[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71298-71315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24347]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[96100-1671-0000-W4]
RIN 1018-AV21
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To
List Six Foreign Bird Species Under the Endangered Species Act
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list three petrel species (order Procellariiformes), the Chatham petrel
(Pterodroma axillaris), previously referred to as (Pterodroma hypoleuca
axillaris); Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi); and the magenta
petrel (Pterodroma magentae) as endangered, pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In addition, we propose to list
the Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii); Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma
phaeopygia), previously referred to as (Pterodroma phaeopygia
phaeopygia); and the Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi) as
threatened under the Act. This proposal, if made final, would extend
the Act's protection to these species. The Service seeks data and
comments from the public on this proposal.
DATES: We must receive comments and information from all interested
parties by March 17, 2008. Public hearing requests must be received by
January 31, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AV21; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary M. Cogliano, PhD, Division of
Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-1708; fax, 703-
358-2276; or e-mail, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In this proposed rule, we propose to list three foreign seabird
species as endangered, pursuant to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).
These species are: the Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Fiji
petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi), and magenta petrel (Pterodroma
magentae). We also propose to list the Cook's petrel (Pterodroma
cookii), Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), and Heinroth's
shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi) as threatened species under the Act.
All species are considered pelagic, occurring on the open sea generally
out of sight of land, where they feed year round. They return to
nesting sites on islands during the breeding season where they nest in
colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206).
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris)
The Chatham petrel is also known by its Maori name, ranguru. Fossil
evidence indicates that this species was once widespread throughout the
Chatham Islands of New Zealand [New Zealand Department of Conservation
(NZDOC) 2001b]. However, the species is currently only known to breed
on South East Island (Rangatira) (BirdLife International 2007a) and, as
a result of recent release efforts, on Pitt Island (BirdLife
International News 2006) within the Chatham Islands. The population of
this species is very small, estimated at 800-1,000 birds based on
recent research and banding studies (Taylor 2000), and is showing a
decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2007a). It is
estimated that fewer than 200 pairs breed per year (NZDOC 2001b). The
IUCN considers the Chatham petrel to be ``Critically Endangered''
(BirdLife International 2006a).
Banding studies have shown that young birds of this species remain
at sea for at least two years before returning to land to breed and
nest. Based on limited feeding habits data, the species preys on squid
and small fish (Heather and Robertson 1997, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000).
Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi)
Synonyms for the Fiji petrel include Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi
and Thalassidroma macgillivrayi. Very little information is available
on the Fiji petrel and its life history. There have only been 12
substantiated sightings of this species on land since 1965, and a total
of 13 historically. These sightings have all been on Gau Island
(BirdLife International 2000), a 52.55-square mile (136.1 km\2\) island
in Fiji's Lomaiviti archipelago (Wikipedia 2007f). The population of
this species is very small, estimated at less than 50 birds and is
showing a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2007c).
The IUCN classifies the Fiji petrel as ``Critically Endangered''
(BirdLife International 2006c).
Magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae)
The magenta petrel, or Taiko as it is known locally, is native to
Chatham Island, New Zealand (BirdLife International 2000), the largest
island in the Chatham Islands chain, covering 348 square miles (900
km\2\, Wikipedia 2007b). Based on fossil evidence and historical
records, it is believed that the magenta petrel was once the most
abundant burrowing seabird on Chatham Island (Bourne 1964, Sutton and
Marshall 1977, as cited in NZDOC 2001a). It has been reported that
prior to 1900, indigenous Moriori and Maori harvested thousands of
petrel chicks for food (Crockett 1994). The limited feeding habits data
show that the magenta petrel preys on squid (Heather and Robertson
1997, as cited in BirdLife International 2000).
The type specimen for the magenta petrel was first collected at sea
in 1867, and after 10 years of intensive searching the species was re-
discovered in 1978 in
[[Page 71299]]
the southeast corner of Chatham Island (Crockett 1994). Since then,
additional searches have resulted in the location and banding of 92
birds (BirdLife International 2007d). The IUCN considers this species
as ``Critically Endangered'' (BirdLife International 2006d). The
magenta petrel population is estimated at 120 individuals with a
decreasing trend (BirdLife International 2007d).
Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii)
Cook's petrel is endemic to the New Zealand archipelago (del Hoyo,
et al. 1992), which comprises two main islands, the North and South
Islands, and numerous smaller islands. The total land area of the
archipelago covers 103,700 square miles (268,680 km\2\, Wikipedia
2007i). Historically, Cook's petrels were harvested in large numbers as
a food source by native Moriori (Oliver 1955).
Although the Cook's petrel was once considered a dominant species
on these islands, the species' breeding and nesting activities are now
restricted to islands at the northern and southern limits of its former
breeding range, including Great Barrier (Aotea), Little Barrier
(Hauturu), and Codfish (Whenua Hou) Islands (del Hoyo, et al. 1992).
The species' diet consists primarily of cephalopods, fish, crustaceans,
and bioluminescent tunicates that can be hunted at night (Imber 1996).
The IUCN classifies this species as ``Endangered'' (BirdLife
International 2006b). Although the population on Little Barrier Island
was thought to be about 50,000 pairs (BirdLife International 2007b),
using GIS (Geographic Information System) technology, Rayner, et al.
(2007b) determined that the population is around 286,000 pairs. In
2006, the Great Barrier Island population was considered to be in
danger of extirpation because only four nest burrows had been located
in recent years, and it was estimated that fewer than 20 pairs
continued to breed on the island. However, the populations on Little
Barrier and Codfish islands are likely to be increasing (BirdLife
International 2007b).
Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia)
The Galapagos petrel is endemic to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
(BirdLife International 2000), and is currently known to occur on the
archipelago's islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San
Crist[oacute]bal, and Isabela, which cover a total land area of 2,680
square miles (6,942 km\2\, Cruz and Cruz 1987; Vargas and Cruz 2000, as
cited in BirdLife International 2000). This species feeds mostly on
squid, fish, and crustaceans (Castro and Phillips 1996, as cited in
BirdLife International 2000), and has been observed foraging near the
Galapagos Islands, as well as east and north of the islands (Spear, et
al. 1995).
The IUCN classifies the Galapagos petrel as ``Critically
Endangered'' (BirdLife International 2006e). The total population is
estimated to be 20,000-60,000 birds with a decreasing population trend
(BirdLife International 2007e).
Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi)
Very little information is available on the Heinroth's shearwater
and its life history. The species' nesting grounds have not been
located, but observations of the species indicate that the species
breeds on Bougainville Island in Papua New Guinea, and Kolombangara and
Rendova Islands in the Solomon Islands (Buckingham, et al. 1995, Coates
1985, 1990, as cited in BirdLife International 2000).
The IUCN categorizes this species as ``Vulnerable'' (BirdLife
International 2006f). The population is estimated at 250-999 birds,
with an unknown population trend; however, there is no substantial
evidence of a decline (BirdLife International 2007f).
Previous Federal Action
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service to make a
finding known as a ``90-day finding'' on whether a petition to add,
remove, or reclassify a species from the list of endangered or
threatened species has presented substantial information indicating
that the requested action may be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, the finding shall be made within 90 days following receipt
of the petition and published promptly in the Federal Register. If the
Service finds that the petition has presented substantial information
indicating that the requested action may be warranted (referred to as a
positive finding), Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Service
to commence a status review of the species if one has not already been
initiated under the Service's internal candidate assessment process. In
addition, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires the Service to make a
finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition on whether
the requested action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but
precluded by higher-priority listing actions (this finding is referred
to as the ``12-month finding''). If the listing of a species is found
to be warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions, then
the petition to list that species is treated as if it is a petition
that is resubmitted on the date of the finding and is, therefore,
subject to a new 12-month finding within one year. The Service
publishes an Annual Notice of Resubmitted Petition Findings (annual
notice) for all foreign species for which listings were previously
found to be warranted but precluded.
On November 24, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from
Dr. Warren B. King, Chairman, United States Section of the
International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 79 native
and foreign bird species to the list of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11). The species covered by the 1980 petition
comprised 19 native species and 60 foreign species, including the six
seabird species of the family Procellariidae that are the subject of
this proposed rule. In response to the 1980 petition, we published a
notice to announce a positive 90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR
26464) for 77 species, as two of the foreign species identified were
already listed under the Act. On January 20, 1984, we published a 12-
month finding within an annual review on pending petitions and
description of progress on all ESA listing amendments (49 FR 2485). In
this notice, we found that listing all 58 foreign bird species on the
1980 petition was warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing
actions, however, the species were not listed by name. On May 10, 1985,
we published the first annual notice (50 FR 19761) in which we
continued to find that listing all 58 foreign bird species on the 1980
petition was warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing
actions. In our next annual notice (51 FR 996), published on January 9,
1986, we found that listing 54 species from the 1980 petition,
including the six species that are the subject of this proposed rule,
continued to be warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing
actions, whereas new information caused us to find that listing the
four remaining species was no longer warranted. We published additional
annual notices of findings on July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December 29,
1988 (53 FR 52746), April 25, 1990 (55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56
FR 58664), and May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29354). In addition, on September
28, 1990, we published a final rule (55 FR 39858) to list six species
from the 1980 petition to the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife.
Per the Service's listing priority guidelines that were published
on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), in our April 23, 2007, Annual
Notice on
[[Page 71300]]
Resubmitted Petition Findings for Foreign Species (72 FR 20184), we
determined that listing the six seabird species of family
Procellariidae was warranted. The six species were selected from the
list of warranted but precluded species for two reasons. First, this
family grouping includes more high priority species than any other
taxonomic family group in our list of warranted but precluded species;
and, second, because of the significance and similarity of the threats
to the species. Combining taxonomically related species that face
similar threats into one proposed rule allows us to maximize our
limited staff resources and thus increases our ability to complete the
listing process for warranted-but-precluded species.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 (a)(1)) and regulations
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists
of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These
factors and their application to the Chatham petrel, Cook's petrel,
Fiji petrel, Galapagos petrel, magenta petrel, and Heinroth's
shearwater follow.
Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range
The range of this species changes intra-annually based on an
established breeding cycle. During the breeding season (November to
June) (NZDOC 2001b), breeding birds return to breeding colonies to
breed and nest. During the non-breeding season, birds migrate far from
their breeding range where they remain at sea until returning to breed.
Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is separated into analyses of: (1)
The species' breeding habitat and range, and (2) the species' non-
breeding habitat and range.
BirdLife International (2007a) estimates the range of the Chatham
petrel to be 436,000 km\2\ (168,300 mi\2\); however, BirdLife
International (2000) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence,
the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary
which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected
sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of
vagrancy.'' Because this reported range includes a large area of non-
breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our analysis of Factor A with respect
to the Chatham petrel's breeding range focuses on the islands where the
species is known to breed.
