[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 235-250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31308]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-ES-2009-0086;90100-1660-1FLA]
RIN 1018-AW70
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List
the Galapagos Petrel and Heinroth's Shearwater as Threatened Throughout
Their Ranges
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened status for the Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia)
previously referred to as (Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia); and the
Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule implements the Federal
protections provided by the Act for these two foreign seabird species.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective February 4, 2010.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Alt, Chief, Division of
Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA
22203; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires us
to make a finding (known as a ``90-day finding'') on whether a petition
to add a species to, remove a species from, or reclassify a species on
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants has
presented substantial information indicating that the requested action
may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, the finding must
be made within 90 days following receipt of the petition and must be
published promptly in the Federal Register. If we find that the
petition has presented substantial information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted (a positive finding), section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to commence a status review of the
species if one has not already been initiated under our internal
candidate assessment process.
In addition, section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires us to make a
finding within 12 months following receipt of the petition (``12-month
finding'') on whether the requested action is warranted, not warranted,
or warranted but precluded by higher priority listing. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a finding of warranted but
precluded for petitioned species should be treated as having been
resubmitted on the date of the warranted but precluded finding. A
warranted-but-precluded finding is, therefore, subject to a new finding
within 1 year and subsequently thereafter until we publish a proposal
to list or a finding that the petitioned action is not warranted. 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.
Previous Federal Action
On November 28, 1980, we received a petition (1980 petition) from
Dr.
[[Page 236]]
Warren B. King, Chairman, United States Section of the International
Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to add 60 foreign bird species to
the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11),
including two species (Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater)
that are the subject of this rule. Two of the foreign species
identified in the petition were already listed under the Act;
therefore, in response to the 1980 petition, we published a substantial
90-day finding on May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464), for 58 foreign species
and initiated a status review. On January 20, 1984 (49 FR 2485), we
published a 12-month finding within an annual review on pending
petitions and description of progress on all pending petition findings.
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. 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. We published additional annual notices
on the 58 species included in the 1980 petition on January 9, 1986 (51
FR 996), 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). These notices indicated that the Galapagos
petrel and Heinroth's shearwater, along with the remaining species in
the 1980 petition, continued to be warranted but precluded.
Per the Service's listing priority guidelines (September 21, 1983;
48 FR 43098), in our April 23, 2007, Annual Notice on Resubmitted
Petition Findings for Foreign Species (72 FR 20184), we determined that
listing the six seabird species of family Procellariidae, including the
two species that are the subject of this final rule, was warranted. In
selecting these six species from the list of warranted-but-precluded
species, we took into consideration the magnitude and immediacy of the
threats to the species consistent with the Service's listing priority
guidelines.
On December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298), we published in the Federal
Register a proposal to list the Chatham petrel, Fiji petrel and the
magenta petrel as endangered species under the Act, and the Cook's
petrel (native to New Zealand), Galapagos petrel (native to the
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador), and the Heinroth's shearwater (native to
Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands) as threatened under the Act.
We implemented the Service's peer review process and opened a 60-day
comment period to solicit scientific and commercial information on the
species from all interested parties following publication of the
proposed rule.
On December 30, 2008, the Service received a 60-day notice of
intent to sue from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) over
violations of section 4 of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) for the Service's failure to issue a final determination
regarding the listing of these six foreign birds. Under a settlement
agreement approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on June 15, 2009 (CBD v. Salazar, 09-cv-02578-CRB), the
Service was required to submit to the Federal Register final
determinations on the proposed listings of the Chatham petrel, Fiji
petrel, and magenta petrel by September 30, 2009, and final
determinations on the proposed listings of the Cook's petrel, Galapagos
petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater by December 29, 2009.
The Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris), Fiji petrel
(Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi), and the magenta petrel (Pterodroma
magentae) were listed as endangered on September 14, 2009 (74 FR
46914). This rule addresses two of the remaining three foreign seabird
species: the Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater. Cook's petrel
will be addressed in a separate rule.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71298),
we requested that all interested parties submit information that might
contribute to development of a final rule. We received nine comments:
Six from members of the public, one from an international conservation
organization, one from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and one from the New Zealand Department of Conservation
(NZDOC). In all, three commenters supported the proposed listings. Six
commenters provided information but did not express support for or
opposition to the proposed listings. We reviewed all comments we
received from the public and peer reviewers for substantive issues and
new information regarding the proposed listing of the two species, and
we address those comments below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 14 knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species,
the geographic region in which the species occur, and conservation
biology principles. We received responses from six of the peer
reviewers from whom we requested comments. The peer reviewers generally
agreed that the description of the biology and habitat for each species
was accurate and based on the best available information. New or
additional information on the current population numbers of each of the
two species and their threats was provided and incorporated into the
rulemaking as appropriate (as indicated in the citations by ``in
litt.'').
Peer Reviewer General Comments
Comment 1: While it is generally true that ``once a population is
reduced below a certain number of individuals it tends to rapidly
decline towards extinction'' without details on what the ``certain''
number of individuals is, this statement is superfluous for these
species. For these species the issue is not so much reaching certain
low numbers, as whether or not catastrophic threats impacting these
species are still ongoing.
Our Response: We concur and have amended this statement in this
final rule.
Comment 2: Provide the taxonomic list(s) of birds used to identify
the six species.
Our Response: We have added information on taxonomy of each species
to this final rule.
Peer Reviewer Species-specific Comments
Galapagos Petrel
Comment 3: The greater threat to this species and its habitat is
not goats but rather introduced invasive plants which have caused
drastic habitat changes over the last few years.
Our Response: Based on this new information regarding the
significance of the threats to the habitat of the Galapagos petrel by
nonnative, invasive plants, we have amended our discussion under Factor
A (the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of the habitat or range) for this species in this final rule.
Comment 4: A significant and fairly new threat to the Galapagos
petrel is the threat of collisions with structures such as power lines,
cellular telephone and other radio towers, and, on Santa Cruz Island,
wind power generation systems (particularly large windmills and power
transmission lines). Construction of these structures in and near
petrel nesting areas and areas where they make their nocturnal
courtship flights increases the risk of collision.
[[Page 237]]
Our Response: We have incorporated this new information regarding
the threat of collisions with power lines, radio towers, and structures
associated with windmills in our Factor E (other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence of the species) discussion
for this species.
Comment 5: One peer reviewer indicated skepticism of the often
cited drastic decreases in Galapagos petrel numbers in the 1980s. The
peer reviewer added that there was no known event in that period that
could have caused the decline, and that all of the purported causes
(agricultural expansion, introduction of predators) had occurred
decades before. The peer reviewer believes that most likely the early
estimates of pre-1980 petrel populations were overly optimistic (too
large) and that starting in the 1980s, the estimates of the number of
petrels were more accurate and closer to the actual number of birds
(likely due to more surveys and better methods of estimating population
numbers). The peer reviewer stated that current estimates of Galapagos
petrel numbers are not significantly lower than the estimates of the
mid-1980s. If there were a drastic population decline starting in the
1980s it is unlikely it would have suddenly halted, especially with
respect to predation, because although the agriculture expansion has
not continued, it has not decreased, and the predators have not
disappeared from the nesting habitat.
Our Response: We have incorporated this information regarding the
population estimates for the Galapagos petrel over the past 28 years in
this final rule.
Comment 6: The Galapagos petrel is threatened by predation by
introduced rats, cats, pigs, and dogs (in order of significance of
impact). The main predator is rats that kill chicks. Cats prey upon all
life stages of the species while dogs sometimes prey upon the species
during all life stages. Pigs may kill incubating adults by digging up
nests, but this is probably less common than predation by other
animals.
Our Response: In this final rule, we have amended our discussion
under Factor C (disease or predation) regarding the significant
predators on the Galapagos petrel, in this final rule.
Comment 7: San Crist[oacute]bal Island has a long-standing rat
control program in the Galapagos petrel colony.
Our Response: We were not previously aware of this program and have
amended our discussion under Factor C (disease or predation) to reflect
this new information in this final rule.
