71298 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

approval is set forth in the direct final seeks data and comments from the recent release efforts, on Pitt Island rule. If no relevant adverse comments public on this proposal. (BirdLife International News 2006) are received in response to this action, DATES: We must receive comments and within the Chatham Islands. The no further activity is contemplated in information from all interested parties population of this species is very small, relation to this action. If EPA receives by March 17, 2008. Public hearing estimated at 800–1,000 birds based on relevant adverse comments, the direct requests must be received by January 31, recent research and banding studies final rule will be withdrawn and all 2008. (Taylor 2000), and is showing a public comments received will be ADDRESSES: You may submit comments decreasing population trend (BirdLife addressed in a subsequent final rule by one of the following methods: International 2007a). It is estimated that based on this proposed action. EPA will • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// fewer than 200 pairs breed per year not institute a second comment period www.regulations.gov. Follow the (NZDOC 2001b). The IUCN considers on this action. Any parties interested in instructions for submitting comments. the Chatham petrel to be ‘‘Critically commenting on this action should do so • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Endangered’’ (BirdLife International at this time. Please note that if EPA Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– 2006a). receives adverse comment on part of AV21; Division of Policy and Directives Banding studies have shown that this rule and if that part can be severed Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife young birds of this species remain at sea from the remainder of the rule, EPA may Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite for at least two years before returning to adopt as final those parts of the rule that 222; Arlington, VA 22203. land to breed and nest. Based on limited are not the subject of an adverse We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We feeding habits data, the species preys on comment. For additional information, will post all comments on http:// squid and small fish (Heather and see the direct final rule that is located www.regulations.gov. This generally Robertson 1997, as cited in BirdLife in the rules section of this Federal means that we will post any personal International 2000). Register. information you provide us (see the Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi) Public Comments section below for Dated: November 29, 2007. Synonyms for the Fiji petrel include more information). William Rice, Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi and Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thalassidroma macgillivrayi. Very little [FR Doc. E7–24233 Filed 12–14–07; 8:45 am] Mary M. Cogliano, PhD, Division of information is available on the Fiji Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P petrel and its life history. There have Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, only been 12 substantiated sightings of Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; this species on land since 1965, and a telephone 703–358–1708; fax, 703–358– DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR total of 13 historically. These sightings 2276; or e-mail, have all been on Gau Island (BirdLife [email protected]. Fish and Wildlife Service International 2000), a 52.55-square mile SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (136.1 km2) island in Fiji’s Lomaiviti archipelago (Wikipedia 2007f). The 50 CFR Part 17 Background population of this species is very small, [96100–1671–0000–W4] In this proposed rule, we propose to estimated at less than 50 birds and is list three foreign seabird species as RIN 1018–AV21 showing a decreasing population trend endangered, pursuant to the Act (16 (BirdLife International 2007c). The Endangered and Threatened Wildlife U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). These species are: IUCN classifies the Fiji petrel as and Plants; Proposed Rule To List Six the Chatham petrel (Pterodroma ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ (BirdLife Foreign Bird Species Under the axillaris), Fiji petrel (Pterodroma International 2006c). Endangered Species Act macgillivrayi), and magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae). We also Magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the Cook’s petrel The magenta petrel, or Taiko as it is Interior. (Pterodroma cookii), Galapagos petrel known locally, is native to Chatham ACTION: Proposed rule. (Pterodroma phaeopygia), and Island, New Zealand (BirdLife Heinroth’s shearwater (Puffinus International 2000), the largest island in SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and heinrothi) as threatened species under the Chatham Islands chain, covering 348 Wildlife Service (Service), propose to the Act. All species are considered square miles (900 km2, Wikipedia list three petrel species (order pelagic, occurring on the open sea 2007b). Based on fossil evidence and Procellariiformes), the Chatham petrel generally out of sight of land, where historical records, it is believed that the (Pterodroma axillaris), previously they feed year round. They return to magenta petrel was once the most referred to as (Pterodroma hypoleuca nesting sites on islands during the abundant burrowing seabird on axillaris); Fiji petrel (Pterodroma breeding season where they nest in Chatham Island (Bourne 1964, Sutton macgillivrayi); and the magenta petrel colonies (Pettingill 1970, p. 206). and Marshall 1977, as cited in NZDOC (Pterodroma magentae) as endangered, 2001a). It has been reported that prior to pursuant to the Endangered Species Act Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris) 1900, indigenous Moriori and Maori of 1973, as amended (Act). In addition, The Chatham petrel is also known by harvested thousands of petrel chicks for we propose to list the Cook’s petrel its Maori name, ranguru. Fossil food (Crockett 1994). The limited (Pterodroma cookii); Galapagos petrel evidence indicates that this species was feeding habits data show that the (Pterodroma phaeopygia), previously once widespread throughout the magenta petrel preys on squid (Heather referred to as (Pterodroma phaeopygia Chatham Islands of New Zealand [New and Robertson 1997, as cited in BirdLife phaeopygia); and the Heinroth’s Zealand Department of Conservation International 2000). shearwater (Puffinus heinrothi) as (NZDOC) 2001b]. However, the species The type specimen for the magenta threatened under the Act. This proposal, is currently only known to breed on petrel was first collected at sea in 1867, if made final, would extend the Act’s South East Island (Rangatira) (BirdLife and after 10 years of intensive searching protection to these species. The Service International 2007a) and, as a result of the species was re-discovered in 1978 in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71299

the southeast corner of Chatham Island BirdLife International 2000). This priority listing actions, then the petition (Crockett 1994). Since then, additional species feeds mostly on squid, fish, and to list that species is treated as if it is searches have resulted in the location crustaceans (Castro and Phillips 1996, a petition that is resubmitted on the date and banding of 92 birds (BirdLife as cited in BirdLife International 2000), of the finding and is, therefore, subject International 2007d). The IUCN and has been observed foraging near the to a new 12-month finding within one considers this species as ‘‘Critically Galapagos Islands, as well as east and year. The Service publishes an Annual Endangered’’ (BirdLife International north of the islands (Spear, et al. 1995). Notice of Resubmitted Petition Findings 2006d). The magenta petrel population The IUCN classifies the Galapagos (annual notice) for all foreign species for is estimated at 120 individuals with a petrel as ‘‘Critically Endangered’’ which listings were previously found to decreasing trend (BirdLife International (BirdLife International 2006e). The total be warranted but precluded. 2007d). population is estimated to be 20,000– On November 24, 1980, we received 60,000 birds with a decreasing a petition (1980 petition) from Dr. Cook’s petrel (Pterodroma cookii) population trend (BirdLife International Warren B. King, Chairman, United Cook’s petrel is endemic to the New 2007e). States Section of the International Zealand archipelago (del Hoyo, et al. Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), to Heinroth’s shearwater (Puffinus 1992), which comprises two main add 79 native and foreign bird species heinrothi) islands, the North and South Islands, to the list of Threatened and and numerous smaller islands. The total Very little information is available on Endangered Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11). land area of the archipelago covers the Heinroth’s shearwater and its life The species covered by the 1980 103,700 square miles (268,680 km2, history. The species’ nesting grounds petition comprised 19 native species Wikipedia 2007i). Historically, Cook’s have not been located, but observations and 60 foreign species, including the six petrels were harvested in large numbers of the species indicate that the species seabird species of the family as a food source by native Moriori breeds on Bougainville Island in Papua Procellariidae that are the subject of this (Oliver 1955). New Guinea, and Kolombangara and proposed rule. In response to the 1980 Although the Cook’s petrel was once Rendova Islands in the Solomon Islands petition, we published a notice to considered a dominant species on these (Buckingham, et al. 1995, Coates 1985, announce a positive 90-day finding on islands, the species’ breeding and 1990, as cited in BirdLife International May 12, 1981 (46 FR 26464) for 77 nesting activities are now restricted to 2000). species, as two of the foreign species islands at the northern and southern The IUCN categorizes this species as identified were already listed under the limits of its former breeding range, ‘‘Vulnerable’’ (BirdLife International Act. On January 20, 1984, we published including Great Barrier (Aotea), Little 2006f). The population is estimated at a 12-month finding within an annual Barrier (Hauturu), and Codfish (Whenua 250–999 birds, with an unknown review on pending petitions and Hou) Islands (del Hoyo, et al. 1992). The population trend; however, there is no description of progress on all ESA species’ diet consists primarily of substantial evidence of a decline listing amendments (49 FR 2485). In this cephalopods, fish, crustaceans, and (BirdLife International 2007f). notice, we found that listing all 58 bioluminescent tunicates that can be Previous Federal Action foreign bird species on the 1980 petition hunted at night (Imber 1996). was warranted but precluded by higher- The IUCN classifies this species as Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires priority listing actions, however, the ‘‘Endangered’’ (BirdLife International the Service to make a finding known as species were not listed by name. On 2006b). Although the population on a ‘‘90-day finding’’ on whether a May 10, 1985, we published the first Little Barrier Island was thought to be petition to add, remove, or reclassify a annual notice (50 FR 19761) in which about 50,000 pairs (BirdLife species from the list of endangered or we continued to find that listing all 58 International 2007b), using GIS threatened species has presented foreign bird species on the 1980 petition (Geographic Information System) substantial information indicating that was warranted but precluded by higher- technology, Rayner, et al. (2007b) the requested action may be warranted. priority listing actions. In our next determined that the population is To the maximum extent practicable, the annual notice (51 FR 996), published on around 286,000 pairs. In 2006, the Great finding shall be made within 90 days January 9, 1986, we found that listing 54 Barrier Island population was following receipt of the petition and species from the 1980 petition, considered to be in danger of extirpation published promptly in the Federal including the six species that are the because only four nest burrows had Register. If the Service finds that the subject of this proposed rule, continued been located in recent years, and it was petition has presented substantial to be warranted but precluded by estimated that fewer than 20 pairs information indicating that the higher-priority listing actions, whereas continued to breed on the island. requested action may be warranted new information caused us to find that However, the populations on Little (referred to as a positive finding), listing the four remaining species was Barrier and Codfish islands are likely to Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires the no longer warranted. We published be increasing (BirdLife International Service to commence a status review of additional annual notices of findings on 2007b). the species if one has not already been July 7, 1988 (53 FR 25511), December initiated under the Service’s internal 29, 1988 (53 FR 52746), April 25, 1990 Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma candidate assessment process. In (55 FR 17475), November 21, 1991 (56 phaeopygia) addition, Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act FR 58664), and May 21, 2004 (69 FR The Galapagos petrel is endemic to requires the Service to make a finding 29354). In addition, on September 28, the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador (BirdLife within 12 months following receipt of 1990, we published a final rule (55 FR International 2000), and is currently the petition on whether the requested 39858) to list six species from the 1980 known to occur on the archipelago’s action is warranted, not warranted, or petition to the List of Threatened and islands of Santa Cruz, Floreana, warranted but precluded by higher- Endangered Wildlife. Santiago, San Cristo´bal, and Isabela, priority listing actions (this finding is Per the Service’s listing priority which cover a total land area of 2,680 referred to as the ‘‘12-month finding’’). guidelines that were published on square miles (6,942 km2, Cruz and Cruz If the listing of a species is found to be September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), in 1987; Vargas and Cruz 2000, as cited in warranted but precluded by higher- our April 23, 2007, Annual Notice on

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71300 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

