restoration Alternatives Considered

and Selected

(A) Alternatives Considered

The Federal Clean Water Act and

other Federal law states that natural

resources damages ‘‘shall be used to

restore, rehabilitate, or acquire the

equivalent of’’ natural resources

damaged or destroyed as a result of a

discharge of oil (Clean Water Act

§ 311(f)(5), 33 U.S.C. § 1321(f)(5)). In

addition, the Service’s Natural Resource

Damage Assessment program in Region

1 has found the following criteria

helpful in setting priorities when

evaluating options for restoration of

natural resources damaged due to

releases of oil or hazardous substances

(Wickham et al. 1993):

(1) On-site and in-kind, in which

restored resources occur at the injured

site and are physically and biologically

the same as those lost;

(2) Off-site and in-kind, in which

restored resources occur at a site other

than that injured, but similar physical

and biological resources are restored;

(3) On-site and out-of-kind, in which

restored resources at the impact site are

physically and biologically different

from those lost;

(4) Off-site and out-of-kind, in which

restored resources are at a site other

than the impact site and are physically
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices 20741

and biologically different from those

lost; and,

(5) In special cases, acquisition of

equivalent existing resources/services

under private ownership, which does

not replace lost resources, but reduces

potential future loss by placing acquired

resources under public management and

protection (e.g., the marbled murrelet

habitat acquisition project).

Therefore, the Trustees concentrated

their damage assessment and restoration

efforts on the recovery of central

California seabird populations,

especially alcids, since these birds

incurred the greatest losses due to the

APEX HOUSTON oil spill (Siskin et al.

1993).

Alternatives considered for seabird

restoration included active

recolonization/restoration projects and

habitat acquisition projects. Alternatives

were compared based on the criteria

described above, as well as the technical

feasibility of the project, importance to

the public interest, and monetary costs.

Two projects have been selected for

immediate implementation. These are

the acquisition of marbled murrelet

breeding habitat and the recolonization

of common murres using social

attraction techniques. The Trustee

Council will reevaluate these two

projects and consider additional

restoration projects and/or

supplemental methodology at least

annually. The Trustee Council will

reappropriate and reauthorize funds as

needed.

Recolonization/restoration efforts

were considered for common murres

and rhinoceros auklets, two seabird

species that suffered high mortality as a

result of the spill. The rhinoceros auklet

project involved use of artificial nest

sites to enhance breeding populations

along the central California coast. This

project was not chosen for immediate

implementation for several reasons. A

large increase in the California

rhinoceros auklet population occurs

during the winter months and far

exceeds the summer estimated breeding

population (Briggs et al. 1987). It is

believed that this large increase is due

to migrants moving into the area from

more northern colonies (Briggs et al.

1987). In addition, the rhinoceros auklet

population within the area of the spill

(i.e. the local population) had been

increasing since the early 1980’s and

continued to increase after the APEX

HOUSTON spill (Ainley and

Boekelheide 1990, Carter et al. 1992).

This suggests that many of the 1,293

rhinoceros auklets estimated to have

been killed by the APEX HOUSTON

spill (Siskin et al. 1993) were probably

wintering birds from outside the local

breeding population. As a result,

restoration of rhinoceros auklets

received a lower priority.

The common murre recolonization

project (describe herein) was given

higher priority than rhinoceros auklet

restoration because its potential benefits

were linked more closely to the injuries

caused by the spill. The extirpation of

the Devil’s Slide Rock colony and a

severe reduction at the Castle and

Hurricane rocks colonies were

attributed to the common murre

mortalities that resulted from the APEX

HOUSTON oil spill (Swartzman and

Carter 1991). As a result, damage to the

local breeding population was

demonstrated (Swartzman and Carter

1991).

An additional site (Bodega Rock in

Sonoma County) for common murre

recolonization was suggested during the

public comment period. Bodega Rock is

an active seabird colony and in 1989 it

contained 558 Brandt’s cormorant

(Phalacrocorax penicillatus) nests and

12 western gull (Larus occidentalis)

nests (Carter et al. 1992). This location

was not selected for implementation of

murre recolonization techniques

because there are no known records of

common murres breeding on this rock.

A third restoration project involving

construction of a seabird breeding and

rehabilitation facility was rejected

because its cost was prohibitive relative

to funds available, and because the

California Department of Fish and

Game’s Office of Oil Spill Prevention

and Response is already implementing a

statewide oiled wildlife care network.

Four habitat acquisition projects were

considered: purchase of Cape Vizcaino

in northern Mendocino County to

protect nesting seabirds, purchase of

coastal land near Castle Rock to protect

a mainland colony of common murres,

purchase of lands within San Francisco

Bay, and purchase of marbled murrelet

nesting habitat along the central

California coast. The first three projects

were given lower priorities because they

were outside of the area impacted by the

spill (Cape Vizcaino), were too costly

(mainland site near Castle Rock), or

were beneficial primarily to species that

were not affected by the spill (sites in

San Francisco Bay). The purchase of

marbled murrelet nesting habitat along

the central California coast was selected

for immediate implementation with

settlement funds allocated specifically

for that project.

(B) Alternatives Selected

1. Acquisition of Marbled Murrelet

Nesting Habitat. The acquisition of

marbled murrelet nesting habitat along

the central California coast was selected

because acquisition would occur within

the area impacted by the spill and

damage to the local population could be

demonstrated. In addition, this project

has great importance to the public

because it will provide long-term

protection of a species listed under the

Federal and State Endangered Species

Acts. The Trustee Council believes that

the $500,000 allocated to this project

will be sufficient to obtain suitable

habitat to compensate for the murrelets

injured in the spill, provided that it is

leveraged with other resources. The

Trustees regard augmentation of the

budget for the marbled murrelet project

as the highest priority for any funds that

may become available from the murre

recolonization project.

2. Recolonization of Impacted

Common Murre Colonies. The second

project the Trustees have selected for

immediate implementation is the

recolonization of common murre

colonies at Devil’s Slide and San Pedro

rocks in San Mateo County and Castle

and Hurricane Point rocks in Monterey

County.

a. Devil’s Slide and San Pedro Rocks

Common Murre Recolonization:

Recolonize common murres at Devil’s

Slide and San Pedro rocks (San Mateo

County, California) using social

attraction methods (decoys and

recorded vocalizations) and develop

reference information needed to

evaluate and refine restoration efforts.

Location(s): Devil’s Slide and San

Pedro rocks, San Mateo County,

California; Point Reyes area (Point

Reyes, Point Resistance, Double Point,

and Miller Point rocks), Marin County,

California; Farallon Islands, San

Francisco County, California.

Justification: Common murres are an

extremely important and visible part of

the California seabird community

(Carter et al. 1992). Common murres are

the most abundant nesting species and

have the greatest biomass of all breeding

seabirds in the state (Sowls et al. 1980,

Ainley and Boekelheide 1990). In

addition, common murres comprise 40

percent of the breeding seabirds found

in central California (Carter et al. 1992).