Heinroth's Shearwater
Comment 8: The forests of Kolombanagara and Rendova are the
potential breeding habitat of Heinroth's shearwater but deforestation
is not a threat in the high-altitude forests because logging is
commercially unviable in these small-stature forests that are found on
steep slopes. Deforestation is a threat to this bird only if it nests
at low or mid altitudes.
Our Response: The breeding habitat for Heinroth's shearwater is
unknown but is believed to be inland forests. Therefore, we have
incorporated this new information regarding the threat from
deforestation only in low or mid altitude forests in our discussion
under Factor A (present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitat or range) in this final rule.
Other Comments
Comment 9: Listing under the Act provides substantial benefits to
foreign species.
Our Response: We agree that listing a foreign species under the Act
provides benefits to the species in the form of conservation measures
such as recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices (see Available Conservation
Measures). In addition, once a foreign species is listed as endangered
under the Act, a section 7 consultation and an enhancement finding are
usually required for the issuance of a permit to conduct certain
activities. Through various enhancement findings under section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the permit process can be used to create
incentives for conservation, through cooperation and consultation with
range countries and users of the resource.
Comment 10: Listing under the Act can only help these birds by
drawing attention to their needs and providing much needed funding and
expertise to address the significant threats they face.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter. Listing the species
under the Act that are the subject of this final rule can provide
several benefits to the species in the form of conservation measures,
such as recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain practices (see Available Conservation
Measures).
Comment 11: We would encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to carefully consider how listing these species under the Act will
benefit their conservation. Would listing under the Act prompt U.S.-
based actions that the species would otherwise not receive?
Our Response: As part of the conservation measures provided to
foreign species listed under the Act (see Available Conservation
Measures), 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. In addition,
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 and threatened species and
to provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and
the training of personnel.
Comment 12: The general statement that the ``long-line fishery * *
* is the single greatest threat to all seabirds'' erroneously indicates
long-line fishing as a threat to all seabirds. The main species of
seabirds killed in long-line fisheries are albatrosses and other
species of petrels (not Pterodroma species). The characteristics of a
petrel species vulnerable to long-line fishing (seabird that is
aggressive and good at seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the water's
surface, or is a proficient diver) do not describe the five Pterodroma
species or the Heinroth's shearwater that were proposed for listing
under the Act. Fisheries bycatch has not been identified as a key
threat for any of these species; thus it is inaccurate to characterize
long-line fishing as a threat to these species or to all seabird
species.
Our Response: We received several comments disputing our statement
that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds, and Galapagos petrel
and the Heinroth's shearwater in particular. We have amended our final
rule accordingly (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Galapagos Petrel
and Summary of Factors Affecting the Heinroth's Shearwater).
Comment 13: The serious threats to the species are impacts due to
extremely small populations, limited breeding locations or foraging
ranges, loss and degradation of nesting habitat, invasive alien
species, introduced predators, and hunting.
Our Response: We agree that the Galapagos petrel and the Heinroth's
shearwater are threatened by extremely small populations, limited
breeding sites, degradation and destruction of nesting habitat, or
nonnative species and have incorporated this information
[[Page 238]]
into this final rule. However, we are unaware of any information that
indicates the Galapagos petrel or Heinroth's shearwater currently face
threats from human hunting or overcollection.
Comment 14: The primary threat to these species is predation by
introduced predators particularly at breeding colonies.
Our Response: We agree that predation by nonnative predators is a
significant threat to one or more life stages of the Galapagos petrel
and the Heinroth's shearwater and we have incorporated this information
into this final rule.
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 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. The five factors are: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination.
Both 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).
Foreseeable Future
Although section 3 of the Act uses the term ``foreseeable future''
in the definition of a threatened species, it does not define the term.
For purpose of this rule, we define foreseeable future to be the extent
to which, given the amount and quality of available data, we can
anticipate events or effects, or extrapolate trends of a threat, such
that reliable predictions can be made concerning the future of the
species. In the analyses of the five factors below, we consider and
describe how the foreseeable future relates to the status and threats
to these species.
Below is a analysis of the five factors by species.
I. Galapagos Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia)
Species Information
The Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia), previously referred
to as (Pterodroma phaeopygia phaeopygia), is a large, long-winged
gadfly petrel that is endemic to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (BLI
2009, unpaginated). They have variable amounts of black markings on a
white forehead. The species was first taxonomically described by Salvin
in 1876 (Sibley and Monroe 1990, p. 323).
Habitat, Range, and Life History
The Galapagos petrel is endemic to the Galapagos Islands and breeds
on Santa Cruz, Floreana, Santiago, San Crist[oacute]bal, Isabela, and
possibly other islands in the archipelago covering a total land area of
2,680 mi\2\ (6,942 km\2\) (Cruz and Cruz 1987, pp. 304-305; Vargas and
Cruz in litt. 2000, as cited in BLI 2009; Harris 1970, pp. 76-77). The
species breeds in the humid and thickly vegetated uplands of these
islands (Harris 1970, p. 76) at elevations between 984 and 2,953 ft
(300 and 900 m) (Baker 1980, as cited in BLI 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987,
pp. 304-305; 1996, p. 27). The species prefers to nest under thick
vegetation in sufficient soil for burrowing (Harris 1970, pp. 78, 82).
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 BLI 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987, pp. 304-305;
1996, p. 27).
Birds have been observed foraging near the Galapagos Islands, as
well as east and north of the islands towards South America up to 1,243
mi (2,000 km) south (Spear et al. 1995, p. 627).
Population Estimates
In our December 17, 2007, proposal (72 FR 71298), we reported that
the total population of Galapagos petrels was estimated to be between
20,000 and 60,000 birds (BLI 2007, unpaginated). However, in 2009 BLI
updated the estimate, and now estimates the total population to be
between 10,000 and 19,999 birds with a decreasing population trend (BLI
2009, unpaginated).
Conservation Status
The IUCN classifies the Galapagos petrel as ``Critically
Endangered'' with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2009,
unpaginated). The species is not listed on any CITES Appendices (http://www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Galapagos Petrel
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Habitat or Range
Similar to 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 nonbreeding 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.
BLI (2009, unpaginated) estimates the range of the Galapagos petrel
to be 5,483,000 mi\2\ (14,200,000 km\2\); however, BLI (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 islands where the species breeds.
The primary threats to the Galapagos petrel's breeding habitat are
degradation and destruction of breeding habitat by introduced invasive
plants, clearing of land for agricultural expansion, and nonnative
feral mammals, such as domesticated goats (Capra hircus), pigs (Sus
scrofa), donkeys (Equus asinus), and cattle (Bos taurus). Nonnative
invasive plants on some islands create dense thickets that the petrel
is not able to penetrate. Nonnative ungulates (goats, pigs, donkeys,
and cattle) trample and destroy Galapagos petrel nest-sites and reduce
breeding habitat by overgrazing (e.g., goats) and uprooting the
vegetation (e.g., pigs) (Cruz and Cruz 1987, pp. 304-305, 1996, p. 25;
Eckhardt 1972, p. 588; Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
Clearing of Land for Agricultural Expansion
In 1959, Ecuador designated 97 percent of the Galapagos land area
as a National Park, leaving 3 percent 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., unpaginated).
[[Page 239]]
Although the islands where the Galapagos petrel is known to breed
include a large ''conservation and restoration'' zone, all of these
islands, except Santiago, include a significant-sized `farming' zone
(Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador N.D. unpaginated), where
agricultural and grazing activities continue to threaten some petrel
nesting sites (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). According to
Baker (1980, as cited in BLI 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, encourage local
consumption of traditional products (e.g., vegetables, fruits, and
grazing animals), and decrease the amount of imported food, thereby
reducing the threat of inadvertent introduction of nonnative species
(Parque Nacional Galapagos Ecuador N.D. Plan de Control Total N.D.
cited in Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
On the island of Santa Cruz, the Galapagos petrel historically bred
at lower elevations, down to 591 ft (180 m). However, habitat
modification of these lower elevations for agricultural purposes has
restricted the Galapagos petrel's use of these lower elevation areas
for breeding although some areas are still used for nesting (Valarezo
2006 cited in Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). 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, p. 82).