Resubmitted Petition Findings for Because this reported range includes a near South East Island, and has been Foreign Species (72 FR 20184), we large area of non-breeding habitat (i.e., recorded once 12 km (7.5 mi) south of determined that listing the six seabird the sea), our analysis of Factor A with the island (West 1994). It is believed species of family Procellariidae was respect to the Chatham petrel’s breeding that the species migrates to the North warranted. The six species were range focuses on the islands where the Pacific Ocean in the non-breeding selected from the list of warranted but species is known to breed. season, based on the habits of closely precluded species for two reasons. First, The Chatham petrel breeds primarily related species; however, no sightings this family grouping includes more high on one island (BirdLife International have been recorded in the Northern priority species than any other 2000; NZDOC 2001b), the 0.84 square Hemisphere (Taylor 2000). We are taxonomic family group in our list of mile (2.18 km2, Wikipedia 2007k) South unaware of any present or threatened warranted but precluded species; and, East Island in the Chatham Islands destruction, modification, or second, because of the significance and (BirdLife International 2000; NZDOC curtailment of this species’ current sea similarity of the threats to the species. 2001b). In 2002, the NZDOC began habitat or range. efforts to expand the species’ breeding Combining taxonomically related B. Overutilization for Commercial, species that face similar threats into one range by releasing chicks onto Pitt Island, an island approximately 2.5 km Recreational, Scientific, or Educational proposed rule allows us to maximize Purposes our limited staff resources and thus (1.55 mi) northwest of South East increases our ability to complete the Island. Over a four-year time period, 200 We are unaware of any commercial, listing process for warranted-but- chicks were transferred to the 40 ha recreational, scientific, or educational precluded species. (98.8 acre) Ellen Elizabeth Preece purpose for which the Chatham petrel is Conservation Covenant (Caravan Bush), currently being utilized. Summary of Factors Affecting the a fenced, predator-free enclosure on Pitt C. Disease or Predation Species Island. As of 2006, four adult birds had Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. returned to the island from the sea to The Chatham petrel’s breeding range 1533 (a)(1)) and regulations breed, and in June, 2006, a pair was reduced extensively following the promulgated to implement the listing successfully reared a chick. This arrival of European explorers, largely provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) represents the first time in more than a due to predation by introduced species set forth the procedures for adding century that a Chatham petrel chick has such as rats (Rattus spp.), feral cats species to the Federal lists of fledged on Pitt Island (BirdLife (Felis catus), and weka (Gallirallus endangered and threatened wildlife and International News 2006). australis), an introduced bird (Heather plants. A species may be determined to The Chatham petrel breeds on coastal and Robertson 1997, as cited in BirdLife be an endangered or threatened species lowlands and slopes in habitats with International 2000; NZDOC 2001b; due to one or more of the five factors low forest, bracken, or rank grass (del Taylor 2000). Although no introduced described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Hoyo, et al. 1992). It nests in burrows predators are currently present on South These factors and their application to on flat to moderately sloping ground East Island, there is an ongoing risk that the Chatham petrel, Cook’s petrel, Fiji among low vegetation and roots predators will be introduced to the petrel, Galapagos petrel, magenta petrel, (Marchant and Higgins 1990, as cited in island by boats transporting and Heinroth’s shearwater follow. BirdLife International 2000). Since the conservation and research staff to the arrival of European explorers, this island. Given this risk, combined with Chatham petrel (Pterodroma axillaris) breeding habitat has contracted the devastating impact introduced A. The Present or Threatened extensively, largely as a result of its predators had on Chatham petrel Destruction, Modification, or conversion to agricultural purposes populations historically, we find that Curtailment of the Habitat or Range (NZDOC 2001b; Tennyson and Millener predation by introduced species is a 1994). threat to the Chatham petrel on South The range of this species changes We are not aware of any present or East Island, the species’ primary intra-annually based on an established threatened destruction or modification breeding location. breeding cycle. During the breeding of the Chatham petrel’s habitat on South On Pitt Island, Chatham petrel chicks season (November to June) (NZDOC East Island. This island is currently un- were released within a 40 ha (98.8 acre) 2001b), breeding birds return to inhabited by humans (Wikipedia fenced, predator-free breeding habitat. breeding colonies to breed and nest. 2007k), and since 1954, it has been Although this area is fenced, and the During the non-breeding season, birds managed as a reserve for the Chatham threat of predation on nesting Chatham migrate far from their breeding range petrel. Access to this island is restricted petrels is reduced, introduced predators, where they remain at sea until returning by permit. In addition, since 1961, all such as feral cats and weka, are present to breed. Therefore, our analysis of livestock has been removed from the on this island (BirdLife International Factor A is separated into analyses of: island, allowing the natural vegetation News 2002) and could potentially get (1) The species’ breeding habitat and to regenerate (Nilsson, et al. 1994). The inside the fenced area or prey on range, and (2) the species’ non-breeding Chatham petrel’s fenced, 40 ha (98.8 Chatham petrels that leave the fenced habitat and range. acre) release area on Pitt Island is area. Therefore, we find that predation BirdLife International (2007a) protected by a conservation covenant, by introduced species is a threat to the estimates the range of the Chatham and we are unaware of any present or Chatham petrel on Pitt Island. petrel to be 436,000 km2 (168,300 mi2); threatened destruction or modification We are unaware of any threats due to however, BirdLife International (2000) of any of the species’ habitat on Pitt predation on Chatham petrels during defines ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘Extent of Island. Therefore, we find that the the non-breeding season while the Occurrence, the area contained within present or threatened destruction or species is at sea. the shortest continuous imaginary modification of the species’ breeding The information available suggests boundary which can be drawn to habitat is not a threat to the species. that petrels in general are susceptible to encompass all the known, inferred, or The Chatham petrel’s range at sea is a variety of diseases and parasites, projected sites of present occurrence of poorly known; the species has been particularly during the breeding season, a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ recorded on several occasions at sea when large numbers of seabirds

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71301

congregate in relatively small areas to petrel is nest burrow competition The Chatham petrel’s restricted breed and nest (BirdLife International between this species and the more breeding range combined with its 2007a; Carlile, et al. 2003). However, abundant broad-billed prion, which colonial nesting habits and small there are no documented records of numbers around 300,000 individuals. population size of 800–1,000 birds diseases impacting the persistence of The prion not only occupies potential (Taylor 2000) makes the species the Chatham petrel. Therefore, we find Chatham petrel burrows, but has been particularly vulnerable to the threat of that the threat of diseases is not a observed actively evicting or lethally adverse random, naturally occurring significant threat to this species. attacking eggs, nestlings, and events (e.g., cyclones, fire) that destroy occasionally adults of the Chatham breeding individuals and their breeding D. The Inadequacy of Existing petrel. Such competition has resulted in habitat. Fire is a high risk in the Regulatory Mechanisms a high rate of pair bond disruption and Chatham Islands because the climate is The Chatham petrel is protected from a low rate of breeding success in very dry during the summer, and the disturbance and harvest under New Chatham petrels, despite the high vegetation becomes tinder dry. If fires Zealand’s Wildlife Act of 1953 and its percentage of egg-fertility (BirdLife do occur, the remoteness of the islands Reserves Act of 1977. The petrel is International 2000; NZDOC 2001b). renders the fires unlikely to be designated as a Category A species by To reduce the threat posed by exterminated by human intervention. the NZDOC, which signifies the species competition with the broad-billed prion Burrow-nesting species such as the is of the highest priority for on South East Island, the NZDOC has Chatham petrel are at a high risk conservation management (Molloy and implemented nest site protection efforts because they are likely to suffocate from Davis 1999). As such, the NZDOC for the Chatham petrel, including smoke inhalation or to be lethally developed a ten-year recovery plan for placement of artificial nest sites and the burned inside or while attempting to the Chatham petrel in 2001, with the blockage of burrows to prevent escape from their burrows (Taylor goals of protecting the species’ breeding occupation by the broad-billed prion 2000). burrows on South East Island from the (NZDOC 2001b). During the 2005–2006 Another natural disaster, severe broad-billed prion (Pachyptila vittata) breeding season, out of 155 known storms, has impacted New Zealand (see Factor E below) and establishing a breeding pairs, 83 percent of the pairs historically, and so the likelihood of reintroduced population elsewhere successfully fledged one chick per pair future impacts of storms is high. A within the species’ historic breeding (Wikipedia 2007d). Although these severe storm in 1985 stripped two range (NZDOC 2001b). A measure of the actions are improving the petrel’s islands in the Chatham Islands chain success of this recovery plan is the breeding success (NZDOC 2001b; Taylor bare of vegetation and soil cover, successful establishment of breeding 1999, as cited in BirdLife International causing high increases in egg mortality individuals on Pitt Island (see Factor A 2000), only a small proportion of of nesting albatrosses (Taylor 2000). above) in 2006, thereby increasing the breeding burrows occupied by Chatham Considered the worst recorded cyclone breeding range of the species. These petrels have been located and, therefore, in New Zealand’s history, Cyclone efforts are beginning to show some protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in Giselle hit New Zealand April 10, 1968, success (see Factor E below), but it is BirdLife International 2000). Therefore, with wind speeds of 275 km/h too early to know the level of success, we consider nest burrow competition (Wikipedia 2007). Although we are because it can take fledged seabirds between this species and the broad- unaware of the impact of this cyclone years to return to their breeding colony billed prion to be a significant threat to on the Chatham petrel’s population to breed and nest (Taylor 2000). the Chatham petrel. numbers or breeding habitat, the Similarly, protection of Chatham petrel The Chatham petrel’s restricted severity of the wind or waves created by burrows has reduced the population breeding range puts the species at a such a storm has potential to impacts resulting from competition with greater risk of extinction. Breeding significantly damage Chatham petrel the broad-billed prion (see Factor E colonies were once widespread burrows. These burrows are particularly below), however, this threat remains the throughout the Chatham Islands vulnerable because they are located on greatest threat to the species. (NZDOC 2001b), a group of about 10 coastal lowlands (del Hoyo, et al. 1992), New Zealand ratified the Agreement islands within a 24.85 mile [40- and they are extremely fragile, occurring on the Conservation of Albatrosses and kilometer (km)] radius covering a total in soft soils (Taylor 2000). Petrels (ACAP) in November 2001, land area of 373 square miles (966 km2, While species with more extensive which is designed to reduce impacts of Wikipedia 2007c). Currently, however, breeding ranges or higher population fishing operations on populations of breeding of this species is restricted to numbers could recover from adverse Procellariids (ACAP 2001), however the South East Island (BirdLife International random, naturally occurring events such Chatham petrel is not listed in Annex 1 2007a) and, as a result of recent release as fire or storms, the Chatham petrel to this Agreement and, therefore, is not efforts, Pitt Island (BirdLife does not have such resiliency. Its very protected under this Agreement. International News 2006), a total land small population size and restricted Therefore, implementation of this area of less than 1 mi2 (Wikipedia breeding range puts the species at Agreement has not reduced the threat of 2007j,k). This habitat area is insufficient higher risk for experiencing the incidental take of this species in long- for the long-term survival of the irreversible adverse effects of random, line fisheries (see Factor E below). Chatham petrel, particularly since naturally occurring events. Therefore, Therefore we find that existing breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on we find that the combination of regulatory protections have not South East Island, the primary breeding factors—the species’ small population significantly reduced or removed the area of this species, face the pervasive size, restricted breeding range, and threats to the Chatham petrel. threat of nest-site competition with the likelihood of adverse random, naturally broad-billed prion. It is estimated that occurring events—to be a significant E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors the self-sustainability of the breeding threat to the species. Affecting the Continued Existence of the population on Pitt Island as a result of We are unaware of any documented Species the release program will take longer cases of incidental take of Chatham Based on the information available, than four more years to achieve (NZDOC petrels by commercial long-line fishing the predominant threat to the Chatham 2001b). operations or entanglement in marine

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71302 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