This population sustained severe losses

from commercial and subsistence egging

in the 1800’s and early 1900’s, from

chronic oil pollution and spills in the

early to mid 1900’s, and from chronic

oil pollution and gillnetting in the

1980’s and 1990’s (Ainley and Lewis

1974, Takekawa et al. 1990, Carter et al.

1992).

Common murres were last recorded

breeding at San Pedro Rock in 1908,

when the colony was in the process of

being extirpated by egg collectors (Ray

1909). During the 1980’s common
20742 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices

murres in central California declined

dramatically due to mortality from gill

nets, oil spills (including the 1984

PUERTO RICAN and 1986 APEX

HOUSTON), as well as the severe 1982–

83 El Nino event (Ainley and

Boekelheide 1990, Takekawa et al. 1990,

Carter et al. 1992). The APEX

HOUSTON spill in 1986 contributed

significantly to the loss of the Devil’s

Slide Rock colony near San Francisco

(Swartzman and Carter 1991). The San

Pedro and Devil’s Slide rocks colonies

are in close proximity and constitute the

only common murre colonies between

San Francisco and Monterey. This is a

large portion of the range of the central

California common murre population.

The recolonization of abandoned

common murre colonies in central

California will contribute to the

restoration of this seabirds’ historic

geographic range.

Given the current depleted condition

of the central California common murre

population (Ainley and Boekelheide

1990, Takekawa et al. 1990, Swartzman

and Carter 1991, Carter et al. 1992,

Ainley et al. 1994), extirpated colonies

are not likely to be reestablished in the

foreseeable future without human

assistance. The San Pedro Rock colony

has not recolonized over the past 85

years and the Devil’s Slide Rock colony

has not been recolonized in the 8 years

following the APEX HOUSTON spill

(Carter et al. 1992, Carter and Takekawa,

unpubl. data). Similarly, the Prince

Island colony in southern California has

not been recolonized since extirpation

in the early 1900’s (Carter et al. 1992).

Furthermore, all six nearshore colonies

in central California have remained

severely depleted since the mid-1980’s

(Carter et al. 1992). The reductions of

the geographic range and small numbers

of breeding common murres along the

central California coastline increase the

risk that future catastrophic events will

result in extinction of the central

California population.

Studies of seabird colony formation in

Maine demonstrated that recolonization

can be achieved using social attractants

(Kress 1978, Kress and Nettleship 1988,

Kress et al. 1992). The use of decoys and

tape recordings has attracted

prospecting seabirds, which have then

bred, once a threshold group size has

been reached. These techniques have

assisted in the recolonization of several

colonial nesting seabird species

(Podolsky 1985; Podolsky and Kress

1989, 1992). These techniques have

been utilized in an effort to recolonize

common murres in Maine. The common

murre recolonization project began

when 15 life-size common murre decoys

were deployed on Matinicus Rock in

summer 1992 (National Audubon

Society, unpubl. data). The closest

common murre nesting colony to

Matinicus Rock is located

approximately 75 miles east on Murre

Ledge, a small Canadian island.

Common murres began landing among

the decoys within 2 days of starting the

vocalization tapes (National Audubon

Society, unpubl. data). As many as four

common murres were sighted at one

time among the decoys and at least two

birds were present throughout May and

June 1992 courting and copulating

among the decoys (National Audubon

Society unpubl. data). This effort has

included the use of various

combinations of social attractant

techniques to determine the most

effective combination, e.g., decoys with

and without sound, sound only, decoys

with sound and with and without egg

decoys, and sound variations (Schubel

1993). Results indicate that a

combination of visual and sound stimuli

are essential to attract common murres.

The highest common murre numbers

and activity were observed where egg

and murre decoys were accompanied by

sound, and decoys were most densely

arranged. The recolonization project has

continued during 1993 and 1994 with

promising results. Common murres

continue to exhibit pre-breeding

behavior (such as courtship displays,

copulation, and passing of fish between

potential mates), and the number of

common murres attracted to the decoys

has increased to approximately 25 birds

(National Audubon Society, unpubl.

data). However, social attraction

techniques must be applied for many

years before breeding begins and a selfsustaining breeding colony can be

attained (Kress and Carter 1991).

In order to refine recolonization

methods and evaluate their success,

reference information will be needed on

the reproductive biology, behavior, and

phenology of common murres at an

unmanipulated nearshore site in the

local area. However, little information is

available from nearshore colonies in

central California. Monitoring

attendance patterns, arrival dates,

reproductive success, and behavior of

breeding and nonbreeding common

murres at accessible colonies in the

Point Reyes area will provide a

comparison to evaluate recolonization

of Devil’s Slide and San Pedro rocks.

The Point Reyes colonies (i.e., Point

Reyes, Point Resistance, Double Point,

and Miller Point rocks) are the closest

to the recolonization sites and should

provide a reference for what would

normally be expected in a nearshore

common murre colony as well as a good

comparison with the recolonization site.

The monitoring conducted at these

unmanipulated colonies will be used to

assess recolonization responses and

common murre activity patterns at

recolonization sites, as well as aid in

supporting refinement of recolonization

methods.

In addition, unique information will

be needed from the common murre

colony at the South Farallon Islands at

Farallon National Wildlife Refuge in

order to evaluate recolonization

responses and refine techniques.

Common murre reproductive success,

diet, and breeding biology have been

studied for over 20 years at the South

Farallon Islands as part of long-term

monitoring of seabird populations

required for the Farallon National

Wildlife Refuge and other research

conducted by the Point Reyes Bird

Observatory (Ainley and Boekelheide

1990, Ainley et al. 1994). As a result of

these studies, a small number of

individually marked birds of known age

and sex exist at the Farallon Islands.

Limited information is available

concerning the attendance of breeding

and nonbreeding common murres at

breeding sites, especially during winter.

Information obtained on individuallymarked birds, where age and sex are

known, would give a better

understanding of expected time-inattendance and behavior at breeding

sites for adult and subadult common

murres during the breeding and

nonbreeding seasons. Detailed

information on common murre

attendance and prospecting in the

winter will make it possible to evaluate

the significance of winter attendance at

the recolonization sites. If winter

attendance is crucial to successful

breeding, social attraction methods may

have to be deployed for a longer period.

In addition, all accessible subcolonies of

common murres at the South Farallon

Islands would be examined for more

general attendance patterns throughout

the year.

Attendance, breeding biology, and

behavior will be monitored during the

breeding season in marked and

unmarked birds in plots at the South

Farallon Islands so that recolonization

responses at recolonization sites can be

more effectively evaluated. Certain

colonies with potential for future

intensive monitoring efforts may be

examined in greater detail, including

reproductive success. This information

will be important in evaluating and

modifying the social attraction methods

used at the restoration sites. Information

that is only available at this larger, more

accessible, and closely monitored

common murre colony, including
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices 20743

information on known-aged common

murres, will be used to refine and assess

recolonization efforts. All research

conducted on the Farallon National

Wildlife Refuge must be approved by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San

Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge

Complex. All research conducted is

evaluated by Refuge staff to ensure that

the activities associated with the

research are compatible with the

purposes for which the refuge was

established.