The Chatham petrel breeds primarily on one island (BirdLife
International 2000; NZDOC 2001b), the 0.84 square mile (2.18 km\2\,
Wikipedia 2007k) South East Island in the Chatham Islands (BirdLife
International 2000; NZDOC 2001b). In 2002, the NZDOC began efforts to
expand the species' breeding range by releasing chicks onto Pitt
Island, an island approximately 2.5 km (1.55 mi) northwest of South
East Island. Over a four-year time period, 200 chicks were transferred
to the 40 ha (98.8 acre) Ellen Elizabeth Preece Conservation Covenant
(Caravan Bush), a fenced, predator-free enclosure on Pitt Island. As of
2006, four adult birds had returned to the island from the sea to
breed, and in June, 2006, a pair successfully reared a chick. This
represents the first time in more than a century that a Chatham petrel
chick has fledged on Pitt Island (BirdLife International News 2006).
The Chatham petrel breeds on coastal lowlands and slopes in
habitats with low forest, bracken, or rank grass (del Hoyo, et al.
1992). It nests in burrows on flat to moderately sloping ground among
low vegetation and roots (Marchant and Higgins 1990, as cited in
BirdLife International 2000). Since the arrival of European explorers,
this breeding habitat has contracted extensively, largely as a result
of its conversion to agricultural purposes (NZDOC 2001b; Tennyson and
Millener 1994).
We are not aware of any present or threatened destruction or
modification of the Chatham petrel's habitat on South East Island. This
island is currently un-inhabited by humans (Wikipedia 2007k), and since
1954, it has been managed as a reserve for the Chatham petrel. Access
to this island is restricted by permit. In addition, since 1961, all
livestock has been removed from the island, allowing the natural
vegetation to regenerate (Nilsson, et al. 1994). The Chatham petrel's
fenced, 40 ha (98.8 acre) release area on Pitt Island is protected by a
conservation covenant, and we are unaware of any present or threatened
destruction or modification of any of the species' habitat on Pitt
Island. Therefore, we find that the present or threatened destruction
or modification of the species' breeding habitat is not a threat to the
species.
The Chatham petrel's range at sea is poorly known; the species has
been recorded on several occasions at sea near South East Island, and
has been recorded once 12 km (7.5 mi) south of the island (West 1994).
It is believed that the species migrates to the North Pacific Ocean in
the non-breeding season, based on the habits of closely related
species; however, no sightings have been recorded in the Northern
Hemisphere (Taylor 2000). We are unaware of any present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of this species' current sea
habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the Chatham petrel is currently being
utilized.
C. Disease or Predation
The Chatham petrel's breeding range was reduced extensively
following the arrival of European explorers, largely due to predation
by introduced species such as rats (Rattus spp.), feral cats (Felis
catus), and weka (Gallirallus australis), an introduced bird (Heather
and Robertson 1997, as cited in BirdLife International 2000; NZDOC
2001b; Taylor 2000). Although no introduced predators are currently
present on South East Island, there is an ongoing risk that predators
will be introduced to the island by boats transporting conservation and
research staff to the island. Given this risk, combined with the
devastating impact introduced predators had on Chatham petrel
populations historically, we find that predation by introduced species
is a threat to the Chatham petrel on South East Island, the species'
primary breeding location.
On Pitt Island, Chatham petrel chicks were released within a 40 ha
(98.8 acre) fenced, predator-free breeding habitat. Although this area
is fenced, and the threat of predation on nesting Chatham petrels is
reduced, introduced predators, such as feral cats and weka, are present
on this island (BirdLife International News 2002) and could potentially
get inside the fenced area or prey on Chatham petrels that leave the
fenced area. Therefore, we find that predation by introduced species is
a threat to the Chatham petrel on Pitt Island.
We are unaware of any threats due to predation on Chatham petrels
during the non-breeding season while the species is at sea.
The information available suggests that petrels in general are
susceptible to a variety of diseases and parasites, particularly during
the breeding season, when large numbers of seabirds
[[Page 71301]]
congregate in relatively small areas to breed and nest (BirdLife
International 2007a; Carlile, et al. 2003). However, there are no
documented records of diseases impacting the persistence of the Chatham
petrel. Therefore, we find that the threat of diseases is not a
significant threat to this species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Chatham petrel is protected from disturbance and harvest under
New Zealand's Wildlife Act of 1953 and its Reserves Act of 1977. The
petrel is designated as a Category A species by the NZDOC, which
signifies the species is of the highest priority for conservation
management (Molloy and Davis 1999). As such, the NZDOC developed a ten-
year recovery plan for the Chatham petrel in 2001, with the goals of
protecting the species' breeding burrows on South East Island from the
broad-billed prion (Pachyptila vittata) (see Factor E below) and
establishing a reintroduced population elsewhere within the species'
historic breeding range (NZDOC 2001b). A measure of the success of this
recovery plan is the successful establishment of breeding individuals
on Pitt Island (see Factor A above) in 2006, thereby increasing the
breeding range of the species. These efforts are beginning to show some
success (see Factor E below), but it is too early to know the level of
success, because it can take fledged seabirds years to return to their
breeding colony to breed and nest (Taylor 2000). Similarly, protection
of Chatham petrel burrows has reduced the population impacts resulting
from competition with the broad-billed prion (see Factor E below),
however, this threat remains the greatest threat to the species.
New Zealand ratified the Agreement on the Conservation of
Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) in November 2001, which is designed to
reduce impacts of fishing operations on populations of Procellariids
(ACAP 2001), however the Chatham petrel is not listed in Annex 1 to
this Agreement and, therefore, is not protected under this Agreement.
Therefore, implementation of this Agreement has not reduced the threat
of incidental take of this species in long-line fisheries (see Factor E
below).
Therefore we find that existing regulatory protections have not
significantly reduced or removed the threats to the Chatham petrel.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Based on the information available, the predominant threat to the
Chatham petrel is nest burrow competition between this species and the
more abundant broad-billed prion, which numbers around 300,000
individuals. The prion not only occupies potential Chatham petrel
burrows, but has been observed actively evicting or lethally attacking
eggs, nestlings, and occasionally adults of the Chatham petrel. Such
competition has resulted in a high rate of pair bond disruption and a
low rate of breeding success in Chatham petrels, despite the high
percentage of egg-fertility (BirdLife International 2000; NZDOC 2001b).
To reduce the threat posed by competition with the broad-billed
prion on South East Island, the NZDOC has implemented nest site
protection efforts for the Chatham petrel, including placement of
artificial nest sites and the blockage of burrows to prevent occupation
by the broad-billed prion (NZDOC 2001b). During the 2005-2006 breeding
season, out of 155 known breeding pairs, 83 percent of the pairs
successfully fledged one chick per pair (Wikipedia 2007d). Although
these actions are improving the petrel's breeding success (NZDOC 2001b;
Taylor 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2000), only a small
proportion of breeding burrows occupied by Chatham petrels have been
located and, therefore, protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000). Therefore, we consider nest burrow competition
between this species and the broad-billed prion to be a significant
threat to the Chatham petrel.
The Chatham petrel's restricted breeding range puts the species at
a greater risk of extinction. Breeding colonies were once widespread
throughout the Chatham Islands (NZDOC 2001b), a group of about 10
islands within a 24.85 mile [40-kilometer (km)] radius covering a total
land area of 373 square miles (966 km\2\, Wikipedia 2007c). Currently,
however, breeding of this species is restricted to South East Island
(BirdLife International 2007a) and, as a result of recent release
efforts, Pitt Island (BirdLife International News 2006), a total land
area of less than 1 mi\2\ (Wikipedia 2007j,k). This habitat area is
insufficient for the long-term survival of the Chatham petrel,
particularly since breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on South East
Island, the primary breeding area of this species, face the pervasive
threat of nest-site competition with the broad-billed prion. It is
estimated that the self-sustainability of the breeding population on
Pitt Island as a result of the release program will take longer than
four more years to achieve (NZDOC 2001b).
The Chatham petrel's restricted breeding range combined with its
colonial nesting habits and small population size of 800-1,000 birds
(Taylor 2000) makes the species particularly vulnerable to the threat
of adverse random, naturally occurring events (e.g., cyclones, fire)
that destroy breeding individuals and their breeding habitat. Fire is a
high risk in the Chatham Islands because the climate is very dry during
the summer, and the vegetation becomes tinder dry. If fires do occur,
the remoteness of the islands renders the fires unlikely to be
exterminated by human intervention. Burrow-nesting species such as the
Chatham petrel are at a high risk because they are likely to suffocate
from smoke inhalation or to be lethally burned inside or while
attempting to escape from their burrows (Taylor 2000).
Another natural disaster, severe storms, has impacted New Zealand
historically, and so the likelihood of future impacts of storms is
high. A severe storm in 1985 stripped two islands in the Chatham
Islands chain bare of vegetation and soil cover, causing high increases
in egg mortality of nesting albatrosses (Taylor 2000). Considered the
worst recorded cyclone in New Zealand's history, Cyclone Giselle hit
New Zealand April 10, 1968, with wind speeds of 275 km/h (Wikipedia
2007). Although we are unaware of the impact of this cyclone on the
Chatham petrel's population numbers or breeding habitat, the severity
of the wind or waves created by such a storm has potential to
significantly damage Chatham petrel burrows. These burrows are
particularly vulnerable because they are located on coastal lowlands
(del Hoyo, et al. 1992), and they are extremely fragile, occurring in
soft soils (Taylor 2000).
While species with more extensive breeding ranges or higher
population numbers could recover from adverse random, naturally
occurring events such as fire or storms, the Chatham petrel does not
have such resiliency. Its very small population size and restricted
breeding range puts the species at higher risk for experiencing the
irreversible adverse effects of random, naturally occurring events.
Therefore, we find that the combination of factors--the species' small
population size, restricted breeding range, and likelihood of adverse
random, naturally occurring events--to be a significant threat to the
species.
We are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take of
Chatham petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations or
entanglement in marine
[[Page 71302]]
debris; however, it is generally recognized that all seabirds are at
high risk of injury or mortality when they attempt to take bait from
long-line fishing gear. The lack of data on these impacts could be a
result of the species' low population number. Dr. Michael Rands,
Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International, has reported
that the number of seabirds killed in long-line fishery operations
continues to increase, and the long-line fishery, especially operations
by unlicensed ``pirate'' vessels, is the single greatest threat to all
seabirds [Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) 2007; BirdLife
International News 2003]. Therefore, we consider the incidental take of
Chatham petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations to be a
significant threat to the species.
Conclusion
Predation by introduced species is an ongoing threat to the Chatham
petrel, which historically reduced the species' population numbers.