debris; however, it is generally habits makes the species particularly be 154,000 km2 (59,460 mi2); however, recognized that all seabirds are at high vulnerable to the threat of random, BirdLife International (2000) defines risk of injury or mortality when they naturally occurring events. These ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘Extent of Occurrence, attempt to take bait from long-line catastrophic events, such as cyclones the area contained within the shortest fishing gear. The lack of data on these and fire, are known to occur in New continuous imaginary boundary which impacts could be a result of the species’ Zealand and have the potential to can be drawn to encompass all the low population number. Dr. Michael destroy breeding individuals and their known, inferred, or projected sites of Rands, Director and Chief Executive of breeding habitat. present occurrence of a species, BirdLife International, has reported that The threats within the species’ excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ Because the number of seabirds killed in long- breeding range are compounded by the this reported range includes a large area line fishery operations continues to threat posed by long-line fishing in the of non-breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), increase, and the long-line fishery, species’ non-breeding range. Although our analysis of Factor A with respect to especially operations by unlicensed New Zealand implements measures to the Fiji petrel’s breeding range focuses ‘‘pirate’’ vessels, is the single greatest protect other seabird species from this on the island where the species breeds. threat to all seabirds [Australian threat under the Agreement on the Although the nesting area of this Antarctic Division (AAD) 2007; BirdLife Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, species has not been located (Priddel, et International News 2003]. Therefore, we the Chatham petrel is not currently al. draft), the information available consider the incidental take of Chatham offered protection by this Agreement. indicates that the species breeds on Gau petrels by commercial long-line fishing We are unaware of any documentation Island, Fiji, where the few recorded operations to be a significant threat to on the level of Chatham petrel mortality sightings of this species on land have the species. caused by long-line fisheries; however, occurred (Priddel, et al. draft; RARE Conservation 2006a; Watling and Conclusion the number of seabirds killed in long- line fishery operations continues to Lewanavanua 1985). The species was Predation by introduced species is an increase, and the long-line fishery, originally known from just one ongoing threat to the Chatham petrel, especially operations by unlicensed specimen collected in 1855 on Gau which historically reduced the species’ ‘‘pirate’’ vessels, is the single greatest Island. There were no additional population numbers. Nest burrow threat to all seabirds (AAD 2007; confirmed sightings of the species until competition between the Chatham BirdLife International News 2003). 1984 when an extensive, 16-month petrel and the more abundant broad- Therefore, the magnitude of this threat search on Gau Island revealed one billed prion is a current, on-going threat to the species in its non-breeding range additional sighting. The researchers to the Chatham petrel that is of high is significant. Because the survival of used spotlights and recorded collared magnitude that has not been controlled this species is dependent on recruitment petrel calls in an attempt to attract by human intervention. The broad- of chicks from its breeding range, the petrels to the highlands area where the billed prion occupies Chatham petrel severity of threats to the Chatham petrel researchers were searching. On the first burrows, actively evicting or lethally within its breeding range puts the night of spotlighting, a single Fiji petrel attacking eggs, nestlings, and species in danger of extinction flew into the researchers’ light. No occasionally adults of the Chatham throughout its range. Therefore, we find additional birds were found on this petrel, and as a result is reducing the the Chatham petrel to be in danger of search expedition (Watling 1986; Chatham petrel’s population which is extinction throughout all of its range. Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). There already very small, estimated at 800– Because we find that the Chatham petrel have been an additional 16 reported 1000 individuals. Although the NZDOC is endangered throughout all of its sightings of this species on land, all on has been actively working to protect range, there is no reason to consider its Gau Island, and ten additional sightings Chatham petrel nest sites from the status in a significant portion of its at sea, however, many of these reports broad-billed prion, only a small range. have not been substantiated (Priddel, et proportion of Chatham petrel breeding al. draft). In 2007, Priddell, et al. (draft) burrows have been located and Fiji petrel (Pterodroma macgillivrayi) summarized all these records, protected (Taylor 1999, as cited in specifying which records were credible. A. The Present or Threatened BirdLife International 2000). This threat The researchers determined that of the Destruction, Modification, or is magnified by the fact that the 17 recorded sightings on land between Curtailment of the Habitat or Range impacted area is the Chatham petrel’s 1965 and 2007, 12 were highly credible primary breeding location, and the Although little is known about the Fiji based on researchers’ identification of breeding area is extremely small, less petrel and its life history, based on dead specimens, photographs of than 1 mi2 in size. The only other general information common to all other specimens, or live specimens. In location where the species has been Procellariid species, we know that the addition to the sightings on land, there documented to breed is the 40 ha (98.8 range of the Fiji petrel changes intra- have been ten sightings at sea, all since acre) enclosed area on Pitt Island where annually based on an established 1960. However, none of these reports Chatham Petrels were reintroduced. It is breeding cycle. During the breeding have been substantiated. Based on currently uncertain whether the species season, breeding birds return to researcher observation or detailed will maintain this portion of its range as breeding colonies to breed and nest. descriptions, three of these reports are a breeding area; as of 2006, only one During the non-breeding season, birds considered by Priddel, et al. (draft) to be pair breeding in this area had migrate far from their breeding range credible. successfully reared a chick. where they remain at sea until returning We consider the evidence sufficient to Once a population is reduced below to breed. Therefore, our analysis of conclude that the Fiji petrel breeds on a certain number of individuals, it tends Factor A is separated into analyses of: Gau Island because: (1) all 12 to rapidly decline towards extinction (1) The species’ breeding habitat and substantiated sightings of the species on (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and Soule 1986; range, and (2) the species’ non-breeding land have been on Gau Island; (2) Soule 1987). The Chatham petrel’s small habitat and range. Procellariids return to land only for population, combined with its restricted BirdLife International (2007c) breeding purposes, and (3) the original breeding range and colonial nesting estimates the range of the Fiji petrel to specimen of this species collected in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71303

1855 was determined to be an immature Vanuaso Tikina district, as there is feral cats and Pacific and brown rats (R. bird, based on its feathers and skull interest in incorporating the same norvegicus) into the Fiji petrel’s morphology (Bourne 1981, as cited in sustainable-use practices in the other breeding habitat (Watling 2000, as cited Priddel, et al. draft; Imber 1985b; villages on Gau Island (Veitayaki 2006). in BirdLife International 2000). Priddel, et al. draft); so it is reasonable In 2003, the World Resources Institute The remains of collared petrels have to believe that its nest was in the (WRI) reported that less than 1% (.88%) been found in feral cat scats and killings vicinity. of Fiji’s total land area is protected to in the highland forests of Gau Island, Based on the locations of Fiji petrel such an extent that it is preserved in its where the Fiji petrel is also believed to sightings on Gau Island, the species’ natural condition (Earth Trends 2003a). breed. It is suggested that the collared breeding habitat is most likely to be Gau Island, however, is relatively petrel nests successfully despite this undisturbed mature forest on rocky, pristine compared to most areas of Fiji predation threat because its mountainous ground within the island’s due to the semi-subsistence lifestyle synchronized nesting during the first cloud forest highlands (del Hoyo, et al. (Veitayaki 2006). The Fiji people show half of the year swamps cat predation. 1992; RARE Conservation 2006a). Based great pride in the Fiji petrel, making it The collection of a first-flight young of on the nesting habits of other colonial the emblem of the national airline (Air the Fiji petrel on Gau Island in the seabirds, it has been suggested that Fiji Fiji) and presenting it on the Fijian month of October, however, indicates petrels nest in close proximity to Fifty-dollar banknote (Priddel, et al. that this species has a more extended or collared petrels (Pterodroma draft). Legislation has been drafted to later breeding season, putting this more leucoptera), which nest on the ground protect the Fiji petrel’s habitat on Gau sparsely populated species at greater in this rugged terrain of interior Gau Island, once nesting colonies have been risk of predation (Watling 1986). Cats Island (Watling and Lewanavanua located (RARE Conservation 2006a) (see and rats are known to have caused many 1985). Factor D, below). Because Gau Island’s local extirpations of other petrel species In 1985, it was estimated that over 27 upland forest habitat, where the species (Moors and Atkinson 1984, as cited in square miles (70 km2) of forest habitat is most likely to breed, remains in a Priddel, et al. draft). According to up to 2,346 feet (715 meters) in pristine condition and does not appear Priddel, et al. (draft) there do not appear elevation is potentially suitable for to be threatened with destruction or to be any inaccessible cliffs or breeding and nesting of Fiji petrels on modification, we find that the present or mountainous ledges where Fiji petrels Gau Island (Watling and Lewanavanua threatened destruction, modification, or could nest out of the reach of cats or 1985). Unlike the lowlands of Gau curtailment of this species’ breeding rats. Island which have been cleared to a habitat or range is not a threat to the A feral pig (Sus scrofa) population has large extent for settlement, agriculture, species. recently established in southern areas of and forest plantations, the upland The Fiji petrel’s range at sea is poorly Gau Island and is considered an interior forests where the species is known; the species has been recorded emerging threat to the Fiji petrel believed to breed, has not been logged once at sea near Gau Island and once at (Priddel et al. draft). Feral pigs have (Priddel, et al. draft; Veitayaki 2006). sea 200 km (124.3 mi) north of Gau caused the local extinction of other The only maintained inland trail leads Island (Watling 2000, as cited in species of seabirds on numerous islands to a telecommunication tower on a BirdLife International 2000; Watling and (Moors and Atkinson 1984, as cited in mountain peak just below Delaco. The Lewanavanua 1985). We are unaware of Priddel, et al. draft). 3,115 inhabitants of Gau Island live in any present or threatened destruction, Protecting Fiji petrel nest sites from coastal villages, where the majority live modification, or curtailment of this introduced predators by creating by subsistence fishing and farming, species’ current sea habitat or range. barriers around the nests is not possible maintaining gardens up to 300 m in at this time because the exact location elevation. Although low-level forestry B. Overutilization for Commercial, of the nesting sites is unknown. There activities occur in lowland areas, no Recreational, Scientific, or Educational is no information indicating that other intensive industry or agriculture is Purposes predator eradication has been attempted practiced on the island (Priddel, et al. We are unaware of any commercial, on Gau Island. Even if a predator draft). Veitayaki (2006) noted that the recreational, scientific, or educational eradication program were to be practice of shifting cultivation on Gau purpose for which the Fiji petrel is implemented, protection of the nest Island using improved machinery and currently being utilized. sites would be difficult due to the the indiscriminant use of fire is rapidly permanent habitation of humans on the C. Disease or Predation progressing toward the cloud forests island. Even if cats were prohibited as within the interior of the island. The greatest threat to the long-term pets, there is still a high potential for However, no information was provided survival of the Fiji petrel is thought to cats and rats to be transported to Gau to show this is actually occurring. be predation on breeding birds and their Island in boats transporting humans or Veitayaki (2006), described a eggs and chicks by introduced predators other shipments. community-based conservation project such as rats and feral cats on Gau Island Because the threat of predation by on Gau Island that has been in place (BirdLife International 2000). Since introduced cats and rats has severely since 2001, whereby villagers in the nesting colonies of Fiji petrels have not impacted closely related petrel species, district of Vanuaso Tikina are been located, predation on the Fiji and there are records of these collaborating with the University of the petrel has not been directly observed. introduced predators on Gau Island, South Pacific to sustainably manage However, cats and Pacific rats (R. especially feral cats and rats in the their environmental resources. Goals of exulans) have been found in the highland forests of Gau where the Fiji the project include preservation of the highland forests of Gau Island, where petrel is most likely to breed, we find upland cloud forest, adoption of this species is most likely to breed that predation is a significant threat to sustainable land use practices, (Imber 1986, as cited in Priddel, et al. the Fiji petrel. protection of drinking water, and draft; Watling and Lewanavanua 1985). We are unaware of any threats due to development of alternative sources of The path to the telecommunications predation on Fiji petrels during the non- livelihood. The success of this project transmitter on the summit of Gau Island breeding season while the species is at has provided momentum beyond the may have facilitated the movement of sea.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71304 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