Introduced Invasive Plants
Nonnative invasive plants are a significant threat to the Galapagos
petrel through habitat modification and destruction. Nonnative plants
adversely impact petrel breeding habitat by modifying or altering
several microhabitat conditions such as availability of light, soil-
water regimes, and nutrient cycling leading to competition with native
plants or direct inhibition of native plants; and ultimately converting
plant communities dominated by native species to nonnative plant
communities (Tye, N.D., p. 4). Rubus niveus (hill raspberry), a species
of raspberry native from India to southeastern Asia, the Philippines,
and Indonesia, is the worst invader of the nonnative species of Rubus
in the Galapagos Islands (Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF), N.D.a,
unpaginated), and is classified as a noxious weed in Hawaii (Hawaii
Administrative Rules 1992). In the Galapagos Islands, hill raspberry
grows in nesting areas in thick mats that are impenetrable by Galapagos
petrels (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). This nonnative plant
is found on all of the islands (Floreana, Isabela, San
Crist[oacute]bal, and Santa Cruz) used by the Galapagos petrel for
breeding except Santiago Island (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008,
unpaginated). Eradication of hill raspberry on San Crist[oacute]bal and
Santa Cruz is not possible because hill raspberry is well-established
and widespread on these islands (CDF, N.D.a, unpaginated) and thus
eradication is cost prohibitive. It is not known if there are control
or eradication programs for this species on Floreana or Isabela
Islands.
There are two other noteworthy nonnative plant threats, Cinchona
pubescens (red quinine tree) and two species of Lantana (lantana). Red
quinine tree is native from Andean South America north to Costa Rica,
and is characterized by vigorous growth, reproduction, and extremely
rapid invasion (CDF N.D.b, unpaginated). Introduced in 1946 in the
agricultural zone of Santa Cruz Island, red quinine tree has spread
into all of the highland vegetation zones and covers more than 29,652
ac (12,000 ha) (CDF N.D.b, unpaginated). This nonnative invader is
significantly changing native plant communities in the highlands of
Santa Cruz from low open scrub and grasslands to closed forest canopy
(Buddenhagen et al. 2004, p. 1195; CDF, N.D.b, unpaginated), and has
been identified as a threat to the highland habitat of the Galapagos
petrel (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). According to Tye
(N.D., p. 12) there is strong support by both conservationists and
farmers to eradicate red quinine tree (Tye N.D., p. 12).
Beginning in 1998, the Charles Darwin Foundation has supported
research studies on red quinine tree's ecology and invasion dynamics,
its impacts on native vegetation, and potential control methods
(Buddenhagen et al. 2004, pp. 1198, 1200-1201; CDF N.D.b, unpaginated).
An effective combination of control techniques was identified in 2003,
and a long-term management plan is being developed for its possible
eradication on Santa Cruz (Buddenhagen et al. 2004, p. 1201; CDF N.D.b,
unpaginated). Lantana (Lantana camara and L. montevidensis (CDF N.D.c,
unpaginated)), probably native to the West Indies (Wagner et al. 1999,
p. 1320), was introduced to Floreana about 70 years ago, and has been
identified as the single worst invasive species on the island (Tye
N.D., p. 6). More recently, L. camara has been introduced to other
islands, including Santa Cruz in 1985, where repeated control efforts
have limited its spread on those islands (Tye N.D., p. 6). Lantana is a
shrub that forms dense, impenetrable thickets and prevents the growth
of other herbaceous or woody species (Tye N.D., p. 5; Wagner et al.
1999, p. 1320). It is unknown if there are control or eradication
programs for this species on Floreana. In addition, there are a number
of nonnative plants on Santiago, which was formerly inhabited, however,
no information is available to identify whether these species impact
Galapagos petrel nesting sites on this island (Tye N.D., p. 3).
Introduced Feral Mammals
In 1997, the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the CDF
initiated ``Project Isabela,'' an ecological restoration program that
required removal of all feral goats from Santiago and northern Isabela.
In 2006, the program was found to be successful. 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, unpaginated). Concurrent
with the goat eradication program, feral donkeys were removed from
Santiago Island and Alcedo Volcano on northern Isabela Island (Carrion
et al. 2007, p. 440). After a 30-year eradication program, feral pigs
were successfully removed from Santiago Island; the last pig was shot
in April 2000 (Cruz et al. 2005, p. 476).
Despite the success of these eradication efforts, introduced
ungulates continue to threaten Galapagos petrel habitat on the human
populated islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, and
southern Isabela, particularly in areas bordering farmland. Eradication
programs for feral livestock in areas containing human populations is
difficult (CDRS 2006, unpaginated). However, according to the Galapagos
Conservancy (N.D., unpaginated), funding has been sought for
eradication of feral goats on Floreana and San Crist[oacute]bal Islands
and for a goat control program on Santa Cruz Island beginning in 2008
or 2009.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, nonnative invasive plants have been identified as
significantly impacting the breeding habitat of the Galapagos petrel
primarily by altering the habitat and overgrowing the nesting sites, or
by creating dense, impenetrable thickets (hill raspberry and lantana).
The most significant nonnative plant threats to the Galapagos
[[Page 240]]
petrel are hill raspberry, red quinine tree and lantana. Galapagos
petrel habitat is threatened on Floreana by hill raspberry and lantana;
on Isabela by hill raspberry; on San Crist[oacute]bal by hill
raspberry; and, on Santa Cruz by hill raspberry, red quinine tree, and
lantana (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). Although nonnative
plants occur on Santiago Island, there is no information identifying
nonnative plant threats to Galapagos petrel habitat there. Agricultural
expansion and nonnative feral ungulates on the human populated islands
of Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern Isabela
also destroy habitat of the Galapagos petrel.
Therefore, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of this species' breeding habitat by
agricultural expansion, nonnative plants, and feral ungulates is a
threat to the species on the islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, San
Crist[oacute]bal, and Isabela now and in the foreseeable future. On
Santiago Island, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of this species' breeding habitat by
agricultural expansion, and feral ungulates is a threat to the species
now and in the foreseeable future.
The Galapagos petrel's range at sea is poorly known; however,
research has documented foraging behavior near 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 now or in the foreseeable future.
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. Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to
the Galapagos petrel in any portion of its range now and in the
foreseeable future.
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 black and brown
rats, cats, pigs, and to a lesser extent, dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)
(BLI 2009, unpaginated; Cruz and Cruz 1996, p. 23). In some cases,
these population declines were as high as 81 percent over 4 years (BLI
2009, unpaginated). Between 1980 and 1985, the population on Santa Cruz
Island declined from an estimated 9,000 pairs to 1,000 pairs (Baker
1980, as cited in BLI 2009, unpaginated; Cruz and Cruz 1987, p. 9).
During the same time period, the Santiago Island population declined
from 11,250 pairs to less than 500 pairs (Cruz and Cruz 1987, p. 12;
Tomkins 1985, as cited in BLI 2000), and the number of birds breeding
on Floreana Islands was estimated to have been reduced by up to 33
percent annually for 4 years (Coulter et al. 1981, as cited in BLI
2009, unpaginated).
While the above-cited sources report drastic decreases in Galapagos
petrel numbers in the 1980s, one peer reviewer of our December 17,
2007, proposed rule (72 FR 71298) questioned the reported population
declines. According to the reviewer, there was no known event during
that decade that could have caused the declines. Agricultural expansion
and the introduction and expansion of predators had occurred decades
previously, and while Galapagos petrels are long-lived and a factor
from decades before might have shown up as a collapse in the adult
population much later, the reviewer thought it was unlikely. According
to the peer review, pre-1980 population estimates were overly
optimistic and that estimates starting in the 1980s were more accurate
(Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). According to the reviewer,
current estimates are not much lower than the numbers from the mid-
1980s, and it is unlikely that the ``drastic declines'' seen in the
1980s would have halted 20 years later, considering the ongoing threats
to the petrel from predation and habitat degradation and destruction
(Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
Rats (both black and brown) are the most significant predator of
the Galapagos petrel; they eat both the eggs and chicks (Wiedenfeld, in
litt. 2008, unpaginated). Introduced feral cats, pigs, and dogs all
prey on one or more life stages (eggs, chicks, fledglings, and adults)
of the Galapagos petrel (Cruz and Cruz 1987, p. 304; 1996, pp. 23-24).