Proposed Actions: Social attraction

techniques will be used to recolonize

common murres at Devil’s Slide and

San Pedro rocks. The use of social

attraction techniques, similar to those

used elsewhere to encourage

recolonization by several seabird

species, will be employed (Kress 1983,

Podolsky 1985, Podolsky and Kress

1989). It is possible that small numbers

of common murres are still alive that

originally bred at Devil’s Slide Rock.

Therefore, it is important to begin the

recolonization project as soon as

possible in order to attract any

remaining common murres that have a

history of attachment to this colony.

Preliminary work will consist of

selecting observation points to view

recolonization sites, constructing and

installing observation blinds, obtaining

access permits, and purchasing needed

equipment. Aerial surveys of central

California breeding seabird colonies and

periodic observations of breeding

colonies from mainland vantage points

will be conducted in spring and summer

1995. Additional aerial reconnaissance

of Devil’s Slide and San Pedro rocks

will be conducted to obtain photographs

for mapping the restoration sites.

Reconnaissance trips to Devil’s Slide

and San Pedro rocks will take place to

determine equipment and procedures

needed to deploy social attraction

equipment. Ladders may be installed to

allow safe access onto the colonies for

project personnel.

Decoys and audio equipment will be

placed on the rocks in fall 1995 before

common murres begin to frequent

nesting islands. Recordings of common

murre breeding vocalizations will be

made at the Farallon NWR. Between 100

and 200 life-size common murre decoys

will be positioned on suitable nesting

habitat on Devil’s Slide and San Pedro

rocks. The decoys will be secured to the

rock in a fashion that simulates

occupied common murre colonies.

Densities and locations of decoys will

be based on past aerial photos of the

active Devil’s Slide Rock colony (taken

in 1982) and observations of common

murres at existing reference sites from

mainland vantage points and aerial

photos. Several omnidirectional weather

resistant loudspeakers will be

positioned at the recolonization sites.

Compact disks of California common

murre vocalizations will be played prior

to and throughout the breeding season

from December to August. Daily

observations of the recolonization sites

will begin once decoys have been

deployed and will continue through

July. Devil’s Slide Rock will be observed

from the mainland using a portable

blind and telescope. San Pedro Rock

observations will occur from a blind

located on the rock, from a boat, and/

or from the mainland.

Data collected will include common

murre arrival date, number of common

murres present, behavior of common

murres, interaction with other species

(e.g., Brandt’s Cormorants), location on

rock, attendance patterns, diet or

feeding behavior, and presence of

predators. Prospecting common murres

will be plotted by location on maps of

the recolonization site. One or more

aerial photographic censuses of the

central California common murre

colonies will be conducted annually

between May and June. The censuses

will be used to calculate annual

breeding population sizes at the

recolonization sites and nearby

reference colonies in central California,

compare trends between years, and

assist in determining numbers of

common murres not visible from the

mainland or boats. Social attractants

will be displayed through the breeding

season until after common murres

normally leave the breeding sites,

usually in July. The decoys and audio

equipment will be collected after all

bird breeding on the rock has been

completed. Equipment will be checked,

cleaned, and replaced as necessary. The

equipment will be redeployed during

the following fall before common

murres begin to frequent nesting

islands. Monitoring of recolonization

sites will continue annually after the

first social attractants are deployed. The

Trustee Council will reevaluate the

recolonization efforts annually and

revise as necessary. In addition, the use

of techniques such as time-lapse

photography and radiotelemetry to

assist in monitoring birds will be

investigated and used if technically and

economically feasible. However, the

placement and retrieval of such

equipment in a way that does not cause

undue disturbance to common murres

or other seabirds and is secure from

human vandalism or theft may be a

problem.

The breeding behavior and colony

attendance of common murres will be

monitored at four nearby colonies in the

Point Reyes National Seashore and/or

the Gulf of the Farallones National

Marine Sanctuary: Point Reyes, Point

Resistance, Double Point Rocks, and

Miller Point Rocks. These sites will

serve as reference sites for the

recolonization sites. Several variables

will be monitored to allow comparison

to recolonization sites, including

population size and status, attendance

patterns, timing, breeding phenology

and success, behavior, interaction with

other species, diet or feeding behavior,

impacts of predators, human

perturbations, and other disturbances.

The population size and status would be

determined using methods similar to

those employed by Birkhead and

Nettleship (1980), Gaston et al. (1983),

Mudge (1988), and Hatch and Hatch

(1989). Only subcolonies that can be

viewed from a safe location will be

selected. Reconnaissance work and

preliminary observations and logistics

would begin in spring/summer 1995.

This work would consist of obtaining

access permits to conduct work,

selecting subcolonies to be studied,

selecting plots within subcolonies, and

conducting aerial surveys of the

colonies. The monitoring period would

parallel that followed at Devil’s Slide

and San Pedro rocks.

Winter and summer attendance,

selected aspects of breeding biology of

banded and unbanded common murres,

and many of the same parameters

measured at recolonization and

nearshore reference sites will also be

monitored at breeding sites at the South

Farallon Islands. Established and new

study plots, individually-banded birds,

blinds, and other facilities will allow for

the study of summer and winter

attendance in more detail than at

nearshore locations. Monitoring would

include determining arrival dates,

winter attendance patterns (breeding

versus nonbreeding common murres),

winter behavior of nonbreeding and

breeding common murres, site fidelity

of breeding common murres,

reproductive success, population size,

and impacts of predation. Monitoring at

the South Farallon Islands will continue

for 2 years and may be continued if

needed to support refinement of

recolonization methods or to facilitate

interpretation of data at other colonies.

This restoration project will provide

unique opportunities to enhance public

knowledge concerning seabirds, seabird

conservation, and the marine

environment. Every attempt will be

made to educate the public through

presentations, news coverage, and other

appropriate venues. Emphasis will be

placed on greater awareness of seabird

resources in the area, the problems
20744 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices

caused by oil pollution and oil spills,

gill nets, and other anthropogenic

factors as well as the restoration efforts

conducted by the cooperating agencies,

environmental organizations, and

biologists. In addition, the location of

the recolonization sites near San

Francisco along scenic Highway 1

provides excellent viewing

opportunities for the public and attracts

large numbers of visitors each year.

Therefore, opportunities for public

outreach will be explored at this site.

Schedule

Spring-summer 1995: Begin

preliminary work, including

contracting, planning, logistics, and

permits. Conduct aerial surveys of

seabird colonies in central California in

May or June to obtain baseline data,

conduct aerial flights of Devil’s Slide

and San Pedro rocks to obtain aerial

photos for mapping purpose, and record

breeding common murre vocalizations

at the Farallon NWR for use in the

recolonization project. Select colonies

and study plots to be monitored in the

Point Reyes area. Conduct safety

training for personnel as required.