Although several diseases have been E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors random, naturally occurring events such documented in other species of petrels Affecting the Continued Existence of the as cyclones, the Fiji petrel does not have (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease Species such resiliency. Its very small has not been documented in the Fiji Because of the paucity of recorded population size and restricted breeding petrel. Therefore, the significance of this sightings of this species (see discussion range puts the species at higher risk for threat to the Fiji petrel is unknown. of Factor A above), the population is experiencing the irreversible adverse apparently very small. The IUCN effects of random, naturally occurring D. The Inadequacy of Existing events. One such event could destroy Regulatory Mechanisms estimates the population to be less than 50 individuals, with a decreasing trend the entire known breeding population due to predation by introduced on Gau Island. Although the Fiji petrel is protected Therefore, we find that the predators (BirdLife International 2007c). from international trade under Fijian combination of factors—the species’ Species with such small population law (Government of Fiji 2002, 2003), small population size, restricted sizes are at greater risk of extinction. this protection has not significantly breeding range, and likelihood of reduced or removed the threat of Once a population is reduced below a adverse random, naturally occurring predation within the species’ breeding certain number of individuals, it tends events—to be a significant threat to the range, nor has it reduced the threat to rapidly decline towards extinction species. posed by long-line fisheries (see Factor (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and Soule 1986; Although we are unaware of any E below) within its range at sea. Soule 1987). documented cases of incidental take of This species’ risk of extinction is Community awareness of the Fiji petrels by commercial long-line further compounded by its restricted fishing operations or entanglement in conservation significance of the Fiji current breeding range, which according petrel has been promoted in Fiji. From marine debris, these long-line fishing to the best available information is operations have been identified as a 2002–2004, Milika Rati, a local limited to Gau Island, where an threat to all seabird species (see analysis conservationist on Gau Island, led a 2 estimated 27 square miles (70 km ) of under Chatham petrel, Factor E). ‘‘Pride campaign’’ (RARE Conservation potential breeding habitat is available. Moreover, the lack of data on these 2006a), a constituency-building program However, based on what is known about impacts to the Fiji petrel could be a developed by the conservation the species, this is considered a result of the species’ low population organization RARE (RARE Conservation relatively small amount of appropriate number. Therefore, we find the 2006b). Ms. Rati chose the Fiji petrel as habitat for breeding, particularly since incidental take of Fiji petrels by the flagship mascot for this movement breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on commercial long-line fishing operations and used a series of high-profile Gau Island face the pervasive threat of to be a significant threat to the species. activities to raise awareness of the predation by introduced species such as conservation urgency of the species. feral cats and rats. Conclusion This campaign resulted in a confirmed The Fiji petrel’s restricted breeding The primary threat to the Fiji petrel is sighting of a Fiji petrel (RARE range combined with its colonial most likely predation by introduced Conservation 2006a). A follow-up nesting habits and small population size feral cats and rats within the species’ survey to the campaign revealed that 99 of less than 50 birds (BirdLife breeding range. The probability of percent of the participants believed International 2007c) makes the species introduced predators preying on this natural resource protection to be particularly vulnerable to the threat of species is high given that introduced important, and 94 percent were aware adverse random, naturally occurring feral cats are documented to prey upon that the Fiji petrel is at risk of events (e.g., cyclones, flooding, and the closely related collared petrel in the extinction. landslides) that destroy breeding interior forests of Gau Island where the individuals and their breeding habitat. Fiji petrel is most likely to nest. Based on increased public awareness Fiji is vulnerable to the devastating Furthermore, the devastating impact of of the Pride campaign, a formal affects of cyclones inter-annually predation by introduced species has agreement supporting the creation of a between November and April. On been documented in several closely- bird sanctuary for the species was average, 15 cyclones affect this country related species. There is no information signed by all 16 of Fiji’s village chiefs each decade (World Meteorological indicating that predator eradication has (RARE Conservation 2006a). Organization 2004). The most severe been attempted on Gau Island. This The Australian Regional National cyclone in within the past 100 years was threat is magnified by the fact that the Heritage Programme continues to fund cyclone Kina in January, 1993, with threat likely threatens the species the Pride campaign on Gau Island. The wind speeds of 120 knots spanning an throughout its breeding range, the Wildlife Conservation Society, BirdLife area 180 miles (289.7 km) from its interior forests of Gau Island. Although International, and the National Trust of center. The Government of Fiji declared the Fiji petrel is legally protected from the Fiji Islands are collaborating to work the area a disaster, because virtually all international trade, to our knowledge towards implementation of conservation areas of Fiji were impacted by this Fiji has not successfully implemented recommendations made by Ms. Rati, cyclone and the associated flooding (UN measures to protect the species from the Department of Humanitarian Affairs including minimizing predators (RARE threat of predation. 1993). Landslides are common in Fiji’s The Fiji petrel’s low population size Conservation 2006a). mountainous areas during these severe of less than 50 individuals puts the Although the Fiji petrel is protected weather conditions (World species at a high risk of extinction. The from international trade (Government of Meteorological Organization 2004), and low population size combined with its Fiji 2002, 2003) by Fijian law and public would be particularly threatening to restricted breeding and colonial nesting awareness and support for the species’ breeding Fiji petrels and their breeding habits, typical of all Procellariid species, protection on Gau Island is strong, these habitat. makes the species particularly conservation measures have not While species with more extensive vulnerable to the threat of random, significantly reduced the threats to the breeding ranges or higher population naturally occurring events (e.g., species. numbers could recover from adverse cyclones) that are known to occur in Fiji

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71305

and have the potential to destroy Hilhorst 2000, Taylor 2005, as cited in original specimen of this species was breeding individuals and their breeding BirdLife International 2007d). Although shot at sea eastwards in the temperate habitat. some breeding burrows are on private South Pacific Ocean, it is believed birds The threats within the species’ land (Taylor 2000), the majority of disperse there during the non-breeding breeding range are compounded by the known breeding burrows are located season. We are unaware of any present threat posed by long-line fishing in the within the Tuku Nature Reserve or threatened destruction, modification, species’ non-breeding range. There is no (Reserve) (Chatham Island Taiko Trust or curtailment of this species’ current information indicating that Fiji has 2007). This Reserve was established in sea habitat or range. implemented measures to protect the 1984 to protect 5 square miles (12 km2) B. Overutilization for Commercial, of magenta petrel breeding habitat. In species from long-line fishery activities. Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 1993, 1 square mile (2 km2) of However, because the survival of this Purposes species is dependent on recruitment of contiguous forested land was added to chicks from its breeding range, the the Reserve by covenant, and a second We are unaware of any commercial, severity of threats to the Fiji petrel covenant expected to be approved in the recreational, scientific, or educational within its breeding range puts the near future will protect an additional 4 purpose for which the magenta petrel is species in danger of extinction square miles (11 km2) of contiguous currently being utilized. throughout all of its range. Therefore, habitat to the Reserve (Chatham Island C. Disease or Predation we find the Fiji petrel to be in danger Taiko Trust 2007). The available information suggests of extinction throughout all of its range. As a result of New Zealand’s that the most serious threat to the Because we find that the Fiji petrel is Biodiversity Strategy, initiated in the magenta petrel is predation on all life endangered throughout all of its range, year 2000, all logging of indigenous stages (eggs, chicks, and adults) of the there is no reason to consider its status forests on government land has been species by introduced predators, in a significant portion of its range. halted, and logging on private land is required to be sustainable (Green and including feral cats, pigs, weka, and Magenta petrel (Pterodroma magentae) Clarkson 2005). Breeding burrows have rats. It is reported that periodically the species’ entire annual breeding A. The Present or Threatened been found on private land (Taylor production is lost due to predation of Destruction, Modification, or 2000), and sustainable logging practices would not necessarily protect these eggs and chicks (BirdLife International Curtailment of the Habitat or Range of 2007d). Permanent eradication of these the Magenta Petrel magenta petrel nest sites. The significant loss of magenta petrel introduced predators from Chatham The range of this species changes burrows and colonies historically due to Island is difficult due to the permanent intra-annually based on an established the alteration of habitat on Chatham habitation of humans on the island. breeding cycle. During the breeding Island for livestock grazing purposes Since the early 1990’s, however, the season (September to May) (Imber, et al. (Crockett 1994) demonstrates the severe NZDOC has monitored known breeding 1994b; Taylor 1991), breeding birds impacts that habitat alteration has on burrows and has implemented an return to breeding colonies to breed and magenta petrel populations. Besides intensive predator control program, nest. During the non-breeding season, logging, fire is a threat to the magenta including setting extensive trap lines birds migrate far from their breeding petrel’s breeding habitat. Although the and poisoning to remove introduced range where they remain at sea until species’ recovery plan identifies predators from the magenta petrel’s returning to breed. Therefore, our accidental fire as a threat to the magenta breeding areas (Taylor 2000). This effort analysis of Factor A is separated into petrel, it does not address mitigation of has significantly reduced the threat of analyses of: (1) The species’ breeding this threat (NZDOC 2001a). The NZDOC predation on adult petrels, with only habitat and range, and (2) the species’ deals with an average of 160 fires in two being found dead in 20 years, as of non-breeding habitat and range. New Zealand each year, suggesting that the year 2000. However, a number of BirdLife International (2007d) fires are relatively common in New chicks are still lost in some seasons estimates the range of the magenta Zealand (NZDOC n.d.). Taylor (2000) (Imber, et al. 1998). As additional petrel to be 1,960,000 km2 (7,568,000 identifies flooding of burrows as a burrows have been located and mi2); however, BirdLife International threat, given that most known burrows protection from predation expanded (2000) defines ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘Extent of are in wet areas in valley floors. He also over the years, breeding has increased Occurrence, the area contained within notes that destruction of nest-sites by and breeding success has improved. In the shortest continuous imaginary pigs and dogs accompanying pig- 1994, only four breeding pairs were boundary which can be drawn to hunters near the burrows threatens the known, but in 2004, 15 breeding pairs encompass all the known, inferred, or magenta petrel’s breeding habitat. These were observed (Brooke 2004, Hilhorst projected sites of present occurrence of threats to the magenta petrel’s breeding 2000, Taylor 2005, as cited in BirdLife a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ habitat are magnified by the species’ International 2007d). Sixteen chicks Because this reported range includes a restricted habitat area on Chatham were known to have fledged from 1987– large area of non-breeding habitat (i.e., Island. Because of the very small 2000 (Taylor 2000), and within a single the sea), our analysis of Factor A with number of breeding pairs, any loss of year, 2002, a total of seven chicks respect to the magenta petrel’s breeding breeders from the population would fledged (BirdLife International 2007d). range focuses on the islands where the increase the species’ threat of Eight birds fledged in the 2005 season, species is known to breed. extinction. Therefore, we find that the and a record 11 magenta petrel chicks The magenta petrel breeds exclusively present and threatened destruction of fledged in the 2006 season (Chatham on Chatham Island, New Zealand, the habitat of this species to be a Island Taiko Trust 2006). within relatively undisturbed inland significant threat to the species. Even though the predator control forests (Crockett 1994; Imber, et al. The magenta petrel’s range at sea is program has decreased the threat of 1994a). At least 23 breeding burrows poorly known; however, research has predation to the magenta petrel, birds, have been discovered, all located near documented foraging behavior south especially chicks, are still killed by the Tuku-a-Tamatea River (BirdLife and east of the Chatham Islands (Imber, introduced predators, and only areas International 2007d; Brooke 2004, et al. 1994a). In addition, because the where petrels are known to breed are

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71306 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

protected. Therefore, we find predation ever be necessary to ‘rescue’ abandoned tinder dry. Burrow-nesting species such by introduced species to be a significant or malnourished magenta petrel chicks as the magenta petrel are at a high risk threat to the species. (NZDOC 2001a; Taylor 2000). because they are likely to suffocate from We are unaware of any threats due to New Zealand ratified the Agreement smoke inhalation or to be lethally predation on magenta petrels during the on the Conservation of Albatrosses and burned inside or while attempting to non-breeding season while the species Petrels in November 2001, which is escape from their burrows (Taylor is at sea. designed to reduce impacts of fishing 2000). Although several diseases have been operations on populations of Another natural disaster, severe documented in other species of petrels Procellariids (ACAP 2001), however the storms, has impacted New Zealand (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease magenta petrel is not listed in Annex 1 historically (see Chatham petrel has not been documented in the to this Agreement and, therefore, is not discussion of Factor E), and so the magenta petrel. Therefore, the protected under this Agreement. likelihood of future impacts of storms is significance of this threat to this species Therefore, implementation of this high. Although we are unaware of the is unknown. Agreement has not significantly reduced impact of previous cyclones on the D. The Inadequacy of Existing or removed the threat of incidental take magenta petrel’s population numbers or Regulatory Mechanisms of this species in long-line fisheries (see breeding habitat, the severity of the Factor E below). wind or waves created by such storms The magenta petrel is protected from Therefore, we find that regulatory or flooding associated with storms has disturbance and harvest under New protections have not significantly potential to significantly damage Zealand’s Wildlife Act of 1953 and its reduced the threats to the magenta magenta petrel burrows. These known Reserves Act of 1977. The petrel is petrel. burrows are particularly vulnerable to designated as a Category A species by flooding because they are located on the NZDOC, which signifies the species E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence of the valley floors (NZDOC 2001a). is of the highest priority for While species with more extensive Species conservation management (Molloy and breeding ranges or higher population Davis 1999). As such, the NZDOC The magenta petrel population is numbers could recover from adverse developed a ten-year recovery plan for extremely small, estimated at 120 random, naturally occurring events such the magenta petrel in 2001, with the individuals based on population as fire or storms, the magenta petrel goals of preventing further loss of surveys (Brooke 2004, Hilhorst 2000, does not have such resiliency. Its very known breeding pairs, maximizing Taylor 2005, as cited in BirdLife small population size and restricted productivity at known breeding International 2007d) and is believed to breeding range puts the species at burrows, locating and protecting be decreasing due to predation by higher risk for experiencing the additional burrows, and establishing an introduced species (BirdLife irreversible adverse effects of random, additional predator-proof breeding area International 2007d). The fact that it naturally occurring events. One such in southern Chatham Island (NZDOC took 10 years of intensive searching to event could destroy the entire known 2001a). A measure of success of the rediscover the species in 1978 is an breeding population on Chatham Island. recovery plan has been demonstrated by indication of the rarity of the species. Therefore, we find that the combination the successful protection of breeding Species with such small population of factors—the species’ small population pairs and increased productivity sizes are at greater risk of extinction. size, restricted breeding range, and resulting from predator control efforts Once a population is reduced below a likelihood of adverse random, naturally (see Factor C above). However, the certain number of individuals, it tends occurring events—to be a significant threat of predation on magenta petrels to rapidly decline towards extinction threat to the species. by introduced species remains the (Franklin 1980; Gilpin and Soule 1986; Although we are unaware of any greatest threat to the species. In 2006, a Soule 1987). documented cases of incidental take of second protected area was established This species’ risk of extinction is magenta petrels by commercial long-line near the southern coast of Chatham compounded by its restricted breeding fishing operations or entanglement in Island at a location where magenta range, which is limited to Chatham marine debris, these long-line fishing petrels were known to have bred in Island. Based on what is known about operations have been identified as a reasonable numbers 90 years ago. This the species, the breeding habitat threat to all seabird species (see analysis 7.5-ha area, protected by landowner available on Chatham Island is a under Chatham petrel, Factor E). covenant, has been fenced to exclude relatively small amount of appropriate Moreover, the lack of data on these livestock in an effort to allow the forest habitat for breeding, particularly since impacts to the magenta petrel could be to recover. Within this area, 3 ha are breeding pairs, eggs, and nestlings on a result of the species’ low population enclosed by a predator-proof fence. Chatham Island continue to be number. Therefore, we find the Loudspeakers were placed on the site, threatened by introduced species such incidental take of magenta petrels by and pre-recorded magenta petrel calls as feral cats and rats. commercial long-line fishing operations are being played to attract young males The magenta petrel’s restricted to be a significant threat to the species. to the ground where it is hoped they breeding range combined with its will begin to dig burrows and eventually colonial nesting habits and small Conclusion find a mate to breed. It is too early to population size of less than Predation by introduced species such know the success of this effort because approximately 120 birds makes the as rats, weka, and feral cats and pigs is it is anticipated that it will take several species particularly vulnerable to the a current, on-going threat to the magenta years for breeding to begin once young threat of adverse random, naturally petrel that is of high magnitude that has males start digging burrows. Captive occurring events (e.g., storms, fire) that not been controlled by human rearing studies of the closely related destroy breeding individuals and their intervention. These introduced grey-faced petrel (P. macroptera) have breeding habitat (NCDOC 2001b). Fire is predators are known to destroy magenta been undertaken, and its diet analyzed, a high risk in the Chatham Islands petrel eggs, chicks, and adults, reducing to develop methods for captive rearing because the climate is very dry during the species’ population (NZDOC 2001a), of magenta petrels in captivity should it the summer, and the vegetation becomes which is already very small, estimated