Predation of adult Galapagos petrels by the Galapagos hawk (Buteo
galapagoensis) was reported by Tompkins (1985, p. 12) and later cited
in Cruz and Cruz (1987, p. 305; 1996, p. 24) and BLI (2009). However,
because Galapagos hawks are diurnal predators and Galapagos petrels fly
at night, this information is questionable (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008,
unpaginated). The short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) and the common barn
owl (Tyto alba) may hunt Galapagos petrels more commonly than the
Galapagos hawk because both predators are nocturnal and both occur in
the Galapagos Islands (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
Predator control programs geared towards nonnative species and
petrel monitoring programs are currently in place on Floreana, Santa
Cruz, and Santiago Islands (Vargus and Cruz 2000, as cited in BLI 2009,
unpaginated; Guo 2006, p. 1597). 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, pp. 476-477;
Galapagos National Park N.D., unpaginated). Recolonization 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. In addition, complete ecological recovery of Santiago Island
is a primary objective of Galapagos National Park, so monitoring and
maintaining a pig-free island is of high priority (Galapagos National
Park N.D., unpaginated). However, predation by introduced rats and cats
continues to pose a threat to Galapagos petrels on Santiago Island,
where efforts are underway to remove introduced rats, but there is no
information to indicate that eradication has been achieved (Galapagos
National Park N.D., unpaginated). On Isabela, National Park rangers
have set out traps and poison for rats, and, as of 2006, were planning
rat control on Floreana Island (Guo 2006, p. 2); BLI (2009) reports
that there is a program of rat baiting around known petrel colonies on
Floreana (Vargas and Cruz, in litt. 2000 cited in BLI 2009). In
addition, Guo (2006, p. 2) reported that control of feral cats would
begin in 2007, although no island was specified. According to
Wiedendfeld (in litt. 2008, unpaginated), there is a long-term rat
control program in Galapagos petrel colonies on San Crist[oacute]bal
Island (Cruz cited in Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
Although pigs were removed from Santiago Island, they continue to
threaten the Galapagos petrel on the other 4 islands where the petrel
is known to breed. Predation, primarily by rats and cats, continues to
threaten the Galapagos petrel on Floreana and Santa Cruz Islands.
Predator control efforts have been initiated on these two islands and
are beginning to show some success in 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, p. 323). In
1982, predator control was initiated on this
[[Page 241]]
island (Cruz and Cruz 1990a, p. 317), and by 1985, return rates for
banded birds was 80 to 90 percent due to the predator control program
(Cruz and Cruz 1990a, p. 323). 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, p. 1073).
There is no information to indicate that predator control efforts
have been successfully implemented on San Crist[oacute]bal Island or
Isabela Island where rats, cats, and pigs continue to threaten the
species; and these threats are likely to continue in the foreseeable
future.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, while several diseases have been documented in other
species of petrels, disease has not been documented in the Galapagos
petrel. Therefore, for the reasons described above, we do not find that
disease is a threat to this species currently or in the foreseeable
future.
While the species is at sea during the nonbreeding season, we are
unaware of any threats due to predation on Galapagos petrels. However,
predation by introduced mammalian species causes mortalities at all
life stages of the Galapagos petrel while on land. Rats are a
significant threat because they eat eggs and chicks. Feral cats, in
particular, and to a lesser extent dogs also threaten Galapagos petrels
by eating eggs and killing chicks, juveniles, and adult birds. Pigs may
kill nestlings, juveniles, and some adult birds by digging up a nest
while the adult is incubating but this is much less common than
predation by rats and cats (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
There are predator control programs for rats on Isabela, San
Crist[oacute]bal, and Santiago Islands and, as of 2006, a program was
planned on Floreana Island. However, there is no information to
indicate that rat eradication has been achieved on any of these
islands, and there is no information to indicate that there is a rat
control program on Santa Cruz. According to Guo (2006, p. 2), a control
program for feral cats was planned for 2007. There is no information to
indicate that feral cats have been eradicated on any of the islands or
in any of the petrel breeding sites. Pigs have been removed from
Santiago and northern Isabela Islands but are still a threat to
Galapagos petrels on Floreana, Santa Cruz, southern Isabela, and San
Crist[oacute]bal Islands (Wildlife Extra 2006, unpaginated). There is
no information on predator control efforts for dogs on any of the
islands where Galapagos petrels breed. The threat of predation has been
shown to result in rapid population declines in the past and this
threat is likely to continue in the foreseeable future due to the
inability of predator control efforts to adequately eradicate these
predators. Therefore, we find that predation is a threat to the
Galapagos petrel throughout all or a significant portion of its range
now and in the foreseeable future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
As previously mentioned, several commenters disputed our statement
in the proposed rule that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds and
in particular, the Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater.
According to the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
BirdLife International (BLI 2009, unpaginated), the seabirds killed in
long-line fisheries are predominantly albatrosses and other species of
petrels (not Pterodroma species). The characteristics of a petrel
species vulnerable to long-line fishing (seabird that is aggressive and
good at seizing prey (or baited hooks) at the water's surface, or is a
proficient diver) do not describe the Pterodroma species. 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, long-line fishing operations in the eastern Pacific
Ocean have been identified as a potential threat to the Galapagos
petrel (BLI 2009, unpaginated). In particular, long-line fishing in the
Galapagos Marine Reserve was suggested as a factor in affecting
foraging birds (BLI 2009, unpaginated). In 2004, fishermen seized
Galapagos National Park headquarters and a scientific research station
to demand, among other things, permission to use long-line fishing in
the Galapagos Marine Reserve. To end the standoff, the government of
Ecuador agreed to review the rules regarding the Galapagos Marine
Reserve (New York Times 2004, unpaginated). A separate report published
in the same year described the illegal long-lines as
``crisscross[ing]'' the reserve ``like spider webs'' (Hile 2004,
unpaginated). However, there is no information indicating that,
subsequent to 2004, commercial long-line fishing is permitted in the
Galapagos Marine Reserve or that Galapagos petrels have been injured or
killed by long-line fishing operations in the Marine Reserve or
elsewhere in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Therefore, based on the best
available information regarding the threat of long-line fishing on the
Galapagos petrel, we are not able to determine the significance of this
threat to this bird.
The first legislation to specifically protect the Galapagos Islands
and its wildlife and plants was enacted in 1934 and further
supplemented in 1936, but effective legislation was not passed until
1959, when the Ecuadorian government passed new legislation declaring
the islands a National Park (Fitter et al. 2000, p. 216; Jackson 1985,
pp. 7, 230; Stewart 2006, p. 164).
The Galapagos Islands were declared a World Heritage Site (WHS)
under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1978 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre
n.d.(a)), as they were recognized to be ``cultural and natural heritage
of outstanding universal value that needs to be protected and
preserved'' (UNESCO World Heritage Centre n.d.(b)). The aim of
establishment as a WHS is conservation of the site for future
generations (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2008). However, in June 2007,
due to threats to this site posed by introduced invasive species,
increasing tourism, and immigration, the World Heritage Committee
placed the Galapagos on the ``List of World Heritage in Danger.'' This
is intended to increase support for their conservation (UNESCO World
Heritage Centre News 2007a). In March 2008, the UNESCO World Heritage
Centre/United Nations Foundation project for invasive species
management provided funding of $2.19 million U.S. (USD) to the
Ecuadorian National Environmental Fund's ``Galapagos Invasive Species''
account to support invasive species control and eradication activities
on the islands (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2008). In addition,
the Ecuador government previously had contributed $1 million USD to
this fund (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2008), demonstrating the
government of Ecuador's commitment to reducing the threat of invasive
species to the islands.
Ecuador designated the Galapagos Islands as a National Park and the
islands were declared a World Heritage Site in 1979 (BLI 2009,
unpaginated). In the 1990s, overall fishing pressure in the waters
around the Galapagos Islands increased rapidly and led in 1998 to
establishment of the Galapagos Marine Reserve (Bustamante et al. 2000,
p. 3), which is a legally protected area. The reserve boundaries are 40
nautical mi from the outermost points of land of the archipelago, and
protected within those
[[Page 242]]
boundaries are almost all of the ecologically important nutrient-rich
areas for wide-ranging species, including seabirds (Bustamante et al.