Fall and winter 1995–1996: In fall

1995, conduct reconnaissance trips to

recolonization sites in preparation for

deployment of social attractants. Before

December 1995, deploy social

attractants and initiate daily

observations of recolonization sites.

Initiate daily observations of study plots

in December 1995. Complete field

season in August when common murres

generally leave breeding colonies.

Observations of study plots will

continue from December through

August for a minimum of 5 years to 10

years in order to provide necessary

information to adequately evaluate the

recolonization project. Work at the

South Farallon Islands will begin the

winter of 1995–1996 and will continue

for a minimum of 2 years. Regular

progress reports and an annual report

will be submitted to the Trustee Council

by the persons conducting work with

funding from the APEX HOUSTON

Trustee Council.

Spring 1996-winter 2004: Continue

recolonization and monitoring efforts as

necessary to accomplish project goals.

b. Castle and Hurricane Point Rocks

Restoration: Restore common murres at

Castle and Hurricane Point rocks using

social attraction methods (decoys and

recorded vocalizations).

Location: Castle and Hurricane Point

rocks, Monterey County, California.

Justification: As described above, the

recolonization of historic common

murre colonies in central California will

contribute to the reversal of the

dramatic reduction of this seabird’s

historic geographic range. The 1986

APEX HOUSTON spill negatively

impacted the breeding colonies that

make up the southern half of the central

California breeding range (Swartzman

and Carter 1991). The Castle and

Hurricane Point rocks colonies were

severely impacted by the APEX

HOUSTON spill based on locations of

APEX HOUSTON oil slicks, depleted

size of the Monterey colonies and

subcolonies after the spill, and locations

of recovery of oiled common murres

during the spill (Swartzman and Carter

1991, Siskin et. al 1993). Adult common

murres are known to attend breeding

colonies during winter months at the

Southeast Farallon Island in central

California (Ainley and Boekelheide

1990, Sydeman 1993). Also, common

murres have been observed attending

the Castle and Hurricane Point rocks

colonies during the winter (Carter,

unpubl. data). Castle and Hurricane

Point rocks were in the direct path of oil

slicks occurring from the APEX

HOUSTON spill (Swartzman and Carter

1991). In addition, approximately 1,600

common murres were recovered in

Monterey Bay near these 2 colonies. As

a result, the APEX HOUSTON spill was

responsible for a severe reduction in

numbers observed at these two colonies

following the spill.

Currently, common murres occur on

five rocks and the mainland at Castle

Rocks and two rocks at Hurricane Point

Rocks. Aerial surveys conducted during

the 1994 breeding season indicate that

common murre numbers at subcolonies

have remained low since the APEX

HOUSTON oil spill (Carter and

Takekawa, unpubl. data). Each

subcolony is comprised of less than a

hundred to several hundred common

murres, and the breeding status of these

subcolonies is unknown (Carter and

Takekawa, unpubl. data). Given the low

numbers of common murres that occur

at these subcolonies, it is possible that

breeding success is limited. Due to the

small size of the subcolonies and other

factors (e.g., gill net fishing in Monterey

Bay, El Nino events, future oil spills,

and other human disturbances) the

colonies at Castle and Hurricane Point

rocks continue to be in danger of

extirpation. These colonies are

particularly important because they are

at the current southern end of the range

of the central California population as

well as the southern extreme of the

species’ range in the Pacific Ocean.

These colonies are in close proximity to

each other and constitute the only active

common murre colonies south of San

Francisco, representing a large portion

of the range of the central California

common murre population. Given the

current fragile condition of the overall

central California common murre

population and the lack of recovery over

time (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990,

Takekawa et. al. 1990, Swartzman and

Carter 1991, Carter et. al. 1992, Ainley

et. al. 1994), colonies once lost are not

likely to be reestablished in the

foreseeable future without human

assistance. Based on established

principles of conservation biology, if the

colonies at Castle and Hurricane Point

rocks are lost, the resulting reductions

in the geographical range, numbers,

breeding locations, and productivity of

common murres further increase the

risk of extinction of the entire central

California population.

Proposed Action: The common murre

colonies at the Castle and Hurricane

Point rock complexes will be evaluated

to determine the best means of

employing social attractants at these

locations. A minimum of 2 years would

be required to determine appropriate

methods. Both of these colonies are

composed of several subcolonies on

different rocks. Subcolonies will be

examined to obtain a comprehensive

understanding of colony dynamics in a

severely depleted condition. Breeding

population levels, reproductive success,

attendance patterns, behavioral

observations, and nesting locations will

be determined at as many subcolonies

as possible. Particular attention will be

paid to prospecting birds within

established subcolonies and at

unoccupied rocks. In addition, all

unoccupied rocks and potential

mainland breeding habitats will be

assessed for the use of social attractants

to encourage common murre breeding.

Habitat will be assessed for suitability to

support a common murre subcolony,

including such factors as slope, size,

protection from human and other

disturbance, surf conditions, and

predation threats. The unoccupied rocks

will be regularly monitored to detect

prospecting common murres.

A phased approach to employing

social attractants will be used to refine

the use of social attractants on the

colony. Criteria to be used to determine

the use of social attractants include: loss

of subcolonies or colonies, below

normal reproductive success, lack of

colony growth, limited availability of

breeding sites in existing subcolonies,

high numbers of prospecting common

murres in existing subcolonies, presence

of prospecting common murres in areas

with no breeding, and population status

at each colony. The use of social

attractants would be employed at sites

where it was deemed necessary to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices 20745

encourage common murres to recolonize

lost subcolonies or prospect and nest on

unoccupied rocks. The goal would be to

prevent colony loss without negatively

impacting existing subcolonies. If, for

any reason, social attractants are not

deemed advisable after 2 years, the

colonies at these sites will be evaluated

for 3 more years. This monitoring will

occur to ensure adequate reproductive

success, colony survival, and recovery

and, if necessary, to develop alternative

restoration techniques.

This restoration project will provide

unique opportunities to enhance public

knowledge concerning seabirds, seabird

conservation, and the marine

environment. Every attempt will be

made to educate the public through

presentations, news coverage, and other

appropriate venues. Emphasis will be

placed on greater awareness of seabird

resources in the area, the problems

caused by oil pollution and oil spills,

gill nets, and other anthropogenic

factors as well as the restoration efforts

conducted by the cooperating agencies,

environmental organizations, and

biologists. In addition, the location of

the recolonization sites near Monterey

along scenic Highway 1 provides

excellent viewing opportunities for the

public and attracts large numbers of

visitors each year. As a result, informal

public outreach will be conducted at the

recolonization sites.

Schedule

Spring and Summer 1995:

Preliminary work will begin, including

selection of observation points,

obtaining access permits, planning, and

purchasing. Aerial surveys of breeding

common murre colonies will be

conducted in May or June to obtain

baseline data. These surveys will be

conducted in conjunction with aerial

common murre surveys for central

California. Observations of breeding

colonies will continue each year from

December 1995 until August 1997, at a

minimum. In August 1997, the use of

social attractants will be assessed to

restore these common murre colonies.