Nest burrow competition between the Chatham petrel and the more
abundant broad-billed prion is a current, on-going threat to the
Chatham petrel that is of high magnitude that has not been controlled
by human intervention. The broad-billed prion occupies Chatham petrel
burrows, actively evicting or lethally attacking eggs, nestlings, and
occasionally adults of the Chatham petrel, and as a result is reducing
the Chatham petrel's population which is already very small, estimated
at 800-1000 individuals. Although the NZDOC has been actively working
to protect Chatham petrel nest sites from the broad-billed prion, only
a small proportion of Chatham petrel breeding burrows have been located
and protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in BirdLife International 2000).
This threat is magnified by the fact that the impacted area is the
Chatham petrel's primary breeding location, and the breeding area is
extremely small, less than 1 mi\2\ in size. The only other location
where the species has been documented to breed is the 40 ha (98.8 acre)
enclosed area on Pitt Island where Chatham Petrels were reintroduced.
It is currently uncertain whether the species will maintain this
portion of its range as a breeding area; as of 2006, only one pair
breeding in this area had successfully reared a chick.
Once a population is reduced below a certain number of individuals,
it tends to rapidly decline towards extinction (Franklin 1980; Gilpin
and Soule 1986; Soule 1987). The Chatham petrel's small population,
combined with its restricted breeding range and colonial nesting habits
makes the species particularly vulnerable to the threat of random,
naturally occurring events. These catastrophic events, such as cyclones
and fire, are known to occur in New Zealand and have the potential to
destroy breeding individuals and their breeding habitat.
The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by
the threat posed by long-line fishing in the species' non-breeding
range. Although New Zealand implements measures to protect other
seabird species from this threat under the Agreement on the
Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the Chatham petrel is not
currently offered protection by this Agreement. We are unaware of any
documentation on the level of Chatham petrel mortality caused by long-
line fisheries; however, the number of seabirds killed in long-line
fishery operations continues to increase, and the long-line fishery,
especially operations by unlicensed ``pirate'' vessels, is the single
greatest threat to all seabirds (AAD 2007; BirdLife International News
2003). Therefore, the magnitude of this threat to the species in its
non-breeding range is significant. Because the survival of this species
is dependent on recruitment of chicks from its breeding range, the
severity of threats to the Chatham petrel within its breeding range
puts the species in danger of extinction throughout its range.
Therefore, we find the Chatham petrel to be in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Because we find that the Chatham petrel is
endangered throughout all of its range, there is no reason to consider
its status in a significant portion of its range.
Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range
Although little is known about the Fiji petrel and its life
history, based on general information common to all other Procellariid
species, we know that the range of the Fiji petrel changes intra-
annually based on an established breeding cycle. During the breeding
season, breeding birds return to breeding colonies to breed and nest.
During the non-breeding season, birds migrate far from their breeding
range where they remain at sea until returning to breed. Therefore, our
analysis of Factor A is separated into analyses of: (1) The species'
breeding habitat and range, and (2) the species' non-breeding habitat
and range.
BirdLife International (2007c) estimates the range of the Fiji
petrel to be 154,000 km2 (59,460 mi2); however,
BirdLife International (2000) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of
Occurrence, the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary
boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or
projected sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of
vagrancy.'' Because this reported range includes a large area of non-
breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our analysis of Factor A with respect
to the Fiji petrel's breeding range focuses on the island where the
species breeds.
Although the nesting area of this species has not been located
(Priddel, et al. draft), the information available indicates that the
species breeds on Gau Island, Fiji, where the few recorded sightings of
this species on land have occurred (Priddel, et al. draft; RARE
Conservation 2006a; Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). The species was
originally known from just one specimen collected in 1855 on Gau
Island. There were no additional confirmed sightings of the species
until 1984 when an extensive, 16-month search on Gau Island revealed
one additional sighting. The researchers used spotlights and recorded
collared petrel calls in an attempt to attract petrels to the highlands
area where the researchers were searching. On the first night of
spotlighting, a single Fiji petrel flew into the researchers' light. No
additional birds were found on this search expedition (Watling 1986;
Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). There have been an additional 16
reported sightings of this species on land, all on Gau Island, and ten
additional sightings at sea, however, many of these reports have not
been substantiated (Priddel, et al. draft). In 2007, Priddell, et al.
(draft) summarized all these records, specifying which records were
credible. The researchers determined that of the 17 recorded sightings
on land between 1965 and 2007, 12 were highly credible based on
researchers' identification of dead specimens, photographs of
specimens, or live specimens. In addition to the sightings on land,
there have been ten sightings at sea, all since 1960. However, none of
these reports have been substantiated. Based on researcher observation
or detailed descriptions, three of these reports are considered by
Priddel, et al. (draft) to be credible.
We consider the evidence sufficient to conclude that the Fiji
petrel breeds on Gau Island because: (1) all 12 substantiated sightings
of the species on land have been on Gau Island; (2) Procellariids
return to land only for breeding purposes, and (3) the original
specimen of this species collected in
[[Page 71303]]
1855 was determined to be an immature bird, based on its feathers and
skull morphology (Bourne 1981, as cited in Priddel, et al. draft; Imber
1985b; Priddel, et al. draft); so it is reasonable to believe that its
nest was in the vicinity.
Based on the locations of Fiji petrel sightings on Gau Island, the
species' breeding habitat is most likely to be undisturbed mature
forest on rocky, mountainous ground within the island's cloud forest
highlands (del Hoyo, et al. 1992; RARE Conservation 2006a). Based on
the nesting habits of other colonial seabirds, it has been suggested
that Fiji petrels nest in close proximity to collared petrels
(Pterodroma leucoptera), which nest on the ground in this rugged
terrain of interior Gau Island (Watling and Lewanavanua 1985).
In 1985, it was estimated that over 27 square miles (70 km\2\) of
forest habitat up to 2,346 feet (715 meters) in elevation is
potentially suitable for breeding and nesting of Fiji petrels on Gau
Island (Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). Unlike the lowlands of Gau
Island which have been cleared to a large extent for settlement,
agriculture, and forest plantations, the upland interior forests where
the species is believed to breed, has not been logged (Priddel, et al.
draft; Veitayaki 2006). The only maintained inland trail leads to a
telecommunication tower on a mountain peak just below Delaco. The 3,115
inhabitants of Gau Island live in coastal villages, where the majority
live by subsistence fishing and farming, maintaining gardens up to 300
m in elevation. Although low-level forestry activities occur in lowland
areas, no other intensive industry or agriculture is practiced on the
island (Priddel, et al. draft). Veitayaki (2006) noted that the
practice of shifting cultivation on Gau Island using improved machinery
and the indiscriminant use of fire is rapidly progressing toward the
cloud forests within the interior of the island. However, no
information was provided to show this is actually occurring.
Veitayaki (2006), described a community-based conservation project
on Gau Island that has been in place since 2001, whereby villagers in
the district of Vanuaso Tikina are collaborating with the University of
the South Pacific to sustainably manage their environmental resources.
Goals of the project include preservation of the upland cloud forest,
adoption of sustainable land use practices, protection of drinking
water, and development of alternative sources of livelihood. The
success of this project has provided momentum beyond the Vanuaso Tikina
district, as there is interest in incorporating the same sustainable-
use practices in the other villages on Gau Island (Veitayaki 2006).
In 2003, the World Resources Institute (WRI) reported that less
than 1% (.88%) of Fiji's total land area is protected to such an extent
that it is preserved in its natural condition (Earth Trends 2003a). Gau
Island, however, is relatively pristine compared to most areas of Fiji
due to the semi-subsistence lifestyle (Veitayaki 2006). The Fiji people
show great pride in the Fiji petrel, making it the emblem of the
national airline (Air Fiji) and presenting it on the Fijian Fifty-
dollar banknote (Priddel, et al. draft). Legislation has been drafted
to protect the Fiji petrel's habitat on Gau Island, once nesting
colonies have been located (RARE Conservation 2006a) (see Factor D,
below). Because Gau Island's upland forest habitat, where the species
is most likely to breed, remains in a pristine condition and does not
appear to be threatened with destruction or modification, we find that
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
this species' breeding habitat or range is not a threat to the species.
The Fiji petrel's range at sea is poorly known; the species has
been recorded once at sea near Gau Island and once at sea 200 km (124.3
mi) north of Gau Island (Watling 2000, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000; Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). We are unaware of
any present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
this species' current sea habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the Fiji petrel is currently being
utilized.
C. Disease or Predation
The greatest threat to the long-term survival of the Fiji petrel is
thought to be predation on breeding birds and their eggs and chicks by
introduced predators such as rats and feral cats on Gau Island
(BirdLife International 2000). Since nesting colonies of Fiji petrels
have not been located, predation on the Fiji petrel has not been
directly observed. However, cats and Pacific rats (R. exulans) have
been found in the highland forests of Gau Island, where this species is
most likely to breed (Imber 1986, as cited in Priddel, et al. draft;
Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). The path to the telecommunications
transmitter on the summit of Gau Island may have facilitated the
movement of feral cats and Pacific and brown rats (R. norvegicus) into
the Fiji petrel's breeding habitat (Watling 2000, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000).
The remains of collared petrels have been found in feral cat scats
and killings in the highland forests of Gau Island, where the Fiji
petrel is also believed to breed. It is suggested that the collared
petrel nests successfully despite this predation threat because its
synchronized nesting during the first half of the year swamps cat
predation. The collection of a first-flight young of the Fiji petrel on
Gau Island in the month of October, however, indicates that this
species has a more extended or later breeding season, putting this more
sparsely populated species at greater risk of predation (Watling 1986).
Cats and rats are known to have caused many local extirpations of other
petrel species (Moors and Atkinson 1984, as cited in Priddel, et al.
draft). According to Priddel, et al. (draft) there do not appear to be
any inaccessible cliffs or mountainous ledges where Fiji petrels could
nest out of the reach of cats or rats.
A feral pig (Sus scrofa) population has recently established in
southern areas of Gau Island and is considered an emerging threat to
the Fiji petrel (Priddel et al. draft). Feral pigs have caused the
local extinction of other species of seabirds on numerous islands
(Moors and Atkinson 1984, as cited in Priddel, et al. draft).
Protecting Fiji petrel nest sites from introduced predators by
creating barriers around the nests is not possible at this time because
the exact location of the nesting sites is unknown. There is no
information indicating that predator eradication has been attempted on
Gau Island. Even if a predator eradication program were to be
implemented, protection of the nest sites would be difficult due to the
permanent habitation of humans on the island. Even if cats were
prohibited as pets, there is still a high potential for cats and rats
to be transported to Gau Island in boats transporting humans or other
shipments.
Because the threat of predation by introduced cats and rats has
severely impacted closely related petrel species, and there are records
of these introduced predators on Gau Island, especially feral cats and
rats in the highland forests of Gau where the Fiji petrel is most
likely to breed, we find that predation is a significant threat to the
Fiji petrel.
We are unaware of any threats due to predation on Fiji petrels
during the non-breeding season while the species is at sea.