2000, p. 3). The Law of the Special Regimen for the Conservation and
Sustainable Development of the Province of the Galapagos, has given the
islands some legislative support to establish regulations related to
the transport of introduced species and implement a quarantine and
inspection system (Causton et al. 2000, p. 10; Instituto Nacional
Gal[aacute]pagos n.d.; Smith 2005, p. 304). Large-scale industrial
fishing is banned in the marine reserve, although local or artisanal
fishing is permitted (Charles Darwin Foundation N.D.d, unpaginated).
In 1999, the Inspection and Quarantine System for Galapagos
(SICGAL) was implemented (Causton et al. 2006, p. 121) with the aim of
preventing introduced species from reaching the islands (Causton et al.
2000, p. 10; Charles Darwin Foundation n.d.d, unpaginated). Inspectors
are stationed at points of entry and exit in the Galapagos Islands and
Continental Ecuador, where they check freight and luggage for permitted
and prohibited items (Charles Darwin Foundation n.d.d, unpaginated).
The goal is to rapidly contain and eliminate newly arrived species
(detected by SICGAL and early warning monitoring programs) that are
considered threats for the Galapagos Islands (Causton et al. 2006, p.
121). However, a scarcity of information on alien insect species
currently in the Galapagos Islands prevents officials from knowing
whether or not a newly detected insect is in fact a recent introduction
(Causton et al. 2006, p. 121). Without the necessary information to
make this determination, they cannot afford to spend the time and
resources on a rapid response when the ``new introduction'' is actually
a species that already occurs elsewhere in the Galapagos Islands
(Causton et al. 2006, p. 121).
The April 2007 World Heritage Centre--IUCN monitoring mission
report assessed, based on information gathered during their monitoring
mission and multiple meetings, the state of conservation in the
Galapagos Islands and found continuing problems (UNESCO World Heritage
Centre 2007). The UNESCO World Heritage Centre indicated that there is
a continuing lack of political will, leadership, and authority, and it
is a limiting factor in the full application and enforcement of the
Special Law for Galapagos (2007). They also reported that there appears
to be a general lack of effective enforcement (UNESCO World Heritage
Centre 2007).
At the same time, the risk from invasive species is rapidly
increasing, while the Agricultural Health Service of Ecuador (SESA) and
SICGAL have inadequate staff and capacity to deal with the nature and
scale of the problem (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2007). SICGAL
estimates that 779 invertebrates [interpreted as 779 individuals]
entered the Galapagos Islands via aircraft in 2006 (UNESCO World
Heritage Centre 2007). In addition, the staff of the Galapagos National
Park lacks the capacity and facilities for effective law enforcement
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2007).
Previous UNESCO-IUCN Galapagos mission reports (in 2005 and 2006)
to the World Heritage Committee have consistently outlined major
threats to the long-term conservation of the Galapagos Islands,
including the introduction of nonnative plant and animal species, and
the inability to apply laws (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News 2007b).
UNESCO World Heritage Centre reports that despite an excellent legal
framework, national government institutions encounter difficulties in
ensuring its full application (UNESCO World Heritage Centre News
2007b).
Summary of Factor D
In summary, Ecuador has developed numerous laws and regulatory
mechanisms to administer and manage wildlife in the Galapagos Islands.
Additional regulations have created an inspection and quarantine system
in order to prevent the introduction of non-native species. However,
this program does little to eradicate nonnative species already
introduced to the Galapagos Islands. The impacts to the species are
likely to increase in the foreseeable future due to the lack of
effective laws and regulatory mechanisms that are implemented in the
Galapagos Islands. Therefore, we find that the existing regulatory
mechanisms currently in place are inadequate to address the threats
from loss of habitat and predation due to nonnative species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range now and in the foreseeable
future.
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, although rare incidences,
we consider these to be a significant threat to the species. For
example, on January 16, 2001, a tanker ran aground at Schiavoni Reef,
about 2625 ft (800 m) from Puerto Baquerizo Moreno on San
Crist[oacute]bal Island (Woram 2007, unpaginated). 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 and 62 percent of the marine iguanas on Santa Fe Island died within
a year of after the oil spill occurred (Wikelski, 2002, p. 607). The
total effect of the oil spill on Galapagos petrels and other species is
difficult to quantify for a variety of reasons. However, due to the
behavior of ocean-dependent species and the high toxicity of diesel,
many affected petrels might have died and sunk undetected. In addition,
the effects of oiling may be highly localized, and given the vastness
of the Galapagos coastline, this could make detection unlikely. Because
the long-term effects of oiling were not monitored, the total mortality
from this event is likely underestimated (Lougheed et al. 2002,
unpaginated). Oil and chemical spill events are likely to occur again
in this species' habitat. Therefore, we find that oil and chemical
spills are a threat to the Galapagos petrel in its nonbreeding (marine)
habitat now and in the foreseeable future.
A recent but potentially significant threat to the Galapagos petrel
is the threat of collisions with structures such as power lines, and
cellular telephone and other radio towers (Cruz Delgado and Wiedenfeld
2005, cited in BLI 2009; Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). Rapid
growth of the human population on Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa
Cruz, and southern Isabela Islands may lead to the proliferation of new
power lines and cellular telephone structures. Many bird species,
including seabirds such as the Newell's shearwater on Kauai in the
Hawaiian Islands, are known to strike objects such as antennas, guy
wires, light poles, transmission lines, wind turbines, communication
towers, and other tall objects. Bird kills caused by towers and related
structures have been documented for over 50 years (Kerlinger 2000, pp.
4, 26; Manville 2005, pp. 1051-1061; Podolsky et al. 1998 abstract
only; Shire et al. 2000, p. 3). A proposed project to construct wind
generators on Baltra Island and extend power lines across Santa Cruz
Island to the town of Puerto Ayora may significantly increase adult
petrel mortality from collisions with transmission lines and associated
structures (e.g., posts) (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008, unpaginated).
Therefore, we consider collisions with power lines,
[[Page 243]]
cellular telephone and other radio towers, and large wind turbines to
be a significant threat to the species throughout all of its range now
and in the foreseeable future.
Barbed wire fences on agricultural lands cause mortality in adult
Galapagos petrels (BLI 2009a). 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 collisions with structures and
chemical and oil spills poses a significant risk to the survival of the
species on all islands in its breeding range except Santiago.
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, p. 160) 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. Limited to no information is available on
the long-term effect on petrel population productivity due to the
change in ocean temperatures and currents. Based on the best available
scientific and commercial information available, we determine that this
is not a threat to the Galapagos petrel.
Summary of Factor E
Rapid growth of the human population on Floreana, San
Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern Isabela Islands has lead to
an increase in manmade threats such as oil and chemical spills,
collisions with communications and energy-related structures (such as
transmission lines and cellular telephone and radio towers), and
collisions with barbed wire fences on agricultural lands. These threats
are continuing to impact the Galapagos petrel; there is no indication
that they are likely to decrease in the foreseeable future. Therefore,
we find that the other natural or manmade factors discussed above
threaten the Galapagos petrel throughout all or a significant portion
of its range now and in the foreseeable future.
Conclusion and Determination for the Galapagos Petrel
Section 3 of the Act defines an endangered species as ``any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as ``any species which
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Galapagos
petrel is currently affected by a variety of threats across its entire
geographic range. As we have not yet observed the extirpation of local
populations or recent steep declines in the abundance of the species,
we do not believe the status of the species is such that it is
presently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Therefore, we do not believe this species meets
the definition of an endangered species. We can, however, reasonably
anticipate the impacts of the threats on this species rangewide, and we
believe those threats acting in combination are likely to result in the
species becoming endangered within the foreseeable future.
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Galapagos petrel. In the 1980s, the
Galapagos petrel was reported to have declined as much as 81 percent in
4 years due primarily to predation by introduced predators. However, as
discussed above (see Factor C) there is some question regarding the
accuracy of the drastic decreases in Galapagos petrel numbers reported
in the 1980s (Wiedenfeld, in litt. 2008). According to BLI (2009a),
conservation efforts have slowed but not halted the population decline.