In fall 1997, social attractants will be

deployed where suitable. These efforts

will continue until at least 2004, unless

success is achieved, or failure declared,

prior to that date.

V. Common Murre Project Goals

The APEX HOUSTON oil spill killed

an estimated 6,000 common murres,

was a major factor in the eradication of

the Devil’s Slide Rock colony, and

damaged colonies at Castle and

Hurricane Point rocks. If the latter 2

colonies are lost, over 75 percent of the

recent range of the central California

common murre population will have

been lost. The Trustees have selected

restoration alternatives designed to

restore common murres to colonies in

the areas most severely affected by the

spill. Both short-term and long-term

goals have been established for this

restoration project.

The short-term goal of this project is

to restore common murres at historic

breeding colonies in areas where

colonies were extirpated or severely

depleted by the APEX HOUSTON oil

spill. The timeframe needed for

common murres to become established

at extirpated colonies is unknown but is

suspected to be several years. Therefore,

the Trustees will consider the shortterm goal achieved if significant

progress is made toward the

establishment of 100 breeding pairs of

common murres at the Devil’s Slide

Rock and San Pedro Rock colonies. The

Trustees believe this goal can be

achieved within 10 years if oceanic

conditions are favorable for murre

breeding during most of the years of the

project.

The long-term goal is to restore the

colonies to pre-spill population levels.

Ultimately, this restoration project

should aid in restoring the portion of

the central California common murre

population most affected by the APEX

HOUSTON spill to its historic range,

colony sizes, and reproductive

potential. However, the timeframe

needed for common murres to reach

pre-spill population levels is unknown

and is suspected to take several

generations (i.e., more than 10 years).

Thus, the accomplishment of the longterm goal of restoring the central

California common murre population to

its historic range and colony sizes is

likely to occur only after the conclusion

of the recolonization project. The

Trustees believe that this is appropriate

because the social facilitation that

results from the presence and activity of

the birds that were attracted to breed at

the recolonization sites will take the

place of the artificial stimuli provided

by the decoys and recorded

vocalizations, enabling long-term goals

to be achieved without continued

human intervention.

The Trustees plan to review the

common murre restoration project at

least annually at which time the

effectiveness of the project and possible

improvements will be considered. In

addition, public comments will be taken

and considered by the Trustee Council

throughout the project. The annual

review process may result in revisions

to the plan.

VI. Common Murre Project

Implementation

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) has been designated as Lead

Trustee for the common murre

recolonization project and will utilize

staff and facilities of the San Francisco

Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex

and the Sacramento Ecological Services

Field Office to implement the project.

The National Biological Service’s Dixon

Field Office will be asked to provide the

Service with technical expertise and

field support to assist in the

implementation of this project through

an inter-agency agreement. The Service

will obtain additional assistance from

one or more experts in seabird

recolonization/restoration via contracts

or cooperative agreements. Reference

site work conducted at the South

Farallon Islands may be accomplished

through an existing cooperative

agreement between the San Francisco

Bay NWR Complex and the Point Reyes

Bird Observatory. Other contracts or

agreements may be developed as

necessary to achieve project goals over

the anticipated 10-year duration of this

project.

VII. Environmental Compliance

The Service has determined that the

project is categorically excluded from

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq,

according to the Department of Interior’s

Departmental Manual, 516 DM 6,

Appendix I, 516 DM 2, Appendix I.

Resource management activities such as

the type described for this project,

which include research, reintroduction

of established species into their historic

range, and small structures or

improvements, are categorically

excluded from NEPA. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service has prepared an

Environmental Action Memorandum

setting forth the basis for the categorical

exclusion of this project.

The California Department of Fish

and Game has also determined that the

project is categorically exempt from the

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), Cal. Pub. Resources Code

21000 et seq., and has filed a Notice of

Exemption with the State

Clearinghouse.

The California Coastal Commission

staff has concurred with the Trustees

negative determination made pursuant

to 15 CFR 930.35(d) of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration implementing

regulations relative to the Coastal Zone

Management Act.
20746 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices

VIII. Common Murre Restoration Project

Budget

As part of the settlement, $4,916,430

has been allocated for common murre

restoration. This amount, plus any

interest earned, is available to fund the

recolonization project for 10 years. A

budget has been developed that lists the

range of annual and cumulative costs

anticipated for each major budgetary

category (Table 1). Availability of

sufficient money to fund the project

through years 9 and 10 may depend on

interest earnings, because the upper end

of the range of anticipated project costs

exceeds the amount of the settlement. A

more detailed budget will be available

following the completion of contracting

procedures.

Major budget categories include

equipment (boats, motors, decoys, photo

and audio equipment, decoys, vehicles,

etc.); operating costs (gas, aerial survey

flights, travel, administrative support,

etc.); salaries (salaries for agency

personnel conducting recolonization

project); contracts/agreements (seabird

recolonization consultant, cooperative

agreement for Farallon Islands work);

public education/outreach (public

meetings, press releases, press

conferences, presentations, publications

in popular and technical literature, etc.).

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED MURRE PROJECT BUDGET

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Equipment ............... 155,000

210,000

50,000–

70,000

75,000–

105,000

50,000–

70,000

55,000–

75,000

50,000–

70,000

50,000–

70,000

55,000–

70,000

50,000–

70,000

50,000–

70,000

Operating Costs ...... 130,000

175,000

125,000–

170,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

120,000–

160,000

Salaries ................... 70,000

95,000

195,000–

260,000

205,000–

275,000

215,000–

290,000

225,000–

305,000

225,000–

305,000

235,000–

320,000

250,000–

335,000

260,000–

350,000

275,000–

370,000

Contracts/Agreements .................. 20,000

25,000

80,000–

110,000

80,000–

110,000

30,000–

45,000

35,000–

45,000

25,000–

30,000

25,000–

35,000

25,000–

35,000

30,000–

35,000

30,000–

40,000

Public Education/

Outreach ............. 5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

5,000–

10,000

Annual Total ........... 380,000

515,000

455,000–

620,000

485,000–

660,000

420,000–

575,000

440,000–

595,000

425,000–

575,000

435,000–

595,000

455,000–

610,000

465,000–

625,000

480,000–

650,000

Cumulative Project

Total .................... 380,000

515,000

835,000–

1,135,000

1,320,000

1,795,000

1,740,000

2,370,000

2,180,000

2,965,000

2,605,000

3,540,000

3,040,000

4,135,000

3,495,000

4,745,000

3,960,000

5,370,000

4,440,000

6,020,000

IX. Responses to Comments

The Service received numerous oral

and written comments at a public

meeting held on November 17, 1994, in

Sausalito, California, and during the

public comment period that began with

the November 4, 1994, Federal Register

notice (Federal Register/Vol. 59, No.