[[Page 71304]]
Although several diseases have been documented in other species of
petrels (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease has not been documented
in the Fiji petrel. Therefore, the significance of this threat to the
Fiji petrel is unknown.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Although the Fiji petrel is protected from international trade
under Fijian law (Government of Fiji 2002, 2003), this protection has
not significantly reduced or removed the threat of predation within the
species' breeding range, nor has it reduced the threat posed by long-
line fisheries (see Factor E below) within its range at sea.
Community awareness of the conservation significance of the Fiji
petrel has been promoted in Fiji. From 2002-2004, Milika Rati, a local
conservationist on Gau Island, led a ``Pride campaign'' (RARE
Conservation 2006a), a constituency-building program developed by the
conservation organization RARE (RARE Conservation 2006b). Ms. Rati
chose the Fiji petrel as the flagship mascot for this movement and used
a series of high-profile activities to raise awareness of the
conservation urgency of the species. This campaign resulted in a
confirmed sighting of a Fiji petrel (RARE Conservation 2006a). A
follow-up survey to the campaign revealed that 99 percent of the
participants believed natural resource protection to be important, and
94 percent were aware that the Fiji petrel is at risk of extinction.
Based on increased public awareness of the Pride campaign, a formal
agreement supporting the creation of a bird sanctuary for the species
was signed by all 16 of Fiji's village chiefs (RARE Conservation
2006a).
The Australian Regional National Heritage Programme continues to
fund the Pride campaign on Gau Island. The Wildlife Conservation
Society, BirdLife International, and the National Trust of the Fiji
Islands are collaborating to work towards implementation of
conservation recommendations made by Ms. Rati, including minimizing
predators (RARE Conservation 2006a).
Although the Fiji petrel is protected from international trade
(Government of Fiji 2002, 2003) by Fijian law and public awareness and
support for the species' protection on Gau Island is strong, these
conservation measures have not significantly reduced the threats to the
species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Because of the paucity of recorded sightings of this species (see
discussion of Factor A above), the population is apparently very small.
The IUCN estimates the population to be less than 50 individuals, with
a decreasing trend due to predation by introduced predators (BirdLife
International 2007c). Species with such small population sizes are at
greater risk of extinction. Once a population is reduced below a
certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly decline towards
extinction (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and Soule 1986; Soule 1987).
This species' risk of extinction is further compounded by its
restricted current breeding range, which according to the best
available information is limited to Gau Island, where an estimated 27
square miles (70 km\2\) of potential breeding habitat is available.
However, based on what is known about the species, this is considered a
relatively small amount of appropriate habitat for breeding,
particularly since breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on Gau Island
face the pervasive threat of predation by introduced species such as
feral cats and rats.
The Fiji petrel's restricted breeding range combined with its
colonial nesting habits and small population size of less than 50 birds
(BirdLife International 2007c) makes the species particularly
vulnerable to the threat of adverse random, naturally occurring events
(e.g., cyclones, flooding, and landslides) that destroy breeding
individuals and their breeding habitat. Fiji is vulnerable to the
devastating affects of cyclones inter-annually between November and
April. On average, 15 cyclones affect this country each decade (World
Meteorological Organization 2004). The most severe cyclone in within
the past 100 years was cyclone Kina in January, 1993, with wind speeds
of 120 knots spanning an area 180 miles (289.7 km) from its center. The
Government of Fiji declared the area a disaster, because virtually all
areas of Fiji were impacted by this cyclone and the associated flooding
(UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs 1993). Landslides are common in
Fiji's mountainous areas during these severe weather conditions (World
Meteorological Organization 2004), and would be particularly
threatening to breeding Fiji petrels and their breeding habitat.
While species with more extensive breeding ranges or higher
population numbers could recover from adverse random, naturally
occurring events such as cyclones, the Fiji petrel does not have such
resiliency. Its very small population size and restricted breeding
range puts the species at higher risk for experiencing the irreversible
adverse effects of random, naturally occurring events. One such event
could destroy the entire known breeding population on Gau Island.
Therefore, we find that the combination of factors--the species'
small population size, restricted breeding range, and likelihood of
adverse random, naturally occurring events--to be a significant threat
to the species.
Although we are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take
of Fiji petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations or
entanglement in marine debris, these long-line fishing operations have
been identified as a threat to all seabird species (see analysis under
Chatham petrel, Factor E). Moreover, the lack of data on these impacts
to the Fiji petrel could be a result of the species' low population
number. Therefore, we find the incidental take of Fiji petrels by
commercial long-line fishing operations to be a significant threat to
the species.
Conclusion
The primary threat to the Fiji petrel is most likely predation by
introduced feral cats and rats within the species' breeding range. The
probability of introduced predators preying on this species is high
given that introduced feral cats are documented to prey upon the
closely related collared petrel in the interior forests of Gau Island
where the Fiji petrel is most likely to nest. Furthermore, the
devastating impact of predation by introduced species has been
documented in several closely-related species. There is no information
indicating that predator eradication has been attempted on Gau Island.
This threat is magnified by the fact that the threat likely threatens
the species throughout its breeding range, the interior forests of Gau
Island. Although the Fiji petrel is legally protected from
international trade, to our knowledge Fiji has not successfully
implemented measures to protect the species from the threat of
predation.
The Fiji petrel's low population size of less than 50 individuals
puts the species at a high risk of extinction. The low population size
combined with its restricted breeding and colonial nesting habits,
typical of all Procellariid species, makes the species particularly
vulnerable to the threat of random, naturally occurring events (e.g.,
cyclones) that are known to occur in Fiji
[[Page 71305]]
and have the potential to destroy breeding individuals and their
breeding habitat.
The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by
the threat posed by long-line fishing in the species' non-breeding
range. There is no information indicating that Fiji has implemented
measures to protect the species from long-line fishery activities.
However, because the survival of this species is dependent on
recruitment of chicks from its breeding range, the severity of threats
to the Fiji petrel within its breeding range puts the species in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find the Fiji
petrel to be in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Because we find that the Fiji petrel is endangered throughout all of
its range, there is no reason to consider its status in a significant
portion of its range.
Magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range of the Magenta Petrel
The range of this species changes intra-annually based on an
established breeding cycle. During the breeding season (September to
May) (Imber, et al. 1994b; Taylor 1991), breeding birds return to
breeding colonies to breed and nest. During the non-breeding season,
birds migrate far from their breeding range where they remain at sea
until returning to breed. Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is
separated into analyses of: (1) The species' breeding habitat and
range, and (2) the species' non-breeding habitat and range.
BirdLife International (2007d) estimates the range of the magenta
petrel to be 1,960,000 km\2\ (7,568,000 mi\2\); however, BirdLife
International (2000) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence,
the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary
which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected
sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of
vagrancy.'' Because this reported range includes a large area of non-
breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our analysis of Factor A with respect
to the magenta petrel's breeding range focuses on the islands where the
species is known to breed.
The magenta petrel breeds exclusively on Chatham Island, New
Zealand, within relatively undisturbed inland forests (Crockett 1994;
Imber, et al. 1994a). At least 23 breeding burrows have been
discovered, all located near the Tuku-a-Tamatea River (BirdLife
International 2007d; Brooke 2004, Hilhorst 2000, Taylor 2005, as cited
in BirdLife International 2007d). Although some breeding burrows are on
private land (Taylor 2000), the majority of known breeding burrows are
located within the Tuku Nature Reserve (Reserve) (Chatham Island Taiko
Trust 2007). This Reserve was established in 1984 to protect 5 square
miles (12 km\2\) of magenta petrel breeding habitat. In 1993, 1 square
mile (2 km\2\) of contiguous forested land was added to the Reserve by
covenant, and a second covenant expected to be approved in the near
future will protect an additional 4 square miles (11 km\2\) of
contiguous habitat to the Reserve (Chatham Island Taiko Trust 2007).
As a result of New Zealand's Biodiversity Strategy, initiated in
the year 2000, all logging of indigenous forests on government land has
been halted, and logging on private land is required to be sustainable
(Green and Clarkson 2005). Breeding burrows have been found on private
land (Taylor 2000), and sustainable logging practices would not
necessarily protect these magenta petrel nest sites. The significant
loss of magenta petrel burrows and colonies historically due to the
alteration of habitat on Chatham Island for livestock grazing purposes
(Crockett 1994) demonstrates the severe impacts that habitat alteration
has on magenta petrel populations. Besides logging, fire is a threat to
the magenta petrel's breeding habitat. Although the species' recovery
plan identifies accidental fire as a threat to the magenta petrel, it
does not address mitigation of this threat (NZDOC 2001a). The NZDOC
deals with an average of 160 fires in New Zealand each year, suggesting
that fires are relatively common in New Zealand (NZDOC n.d.). Taylor
(2000) identifies flooding of burrows as a threat, given that most
known burrows are in wet areas in valley floors. He also notes that
destruction of nest-sites by pigs and dogs accompanying pig-hunters
near the burrows threatens the magenta petrel's breeding habitat. These
threats to the magenta petrel's breeding habitat are magnified by the
species' restricted habitat area on Chatham Island. Because of the very
small number of breeding pairs, any loss of breeders from the
population would increase the species' threat of extinction. Therefore,
we find that the present and threatened destruction of the habitat of
this species to be a significant threat to the species.
The magenta petrel's range at sea is poorly known; however,
research has documented foraging behavior south and east of the Chatham
Islands (Imber, et al. 1994a). In addition, because the original
specimen of this species was shot at sea eastwards in the temperate
South Pacific Ocean, it is believed birds disperse there during the
non-breeding season. We are unaware of any present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of this species' current sea
habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the magenta petrel is currently being
utilized.
C. Disease or Predation
The available information suggests that the most serious threat to
the magenta petrel is predation on all life stages (eggs, chicks, and
adults) of the species by introduced predators, including feral cats,
pigs, weka, and rats. It is reported that periodically the species'
entire annual breeding production is lost due to predation of eggs and
chicks (BirdLife International 2007d). Permanent eradication of these
introduced predators from Chatham Island is difficult due to the
permanent habitation of humans on the island. Since the early 1990's,
however, the NZDOC has monitored known breeding burrows and has
implemented an intensive predator control program, including setting
extensive trap lines and poisoning to remove introduced predators from
the magenta petrel's breeding areas (Taylor 2000). This effort has
significantly reduced the threat of predation on adult petrels, with
only two being found dead in 20 years, as of the year 2000. However, a
number of chicks are still lost in some seasons (Imber, et al. 1998).
As additional burrows have been located and protection from predation
expanded over the years, breeding has increased and breeding success
has improved. In 1994, only four breeding pairs were known, but in
2004, 15 breeding pairs were observed (Brooke 2004, Hilhorst 2000,
Taylor 2005, as cited in BirdLife International 2007d). Sixteen chicks
were known to have fledged from 1987-2000 (Taylor 2000), and within a
single year, 2002, a total of seven chicks fledged (BirdLife
International 2007d). Eight birds fledged in the 2005 season, and a
record 11 magenta petrel chicks fledged in the 2006 season (Chatham
Island Taiko Trust 2006).