Regardless, the population is currently estimated to be between 10,000
and 19,999 birds with a decreasing population trend (BLI 2009a).
Threats to this species include predators such as rats, cats, and
goats, clearing for agriculture, and invasive plants such as Cinchona
pubescens (particularly on Santa Cruz island), Lantana sp.
(particularly on Floreana island), and Rubus niveus on Santa Cruz,
Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, and Isabela Islands. The Galapagos
petrel's breeding habitat is threatened by introduced species, by feral
mammals on the islands of Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz,
and southern Isabela by invasive plants on all islands within its
range; and by agricultural expansion (Factor A). 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 (Factor C). Collisions with communications and energy-related
transmission lines and structures by Galapagos petrels as they fly
between their nesting colonies and the ocean are a significant threat
to this species throughout its range (Factor E). Barbed wire fences are
reported to pose a threat to Galapagos petrels in agricultural lands on
the islands of Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern
Isabela (Factor E). In addition, we have determined that the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms to reduce or remove these threats is
a contributory factor to the risks that threaten this species'
continued existence (Factor D). These factors are likely to continue
into the foreseeable future.
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 (Factor E). 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 estimated
at 10,000 to fewer than 19,999 birds (BLI 2009). As a result, the
species does not currently appear to be in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. However, based on
the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that the
Galapagos petrel is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we have determined that the Galapagos petrel meets
the definition of a threatened species throughout all of its range
under the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that the Galapagos petrel is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range, we also considered whether there are any significant
portions of its range where the species is currently in danger of
extinction.
The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered
[[Page 244]]
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range''
is not defined by statute. For purposes of this finding, a significant
portion of a species' range is an area that is important to the
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
The first step in determining whether a species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range is to identify any portions of the
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and where
the species is not in danger of extinction. To identify those portions
that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is
substantial information indicating that (i) the portions may be
significant and (ii) the species may be in danger of extinction there.
In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species
are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to
warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the range that are unimportant to
the conservation of the species, such portions will not warrant further
consideration.
If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we
then determine whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered
in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of
the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more
efficient for the Service to address the significance question first,
or the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a
portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine
whether the species is threatened or endangered there. If the Service
determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a
portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is
significant. If the Service determines that both a portion of the range
of a species is significant and the species is threatened or endangered
there, the Service will specify that portion of the range where the
species is in danger of extinction pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the
Act.
The terms ``resiliency,'' ``redundancy,'' and ``representation''
are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of
the range. Resiliency of a species allows the species to recover from
periodic disturbance. A species will likely be more resilient if large
populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed
throughout the range of the species in such a way as to capture the
environmental variability found within the range of the species. In
addition, the portion may contribute to resiliency for other reasons--
for instance, it may contain an important concentration of certain
types of habitat that are necessary for the species to carry out its
life-history functions, such as breeding, feeding, migration,
dispersal, or wintering. Redundancy of populations may be needed to
provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic
events. This does not mean that any portion that provides redundancy is
a significant portion of the range of a species. The idea is to
conserve enough areas of the range such that random perturbations in
the system act on only a few populations. Therefore, each area must be
examined based on whether that area provides an increment of redundancy
is important to the conservation of the species. Adequate
representation ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are
conserved. Specifically, the portion should be evaluated to see how it
contributes to the genetic diversity of the species. The loss of
genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the
species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes. A
peripheral population may contribute meaningfully to representation if
there is evidence that it provides genetic diversity due to its
location on the margin of the species' habitat requirements.
To determine whether any portion of the range of the Galapagos
petrel warrants further consideration as possibly endangered, we
reviewed the supporting record for this final listing determination
with respect to the geographic concentration of threats and the
significance of portions of the range to the conservation of the
species. As previously mentioned, we evaluated whether substantial
information indicated that (i) the portions may be significant and (ii)
the species in that portion may be currently in danger of extinction.
We found that while the occurrence of some threats (e.g.,
agricultural expansion and the presence of goats and pigs on four of
the five islands (Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and
southern Isabela) on which the petrel breeds) is uneven across the
range of the Galapagos petrel, the best available information does not
indicate that these portions of the range of the Galapagos petrel
warrant further consideration as endangered. Although a recent paper by
Friesen et al. (2006) suggested that the loss of any island population
would result in a loss of genetic variability, the best available
information does not provide evidence of significantly higher threats
to a single population, it indicates that all populations generally
face equivalent threats. Friesen recommended that conservation of this
species should include preservation of viable breeding populations on
all five islands on which Galapagos petrels occur, to prevent the loss
of adaptive diversity. According to Friesen et al. (2006, p. 113), the
populations of Galapagos petrels on Floreana, Santa Cruz, and Santiago
Islands are genetically distinct. The authors recommended highest
conservation priority for these three populations to preserve the
maximum amount of genetic variability. The population on San
Crist[oacute]bal Island appears to represent a mixture of birds from
other islands and the birds on Isabela are genetically similar to birds
on Santiago Islands. These authors, however, did not specify whether
one or more island population(s) faced a significantly higher risk of
threats than any other population.
The best scientific and commercial data available regarding the
extent, location, and trend of agricultural expansion on Floreana, San
Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and southern Isabela Islands does not
reflect the current and historical trend of habitat loss due to
agricultural expansion on these islands. There is also no information
available regarding the extent, locations, and population trends of
feral goats and pigs on Floreana, San Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, and
southern Isabela Islands, and the historic and current trends of direct
impacts to Galapagos petrels and their habitat due to ungulate activity
on these islands. Essentially, no disproportionate threats were found
to the species on any of the islands. The best available data show that
there are no portions of the range in which the threats are so
concentrated as to place the species currently in danger of extinction.
As a result, while the best scientific and commercial data
available allows us to make a determination as to the rangewide status
of the Galapagos petrel, there is no available information that would
allow us to determine whether the population on Floreana, San
Crist[oacute]bal, Santa Cruz, or southern
[[Page 245]]
Isabela Islands faces a significantly higher risk of threats than any
other population, and thus whether one or more of these populations are
significant portions of the range in which the species is currently in
danger of extinction. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we
have determined threatened status for the Galapagos petrel throughout
all of its range under the Act.
II. Heinroth's Shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi)
Species Information
The Heinroth's shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi) is a small, dark
brown shearwater that is known from the Bismarck Archipelago and the
seas around Bougainville Island to the east of Papua New Guinea, and
the island of Kolombangara in the Solomon Islands, an independent
country (Buckingham et al. 1995, Coates 1985, 1990, as cited in BLI
2009b). The plumage of the species is often entirely sooty-brown except
for the narrow, silvery underwing bar and sometimes white bellies (BLI
2009b). The species was first taxonomically described by Reichenow in
1919 (Brooke 2004, as cited in BLI 2009b; Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993,
p. 327).
Habitat and Life History
Very little information is available on the Heinroth's shearwater
and its life history. The Bismarck Archipelago includes mostly volcanic
islands with rugged terrains and a total land area of 49,700 km\2\
(19,189 mi\2\) (CIA 2007). Kolombangara is in the New Georgia Islands
group of the Solomon Islands. It is almost perfectly round and about 9
mi (15 km) across (CIA 2007). Birds have been seen from inshore boat
journeys around the islands of Kolombangara and Bougainville, often in
mixed-species fishing flocks (BLI 2009b). The species is thought to be
a burrow-nester (Buckingham et al. 1995, as cited in BLI 2009b).
Range and Distribution
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 BLI 2000). BLI (2009b) estimates the range of the
Heinroth's shearwater to be 154,440 mi\2\ (400,000 km\2\). However, BLI
(2000, pp. 22, 27) defines ``range'' as the ``Extent of Occurrence, the
area contained with 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.''
Therefore, this reported range includes a large area of nonbreeding
habitat (i.e., the sea).