213/55282). The Service appreciates the

time and effort expended by the

respondents.

A. General Comments Concerning This

Plan

1. Length of the Public Comment

Period. Comment: Several respondents

stated that the initial 30-day public

comment period was not sufficient to

allow detailed review of the draft Plan.

Response: The Service extended the

public comment period to 45 days.

2. Value of the Project. Comment:

Many respondents expressed their belief

that this project was an appropriate use

of the settlement money and would help

restore the bird species that was most

impacted by the spill.

Response: The Service appreciates the

support the public has shown for this

project.

Comment: Several respondents said

that the project was a waste of money

and should not be implemented.

Response: In their legal complaints

against the parties allegedly responsible

for this oil spill, the State and Federal

plaintiffs sought recovery for injuries to

the natural resources under the

trusteeship of the United States and the

State of California. During the pendency

of this action, the United States and the

State, through their designated Natural

Resource Trustees, proposed certain

projects to restore natural resources

injured as a direct result of the spill.

These projects included the common

murre recolonization project that is the

subject of this Final Plan, as well as the

marbled murrelet habitat acquisition

project. The plaintiffs and defendants

agreed, and the court by entering a

Consent Decree found, that the

proposed projects were reasonable and

appropriate measures to restore the

affected natural resources.

The Consent Decree states that the

Trustees may make other use of the

proceeds of the settlement if they

‘‘determine that either of the proposed

restoration projects are not feasible,

practicable, or in the public interest.’’

However, the Trustees have not

obtained any convincing information

through the public comment process, or

through their own continued review of

the project, to indicate that either of the

proposed projects is not feasible, not

practicable, or not in the public interest.

On the contrary, nearly all of the public

comments supported the project in

concept and focused on technical

details that could be improved or

clarified. Therefore, the Trustee Council

has authorized the Service to proceed

with this project as described in this

Final Plan.

3. Compliance With Environmental

Regulations. Comment: Several

respondents asked for clarification on

how the Service will comply with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and other legislation designed

to prevent adverse impacts of Federal

projects on the environment.

Response: Preparation of an

Environmental Impact Report or

Environmental Assessment under NEPA

is not required for this project because

the restoration of species to their native

range is an activity that is categorically

exempt from NEPA and from its State

equivalent, the California

Environmental Quality Act. The Service

has prepared and filed appropriate

documentation of these exemptions. In

addition, the Service has asked for and

received a negative consistency

determination from the California

Coastal Commission, as required by the

Coastal Zone Management Act.

The installation of decoys, tape

recorders, cameras, and ladders at

breeding colonies will take place during

the non-breeding season to avoid

disturbance of murres, cormorants,

gulls, and other species protected by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Control of

gulls and other predators is not

currently a component of this project.

The Service will obtain all necessary

Federal, State, and local permits, and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices 20747

access permission from private

landowners, before initiating field work.

B. Comments Regarding Alternative

Projects

Comment: Several respondents

suggested that the murre recolonization

project should be implemented as a

pilot study at a reduced level of

funding, and that the savings should be

used to fund other projects, including:

Rhinoceros auklet restoration,

additional habitat acquisition for

marbled murrelets, acquisition of

property containing a common murre

colony at Cape Vizcaino in Mendocino

County, a fisheries task force to reduce

mortality of seabirds in gill nets of the

central California fishing industry,

efforts to reduce impacts of chronic oil

pollution on seabirds, gull control and

other projects on the Farallon Islands,

and genetic studies of Pacific coast

murres.

Response: The draft Plan was revised

and more detail has been provided in

the Restoration Alternatives Considered

and Selected section of the Final plan.

The Service intends to approach this

project in phases. The initial phase

focuses on direct restoration activities at

Devil’s Slide and San Pedro rocks, and

monitoring at other sites. The project

will be scaled up to include

implementation of recolonization

techniques at Hurricane Rock and Castle

Rock after several years of monitoring,

if appropriate. This phased approach

was implicit in the Draft Plan and has

been further clarified in the Final Plan.

A reduced level of effort will not

provide sufficient information to

evaluate whether the project is working,

and diversion of money to other projects

may not allow implementation of the

project over the entire ten year period

that may be necessary to achieve the

project’s goals. Consequently, the

Service does not feel it would be acting

in the public interest to shift large sums

of money from the murre recolonization

project to other projects at this time.

This decision does not mean that the

Service or the Trustees reject the

argument that some of the alternative

projects that were suggested would be

beneficial to natural resources injured

by the Apex Houston Oil Spill. On the

contrary, many of these projects,

including rhinoceros auklet restoration

and acquisition of the murre colony at

Cape Vizcaino, were considered during

settlement negotiations. Other suggested

projects, including projects to reduce

seabird mortality from gill nets and

chronic oiling, are already underway

with funding from other sources within

the Trustee agencies. The murre

recolonization project and the murrelet

habitat acquisition project were given

priority because the Trustees feel that

these two projects best address

restoration needs of local populations of

the species that were most seriously

impacted by the spill. The Alternatives

Considered section of the Final Plan has

been expanded to better address these

concerns.

The Service intends to carefully

manage project expenditures to stay

within the proposed budget, and will

attempt to realize savings wherever

possible. In addition, the settlement

money will be invested in an interestbearing account within the Department

of the Interior’s Natural Resource

Damage Assessment and Restoration

fund. In general, the priority for use of

any savings realized through this

strategy will be continuation of murre

restoration efforts beyond 10 years and

acquisition of marbled murrelet nesting

habitat, as per the Consent Decree.

Other alternatives that are cost effective

and have clear benefits to injured

resources will receive future

consideration from the Trustee Council

on a case-by-case basis if their

implementation will not compromise

the objectives of the two main projects.

C. Comments Regarding Details of the

Plan

1. Project Duration and Goals.

Comment: Several respondents

expressed concern that 10 years may not

be long enough to achieve the goals of

this project because murres have

inherently low reproductive rates,

usually do not breed until they are

several years old, and may not breed in

years when oceanic conditions are not

favorable.

Response: The Service agrees that 10

years may be the minimum amount of

time necessary to achieve the goal of

recolonizing common murres at sites

from which they have been extirpated.

The long-term goal of restoring these

colonies and the central California

population to pre-spill numbers will

almost certainly require more than 10

years. The Goals section was revised in

the Final Plan to clarify the Service’s

short and long-term goals. The Service

believes that the goals of the project can

best be achieved through immediate

implementation of recolonization

efforts, and through continued efforts

via other State and Federal programs to

protect central California murres from

human disturbance, chronic oiling, and

entanglement in gill nets while the

recolonization efforts are underway.

2. Disturbance of Murres and Other

Nesting Seabirds. Comment: Several

respondents cautioned the Service to

either forego or proceed carefully with

implementation of restoration efforts at

Hurricane Rock and Castle Rock to

avoid disturbing the remaining murres

nesting at these sites.