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71307

at 120 individuals. Although the analysis of Factor A is separated into breeding habitat on these islands is not NZDOC has been actively working to analyses of: (1) The species’ breeding threatened with human-induced habitat protect magenta petrel nest sites from habitat and range, and (2) the species’ destruction or modification. predation by introduced species, a non-breeding habitat and range. In 2004, the Maungatautari Ecological number of chicks are still lost in some BirdLife International (2007b) Island Trust prepared ‘‘An Ecological seasons (Imber, et al. 1998), and the estimates the range of the Cook’s petrel Restoration Plan for Maungatautari,’’ breeding burrows that have not yet been to be 76,300,000 km2 (29,460,000 mi2); which outlined suggested restoration of located are not protected. This threat is however, BirdLife International (2000) habitat and the removal of threats to magnified by the fact that a limited defines ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘Extent of attract or reintroduce Cook’s petrel to amount of breeding habitat is protected Occurrence, the area contained within the North Island in the Chatham Islands from habitat alteration or destruction. the shortest continuous imaginary chain (McQueen 2004). The Trust has The breeding habitat that is protected boundary which can be drawn to established a 13 square mile (34 km2) remains at risk from accidental fires and encompass all the known, inferred, or predator exclosure to protect nest sites, flooding. projected sites of present occurrence of and research is now underway to The magenta petrel’s low population a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ investigate reintroduction of the Cook’s size of approximately 120 individuals Because this reported range includes a petrel to Maungatautari (Rayner, et al. puts the species at a high risk of large area of non-breeding habitat (i.e., 2007a). If successful, this effort would extinction. The low population size the sea), our analysis of Factor A with expand the breeding range of the combined with its restricted breeding respect to the Cook’s petrel’s breeding species. habitat and colonial nesting habits range focuses on the islands where the Based on the lack of identified threats makes the species particularly species is known to breed. to the Cook’s petrel’s breeding habitat vulnerable to the threat of random, The Cook’s petrel breeds on Little within its breeding range, we find that naturally occurring events (e.g., Barrier, Great Barrier, and Codfish the present or threatened destruction, cyclones, fire) that are known to occur Islands in the Chatham Islands, New modification, or curtailment of the in New Zealand and have the potential Zealand, covering a total land area of species’ habitat or range is not a threat 2 to destroy breeding individuals and 126 square miles (327 km , Wikipedia to the species. their breeding habitat. One such event, 2007e,g,h). The species breeds on steep During the non-breeding season, the such as a cyclone during the nesting slopes near ridge tops at 984 feet (300 Cook’s petrel migrates to the east Pacific ° season could destroy the entire breeding m) above sea level or higher and prefers Ocean, primarily between 34 S and 30 ° population on Chatham Island. unmodified forest habitat with low, N (Heather and Robertson 1997, as The threats within the species’ open canopies (Rayner, et al. 2007b). cited in BirdLife International 2000). We breeding range are compounded by the Fire is unlikely to be a threat to this are unaware of any present or threat posed by long-line fishing in the species’ breeding habitat because Cook’s threatened destruction, modification, or species’ non-breeding range. Although petrels breed primarily in damp forests curtailment of this species’ current sea New Zealand implements measures to (Imber 1985a, as cited in Taylor 2000). habitat or range. Breeding burrows are usually long and protect other seabird species from this B. Overutilization for Commercial, threat under the Agreement on the deep among tree roots and are not easily collapsed; so trampling by introduced Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, Purposes the magenta petrel is not currently species is not likely to be a threat to offered protection by this Agreement. Cook’s petrel nest sites (Taylor 2000). We are unaware of any commercial, According to the best available Because the survival of this species is recreational, scientific, or educational information, a large amount of suitable dependent on recruitment of chicks purpose for which the Cook’s petrel is habitat is available to the Cook’s petrel from its breeding range, the severity of currently being utilized. on the three islands where it breeds. Of threats to the magenta petrel within its these islands, the largest, the Great C. Disease or Predation breeding range puts the species in Barrier Island covering 110 square miles The introduction of predatory species danger of extinction throughout all of its (285 km2), is the only one that has a by European settlers is believed to have range. Therefore, we find the magenta permanent human population. This contributed to the historical population petrel to be in danger of extinction small population of 1,100 people is decline in this species. The best throughout all of its range. Because we located primarily within coastal available information indicates that the find that the magenta petrel is settlements, away from the species’ Codfish Island population declined due endangered throughout all of its range, breeding habitat. Inhabitants mostly to predation by an introduced bird, the there is no reason to consider its status make a living from farming and the weka (Marchant and Higgins 1990, as in a significant portion of its range. tourist industry, but the island is not cited in BirdLife International 2000). In Cook’s petrel (Pterodroma cookii) considered a major tourist destination 1934, there were an estimated 20,000 due to its relative remoteness breeding pairs on Codfish Island, but A. The Present or Threatened (Wikipedia 2007g). There is no weka predation reduced the population Destruction, Modification, or indication that the Cook’s petrel’s to 100 pairs by 1984 (Bartle, et al. 1993, Curtailment of the Habitat or Range breeding habitat on Great Barrier Island as cited in Taylor 2000). On Little The range of this species changes is threatened with human-induced Barrier and Great Barrier Islands, intra-annually based on an established habitat destruction or modification. introduced feral cats and the Pacific rat breeding cycle. During the breeding The other two islands, Little Barrier reduced population numbers. The black season, which appears to vary by and Codfish Islands, covering 11 and 5 rat (R. rattus) also contributed to the population (Taylor 2000), breeding birds square miles (28 km2 and 14 km2), decline on Great Barrier Island (Heather return to breeding colonies to breed and respectively, are wildlife sanctuaries and Robertson 1997, Marchant and nest. During the non-breeding season, with restricted access. These islands are Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife birds migrate far from their breeding not inhabited by humans aside from International 2000; Taylor 2000). range where they remain at sea until rotational conservation staff (Wikipedia Due to extensive predator eradication returning to breed. Therefore, our 2007e,h). Therefore, the Cook’s petrel’s programs implemented by NZDOC, by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71308 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

1980, feral cats had been eradicated Cook’s petrel is not listed in Annex 1 to increasing (Marchant and Higgins 1990, from Little Barrier Island. By 1985, weka this Agreement and, therefore, is not as cited in BirdLife International 2000; had been eradicated from Codfish Island protected under this Agreement. Taylor 2000). As a result, the species (Taylor 2000). Rats had been Therefore, implementation of this does not currently appear to be in successfully eradicated from Codfish Agreement has not significantly reduced danger of extinction. However, there is Island by 1998 and from Little Barrier or removed the threat of incidental take a high risk of local extinction on Great Island by 2006 (NZDOC 2006). of this species in long-line fisheries (see Barrier Island within the foreseeable Although the introduced predators Factor E below). future. The loss of the breeding birds on that threaten Cook’s petrels have been Because the available regulatory Great Barrier Island would not only eradicated from Little Barrier and protections have not significantly impact the overall species’ population Codfish Islands, introduced predators reduced the threats to the Cook’s petrel, growth but would decrease its genetic have not been removed from Great and this species is a lower priority variability, increasing the Cook’s Barrier Island. As a result, the Cook’s species for intensive conservation petrel’s risk of extinction throughout its petrel population on Great Barrier management, we find that regulatory range. Therefore, we find that the Cook’s Island, which has been reduced to 20 protections have not significantly petrel is likely to become in danger of breeding pairs, continues to be severely reduced the threats to the species. extinction within the foreseeable future threatened by introduced feral cats, the E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors throughout all of its range. Because we black rat, and the Pacific rat (Marchant Affecting the Continued Existence of the find that the Cook’s petrel is likely to and Higgins 1990, as cited in BirdLife Species become in danger of extinction within International 2000), and the risk of local the foreseeable future throughout all of extinction of this species is high. Loss Although we are unaware of any its range, there is no reason to consider of this population would decrease the documented cases of incidental take of its status in a significant portion of its genetic diversity of the species, Cook’s petrels by commercial long-line range. increasing the species’ risk of fishing operations or entanglement in extinction. marine debris, these long-line fishing Galapagos petrel (Pterodroma Even on Little Barrier and Codfish operations have been identified as a phaeopygia) Islands where introduced predators threat to all seabird species (see the A. The Present or Threatened have been removed, there is a continued Chatham petrel Factor E). Therefore, we Destruction, Modification, or risk that predators will be re-introduced consider the incidental take of Cook’s Curtailment of the Habitat or Range to the island by boats transporting petrels by commercial long-line fishing conservation and research staff to the operations to be a significant threat to As in other Procellariid species, the islands. Given the magnitude of the the species. range of the Galapagos petrel changes intra-annually based on an established devastation these species have, once Conclusion introduced, and the likelihood that they breeding cycle. During the breeding could be re-introduced, we find The primary threat to the Cook’s season, breeding birds return to introduced predators to be an ongoing petrel is predation by introduced feral breeding colonies to breed and nest. threat to Cook’s petrel populations on cats, the black rat, and the Pacific rat During the non-breeding season, birds Little Barrier and Codfish Islands. within the species’ breeding range, migrate far from their breeding range We are unaware of any threats due to particularly on Great Barrier Island. where they remain at sea until returning predation on Cook’s petrels during the Eradication of introduced predators on to breed. Therefore, our analysis of non-breeding season while the species this island is difficult due to the Factor A is separated into analyses of: is at sea. permanent habitation of humans on the (1) The species’ breeding habitat and Although several diseases have been island; so this threat on Great Barrier range, and (2) the species’ non-breeding documented in other species of petrels Island is likely to persist. This threat, habitat and range. (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease combined with the low number of BirdLife International (2007e) has not been documented in the Cook’s breeding pairs (approximately 20) on estimates the range of the Galapagos petrel. Therefore, the significance of this Great Barrier Island is likely to result in petrel to be 14,200,000 km2 (5,483,000 threat to this species is unknown. local extinction. mi2); however, BirdLife International The threats within the species’ (2000) defines ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘Extent of D. The Inadequacy of Existing breeding range are compounded by the Occurrence, the area contained within Regulatory Mechanisms threat posed by long-line fishing in the the shortest continuous imaginary The Cook’s petrel is protected from species’ non-breeding range. Although boundary which can be drawn to disturbance and harvest under New New Zealand implements measures to encompass all the known, inferred, or Zealand’s Wildlife Act of 1953 and its protect other seabird species from this projected sites of present occurrence of Reserves Act of 1977. The petrel is threat under the Agreement on the a species, excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ designated as a Category C species by Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, Because this reported range includes a the NZDOC, which signifies the species the Cook’s petrel is not currently offered large area of non-breeding habitat (i.e., is a third priority species for protection by this Agreement. Because the sea), our analysis of Factor A with conservation management (Molloy and the survival of this species is dependent respect to the Galapagos petrel’s Davis 1999). As discussed in Factor C on recruitment of chicks from its breeding range focuses on the island above, predator eradication efforts have breeding range, the threats to this where the species breeds. not adequately reduced the threat of species within its breeding range put the The Galapagos petrel is known to predation on the species. species at risk. breed on the islands of Santa Cruz, New Zealand ratified the Agreement The overall population number of the Floreana, Santiago, San Cristo´bal, and on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Cook’s petrel is not low, and the two Isabela within the Galapagos Petrels in November 2001, which is largest populations of this species, those archipelago (Cruz and Cruz 1987; Harris designed to reduce impacts of fishing breeding on Little Barrier and Codfish 1970). The species breeds in the humid operations on populations of Islands, with 50,000 and 100 pairs, and thickly vegetated uplands of these Procellariids (ACAP 2001), however the respectively are reported to be islands (Harris 1970) at elevations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71309