Even though the predator control program has decreased the threat
of predation to the magenta petrel, birds, especially chicks, are still
killed by introduced predators, and only areas where petrels are known
to breed are
[[Page 71306]]
protected. Therefore, we find predation by introduced species to be a
significant threat to the species.
We are unaware of any threats due to predation on magenta petrels
during the non-breeding season while the species is at sea.
Although several diseases have been documented in other species of
petrels (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease has not been documented
in the magenta petrel. Therefore, the significance of this threat to
this species is unknown.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The magenta petrel is protected from disturbance and harvest under
New Zealand's Wildlife Act of 1953 and its Reserves Act of 1977. The
petrel is designated as a Category A species by the NZDOC, which
signifies the species is of the highest priority for conservation
management (Molloy and Davis 1999). As such, the NZDOC developed a ten-
year recovery plan for the magenta petrel in 2001, with the goals of
preventing further loss of known breeding pairs, maximizing
productivity at known breeding burrows, locating and protecting
additional burrows, and establishing an additional predator-proof
breeding area in southern Chatham Island (NZDOC 2001a). A measure of
success of the recovery plan has been demonstrated by the successful
protection of breeding pairs and increased productivity resulting from
predator control efforts (see Factor C above). However, the threat of
predation on magenta petrels by introduced species remains the greatest
threat to the species. In 2006, a second protected area was established
near the southern coast of Chatham Island at a location where magenta
petrels were known to have bred in reasonable numbers 90 years ago.
This 7.5-ha area, protected by landowner covenant, has been fenced to
exclude livestock in an effort to allow the forest to recover. Within
this area, 3 ha are enclosed by a predator-proof fence. Loudspeakers
were placed on the site, and pre-recorded magenta petrel calls are
being played to attract young males to the ground where it is hoped
they will begin to dig burrows and eventually find a mate to breed. It
is too early to know the success of this effort because it is
anticipated that it will take several years for breeding to begin once
young males start digging burrows. Captive rearing studies of the
closely related grey-faced petrel (P. macroptera) have been undertaken,
and its diet analyzed, to develop methods for captive rearing of
magenta petrels in captivity should it ever be necessary to `rescue'
abandoned or malnourished magenta petrel chicks (NZDOC 2001a; Taylor
2000).
New Zealand ratified the Agreement on the Conservation of
Albatrosses and Petrels in November 2001, which is designed to reduce
impacts of fishing operations on populations of Procellariids (ACAP
2001), however the magenta petrel is not listed in Annex 1 to this
Agreement and, therefore, is not protected under this Agreement.
Therefore, implementation of this Agreement has not significantly
reduced or removed the threat of incidental take of this species in
long-line fisheries (see Factor E below).
Therefore, we find that regulatory protections have not
significantly reduced the threats to the magenta petrel.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
The magenta petrel population is extremely small, estimated at 120
individuals based on population surveys (Brooke 2004, Hilhorst 2000,
Taylor 2005, as cited in BirdLife International 2007d) and is believed
to be decreasing due to predation by introduced species (BirdLife
International 2007d). The fact that it took 10 years of intensive
searching to rediscover the species in 1978 is an indication of the
rarity of the species. Species with such small population sizes are at
greater risk of extinction. Once a population is reduced below a
certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly decline towards
extinction (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and Soule 1986; Soule 1987).
This species' risk of extinction is compounded by its restricted
breeding range, which is limited to Chatham Island. Based on what is
known about the species, the breeding habitat available on Chatham
Island is a relatively small amount of appropriate habitat for
breeding, particularly since breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on
Chatham Island continue to be threatened by introduced species such as
feral cats and rats.
The magenta petrel's restricted breeding range combined with its
colonial nesting habits and small population size of less than
approximately 120 birds makes the species particularly vulnerable to
the threat of adverse random, naturally occurring events (e.g., storms,
fire) that destroy breeding individuals and their breeding habitat
(NCDOC 2001b). Fire is a high risk in the Chatham Islands because the
climate is very dry during the summer, and the vegetation becomes
tinder dry. Burrow-nesting species such as the magenta petrel are at a
high risk because they are likely to suffocate from smoke inhalation or
to be lethally burned inside or while attempting to escape from their
burrows (Taylor 2000).
Another natural disaster, severe storms, has impacted New Zealand
historically (see Chatham petrel discussion of Factor E), and so the
likelihood of future impacts of storms is high. Although we are unaware
of the impact of previous cyclones on the magenta petrel's population
numbers or breeding habitat, the severity of the wind or waves created
by such storms or flooding associated with storms has potential to
significantly damage magenta petrel burrows. These known burrows are
particularly vulnerable to flooding because they are located on valley
floors (NZDOC 2001a).
While species with more extensive breeding ranges or higher
population numbers could recover from adverse random, naturally
occurring events such as fire or storms, the magenta petrel does not
have such resiliency. Its very small population size and restricted
breeding range puts the species at higher risk for experiencing the
irreversible adverse effects of random, naturally occurring events. One
such event could destroy the entire known breeding population on
Chatham Island. Therefore, we find that the combination of factors--the
species' small population size, restricted breeding range, and
likelihood of adverse random, naturally occurring events--to be a
significant threat to the species.
Although we are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take
of magenta petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations or
entanglement in marine debris, these long-line fishing operations have
been identified as a threat to all seabird species (see analysis under
Chatham petrel, Factor E). Moreover, the lack of data on these impacts
to the magenta petrel could be a result of the species' low population
number. Therefore, we find the incidental take of magenta petrels by
commercial long-line fishing operations to be a significant threat to
the species.
Conclusion
Predation by introduced species such as rats, weka, and feral cats
and pigs is a current, on-going threat to the magenta petrel that is of
high magnitude that has not been controlled by human intervention.
These introduced predators are known to destroy magenta petrel eggs,
chicks, and adults, reducing the species' population (NZDOC 2001a),
which is already very small, estimated
[[Page 71307]]
at 120 individuals. Although the NZDOC has been actively working to
protect magenta petrel nest sites from predation by introduced species,
a number of chicks are still lost in some seasons (Imber, et al. 1998),
and the breeding burrows that have not yet been located are not
protected. This threat is magnified by the fact that a limited amount
of breeding habitat is protected from habitat alteration or
destruction. The breeding habitat that is protected remains at risk
from accidental fires and flooding.
The magenta petrel's low population size of approximately 120
individuals puts the species at a high risk of extinction. The low
population size combined with its restricted breeding habitat and
colonial nesting habits makes the species particularly vulnerable to
the threat of random, naturally occurring events (e.g., cyclones, fire)
that are known to occur in New Zealand and have the potential to
destroy breeding individuals and their breeding habitat. One such
event, such as a cyclone during the nesting season could destroy the
entire breeding population on Chatham Island.
The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by
the threat posed by long-line fishing in the species' non-breeding
range. Although New Zealand implements measures to protect other
seabird species from this threat under the Agreement on the
Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the magenta petrel is not
currently offered protection by this Agreement. Because the survival of
this species is dependent on recruitment of chicks from its breeding
range, the severity of threats to the magenta petrel within its
breeding range puts the species in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range. Therefore, we find the magenta petrel to be in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range. Because we find that the
magenta petrel is endangered throughout all of its range, there is no
reason to consider its status in a significant portion of its range.
Cook's petrel (Pterodroma cookii)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range
The range of this species changes intra-annually based on an
established breeding cycle. During the breeding season, which appears
to vary by population (Taylor 2000), breeding birds return to breeding
colonies to breed and nest. During the non-breeding season, birds
migrate far from their breeding range where they remain at sea until
returning to breed. Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is separated
into analyses of: (1) The species' breeding habitat and range, and (2)
the species' non-breeding habitat and range.
BirdLife International (2007b) estimates the range of the Cook's
petrel to be 76,300,000 km\2\ (29,460,000 mi\2\); however, BirdLife
International (2000) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence,
the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary
which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected
sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of
vagrancy.'' Because this reported range includes a large area of non-
breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our analysis of Factor A with respect
to the Cook's petrel's breeding range focuses on the islands where the
species is known to breed.
The Cook's petrel breeds on Little Barrier, Great Barrier, and
Codfish Islands in the Chatham Islands, New Zealand, covering a total
land area of 126 square miles (327 km\2\, Wikipedia 2007e,g,h). The
species breeds on steep slopes near ridge tops at 984 feet (300 m)
above sea level or higher and prefers unmodified forest habitat with
low, open canopies (Rayner, et al. 2007b). Fire is unlikely to be a
threat to this species' breeding habitat because Cook's petrels breed
primarily in damp forests (Imber 1985a, as cited in Taylor 2000).
Breeding burrows are usually long and deep among tree roots and are not
easily collapsed; so trampling by introduced species is not likely to
be a threat to Cook's petrel nest sites (Taylor 2000).
According to the best available information, a large amount of
suitable habitat is available to the Cook's petrel on the three islands
where it breeds. Of these islands, the largest, the Great Barrier
Island covering 110 square miles (285 km\2\), is the only one that has
a permanent human population. This small population of 1,100 people is
located primarily within coastal settlements, away from the species'
breeding habitat. Inhabitants mostly make a living from farming and the
tourist industry, but the island is not considered a major tourist
destination due to its relative remoteness (Wikipedia 2007g). There is
no indication that the Cook's petrel's breeding habitat on Great
Barrier Island is threatened with human-induced habitat destruction or
modification.
The other two islands, Little Barrier and Codfish Islands, covering
11 and 5 square miles (28 km\2\ and 14 km\2\), respectively, are
wildlife sanctuaries with restricted access. These islands are not
inhabited by humans aside from rotational conservation staff (Wikipedia
2007e,h). Therefore, the Cook's petrel's breeding habitat on these
islands is not threatened with human-induced habitat destruction or
modification.
In 2004, the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust prepared ``An
Ecological Restoration Plan for Maungatautari,'' which outlined
suggested restoration of habitat and the removal of threats to attract
or reintroduce Cook's petrel to the North Island in the Chatham Islands
chain (McQueen 2004). The Trust has established a 13 square mile (34
km\2\) predator exclosure to protect nest sites, and research is now
underway to investigate reintroduction of the Cook's petrel to
Maungatautari (Rayner, et al. 2007a). If successful, this effort would
expand the breeding range of the species.
Based on the lack of identified threats to the Cook's petrel's
breeding habitat within its breeding range, we find that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species'
habitat or range is not a threat to the species.
During the non-breeding season, the Cook's petrel migrates to the
east Pacific Ocean, primarily between 34 [deg]S and 30 [deg]N (Heather
and Robertson 1997, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). We are
unaware of any present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of this species' current sea habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the Cook's petrel is currently being
utilized.