Response: The Service agrees that

unnecessary disturbance of the

remaining murres nesting at these sites

should be avoided. This concern was

expressed in the Draft Plan and has been

clarified in the Final Plan. Efforts at

these sites will be limited to monitoring

of behavior and reproductive success for

the first 2 years of the project. After 2

years, the Service may deploy social

attractants at these sites, but only where

it is deemed necessary to encourage

murres to recolonize lost subcolonies or

suitable, unoccupied rocks.

Comment: Several respondents

cautioned the Service to minimize

disturbance of Brandt’s cormorants and

western gulls that nest at Devil’s Slide

Rock and other sites where

recolonization is proposed.

Response: The Service agrees that

disturbance of other nesting seabirds

should be minimized during this

project. Human disturbance will be

minimized by deploying social

attractants during the non-breeding

season, conducting aerial surveys at

appropriate heights to be determined in

consultation with the Gulf of the

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary

and other agencies, and by making

behavioral observations through

telescopes located in blinds, on boats, or

on the mainland, rather than in the

middle of colonies.

In the few instances where formation

of new murre colonies has been

observed in central California, these

new colonies were established within

existing Brandt’s cormorant colonies,

possibly because these locations

provided greater protection from gull

predation (Ainley and Boekelheide

1990). Common murres and Brandt’s

cormorants also nest together at several

colonies along the coasts of California

and Oregon (Carter et al. 1992, Carter

and Takekawa unpubl. data, R. Lowe

pers. comm.). Because common murres

can sometimes supplant cormorants and

gulls from nesting areas, the potential

exists for cormorant reproductive

success to be reduced at recolonization

sites (Ainley and Boekelheide 1990).

However, the Service believes this

problem can be minimized by deploying

social attractants in such a way that

murres obtain the benefits of proximity

to nesting cormorants without usurping

cormorant nest sites. Behavior and

reproductive success of cormorants and

gulls nesting on recolonization sites will

be monitored to help determine the

effect of murre recolonization on local

seabird communities.
20748 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices

3. Farallon Islands Component of the

Project. Comment: Several respondents

asked for expansion or clarification of

the scope of the Farallon Islands

component of the project and pointed

out that an understanding of the status

and phenology of the large colony at

Southeast Farallon Island is critical to

restoration efforts at the smaller,

nearshore colonies. Also, some

respondents suggested that experiments

with decoys be conducted at the

Farallon Islands in order to refine and

validate social attraction methodologies

and protocols.

Response: The Service agrees that

Farallon Islands are an important

component to the conservation and

understanding of the central California

common murre population. Monitoring

of common murres at the Farallon

Islands, especially individually banded

murres, will be important for evaluating

the success of the recolonization efforts

at the nearshore colonies and has been

included in the Final Plan. The Service

believes that the efforts described in the

Final Plan are appropriate for the

Farallon Islands, given National

Wildlife Refuge management objectives

and protocols. The Service does not

believe that the colonies on the Farallon

Islands merit greater emphasis in

restoration than the nearshore colonies.

The murre colonies on the Farallon

Islands were impacted by the spill, but

may still contain sufficient birds to

accomplish any necessary social

facilitation of breeding without human

intervention.

Research on decoy placement and on

effectiveness of combinations of

auditory and visual attractants has been

underway in Maine for several years

(Schubel 1993). This research provides

empirical data on numbers and

densities of decoys sufficient to attract

murres when combined with auditory

stimuli. The Service believes that the

information from Maine is sufficient to

guide initiation of the Final Plan.

Therefore, the Service believes it is not

essential, at this time, to conduct

methods-oriented research and

experimental validation of common

murre recolonization techniques at the

Farallon Islands for the recolonization

project to be successful. However, the

Trustees will reevaluate the restoration

projects and consider additional

projects at least annually.

4. Additional Sites for Murre

Recolonization. Comment: One

respondent suggested that the Service

could do more to expand the range of

common murres in central California by

using social attraction techniques to

start a new colony at Bodega Rock in

Sonoma County.

Response: The Service did not

consider this site for murre

recolonization because, as far as the

Service is aware, it has no prior history

of use for nesting by murres. Lack of

prior use suggests that this may not be

a suitable location for a murre colony.

5. Prey Resources for Common

Murres. Comment: Some respondents

questioned whether ecological

resources, such as prey, might be

insufficient to support growing murre

populations and thereby could limit the

success of the project.

Response: The Service is aware of this

theory and would welcome any

additional information for consideration

on this subject at any time. Currently,

the Service believes that insufficient

information exists to conclude that prey

resource limitations would preclude the

success of this project. In addition,

Pacific Sardines (Sardinops sagax) are

beginning to recover in central

California (Wolf 1992). Sardines had

disappeared north of Point Conception

by 1951, probably due to a combination

of overfishing and an extended period of

cold water (described in Ainley and

Lewis 1974). Their recovery may

strengthen food resources in the vicinity

of the recolonization sites; for example,

the once abundant sardines were

believed to be an important food to

larger seabirds, including cormorants

and puffins (Ainley and Lewis 1974). In

addition, more detail was added to the

plan to clarify that common murre diet

and feeding information would be

collected at recolonization and reference

sites where feasible, in order to gain

more information on prey resources.

6. Public Outreach and Education.

Comment: Several respondents

emphasized the importance of making

public outreach and education an

integral part of the project.

Response: The Service agrees that

public outreach and education should

be an integral part of this project, and

has allocated up to $10,000 annually for

this purpose. Relevant public outreach

and education opportunities will be

sought throughout the project, and will

be funded to the extent possible without

compromising project goals.

7. Budget. Comment: Several

respondents requested a more detailed

budget.

Response: A more detailed budget has

been included in the Final Plan. This

budget contains anticipated ranges of

annual costs for major budgetary

categories for the duration of the project.

Actual costs for cooperators and

contractors will be known when

negotiations are completed, and/or

when contracts have been advertised

and bids received.

8. Coordination With Other Trustee

Councils. Comment: One respondent

recommended that the Apex Houston

Trustee Council coordinate its activities

with the Trustee Councils that are

guiding restoration projects for seabirds

injured in other oil spills along the

Pacific Coast.

Response: The Apex Houston Trustee

Council will coordinate and

communicate with other Trustee

Councils.

Literature Cited

Ainley, and T.J. Lewis. 1974. The history of

Farallon Island marine bird populations,

1854–1972. Condor 76:432–446.

Ainley, D.G. and R.J. Boekelheide, editors.

1990. Seabirds of the Farallon Islands:

Ecology, dynamics, and structure of an

upwelling-system community. Stanford

University Press, Stanford, California.

450 pages.

Ainley, D.G., W.J. Sydeman, S.A. Hatch, and

U.W. Wilson. 1994. Seabird population

trends along the west coast of North

America: causes and extent of regional

concordance. Studies in Avian Biology

No. 15:119–133.

Birkhead, T.R. and D.N. Nettleship. 1980.