Population Estimates
The population for Heinroth's shearwater is estimated to be
approximately 250 to 999 individuals, with an unknown population trend
(BLI 2009b). The only suggestion of any decline is the absence of
recent records around Watom near New Britain (BLI 2009b), the largest
island in the Bismarck Archipelago of Papua New Guinea, where the
species had been recorded in the past.
Conservation Status
The IUCN categorizes this species as ``Vulnerable'' (BLI 2009b),
with an unknown population trend. The species is not listed on any
CITES Appendices (http://www.cites.org).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Heinroth's shearwater
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 conclude 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 the species'
breeding habitat and range and the species' nonbreeding habitat and
range.
BLI (2009b) estimates the breeding range of Heinroth's shearwater
to be 154,400 mi\2\ (400,000 km\2\); however, BLI (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 and 1990,
Gibbs 1996, Iles 1998, as cited in BLI 2000; Onley and Scofield 2007,
p. 215; P. Scofield, in litt. 1994 cited in BLI 2009b, unpaginated).
The species was originally known from a few historic specimens on
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 BLI 2000 and BLI 2009b, unpaginated). The conclusion
that the species 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 BLI 2000 and BLI 2009b,
unpaginated). It is also reasonable to conclude that breeding occurs on
Kolombangara Island, because up to nine birds were recorded recently
off this island where all timed records were in the afternoon or
evening, 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 BLI 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 (Ives 1998 as cited in BLI 2009b,
unpaginated). Since Procellariids occupy land only to breed, it is
reasonable to conclude that this bird was leaving its nest site.
Heinroth's shearwater is believed to be relatively sedentary (BLI
2009b, unpaginated) and may breed throughout the year (Onley and
Scofield 2007, p. 215). 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 BLI 2000 and BLI 2009b, unpaginated). The three
islands where this species is likely to breed are all mountainous,
volcanic islands in a wet tropical climate (BLI 2009b, unpaginated).
Bougainville Island is 3,598 mi\2\ (9,317.8 km\2\) in size (United
Nations System-Wide Earthwatch 1998a, unpaginated), is thickly
vegetated, and is rugged. There are extensive areas of undisturbed
lowland and montane
[[Page 246]]
rainforest. Most of the 175,160 people who live on this island travel
by foot or small boat, and live by subsistence agriculture and fishing
(Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2007a, unpaginated; United Nations
System-Wide Earthwatch 1998a, unpaginated; CIA 2007a, unpaginated).
Exploitation of Papua New Guinea's natural resources has been somewhat
hindered due to the islands' rugged terrain and the high cost of
developing infrastructure (CIA 2007a, unpaginated). It is however rich
in copper and gold (Bougainville Copper, Ltd 2009, unpaginated) and
surface mining occurred until 1989. A copper mine on the island was one
of the world's largest open pit mines, and caused environmental damage
due to tailings to the surrounding forest and river areas. Although the
mine is closed, there is likely to be pressure to mine natural
resources such as copper and gold in the future. On Bougainville
Island, we are unaware of any present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the Heinroth's shearwater's current
breeding habitat; however, as resources (timber or otherwise) decline
in other areas, the likelihood that the resources on Bougainville
Island will be sought increases. Therefore, due to the presence of
valuable resources such as copper and gold, based on the evidence
before us, we believe it is reasonable to anticipate that deforestation
and habitat destruction may be a threat in the foreseeable future.
On the islands of Kolombangara and Rendova, the forests, with land
areas of 265.6 mi\2\ (687.8 km\2\) and 158.8 mi\2\ (411.3 km\2\),
respectively, (United Nations System-Wide Earthwatch 1998b,c,
unpaginated), are threatened by deforestation at mid to low elevations
(Dutson, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). High-altitude forests are not
threatened by deforestation because logging is commercially unviable in
small-stature forests on steep slopes (Dutson, in litt. 2008,
unpaginated). Timber is the Solomon Islands' most important export
commodity. Unsustainable forestry practices, combined with clearing of
land for agricultural and grazing purposes and overexploitation of wood
products for use as fuel, results in the destruction of vast areas of
forest throughout the Solomon Islands (CIA 2007b, unpaginated). All the
lower slopes on Kolombangara Island have been logged except for one
1,640 ft (500 m) 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,
unpaginated). 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 BLI 2000 and BLI 2009b, unpaginated). By inference of
analogous species, high-elevation forests on the islands of
Kolombangara and Rendova are the likely breeding habitat of the
Heinroth's shearwater, although breeding sites have never been located.
While low and mid-elevation forests are being reduced through
deforestation, deforestation is not currently considered to be a threat
to the purported breeding habitat in forests at high elevations.
Therefore, based on the best available information, deforestation to
Heinroth's shearwater is not considered to be a threat to the species
now and in the foreseeable future.
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 BLI 2000).
Observations have also been reported in the seas around Bougainville
Island, including a flock of 250 birds (Coates 1985, 1990, as cited in
BLI 2000 and BLI 2009b, unpaginated). We are unaware of any present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of this species'
current sea habitat or range now and in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
On Kolombangara and Rendova Islands, although the low- to mid-
elevation forests are being reduced by deforestation, we do not believe
deforestation is a threat to the breeding habitat of Heinroth's
shearwater now and in the foreseeable future. However on Bougainville
Island, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of this species' breeding habitat is a
threat now and in the foreseeable future due to the presence of
valuable natural resources in the area where the species is believed to
nest. Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of this species' breeding habitat is a
threat to the species now and in the foreseeable future.
The Heinroth's shearwater's range at sea is poorly known. We are
unaware of any present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of this species' current sea habitat or range now or in the
foreseeable future.
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 used. Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to
the Heinroth's shearwater in any portion of its range now and in the
foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any disease concerns that may have led to the
decline of the Heinroth's shearwater.
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 BLI 2000 and BLI 2009b). Rats and feral cats contributed to drastic
declines to other species such as the Galapagos petrel (see the
discussion of Factor C for the Galapagos petrel), and introduced 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). Furthermore, the Heinroth's shearwater is believed to breed in
high, inaccessible mountains and rats have been observed at 2,953 ft
(900 m) on Kolombangara Island and consequently are believed to be a
threat to this burrow-nesting species (Buckingham et al. 1995, as cited
in BLI 2009b, unpaginated). In addition, pigs are reported to threaten
Heinroth's shearwater (Dutson, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). However, it
is unclear if pigs kill nestlings, juveniles, and adult birds by
digging up nests, or by degrading shearwater habitat through trampling
and rooting vegetation.
There have been no attempts to eradicate introduced predators from
these islands; such eradication would be difficult due to the permanent
human habitation on the islands and the customary ownership of the land
(Dutson, in litt. 2008, unpaginated). Even if the predators were
eradicated, there is still a high potential for rats and cats to be
transported to the islands in boats transporting humans or other
shipments.
Summary of Factor C
Although several diseases have been documented in other procellarid
species, disease has not been documented in the Heinroth's
[[Page 247]]
shearwater. While the species is at sea during the nonbreeding season,
we are unaware of any threats due to predation on Heinroth's
shearwaters. Therefore, we find that the disease does not affect the
continued existence of the species threaten the species throughout all
or a significant portion of its range now and in the foreseeable
future.
Because the threat of predation (primarily by introduced rats and
feral cats) has severely impacted other closely related procellarid
species, and there are records of these introduced predators on the
three islands where the Heinroth's shearwater is most likely to breed,
it is reasonable to assume that this species is similarly affected
while on its breeding grounds. Therefore, we find that predation is a
significant threat to this species throughout all of its range now and
in the foreseeable future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The regulatory mechanisms of Papua New Guinea (PNG) are complex in
some respects. In 1975, environmental issues were added to the
government's constitution under its National Goal and Directive
Principals. The Environmental Management for Sustainable Development
(EMSD) Program was established; however, as of 2001, there was a
shortage of government funding for the Program (Aka, 2001). The PNG
Constitution encourages ``traditional villages and communities to
remain as viable units of Papua New Guinean society'' (Pacific Islands
Legal Information Institute, 2006). In this same vein of governing, PNG
is essentially divided into autonomous regions which govern themselves.
