[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 20739-20749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10277]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
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 
[[Page 20740]] 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 
Nino-Southern 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 311(f)(5), 33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 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 [[Page 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 [[Page 20742]] 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 self-sustaining 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 individually-marked birds, where 
age and sex are known, would give a better understanding of expected 
time-in-attendance 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 [[Page 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 [[Page 20744]] 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 [[Page 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 short-term 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 long-term 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. 
[[Page 20746]] 

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 
[[Page 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 interest-bearing 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.
[[Page 20748]]

    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 re-establishing a tern colony in Maine. J. Field Ornith. 
59(2):161-170.
Kress, S.W. and D.N. Nettleship. 1988. Re-establishment of Atlantic 
Puffins, Fratercula artica, at a former breeding site in the Gulf of 
Maine. Colonial Waterbirds 6:185-196. [[Page 20749]] 
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 
dark-rumped 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