between 984 and 2,953 feet (300 and ecological restoration program which some cases, these population declines 900 meters) (Baker 1980, as cited in required removal of all feral goats from were as high as 81 percent over four BirdLife International 2000; Cruz and Santiago and northern Isabela Islands years (BirdLife International 2007e). Cruz 1987, 1996). The species prefers to [Note: northern Isabela is separated from From 1980 to 1985, the population on nest under thick vegetation in sufficient southern Isabela by a 12 km-wide lava Santa Cruz Island declined from an soil for burrowing (Harris 1970). The field (Charles Darwin Foundation estimated 9,000 pairs to 1,000 pairs species is known to nest within burrows 2006)]. In 2006, the GNPS announced (Baker 1980, as cited in BirdLife or natural cavities on slopes, in craters, that no feral goats could be found in International 2000; Cruz and Cruz in sinkholes, in lava tunnels, and in these areas, noting that monitoring 1987). During the same time period, the gullies (Baker 1980, as cited in BirdLife efforts would continue to ensure Santiago Island population declined International 2000; Cruz and Cruz 1987, successful eradication [Charles Darwin from 11,250 pairs to less than 500 pairs 1996). Research Station (CDRS) 2006]. (Cruz and Cruz 1987; Tomkins 1985, as On the island of Santa Cruz, the Concurrent with the goat eradification cited in BirdLife International 2000), Galapagos petrel historically bred at program, feral donkeys were removed and the number of birds breeding on lower elevations, down to 180 meters from Santiago Island and Alcedo Floreana Islands was estimated to have (590.6 feet). However, habitat Volcano on northern Isabela Island been reduced by up to 33% annually for modification of these lower elevations (Carrion, et al. 2007). After a 30-year four years (Coulter, et al. 1981, as cited for agricultural purposes restricted the eradication program, feral pigs were in BirdLife International 2000). Galapagos petrel’s use of these lower successfully removed from Santiago Introduced feral dogs, cats, and pigs elevation areas for breeding. On San Island, with the last pig being shot in are common predators of all life stages Cristo´bal Island, historical clearance of April, 2000 (Cruz,et al. 2005). (eggs, chicks, fledglings, and adults) of vegetation in highland areas for Despite the success of these the Galapagos petrel (Cruz and Cruz intensive grazing purposes drastically eradication efforts, introduced species, 1987, 1996). Eggs and hatchlings are reduced the species’ breeding habitat on especially feral goats, continue to eaten by black and brown rats (BirdLife the island (Harris 1970). threaten Galapagos petrel habitat on the International 2007e). Adding to In 1959, Ecuador designated 97% of human populated islands of Santa Cruz, predation by introduced species, the the Galapagos land area as a National Floreana, San Cristo´bal, and southern Galapagos hawk has been known to Park, leaving 3% of the remaining land Isabela. Feral goats are especially further reduce population numbers; area distributed between Santa Cruz, problematic in areas bordering young and aged petrels are particularly San Cristo´bal, Isabela, and Floreana farmland, and eradication of feral vulnerable to this predator. In 1985, Islands. The park land area is divided livestock in these human population monitoring of 510 adult Galapagos into various zones signifying the level of areas is difficult (CDRS 2006). petrels on Santiago Island showed that human use (Parque Nacional Galapagos Based on the widespread and ongoing the species’ mortality rate due to Ecuador n.d). Although the islands threats of farming activities and predation by pigs and Galapagos hawks where the Galapagos petrel is known to introduced species to the Galapagos was greater than 50 percent (BirdLife breed includes a large ‘conservation and petrels’ breeding habitat, we find that International 2007e). restoration’ zone, all of these islands, the present and threatened destruction Predator control and petrel except Santiago, include a significant of this species’ breeding habitat is a monitoring programs are currently in sized ‘farming’ zone (Parque Nacional threat to the species. place on Floreana, Santa Cruz, and Galapagos Ecuador n.d), where The Galapagos petrel’s range at sea is Santiago Islands (Vargus and Cruz 2000, agricultural and grazing activities poorly known; however, research has as cited in BirdLife International 2000). continue to threaten the Galapagos documented foraging behavior around Eradication efforts to remove feral pigs, petrel’s habitat and range. According to the Galapagos islands, as well as east which eat nestlings, juvenile, and adult Baker (1980, as cited in BirdLife and north of the islands. We are petrels on Santiago Island, succeeded by International 2000), at least half of the unaware of any present or threatened the end of 2000 (Cruz, et al. 2005). Re- Galapagos petrel’s current breeding destruction, modification, or colonization of pigs on Santiago Island range on Santa Cruz Island is farmed. curtailment of this species’ current sea is not likely since the island is not The rationale for maintaining farming habitat or range. inhabited by humans, and there are no zones within the Galapagos National farming zones on the island where pigs Park is to sustain the economy of island B. Overutilization for Commercial, could be placed. Predation by inhabitants and encourage local Recreational, Scientific, or Educational introduced rats and cats continue to consumption of traditional products Purposes pose a predation threat to Galapagos (e.g., vegetables, fruits, and grazing We are unaware of any commercial, petrels on Santiago Island, compounded animals) (Parque Nacional Galapagos recreational, scientific, or educational by predation by the Galapagos hawk. Ecuador n.d). purpose for which the Galapagos petrel Efforts are underway on Santiago Island The primary threat to the Galapagos is currently being utilized. to remove introduced rats, but there is petrel’s breeding habitat is destruction no information to indicate that of breeding habitat by introduced feral C. Disease or Predation eradication has been achieved. mammals, such as goats (Capra hircus), The threat of predation on the Although pigs were removed from pigs, donkeys (Equus asinus), and cattle Galapagos petrel is exemplified by the Santiago Island, they continue to (Bos taurus). These species trample and rapid decline of populations of this threaten the Galapagos petrel on the destroy Galapagos petrel nest-sites, and species in the early 1980s as a result of other four islands where the petrel is reduce breeding habitat by overgrazing predation by introduced species, such known to breed. Although predation by (e.g., goats) and uprooting (e.g., pigs) the as dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), cats, pigs, as well as cats, rats, and dogs, on vegetation (Cruz and Cruz 1987, 1996; pigs, and black and brown rats (BirdLife Floreana and Santa Cruz Islands Eckhardt 1972). International 2007e; Cruz and Cruz continues to threaten the Galapagos In 1997, the Galapagos National Park 1996), supplemented by natural petrel, predator control efforts have Service (GNPS) and the Charles Darwin predation by the Galapagos hawk (Buteo been initiated on these two islands and Foundation initiated ‘Project Isabela,’ an galapagoensis) (Cruz and Cruz 1996). In are beginning to show some success in

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71310 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

reducing the threat to Galapagos petrels. Site in 1979 (BirdLife International petrel’s prey base. During the El Nin˜ o- For example, prior to predator control 2000); however these protections have Southern Oscillation (ENSO) of 1982– efforts on Floreana Island, only 33 not eliminated the threat of predation 1983, Cruz and Cruz (1990b) found that percent of the banded Cerro Pajas nor the threat of nest-site destruction by the growth rate of Galapagos petrel colony of the Galapagos petrel livestock (BirdLife International 2007e). chicks was lower and fledging occurred population returned to breed and nest as later than in other years. These so-called E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors adults (Coulter, et al. 1982, as cited in ‘‘ENSO chicks’’ reached a lower peak Affecting the Continued Existence of the Cruz and Cruz 1990a). In 1982, predator mass at a later age than non-ENSO Species control was initiated on this island chicks. The extended nestling period (Cruz and Cruz 1990a), and by 1985, Oil and chemical spills can have and reduced growth rates of ENSO return rates for banded birds was 80–90 direct effects on Galapagos petrel chicks are believed to reflect a decline percent due to the predator control populations, and based on previous in the availability of food resources program (Cruz and Cruz 1990a). To incidents, we consider this a significant because of diminishing ocean emphasize the significance of such a threat to the species. For example, on productivity during the ENSO. No reduction in predation on adults, with January 16, 2001, a tanker ran aground information is available on the long- respect to petrel population growth, the at Schiavoni Reef, about 2,625 feet (800 term effect on petrel population Hawaiian dark-rumped petrel meters) from Puerto Baquerizo Moreno productivity due to this change in ocean (Pterodroma sandwichensis), a species on San Cristo´bal Island (Woram 2007). temperatures and currents, and, related to the Galapagos petrel, By January 28, 2001, the slick reached therefore, the significance of this threat exhibited a 5 percent annual decline in the islands of Isabela and Floreana. to the Galapagos petrel is indeterminate. its population size when adult survival Only one Galapagos petrel from Conclusion rates were reduced as low as 10 percent Cristo´bal Island is documented to have (Simons 1984). died; however, 370 large animals were In the 1980’s, the Galapagos petrel There is no information to indicate reported to be contaminated by oil. The declined as much as 81% in four years that there have been predator control total effect of the oil spill on Galapagos due primarily to predation by efforts on San Cristo´bal or Isabela petrels and other species is difficult to introduced predators. According to Islands where cats, rats, dogs, and pigs quantify for a variety of reasons. Due to BirdLife International (2007e), continue to threaten the species. the behavior of ocean-dependent species conservation efforts have slowed but not Although the threat of predation by and the high toxicity of diesel, many halted the population decline. Despite pigs on Santiago Island has been affected animals might have died and predator control efforts, the Galapagos eliminated and the threat of predation is sunk undetected. In addition, the effects petrel continues to be threatened by one being reduced on Floreana and Santa of oiling may be highly localized, given or more predators on all of the islands Cruz Islands, the Galapagos petrel the vastness of the Galapagos coastline, within the species’ breeding range. The continues to be threatened by one or thereby making detection unlikely. Galapagos petrel’s breeding habitat is more predators on all of the islands Finally, because the long-term effects of also threatened by introduced species, within the species’ breeding range. This oiling were not monitored, the total especially feral goats, on the islands of threat has been shown to result in rapid mortality from this event is likely Santa Cruz, Floreana, San Cristo´bal, and population declines. Therefore, we find underestimated (Lougheed, et al. 2002). southern Isabela, where barbed wire predation to be a threat to the Galapagos Although we are unaware of any fences contribute to the decline in the petrel. documented cases of incidental take of number of adult Galapagos petrels. We are unaware of any threats due to Galapagos petrels by commercial long- The threats within the species’ predation on Galapagos petrels during line fishing operations or entanglement breeding range are compounded by the the non-breeding season while the in marine debris, these long-line fishing threats to the species within its range at species is at sea. operations have been identified as a sea. Oil spills can have direct effects on While several diseases have been threat to all seabird species (see the Galapagos petrel populations, and based documented in other species of petrels Chatham petrel discussion of Factor E). on the occurrence of a previous incident (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease Therefore, we consider the incidental within the species’ range at sea, we has not been documented in the take of the Galapagos petrel by consider this a significant threat to the Galapagos petrel. Therefore, the commercial long-line fishing operations species. Incidental take from long-line significance of this threat to this species to be a significant threat to the species. fishing in the species’ range at sea is an is unknown. Barbed wire fences on agricultural additional threat to the species. lands cause mortality in adult Galapagos Although Ecuador implements measures D. The Inadequacy of Existing petrels (BirdLife International 2007e). to protect other seabird species from Regulatory Mechanisms With the exception of Santiago Island, this threat under the Agreement on the Ecuador is a member of ACAP, which agricultural lands are present Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, is designed to reduce impacts of fishing throughout the species’ breeding range. the Galapagos petrel is not currently operations on populations of Although there is no information offered protection by this Agreement. Procellariids (ACAP 2001), however the available regarding the numbers and Because the survival of this species is Galapagos petrel is not listed in Annex trends of mortality due to fences, this dependent on recruitment of chicks 1 to this Agreement and, therefore, is source of mortality in combination with from its breeding range, the threats to not protected under this Agreement. other threats from long-line fishing this species within its breeding range Therefore, implementation of this operations and chemical and oil spills puts the species at risk. Agreement has not significantly poses a significant risk to the survival of The overall population number of the removed or reduced the threat of the species. Galapagos petrel is not low, estimated at incidental take of this species in long- There is evidence that the 20,000 to 60,000 birds (BirdLife line fisheries (see Factor E below). productivity of Galapagos petrel International 2007e). As a result, the Ecuador designated the Galapagos populations is indirectly affected by species does not currently appear to be Islands as a national park, and the fluctuations in ocean temperatures and in danger of extinction. However, as the islands were declared a World Heritage currents, which impact the Galapagos population numbers continue to decline