Bougainville Island, on which Heinroth's shearwater is believed to
nest, is considered an autonomous region by PNG. Bougainville's
government was established in 2000; it has its own constitution and its
own president and house of representatives. Due to the structure of
PNG's governing mechanisms, PNG's resources are difficult to manage and
regulate through this autonomous governing system. Although PNG's
Forestry Act of 1991 states that the forests resources and environment
will be managed, developed, and protected in such a way as to conserve
and renew them as an asset for the succeeding generations, much of
PNG's land is logged, farmed for palm oil, and unsustainably managed.
Only in 2009 did Papua New Guinea create its first national
conservation area, the YUS Conservation Area, covering 76,000 ha
(187,000 ac) on the island of Papua New Guinea. The main conservation
efforts appear to predominantly be carried out by nongovernmental
organizations, such as the Research and Conservation Foundation of
Papua New Guinea, which works with the local communities to create
viable economic alternatives to unsustainable clear cutting and mining.
On Bougainville Island due to the lack of well-established
regulatory mechanisms governing land ownership, particularly with
respect to introduced predators, mining, and habitat loss due to
unsustainable timber harvest practices, no regulatory mechanisms are
known that reduce or remove threats to this species. Additionally, 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). The
lack of any regulatory mechanisms may be exacerbating the threats from
habitat loss (Factor A) and predation by introduced species (Factor C),
even though the species is suspected to nest in remote, forested areas.
Therefore, we find that the regulatory mechanisms in place are
inadequate to ameliorate the threats to the Heinroth's shearwater
throughout all of its range now and in the foreseeable future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
As previously mentioned, several commenters disputed our statement
in the proposed rule that long-line fisheries threaten all seabirds and
in particular, the Heinroth's shearwater. According to the U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and BirdLife International
(BLI 2009b), the seabirds killed in long-line fisheries are
predominantly albatrosses and some species of petrels (not Pterodroma
species). According to the commenters, fisheries by-catch has not been
identified as a key threat for this species (NZDOC 2008, pp. 2-3). The
characteristics of a seabird species vulnerable to long-line fishing
include being an aggressive seabird good at seizing prey or baited
hooks at the water's surface, or is a proficient diver and these
characteristics do not describe the Heinroth's shearwater. Therefore,
due to the absence of conclusive information regarding the threat of
long-line fishing on the Heinroth's shearwater, we find that this
factor does not affect the continued existence of the species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The population of the Heinroth's shearwater is estimated at 250 to
fewer than 1,000 individuals, which is considered to be small (BLI
2009b). Species with such small population sizes are at greater risk of
extinction. In general, the fewer the number of populations and the
smaller the size of each population, the higher the probability of
extinction (Franklin 1980, p. 7; Gilpin and Soule 1986, p. 12; Meffe
and Carroll 1996, pp. 218-219; Pimm et al. 1998, pp. 757-785; Raup
1991, pp. 124-127; Soule 1987, p. 5).
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, unpaginated). 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, unpaginated). 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 areas are associated with severe storms
that are common in this geographic region (World Meteorological
Organization 2004, unpaginated), 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 earthquakes, tremors, volcanic activity,
typhoons, tsunamis, and mudslides, this species does not have such
resiliency. Its small population size and restricted breeding range
puts the species at higher risk for experiencing the irreversible
adverse
[[Page 248]]
effects of random, naturally occurring events.
Summary of Factor E
While species with more extensive breeding ranges or higher
population numbers could recover from adverse random, naturally
occurring events such as volcanic eruptions or typhoons, the Heinroth's
shearwater does not have such resiliency. Its 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, its restricted breeding range, and
the likelihood of adverse random, naturally occurring events--to be a
significant threat to the species throughout all of its range now and
in the foreseeable future.
Conclusion and Determination for the Heinroth's Shearwater
We have carefully assessed the best available scientific and
commercial information regarding the past, present, and potential
future threats faced by the Heinroth's shearwater. We have determined
that the species is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The best available information indicates that the Heinroth's
shearwater is threatened by predation by introduced rats and feral cats
within the species' breeding range (Factor C). 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 these predators likely threaten the species
throughout its breeding range.
On Bougainville Island, although we are unaware of any present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the Heinroth's
shearwater's current breeding habitat (Factor A), due to the presence
of valuable resources such as copper and gold, based on the evidence
before us, we believe it is reasonable to anticipate that mining may be
a threat in the foreseeable future. The species' low population size of
250 to fewer than 1,000 individuals further increases this species'
risk of extinction. Its colonial nesting habits also makes the species
particularly vulnerable to the threat of catastrophic, naturally
occurring events (e.g., volcanic activities) that are known to
frequently occur in the species' breeding range (Factor E). In
addition, we have determined that the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms to reduce or remove these threats is a contributory factor
to the risks that threaten this species' continued existence (Factor
D). 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 throughout all of its range.
While the threats themselves may be different, the suite of threats
acting on the species and its habitats appear to be affecting the
species in a comparable manner. No disproportionate threats to the
species were found on any of the islands or areas where it is believed
to exist; the severity of the threats on each island appear to be
comparable. The best available data show that there are no portions of
the range in which the threats are so concentrated as to place the
species currently in danger of extinction. 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 determine threatened status for the
Heinroth's shearwater because it is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Therefore, based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, we find that the Heinroth's shearwater is
threatened throughout its range.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
Having determined that the Heinroth's shearwater is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we also considered whether there are any significant
portions of its range where the species is currently in danger of
extinction. See our discussion above for the Galapagos petrel regarding
how we make this determination.
To determine whether any portion of the range of the Heinroth's
shearwater warrants further consideration as possibly endangered, we
reviewed the supporting record for this listing determination with
respect to the geographic concentration of threats acting on the
species and the significance of portions of the range to the
conservation of the species. As previously mentioned, we evaluated
whether the best scientific and commercial information available
indicated that (i) portions may be significant and (ii) the species in
that portion may be currently in danger of extinction. The Heinroth's
shearwater is found on three small, neighboring islands. Heinroth's
shearwater is thought to occur in remaining natural forests in the more
remote regions of these islands, and as a consequence very limited
information is available on the status of the species on these islands.
The status of the species is essentially unknown other than the
observations indicated above. Under our five-factor analysis above, we
determined that Heinroth's shearwater is a threatened species
throughout its entire range.
While the best scientific and commercial data available allows us
to make a determination as to the range wide status of the Heinroth's
shearwater, the available information does not suggest that the
populations on Bougainville, Kolombangara, or Rendova Islands face a
significantly higher risk of threats than any other population, or that
one or more of these populations is currently in danger of extinction.
Following a review of the threats acting on the species and the
geographic scope of these threats, we found that the threats such as
predation, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, small population size,
restricted breeding range, and the likelihood of adverse, random,
naturally occurring events affect the species consistently and
relatively equitably throughout its range. Therefore, following a
review of the Solicitor's Opinion on Significant Portion of the Range
and recommendations on how to implement the Opinion, we have determined
that because the data do not indicate that any portion of the range of
the Heinroth's shearwater is disproportionately threatened, no portion
warrants further consideration as a significant portion of the species.
In conclusion, although we do not believe that the species is
currently in danger of extinction now, we believe it is likely that it
will become endangered throughout its range in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we determine that the
Heinroth's shearwater meets the definition of a threatened species
throughout all of its range under the Act.
[[Page 249]]
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 Galapagos petrel and Heinroth's shearwater are
not native to the United States, we are not designating critical
habitat in this final 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 Galapagos petrel, and Heinroth's shearwater. These prohibitions,
under 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, collect, 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 for threatened species are
codified at 50 CFR 17.32.
Required Determinations
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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations adopted under 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).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Branch of Listing, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the
Branch of Listing, Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding new entries for ``Petrel, Galapagos''
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 When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Petrel, Galapagos.................... Pterodroma phaeopygia... Pacific Ocean--Ecuador Entire T 766 NA NA
(Galapagos Islands).
* * * * * * *
Shearwater, Heinroth's............... Puffinus heinrothi...... Pacific Ocean--Papua Entire T 766 NA NA
New Guinea
(Bougainville Island),
Solomon Islands (Kolom-
bangara and Rendova).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 250]]
* * * * *
Dated: December 28, 2009.
Robyn Thorson,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-31308 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P