Census methods for murres, Uria

species: a unified approach. Canadian

Wildlife Service Occasional Papers.

Paper Number 43. 25pp.

Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, and D.R.

Carlson. 1987. Bird communities at sea

off California: 1975–1983. Studies in

Avian Biology No. 11.

Carter, H.R., G.J. McChesney, D.L. Jaques,

C.S. Strong, M.W. Parker, J.E. Takekawa,

D.L. Jory, and D.L. Whitworth. 1992.

Breeding populations of seabirds in

California, 1989–1991. Unpublished

reports, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research

Center, Dixon, California.

Gaston, A.J., D.G. Noble, and M.A. Purdy.

1983. Monitoring breeding biology

parameters for murres Uria spp.: levels

of accuracy and sources of bias. Journal

of Field Ornithology 54:275–282.

Hatch, S.A. and M.A. Hatch. 1989.

Attendance patterns of murres at

breeding sites: implications for

monitoring. Journal of Wildlife

Management 53(2):486–493.

Kress, S.W. 1978. Establishing Atlantic

Puffins at a former breeding site. Pp.

373–377 in S.A. Temple (ed.).

Endangered birds: management

techniques for preserving threatened

species. University of Wisconsin Press,

Madison, Wisconsin.

Kress, S.W. 1983. The use of decoys, sound

recordings, and gull control for reestablishing a tern colony in Maine. J.

Field Ornith. 59(2):161–170.

Kress, S.W. and D.N. Nettleship. 1988. Reestablishment of Atlantic Puffins,

Fratercula artica, at a former breeding

site in the Gulf of Maine. Colonial

Waterbirds 6:185–196.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Notices 20749

1See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment—Offers of

Finan. Assist., 4 I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

Kress, S.W., and H.R. Carter. 1991.

Recolonization of Common Murres to

abandoned nesting islands on the central

California coast. Unpublished report,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Kress, S.W., D.N. Nettleship, and R.H.

Podolsky. 1992. Reintroduction of

Atlantic Puffins, Terns, and Leach’s

Storm-Petrels at former breeding sites in

the Gulf of Maine in B.D. Bell and J.

Kromdeur (editors). Management

methods for populations of threatened

birds. ICBP Technical Publication.

Cambridge, England. in press.

Mudge, G.P. 1988. An evaluation of current

methodology for monitoring changes in

the breeding populations of Guillemots

Uria aalge. Bird Study 35:1–9.

Podolsky, R.H. 1985. Colony formation and

attraction of the Laysan Albatross and

Leach’s Storm-Petrel. Ph.D. dissertation.

Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

Podolsky, R.H. and S.W. Kress. 1989. Factors

affecting colony formation in Leach’s

Storm-Petrel. Auk 106(2):332–336.

Podolsky, R.H. and S.W. Kress. 1992.

Attraction of the endangered darkrumped petrel to recorded vocalizations

in the Galapagos Islands. Condor 94:448–

453.

Ray, M.S. 1909. The passing of the Pedro

Island sea-bird rookery. Condor 11:94–

96.

Schubel, S. 1993. A common murre attraction

project on a Maine Island. 1993 Season

Report on Matinicus Rock Project.

National Audubon Society. Ithaca, NY.

Siskin, B.R., G.W. Page, and H.R. Carter.

1993. Impacts of the 1986 APEX

HOUSTON oil spill on marine birds in

central California. Unpublished report,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Sowls, A.L., A.R. Degange, J.W. Nelson, and

G.S. Lester. 1980. Catalog of California

seabird colonies. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol.

Serv. Prog. FWS/OBS 37/80.

Swartzman, G. and H.R. Carter. 1991.

Response of the California population of

Common Murres (Uria aalge) to

mortality from the 1986 APEX

HOUSTON oil spill. Unpublished report,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Sydeman, W.J. 1993. Survivorship of

Common Murres on Southeast Farallon

Island, California. Ornis Scand. 24:1–7.

Takekawa, J.E., H.R. Carter, and T.E. Harvey.

1990. Decline of the Common Murre in

Central California 1980–1986. Studies in

Avian Biology 14:149–163.

Wickham, D.A., C.C. Kahl, G.F. Mayer, and

E. Reinharz. 1993. Restoration: The goal

of the Oil Pollution Act natural resources

damage actions. Baylor Law Review

45:405.

Wolf, P. 1992. Recovery of the Pacific

Sardine and the California sardine

fishery. California Cooperative Oceanic

Fisheries Investigations Reports 33:76–

86.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Thomas Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10277 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

National Park Service

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Mountain Goat Management,

Olympic National Park, WA

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension of public

review period.

SUMMARY: The comment period as

specified in the official Notice of

Availability (Federal Register, Vol. 60,

No. 62, March 31, 1995, p. 16647) was

to end May 31, 1995. This present

Notice announces that the comment

period has been extended until July 17,

1995.

DATES: Comments on the draft

Environmental Impact Statement must

be received by July 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to the Superintendent,

Olympic National Park, 600 E. Park

Ave., Port Angeles, WA 98362.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent, Olympic National Park,

at the above address or at telephone

number (360) 452–4501.

Dated: April 18, 1995.

Rick L. Wagner,

Acting Associate Regional Director, Pacific

Northwest Regional Office, National Park

Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10347 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[Docket No. AB–55 (Sub-No. 498X)]

CSX Transportation, Inc.—

Abandonment Exemption—in Henrico

County and the City of Richmond, VA

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: The Commission exempts

from the prior approval requirements of

49 U.S.C. 10903–10904 the

abandonment by CSX Transportation,

Inc., of approximately 3.1 miles of rail

line extending between milepost CA–

88.25 at Ruffin in Henrico County, VA,

and milepost CA–85.15 at Brown and

17th Streets in the City of Richmond,

VA, subject to standard labor protective

conditions.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of

intent to file an offer of financial

assistance has been received, this

exemption will be effective on May 27,

1995. Formal expressions of intent to

file an offer 1 of financial assistance

under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2) must be

filed by May 8, 1995; petitions to stay

must be filed by May 12, 1995; requests

for a public use condition must be filed

by May 17, 1995; and petitions to

reopen must be filed by May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to

Docket No. AB–55 (Sub-No. 498X) to:

(1) Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Interstate Commerce

Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20423, and (2)

Charles M. Rosenberger, Counsel for

CSXT, 500 Water Street, Jacksonville,

FL 32202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5610. (TDD for

hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Commission’s decision. To purchase

a copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: Dynamic

Concepts, Inc., Interstate Commerce

Commission Building, 1201

Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 2229,

Washington, DC 20423. Telephone:

(202) 289–4357/4359. (Assistance for

the hearing impaired is available

through TDD services (202) 927–5721.)

Decided: April 13, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioners

Simmons and McDonald.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10332 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Open Software

Foundation, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on

January 26, 1995, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Open

Software Foundation, Inc. has filed

written notifications simultaneously

with the Attorney General and the

Federal Trade Commission disclosing

changes in its membership. The