Marbled Murrelet Conservation Resolution
Adopted October 10, 2013
Whereas the Marbled Murrelet, listed as Threatened in 1992 in California, Oregon, and Washington
under the Endangered Species Act, continues to decline in numbers in all its range.
Whereas Marbled Murrelets nest on broad branches in the upper canopy of old growth forests near the
West Coast and their decline is linked to destruction and fragmentation of this breeding habitat.
Whereas the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has yet to adopt a science-based
Long Term Conservation Strategy for the Marbled Murrelet for State Trust Lands.
Whereas in July 2013 King County Superior Court ruled in Seattle Audubon’s favor requiring
environmental analysis before allowing logging on lands protected for consideration in the murrelet’s
Long Term Conservation Strategy.
Whereas in September 2013 U.S. District Court ruled in Seattle Audubon’s favor rejecting efforts to
eliminate Endangered Species Act protections which would have allowed expansion of logging in the
murrelet’s old-growth forest nesting habitat.
Whereas scientific research describing Marbled Murrelet conservation opportunities has been and
continues to be developed by independent scientists.
Whereas the 2008 Science Report (Recommendations and Supporting Analysis of Conservation
Opportunities for the Marbled Murrelet Long Term Strategy) details strategies that should be
implemented for the Marbled Murrelet.
Whereas Washington State has the opportunity to implement science-based conservation planning,
policies, and strategies.
Whereas Seattle Audubon recognizes that some counties are currently dependent for government
functions on funds from timbering state trust lands.
Therefore be it resolved that Seattle Audubon
Supports Marbled Murrelet habitat protection as a key objective land management decision;
Encourages science-based conservation planning, policies and strategies that promote Marbled
Murrelet conservation;
Promotes legislation and policy change to help address the loss of county funds due to Marbled
Murrelet habitat on state trust lands; and
Endorses the 2008 Science Report as an example of science that can and should be used to inform
conservation planning, policies and strategies.
Be it further resolved that this position shall be expressed in communications with elected
representatives, appointed officials, our members, and the public.
Marbled Murrelet Conservation Resolution Background and Justification
1. Title of Resolution: Resolution in support of science-based Marbled Murrelet conservation
planning, policies and strategies.
2. Date submitted: October 10, 2013
3. Definition of the issue:
• Marbled Murrelet were listed as Threatened in 1992. Their decline results from the
destruction and fragmentation of breeding habitat-- broad branches in the upper canopy of
old growth forests near the West Coast.
• Currently, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the United State Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) are crafting the next version of the Marbled Murrelet's Long
Term Conservation Strategy.
• The Audubon community, including Seattle Audubon, need to mobilize to protect the
Marbled Murrelet by advocating for science-based Conservation planning, policies and
strategies.
4. What specific resources are contributing to this action?
• Seattle Audubon is funding the rental of Lewis Creek Park Visitor Center for the WSACC
meeting and initiated the concept of having Maria Mudd Ruth and Paul Kampmeier
present at the October WSACC meeting.
• Seattle Audubon is part of a coalition (Olympic Forest Coalition and Sierra Club) who is
providing expertise and mobilizing volunteers for letter writing, testifying, and policy
advocacy.
• Seattle Audubon is regularly party to litigation fighting illegal forest management decisions.
• Marieke Stientjes Rack has been and will be devoting 0.2 FTE to murrelet advocacy.
5. Is strategic timing involved? Yes. DNR is currently crafting the next phase of the Marbled
Murrelet's Long Term Conservation Strategy (LCTS). Promoting science-based decision
making right now has the potential to generate an improved LTCS.
6. Has the Seattle Audubon Board taken prior positions on this issue? Seattle Audubon has
been engaged in Marbled Murrelet advocacy and litigation for many years:
http://www.seattleaudubon.org/sas/WhatWeDo/Conservation/RegionalConservation/Threa
tenedEndangeredSpecies/MarbledMurrelet.aspx. This includes the WSACC and Seattle
Audubon's Resolution titled: "Resolution to Oppose the Radar Ridge Wind Energy Project in
order to Protect Marbled Murrelets"
7. List points in support of your chapter’s position.
• Marbled Murrelet is a Threatened bird both is Washington state
(http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/marbled_murrelet.pdf) and by the
Endangered Species Act.
• An 2008 scientific report (Recommendations and Supporting Analysis of Conservation
Opportunities for the Marbled Murrelet Long Term Strategy) detailed science-based
conservation requirements for the Marbled Murrelet.
8. Who takes a different position on this issue?
• DNR, Peter Goldmark, Commissioner of Public Lands, cpl@dnr.wa.gov.
• Rural, Timber Counties
• Timber Industry (AFRC)
9. What is the rationale for the different position?
• DNR: DNR maintains, in action, in conversation, and in writing, that their fiduciary
responsibility outweighs their conservation objectives. Ex: "The strategy will help conserve
marbled murrelet habitat on state trust lands in western Washington, while allowing for
timber harvest and other activities—activities that earn revenue for public schools, counties
and other trust beneficiaries. With this strategy, we are committed to meeting our fiduciary
responsibilities to trust beneficiaries, and to working with the FWS to support marbled
murrelet conservation."
(http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/TrustLandsHCP/Pages/lm_hcp_marble
d_murrelet_main.aspx)
• Rural, Timber Counties: Counties, especially those is SW Washington, expect regular
revenue from State Trust Land timber harvests.
• Timber Industry: The Timber Industry isn't motivated by murrelet conservation and
doesn't support outcomes from science-based planning, policies, and strategies.