C. Disease or Predation
The introduction of predatory species by European settlers is
believed to have contributed to the historical population decline in
this species. The best available information indicates that the Codfish
Island population declined due to predation by an introduced bird, the
weka (Marchant and Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife International
2000). In 1934, there were an estimated 20,000 breeding pairs on
Codfish Island, but weka predation reduced the population to 100 pairs
by 1984 (Bartle, et al. 1993, as cited in Taylor 2000). On Little
Barrier and Great Barrier Islands, introduced feral cats and the
Pacific rat reduced population numbers. The black rat (R. rattus) also
contributed to the decline on Great Barrier Island (Heather and
Robertson 1997, Marchant and Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000; Taylor 2000).
Due to extensive predator eradication programs implemented by
NZDOC, by
[[Page 71308]]
1980, feral cats had been eradicated from Little Barrier Island. By
1985, weka had been eradicated from Codfish Island (Taylor 2000). Rats
had been successfully eradicated from Codfish Island by 1998 and from
Little Barrier Island by 2006 (NZDOC 2006).
Although the introduced predators that threaten Cook's petrels have
been eradicated from Little Barrier and Codfish Islands, introduced
predators have not been removed from Great Barrier Island. As a result,
the Cook's petrel population on Great Barrier Island, which has been
reduced to 20 breeding pairs, continues to be severely threatened by
introduced feral cats, the black rat, and the Pacific rat (Marchant and
Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife International 2000), and the risk of
local extinction of this species is high. Loss of this population would
decrease the genetic diversity of the species, increasing the species'
risk of extinction.
Even on Little Barrier and Codfish Islands where introduced
predators have been removed, there is a continued risk that predators
will be re-introduced to the island by boats transporting conservation
and research staff to the islands. Given the magnitude of the
devastation these species have, once introduced, and the likelihood
that they could be re-introduced, we find introduced predators to be an
ongoing threat to Cook's petrel populations on Little Barrier and
Codfish Islands.
We are unaware of any threats due to predation on Cook's petrels
during the non-breeding season while the species is at sea.
Although several diseases have been documented in other species of
petrels (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease has not been documented
in the Cook's petrel. Therefore, the significance of this threat to
this species is unknown.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Cook's petrel is protected from disturbance and harvest under
New Zealand's Wildlife Act of 1953 and its Reserves Act of 1977. The
petrel is designated as a Category C species by the NZDOC, which
signifies the species is a third priority species for conservation
management (Molloy and Davis 1999). As discussed in Factor C above,
predator eradication efforts have not adequately reduced the threat of
predation on the species.
New Zealand ratified the Agreement on the Conservation of
Albatrosses and Petrels in November 2001, which is designed to reduce
impacts of fishing operations on populations of Procellariids (ACAP
2001), however the Cook's petrel is not listed in Annex 1 to this
Agreement and, therefore, is not protected under this Agreement.
Therefore, implementation of this Agreement has not significantly
reduced or removed the threat of incidental take of this species in
long-line fisheries (see Factor E below).
Because the available regulatory protections have not significantly
reduced the threats to the Cook's petrel, and this species is a lower
priority species for intensive conservation management, we find that
regulatory protections have not significantly reduced the threats to
the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Although we are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take
of Cook's petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations or
entanglement in marine debris, these long-line fishing operations have
been identified as a threat to all seabird species (see the Chatham
petrel Factor E). Therefore, we consider the incidental take of Cook's
petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations to be a significant
threat to the species.
Conclusion
The primary threat to the Cook's petrel is predation by introduced
feral cats, the black rat, and the Pacific rat within the species'
breeding range, particularly on Great Barrier Island. Eradication of
introduced predators on this island is difficult due to the permanent
habitation of humans on the island; so this threat on Great Barrier
Island is likely to persist. This threat, combined with the low number
of breeding pairs (approximately 20) on Great Barrier Island is likely
to result in local extinction.
The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by
the threat posed by long-line fishing in the species' non-breeding
range. Although New Zealand implements measures to protect other
seabird species from this threat under the Agreement on the
Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the Cook's petrel is not
currently offered protection by this Agreement. Because the survival of
this species is dependent on recruitment of chicks from its breeding
range, the threats to this species within its breeding range put the
species at risk.
The overall population number of the Cook's petrel is not low, and
the two largest populations of this species, those breeding on Little
Barrier and Codfish Islands, with 50,000 and 100 pairs, respectively
are reported to be increasing (Marchant and Higgins 1990, as cited in
BirdLife International 2000; Taylor 2000). As a result, the species
does not currently appear to be in danger of extinction. However, there
is a high risk of local extinction on Great Barrier Island within the
foreseeable future. The loss of the breeding birds on Great Barrier
Island would not only impact the overall species' population growth but
would decrease its genetic variability, increasing the Cook's petrel's
risk of extinction throughout its range. Therefore, we find that the
Cook's petrel is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Because we find that
the Cook's petrel is likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, there is no reason
to consider its status in a significant portion of its range.
Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range
As in other Procellariid species, the range of the Galapagos petrel
changes intra-annually based on an established breeding cycle. During
the breeding season, breeding birds return to breeding colonies to
breed and nest. During the non-breeding season, birds migrate far from
their breeding range where they remain at sea until returning to breed.
Therefore, our analysis of Factor A is separated into analyses of: (1)
The species' breeding habitat and range, and (2) the species' non-
breeding habitat and range.
BirdLife International (2007e) estimates the range of the Galapagos
petrel to be 14,200,000 km\2\ (5,483,000 mi\2\); however, BirdLife
International (2000) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence,
the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary
which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or projected
sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of
vagrancy.'' Because this reported range includes a large area of non-
breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our analysis of Factor A with respect
to the Galapagos petrel's breeding range focuses on the island where
the species breeds.
The Galapagos petrel is known to breed on the islands of Santa
Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San Crist[oacute]bal, and Isabela within the
Galapagos archipelago (Cruz and Cruz 1987; Harris 1970). The species
breeds in the humid and thickly vegetated uplands of these islands
(Harris 1970) at elevations
[[Page 71309]]
between 984 and 2,953 feet (300 and 900 meters) (Baker 1980, as cited
in BirdLife International 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987, 1996). The species
prefers to nest under thick vegetation in sufficient soil for burrowing
(Harris 1970). The species is known to nest within burrows or natural
cavities on slopes, in craters, in sinkholes, in lava tunnels, and in
gullies (Baker 1980, as cited in BirdLife International 2000; Cruz and
Cruz 1987, 1996).
On the island of Santa Cruz, the Galapagos petrel historically bred
at lower elevations, down to 180 meters (590.6 feet). However, habitat
modification of these lower elevations for agricultural purposes
restricted the Galapagos petrel's use of these lower elevation areas
for breeding. On San Crist[oacute]bal Island, historical clearance of
vegetation in highland areas for intensive grazing purposes drastically
reduced the species' breeding habitat on the island (Harris 1970).
In 1959, Ecuador designated 97% of the Galapagos land area as a
National Park, leaving 3% of the remaining land area distributed
between Santa Cruz, San Crist[oacute]bal, Isabela, and Floreana
Islands. The park land area is divided into various zones signifying
the level of human use (Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador n.d).
Although the islands where the Galapagos petrel is known to breed
includes a large `conservation and restoration' zone, all of these
islands, except Santiago, include a significant sized `farming' zone
(Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador n.d), where agricultural and grazing
activities continue to threaten the Galapagos petrel's habitat and
range. According to Baker (1980, as cited in BirdLife International
2000), at least half of the Galapagos petrel's current breeding range
on Santa Cruz Island is farmed. The rationale for maintaining farming
zones within the Galapagos National Park is to sustain the economy of
island inhabitants and encourage local consumption of traditional
products (e.g., vegetables, fruits, and grazing animals) (Parque
Nacional Galapagos Ecuador n.d).
The primary threat to the Galapagos petrel's breeding habitat is
destruction of breeding habitat by introduced feral mammals, such as
goats (Capra hircus), pigs, donkeys (Equus asinus), and cattle (Bos
taurus). These species trample and destroy Galapagos petrel nest-sites,
and reduce breeding habitat by overgrazing (e.g., goats) and uprooting
(e.g., pigs) the vegetation (Cruz and Cruz 1987, 1996; Eckhardt 1972).
In 1997, the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the Charles
Darwin Foundation initiated `Project Isabela,' an ecological
restoration program which required removal of all feral goats from
Santiago and northern Isabela Islands [Note: northern Isabela is
separated from southern Isabela by a 12 km-wide lava field (Charles
Darwin Foundation 2006)]. In 2006, the GNPS announced that no feral
goats could be found in these areas, noting that monitoring efforts
would continue to ensure successful eradication [Charles Darwin
Research Station (CDRS) 2006]. Concurrent with the goat eradification
program, feral donkeys were removed from Santiago Island and Alcedo
Volcano on northern Isabela Island (Carrion, et al. 2007). After a 30-
year eradication program, feral pigs were successfully removed from
Santiago Island, with the last pig being shot in April, 2000 (Cruz,et
al. 2005).
Despite the success of these eradication efforts, introduced
species, especially feral goats, continue to threaten Galapagos petrel
habitat on the human populated islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, San
Crist[oacute]bal, and southern Isabela. Feral goats are especially
problematic in areas bordering farmland, and eradication of feral
livestock in these human population areas is difficult (CDRS 2006).
Based on the widespread and ongoing threats of farming activities
and introduced species to the Galapagos petrels' breeding habitat, we
find that the present and threatened destruction of this species'
breeding habitat is a threat to the species.
The Galapagos petrel's range at sea is poorly known; however,
research has documented foraging behavior around the Galapagos islands,
as well as east and north of the islands. We are unaware of any present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of this
species' current sea habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the Galapagos petrel is currently being
utilized.
C. Disease or Predation
The threat of predation on the Galapagos petrel is exemplified by
the rapid decline of populations of this species in the early 1980s as
a result of predation by introduced species, such as dogs (Canis lupus
familiaris), cats, pigs, and black and brown rats (BirdLife
International 2007e; Cruz and Cruz 1996), supplemented by natural
predation by the Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis) (Cruz and Cruz
1996). In some cases, these population declines were as high as 81
percent over four years (BirdLife International 2007e). From 1980 to
1985, the population on Santa Cruz Island declined from an estimated
9,000 pairs to 1,000 pairs (Baker 1980, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987). During the same time period,
the Santiago Island population declined from 11,250 pairs to less than
500 pairs (Cruz and Cruz 1987; Tomkins 1985, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000), and the number of birds breeding on Floreana
Islands was estimated to have been reduced by up to 33% annually for
four years (Coulter, et al. 1981, as cited in BirdLife International
2000).