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71311

as a result of the threats discussed historical breeding there, but there have Wide Earthwatch 1998b,c), respectively, above, the risk of extinction of this been no recent records from this island. are threatened by deforestation. Timber species continues to increase. Therefore, More recently, two birds were captured is the Solomon Islands’ most important we find that the Galapagos petrel is inland on Bougainville Island. One of export commodity. Unsustainable likely to become in danger of extinction these birds was described as being forestry practices, combined with within the foreseeable future throughout recently fledged; so it is reasonable to clearing of land for agricultural and all of its range. Because we find that the believe that its nest was in the vicinity grazing purposes and over-exploitation Galapagos petrel is likely to become in (Hadden 1981, as cited in BirdLife of wood products for use as fuel, is danger of extinction within the International 2000). The conclusion that resulting in the destruction of vast areas foreseeable future throughout all of its the bird breeds on Bougainville Island is of forest throughout the Solomon range, there is no reason to consider its further supported by recent observations Islands (CIA 2007b). All the lower status in a significant portion of its in the seas around this island, including slopes on Kolombangara Island have range. one flock of 250 birds (Coates 1985, been logged except for one 500 m (1,640 1990, as cited in BirdLife International feet) strip (United Nations System-Wide Heinroth’s shearwater (Puffinus 2000). It is also reasonable to conclude Earthwatch 1998b). In 2003, the World heinrothi) that breeding occurs on Kolombangara Resources Institute reported that none of A. The Present or Threatened Island, because recently up to nine birds the Solomon Island’s total land area is Destruction, Modification, or were recorded off this island where all protected to such an extent that it is Curtailment of the Habitat or Range timed records have been in the preserved in its natural condition (Earth afternoon or evening, the time when Trends 2003b). Because forests on the Although little is known about breeding birds of this species typically islands of Kolombangara and Rendova Heinroth’s shearwater and its life return to their nest sites from foraging are the likely breeding habitat of the history, based on general information excursions (Buckingham, et al. 1995, Heinroth’s shearwater and these forests common to all other Procellariid Gibbs 1996, Scofield 1994, as cited in are being reduced through deforestation, species, we know that the range of the BirdLife International 2000). Although we find that the destruction of the species changes intra-annually based on not as conclusive as the other two sites Heinroth’s shearwater’s breeding habitat an established breeding cycle. During due to only one observation, the species on these two islands is likely to threaten the breeding season, breeding birds is also likely to breed on nearby the survival of the species. return to breeding colonies to breed and Rendova Island, where one bird was The Heinroth’s shearwater’s range at nest. During the non-breeding season, seen flying out of the mountains at sea is poorly known; up to 20 birds have birds migrate far from their breeding dawn. Since Procellariids occupy land been reported in the Bismarck seas, range where they remain at sea until only to breed, it is reasonable to ranging to the Madang Province on the returning to breed. Therefore, our conclude that this bird was leaving its north coast of Papua New Guinea analysis of Factor A is separated into nest site. (Bailey 1992, Clay 1994, Coates 1985, analyses of: (1) The species’ breeding Based on the locations of inland 1990, Hornbuckle 1999, as cited in habitat and range, and (2) the species’ sightings of the Heinroth’s shearwater BirdLife International 2000). non-breeding habitat and range. and a comparison to closely-related Observations have also been reported in BirdLife International (2007f) species, it is believed this species breeds the seas around Bougainville Island, estimates the breeding range of in high mountains (Buckingham, et al. including a flock of 250 birds (Coates 2 Heinroth’s shearwater to be 400,000 km 1995, as cited in BirdLife International 1985, 1990, as cited in BirdLife 2 (154,400 mi ); however, BirdLife 2000). The three islands where this International 2000). We are unaware of International (2000) defines ‘‘range’’ as species is likely to breed are all any present or threatened destruction, the ‘‘Extent of Occurrence, the area mountainous, volcanic islands in a wet modification, or curtailment of this contained within the shortest tropical climate. species’ current sea habitat or range. continuous imaginary boundary which Bougainville Island is 9,317.8 km2 can be drawn to encompass all the (3,598 mi2) in size (United Nations B. Overutilization for Commercial, known, inferred, or projected sites of System-Wide Earthwatch 1998a), is Recreational, Scientific, or Educational present occurrence of a species, thickly vegetated, and rugged. There are Purposes excluding cases of vagrancy.’’ Because extensive areas of undisturbed lowland We are unaware of any commercial, this reported range includes a large area and montane rainforest. Most of the recreational, scientific, or educational of non-breeding habitat (i.e., the sea), 175,160 people travel by foot or small purpose for which the Heinroth’s our analysis of Factor A with respect to boat, and live by subsistence agriculture shearwater is currently being utilized. the Heinroth’s shearwater’s breeding and fishing [Central Intelligence Agency C. Disease or Predation range focuses on the islands where the (CIA) 2007a; United Nations System- species is most likely to breed. Wide Earthwatch 1998a; Wikipedia Although the Heinroth’s shearwater’s Although the nesting area of this 2007a]. Exploitation of Papua New nest sites have not been located, all species has not been located, the Guinea’s natural resources has been three islands where the species is most information available indicates that the hindered due to the islands’ rugged likely to breed have introduced rats, species breeds on Bougainville Island in terrain and the high cost of developing cats, and dogs (Buckingham, et al. 1995, Papua New Guinea and the islands of infrastructure (CIA 2007a). We are, as cited in BirdLife International 2000). Kolombangara and Rendova in the therefore, unaware of any present or All these introduced species contributed Solomon Islands, where the few threatened destruction, modification, or to drastic declines in the Galapagos recorded sightings of this species have curtailment of the Heinroth’s petrel (see Galapagos petrel discussion occurred (Buckingham, et al. 1995, shearwater’s current breeding habitat on of Factor C), and introduced cat and rats Coates 1985, 1990, Iles 1998, as cited in Bougainville Island. are known to have caused many local BirdLife International 2000). The The forests on the islands of extirpations of other petrel species species was originally known from a Kolombangara and Rendova, with land (Moors and Atkinson 1984, as cited in few historic specimens from Watom, areas of 687.8 km2 (265.6 mi2) and 411.3 Priddel, et al. draft). Although the Papua New Guinea, suggesting km2 (158.8 mi2, United Nations System- Heinroth’s shearwater is believed to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71312 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

breed in high, inaccessible mountains, is most likely to breed are in a Conclusion rats have been observed to at least 2,953 geologically active area resulting in a The best available information feet (900 m) on Kolombangara Island significant risk of catastrophic natural indicates that the Heinroth’s shearwater and are a threat to this burrow-nesting events. These islands are subject to is threatened by predation by species (Buckingham, et al. 1995, as frequent earthquakes, tremors, volcanic introduced rats, and feral cats and dogs cited in BirdLife International 2000). activity, typhoons, tsunamis, and within the species’ breeding range. The Available information does not mudslides (CIA 2007a,b). Of these three probability of these introduced indicate that there have been attempts to islands, the species’ habitat on predators preying on this species is high eradicate introduced predators from Bougainville is at most risk from given that all these introduced species these islands, which would be difficult volcanic activity. There are seven are on the islands where the species is due to the permanent habitation of volcanoes on Bougainville that have likely to breed, and rats have been humans on the islands. Even if the been active in the last 10,000 years. found in some of the high mountainous species were eradicated, there is still a Bagana is an active volcano that has had areas where the Heinroth’s shearwater is high potential for cats and rats to be 22 eruptions since 1842, with most most likely to nest. Furthermore, the transported to the islands in boats being explosive. Some of these devastating impact of predation by these transporting humans or other explosive eruptions have produced introduced species has been shipments. extremely hot, gas-charged ash, which is documented in several closely-related Because the threat of predation by expelled with explosive force, moving species. Finally, there is no available introduced rats and feral cats and dogs with hurricane speed down the information that indicates that efforts has severely impacted closely related mountainside. Bagana has been erupting have been initiated to eradicate petrel species, and there are records of since 1972, creating slow-moving lava introduced predators from the three these introduced predators on the three flows (Bagana 2005). These volcanic islands where the species is most likely islands where the Heinroth’s shearwater explosions and lava flows have great to breed. This threat is magnified by the is most likely to breed, we find that potential to destroy Heinroth’s fact that this threat likely threatens the predation is a significant threat to this shearwaters and their breeding habitat species throughout its breeding range. species. in the mountainous areas where they are The Heinroth’s shearwater is also We are unaware of any threats due to most likely to breed. threatened on Kolombangara and predation on Heinroth’s shearwaters Landslides in mountainous area are Rendova Islands, approximately half of during the non-breeding season while associated with severe storms that are its breeding range, by habitat the species is at sea. common in this geographic region destruction. The species’ low Although several diseases have been (World Meteorological Organization documented in other species of petrels population size of 250 to 999 2004), and would be particularly individuals further increases this (see Chatham petrel Factor C), disease threatening to breeding Heinroth’s has not been documented in the species’ risk of extinction, and shearwaters and their breeding habitat combined with its colonial nesting Heinroth’s shearwater. Therefore, the during these extreme weather events. significance of this threat to the habits makes the species particularly While species with more extensive Heinroth’s shearwater is unknown. vulnerable to the threat of catastrophic breeding ranges or higher population naturally occurring events (e.g., D. The Inadequacy of Existing numbers could recover from adverse volcanoes) that are known to occur with Regulatory Mechanisms random, naturally occurring events such frequency in the species’ breeding No regulatory mechanisms are known as volcanoes or typhoons, the Heinroth’s range. that contribute to or reduce or remove shearwater does not have such The threats within the species’ threats to this species. resiliency. Its very small population size breeding range are compounded by the and restricted breeding range puts the threat posed by long-line fishing in the E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors species at higher risk for experiencing species’ non-breeding range. There is no Affecting the Continued Existence of the the irreversible adverse effects of available information to indicate that Species random, naturally occurring events. the governments of Papua New Guinea The population of the Heinroth’s Therefore, we find that the combination or Solomon Islands have implemented shearwater is estimated at 250 to 999 of factors—the species’ small population measures to protect the species from individuals, which is considered to be size, restricted breeding range, and long-line fishery activities. Because the very small (BirdLife International likelihood of adverse random, naturally survival of this species is dependent on 2007f). Species with such small occurring events—to be a significant recruitment of chicks from its breeding population sizes are at greater risk of threat to the species. range, the threats to this species within extinction. Once a population is Although we are unaware of any its breeding range put the species at reduced below a certain number of documented cases of incidental take of risk. individuals, it tends to rapidly decline Heinroth’s shearwaters petrels by Despite the lack of population trend towards extinction (Franklin 1980; commercial long-line fishing operations information, due to the species’ small Gilpin and Soule 1986; Soule 1987). or entanglement in marine debris, these population size, the lack of conservation The Heinroth’s shearwater’s small long-line fishing operations have been measures and regulatory protections for population size combined with its identified as a threat to all seabird this species, and the identified threats colonial nesting habits, as is typical of species (see analysis under Chatham that have caused declines in closely all Procellariid species, makes this petrel, Factor E). Moreover, the lack of related species, we find that the threats species particularly vulnerable to the data on these impacts to the Heinroth’s within its breeding range make the threat of adverse random, naturally shearwaters could be a result of the Heinroth’s shearwater likely to become occurring events (e.g., volcanic species’ low population number. in danger of extinction within the eruptions, cyclones, and earthquakes) Therefore, we find the incidental take of foreseeable future throughout all of its that destroy breeding individuals and Heinroth’s shearwaters by commercial range. Because we find that the their breeding habitat. All three of the long-line fishing operations to be a Heinroth’s shearwater is likely to islands where the Heinroth’s shearwater significant threat to the species. become in danger of extinction within