Introduced feral dogs, cats, and pigs are common predators of all
life stages (eggs, chicks, fledglings, and adults) of the Galapagos
petrel (Cruz and Cruz 1987, 1996). Eggs and hatchlings are eaten by
black and brown rats (BirdLife International 2007e). Adding to
predation by introduced species, the Galapagos hawk has been known to
further reduce population numbers; young and aged petrels are
particularly vulnerable to this predator. In 1985, monitoring of 510
adult Galapagos petrels on Santiago Island showed that the species'
mortality rate due to predation by pigs and Galapagos hawks was greater
than 50 percent (BirdLife International 2007e).
Predator control and petrel monitoring programs are currently in
place on Floreana, Santa Cruz, and Santiago Islands (Vargus and Cruz
2000, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). Eradication efforts to
remove feral pigs, which eat nestlings, juvenile, and adult petrels on
Santiago Island, succeeded by the end of 2000 (Cruz, et al. 2005). Re-
colonization of pigs on Santiago Island is not likely since the island
is not inhabited by humans, and there are no farming zones on the
island where pigs could be placed. Predation by introduced rats and
cats continue to pose a predation threat to Galapagos petrels on
Santiago Island, compounded by predation by the Galapagos hawk. Efforts
are underway on Santiago Island to remove introduced rats, but there is
no information to indicate that eradication has been achieved.
Although pigs were removed from Santiago Island, they continue to
threaten the Galapagos petrel on the other four islands where the
petrel is known to breed. Although predation by pigs, as well as cats,
rats, and dogs, on Floreana and Santa Cruz Islands continues to
threaten the Galapagos petrel, predator control efforts have been
initiated on these two islands and are beginning to show some success
in
[[Page 71310]]
reducing the threat to Galapagos petrels. For example, prior to
predator control efforts on Floreana Island, only 33 percent of the
banded Cerro Pajas colony of the Galapagos petrel population returned
to breed and nest as adults (Coulter, et al. 1982, as cited in Cruz and
Cruz 1990a). In 1982, predator control was initiated on this island
(Cruz and Cruz 1990a), and by 1985, return rates for banded birds was
80-90 percent due to the predator control program (Cruz and Cruz
1990a). To emphasize the significance of such a reduction in predation
on adults, with respect to petrel population growth, the Hawaiian dark-
rumped petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), a species related to the
Galapagos petrel, exhibited a 5 percent annual decline in its
population size when adult survival rates were reduced as low as 10
percent (Simons 1984).
There is no information to indicate that there have been predator
control efforts on San Crist[oacute]bal or Isabela Islands where cats,
rats, dogs, and pigs continue to threaten the species.
Although the threat of predation by pigs on Santiago Island has
been eliminated and the threat of predation is being reduced on
Floreana and Santa Cruz Islands, the Galapagos petrel continues to be
threatened by one or more predators on all of the islands within the
species' breeding range. This threat has been shown to result in rapid
population declines. Therefore, we find predation to be a threat to the
Galapagos petrel.
We are unaware of any threats due to predation on Galapagos petrels
during the non-breeding season while the species is at sea.
While several diseases have been documented in other species of
petrels (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease has not been documented
in the Galapagos petrel. Therefore, the significance of this threat to
this species is unknown.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Ecuador is a member of ACAP, which is designed to reduce impacts of
fishing operations on populations of Procellariids (ACAP 2001), however
the Galapagos petrel is not listed in Annex 1 to this Agreement and,
therefore, is not protected under this Agreement. Therefore,
implementation of this Agreement has not significantly removed or
reduced the threat of incidental take of this species in long-line
fisheries (see Factor E below).
Ecuador designated the Galapagos Islands as a national park, and
the islands were declared a World Heritage Site in 1979 (BirdLife
International 2000); however these protections have not eliminated the
threat of predation nor the threat of nest-site destruction by
livestock (BirdLife International 2007e).
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
Oil and chemical spills can have direct effects on Galapagos petrel
populations, and based on previous incidents, we consider this a
significant threat to the species. For example, on January 16, 2001, a
tanker ran aground at Schiavoni Reef, about 2,625 feet (800 meters)
from Puerto Baquerizo Moreno on San Crist[oacute]bal Island (Woram
2007). By January 28, 2001, the slick reached the islands of Isabela
and Floreana. Only one Galapagos petrel from Crist[oacute]bal Island is
documented to have died; however, 370 large animals were reported to be
contaminated by oil. The total effect of the oil spill on Galapagos
petrels and other species is difficult to quantify for a variety of
reasons. Due to the behavior of ocean-dependent species and the high
toxicity of diesel, many affected animals might have died and sunk
undetected. In addition, the effects of oiling may be highly localized,
given the vastness of the Galapagos coastline, thereby making detection
unlikely. Finally, because the long-term effects of oiling were not
monitored, the total mortality from this event is likely underestimated
(Lougheed, et al. 2002).
Although we are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take
of Galapagos petrels by commercial long-line fishing operations or
entanglement in marine debris, these long-line fishing operations have
been identified as a threat to all seabird species (see the Chatham
petrel discussion of Factor E). Therefore, we consider the incidental
take of the Galapagos petrel by commercial long-line fishing operations
to be a significant threat to the species.
Barbed wire fences on agricultural lands cause mortality in adult
Galapagos petrels (BirdLife International 2007e). With the exception of
Santiago Island, agricultural lands are present throughout the species'
breeding range. Although there is no information available regarding
the numbers and trends of mortality due to fences, this source of
mortality in combination with other threats from long-line fishing
operations and chemical and oil spills poses a significant risk to the
survival of the species.
There is evidence that the productivity of Galapagos petrel
populations is indirectly affected by fluctuations in ocean
temperatures and currents, which impact the Galapagos petrel's prey
base. During the El Ni[ntilde]o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) of 1982-
1983, Cruz and Cruz (1990b) found that the growth rate of Galapagos
petrel chicks was lower and fledging occurred later than in other
years. These so-called ``ENSO chicks'' reached a lower peak mass at a
later age than non-ENSO chicks. The extended nestling period and
reduced growth rates of ENSO chicks are believed to reflect a decline
in the availability of food resources because of diminishing ocean
productivity during the ENSO. No information is available on the long-
term effect on petrel population productivity due to this change in
ocean temperatures and currents, and, therefore, the significance of
this threat to the Galapagos petrel is indeterminate.
Conclusion
In the 1980's, the Galapagos petrel declined as much as 81% in four
years due primarily to predation by introduced predators. According to
BirdLife International (2007e), conservation efforts have slowed but
not halted the population decline. Despite predator control efforts,
the Galapagos petrel continues to be threatened by one or more
predators on all of the islands within the species' breeding range. The
Galapagos petrel's breeding habitat is also threatened by introduced
species, especially feral goats, on the islands of Santa Cruz,
Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, and southern Isabela, where barbed wire
fences contribute to the decline in the number of adult Galapagos
petrels.
The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by
the threats to the species within its range at sea. Oil spills can have
direct effects on Galapagos petrel populations, and based on the
occurrence of a previous incident within the species' range at sea, we
consider this a significant threat to the species. Incidental take from
long-line fishing in the species' range at sea is an additional threat
to the species. Although Ecuador implements measures to protect other
seabird species from this threat under the Agreement on the
Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, the Galapagos petrel is not
currently offered protection by this Agreement. Because the survival of
this species is dependent on recruitment of chicks from its breeding
range, the threats to this species within its breeding range puts the
species at risk.
The overall population number of the Galapagos petrel is not low,
estimated at 20,000 to 60,000 birds (BirdLife International 2007e). As
a result, the species does not currently appear to be in danger of
extinction. However, as the population numbers continue to decline
[[Page 71311]]
as a result of the threats discussed above, the risk of extinction of
this species continues to increase. Therefore, we find that the
Galapagos petrel is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Because we find that
the Galapagos petrel is likely to become in danger of extinction within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, there is no reason
to consider its status in a significant portion of its range.
Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi)
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range
Although little is known about Heinroth's shearwater and its life
history, based on general information common to all other Procellariid
species, we know that the range of the species changes intra-annually
based on an established breeding cycle. During the breeding season,
breeding birds return to breeding colonies to breed and nest. During
the non-breeding season, birds migrate far from their breeding range
where they remain at sea until returning to breed. Therefore, our
analysis of Factor A is separated into analyses of: (1) The species'
breeding habitat and range, and (2) the species' non-breeding habitat
and range.
BirdLife International (2007f) estimates the breeding range of
Heinroth's shearwater to be 400,000 km\2\ (154,400 mi\2\); however,
BirdLife International (2000) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of
Occurrence, the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary
boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred, or
projected sites of present occurrence of a species, excluding cases of
vagrancy.'' Because this reported range includes a large area of non-
breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), our analysis of Factor A with respect
to the Heinroth's shearwater's breeding range focuses on the islands
where the species is most likely to breed.
Although the nesting area of this species has not been located, the
information available indicates that the species breeds on Bougainville
Island in Papua New Guinea and the islands of Kolombangara and Rendova
in the Solomon Islands, where the few recorded sightings of this
species have occurred (Buckingham, et al. 1995, Coates 1985, 1990, Iles
1998, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). The species was
originally known from a few historic specimens from Watom, Papua New
Guinea, suggesting historical breeding there, but there have been no
recent records from this island. More recently, two birds were captured
inland on Bougainville Island. One of these birds was described as
being recently fledged; so it is reasonable to believe that its nest
was in the vicinity (Hadden 1981, as cited in BirdLife International
2000). The conclusion that the bird breeds on Bougainville Island is
further supported by recent observations in the seas around this
island, including one flock of 250 birds (Coates 1985, 1990, as cited
in BirdLife International 2000). It is also reasonable to conclude that
breeding occurs on Kolombangara Island, because recently up to nine
birds were recorded off this island where all timed records have been
in the afternoon or evening, the time when breeding birds of this
species typically return to their nest sites from foraging excursions
(Buckingham, et al. 1995, Gibbs 1996, Scofield 1994, as cited in
BirdLife International 2000). Although not as conclusive as the other
two sites due to only one observation, the species is also likely to
breed on nearby Rendova Island, where one bird was seen flying out of
the mountains at dawn. Since Procellariids occupy land only to breed,
it is reasonable to conclude that this bird was leaving its nest site.
Based on the locations of inland sightings of the Heinroth's
shearwater and a comparison to closely-related species, it is believed
this species breeds in high mountains (Buckingham, et al. 1995, as
cited in BirdLife International 2000). The three islands where this
species is likely to breed are all mountainous, volcanic islands in a
wet tropical climate.
Bougainville Island is 9,317.8 km\2\ (3,598 mi\2\) in size (United
Nations System-Wide Earthwatch 1998a), is thickly vegetated, and
rugged. There are extensive areas of undisturbed lowland and montane
rainforest. Most of the 175,160 people travel by foot or small boat,
and live by subsistence agriculture and fishing [Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) 2007a; United Nations System-Wide Earthwatch 1998a;
Wikipedia 2007a]. Exploitation of Papua New Guinea's natural resources
has been hindered due to the islands' rugged terrain and the high cost
of developing infrastructure (CIA 2007a). We are, therefore, unaware of
any present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the Heinroth's shearwater's current breeding habitat on Bougainville
Island.
The forests on the islands of Kolombangara and Rendova, with land
areas of 687.8 km\2\ (265.6 mi\2\) and 411.3 km\2\ (158.8 mi\2\, United
Nations System-Wide Earthwatch 1998b,c), respectively, are threatened
by deforestation. Timber is the Solomon Islands' most important export
commodity. Unsustainable forestry practices, combined with clearing of
land for agricultural and grazing purposes and over-exploitation of
wood products for use as fuel, is resulting in the destruction of vast
areas of forest throughout the Solomon Islands (CIA 2007b). All the
lower slopes on Kolombangara Island have been logged except for one 500
m (1,640 feet) strip (United Nations System-Wide Earthwatch 1998b). In
2003, the World Resources Institute reported that none of the Solomon
Island's total land area is protected to such an extent that it is
preserved in its natural condition (Earth Trends 2003b). Because
forests on the islands of Kolombangara and Rendova are the likely
breeding habitat of the Heinroth's shearwater and these forests are
being reduced through deforestation, we find that the destruction of
the Heinroth's shearwater's breeding habitat on these two islands is
likely to threaten the survival of the species.
The Heinroth's shearwater's range at sea is poorly known; up to 20
birds have been reported in the Bismarck seas, ranging to the Madang
Province on the north coast of Papua New Guinea (Bailey 1992, Clay
1994, Coates 1985, 1990, Hornbuckle 1999, as cited in BirdLife
International 2000). Observations have also been reported in the seas
around Bougainville Island, including a flock of 250 birds (Coates
1985, 1990, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). We are unaware of
any present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
this species' current sea habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are unaware of any commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purpose for which the Heinroth's shearwater is currently
being utilized.
C. Disease or Predation
Although the Heinroth's shearwater's nest sites have not been
located, all three islands where the species is most likely to breed
have introduced rats, cats, and dogs (Buckingham, et al. 1995, as cited
in BirdLife International 2000). All these introduced species
contributed to drastic declines in the Galapagos petrel (see Galapagos
petrel discussion of Factor C), and introduced cat and rats are known
to have caused many local extirpations of other petrel species (Moors
and Atkinson 1984, as cited in Priddel, et al. draft). Although the
Heinroth's shearwater is believed to
[[Page 71312]]
breed in high, inaccessible mountains, rats have been observed to at
least 2,953 feet (900 m) on Kolombangara Island and are a threat to
this burrow-nesting species (Buckingham, et al. 1995, as cited in
BirdLife International 2000).
Available information does not indicate that there have been
attempts to eradicate introduced predators from these islands, which
would be difficult due to the permanent habitation of humans on the
islands. Even if the species were eradicated, there is still a high
potential for cats and rats to be transported to the islands in boats
transporting humans or other shipments.
Because the threat of predation by introduced rats and feral cats
and dogs has severely impacted closely related petrel species, and
there are records of these introduced predators on the three islands
where the Heinroth's shearwater is most likely to breed, we find that
predation is a significant threat to this species.
We are unaware of any threats due to predation on Heinroth's
shearwaters during the non-breeding season while the species is at sea.
Although several diseases have been documented in other species of
petrels (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease has not been documented
in the Heinroth's shearwater. Therefore, the significance of this
threat to the Heinroth's shearwater is unknown.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
No regulatory mechanisms are known that contribute to or reduce or
remove threats to this species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
The population of the Heinroth's shearwater is estimated at 250 to
999 individuals, which is considered to be very small (BirdLife
International 2007f). Species with such small population sizes are at
greater risk of extinction. Once a population is reduced below a
certain number of individuals, it tends to rapidly decline towards
extinction (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and Soule 1986; Soule 1987).
The Heinroth's shearwater's small population size combined with its
colonial nesting habits, as is typical of all Procellariid species,
makes this species particularly vulnerable to the threat of adverse
random, naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, cyclones,
and earthquakes) that destroy breeding individuals and their breeding
habitat. All three of the islands where the Heinroth's shearwater is
most likely to breed are in a geologically active area resulting in a
significant risk of catastrophic natural events. These islands are
subject to frequent earthquakes, tremors, volcanic activity, typhoons,
tsunamis, and mudslides (CIA 2007a,b). Of these three islands, the
species' habitat on Bougainville is at most risk from volcanic
activity. There are seven volcanoes on Bougainville that have been
active in the last 10,000 years. Bagana is an active volcano that has
had 22 eruptions since 1842, with most being explosive. Some of these
explosive eruptions have produced extremely hot, gas-charged ash, which
is expelled with explosive force, moving with hurricane speed down the
mountainside. Bagana has been erupting since 1972, creating slow-moving
lava flows (Bagana 2005). These volcanic explosions and lava flows have
great potential to destroy Heinroth's shearwaters and their breeding
habitat in the mountainous areas where they are most likely to breed.
Landslides in mountainous area are associated with severe storms
that are common in this geographic region (World Meteorological
Organization 2004), and would be particularly threatening to breeding
Heinroth's shearwaters and their breeding habitat during these extreme
weather events.
While species with more extensive breeding ranges or higher
population numbers could recover from adverse random, naturally
occurring events such as volcanoes or typhoons, the Heinroth's
shearwater does not have such resiliency. Its very small population
size and restricted breeding range puts the species at higher risk for
experiencing the irreversible adverse effects of random, naturally
occurring events. Therefore, we find that the combination of factors--
the species' small population size, restricted breeding range, and
likelihood of adverse random, naturally occurring events--to be a
significant threat to the species.
Although we are unaware of any documented cases of incidental take
of Heinroth's shearwaters petrels by commercial long-line fishing
operations or entanglement in marine debris, these long-line fishing
operations have been identified as a threat to all seabird species (see
analysis under Chatham petrel, Factor E). Moreover, the lack of data on
these impacts to the Heinroth's shearwaters could be a result of the
species' low population number. Therefore, we find the incidental take
of Heinroth's shearwaters by commercial long-line fishing operations to
be a significant threat to the species.
Conclusion
The best available information indicates that the Heinroth's
shearwater is threatened by predation by introduced rats, and feral
cats and dogs within the species' breeding range. The probability of
these introduced predators preying on this species is high given that
all these introduced species are on the islands where the species is
likely to breed, and rats have been found in some of the high
mountainous areas where the Heinroth's shearwater is most likely to
nest. Furthermore, the devastating impact of predation by these
introduced species has been documented in several closely-related
species. Finally, there is no available information that indicates that
efforts have been initiated to eradicate introduced predators from the
three islands where the species is most likely to breed. This threat is
magnified by the fact that this threat likely threatens the species
throughout its breeding range.
The Heinroth's shearwater is also threatened on Kolombangara and
Rendova Islands, approximately half of its breeding range, by habitat
destruction. The species' low population size of 250 to 999 individuals
further increases this species' risk of extinction, and combined with
its colonial nesting habits makes the species particularly vulnerable
to the threat of catastrophic naturally occurring events (e.g.,
volcanoes) that are known to occur with frequency in the species'
breeding range.
The threats within the species' breeding range are compounded by
the threat posed by long-line fishing in the species' non-breeding
range. There is no available information to indicate that the
governments of Papua New Guinea or Solomon Islands have implemented
measures to protect the species from long-line fishery activities.
Because the survival of this species is dependent on recruitment of
chicks from its breeding range, the threats to this species within its
breeding range put the species at risk.
Despite the lack of population trend information, due to the
species' small population size, the lack of conservation measures and
regulatory protections for this species, and the identified threats
that have caused declines in closely related species, we find that the
threats within its breeding range make the Heinroth's shearwater likely
to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range. Because we find that the Heinroth's
shearwater is likely to become in danger of extinction within
[[Page 71313]]
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, there is no reason
to consider its status in a significant portion of its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, private
agencies and groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel, Galapagos petrel,
magenta petrel, Cook's petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater are not native
to the United States, no critical habitat is being proposed for
designation with this rule.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered species and to
provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and the
training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. As such, these prohibitions would be applicable to
the Chatham petrel, Cook's petrel, Fiji petrel, Galapagos petrel,
magenta petrel and Heinroth's shearwater. These prohibitions, pursuant
to 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to ``take'' (take
includes: Harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or upon
the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or
ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any endangered or threatened wildlife species. It also is illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22, for endangered species, and 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following
purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
comments or suggestions from the public, other government agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. We are particularly
seeking comments regarding biological information, population status,
commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack
thereof) to these species. We also seek comments on the appropriate
conservation status for the six bird species addressed in this proposed
rule.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments you send by e-mail or fax. We will also not accept
anonymous comments; your comment must include your first and last name,
city, State, country, and postal (zip) code. Please note that we may
not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES
section in our final determination.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that we will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203,
703-358-1708.
Final promulgation of the regulations concerning the listing of
these species will take into consideration all comments and additional
information that we receive, and such communications may lead to a
final regulation that differs from this proposal.
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of
the publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests
must be made in writing and be addressed to the Chief of the Division
of Scientific Authority at the address given above.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The regulation will not
impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not
conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice
outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
[[Page 71314]]
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule
clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language
or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the
proposed rule (groupings and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be
easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (5) Is the description of the proposed rule in the
``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the
proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments that
concern how we could make this rule easier to understand to the Office
of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You also may e-mail comments to
[email protected].
References Cited
A list of the references used to develop this proposed rule is
available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Mary M. Cogliano,
Ph.D., Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding new entries for ``Petrel,
Chatham,'' ``Petrel, Cook's,'' ``Petrel, Fiji,'' ``Petrel, Galapagos,''
``Petrel, magenta,'' and ``Shearwater, Heinroth's'' in alphabetical
order under BIRDS to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Petrel, Chatham.................... Pterodroma axillaris. Pacific Ocean--New Entire.......... E ........... NA NA
Zealand (Chatham
Island).
Petrel, Cook's..................... Pterodroma cookii.... Pacific Ocean--New Entire.......... T ........... NA NA
Zealand (Little
Barrier, Great
Barrier, Codfish
Islands).
Petrel, Fiji....................... Pterodroma Pacific Ocean--Fiji Entire.......... E ........... NA NA
macgillivrayi. (Gau Island).
Petrel, Galapagos.................. Pterodroma phaeopygia Pacific Ocean-- Entire.......... T ........... NA NA
Ecuador (Galapagos
Islands).
* * * * * * *
Petrel, magenta.................... Pterodroma magentae.. Pacific Ocean--New Entire.......... E ........... NA NA
Zealand (Chatham
Island).
* * * * * * *
Shearwater, Heinroth's............. Puffinus heinrothi... Pacific Ocean--Papua Entire.......... T ........... NA NA
New Guinea (Solomon
Islands).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 71315]]
Dated: November 30, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-24347 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P