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71313

the foreseeable future throughout all of possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or appointment, during normal business its range, there is no reason to consider ship any such wildlife that has been hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife its status in a significant portion of its taken in violation of the Act. Certain Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room range. exceptions apply to agents of the 110, Arlington, VA 22203, 703–358– Service and State conservation agencies. 1708. Available Conservation Measures Permits may be issued to carry out Final promulgation of the regulations Conservation measures provided to otherwise prohibited activities concerning the listing of these species species listed as endangered or involving endangered and threatened will take into consideration all threatened under the Act include wildlife species under certain comments and additional information recognition, requirements for Federal circumstances. Regulations governing that we receive, and such protection, and prohibitions against permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22, for communications may lead to a final certain practices. Recognition through endangered species, and 17.32 for regulation that differs from this listing results in public awareness, and threatened species. With regard to proposal. encourages and results in conservation endangered wildlife, a permit may be The Act provides for one or more actions by Federal and State issued for the following purposes: For public hearings on this proposal, if governments, private agencies and scientific purposes, to enhance the requested. Requests must be received groups, and individuals. propagation or survival of the species, Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, within 45 days of the date of the and for incidental take in connection publication of the proposal in the and as implemented by regulations at 50 with otherwise lawful activities. CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies Federal Register. Such requests must be to evaluate their actions within the Public Comments Solicited made in writing and be addressed to the United States or on the high seas with The Service intends that any final Chief of the Division of Scientific respect to any species that is proposed action resulting from this proposal will Authority at the address given above. or listed as endangered or threatened, be as accurate and as effective as Peer Review and with respect to its critical habitat, possible. Therefore, comments or if any is being designated. However, suggestions from the public, other In accordance with our policy, given that the Chatham petrel, Fiji government agencies, the scientific ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative petrel, Galapagos petrel, magenta petrel, community, industry, or any other Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Cook’s petrel, and Heinroth’s shearwater interested party concerning this Species Act Activities,’’ that was are not native to the United States, no proposed rule are hereby solicited. We published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR critical habitat is being proposed for are particularly seeking comments 34270), we will seek the expert opinion designation with this rule. regarding biological information, of at least three appropriate Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the population status, commercial trade, or independent specialists regarding this provision of limited financial assistance other relevant data concerning any proposed rule. The purpose of such for the development and management of threat (or lack thereof) to these species. review is to ensure listing decisions are programs that the Secretary of the We also seek comments on the based on scientifically sound data, Interior determines to be necessary or appropriate conservation status for the assumptions, and analysis. We will send useful for the conservation of six bird species addressed in this copies of this proposed rule to the peer endangered and threatened species in proposed rule. reviewers immediately following foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) You may submit your comments and publication in the Federal Register. of the Act authorize the Secretary to materials concerning this proposed rule Paperwork Reduction Act encourage conservation programs for by one of the methods listed in the foreign endangered species and to ADDRESSES section. We will not accept This proposed rule does not contain provide assistance for such programs in comments you send by e-mail or fax. We any new collections of information that the form of personnel and the training will also not accept anonymous require approval by the Office of of personnel. comments; your comment must include Management and Budget (OMB) under The Act and its implementing your first and last name, city, State, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The regulation regulations set forth a series of general country, and postal (zip) code. Please will not impose new recordkeeping or prohibitions and exceptions that apply note that we may not consider reporting requirements on State or local to all endangered and threatened comments we receive after the date governments, individuals, businesses, or wildlife. As such, these prohibitions specified in the DATES section in our organizations. We may not conduct or would be applicable to the Chatham final determination. sponsor and you are not required to petrel, Cook’s petrel, Fiji petrel, Before including your address, phone respond to a collection of information Galapagos petrel, magenta petrel and number, e-mail address, or other unless it displays a currently valid OMB Heinroth’s shearwater. These personal identifying information in your control number. prohibitions, pursuant to 50 CFR 17.21 comment, you should be aware that we National Environmental Policy Act and 17.31, in part, make it illegal for any will post your entire comment— person subject to the jurisdiction of the including your personal identifying We have determined that United States to ‘‘take’’ (take includes: information—on http:// Environmental Assessments and Harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, www.regulations.gov. While you can ask Environmental Impact Statements, as wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt us in your comment to withhold your defined under the authority of the any of these) within the United States or personal identifying information from National Environmental Policy Act of upon the high seas; import or export; public review, we cannot guarantee that 1969, need not be prepared in deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship we will be able to do so. connection with regulations adopted in interstate or foreign commerce in the Comments and materials we receive, pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A course of commercial activity; or sell or as well as supporting documentation we notice outlining our reasons for this offer for sale in interstate or foreign used in preparing this proposed rule, determination was published in the commerce any endangered or threatened will be available for public inspection Federal Register on October 25, 1983 wildlife species. It also is illegal to on http://www.regulations.gov, or by (48 FR 49244).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS 71314 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules

Clarity of the Rule make this rule easier to understand to Proposed Regulation Promulgation the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Executive Order 12866 requires each Accordingly, we propose to amend Department of the Interior, Room 7229, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title agency to write regulations that are easy 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC to understand. We invite your 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 20240. You also may e-mail comments as follows: comments on how to make this to [email protected]. proposed rule easier to understand, PART 17—[AMENDED] including answers to questions such as References Cited the following: (1) Are the requirements 1. The authority citation for part 17 A list of the references used to in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) continues to read as follows: develop this proposed rule is available Does the proposed rule contain upon request (see FOR FURTHER Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. technical language or jargon that INFORMATION CONTACT). 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. format of the proposed rule (groupings Author 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding new and order of sections, use of headings, The primary author of this proposed entries for ‘‘Petrel, Chatham,’’ ‘‘Petrel, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its Cook’s,’’ ‘‘Petrel, Fiji,’’ ‘‘Petrel, clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to rule is Mary M. Cogliano, Ph.D., Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Galapagos,’’ ‘‘Petrel, magenta,’’ and understand if it were divided into more ‘‘Shearwater, Heinroth’s’’ in (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section). alphabetical order under BIRDS to the description of the proposed rule in the List of Endangered and Threatened ‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Wildlife as follows: the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we Endangered and threatened species, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened do to make the proposed rule easier to Exports, Imports, Reporting and wildlife. understand? Send a copy of any recordkeeping requirements, * * * * * comments that concern how we could Transportation. (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population where Historic range endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or habitat rules threat- ened

******* BIRDS

******* Petrel, Chatham ...... Pterodroma axillaris ... Pacific Ocean—New Entire ...... E ...... NA NA Zealand (Chatham Island). Petrel, Cook’s ...... Pterodroma cookii ...... Pacific Ocean—New Entire ...... T ...... NA NA Zealand (Little Bar- rier, Great Barrier, Codfish Islands). Petrel, Fiji ...... Pterodroma Pacific Ocean—Fiji Entire ...... E ...... NA NA macgillivrayi. (Gau Island). Petrel, Galapagos ...... Pterodroma Pacific Ocean—Ecua- Entire ...... T ...... NA NA phaeopygia. dor (Galapagos Is- lands).

******* Petrel, magenta ...... Pterodroma magentae Pacific Ocean—New Entire ...... E ...... NA NA Zealand (Chatham Island).

******* Shearwater, Heinroth’s Puffinus heinrothi ...... Pacific Ocean—Papua Entire ...... T ...... NA NA New Guinea (Sol- omon Islands).

*******

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 241 / Monday, December 17, 2007 / Proposed Rules 71315

Dated: November 30, 2007. Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// general category scallop fleet, the Kenneth Stansell, www.regulations.gov Council recommended that a Federal Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. • Fax: (978) 281–9135, Attn: Peter Register notice should be published to [FR Doc. E7–24347 Filed 12–14–07; 8:45 am] Christopher notify the public that the Council would • BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional consider limiting entry to the general Administrator, NMFS, Northeast category scallop fishery as of a specified Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, control date. NMFS subsequently DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside established the control date of of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on Scallop November 1, 2004. In January 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Amendment 11 Proposed Rule.’’ Council began the development of Administration Instructions: All comments received Amendment 11 to evaluate alternatives are a part of the public record and will for a limited access program and other 50 CFR Part 648 generally be posted to http:// measures for general category vessels. [Docket No. 071130780–7564–01] www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for The Council held 35 meetings open to RIN 0648–AU32 example, name, address, etc.) the public on Amendment 11 between voluntarily submitted by the commenter January 2006 and June 2007. After Fisheries of the Northeastern United may be publicly accessible. Do not considering a wide range of issues, States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; submit confidential business alternatives, and public input, the Amendment 11 information or otherwise sensitive or Council adopted a draft supplemental AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries protected information. NMFS will environmental impact statement Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and accept anonymous comments. (DSEIS) for Amendment 11 on April 11, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Attachments to electronic comments 2007. Following the close of the public Commerce. will be accepted in Microsoft Word, comment period on June 18, 2007, the ACTION: Proposed rule; request for Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file Council adopted Amendment 11 on comments. formats only. June 20, 2007. Written comments regarding the Amendment 11 would establish SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to burden-hour estimate or other aspects of criteria and authority for determining implement measures in Amendment 11 the collection-of-information the percentage of scallop catch allocated requirement contained in this proposed to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery to the general category fleet and would rule should be submitted to the Regional Management Plan (FMP). Amendment establish the IFQ program. However, 11 was developed by the New England Administrator at the address above and these specific allocation amounts have Fishery Management Council (Council) by e-mail to been being developed by the Council as to control the capacity of the open [email protected], or fax to access general category fleet. 202–395–7285. part of Framework 19 to the FMP (Framework 19) which will establish Amendment 11 would establish a new FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: scallop fishery management measures management program for the general Peter Christopher, Fishery Policy for the 2008 and 2009 fishing years. category fishery, including a limited Analyst, phone 978–281–9288, fax 978– access program with individual fishing 281–9135. After proposing the allowable levels of fishing based on updated survey quotas (IFQs) for qualified general SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: category vessels, a specific allocation for information and fishing mortality general category fisheries, and other Background targets, the total allowable catches measures to improve management of the The general category scallop fishery is (TACs) described below would be general category scallop fishery. currently an open access fishery that specified through a separate rulemaking DATES: Public comments must be allows any vessel to fish for up to 400 for Framework 19. Framework 19 also received no later than 5 p.m., eastern lb (181.44 kg) of Atlantic sea scallops would specify management measures standard time, on January 31, 2008. (scallops), provided the vessel has been for the 2008 and 2009 fishing years that ADDRESSES: A final supplemental issued a general category or limited would be recommended if Amendment environmental impact statement (FSEIS) access scallop permit. This open access 11 is not approved. was prepared for Amendment 11 that fishery was established in 1994 by A Notice of Availability (NOA) for describes the proposed action and other Amendment 4 to the FMP (Amendment Amendment 11 was published on considered alternatives and provides a 4) to allow vessels fishing in non- November 30, 2007. The comment thorough analysis of the impacts of the scallop fisheries to catch scallops as period on the NOA ends on January 29, proposed measures and alternatives. incidental catch, and to allow a small- 2008. Copies of Amendment 11, the FSEIS, scale scallop fishery to continue outside and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility of the limited access and effort control Proposed Measures Analysis (IRFA), are available on programs aimed at the large-scale request from Paul J. Howard, Executive scallop fishery. Over time, the overall The proposed regulations are based Director, New England Fishery participation in the general category on the description of the measures in Management Council (Council), 50 fishery has increased. In 1994, there Amendment 11. NMFS has noted Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. were 1,992 general category permits several instances where it has These documents are also available issued. By 2005 that number had interpreted the language in Amendment online at http://www.nefmc.org. increased to 2,950. In 1994, there were 11 to account for any missing details in You may submit comments, identified 181 general category vessels that landed the Council’s description of the by 0648–AU32, by any one of the scallops, while in 2005 there were over proposed measures. NMFS seeks following methods: 600. comments on all of the measures in • Electronic Submissions: Submit all Out of concern about the level of Amendment 11, particularly the noted electronic public comments via the fishing effort and harvest from the instances.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 14, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17DEP1.SGM 17DEP1 ebenthall on PROD1PC69 with PROPOSALS